Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nhog (talk | contribs) at 15:54, 15 October 2012 (→Caracaras: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
edit · changes

Birds for identification (150)

Sometimes a DYK is made from milestones in the Birds for identification series. Is article expansion possible here? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think article creation is possible here, especially with a great photo to go with it. Maias (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lamprotornis sp.? --Leyo 11:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an adult Greater Blue-eared Starling (Lamprotornis chalybaeus). Dger (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Dger (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Dger (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To add, it was taken in Fremont, California in April, but since I have not found success on multiple bird ID websites, it may not be native to the area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an adult Black-crowned Night Heron. I saw one in Santa Barbara when I was there in April, so it certainly occurs in California Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: now available on Commons at File:Nycticorax nycticorax -Fremont, California, USA-8.jpg and en Wiki file tagged for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "black-crowned" <-- no wonder I never found it in bird ID databases! I kept thinking the crown was blue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: file moved by the author to File:Nycticorax nycticorax Newark April 2011.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but the bird appears to be rather worn, in which case, I doubt it's a juv. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An adult Eastern phoebe based on lack of any eye-ring. Dger (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: moved to File:Sayornis phoebe -Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: now a FP on Commons. Shown on en-Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current labelling of this bird on Commons indicates certitude, but if there is any doubt about the identification of this bird, then this should be reflected in the image description and categorization on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the images on Commons of Chalk-browed Mockingbirds and to me this one matches. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. --Leyo 09:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bird 1509. File:Thraupis palmarum Chapada dos Guimarães.jpg | Confirmation needed for Thraupis palmarum. --Leyo 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current labelling of this bird on Commons indicates certitude, but if there is any doubt about the identification of this bird, then this should be reflected in the image description and categorization on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the expert knowledge I have seen on this page, it is hard to believe that there is nobody here who is able to confirm these rather common birds. --Leyo 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Identification is sometimes not directly associated with how common a bird is. There might be other bird species that look similar making the identification difficult. I think that the view of the bird in front of the wing-mirror is interesting and unconventional. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bird kept attacking it for a minute or more. I made a few other shots, but none is really good due to the fair lighting conditions. --Leyo 21:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a second version, where details are more clearly visible: File:Thraupis palmarum Chapada dos Guimarães 2.jpg --Leyo 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney Swift

Somebody who knows what they're doing (unlike myself) should review the changes I made here. By the way, that article could use some attention. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.s.: some resources I used include: ~E 20:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

See also: http://web4.audubon.org/bird/BOA/F5_G1a.html ~E 04:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for additions, could you check that I've dropped the capitalisation of your second ref correctly. So many species, so little time. Perhaps surprisingly, US species receive relatively little attention. You can see how few of our bird FAs are primarily N Am species Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(tangential remark) While we are on the topic of geographically common bird articles being in poor shape. Species reporting rates fall off exponentially and so something like a Pareto principle exists - ie. about 80% of the time one is looking for on the Internet after stumbling on them in the real world would be for 20% of the species in the total list of birds found in that geographic region. Using a geographic list ordered by reporting rates is perhaps the way to prioritizing species article for improvement. Shyamal (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to various editors for contributing to the article. Ornithological taxonomy nomenclature is definitely outside my area of expertise. The issue that I am attempting to resolve concerns the following:
  • (Genus) Choetura vs. Chaetura — both of which seem to be attributed to Stephens. The "oe" spelling seems to have either originated or derived from Audubon's The Birds of America, (Chimney Swallow, or American Swift, Plate No. 44).
  • (Species) pelasgia vs. pelagica — Note: Chaetura pelagica is listed as the "Binomial name" in the article (taxobox table) and attributed to (Linnaeus, 1758), yet the Stephens attribution is later (1825 or 1850?). I believe the attribution in the table might be in error (?).
  • Should my changes regarding nomenclature in the lead be moved to the "synonyms" section of the table?
Hopefully you're not as confused as I am, otherwise I need to do a better job of explaining. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Synonyms" in bird books often include what are now more correctly termed as "chresonyms" and that includes spelling mistakes (lapsus pennae / lapsus calami and often indicated next to the name as lapsus) Shyamal (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thanks! This issue seems to be resolved. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 08:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (151)

Rufous-collared Sparrow. MeegsC (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article in de.wikipedia says that there are 29 subspecies. Z. c. matutina exists in Mato Grosso, but I cannot judge if this subspecies is correct here. --Leyo 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the subspecies can not be identified with certitude at this juncture, then I think that it would be best to clearly state where it was photographed in the image description on Commons, so that anyone who is interested will know where this bird was seen. I recall that you have had some difficulty with geolocation in Brazil, and I wonder how accurate is the geolocation that you have provided. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highly accurate. --Leyo 09:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Moved to File:Zonotrichia capensis Chapada dos Guimarães.jpg. The question about the subspecies remains open. --Leyo 10:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look like European Golden-Plover to me. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Pluvialis apricaria -Spain -flock-8a.jpg on Commons. I have looked at a number of images of this species and I think that these are in winter plumage. Image shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a web search for images and I see no reason to doubt the identification, but I do not know if there are any other birds that look similar. I would welcome more opinions. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New image criterion ?

I came across this interesting edit [1] ? Although I do not see an ethics problem in this particular image. Shyamal (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me explain. I, personally am of the opinion that behaviour and tolerance levels of different birds to human presence vary, but I am going with protocol here. It's well known in most of the Bird forums all over the world that any pictures related to nesting activity, including those of site-searching, nest-building, birds at nest, eggs, and young hatchlings are not to be entertained at all. Irrespective of the fact if the bird was disturbed or not. It has been debated time and again, and this is the general set of guidelines because of the simple fact that desertion of nests is a common occurrence in most bird species when disturbed.[[2]] And, it is almost impossible to judge by the photograph whether the parents were disturbed or not. For example, here are the guidelines of the Royal Photographic Society; can the photographer certify that all of them were met? [[3]] AvadheshMalik —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I read the document but it specifically states the prohibition is for "Schedule 1" birds. Nowhere did I see that list. I have taken a few pictures of birds on nests but only when I accidently come across them and have already "disturbed" the birds. I take a few quick pictures then vacate as quickly as possible. If the bird shows any reaction (other than looking) I would leave immediately without pictures. The picture in question is diffcult to judge because the parent may already be so disturbed s/he has left the nest and is in a defensive mode. Perhaps therefore it should be banned. Personnaly, I don't think it should have been removed. We would need to start a "nest photo hunt" to eliminate all such pictures. I don't think the effort is needed. In the Galapagos Islands we saw many birds on nests with chicks and the birds seemed to not care one bit. They never showed any worry or alarm. Many pictures were taken. The guides didn't seem concerned as long as you did not leave the trail. If you did they stepped in right away to get people back. In some cases, the nests were so close to the trails you could not use a long lens. So different species behave to such intrusions in different ways. We should not use a blanket ban. Dger (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but I see no use in enforcing such rules here. It's close to being censorship. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On television I have seen scientists or official bird wardens climb trees and put chicks in a bag, then take the bag down to the ground where the chicks are measured, examined, weighed and put back in the bag and then sent back up the tree to be put back in the nest. I think that scientific observations of bird nests or chicks should not be censored here. Of course, I would not want to encourage indiscriminate or inept observations of birds' nests. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing such pictures arbitrarily or for personal reasons should be resisted, unless there is project policy or consensus to do so. Maias (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a bird forum, it is an encyclopaedia. There is no censorship beyond legal requirements such as copyright and child protection, and it is not for any editor to remove images because they don't like them or because they contravene any organisation's guidelines. They may be other valid reasons, such as too many images on a page or inappropriate for a particular article, but any removal should be done for the benefit of the article, not from personal beliefs or external non-judicial guidelines Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, different creatures behave differently to human intervention. It's rather a case of self-regulation. And yes, it's an encyclopedia ...so, perhaps 'general rules' don't apply here. I am not gonna lose sleep over it in anycase. AvadheshMalik, —Preceding undated comment added 16:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunbirds

The article on sunbirds starts with "The sunbirds and spiderhunters make up a family, Nectariniidae, ...". The page is also about spiderhunters. Is "Sunbirds" the wrong title for the page? I recall some other pages have been discussed here, because of this sort of problem. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Nectariniidae. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty common to refer to the whole family as "sunbirds", so "sunbird" is not necessarily a bad title. You could take this reasoning too far, for example insisting on "Fringillidae" solely since "Brambling" does not have "finch" in it. —innotata 22:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what is "pretty common" might not be appropriate for an encyclopaedia. If you saw a spiderhunter, would you say; "There is a sunbird"? Snowman (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Sunbirds" might or might not be appropriate; you can't assume it's not since there are members of the family called something else. That's all. I think Asia bird guides, the HBW and such use "sunbird" to refer to the entire family; I know the Helm Guide on the family is called Sunbirds, but with a subtitle reading "...Sunbirds, Spiderhunters, ...". —innotata 17:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with FunkMonk on this one. An article about the whole family should be called "Nectariniidae"; if someone can come up with more examples of how the term sunbird is used to refer to spiderhunters as well as sunbirds sensu stricto, or how we have similar situations in other families, I'd be open to changing my mind on this. I don't think the Brambling example is a good one, as there are lots of other names used for members of the Fringilldae e.g. Serin, Siskin, whereas in this case we have Sunbird used consistently for all members of the family except the spiderhunters, implying that sunbirds and Nectariniidae are not synonyms. SP-KP (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Naming conventions (birds). You might want to participate in the redirect discussion. JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Sparrow

Should the Desert Sparrow be split into two species pages; Asian Desert Sparrow (see IUCN) and African Desert Sparrow (see IUCN). On IOC lists it is not split and has three subspecies there. I think that the current Wiki article is confusing. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What this is based on is Kirwan et al., cited in the article, which brings up substantial differences (traits that may mean the two are not related, as it seems to imply), yet strongly states they are not separate under the biological species concept. That seems strange to me. BirdLife is the only authority to recognise the split, and Summers-Smith was rather sceptical. —innotata 21:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innotata, where does the Kirwan et al article explicitly state that the two taxa are not separate BSC species? All I could find on this was the following comment, which to me says that the authors lean towards (but don't quite embrace) the opposite view: "In particular, the much-reduced sexual dimorphism in zarudnyi argues strongly that African and Asian populations might well function as separate biological species too, as their quite different female plumages could serve as a barrier to interbreeding in the hypothetical context of their meeting." SP-KP (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Swifts

Should the page Chapman Swifts (the page title is a pleural) be merged into Vaux's Swift? Snowman (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is little justification for an article under that name, since the birds are just Vaux's Swifts, and I doubt that the name has wide currency. However, this large roost is significant and better referenced than the parent article, so I've gone ahead and merged the articles. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it an improvement. Do no forget to write links in the edit summary to show where you have cut and pasted text. This is important and helps to maintain attribution for the CC copyright. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I feel about the Chapman Swifts redirect to Vaux's Swift. After all, there is a real Chapman's Swift. If it was up to me, Chapman Swifts should be deleted or redirected to Chapman's Swift. If redirected, a hatnote on Chapman's Swift might be recommendable if the Chapman School swifts are sufficiently notable ({{for|the roosting swifts at Chapman Elementary School, USA|Vaux's Swift}}... or something like that). 212.10.86.45 (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the roost itself looks notable, it's the name that's less convincing. Perhaps a disamb? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The signpost header sounds like a good idea. Alternatively, the disambig would be at "Chapman's Swift (disambiguation)", because the full species would be the primary topic, but it might only list two topics. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia guidelines, there shouldn't a disambiguation page with only two topics. MeegsC (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A disambiguation page with two entries is possible if they are of equal notability, i.e. neither is "primary" (→last sentence of WP:2DAB, or 1st line of 3rd paragraph of MeegsC's link; a good example is President Bush). However, I'm puzzled if anyone believes a single roost is as notable as an entire species (unless limiting it to USA ≠ WP:WORLDVIEW). If the names were equal, a disambiguation would be possible, but otherwise the wiki standard is a hatnote. The question is where the hatnote belongs: In my previous comment I mentioned one (my preferred) way of doing it. The other possibility, based largely on the small difference between "Chapman" and "Chapman's", would be to leave "Chapman Swifts" redirecting to Vaux's Swift, and add a hatnote to that article ( {{redirect|Chapman Swifts|the species from South America and Panama|Chapman's Swift}}). There is also the issue of WP:PLURAL for "Chapman Swifts", but one could perhaps argue it's ok following WP:RDR#Purposes of redirects. 212.10.86.45 (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have redirected "Chapman Swifts" to "Chapman's Swift" and put a signpost header on the the "Chapman's Swift" species article. I think that this reduces the chances of readers going to the wrong swift species page. I would prefer that the pleural redirect is deleted and a singular version to be used instead. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, the redirect to Chapman Elementary School goes to a page about somewhere not in Oregon. However, according to the Wiki article, the swifts roost is in Portland, Oregon, so perhaps there is more than one "Chapman Elementary School" in the USA, and the school needs disambiguation also. Snowman (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: someone reverted the redirect on Chapman Swifts back to redirect to Vaux Swift, so I have reverted to target on Chapman's Swifts again and I hope that my explanations to the edit summary will suffice. Also, I have invited the editor to advance the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birdlife International names

Almost there with these now. All the English names have been done. Here are the remaining scientific names we don't yet have:

Acrocephalus avicenniae * Acrocephalus fuscus * Aimophila petenica * Alcippe annamensis * Alectoris whitakeri * Amazilia distans * Ammodramus beldingi * Anser middendorfi * Asthenes usheri * Atlapetes paynteri * Atlapetes torquatus * Batrachostomus pygmaeus * Bradypterus kashmirensis * Calidris cooperi * Caprimulgus otiosus * Catamenia oreophila * Certhilauda damarensis * Cisticola taciturnus * Colinus ridgwayi * Collocalia cyanoptila * Collocalia marginata * Collocalia nitens * Crypturellus idoneus * Cypseloides major * Cyrtonyx sallei * Drymophila subochracea * Enicurus borneensis * Eos goodfellowi * Eremopsaltria mongolicus * Fluvicola atripennis * Gymnocrex intactus * Knipolegus cabanisi * Loriculus bonapartei * Loriculus salvadorii * Lorius amabilis * Lorius tibialis * Megapodius stairi * Melozone fuscus * Microeca tormenti * Monarcha malaitae * Myiodynastes solitarius * Myiomela cambodiana * Myrmeciza stictothorax * Myrmornis stictoptera * Nectarinia fuelleborni * Nectarinia graueri * Nectarinia hofmanni * Nectarinia usambarica * Ninox rotiensis * Ochetorhynchus melanura * Otus everetti * Otus nigrorum * Otus stresemanni * Pachycephala tenebrosa * Phaethornis porcullae * Phlegopsis paraensis * Phyllomyias leucogonys * Phylloscopus benguetensis * Picumnus salvini * Platysteira hormophora * Ploceus victoriae * Ptilinopus epia * Ptilinopus mangoliensis * Pyroderus granadensis * Pyrrhura chapmani * Pyrrhura hypoxantha * Rallus obsoletus * Sarcoramphus sacer * Scytalopus opaca * Serpophaga araguayae * Stactolaema sowerbyi * Synallaxis elegantior * Synallaxis superciliosa * Tachyphonus nattereri * Thalassarche platei * Thamnophilus pernambucensis * Threnetes loehkeni * Thryothorus albinucha * Thryothorus colombianus * Thryothorus paucimaculatus * Turdinus marmorata * Turnix novaecaledoniae * Xiphocolaptes franciscanus * Xiphocolaptes orenocensis

SP-KP (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative treatment preferred ?

Has there been some discussion that older and more conservative treatments are preferred to IOC genus placements ? For instance I am under the impression that several genus splits have been well established for at least 7 years with multiple papers supporting splits and hardly any suggestions to the contrary in peer-reviewed journals - for example a reversion like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Silverbill&curid=686246&diff=516476683&oldid=516198154 related to Euodice vs. Lonchura . Shyamal (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to use IOC as the default (not necessarily exclusive) taxonomic authority for the project. Maias (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to lean towards IOC for genus placements (although not so much for some of the family placement) as well simply because it is updated (even if it is sometimes a bit too much on the bleeding edge) and readily available/verifiable. It is definitely preferable to the use of outdated works like Howard and Moore 3e. Not sure if the fourth edition will achieve anything significantly different from IOC as they too will be interpreting the same research results except to create more conflict and confusion (it is not going to be freely accessible either, according to this ). Shyamal (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've brought it up a few times to have some sort of default in place to make life easier dealing with taxonomy disputes. The problem there is no consensus. It was suggested that we wait for Howard & Moore, but nothing has been published yet (2 delays-now expected Jan 2013 for vol 1, June 2013 vol 2, and no idea how they will deal with updates after publication.). I suggested Clements since they are current and regularly update, some members had issues with it. The IOC is pretty liberal with species treatment, in many cases they are the only taxonomy group offering up a species listing. The IOC has also been shot down as a tax standard by some members. Other than Clements and the IOC, The AOU (both North and South America) seem to be the only groups offering at least annual updates. The IUCN is a little slow with updates, and I'm not sure when and how they notify. Specifically with Indian Silverbill, since we have no standard, I went with consensus. Most of the taxonomic references have it in Lonchura and since the African and Grey-headed Silverbill were still listed in Lonchura, I changed the Indian Silverbill back. All 3 should be treated together whatever we decide......Pvmoutside (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I do not think there is anyone working intensively on the African bird list. I have a worklist for Asian birds and I am updating entries with some care and find it a bit troublesome having to entirely redo the taxonomic history section which is worked up to explain the current placement. See for instance Black-chinned Laughingthrush and the taxonomy section. If the article is still stubby I would probably have no problem with these changes. Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No authority is perfect. One big plus for the IOC is its accessibility and currency. I think having IOC for English names has been good, reducing the argumentation from those pushing pet or local names. Maias (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pvmoutside I am not sure why my changes to consistently reflect the view of Euodice (not including Grey-headed Silverbill though) are being reverted. ([4] [5] Shyamal (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that taxonomy on the Wiki should reflect the current literature and research and explain controversies. I think that this would be better than using one authority as a default. Care should be used in the taxoboxes, which can be rather "black or white", and when relevant it might be useful to add the "|classification_status=disputed" parameter. I would tend to think that gathering up-to-date information on taxonomy is complex and a holistic approach would be advantageous. I do not know much about the topic of silverbills and I would look forward to seeing detailed accounts of the taxonomy of silverbills on the wiki. Old (possibly out-of-date) lines from a print out of IOC and Wiki names are (data extracted from IOC and Wiki about 2 months ago): Snowman (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea to also compare the treatment in HBW via http://ibc.lynxeds.com - in this case most modern works place it under Euodice including major regional field guides like Rasmussen and Anderton (2005). Interpreting sources and majority / consensus should also take into account the taxonomic history and dates of publication of sources. The Grey-headed Silverbill was wrongly listed in the article at Euodice. I have fixed that. I think we can be quite sure that there will be no consensus for using a single source of taxonomy (naming) / systematics (placement) on Wikipedia but it seems like there is no reason why IOC should be a starting point for discussion. Any variance from the IOC placement should really require to be well referenced. Shyamal (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I did a quick review in Google scholar. The only study I can find that directly relates classification of the Indian Silverbill is one that disputes the genus Euodice, but it is from 1964. THE TAXONOMIC STATUS OF THE AFRICAN SILVERBILL, LONCHURA CANTANS AND INDIAN SILVERBILL L. MALABARICA by C. J. O. Harrison, Ibis Volume 106, Issue 4, pages 462–468, October 1964......Abstract quote: "The taxonomic status of the African and Indian Silverbills, cantans and malabarica, was examined. The characters used to isolate these birds in a separate genus, Euodice, are not generically valid, and the birds agree in morphology and behaviour with species of the genus Lonchura. The two silverbills show a general similarity in appearance and behaviour but differ in plumage pattern and colour. The call notes are similar but the songs are distinctly different in form, although they appear to share a common basic pattern. In captivity the two forms show evidence of preferential mating and lack of recognition which suggests that they would maintain their identity if sympatric. On this basis they are regarded as two species, Lonchura cantans and L. malabarica."

Any more recent studies or resources simply list the genus as Euodice with no evidence as to why, except for the 2009 study by Arnaiz-Villena, A; Ruiz-del-Valle V, Gomez-Prieto P, Reguera R, Parga-Lozano C, Serrano-Vela I referenced in the Indian Silverbill Wikipedia article where they state there is partial evidence, evidently not enough to suggest renaming the genus from Lonchura by the authors.......For the record, although the species in question are introduced for its assessment, the AOU lists the genus for the two species as Lonchura, not Euodice. In additon, there are many recent studies that are rejected by taxonomic authorities (see the number of rejections the AOU has published for example. Just because a publshed paper is more recent, it doesn't mean it necessarily should be the authority...Hope that helps.......A lot of work just to confirm a genus.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing out on http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01653597?LI=true (1999) and http://www.zfmk.de/BZB/B51_H2_3/B51H23S0.PDF (2003) - for every split one can always argue that does one need not bother about new papers. Unfortunately in this particular case there has been growing evidence over time - from the juvenile down, palate markings, biochemical evidence and behavior to more complete sampling and divergence date estimates in the 2009 study along with suggestions that these two arid-zone species are of African-Indian origin while the remainder moist-zone species of Lonchura sensu stricto are of Australasian origin. Note also that the 11 MYA divergence should be a reasonable basis for considering generic distinctiveness. (For some taxon split time scales "... Mus–Rattus split at 12 MYA (Jacobs and Downs 1994); ... Casuarius–Dromaius split at 25 MYA (Boles 1992)... Coturnix–Gallus split at 38 MYA (Brodkorb 1964) ... Anseranas divergence from other Anseriformes at 65 MYA (Clarke et al. 2005)... Anser–Branta split at 4.5 MYA (Bickart 1990)" source: http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/9/1731.full) I think in this case we can accept in good faith the choice of the multiple authors including those of recent regional guides, HBW/IBC, EOL and IOC. An alternate stance in the Wikipedia articles should be accompanied by citations that examine this chain of research and demonstrate the problems in them. Shyamal (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. The 1999 Springer article suggests lumping Padda and Eudodice into Lonchura, and the 2003 article does not mention its reasoning to use Euodice. EOL lists both Lonchura and Euodice pages, with the Lonchura malabarica page containing more information and a photo: [6]. HBW is now out of date, with a more recent IUCN keeping Indian and African Silverbill in Lonchura. I remain convinced to keep them both in Lonchura unless more evidence is forthcoming........Pvmoutside (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you want the paper. It actually suggests that these genera be kept alongside Lonchura in a clade separate from the Spermestes+Odontospiza clade, not that it should be lumped into the genus. The evidence is actually quite good, indeed in this case choosing the older placement in the view of the available evidence should require reliable citations that show problems in the research findings. Shyamal (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: If this lumped treatment is really gaining consensus it should also include Java Sparrow in Lonchura. Pvm any evidence for keeping this out of Lonchura ? Shyamal (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed Timor and Java Sparrow today to Lonchura (simply haven't gotten there 'til today)....I'd love to have a read of Springer. Attach it here and I'll take a look. Thanks Shyamal!...14:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is a temporary link to the Baptista et al. (1999) paper. Shyamal (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, since the bird is solely located in South America, I believe the SACC should take precedence just as Yellow-rumped Warbler is classified as such by the NACC of the AOU rather than being split into Myrtle Warbler and Audubon's Warbler as some other tax authorities indicate. Unfortunately there is no classification committee for Asia and Africa (or any other region for that matter) for the Silverbills. If we used Clements or the IOC then we can update worldwide and at least have a source instead of doing it peacemeal......Pvmoutside (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated tasks

Following a request, I have recently updated about 8000 external links to IUCN red-list pages on Wiki bird species pages together with writing updates to the IUCN red-list status. All the edits were written with the help of semi-automatic software and I checked all the edits manually, before clicking the "save" button. I have been watching the pages; nevertheless, I would be interested to hear about any accidental errors or typos that I made, so that I can fix any bugs or at least be aware of likely further problems and fix them before editing. During this series of edits, so far I am only aware of one typo which I missed, and this has been corrected by the user who found it and reported it to me on my talk page. I also made an edit on Desert Sparrow, which was not consistent with Wiki taxonomy, and I have asked for opinions on the taxonomy of this species above. The remaining old IUCN links on Wiki bird articles are likely to be for taxa where there are taxonomy and naming differences between the IOC, IUCN, and the Wiki, and I am aware that fixing and updating Wiki taxonomy and names is an on-going task. I anticipate doing another run after there is an update to the IUCN red list. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawaiian accents are a bit of a problem, because I did not realise that some of them only display as a "?" in the basic text editor that I used, so some Hawaiian bird species have not had their IUCN external links scanned yet, and I plan to do these soon. Most accents displayed, but this might have also have happened for some species spelt with the German omulet and other unusual accents. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for semi-automated tasks would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Snowman. the only thing that immediately springs to mind is whether all bird taxa articles have a project banner on the talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page banners; that is a good point. I had not considered talk pages much for semi-automated tasks. I might do a scan to find out how many bird taxa articles do not have talk banners. However, if a bird page has an unconventional title or spelling variation, then it and its talk page might be difficult to find. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I just added a bunch of Mannikins and Munias to the Bird wikiproject that were previously missing. It would be worth a scan me thinks......Pvmoutside (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started this bot request a while ago in order to get a list of articles with broken links to the IUCN Red List. Have you now fixed all these links? --Leyo 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not fixed all the IUCN links, because the taxonomy on IUCN and the Wiki differ and because bird common and binomial names differ on different websites. I would find it interesting to see the list of Wiki pages that still have dead IUCN links or no IUCN links. My software has not necessarily finished all its work yet, but it has reached a plateau of development beyond which it will become increasingly difficult to improve the software and get it to match more Wiki articles with IUCN pages. Recent WP Bird drives to update Wiki taxonomy and convert common bird names to IOC names have helped enormously, and it is very likely that my software will be able to update more IUCN links as more Wiki pages are brought into line with IOC names and after erudite taxonomy updates. If you did have a list of old IUCN links, what would you do with it? Snowman (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend on the length of the list. A short list could be managed by manually fixing the links. If the list would be long, we might be able to find a semi-automatized way. I've just fixed a few dozen links by updating the links in Template:Redlist CC1994 and Template:Redlist CC2001. --Leyo 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that those links were not links to species pages on the IUCN website. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list that would need attention to update the taxonomy and check the binomial names prior to fixing the IUCN links. Adding IUCN links might be complicated for many of these pages, because the the taxa on the Wiki might not be an exact match to the taxa on IUCN. I think that would lead to many mistakes if only the common names were matched between the Wiki and IUCN when adding IUCN links. I understand that variations in binomial names can be due to different opinions on how to interpret the abstruse Latin roots of binomial names, or there might be a typo somewhere that could be difficult to trace. I think that a lot of this work can only be done manually by erudite editors and not by a bot. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Comparison of IOC and Wiki binomial names (June 2012) Snowman (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other semiautomated tasks to consider: Many bird species have no importance assessed. Aren't all species (the ones that are left anyway) gong to all be of low importance? They can be all tagged as low and manually changed for the few that someone may want to reassess? Also, most of the bird articles have photo requests listed on the individual talk pages for the ones still missing photos. Some have photos but still have the need photo tag, a number require photos and do not have the tag, a few do not have photos but have the tag. In the effort to be accurate, can we run a bot to keep them up to date? The omly problem I see is some articles have illustratons but no photos, any way to distinguish?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Importance ratings: I am not sure where the evidence is that all bird articles without an importance rating are low importance. I would not be prepared to do semi-automated edits to give all non-rated bird articles a low rating. I think that doing this an about 4000 bird stub pages would bound to make some mistakes. It would also confuse which pages had been assessed manually and which were guessed to be low importance. Snowman (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-photo tags: There has already been an attempt to update the no-image tags on bird talk pages with semi-automatic software, but I recall that the editor (not me) stopped after people noticed that he was changing the "no-photo" tag for articles that only showed a painting. It would not be easy for a bot to identify an image as a photograph or a painting; however, it might be possible by automatically scanning with a complex script for clues in the text of the image description of the file on Commons. About two years ago, I scanned talk pages and articles and got a list of articles with a no-photo tag on the talk page and an image of some sort shown in the article, and then updated the talk pages following a visual inspection of the articles to see if it showed a photograph or only a painting. I recall finding about 200 articles where a "no-photo" tag needing amending. Similarly, it should be possible (quite easy) to get a list of articles without an image (photograph or painting), but do not have a "no-photo" tag on the talk page. I would anticipate that the lists for update now would less than 100 or possibly in the low hundreds again. If I got new lists, would anyone be prepared to do the manual work to do a visual inspection of articles and then update the the tags where indicated? Snowman (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're right about the importance problem. There are very few species which are of importance as food or commercial reasons, and I'd be very surprised if any were unassessed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've skipped over a number of unassessed bird species articles. I've only added the assessment to ones if I needed to make other changes as well. This would only be for bird species, not all bird articles. Perhaps having a taxobox in place could be one criteria to split the species articles away from the other bird articles....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
During preparation stages, I initially got print-outs that included over 50 flea, worm, and protozoa Wiki articles about species (with taxoboxes) that are bird parasites and part of WP Birds. Similarly, some bird parks, bird diseases, conservation areas, books, ornithologists, Disney (Donald Duck) articles, and so on all have WP bird banners on the talk page. Some conservation areas, books, ornithologists, and so on are quite important in ornithology and I think that it would be wrong to automatically label all un-rated WP bird pages with "Low importance". It helps to identify the type of taxobox, and I found it useful to scan for the biological class (Aves) in the taxobox to identify a bird taxa. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would help to first think which articles, or categories of articles, should not be rated as of low importance and tag those before giving the rest a default assessment as 'low'. Maias (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'll state for BIRD SPECIES only, not ALL BIRD ARTICLES......an article with a taxobox, in class Aves, and not previously assesssed should do the trick?...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably not consistent with Wiki guidelines to assess the importance of a Wiki article as "Low importance" without looking at it. I think that the un-rated bird species pages need assessing manually. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tool

I've added advisor.js to the tools tab Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Poultry

Please note the discussion concerning broad-scale reorganisation and expansion of {{Poultry}}, at Template talk:Poultry. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale taxonomy changes

One thing that really annoys me is where someone comes along and changes taxonomic details to align with the latest fashion and does it without citation and without adding any mention of the previous taxonomy. If you are changing a scientific name, you should at least have the decency to add the old one as synonym in the taxobox. There's an IP making wholesale changes; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.98.239.158 which I'm tempted to revert. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC

I've reverted the changes and left a message on ISP's talk. I'll semi protect if necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your note to the IP, you said something about reverting changes with references; I assume you meant to say without!  :) MeegsC (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Caracaras

Caracaras need to be updated immeditely they are really out of date and there is not enough information. I would do it but I dont have the time. Nhog (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=517949506"