Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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
Task forces
Domestic pigeon task force talk
edit · changes

Locustella genus common name?[edit]

Our article about the genus Locustella has the title Grass warbler, but the text refers to "grasshopper warblers". I can't find clarification on the web so I'm hoping someone with access to authoritative reference sources can clarify. Thanks.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Kevin Baker's monograph on Eurasian warblers calls them grass warblers, but he also applies that to related genera. However, they aren't all named as grasshopper warblers either, although all species named as such are in this genus. I'd suggest the latter name, or if that's contentious go for Locustella Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Winkler et al 2015 states grassbirds or locustellids (for the complete family Locustellidae) --Melly42 (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bird articles by size not updated[edit]

The list[1] has not been updated since 2010, so I wonder whether some bot has stopped working? If it can't be fixed, the page is effectively useless and outdated. On this note, a "popular pages"[2] site based on article views could be nice instead. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There's a popular page report already, Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages, but it's linked at the bottom of the main page under "See also" with a non-intuitive link title. The size of the report can be increased from the top 500 to top 1000 if desired.
I'll mention a couple other WikiProject based tools and reports. There's Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Bird_articles_by_quality_log with a link buried at the bottom of the assessment page. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Article_alerts is transcluded on the main page, but it can be helpful to have it on your watchlist to be alerted to new alerts. There's a report on bird pages flagged with various cleanup templates here. And here is a tool that finds links needing disambiguation on bird pages. Plantdrew (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, you can get a list of bird articles by size by following this link and clicking the "Do it" button at the bottom of the page. It wouldn't be very hard to turn that into a more up-to-date report (but I don't know how to make that an automated report, and am not volunteering to keep it regularly updated; I'd be willing to do it once if there is interest). Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the popular pages link should be placed in the overview template at the top? Not sure why a see also section way below is needed for a single feature... FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The tool looks cool. Will try soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
If no one objects, I'll place the popular pages link in the box at the top of the page... FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Torresian Crow[edit]

Most of the text in the article on Torresian crow (Corvus orru) that seems to cite the Readers Digest Complete Book of Australian Birds is not presented in that work, at least, not in my copy (1st ed. 2nd rev. 1982). If someone wishes to sort that out, using the same text, I would happy to supply a transcript or scan via email. cygnis insignis 03:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. I think I will get the HANZAB material and overhaul fully sooner rather than later then....another on the to-do list. My recommendation would be to remove or change what is not in original text. Email me if you want. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Cas. I would have just chopped out or tagged the unattributed info, added by an ip I think, but perhaps it is correct. I'll send you a transcript later. cygnis insignis 10:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
It is possible that the information comes from the second edition (1986) edited by Schodde and Tidemann - but HANZAB is a much better source (to which I haven't easy access). Aa77zz (talk) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Mismatched Latin names in bird redirects[edit]

Over at redirects for discussion an editor has come across a number of redirects from Latin names of birds to target articles where the Latin name is slightly (or sometimes significantly) different from the redirect. Normally we would simply delete these, but I'm seeking your opinion as to whether these names are either close enough to warrant a redirect, or perhaps an alternate or archaic name of the species, in which case the redirect would serve a purpose for readers searching under those old names.

Redirect Target Latin name
Buteo tachardus Mountain buzzard Buteo oreophilus
Calandrella conirostris Pink-billed lark Spizocorys conirostris
Calandrella fringillaris Botha's lark Spizocorys fringillaris
Camaroptera stierlingi Stierling's wren-warbler Calamonastes stierlingi
Catharacta longicaudus South polar skua Stercorarius maccormicki
Catharacta parasiticus Parasitic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus
Catharacta pomarinus Pomarine skua Stercorarius pomarinus
Colius indicus Red-faced mousebird Urocolius indicus
Cryptolybia woodwardi Green barbet Stactolaema olivacea
Eupodotis cafra White-bellied bustard Eupodotis senegalensis
Francolinus acricanus Red-billed spurfowl Pternistis adspersus

Thanks for your help. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are junior synonyms and new combinations, so should not be deleted. And such have never been deleted in the past either. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks, I thought it was something like that. No action required, then. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Anas penelope[edit]

It's stated "This species was first described by Linnaeus in his Systema naturae in 1758 under its current scientific name.". Isn't is this contradictory? As long as I know, if the name Anas was replaced for Mareca, then the current is M., not the genus it was first described under. ※ Sobreira ◣◥ (parlez) 13:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The change from Anas to Mareca is recent and only some authorities have made the move. Linnaeus had Anas penelope see here and so did Vol 1 2nd ed of Peters in 1979 here.
HBW alive and H&M4 now have Mareca, the IOC list (and Zoonomen) still have Anas. From the log I can see that HBW alive made the change in Oct 2015 but the page on the family Anatidae still uses Anas penelope.
The important publication appears to be: Peters, J.L.; et al. (2005). "Phylogenetics of wigeons and allies (Anatidae: Anas): the importance of sampling multiple loci and multiple individuals". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 35 (1): 209–224. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2004.12.017.  available here. My preference would be to follow the IOC list unless there are strong reasons not to. Aa77zz (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There are several studies that proposed Mareca as distinct from Anas, e.g.
  • Livezey, B.C. (1991). A phylogenetic analysis and classification of recent dabbling ducks (Tribe Anatini) based on comparative morphology. Auk 108, 471–507. and most current
  • Gonzalez, Düttmann & Wink 2009. Phylogenetic relationships based on two mitochondrial genes and hybridization patterns in Anatidae. J Zool 279(3): 310–318.

--Melly42 (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

There is another article to consider:
Johnson and Sorenson wrote: "If the designation of the genus Anas is to be maintained across most of the major dabbling duck lineages, then the elevation of the genus Mareca for the wigeons is not warranted." Note that as far as I can see, Gonzales et al 2009 don't mention the name Mareca, nor do they discuss splitting Anas. Aa77zz (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Gonzalez et al is password protected and the password is "2009". (downloadable here) There is a philogenetic tree in the paper that shows Anas penelope as sister group of the American Anas species. Remsen state: Livezey (1991) advocated resurrection of genus Mareca for the wigeon + Holarctic Anas strepera and Palearctic A. falcata, representing a return to the classification of Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a). Mareca was merged into Anas following Delacour & Mayr (1945) and Johnsgard (1965). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that Mareca is monophyletic but also suggest that the resurrection of Mareca might make Anas a paraphyletic genus (see also Eo et al. 2009). Peters et al. (2005) found that A. sibilatrix, not Old World A. penelope as in traditional and morphology-based (e.g., Livezey 1991) classifications, is the sister to A. americana. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014), resurrected Mareca based on the data in Gonzalez et al. (2009). http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.htm (see point 14). By the way we had a similar discussion at Anas (Mareca) strepera last year. --Melly42 (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ID help?[edit]

Hornbill-Malaysia.jpg

Hello Wikiproject Bird members, I was wondering if anyone would be able to identify the hornbill species in the picture here? It's in use on an article and I'd like to caption it as something more specific than just "Hornbill". Thanks, CMD (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Those look like oriental pied hornbills -- BamBen2715 (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, from the pictures it does look like that. Appreciated, CMD (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)