Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

WikiProject Birds

General information Main project page talk Naming and capitalization  → Article requests  → Spoken Article requests talk  → Photo requests talk  → Attention needed talk  → New articles talk Project portal talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk Collaboration talk Featured topics talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Country lists talk Bird articles by size talk Hot articles talk Popular pages talk Task forces Domestic pigeon task force talk Poultry task force talk

Birds for identifiction (144)

• Bird 1440. File:Anisognathus notabilis -Ecuador-8.jpg | Black-chinned Mountain-tanager to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Shown in infobox on en Wiki species page. Commons has an illustration and this new photograph is the first photograph of the species on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1441. File:Tangara nigroviridis -Ecuador-8.jpg | Beryl-spangled Tanager to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1442. File:Unidentified bird -San Diego Zoo, California, USA-8a.jpg | Colourful bird in a zoo. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe Golden-headed Quetzal is the only yellow-billed quetzal with a totally black tail from below. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't see it any more, so I'm not sure, but females duller overall. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Update: Golden-headed Quetzal moved to File:Pharomachrus auriceps -San Diego Zoo, California, USA-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Def a male. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1443. File:Unidentified vulture -San Diego Zoo, California, USA-8a.jpg | Vulture in a zoo. Snowman (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a griffon of some sort. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rüppell's Vulture. MeegsC | Talk 00:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Gyps rueppellii -San Diego Zoo, California, USA-8a.jpg on Commons and selected to be shown on en Wiki specied page. Snowman (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1444. File:Campylopterus excellens -Belize-8.jpg | Long-tailed Sabrewing to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope--that species is endemic to Mexico. This is Campylopterus curvipennis pampa (Wedge-tailed Sabrewing). Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael, a question because I am away from my sources here at work. Has not taxon pampa been split, or am I misremembering something else?Steve Pryor (talk) 06:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Campylopterus curvipennis -Belize-8.jpg on Commons and shown in infobox on en Wiki species page. First photograph of the species on the Wiki. Anyone, who is certain of the subspecies, can write it in the image details on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1445. File:Amazilia candida -Belize-8.jpg | White-bellied Emerald to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1446. File:Myiarchus yucatanensis -Belize-8.jpg | Yucatan Flycatcher to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Will check it out later, today if I have time. On first impression, the bill is too weak. Elaenia perhaps?.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Snow, I checked it. As I surmised, it is Yellow-bellied Elaenia. Will check out the two hummers above when I can.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Steve got the elaenia. The sabrewing is actually a Wedge-tailed Sabrewing and a fast, incomplete check of the flickr Belize gallery from this user reveals another problem: Gray-chested Dove (= Short-billed Pigeon). 212.10.92.198 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yellow-bellied Elaenia moved to File:Elaenia flavogaster -Belize-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1447. File:Unidentified bird -India -deer-8.jpg | Bird with a long tail in India. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Rufous Treepie. Maias (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Moved to File:Dendrocitta vagabunda -India -deer-8.jpg on Commons. What is it doing on a deer's head? Snowman (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote the Wikipedia article "It has been observed feeding on parasites of wild deer.": Bharucha, EK (1987). "An observation on the relationship between a Sambar and a Tree-Pie". J. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 84 (3): 675.

• Bird 1448. File:Tabebuia chrysantha Flowers.jpg Meliphagid? in Australia. —innotata 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Brown Honeyeater. Maias (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated the description. —innotata 02:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1449. File:Paraulata.JPG Mockingbird in Venezuela. —innotata 22:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Tropical Mockingbird is the only Mimus in Venezuela, so it is undoubtedly that species. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Recategorised the image —innotata 22:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon

Hey I was wondering how Peregrine Falcons handel the G-forces when coming out of a dive. They have to rapidly decelerate which causes Gs so how do they do it without blacking out. Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know what G-force can be expected? Do you know of any literature on this topic? Presumably the deceleration is due to wind resistance mainly to its wings, which have a finite strength. It may not need to pump blood "uphill", if a line between the bird's heart and brain is perpendicular to the de-accelerating forces. Also, I suspect that the bird is able to control its deceleration. Please note that this in entirely speculation and this should not be added to any Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of guesswork and little factual basis for the G-force experienced, but it's difficult to believe that it's greater than for the pilot of a modern jet fighter, with its much greater speed and acceleration Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but at the same time they are much smaller animals so to them it may be like experiencing the same force of G's. Plus they have to cactch there prey which is sometimes on the ground so they have to pull up harder than a jet fighter. Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 17:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Do they ever actually 'stoop' at prey on the ground (I think that would actually kill the falcon)? I thought that the high-speed dive was only used against aerial opponents, to smash them out of the sky? If you're hitting a rat (or whatever) at 200mph, then you're pretty much hitting the ground at 200mph too. Which I'd imagine would cause a case of terminal deceleration in just about anything living. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I just rembered I have a friend of the famliy who works in the Peregrin Fund he is a rescercher he may be able to help. Here is there website. http://www.globalraptors.org/grin/indexAlt.asp Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 17:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC) As to the what you just said they sometimes do dive at ground targets but they have to pull up and rapidly decelerate. Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 17:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC) Hey I just found this it may help. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/09/hummingbirds_endure_extrme_g-forces/ Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 17:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC) I would like to point out so at a later date no one gets mad at me for something I dident do I have no intention of adding this to any article unless I am asked or I have unquestionable proof.Nhog (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good news I have contacted the Peregrine fund and the person who wrote back does not know about it but he is asking around so that should help. Anyways you should really check them out.Nhog (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that kestrels, sparrowhawks and owls manage to catch rodents by approaching them at quite a slow speed, so why would a Peregrine Falcon want to fly at a rodent on the ground at 200 mph. There might be some videos out there to give you some idea of what happens. Snowman (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You might consider comparative anatomy and analyse the structure of the vascular system of these falcons and compare it with that of other birds to see if it has any specialisations or unusual features. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In humans rapid deceleration can cause gross distortion of the internal chest structures leading to a fractured aorta (as well as multiple injuries). I understand that this is seen in aircraft crashes and high speed car crashes. I think that falcons would have evolved to avoid flying at 200 mph towards solid structures including the ground. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that peregrines are smaller than people makes it easier, not harder, for them to withstand high accelerations. Compare the very high accelerations experienced by fleas.

There are two questions, I think. One is the forces that peregrines and other falcons feel after stooping. These are exerted on the wings (and tail), as Snowman pointed out, when the bird pulls out of a dive, or on the feet when it hits its prey in flight, so the wings and legs and their attachments to the body have to be very strong. It's interesting that hitting the prey does a lot more damage to the prey than to the falcon.

The other question is the acceleration (measured in g's) that these forces cause, which can affect the blood supply to the brain. I'd imagine the accelerations last much less time in falcons than in fighter pilots, maybe not enough time to affect brain function. But that's pure speculation.

Of course, the birds that experience the strongest forces and highest accelerations of the head are woodpeckers, but people have studied their adaptations in some detail. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

With falcons, it's the sharp talons of the raptor making contact with the flesh of the prey, so it's not surprising that the latter comes off worst. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be true sometimes but not always. The Peregrine Falcon, by Ratcliffe, says the talons are often involved, but not always, and "the most satisfactory explanation" is that the bird strikes with its foot loosely closed, often with the rear talon sticking out and stabbing the prey. However, "the force is often considerable", and sometimes prey have been found with bruising but no blood. Peregrine Falcon says the target is one wing, with a deleted USFWS page accessed through the Wayback Machine as a source. I'm not seeing the page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Videos: Arkive, National Geographic on YouTube. Snowman (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not see any potentially fatal deceleration in these videos. The falcon hunting the pigeon does a lot of aerial acrobatics. The falcon diving appears to match its speed to the food, but it might behave differently if it was hunting live food. Are there any videos of a falcon diving into prey at speed? Snowman (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

When the it hits the lure in the video it is going over 183 mph and later 243 mph. It pulls out of the dive just before it hits the lure and must be pulling some G's because it is rapidly declerating. Nhog (talk) 17:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a bit of a non-answer - but I'd consider it likely that the Peregrine Falcon's body has evolved over however many tens of thousands/millions of years to handle the strain of fairly regular rapid decelerations whilst minimizing injury. The need for humans to be able to tolerate likewise is a far more recent occurrence. It's really no more surprising than a Hyacinth Macaw being able to crack the hardest nuts in the world with its beak (e.g. macadamia, palm nuts), whereas a human is unable to do the same with his teeth. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completly but you have to wonder how they survive the G forces. I think (I am no expert on the subect) it may have something to do with there anotmy, how they pull out of a dive and how the wind goes over there wings and body. Nhog (talk) 17:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Deceleration and acceleration are not directly related to speed. Of course, deceleration and acceleration are rate of change of speed. As far as I am aware a manned space capsule returning from the moon travels at about 17,000 miles per hour in the "vacuum" of space and the deceleration occurs to a speed of zero owing to friction with the Earth's atmosphere and its landing on the sea or ground. Snowman (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes but they have to rapidly decelerate in order to hit their prey like it shows in the video (here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk) it has to slow down by rapidly decelerating. It is going nearly 200mph and later it went over 200mph. Nhog (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that it is artificial to take a falcon upto 12,000 feet and let it dive vertically downwards. However, I looked at the video again and I did not see any life-threatening deceleration when the bird grasped the lead-weighted bait. What is the birds maximum speed under natural conditions? Snowman (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Plese notice it just before it catches the lure it pulls out of the dive rapidly declerating. Nhog (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) Also the problem is nobody knows how fast they go in a dive they have estamites but nobody knows for sure.Nhog (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I only took physics to a high school level (and that was several years ago) and I'll be damned if I can pull the terminology out of my brain at the moment, but wouldn't the fact that a Peregrine Falcon is really only a little bird, all things considered, mean that it will experience less force upon deceleration than (say) a human-sized object travelling at the same speed would? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that the forces are the same for things of all sizes, but the consequences may be different. The distance between the heart and brain is smaller in smaller creatures, so for a given acceleration (or deceleration) the strain on the hearts of smaller creatures will be less. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree and I'm not sure about this but mabey they can pump blood to there brain quickier or slower when decelerating. Nhog (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, have you considered asking your question at the Science Reference Desk and linking them to the existing discussion here? You'll be able to get a few more, different eyes and brains on it - and probably the thoughts of a few people who are not really into birds, but can explain the physics of it very well... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks it will be worth a try. Nhog (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC) I tryed but it isent coming up with anything usfull. Nhog (talk) 17:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Help

I could use some help with a project I'm considering. The project is a page were all Bird info sites can be found in one place as well as other animal info sites. Please say if you can help. Nhog (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nhog. I'm not sure Wikipedia is the place for such a page, as lists of links are not acceptable here. See Wikipedia:Not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files for more information. MeegsC | Talk 20:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not a list of links its a list of various organizations. Here's the page its not completed yet. Its like the two things I did just above. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:List_of_bird_conservation_groups_and_websitesNhog (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I presume this is for resource page and would be a sub-page of WikiProject Birds. There is already a paragraph on the WP Birds main page that includes some resources, and I think that a more extensive list is likely to be quite useful. The list with links and a brief comment on each might be useful, perhaps presented in a table. Of course, avoid spamy sites. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was more thinking that I would try to make a page that list a lot of different sites and organizations for doing research. It would have sevrel different language categories so everyone can use it. I would just need people to help by sending in a lot of different sites for organizations. Oh by the way how do you make the title of the page. Nhog (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think if it is a resource page for wikiproject, then that is a very good idea. Either have on the main wikiproject page or a subpage called Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/resources or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Nhog (talk) 17:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Bad talk pages

Can an administrator please take a look at the Rock Ptarmigan talk page? Right now, it redirects to the Ptarmigan talk page, but since the latter is a DAB, that's not appropriate! Thanks, MeegsC | Talk 19:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

And, in a related mix-up, our article is located at Willow Ptarmigan, but the talk page is at Talk:Willow Grouse! MeegsC | Talk 19:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, fixed up. Sometimes in these days of moving pages to new standard names, or when splitting, talk pages get lost. Maias (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's still an issue — everything currently on the DAB talk page (Talk:Ptarmigan belongs on the Talk:Rock Ptarmigan page! MeegsC | Talk 14:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be simple enough to do a cut and paste. However, I am not sure whether that is the best thing to do. The content derives from before Ptarmigan became a dab, so is part of the history of that page and, perhaps, should stay with it. Maias (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Except that, if you're using that logic, then the content of the article was also part of the history of the article page — and yet that got moved (in its entirety) to Rock Ptarmigan in 2009 to make way for the DAB page. The problem is that the talk page didn't get moved at the same time, as it should have. MeegsC | Talk 01:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine, so moved. Maias (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maias! MeegsC | Talk 03:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages VIII

The latest installment:

• Black-browed Tit → Black-browed Bushtit
• Gansu Leaf-warbler → Gansu Leaf Warbler
• Sombre Leaf Warbler → Kolombangara Leaf Warbler
• Basra Reed-warbler → Basra Reed Warbler
• Cape Verde Swamp-warbler → Cape Verde Warbler
• Clamorous Reed-warbler → Clamorous Reed Warbler
• Australian Reed-warbler → Australian Reed Warbler
• Sykes' Warbler → Sykes's Warbler
• David's Bush-warbler → Baikal Bush Warbler
• Javan Bush-warbler → Javan Bush Warbler
• Timor Bush-warbler → Timor Bush Warbler
• African Bush-warbler → Little Rush Warbler
• Grauer's Scrub-warbler → Grauer's Swamp Warbler
• Brown Emu-tail → Brown Emutail
• Grey Emu-tail → Grey Emutail
• Knysna Scrub-warbler → Knysna Warbler
• Thamnornis Warbler → Thamnornis
• Guadalcanal Thicketbird → Melanesian Thicketbird N

...............Thanks!......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Done all except the disambig case. Shyamal (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you add this.

Can you add this list to references or online resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nhog/List_of_bird_conservation_groups_and_websites Nhog (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably needs references or links to external websites. Snowman (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I cant have them be links to the websites directly it says I'm breaking some rule so they are the names of the organzations which pepole can then look up and go to. Nhog (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Window-tapping gulls...

Are they merely trying to interact with their own reflections? Or sometimes do they tap on the window to attract the attention of the humans on the other side of the glass?

I'm pretty sure that it's the latter on at least some occasions, when dealing with gulls that are fed by people regularly. It certainly seemed that the ones that used to tap on my window were looking directly at me and following my movements. Does anyone here have direct experience with 'tappy' seagulls? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pigeon racing controversy

I have made some observations here regarding the controversy section of the Pigeon Racing article. In this matter, I do not have a compelling COI, but do have a close personal connection, so I was hoping to collaborate with another editor who feels they are better positioned to be objective. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 16:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Nest

Any of you Aussies in a position to get a picture of a Western Spinebill nest? I stumbled across the article while working on the most overdue of our cleanup listing problems (tagged in 2006!!) and have been working on referencing and expanding it. Actually any photos would be great, as there are spectacularly few available anywhere. Cas, can you recommend a good, appropriate Banksia photo? I know they're primary pollinators of a few species... MeegsC | Talk 16:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can get access to HANZAB Vol.5 there is much info there about food plants, including Banksia attenuata (of at least 10 Banksia species mentioned there), of which there are several images on Commons. Maias (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Online resorces

I added a bunch more to the online resorces.Nhog (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization issues

Looks like User:Bob Burkhardt just moved a many of the Kingbird species, and Fork-tailed Flycatcher to lower case for the second word........Anyone want to chage back and explain to the user? I'd do it, but I'm blocked.......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Also made a typo-sorry.....Chestnut-backed Scimitar abbler should be Chestnut-backed Scimitar Babbler PM

Okay - changed back now and advised the editor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

More shakeups

In the Timaliidae branches. In press doi:10.1093/sysbio/sys027 Shyamal (talk) 05:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is not a shake-up, which would suggest a random process. This is a re-organisation made in the light of new genetic research. Snowman (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the Merriam New World dictionary, a shake up is defined as "a radical reorganization" rather than a random process. So really you're both agreeing. MeegsC | Talk 14:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Out-Sheldon-ed" was a neologism I heard recently ! Shyamal (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha! I like that... Though I'm not sure I want to be compared to Sheldon!  :) MeegsC | Talk 16:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Semi-automated tasks

I would welcome ideas for semi-automated tasks. I might be able to work on this soon, but I am likely to be busy for a few more weeks. As far as I am aware, a previous semi-automated task, checking and adding genus authorities was successful. With a Perl script and a data file, I scanned about 2000 bird genus pages and added missing authorities or made corrections. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for writing a program to do that Snowman! Is there any way you could check/update IUCN codes? An editor stripped those all out when the IUCN changed its website address several years ago, and the codes have been unchecked and unreferenced (except for those relative few that people have individually updated) ever since. MeegsC | Talk 13:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Please clarify what you meant by "IUCN codes". It might be helpful if you listed an edit that makes such a correction. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The IUCN codes are those given by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. They're the codes listed just under the photo at the top of the taxobox: LC, VU, NT, EX, etc. Here's one I updated manually back in December. Basically, you'd need to find the matching record (via scientific name, presumably) on the IUCN website, and enter/check the code we have in our article. I guess this would be another program for a bot, really, because again, it's for a large number of species. MeegsC | Talk 17:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. I have just been practising with Perl and got it to see a webpage. I have not looked at the structure of the IUCN webpages yet, but I expect it should be possible to data-scrape the IUCN webpages. I think it would need a well organised perl script, perhaps with a few sub-routines. I will think about writing a script that will do the task on-the-fly by data-scraping IUCN webpages as the script precedes or making data files that a script can use to update the en Wiki pages. I would get it to write log files when the IUCN taxonomy does not match the en Wiki, and I guess I would appreciate some people to support me with any ornithology issues. I am still busy, so do not expect any results soon and I am not promising anything, but I find it fun to think about the possibilities. This sort of work may be best done in the winter. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Anytime you could get to it would be great; it's very time-consuming having to do each one by hand. I'd be very happy to assist with any issues that come up. If it could be easily modified to work for other organisms as well, I'll bet that the other biology wikiprojects would be excited about this too. MeegsC | Talk 22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I have tested one page from the iucn website and a brief testing script viewed it and from that it is a few easy steps to automatically extracting (or data-scraping) key information from that one page. However, data scraping the the whole website on birds and putting the data in an array or directly into en Wikipages will need a well organised script and this is assuming that the iucn web-pages all have the same regular structure. IUCN webpages are in the format; "http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/106008083/0". It seems that birds are numbered from about 106001000/0 to about 106009000/0. Does anyone know anything about the webpage numbering on the iucn website? Does anyone have a spreadsheet or lists of all the iucn content on birds? Snowman (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• And how about adding links to the appropriate wikicommons pages for any species/genera that we have media for? Some articles already have the link, but many more do not. MeegsC | Talk 13:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Having added a few signposts to Commons on the en Wiki, I thought about this problem some time ago. I could add a link to Commons, if there is an image in the infobox, but sometimes that might be the only image on Commons or it might be an image on en Wiki without there being any images on Commons for that particular species. I should be able to scan Commons with LWP and count the number of images for a species on Commons before adding the signpost to the en Wiki species page. Being over 10,000 bird articles to scan, I think this would be best done with dedicated script that can be run as a bot. At this early juncture, except for the vast number of pages that necessitate running it as a bot, this looks easier than adding the genus authorities. I am not promising anything at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we run such a bot regularly (i.e. once a quarter or something)? That would allow us to add a signpost if media was added for a species that hadn't had any before, or if additional pictures/videos/recordings were added to an already existing species that had only had one item. MeegsC | Talk 16:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would need to find out more about bots and think about it a bit more. There seem to be lots of options of ways of reporting what bird images have been added to Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you have code that can run by itself and is well tested you should have no problem getting it approved by a BRFA. A handy little feature would be to test Commons category links, and ensure that an appropriate category exists. Easiest (fastest) way is to download the list of categories first and use that for a first pass. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC).

I could scan Commons first and list the number of images in bird categories. Classification differences between Commons and en Wiki could make some species edits complicated. What is BRFA? Snowman (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRFA = Bots/Request for Approval. I think all bots have to be approved before they can be used on the 'pedia. MeegsC | Talk 12:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Booted Eagle - recent edit

See diff. "It hunts small mammals, reptiles and birds, and can carry away prey up to 5 times its own weight". Is the added section, here in bold correct? Just checking. Sounds dubious, but I'm not certain. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Reason I ask, is that I have heard stories of some of the great eagles (should that be a redirect somewhere, or even an article?) being able to one-shot wolves and carry them away, despite them weighing more than the bird. Though I'm not sure if that's strictly fact or not either... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No bird can fly while carrying 5 times its own weight. MeegsC | Talk 23:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The claim that they can kill animals 5x heavier than themselves is just about credible since birds are very light for their size, but I think the claim that they could carry such prey needs an RS reference to be acceptable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that somebody has taken individual birds, usually captive, perhaps their own, and measured how much they can carry. However, I have never seen a reputable study on this subject. A lot of factors would come into play. They would include the composition of the lifting muscles of the breast, the length and shape of the lifting surfaces, and this would likely be associated to bird types, which genera. Another factor is the gripping strength of the feet. It would be less likely for certain genera to carry great loads because they have short claws, and weak feet., e.g., Caracara genera, old world Kite genera, etc., Possibly some birds could carry more if they launched themselves into thermals from elevated jumping off points. However, as a general rule of thumb, and this is entirely annecdotal, you should not expect any raptor to be able to launch from a flat zone, with no oncoming wind currents, with a load exceeding at the most, and even this might be a reach, of more than half of its body weight. The largest Eagle species, of whichever genera, are females and they reach at the most about 20lbs. in the wild. Steve Pryor (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some birds of prey launch from the surface of water after catching a big fish. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No bird of prey launches from the water with a fish of 5x its body weight. In fact, Ospreys have been known to drown when they "hook" too big a fish. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that birds of prey don't have waterproofing oils on their feathers, so they become quickly waterlogged if they end up getting doused. MeegsC | Talk 12:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Osprey would probably be the best bet, since it's evolved to lift fish from the water and its prey is helpfully aerodynamic (and carried head-first). Nevertheless, even the 7kg salmon in the third image looks too much to handle. You can get an idea of how the weight feels in this video Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Cornell University's Laboratory of Ornithology, the largest prey on record is about 2.5 pounds. Birds of North America, which included information on populations from around the world, says the typical prey has 10–30% of the Osprey's mass, with some exceptional catches averaging slightly more than 50%. MeegsC | Talk 16:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Accounts of the weight that an eagle can carry in flight often have been misstated. Experiments indicate that without wind to assist them even large eagles cannot take off from flat ground with more than 5 or 6 pounds (2 to 3 kg) in their talons. Eagles flying into the wind and taking prey from hillsides, however, sometimes carry animals of twice those weights for considerable distances." From a reputable-looking source, which unfortunately doesn't cite its source. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a reliable source to say if a White-tailed Eagle's feathers are waterproofed or not? Snowman (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you will find an RS because it is simply assumed that land birds don't have waterproofing. It's confined to aquatic species like ducks and loons, and not even all of those (that's why cormorants stand with their wings outstretched to dry). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

So, are there any objections to my removing the phrase about carrying the prey from the article? Looking at the contribs of the IP who added this, he's also made the same claim about the Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle, the Bonelli's Eagle (already reverted) and the Tawny Eagle (probably the same person using a different IP). Also - Wedge-tailed Eagles... do they engage in cannibalism? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is is possible that small chicks might be eaten by larger chicks in the nest when food is in short supply? Snowman (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Or by other adults from neighbouring territories? That was my initial thought. I know that gulls have little or no problem with eating the young of their own species in this manner. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's very unlikely that young would be eaten by a neighbouring adult, these are non-colonial birds with huge ranges. Siblicide is common in eagles, but I don't know about this one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I've gone and reverted all that stuff now. Based upon the discussion here, all additions from that IP would seem to be factually dubious at best... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Dendroica

Now that all the Dendroica warblers have moved to Setophaga, is there any way the Category can be moved?....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I've started that (you don't actually move the category page, you create a new one and make the old one a category redirect). Can you merge the Dendroica article now? —innotata 23:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to merge, I see, everything was copied initially, so I've merged the two articles. I'll suggest they have their histories merged, since this was essentially a cut-and-paste move. —innotata 23:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to do an enit-history merge on two old articles like these? I think that keeping the current redirect at Dendroica will be sufficient to persevere the edit-history of the Dendroica page. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's been done, though there may too much overlapping history here. But keeping the history at Dendroica will be fine too, which is why I added the {{copied}} templates to the talk pages. —innotata 14:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Except I'm not sure that Dendroica should just be a redirect. This is a recent move, with results based on one DNA study. Not every taxonomic authority has followed suit, so it's still possible for people out there to be looking for Dendroica — which should probably at least have a stub article that says something to the effect that while some taxonomists feel this is now a defunct genus, others disagree. I was going to ask what amount of information should be kept for defunct genera. I was working on a Good Topic (Red Warbler, Pink-headed Warbler, Ergaticus) and the genus has now been subsumed into Cardellina. Should we keep some amount of historical info in Dendroica, Ergaticus, etc. which are still the genera used on (for example) websites for the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, IUCN, HBW's Internet Bird Collection, the Academy of Natural Sciences' Visual Resources for Ornithology and others? MeegsC | Talk 17:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to obsolete taxa, apart from the possibility of resurrection, I think there is a case for retaining historical information, though whether that is done in the taxonomy section of the new taxon or in an article on the old one probably depends on just how much information there is. Molecular taxonomy is certainly creating many examples. Maias (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

PS. I note there is a category for obsolete taxonomic groups. Maias (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Here, the new genus is little different, it's more like a rename. I don't think there's enough difference between the two particular classifications or notable attributes of the name Dendroica to merit separate articles. If there is a discussion of it wasn't present; the article was copy-pasted. —innotata 02:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sandwich Tern

At Commons, I was asked to split the existing Sandwich Tern map to separate maps for T. acuflavidus and T. sandvicensis. We don't have that split here, any views? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just use two colours on the one map and then we can use for two taxa regardless of whether on one or two pages....I was not familiar with that split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is not a split, why not use a colour for each of the three subspecies. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I've split the map for Commons (just divided the old map down the Atlantic), and two cats exist there for the two (sub)species. I'm just pointing out that Commons has taken a different view to us, and inviting comment on whether we split or lump. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Commons follows the IOC World Bird List classification, which has come up before, I think we decided not to follow them automatically. The IOC cites Efe et al 2009 and the AOU (though the AOU doesn't have the split on its checklist), if you want to look at the sources. —innotata 15:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Messy parrots almost cleaned up

[Topic ressurrected from archive, and copied to KimvdLinde's talk page]: There's still a little bit of work to do before the new parrot systematics are completely reflected (take a look, for example, at Parrot#Phylogeny, Cockatoo#Taxonomy and New_Zealand_parrot#Systematics). I'm not confident I know how to fix the problems, or rather I am confident I know what to do on those specific pages, but I don't know what kind of system KimvdLinde used to work through the parrot pages, so although I could fix these, I'm not sure what that would leave unfixed. Kim, are you still active or have you gone back into retirement? SP-KP (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Tow of three were already done, updated parrot.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wilsonia CFD

I have filed a deletion request for Category:Wilsonia, given that it is now empty. All of its former members were moved to other genera following the big Parulidae reshuffle. Please make any comments on the deletion log. MeegsC | Talk 16:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I added a CFD for Category:Parula as well, for the same reason. MeegsC | Talk 16:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added Category:Dendroica also.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not use a category redirect? Snowman (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why keep a category that isn't being used—and will never be used? I can see keeping an article about each now-defunct genus, but not a category. MeegsC | Talk 18:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Would you call a "category redirect" a fully functional category? Snowman (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a category. You find it by typing "category:dendroica" (or whatever) into the search box. But that's the only way you'd find it, so I don't see the point of keeping it, to be honest. MeegsC | Talk 19:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting problem about what to do with categories of genera that have new names due to a re-classification. Does the "Tree of life" project have the answer? Why not put the article Wilsonia (bird) in Category:Wilsonia? Commons still has a category Wilsonia. Someone might look for the category on en Wiki, if they had just looked at the category on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I note that the discussions for deletions have been closed. Two are now redirects and the Category Wilsonia has been deleted. Should the Category Wilsonia be recreated and contain the page "Wilsonia (bird)"? Snowman (talk) 09:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. According to WP:Overcategorization, categories containing only a single article shouldn't be created. I would think that leaving it in category:Parulidae should be fine. MeegsC | Talk 09:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I see. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I expect that the two new redirect categories can go in the Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups or a new category for birds; perhaps, Category:Obsolete bird taxonomic groups, which would be useful. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Overcategorization, there are now some categories for some genus articles that formerly had many members, but now have one (Category:Oporornis comes to mind off the top of my head, I'm sure there are others). I'm guessing they are better left up than deleted....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (145)

• Bird 1450. File:Bubo flavipes -Jim Corbett National Park, Uttarakhand, India-8.jpg | Tawny Fish Owl to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Bird 1451. File:Pernis ptilorhynchus -Jim Corbett National Park, Uttarakhand, India-8.jpg | Crested Honey Buzzard to confirm identification. Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Identification is right. Shyamal (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Some African parrots and a page move

I am puzzled by the page move of Psittacini to African Parrot and to African parrot by the next edit by a different user. Some lovebird species of parrots are also native to Africa. An comments? Snowman (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Correct, and solved. Taxonomy also cleaned up. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Africna parrot should probably become a disamgig page.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Snowman (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Semi-automated and automated tasks

I have been some coding making some data files for automated and semi-automated tasks. Some of the data files and sub-routines might be useful for other tasks. I have just scanned (without any editing) all the 1491 articles in the category Tyranni (recursive) looking for articles that have a common name different to the IOC common name in their latest spreadsheet (ver 3.1). My script took about 1 hour to run and the out-put is below: Snowman (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• (Acanthisitta chloris) IOC=Rifleman | Wiki= Rifleman (bird)
• #(Laniisoma elegans) IOC=Brazilian Laniisoma | Wiki= Shrike-like Laniisoma
• (Grallaria chthonia) IOC=Tachira Antpitta | Wiki= Táchira Antpitta
• #(Hyloctistes subulatus) IOC=Eastern Woodhaunter | Wiki= Striped Woodhaunter
• (Asthenes virgata) IOC=Junin Canastero | Wiki= Junín Canastero
• (Pseudoseisura unirufa) IOC=Grey-crested Cacholote | Wiki= Grey-crested Cachalote
• (Synallaxis courseni) IOC=Apurimac Spinetail | Wiki= Apurímac Spinetail
• (Synallaxis maranonica) IOC=Maranon Spinetail | Wiki= Marañón Spinetail
• (Synallaxis beverlyae) IOC=Rio Orinoco Spinetail | Wiki= Río Orinoco Spinetail
• (Neodrepanis hypoxantha) IOC=Yellow-bellied Sunbird-Asity | Wiki= Yellow-bellied Sunbird-asity
• (Neodrepanis coruscans) IOC=Common Sunbird-Asity | Wiki= Common Sunbird-asity
• #(Machaeropterus regulus) IOC=Eastern Striped Manakin | Wiki= Striped Manakin
• (Melanopareia maranonica) IOC=Maranon Crescentchest | Wiki= Marañón Crescentchest
• (Scytalopus novacapitalis) IOC=Brasilia Tapaculo | Wiki= Brasília Tapaculo
• (Scytalopus chocoensis) IOC=Choco Tapaculo | Wiki= Chocó Tapaculo
• (Scytalopus meridanus) IOC=Merida Tapaculo | Wiki= Mérida Tapaculo
• (Scytalopus speluncae) IOC=Mouse-colored Tapaculo | Wiki= Mouse-coloured Tapaculo
• (Willisornis poecilinotus) IOC=Common Scale-backed Antbird | Wiki= Scale-backed Antbird
• (Willisornis vidua) IOC=Xingu Scale-backed Antbird | Wiki= Xingu Antbird
• (Clytoctantes atrogularis) IOC=Rondonia Bushbird | Wiki= Rondônia Bushbird
• (Formicivora grantsaui) IOC=Sincora Antwren | Wiki= Sincorá Antwren
• #(Formicivora grisea) IOC=Southern White-fringed Antwren | Wiki= White-fringed Antwren
• (Pachyramphus viridis) IOC=Green-backed Becard | Wiki= Yellow-cheeked Becard -> sub-species taxobox amended
• (Tachuris rubrigastra) IOC=Many-colored Rush Tyrant | Wiki= Many-coloured Rush Tyrant
• #(Onychorhynchus coronatus) IOC=Amazonian Royal Flycatcher | Wiki= Royal Flycatcher
• #(Sirystes sibilator) IOC=Eastern Sirystes | Wiki= Sirystes
• (Anairetes fernandezianus) IOC=Juan Fernandez Tit-Tyrant | Wiki= Juan Fernández Tit-Tyrant
• (Empidonax wrightii) IOC=American Grey Flycatcher | Wiki= American Gray Flycatcher
• #(Tolmomyias flaviventris) IOC=Ochre-lored Flatbill | Wiki= Yellow-breasted Flatbill
• #(Tolmomyias assimilis) IOC=Zimmer's Flatbill | Wiki= Yellow-margined Flatbill
• (Tyrannus dominicensis) IOC=Grey Kingbird | Wiki= Gray Kingbird

At the present time I am not sure how good or bad the above list is or what mistakes or omissions there are, since this is the first run of the script. As expected it has detected names with different accents and names with different USA and UK spellings, which might be worthwhile considering. Some of the differences are likely to be because of taxonomy differences and I am hoping that erudite editors will be able to advice on the ornithology. I am planning to scan all the Wiki bird species articles and so I would like some feedback on what might be useful and for improvements to the script. The list above includes article names like "Rifleman (bird)", which I could exclude, but it might be useful to have a list of article names with a suffix like this. A complete run on all the bird articles could take about 10 to 12 hours (overnight when I am asleep) and the out-put will probably be ten times bigger. I could include the relevant line numbers in the IOC spreadsheet if needed in the output (perhaps alongside the binomial). Does anyone want a list of articles that are about sub-species or anything else? Snowman (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• I think the Yellow-cheeked Becard taxobox was not in the usual format for a sub-species, so my script detected it as a species. I have amended the taxobox and it should not be detected by my script again. Does the taxobox look right for a sub-species now? Snowman (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
• The person who moved the above page to Grey-crested Cachalote said in the edit summary that this was per HBW (see The Interned Bird Collection, which quotes HBW 8, p. 323 . However, IOC spelling is Grey-crested Cacholote. Which is correct? Snowman (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Similar for parrots: Snowman (talk)

• (Amazona tucumana) IOC=Tucuman Amazon | Wiki=Tucumán Amazon
• #(Trichoglossus haematodus) IOC=Coconut Lorikeet | Wiki=Rainbow Lorikeet
• (Amazona aestiva) IOC=Turquoise-fronted Amazon | Wiki=Blue-fronted Amazon
• (Ara tricolor) IOC=Cuban Macaw | Wiki=Cuban Red Macaw
• #(Pionus tumultuosus) IOC=Plum-crowned Parrot | Wiki=Speckle-faced Parrot
• (Northiella haematogaster) IOC=Bluebonnet | Wiki=Bluebonnet (bird)
• (Cyanoramphus ulietanus) IOC=Raiatea Parakeet | Wiki=Society Parakeet
• (Psephotus pulcherrimus) IOC=Paradise Parakeet | Wiki=Paradise Parrot
• (Psittacus erithacus) IOC=Grey Parrot | Wiki=African Grey Parrot
• (Psittacula eques) IOC=Echo Parakeet | Wiki=Psittacula eques

Some of these have been discussed before and so discussion may not need to be re-ploughed. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have placed # in front of all names where it involves taxonomy. Basically, IOC split more species than wiki currently does. In most cases, this is already described in the respective articles (see Shrike-like Laniisoma, Royal Flycatcher, Yellow-margined Flatbill, etc). If these are moved to the IOC name, someone (not me!) has to modify them to match the IOC taxonomy, and make entirely new pages to fit the additional split species. For example, if Striped Woodhaunter → Eastern Woodhaunter:

1. Eastern Woodhaunter: Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama should be removed from the distribution, the comment that the genus is monotypic should be removed, and the article should mention that Western Woodhaunter (H. virgatus) is treated as a separate species.
2. "Striped woodhaunter" (with "Striped Woodhaunter" redirecting) would become the genus page for Hyloctistes. If the scientific name is preferred for the article name instead, striped woodhaunter (and the caps version) would be redirected to Hyloctistes.
3. A new page for Western Woodhaunter (H. virgatus) should be started.

In four other cases, it is British vs. US spelling: Mouse-coloured (aka -colored) Tapaculo, Many-coloured (aka -colored) Rush Tyrant, American Gray (aka Grey) Flycatcher and Gray (aka Grey) Kingbird. If these are moved, please remember to change spelling of all words in the article where there are differences between US/British. For example, if the tapaculo is moved to US spelling, the word grey within the article should be changed to gray. Neither the tapaculo nor the rush tyrant are found in USA/Britain, so they could go either way and I would suggest following IOC. Both the flycatcher and the kingbird have large parts of their distributions in USA, so I would suggest both these use US spelling (MOS:TIES). Although this deviates from IOC spelling, I still think it essentially follows IOC because of their statement on this matter: "We encourage each author and publisher to select whatever spelling of these words deemed appropriate." For the record, IOC have a comparable statement on the use of accents, cedilla and alike.
Both the spelling "Cachalote" and "Cacholote" are in use. I see no compelling reason to deviate from IOC spelling in this case. • Rabo³ • 11:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Although I'd agree with most of what Rabo says, having part of the range in the US isn't a sufficient reason to use US English. For example, The Kingbird only just reaches the extreme SE US, but occurs throughout the mainly BE West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Gray Kingbird map & American Gray Flycatcher map. Exactly how much is deemed sufficient: 20%, 50%, 75% (of course not relevant for species found in both US and Britain)? I think both make the cut, but I'll leave the final judgement to others. Using Jimfbleak's range requirements (sorry if I misinterpret your post), there would be relatively few US birds that make the cut, and extremely few British birds would make the cut. Virtually all birds found in Britain have a far larger part of their range on the Eurasian mainland (where English isn't the spoken language, i.e. the English/US spelling discussion is irrelevant). Regardless, one could also quote the final two sentences in MOS:RETAIN. • Rabo³ • 12:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)