Talk:Gray hawk

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Grey hawk)

Untitled[edit]

I have gray hawks around my house they hunt in a pack of four there young hawks . please send me a picture of your hawk and email if this is common for hawks to hunt together. ive been watching these birds foe awhile.

You can get lots of pictures by searching for gray hawk on Google images. Buteos are often seen flying in groups, but usually hunt alone. However, I don't know this species well enough to say whether it does hunt in groups. jimfbleak 05:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split of Gray Hawk[edit]

I recommend splitting off Gray-lined Hawk (B. nitidus) from Gray Hawk (B. plagiatus), per AOU 2012. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for the SACC to issue issue their final rule on the Gray-lined Hawk, and look well on their way to issuing their final rule. I'm OK either way.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split approved by SACC in August. Created article for Grey-lined Hawk today.....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why the non-conforming "Grey" spelling here (as well as (Gray)Grey-lined)? AOU/NACC/SACC all spell it Gray 69.204.187.209 (talk) 22:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bird project uses the IOC World list as its standard for nomenclature, not regional lists. IOC uses Grey, presumably because there are more BE countries in its range than there are AE (and it's a bit marginal in the US anyway). I've fixed the inconsistency too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's surprising. (The "grey" had struck me, too, but I hadn't yet checked IOC. Aside: I'm Australian, so grey is the normal spelling for me, but I was mentally correcting it to "gray" because it is an American species.) Is it because of the English-speaking Caribbean countries? Normally for species in Spanish-speaking South American countries, the en-US usage seems to win out over en-GB. Pelagic (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually, I probably wouldn't have noticed "grey", except I was adding a redirect and misspelt it.). Pelagic (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties 1[edit]

I'm having a few problems with this article as it stands (or rather stood, before I started messing with it).

One type I can address: simple inconsistencies, like B. plagiatus in the lead, but B. nitidis in the taxobox. Or "recently split by the AOU" versus "the American Ornithologist Union does not recognize". That type I can amend, if there are checkable sources.

The third thing is the remnants of some broken referencing system. That deserves a separate section.

Secondly, there is the following paragraph:

The grey hawk was originally Asturina nitida but controversy existed between ornithologists on whether or not this species was closely enough related enough to put it in the Buteo, but chromosomal mapping in 2013 has proved that the grey hawk is within the Buteoninae.[8](de Oliveira ... Chromosome Painting) Researchers such as de Oliveira, Tagliarini, dos Santos, O'Brien, and Ferguson-Smith proposed in 2011 that the gray hawk should be two different species, because of a slight difference in plumage colour and a difference in alarm calls documented in the northern and southern distributional gap in Costa Rica. They suggest that the species is better split into the grey-lined hawk, Buteo nitidus and the grey hawk Buteo plagiatus),[9](Millsap ... Gray Hawk ... is Two Species) but the American Ornithologist Union does not recognize the grey hawk as two different species. So far under the size range criteria this species' population is not vulnerable.

It's saying "de Oliveira ... proposed ... in 2011" but then citing Millsap 2011. Plus, we have "related enough to put it in the Buteo", but "within the Buteoninae". Maybe it will make some more sense if I find and read de Oliveira's paper, but maybe not.

It could be a simple bad cut, but I'm not sure I have the strength to go through tens or hundreds of previous versions to find the original intent.

Pelagic (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grey hawk → Gray hawk – Per WP:TIES. This is a bird found in the southwestern U.S. (and in no other English-speaking country), so it should presumably use the U.S. spelling of "gray" (as do the articles about the gray fox, the eastern gray squirrel, and the gray-banded kingsnake). Please see recent RM discussion at Talk:Gray-banded kingsnake. Please also see several prior comments at Talk:Grey hawk. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Because, yup, it's an american bird, write about it in us english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RETAIN. WP:TIES is only applicable to subjects that have "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". This bird has no strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation; in fact it is spread across many nations and the majority of them are Spanish-speaking. It is not strongly tied to any nation. Also, WP:POINT. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What WP:POINT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.191.33 (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the editor thinks I am generally promoting the use of U.S. English spelling (or trying to disrupt Wikipedia by trolling to create heated arguments about spelling) and am just using the WP:TIES rationale as a pretext. That view is mistaken. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It clearly has strong ties to a particular English, since it only occurs in Central and North America, therefore only varieties of English occurring in its actual range are tied to the bird. The older discussions on this page show British English bias in the sourcing of the name already. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:TIES does not say, "Find any tenuous connection you can to one variety of English or another, and use at as an excuse to flip the spelling to your favorite variety." WP:TIES applies only to a strong connection. This is a wild animal that cares nothing for English spelling, and pretending it belongs to the US ignores the many other countries where it lives. The same error was made on gray-banded kingsnake and that should be reversed. Policy supports keeping spelling if it has been stable for a long time, and the kingsnake is no more a US speaker, a US property, US citizen or US invention than the hawk. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aside from the WP:TIES issue, looking back at the article history, it appears that the article was originally created using U.S. spelling until an editor changed the spelling and moved the article on 27 August 2007 without providing any WP:Edit summary to explain why. A couple of weeks later, the same editor moved Grayish Saltator to Greyish Saltator (another American bird), and although there was some discussion about that on the user's Talk page, it seems to remain at the non-U.S. spelling today. The same editor later moved Gray Catbird to Grey Catbird, but there was an objection to that, so it was rapidly moved back. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't figure out how anyone can think that animals who range widely over a number of countries in South and Central America, none English speaking, and also happen to edge into a small piece of the southern US, meet the WP:TIES criterion of having a "strong" connection to the US. The Saltaor has no strong connection to the US, and neither do any of these other animals.

        Trying to reopen possible spelling variety errors from 8 years ago violates WP:TITLECHANGES: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." Wikipedia explicitly says we should let sleeping dogs lie when it comes to spelling variants because spelling debates are a disruptive waste of time. Please stop. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

        • I was just trying to check out the history of the article since you argued that WP:RETAIN should be considered. I don't really see how it is disruptive to try to understand or discuss what has happened. Regarding species not found in the U.S., I am not an expert on what spelling conventions are generally used for articles about fauna, but I notice a prior remark above saying "Normally for species in Spanish-speaking South American countries, the en-US usage seems to win out over en-GB." It seems that a particular editor made several undiscussed article moves of "gray" to "grey" as noted above (also, I have now seen that the same editor moved Gray Hairstreak (an American butterfly) to Grey Hairstreak on 11 November 2008, and today that article is still there, but is actually using American spelling within the article; and the editor moved Gray-cheeked Thrush to Grey-cheeked Thrush on 11 February 2008). The editor (@Dysmorodrepanis:) did not explain their motivation at the time, but the pattern of moves suggests that the editor may have thought that British spelling should be used for all articles about fauna. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article should use American English, as the bird is indigenous to America. Simple enough. -- Calidum 05:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ENGVAR; I'm pretty sure that our articles on the EU all use British English even though only 2/27 countries (3 if you count Malta!) in the EU are English-speaking. Red Slash 22:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – It is wrong to say that "gray" is the "American spelling". "Grey" is used in American English as well. Indeed, "gray" sometimes appears in British English. Usage has always been mixed. People taking "Greyhound Buses" are not confused by the "e". I'm not convinced that WP:ENGVAR applies. Regardless, the heart of the matter is WP:UCN. If one takes a look at Google Ngrams, one will see that both "grey hawk" and "gray hawk" have dominated at different points in history. The usage has always been mixed. However, it just so happens that "gray hawk" now dominates, and that should be the title of this article. RGloucester — ☎ 04:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact remains that it does appear in American English. It is not a foreign usage in that variety, and hence WP:ENGVAR does not apply. The only thing that matters is what's more common, and "gray" is more common in this particular case. RGloucester — ☎ 15:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it's a spectrum. I would say that "grey" is (relatively) more common than "centre", far more common than "kerb", but less common than "dialogue". Red Slash 22:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:TIES. The bird is indigenous to the US. It is not indigenous to other English-speaking nations. Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Numbers in parenthesis in the Reproduction section[edit]

There are several numbers enclosed in parenthesis in the Reproduction section of the article. These are probably intended as citation references, but I strongly suspect that they have incorrect numbers. It would be helpful if this could be checked and fixed. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Description of the bird's call[edit]

In the Voice section, the article says "The call of the grey hawk consists of long mournful whistles thoooooweeo, hoooooweeo." The cited source (Sibley) is not available online. The use of italics looks very strange – why is there an initial "t" that is not in italics followed by other characters that are in italic font? When I look for descriptions on the web, I seem to find inconsistent and even contradictory information. A page by Cornell University says they make two vocalizations – a three-note whistle and a single-note alarm call. Other sources and the current article seem to refer to a two-syllable sound. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: (EC) no consensus for the new titles, Grey hawk and Tricolored munia, and thus reverting to the stable titles, Gray hawk and Tricoloured munia per WP:RMUM and WP:RMTR. Dekimasuよ! 23:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


– This is a WP:ENGVAR spelling issue, requesting the revert of recent title changes made without RM discussions. The Gray hawk article was moved to Grey hawk ten days ago. That is contrary to the prior RM for this page from three years ago and is also contrary to MOS:TIES by switching to British English spelling for an American bird. Similarly Tricoloured munia was moved to Tricolored munia four days ago, which is contrary to MOS:RETAIN and MOS:TIES, but in the other direction – using American spelling for a bird found only in places that use British spelling. The spelling for Tricoloured munia had previously been stable since the article was a stub in 2007. These were part of a long list of similar moves that the editor justified by referring to the spelling used by an external authority (the IOC). When I reverted the move of Tricoloured munia, my revert was reverted. My suggestion is that while we might generally look to some external authority such as IOC for the taxonomy, Wikipedia's own guidelines of WP:ENGVAR, MOS:TIES, and MOS:RETAIN should apply to the question of local spelling variations. See also the RM for Gray-banded kingsnake and the spellings for Gray fox and Eastern gray squirrel. I don't think it is a good idea to have a special rule about ENGVAR spelling for articles about birds that is different than the ENGVAR spelling guidelines used for everything else on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Loopy30 issued a response to BarrelProof's concerns.....I couldn't have said it better....<ec>@BarrelProof and AlexTheWhovian, the tricolored munia page was created in March 2007 as the tricolored munia (albeit with BrE spelling in the article text), and then moved in Oct 2007 to tricoloured munia where it remained as such until Pvmoutside's recent change to conform with the agreed international (IOC) naming standard. The IOC uses a mix of both BrE and AE spellings, and has been agreed upon within the WP:BIRDS project as the naming standard (and more recently, the taxonomic standard as well) to follow when editing bird species pages. Following its adoption in 2013, it since has resulted in successfully avoiding many, many potential editing disputes over the multiple variations in article title spellings. However, with 11,000+ species and only a few dozen active editors, it can sometimes take a while for the wikignomes to catch up with these alignment changes as pvm did here. As I also agree that WP:RETAIN and WP:TIES are important WP:MOS concepts, if this title re-alignment now needs an RM to justify the move in a site-wide forum, then I support that proposal. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)......Pvmoutside (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject birds has a naming standard to help avoid conflicts and provide a compromise for British/American English so one is not favored/favoured over the other. Other projects do not.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Names are not quite the same thing as spellings. People in different countries tend to spell things a little bit differently, and I don't think someone writing a textbook or encyclopedia for sale in their country would feel the need to spell "colour" the same way it is spelled by some particular international committee just because it is part of a bird name. The relevant discussions I reviewed in Wikiproject birds about using IOC for guidance were focused primarily on the IOC taxonomy, not its spellings. Wikipedia has a method of handling English spelling variations, which is documented in WP:ENGVAR, MOS:TIES, and MOS:RETAIN. Wikipedia does not look to any one external body to govern the spellings in its articles. I don't think we need to treat birds as something different and special. If we wanted to choose a single spelling style and apply it across articles, I might personally suggest using the United Nations spelling guide, but that has not been adopted by Wikipedia, and I don't see a good reason to apply some other particular spelling guide for one class of articles. A few years ago, there was a special rule for different capitalization of species names that depended on whether they were birds and butterflies, but now we don't have that anymore. I don't think we need a special rule for spelling bird species names either. Loopy30's description of what happened with the Tricoloured munia article is correct. The first version and the first non-stub version primarily used British spelling, which was justified at the time by WP:TIES (as mentioned in a move summary) since it only occurs in places that use British spelling, and it remained stable that way since the article was created in 2007 until four days ago when it was moved without an RM to use American spelling. When I reverted the move, the same editor reverted my restoration of the long-stable version. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • support. Mostly because it is found in the United States, and Central America, though affliation. Admittadlly, I personally favor "grey" over "gray", WP:TIES makes sense. Artix Kreiger (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as IOC, IUCN, HBW call it "grey hawk". Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose...WP:TIES does not apply in either case since both birds highlighted are found across multiple countries which may use either spelling style. As Loopy30 points out, the article page for tricolored munia began with the Americanized spelling version of it, but retained the English version in the text. That, I think caused confusion, and the reason why the title page was changed. That change was done by an editor who had a British spelling preference. I'm sure if an editor with an American spelling preference got their first, the text would have been changed. If MOS:RETAIN is the rule used, then tricolored munia should be the choice of the article title since that what was first used when the article was created. In the case of grey hawk, the bird barely reaches the US in southern Texas and southern Arizona. It is mainly found in Mexico and throughout Central America. What does Mexico or any of the Central American countries use as their spelling preference?...Using the IOC for taxonomy and English naming simplifies the process of naming birds across countries....Pvmoutside (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for procedural reasons (WP:RMUM). The onus for using the British spelling should be on those wanting to undo previously noted consensus. Why bother having an RM process if the consensus it establishes can be unilaterally undone without discussion and then supporters of that consensus are required to rehash their arguments to maintain the previous title? —  AjaxSmack  05:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it makes sense to use the American version for the American bird, and this move should be done unless there is a clear consensus not to do it as the most recent move violates the consensus of the previous RM. Lepricavark (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As quoted above and also as follows. WP:TIES does not apply to this subject as it does not have "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". If this rationale was to be used, then this hawk is far more common in Belize (where BE is used) than the US. More importantly, the literature on the subject in the reliable sources uses BE for this bird, and that is why the IOC adopted this particular spelling. Consensus to switch to IOC names (from HBW) as a standard was agreed upon in 2009 for all bird species pages and included in the project guidelines since 2013. Additionally, more recent discussions in 2017 formalized the adoption of a standard taxonomic classification as well (as noted above). Spelling of species names has since moved to conform with this consensus in order to avoid pushing one form of ENGVAR over another. This is not a "special rule" that is in conflict with ENGVAR, but a supporting practice that avoids edit-warring over title changes (the main intent of ENGVAR) and having to re-hash the arguments again over each conflicting page in a piecemeal fashion. Finally, the IOC names committee does take into account local names and spellings as used by regional authorities (NACC, SACC etc) and occasionally adjusts the standard common names by changing to a more appropriate ENGVAR. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 13:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why wasn't this article simply moved back to 'Gray hawk'? Given that the move to 'Grey hawk' on February 2 was made unilaterally in violation of the previous RM, I'll reiterate that this article should be moved back to 'Gray hawk' unless this RM is closed with a clear consensus in favor of 'Grey hawk'. A 'No consensus' result should mean that the article is moved back to 'Gray hawk'. Lepricavark (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this should be an uncontested revert of an obviously controversial move that was made without discussion. After the revert perhaps Loopy30 can start an RM anew as there appears to be an argument that deserves due consideration, but unilateral moves like this simply need to be reverted. --В²C ☎ 23:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Taxonomic error?[edit]

Hello! I have been trying to translate this page to wikipedia in Spanish, but I think that in one part the text is wrong, it is here:

"The genus Buteo is in the sub-family Accipitrinae which is also known as the "true hawks", and Accipitrinae is within the family of Accipitridae." 

the Buteo genus is located in the Buteoninae sub-family (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buteoninae)

not in Accipitrinae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accipitrinae) is that so or am I wrong? --OcéanoProfundo455 (talk) 04:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi OcéanoProfundo455, you’re not wrong!
I also see in the same paragraph that it still says "Falconiformes" rather than "Accipitriformes". That's a danger of including higher taxonomy in species-level articles: when it changes there are too many pages to update.
If you go back to 1998 [1], all except the osprey were in Accipitrinae. But by 2013 when this article was expanded, more subfamilies would have been generally accepted. In Special:Diff/585034361, the author who expanded the article changed the subfamily in the infobox from Buteoninae to Accipitrinae; perhaps they were relying on older information.
So, I’d support changing the subfamily in the main text. Buzzards / buteonine hawks are difficult to describe simply in English, because "buzzard" means something different in USA than the rest of the world. I imagine the distinction is easier in Spanish? (Busardo vs. gavilan?)
– Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:27 Sun 28, AEDT) 01:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry to answer a long time later, I wanted to tell you to modify the main text and add the correct taxonomy, I see that in the taxon file, the subfamily does not appear, but I do not know how to add it. --OcéanoProfundo455 (talk) 02:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gray_hawk&oldid=1202433264"