Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Kurt Shaped Box (talk | contribs)
22,680 edits
Kurt Shaped Box (talk | contribs)
22,680 edits
→‎Locked Pages V (2nd req): some have been moved back now
Line 316: Line 316:


::Right... all done, I think. Let me know if I've missed/screwed anything up... --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] ([[User talk:Kurt Shaped Box|talk]]) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
::Right... all done, I think. Let me know if I've missed/screwed anything up... --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] ([[User talk:Kurt Shaped Box|talk]]) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

*Please note that [[User:Bidgee]] has now undone several of these moves, with the rationale "per [[WP:COMMONNAME]], IOC has no say (on common names for AU birds) nor is there a consensus on en Wiki that IOC's naming must be used". --[[User:Kurt Shaped Box|Kurt Shaped Box]] ([[User talk:Kurt Shaped Box|talk]]) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:59, 20 February 2012

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 (137)

(birds 1370, 1371, and 1372 returned from archives for more to be added to this set of 10)

Juveniles of all races have "frosting" on the covert feathers and the tips of the primaries up to six months of age, after which they lose the feature and appear as do the adults.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a sub-adult? Snowman (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not with the white tips that Steve mentioned. In fact, I'mnot aware of any easily-discernable plumages of Osprey other than juv. and adult. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With good reason. It is not a Kite. First glance impression tells me to look at plumages of Prairie Falcon. Will do so with more time.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Prairie Falcon, Saker is another possibility. I'm afraid I'm not up on telling these two apart. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For captive birds there is the possibility of a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirm Prairie Falcon. Separated from Saker by, among other things, the typically dark axillaries, and underwing coverts.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prairie Falcon moved to File:Falco mexicanus -Avian Conservation Center, near Charleston, South Carolina, USA-8a.jpg on Commons and selected for the infobox image on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not hybrids. They look like slightly grubby adult American White Ibises. MeegsC | Talk 18:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long-tailed Duck. Maias (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a cracking winter/spring adult male, although the pale brown around the eye is less obvious due to the angle of its head Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long-tailed Duck moved to File:Clangula hyemalis -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -male-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same bird as Bird 1317 in Archive 58. Needs another look. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly a parakeet of the genus Psittacula. Which one I'm afraid I do not know. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could be an immature of P. finschii Shyamal (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's an Oldsquaw. Appears to be an adult female, but this species has one of the most complex and misunderstood molt strategies of any bird, molting as many as 4 times over a 6-month period of the year, so I would not say I'm sure about the age and sex. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's late December, which limits the possibilities. It's not full adult female winter plumage, so if I had to stick my neck out, I'd go for first-winter female. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Long-tailed Duck moved to File:Clangula hyemalis -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -female-8a.jpg. If anyone is certain of its age, please amend to image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Maias (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that you can tell from the image but, if the location is right, presumably the nominate. Maias (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like White-faced Scops-Owl to me, but I have no experience in Africa and don't know if there are similar-looking species. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird 1379 File:Albatros fuligineux.jpg | I think this is a Sooty Albatross - It doesn't get lighter after the head, the line along the beak is yellow, and the eye ring comes further around on the bottom than the Light-mantled. I'd appreciate a second opinion though. I have a good Light-mantled Sooty Albatross photo on the way. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. Light-mantled should have a blue-gray sulcus; it's yellowish on this bird--a characteristic of Sooty. Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (138)

I suspect this is also a Sooty, but it's a young bird, so harder to tell. Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rohan Clarke tells me this is an immature Sooty Albatross, based on "some colour on the sulcus and some patchiness in the plumage", as well as "The bird is too brown-toned for a LMSA especially across the body and wings. LMSA are always much colder grey-toned. In all plumages they should also show a lovely pale steely grey back whereas your bird is quite dark brown. Some LMSA individuals can get paler than a typical adult LMSA with wear, especially juveniles but they never get darker. Your nice flight shots also show that the wings are too broad and good head profiles show that the bill is too robust and not 'pinched' mid-way along its length as you would expect for an LMSA." based on other shots from other individuals too. I'm therefore moving the image. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a juvenile. Adults of both sexes have uniform grey upperparts. Other pointers are the rufous fringes to the feathers on the visible part of the wing and the coarse, fringed barring on the underparts. Females have neater and greyer barring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Moved to File:Accipiter nisus -England -juvenile-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Juvenile, for the same reasons listed for 1381. MeegsC | Talk 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirm, and it would have to be in Brazil as it is an endemic. That guy has some nice images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. First image of this species on the Wiki. Shown in infobox. I plan to remove the watemark soon. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed capitalization discussion at WP:MOS

The CAPS discussion at the MOS has been revived, with another poll giving a false choice and trying to slowly cut slices of the issue to the point the bird articles are going to be lowercaped. Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Poll-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And they're going to "win" eventually, because those of us who feel strongly about the other side of the issue will eventually just give up. It's like trying to fight a Tesco or Walmart coming to your town; they just keep reintroducing the same thing over and over and over and over until they exhaust the patience (and willingness to continue) of the other side. I, for one, am finding it harder and harder to stay enthused about contributing, as it seems more and more that the wrong things are being made "important". But maybe that's what they're hoping will happen — that the whole WP:BIRDS project will just fold and they'll be able to lowercase everything and have their perfect little world! MeegsC | Talk 23:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is my take as well. There does seem to be the intention of rendering the Wiki so toxic to the people that really have expertise, that they will just wind up rolling their eyes and throwing their hands up in total disgust. I, for one, am now deathly tired of being characterized as dense and stupid simply because I disagree with the "style is God" mavens to the exclusion of wishing that the Wiki Bird Project be curated by people that know the subject. We all understand their position, and almost all of us simply honestly disagree. Speaking only for myself, if the Wiki BP is finally coerced into capitulation after years of thinly concealed disgust that has been directed our way, then I am out of here. Let them recruit people that know nothing about birds and can convert the entire project into some sort of creative writing exercise that nobody that really wants to know about birds will access simply because it would immediately become bush league among those most likely to access the articles, the birders, and those interested in the discipline of ornithology. Lately, in view of the continuous sniping directed towards the Project unwelcome thoughts have started to intrude on my mind at least. Considerations that until recently I had never entertained, such as the fact that somebody earns money from the Wiki, not I, not most of us that have been gratuitously contributing of ourselves for the benefit of the user accessing the Wiki hoping to benefit from our knowledge and dedication. It starts to beg the question of whether or not our attention shifts from wishing to give that benefit to others, or no longer wanting to contribute under the vituperation of those that earn money from the Wiki, and continue to denigrate us for this pleasure? It is increasingly difficult justifying taking precious time to contribute when one feels that that time is not appreciated, and that to continue under a dogmatic regime would be tantamount to becoming a mindless robot dancing the tip tap for people that obviously see many of us as just cogs in a machine and buttons to press at their leisure and pleasure. We are already seeing the mortifying effects of the last time that this whole question cropped up again, as it has been wont to do for years. It seems to me that there has been a dramatic curtailing of work being done on the Project since the last time it resurfaced. The Project may already be dying on the vine. If the entire discussion resolves where I think it will, then I hope those that do not like us revel in their pyrrhic victory! We that have dared to disagree must now be sacrificed on the altar of pedantic sophistry for the sake of regimented conformity. This is just another chapter in an age-old struggle, that of those daring to be free-thinkers striving for excellence, against those desirous of the accumulation of power, the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. I They seem to be trying to win by wikilaywering at the moment. I can't quite see what the point of that is, except laying the groundwork of a trap to snap on us when we aren't paying attention. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said on your and my talk page, the general tide against your capitalization has been coming in since at least 2008 if not 2007. The changes I'm proposing would actually hold it at bay at longer. If MOS says there's a controversy about it then, well, until that controversy ends, guess what? Status quo. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same way the "hyphen hysteria" finally got its precious en-dash (or is it em-dash?) into the date ranges of aircraft-by-decade categories - by CFDSing and CFDing over and over and over until the aircraft people finally threw up their hands in disgust. =/ - The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've decided to support the proposal. SMcandlish describes it as A process we're ensuring leaves your project alone if you'll just let it. So I'll take him at his word and assume good faith and all that. I'm sick of this godamn fight and if this is what it takes... Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SS, how can you look past that vitriol and take him at his word? I've proposed alternative wording that, I feel, makes us sound "less stupid". He won't like it. Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might also add that SMcandlish has himself called our convention "Stoopid Capitalization". Hardly inspires confidence that he's working in good faith. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was characterizing what the typical reader's thoughts are likely to be on the matter, and I believe I was referring to capitalization of everything under the sun, like Domestic Cat, and Goldfish, not just birds. I realize (everyone within virtual earshot of this project has had it browbeaten into them, frankly) that you feel that you have different, better reasons for capitalization. Not everyone agrees with you. At least you have some kind of rationale. There is no such "it's an official standard" reason for idiocy like "Lion", which is what the debate at MOS is about. Kim is trying to whip you into a frenzy with a blatant straw man, and is engaging is the most stunning display of WP:IDHT I've ever seen over at WT:MOS, as well as creating a false poll where she's voting for you. The direct personal attack on me below, by the way, has not gone unnoticed. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the original, in which it's clear that I'm specifically exempting this project's use of caps:

Please do [lower-case species names], but not in birds, plants or winged insects articles, or some people will flip out; there needs to be a clear site-wide consensus on this, a la the de-linking of dates, and not putting spoiler warnings, and other controversial stuff that took years to resolve, got resolved, and suddenly wasn't controversial any more because the entrenched opponents finalize realized WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. In the interim, however, a zillion articles on great cats, squids, antelopes, spiders, etc., etc. have Stoopid Capitalization in them, and MOS has been clearly saying not to do that for at least 4 years now, so any lower-casing cleanup help there is a Good Thing. .... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from quoting people incorrectly and out of context. It's not helpful in any way. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steve's comment completely sums it up. I've made the point to SMcandlish that we are volunteers being asked to implement rules that would be pretty tight-arsed even if we were paid. I wonder about the motivation of these people — there appears to be no problem with the million completely unreferenced articles (it's quantity, not quality that matters), but creators of worthwhile stuff are harassed by people who probably collect paper clips for a hobby. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO good faith at SMcandlish side. In fact, he frequently is implicitly saying he is using the salami tactic to put the bird editors under his foot. This is just a line out of his latest reply at his own talk page " I want to stop that, and leave the birds issue for later resolution, which could take another 7 years, basically" [1]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: why don't we just go on strike? If all of our big names (all of whom seem to be in agreement that capitalisation is fine) were to stop editing for an agreed period, progress on bird articles will almost certainly grind to a halt. That would, if nothing else, demonstrate the strength of feeling. SP-KP (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be pointless to go on strike. The fundamental premise of going on strike is that the witholding of labor would be seen as non-desirable by the counterpart. We simply have no leverage. We have explained the depth of our convictions repeatedly. The only ones that are truly interested in the Wiki Bird Project are the contributors themselves. I am certain that were the W:BP simply to cease to exist, that there are many that would count it as a victory, would feel that they have saved the world for their children, and would pop the cork in a communal toast that they have secured their totalitarian power after crushing the neck of the imbecilic upstart editors of the W:BP under their jackboots. When form without substance trumps substance in a form not deemed acceptable, then you can take a fight just up to a point. This is not a fight that I feel we can win. If the Wiki Bird Project is destined to wither up and die, then it is unfortunate in my view, but there seems to be nothing that any of us can do to avoid it. Steve Pryor (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would, however, be somewhat pointy. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that. But I think a better way to go is to start thinking about WP+ (Wikipedia Plus). Wikipedia is bogged down by its governance system that has an enforcement system for bad behavior, but not for content. Articles based on large amounts of literature are easily highjacked by edit warriors that can satisfy WP:RS and WP:V by swiping up a few fringe articles published that are within the policies. My idea for WP+ is the following. WP+ should be a shell application aimed at providing a simple mechanism for experts to flag articles, sections, paragraphs or sentences that are correct. If a reader comes by, the last rated version is presented with approved data in green borders, faulty information in red borders and yellow borders for unrated material. Because WP+ does not generate their own material, everything available at WP is also immediately available at WP+ and everything unrated is served as unrated. Each rated page should also indicate whether sections, paragraphs or sentences have been changed since the last version. If someone comes to WP+ and finds and error, they can click edit and that would bring them to the appropriate WP page for editing, fix it t be WP+ correct, and leave the page alone. if that version is the best according to WP+ rules, any changes made by WP gnomes won't affect it and there is no need to keep the proper information active at WP. I think WP and WP+ can live happily next to each other and the result is a far better system for reliable info than what we have now. All it needs is a few handy PHP programmers and a few people who are wiling to set up the initial governance system including NPOV, RS, V and the rating mechanism. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm summoned back here to comment first (BTW, it's pretty lame to attack me by name and question my motives without notifying me of the conversation; you all have e-mail and if you want just dish, you can do so privately), I'll only say a few things here, for you all to mull over.
  1. I don't appreciate being lambasted for being honest. I think your capitalization convention here is ultimately doomed, because it is too weird and ungrammatical to too many people (basically, everyone but birders and ornithologists, and a few "typographical allies" in lepidoptery or something). It's a specialist practice by specialist writers for specialist publications for specialist readers, and isn't suited to an encyclopedia. I don't need to hear your arguments against this viewpoint; I've heard them for years already. You have one view, I and a lot of others have another. I could be run over by a bus tomorrow, and it would still be doomed.
  2. Your project's insular elitism, assertion of effective ownership of bird articles, blatant gaming of the system to tweak one guideline to favor your view so [you think] you can ignore another with impunity, and frequent accusations that everyone who opposes your practice is meddlesome, ignorant, obsessive or [insert 10 other random attack words here], are not helping you. They make you look collectively extremist, entrenched and sneaky.
  3. Just because I don't like your pushing of a specialist typographic convention, which actually has some kind of rationale behind it, does not mean I'm incapable of working for compromise, and I resent the implication that I'm am. I've been bending over backwards trying to do so, but Kimvdlinde has probably completely sabotaged it all at this point. She actually makes me want to take up the torch against your caps practice again (i.e., Kim, it's backfiring). But I'm about as tired of this as Sabine. I just want to firewall your project so others stop emulating it, and in way that makes it clear that MOS is not acting as ArbCom and declaring the controversy ended because a) that's not MOS's role, and b) it would lead to utter chaos, as every other project on the system would demand their own oh-so-special exemptions from every other point in MOS. Given my way, MOS would never mention birds at all, and you'd be doing what you're doing under a pure WP:IAR argument, but it's more important to compromise for the good of the 'pedia than for me to get my way.
  4. I'm the least of your worries. I have a long background in politics as an activist and lobbyist (among many other things, from systems and network admin to anthropologist). I can turn on the revolutionary fervor or the come-to-the-table diplomatics as needs be, like a light switch. There are other opponents of your practice who are more singleminded and reactionary. At least one of them argues far more persuasively than I do, too. One RfC by someone with that person's verbal skills, and it's all over.
  5. I'm tired of being misquoted and misinterpreted. When I say the debate's not over and might go on for another 7 years, that doesn't mean I'm promising to fight you for 7 years, it means I'm observing that the debate isn't over and might go on for another 7 years. Actually, I don't believe the latter, per my previous point.
  6. That you all get so worked up about your pet capitalization scheme in face of over half a decade of opposition looks irrational or worse to a lot of people, and gives the strong impression that your project is far more interested in writing a work for ornithologists than helping write a general-purpose encyclopedia. No one else on the system, in any field, has made any sort of fuss about anything the way you all have about this. You're missing the forest (enyclopedia) for the trees (writing as ornithologists for ornithologists instead of for soccer moms and dairy farmers and web developers).
  7. All this "we're being attacked by obsessive jerks!" angst you feel is precisely how everyone else feels when you tell us we have to capitalize bird names. We outnumber you about 1,000:1 or so. That right there should just end the debate. There are many, many things I disagree with in MOS (sentence case for headings? WTF?), but I woke up one day and realized that my typographical, grammatical and other preferences were less important than consistency, for for reader experience and editorial sanity.
  8. If you'd actually quit Wikipedia over it, you need to re-examine your priorities and perhaps your reasons for participating in this project at all.
  9. Of course everyone knows that sourcing shaky articles is far more important than typographical stuff like this; but it's logically fallacious to suggest that it's not important at all.
  10. I have nothing against any of you personally (including Kim, whom I've had to post to ANI about for false polling, canvassing, disruption and personal attacks; it was the false poll that did it, really). I'm sure you're all nice folks. I'm a real fun guy (there's a mushroom joke in there somewhere), myself. This medium dehumanizes communication to an extent and leads to unnecessarily raised tempers. Good to keep that in mind sometimes.
  11. I actually think you do great work. The birds articles are better, on average, than any other animal articles on the system, and it has nothing to do with capitalization.
  12. No one has characterized WP:BIRDS as "dense and stupid"; the issue is that unless you are an ornithologist or birdwatcher (or a few other things, like a lepidopterist, maybe - they never came to consensus about that), the capitalization practice looks illiterate and childish to the average reader (actually, even to the educated reader like me). Your project collectively engages in a massive amount of WP:IDHT when it comes to arguments against using your ornithology-specialist practice in a non-ornithological-specialist work; you simply recycle the same arguments over and over again, when most of them are not even relevant (since the real question is "should this practice, perfectly legit in specialist works, be used here in this generalist encyclopedia?", and the answer when this comes up for anyone else is always "no", but for you, you argue it's "yes". It's not that you come across as dense, just bullheaded, unreasonable and unable to see past your own interests and habits for the greater good. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of points to respond to here, but I'll start with one. There's no "1000 to 1" or any other such vast majority who think capitalized common names look "stoopid", and we're not writing just for ornithologists. In 1996, the total sale of Peterson field guides was estimated at 18 million (Diane Schmidt, A Guide to Field Guides). On the one hand, some people have more than one. (I have two of their bird guides and one of their wildflower guides, all of which capitalize common names.) On the other hand, birdwatching has been growing rapidly in popularity and is one of the most popular hobbies in the United States [2] and Britain [3]. And more than one person in a household may have looked at their field guide. And probably many birdwatchers these days don't have a Peterson guide at all. And if people aren't interested enough to get a field guide, they may still look at Web sites such as All About Birds and WhatBird (site blocked). Furthermore, some field guides on other subjects (such as The Kaufman Guide to Insects) capitalize, as do Web sites such as BugGuide (see for example this species page), although others don't. So I would estimate that a substantial minority of literate Americans are used to seeing capitalized species names in their sources for authoritative information on species. Presumably these people are overrepresented among people who look at our bird articles.
In general (as you'll have observed), most people don't care about style points. I very rarely hear complaints about it (outside Wikipedia, maybe once). Of those who care about this one, I think it's quite possible that the majority prefer capitalization. I think it's even more likely that the trend will be toward capitalization, not away from it. But in any case, please stop saying that all the soccer moms dislike capitalization.
I realize this is irrelevant to your "firewall" proposal, but you do keep bringing it up.
(I'll copy this to your talk page, since you implied you might not respond here.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Answered there. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty close to overjoyed to report that there's some new suggested compromise wording that both KimvdLinde and I have endorsed, here: WT:Manual of Style#Another compromise text: Mention guidance. It should stick a cork in things like "Domestic Cat" and "Goldfish" while stopping people from de-capitalizing bird articles. Dunno about you, but I'm about ready for a beer and a massage. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be missing something here. Why is it that capitalisation of something is so important? Yes, I agree that capitalisation helps remove confusion - for example, a "blue crane" vs a Blue Crane, where the first simply refers to a crane that is blue and the second refers to a specific bird species. Drakenwolf talk 19:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common Tern

I'm working Common Tern up towards FA. I came across this sentence: When commuting with fish it flies close to the surface in a strong head wind, but 10–30 m above the surface otherwise. It looks plausible, but is unreferenced, and I can't verify it. Can anyone provide an RS reference, or do I take it out? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renewed capitalization discussion at WP:MOS vote

In case it gets lost in the mass of text above, note that the compromise text has not yet established a consensus. There is another vote at WT:Manual of Style#Another compromise text: Mention guidance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slow times?

Is it just me, or are most bird editors kind of absent currently? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summer holidays just ended in Australia - everyone busy attending to sunburn and shark bites. Down in the northern hemisphere they are all shovelling snow... Maias (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

birdwiki.net

In case the caps warriors force lowercase on bird names, I own birdwiki.net, so we could just move there and build a far better bird wiki than ever could be made here..... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unranked taxomonic name with no article

Resolved
 – It's something in the taxobox template code, not something article-specific.

Why does Gaviiformes have "(unranked): Natatores" in its infobox? Is this normal? I'm more into caudate herpetology and felinology, when it comes to animals, than ornithology, so I'm not sure what the taxobox norms are for birds. I don't see what purpose it serves to add some kind of "sub-class" level that isn't agreed upon, unless there were an article about it and it explained what's going on (e.g. some dispute about it being a class or an order or a superorder or whatever, with summaries of the sides of the dispute linking to reliable sources presenting these sides, presumably journal articles). If it is project-normal to add things like this, and I've just missed that fact, I'm curious what the rationale is and where it's explained. If it's just weirdness at that article, I'll bring it up on the talk page there. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you ask Dinoguy2 (talk · contribs) about this; he's the one who changed the article to display these parameters. MeegsC | Talk 02:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just seeing if there was something at the project level about this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing at the project level about this. Some in WP:DINO also have an interest in those parts of this project having to do with cladism and taxonomy. MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Someone said in user talk that the template just does this automatically. Not sure that's true. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where the automatic taxobox gets its data from, but I notice that Dinoguy changed one of the parameters in that taxobox from "display parents=3" to "display parents=2". Perhaps the person you referred to meant that the display is automatic. I guess the next question would be who sets up the information in whatever location this taxobox gets its information from, and what source did they use to create it. MeegsC | Talk 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds right. I don't see a need to pursue it, since that would make it something that is showing up automatically in a bunch of articles, not just this one, so the redlinked clade or whatever it is must not be a big deal, or others would probably have noticed and done something about it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of automatic taxoboxes? Snowman (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, without them, the information about what taxa are subsets of what other taxa is encoded over and over and over again. This duplication of data is problematic because it leads to inconsistencies/errors, takes more time to fill out, and makes it difficult to change something—for example if a family is moved to a different order you only have to make 1 change instead of tens or hundreds. Also it makes it easier to create tools to visualize the tree, but that is obviously a much lesser concern. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalizing the NON-standard common names

Totally ignoring the debate about whether IOC names should be capitalized in WP articles, what's the project's rede on capitalization of non-scientific, vernacular names that are not the standard proposed by IOC or some other major authority (like the AOU)? In reading through the archives on the various bickerings about capitalization, the project's main argument pro-caps has been that IOC publishes an official list of all recognized species and vernacular names for them, including that they should be capitalized (and some have further argued that this makes them proper names, an idea which even members of this project have disagreed with strongly, so let's not even get into that side issue). This IOC reasoning clearly wouldn't apply to misc. "names that are common" vs. "official common names". I'm also aware that many would argue for capitalization uniformly in an ornithological article simply on the basis of intra-article consistency, and even argue for capitalization of the common names of non-bird predator and prey species in the same article on that basis. I'm not asking about that or anyone's opinion on that, but rather about the project's internal capitalization rationales themselves – as I've said publicly at WT:MOS I find the IOC rationale a bit more compelling than "we like to capitalize because the majority of our specialist sources do", and the rationales are clearly separate ones regardless how I feel about them. The IOC rationale is unique to birds, too, from what I can tell; there's no comparable "official" list of salamanders or cats or fungi or jellyfish, much less any that require capitalization. We all know that WP:BIRDS feels very, very strongly about the IOC rationale, but it's not clear how strongly the project feels about the looser "our sources" rationale. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the project's capitalization rules suggest that all bird names be capitalized in the same way as official IOC names are — i.e. title case. That's certainly how I've interpreted things. MeegsC | Talk 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There have been several "official" lists before the IOC. Some still exist. The Asian list was "controlled" by the Oriental Bird Club, while North and South America had their own organizations. All of them follow(ed) some form of capitalization, regardless. Shyamal (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I.e. "it's complicated." I suspected that might be the case but was hoping it wasn't. Heh. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I have not observed as yet that there exists among other groups dealing with whichever class of organisms, i.e., not Class Aves, the kind of situation that we have been dealing with for Class Aves. Therefore, with the exception of birds, I think that most of us would not have any great problem following whatever decision might be taken by the editors dealing with style questions in the articles. We would just need to know exactly what they are. Personally, I would not have any particular problem one way or the other, that is, if the general editors decide that all extra-Aves names be not capitalized, then fine. I don't think that it has ever been within the purview of most of the bird project editors that they attempt to establish any naming convention, or the form of the naming convention as far as capitalization for extra-Aves taxa whatever they are.
In reference to the point mentioned by Shyamal - the raison d'etrè of the IOC initiative was precisely the confusion that the existance of "regional lists", however official or officious that each one was wont to portray itself, engendered a confusing multitude of common names being applied for naming just one scientific taxon. It was, and still remains to a lesser extent, a problem that stretches back for hundreds of years. The tenacity with which the bird project editors now defend the initiative is in large part because we have all seen the need for the homologation of the English Common Names of avian taxa. Steve Pryor (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, "non-standard" names shouldn't be capitalised. "Rock Pigeon", caps; "Rock Dove", as a former name, caps, "common pigeon", not capped. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a particular name has never been recognized by an official naming/taxonomic authority, then we should not capitalize it. Examples include "redbird" for Northen Cardinal and "turkey buzzard" for Turkey Vulture. This is one of the reasons the capitalized names exist. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would there be any kind of distinction drawn between certain kinds or levels (national? "big powerful nation" national? multinational continental? non-governmental?) of organizations? I noted the "official or officious" comment above, and I've seen that WP:FISH rejected the evidently more officious than official sudden reversal of the American Fisheries Society to a pro-caps position, and stuck with lower case. Is the AOU "officious"? Who decides? Where's the line drawn? I ask because the proposal at WP:Manual of Style#Another compromise text: Mention guidance (the one KimvdLinde and Sabine's Sunbird endorsed as well as me and Darkfrog24, who drafted it) is stuck on whether to capitalize everything in a birds article or just the bird names. If WP:BIRDS itself only capitalizes the IOC names and not "what people in rural Arkansas called this bird in the 1850s according to some random source", then this is a strong argument in favor of also not capitalizing things like prey and predator non-bird species, and against the "capitalize or lower-case 'em all consistently in same article" position, and the proposal might start to move forward again. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Official names are recognized by official scientific organizations. Most are continent-wide. I'm afraid you'll have to explain "officious" to me. What people in rural Arkansas call a bird is not capitalized unless they use an official name. I think that non-bird species should not be capitalized unless they are capitalized on their own pages. Capitalizing all species names makes no sense to me in instances when there are no official names for them. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Officious", I was quoting Cuckooroller/Steve Pryor, above. Anyway, I think I'm seeing a general-ish agreement that WP:BIRDS wouldn't want to capitalize non-bird common names or even non-official common names of birds (though what "official" really means is perhaps open to interpretation). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was intended to convey the proposition that until the IOC initiative, largely underwritten by an enormous and growing number of national, and regional listing authorities, that the calling this or that regional list "official" or "officious" - my personal interpretation that has always seemed to me to be closer to reality - always begged the question of "official according to whom"? In other words, many have in the past claimed a sort of sovereignty for their particular interpretation both of which common names should be used, what taxa are considered species, or simply subspecies, as well as that which each "authority" decided as to the correct scientific nomenclature for the birds within their direct regional interest. In the case of the IOC, most, not all, but most of the leading regional authorities have been convinced to support the IOC initiative, and thereby ceding much of what they had heretofore considered as being a proprietary interest in being able to name their regional birds in the manner deemed by them as correct and proper. Further, it was not only a problem of regional lists, it was also a problem of authors of regional guidebooks that themselves in many cases distanced their taxonomical interpretations within their guide books from the more, or the most accreditated regional list dealing with the birds subject of their particular guide books. It is obvious that many times authors simply coined their common names as they pleased also to give themselves, by being different from other existing authorities and their common names, greater notoriety!
Michael, in reference to the consideration of lists being continent-wide, well, the sample set of those conditions that I can think of off the top of my head reduces to just one! Australia. Even within the United States there are competing lists. That which distinguishes the IOC initiative is not only does it have a global scope, but also that other world lists, and there are still a bunch (though only two are truly important, the Howard & Moore, and secondarily, the Clements), have always given pre-eminence not to the common names, but rather to the scientific nomenclature, and with the common names being sort of an afterthought that sometimes coincided with others, and sometimes not. The other thing that counterdistinguishes the IOC initiative is that even the regional authorities have finally seen that true common name homologation is desirable, and this to the point that so many have ceded their proprietary viewpoints on the common names of their regional birds. Even the editorial boards of the two most important taxonomy-first world lists, the HM, and the Clements, now work closely with the IOC initiative. This is a first, and it is long overdue. Steve Pryor (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, there is only one official list for the U.S., and indeed, all of North America: the AOU Check-list. To what are you referring? Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael, I had to do a bit of research. The last time that I dealt with any regional list other than for the areas of my major experties (Oriental Avifaunal Zone, and the country list for the Philippines) was decades ago. I was referring to the ABA list and the AOU list. The ABA list, I have learned just now, is now subservient to the AOU checklist, or better they now put out by agreement a common taxonomy. It has not always been so, but it is now. I have not checked out, however, if there is now an agreement by all of the central american countries that they now follow the AOU checklist, but if there is, also that must be an agreement hammered out in the last couple of decades. I have usually dealt with world lists with the exceptions that I specified above. I should also look into the present situation for the Afrotropical Avifaunal Zone. Generally speaking the Robert's List has taken pre-eminence but this also in the last couple of decades, and I don't know if all of the countries of that region now defer to that list (redacted at the Percy Fitzpat of Cape Town). For Africa, there has been competition between the the BOU list, and the Robert's list because the BOU carved out a proprietary interest in the palearctics of Northern Africa. As far as Asia is concerned, I really don't know how many countries adhere to the OBC list, and I would have serious questions at least for China, and Russia (especially far eastern Russia). Other areas that might still have differences to be ironed out might be for some of the countries that either share islands (e.g., Borneo), or have geographical estensions that cross into more than one avifaunal zone (e.g Indonesia). At least Indonesia kept until recently its own list, and maybe it still does. I am not sure who deals with the Papua New Guinea list, maybe the Australians handle it, or maybe even the Brits.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Project US

A bot, Kumi-Taskbot, is adding project US banners to lots of bird articles, none of which, as far as I can see, are endemic to the US. I think I've stopped the bot. I've done so because

  1. it's been adding project banners to family/genus articles where most species do not occur in the US (might as well add it to bird if the peripheral occurence of any member of the group justifies the tag)
  2. also to species articles like White-tipped Dove and American Flamingo where the occurrence is marginal to say the least.
  3. even for species like American Robin, adding the project banner without adding content is just spamming, and is to be discouraged. Otherwise, might as well add the England project banner to American Robin, it's on the British List... as is American Golden Plover... American Bittern...
  4. ... and for species like Peregrine Falcon or Common Tern, we could end up with 100 country project banners
  5. even redirect and disambiguation pages are being tagged
  6. needless to say, there's no assessment of quality or importance

I've reverted the articles that are on my watchlist, but obviously there are others that need removing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Only articles that started with United States, U.S. and American are being tagged as WPUS and even then I went through the list and screened out the majority of obvious false positives. I'll remove all bird articles. Just for info, WPUS does tag some redirects and disambiguous articles and once I tag the articles I will go back through and assess them. Its very difficult to tag and assess at the same time because in many cases I have to look at the main article in order to determine the assessment. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have identified 43 bird related articles that start with American, several of them were already tagged with WPUS and some were part of the Texas - WPUS conversion. Only about 30 from what I can see were part of the tagging of articles starting with american. I will remove those a little later today. Please let me know if you see any other problems with the bot. --Kumioko (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately there was some collateral damage. While the removal of the WPUS tag from the "American" prefixed bird articles was quite appropriate, some categories and articles legitimately tagged had their WPUS tagged AWB'd away; I have restored them. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also removed the tags from several birds as well as some animals and insects, such as, American toad‎, American red squirrel‎, American Red Fox‎, American Emerald, and American Painted Lady‎. I am guessing there are many more. The word American in these cases implies the Americas not the USA. It seems to me this was a poorly conceived project. Dger (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From what I hear, I think that this bot should have been written better. Snowman (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just Fyi the bot didn't remove the WPUS tag from the birds articles I did it manually based on this discussion. The bot works fine it just doesn't know how to tell some projects don't want the WPUS tag. As for being poorly conceived, that might be true, the bot task was open for over 2 months with few comments so the opportunity was there for anyone who had a concern. I am in the process of removing some but of the 11, 000 ish articles the bot tagged I found about 150 it shouldn't have. --Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, hold up hold up a second. You're removing legitimate tags along with the ones that shouldn't be tagged. American Eagle Foundation and American Birding Association, among others (also American Racing Pigeon Union and several others), are legit WP:US subjects - your running along AWB-ing the tags from everything "American"+"Bird" is causing another problem on top of the original over-enthuiastic tagbot. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were 43 articles the 2 projects had in common and yes per the discussion above I removed most of them. Feel free to put them back. Frankly I didn't think tagging articles for a project would be such a contentious issue. Sorry if I seem a little unfriendly but several people in several projects are moaning about how I am doing such a lousy job of tagging and how dare I. Its wearing thin so when someone starts complaining about how I tagged articles I just remove them. It used to be in the old days a project cannot tell another project that they can't tag an article they believe to be in their scope but I guess those days have changed. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What has also changed is that the tags are being added by a mindless bot, not through the conscious decision of a human who has read the content to check for relevance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, in this case, it was the human (but AWB-assisted) removal indiscriminatly that was the problem. I've restored the tags to the appropriate articles. And I fully agree that one project telling another "you're not allowed to tag our article" is rubbish. A legitimate concern about inappropriate tagging is one thing; WP:OWN-ish behavior another. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Jim - Just FYI I manually reviewed about 26000 articles (starting with American) to get to about 11000 that got tagged. Of those I erred on about 100 - 150 depending on how you gage error. Some were obvious and some less so. Either way the error rate there is about .825%. Personally there are quite a few more that I think could or should be tagged as WPUS including Wild Turkey and the various state birds such as American Goldfinch, which my bot tagged and you removed. Especially so since this is the state bird of Washington which is a supported projects of WikiProject United States. But that's just my opinion. This is the exact sort of behavior that drives editors from Wikipedia when one editor or one project attempts to force undo ownership over an article or group of articles. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
State birds should probably be tagged for WPUS, yes. However I do not see "project...[forcing] undo[sic] ownership" here. The majority of bird articles containing the name American do not need to be, and should not be, tagged as within the scope of WPUS. The fact that a few should be doesn't excuse indiscriminate tag-spamming on those that shouldn't be, nor does it call for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater while untagging. I understand some WPs are in fact engaging in WP:OWN behavior (Conneticut for one, from what I've seen?) but that doesn't mean all WPs are out to get you and your little bot, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<--outdent

There are certainly some birds that would be appropriate for various state projects: things like Golden-cheeked Warbler for Texas (the only place in the world where it breeds) and the state birds for the appropriate states, for example. But I think it's more appropriate to tag those with the appropriate state project's banner, not the umbrella WPUS banner. Just out of curiosity, why would you add Wild Turkey? And would you also advocate adding project banners for Canada and Mexico (where it also occurs)? And is WPUS saying that they will begin helping with the expansion of some bird articles? MeegsC | Talk 01:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the state projects have been subsumed into WP:US, it seems. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not most but about half and not subsumed but supported. Many of the projects WPUS is supported were either inactive or on the verge of becoming so. Some were more active but thought that having one banner and a more collaborative structure was better. Knowone has made anyone do anything. In fact when Texas and several related projects were added a couple did not want too and that was completely fine. The goal is to collaborate on improving articles not fighting over turf. --Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I see that your bot has flagged Red-breasted Nuthatch for WPUS with a Texas subproject. This bird is found in virtually every state in the US. Plus every province in Canada. Plus many states in Mexico. Has the bot really tagged these appropriately? MeegsC | Talk 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree not every bird should be in the projects scope and I agree that the state banner should normally be the one to display. Bear in mind the WPUS supports about half the state projects now so removing the WPUS/TX banner for example is counter productive. I may add the US banner first but then come back later and add the state or other project. Its extremely hard to code a bot to know what state project an article should fall into. I have to do each project individually. The reason I would Wild turkey is because it has a National history as potentially being the other possibility to be the national symbol like the bald eagle. On the question of the Red-breasted Nuthatch article. My bot didn't "tag" that article it simply converted an existing TX banner to WPUS/TX so if no one had a problem with the TX banner they shouldn't have a problem with the WPUS/TX banner either IMO. To answer the most significant question yes, the intent is to help expand article relating to the US wether they be birds, mammals, people, buildings, events, etc. I plan to do this primarily through the individual projects but having all the articles in one place, under WPUS and the supported project offers a lot of advantages for doing bot tasks, determining quality content, determining articles that should be merged or deleted, ensuring that if an article is submitted for deletion it is seen by someone, etc. There is a saying, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it". In order to measure it I need to determine what they are. While this is being done and once this is done then we can work on improving content, recruiting people to join the projects, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Witkop Cockatiel

Anyone feels the need to rescue Witkop Cockatiel? It is nominated for deletion and I can find that many sources that it looks like a hoax... Night of the Big Wind talk 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd give it a >98% probability of being a hoax and have G3'd it accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fifty places to go birding before you die

This book was given to me, and I thought it was worth sharing. Who would have thought that 24 of the world's top 50 bird spots would be in the US, with another six handily next door in Central America and the Caribbean? I wouldn't have gone to Australia if I'd known its total of world sites was only two, same as New York. Lucky California has as many sites as the whole of Asia, while Alaska has the same as the whole of Africa. England gets one site, but, bizarrely, the United Kingdom, listed separately, only has South Georgia (tip –this is a long taxi journey from Heathrow). Shyamal should be pleased that India isn't left out, I'll pencil in the Andaman Islands for my next trip. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the Andaman Islands would give several endemics to tick, it is a pity if that book did not consider worthy a location from the eastern Himalayas! Bhutan perhaps? Shyamal (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The book is obviously biased. The red-hot place to go for a while now, among the oriental birders at least, is Eaglesnest (Arunachal Pradesh). I could probably think of about twenty spots from memory just in mainland Asia before I would pick a stateside venue (and my first in the States would probably be somewhere in southern Arizona). The total omission, for example, of the countries of Colombia, Ethiopia, and others, considered unworthy apparently, more or less speaks to the admirable objectivity of the book: http://www.birderslibrary.com/reviews/supplemental/fifty_places-list.htmSteve Pryor (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Bhutan was another of the few Asian sites. The contributors were mainly professional guides, mainly American, often writing about places they took trips to. It's hardly a surprise when Debbie Shearwater picks Monterey Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this one was widely slated (i.e. not recommended) by most of the reviews I read. Many suggested it was a book you were likely to receive for Christmas/Hanukkah/etc. from some well-meaning non-birding relative, as opposed to one you'd chose yourself. Sound familiar Jim?!  :) MeegsC | Talk 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed. A bit like the Christmas book I received from well-meaning North American relatives on feeding garden birds. Funny, I still haven't had any hummers coming to the feeders Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Central Park, New York is quite good; see File:Bird watchers in Central Park - New York -USA-14Apr2009.jpg. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that's tongue in cheek, Snowman. "Quite good" doesn't really explain why Central Park is rated higher than say Kaikoura, Kruger National Park or Sinharaja Forest Reserve Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In case my joke might be misunderstood, I have put a strike out through it. Is Central Park on the list in the book? I would be interested to know what the place in England is. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did assume you weren't serious. NY has Central Park and Jamaica Bay. The English location is Cley. If anywhere in England qualified, I think Cley or Minsmere would be reasonable picks, but Scilly would be my choice. The Cley article is written by Bryan Bland, who lives in, and offers professional guiding in ... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would you rate Bempton Cliffs? I have been to Minsmere several times and to Cley once. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, inadvertently reverted Snowman, reverted myself now. I think that the UK would only be of importance (in European terms) for (a) migration watchpoints (you could add Spurn Point and Fair Isle to those above). (b) major seabird colonies. Bempton isn't as notable in terms of numbers as some of the island colonies in the north, and doesn't have breeding terns or skuas, but it does have the advantages of easy access, the only mainland site for breeding Northern Gannets, and proximity to yet another migration hotspot at Flamborough Head Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should have an NPOV article about the world's best birding sites just kidding.
When I was little, my parents had a coffee-table book, illustrated with paintings, called Birds of Field and Forest. It took me a while to figure out that Ohio was not a good place for such common and familiar birds as the Chaffinch and Song Thrush. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Does going to see the Kabushima gulls count as birding? Either way, I'd love to go there one day. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Common Tern

I'm going to take this to FAC soon, and I've got to the stage where I can't see my own errors. There is masses of information available, so it's been largely a matter of what to leave out. Any comments, improvements or criticisms are welcome. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added notes on their tropical breeding off Sri Lanka. The zone between India and Sri Lanka could be coloured yellow as also some part of the southern Tibetan Plateau to be included in the breeding range for the map. Shyamal (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for new material. I've amended the map, although I'm never convinced what value they have for widespread species like this. Even with my sources, there are differences of what must be millions of square miles in depicted breeding areas, and wintering ranges are almost completely arbitrary. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also thanks to Maias for text tweaks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to Snowman for improving the table, and Cas for rerating Jimfbleak - talk to me?
I was going to suggest going to GA first, but it's come together really well (funny how sometimes they just do and others they just...don't) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas, saw your tweaks. I tend to go straight to FAC with birds now, and via GA for my occasional places-in-Norfolk efforts — although two of those are stalled for reasons I won't even bore you with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Illegitimi non carborundum

Non-collaborative discussion closed
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

Just for info, there is an Arbcom case with a long statement from "uninvolved" SMcCandlish. He is not going to give up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was WP:DGAFing on the caps discussion already, but everything becomes much clearer now with that last link. I didn't know it even existed. The tone, the walls of text, the sheer effort and time poured into it... looks frighteningly like a crusade to me. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is not going to stop till he has his way. He is convinced he is right and he will continue till he has the MoS as he wants it. Talking about ownership. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you think User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names is some kind of "smoking gun" or a "discovery"; I've been frequently posting links to it for two months throughout the entire debate. PS: Calling me a bastard, even in Latin, is personally attacking as well as disappointingly childish. If you have an issue with me, raise it on my talk page. WikiProject pages are for collaboration on article improvement, not bashing individual users. I've pointed this out here before. Your collective repeated misuse of a project page like this for personal, ad hominem vendetta reasons is starting to look habitual. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence is supremely ironic.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that everyone here just step away from this argument. Don't respond — in any way — to any comments, taunts, provocations, etc. posted here or elsewhere. Let's agree to WP:SHUN each other, as it were. It's better for everyone's blood pressure. Nothing any of us say or do appear to be able change the increasingly hostile attitudes being displayed by all involved here. So just step away. MeegsC | Talk 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to comment on that page, it seems a genuine attempt to move things on, unlike this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stresemann's Bushcrow

Does anyone have any reference which explains the meaning of the monotypic genus Zavattariornis ... something-bird, but what? SP-KP (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From James A. Jobling's "The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names" (Christopher Helm, London, 2010 isbn 978-1-4081-2501-4), p.413: "Zavattariornis Prof. Edoardo Zavattari (1883–1972) Italian zoologist and explorer, Director of the Zoological Institute, Rome University 1935–1958; Gr. ornis bird." So it's an honorific. MeegsC | Talk 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) it:Edoardo Zavattari Shyamal (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I've added this information in. Looking at the whole article, I think it's at least a B-class (it was categorised as Start-class, which it's way better than in my opinion). I've decided to be bold, and nominate it as a GA, and we'll see what happens. SP-KP (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Martin

I've added { { cn } } tags to a couple of statements in Rock Martin which are lacking sources. As this is an FA, I thought I'd mention that here, in case anyone wants to find supporting references. SP-KP (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about the genus often being subsumed into Hirundo if obviously true (even the books I own differ on the genus) but since it's been challenged I've removed the statement since it would require a list of books to verify, not worth the effort. The second statement was, I think supported by the source a little further on, so I've repeated that. That claim could also be lost with no great damage if still queried Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Status update

Some activity then - we have two articles at FAC (Common Tern and Noisy Miner), and Stresemann's Bushcrow at GAN, and I have some enthusiasm for giving Jackdaw a shove across the GA line (still quite a few articles to trawl through on the talk page). Once Jackdaw is GA, it might be time to think about a collaboration...funny, we'll have 3 tern FAs and no gulls....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Jackdaw. Before I read this, I was thinking that Tern might be a good collaboration... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gawd, what is it with you and terns.. (clears throat) ...sure! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not gull? I few months ago I dragged it up to a C or low B class from a start, and it's a good article to recieve a concerted push to the big leagues, as well as being an important and well read article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locked Pages V (2nd req)

More locked pages.....These are mostly cosmetic......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC) and adding these:[reply]

......Pvmoutside (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll sort these for you in the next few minutes... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right... all done, I think. Let me know if I've missed/screwed anything up... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that User:Bidgee has now undone several of these moves, with the rationale "per WP:COMMONNAME, IOC has no say (on common names for AU birds) nor is there a consensus on en Wiki that IOC's naming must be used". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=477949077"