Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55→Archive 60

American Kestrel

I found File:Gavião.jpg ‎and File:Gavião 2.jpg in the "unidentied Buteo"(!) cat on commons. Should one of them be used in the article? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow — looks like the second one could get used in the crop article! MeegsC | Talk 14:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice pictures, but I'm not sure where they'd fit. —focus 15:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Auto importance assignment

I'm considering asking the bot makers to have one of their magic programs assign importance levels to those WP:BIRD species articles which don't already have one (roughly 5000 articles). Per group comments in previous discussions on this page, I'd suggest that species articles have |importance=Low and genus articles have |importance=Mid. Anything that isn't a species article, or is a taxon article above genus level would be left unassessed for one of us humans to look at. Anybody think this is a bad idea? MeegsC | Talk 15:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that could make mistakes and it would better to leave them unassigned. I think that it would not make that much difference to add "Low importance" to many articles, because uses might assume that an unassigned article is low importance anyway. I have difficulty in deciding if a species is low or not when I add the first image in an infobox, because of lack of information on a page, so I have been updating the "needs_image=yes" parameter and leaving the importance blank. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there is no problem in assigning these low importance parameters. The taxobox data can be used to determine if it is a species, and all species that are beyond low have been assigned (if not, there is something serious wrong here). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

71.175.228.144 (talk · contribs) | 64.121.4.37 (talk · contribs) | 173.62.133.177 (talk · contribs) | Boajeff (talk · contribs) | Any comments on these external links to the same site. Snowman (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Hu12 has found them and done mass reverting. I do not know if there are any left or not. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why the spam project reverts so blindly. The links are largely to an online edition of a book published by the American University of Armenia, which could be a useful reference for some species. —innotata 15:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I've restored some of the links at Armenian Gull, a reference to the book, and an external link to an article on conservation. —innotata 15:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
There is some documentation at User talk:Boajeff talk page (and all of the other talk pages), which is self-explanatory; although it does not discuss the quality of the external site. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
We have seen between 23 November 2010 and 26 November 2010 a massive multi IP and Account linkspamming blitz.
These accounts and IP's exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting Both their website and to sell their field guides[www.acopiancenter.am/products.asp?cat=10] in clear violation of Wikipedias Sock Puppetry, What Wikipedia is not, Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.[1] see Spam Case. Accounts have been blocked and links have been Blacklisted per Sockpuppet_investigations/Boajeff. Would appear there are plenty of other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available--Hu12 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not know there was a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. When do we report possible problems to that WikiProject? We have been dealing with such problems here, sometimes after considerable discussion. I would agree that it is polite to notify users that a discussion has been started about their edits, as it says on the WP Spam pages, but I did not know what to do with IP numbers, because the users move on. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to think Birds of Armenia is not a reliable source, because it was spammed here. I don't think it should be blacklisted; are there grounds for asking for its removal from the blacklist? —innotata 22:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Urls are not needed to cite books. I understand you were solicited by one of the sockpupets for help. But despite that or the excessesive abuse illustrated above, those links were Not added to attribute or to verify any article content whatsoever nor was any link added to help build our encyclopedia. Case example; despite the hundreds of spammed links over an equally excessive amount of articles, Armenian Gull was spammed attacked twice and both times [2][3] no content was being verified, nor does it appear your act of reinsertion[4] achieved that either. However I see no objection of using the apropriate book attribution where it can be demonstrated as an appropriate source (in Armenian Gull) when there are no other reasonable alternatives available. I.E.;
{{cite book |authors= M.S. Adamian & D. Klem, Jr. |title= ''A Field Guide to Birds of Armenia'' |publisher= [[American University of Armenia]] |year= 1997 |isbn= 0-9657429-1-1}}
  • A Field Guide to Birds of Armenia. American University of Armenia. 1997. ISBN 0-9657429-1-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such, many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site or sell a field guide. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 22:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with referring or linking to an online copy of a book, as this one, which we should believe is genuine. (Indeed it greatly helps readers and editors.) If an organisation puts a book it published online, it is not surprising that it advertises the print version; nobody let the people who added the links know about relevant Wikipedia policy before blocking them. You don't need to act as if I don't know Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, or things like that. —innotata 23:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate WP Spam's help here in removing the external links consistent with the Wiki's guidelines on someone adding dozens of external links to a website they are associated with. I am less clear on the policy of blocking spammed urls. The sock puppetry may suggest some determination. I do not know for certain if a previously spammed external link (url) can be be ever used again in a way that would be considered responsible for other external non-spammed websites. However, I guess that spammed urls are blocked to prevent a determined spammer getting some external links in somewhere. I think that we probably have to accept blocking of spammed urls as a necessary way to protect the wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree: I do not see any reason for its removal from the List, as it is safe to assume it is a reliable source, covering all the birds of the country. The utility of websites as a reference or external link should really trump whether it has been spammed; it simply makes no sense to say that websites should be blocked whenever they are spammed. —innotata 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I have added the book to a new "Further reading" section - the url was not included as suggested by WP Spam above. Snowman (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed the removal of the website from the blacklist at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#acopiancenter.am. —innotata 19:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How had your proposal been recieved? Snowman (talk) 11:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have whitelisted the field guide pages. You should be able to link only those pages on the acopiancenter.am site. Links to any other page will be blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Red-headed Finch

Hey, the above discussion has not got a massive amount of input and is due to close soon. Opinions either way are welcome so that we can have a satisfying consensus. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been promoted to FP. Snowman (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Lifespans

Does anyone know the dates of death of the following artists who worked on illustrations for Anton Reichenow's books

Shyamal (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bruno Geisler (5 October 1857 - 7.October.1945) Gustav Mützel (December 7, 1839 – October 29, 1893) T.G. Meissner (1884-1969) Not sure what you're after here, since you've given the years for two of them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, wonder how I missed those articles ! The dates I had found were just using some Google searches and I am not sure if they were the right persons. Wanted to check if the illustrations would be public domain. Shyamal (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

user:Deomurari has been making mass edits to bird articles (see Special:Contributions/Deomurari) under External Links like, for example, under Tawny Pipit:

The question of bulk links has been raised on User talk:Deomurari and discussion started on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#AVIS-IBIS Links to Wiki Bird Articles. Any thoughts on suitablity of these edits? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Would be best if WP:EL is followed. In many of the cases the WP articles are much more comprehensive than the contents found on the link. Shyamal (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Do we ask WP Spam for an opinion? I have invited the user Deomurari to participate in the discussion here. Snowman (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I see Deomurari (talk · contribs) has started adding more links today including some to substantial articles like Nicobar Pigeon and European Goldfinch, which seems to contradict the discussion at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#AVIS-IBIS_Links_to_Wiki_Bird_Articles. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have left a message at User talk:Hu12, who is a member of WP Spam, for an opinion. I have also lift a message for WP Spam at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Many_external_links_on_bird_pages. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There appears to be a back log of tidy up work to do in identifying the stubs that might benefit from one of these external links and to remove links where he has put two on the same page. Snowman (talk) 12:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

user:Deomurari has spammed over 400 external links in about 250 different bird related articles since december 22.

Accounts
Deomurari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Violates a host of policies:

Arpit Deomurari (Deomurari (talk · contribs)), is an affiliate of that website and staff of the AVIS Team. Clearly his contributions are in violation of Wikipedias Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you for advancing the discussion. It seems to me that user Deomurari has not written many edit summaries in breach of guidelines. Are inadequate edit summaries associated with spamming? Actually, I do not see where the sock puppets are. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hu12, are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater here? Yes, this user has linked many articles (presumably all those that occur in India) to the Avis-Ibis website. But since that website, (which is not a commercial website, by the way, but rather a peer-reviewed repository of bird-related information) in some instances has far more information than the associated Wikipedia articles, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Presumably, editors will be able to use that website to gather reliable sources, when they eventually gets around to writing more complete articles about Indian birds. And in the meantime, general readers will be able to access at least some information! There seems to have been a move to delete every edit he's made, despite some pretty strong arguments in the RfC for their inclusion in some articles; is there a reason you chose to delete them despite an (albeit small) majority of opinion favoring that? If one of our regularly-contributing editors were to reinstate the links for selected articles (i.e. where the only WP article that exists is one created by Polbot from the IUCN website), would those be acceptable? MeegsC | Talk 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Re WP:LINKSTOAVOID: Do these pages have a unique resource that would not be found in a wiki article, if is was at FA? If you are assessing if the external website has more information that the article in its current state, then you may be using the wrong test. I am still learning about spam links. WP Spam members seem know a lot about spam links and collect a lot of relevant information. Snowman (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's really disappointing to see this actions and discussions...Although I'm affiliated to AVIS-IBIS website as a matter of fact it's my 10 years of work on Indian Birds Database...but I did this linking in Wikipedia Indian birds article in Good Faith only...My Future plan was to fetch more information where many articles are STUB or not much information from the links of AVIS-IBIS. thus I first thought to put a link to every Indian Bird Species Page and as and when time permits edit those article for more comprehensive information on the species. If everyone thinks it's spam I would revert all the changes I made to the articles. Being new to Wikipedia I might missed some points like remarks/summaries on edits etc. I had also started discussion on this topic as per the advice of (talk) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Indian_Biodiversity_links
Arpit Deomurari (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please clarify what is acceptable and what is not acceptable as far linking to AVIS by Deomurari is concerned. Deomurari is appears to be a relative newbie in adding content, I don't see why we need to throw lock, stock and barrel at him. Better, we guide his actions into what is acceptable to us. AshLin (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Arpit, I advise you to spend time using content from your site to improve the articles directly, with facts duly rephrased to avoid plagiarism and duly cited for verifiability. That would be the most useful thing to do as of now. Please stop adding links, what ever may be your motivation, because by doing so Wikipedia guidelines which have been quoted above are being violated. This may be in good faith by you but they are violations nonetheless. The adding of information into articles being a laborious task will also show your bonafides. AshLin (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the work that WP Spam have done to protect the wiki. The aim of the wiki is to accumulate all knowledge, and many people with many different talents are needed to achieve this. There are many direct and indirect ways to improve articles — adding referenced text, adding images, copy-editing, checking MoS, removing unnecessary external links, removing vandalism, welcoming new users, and so on, depending on the interests of each user. Any editor who is interested in birds is welcome to look at the WP Bird project, and see if there is anywhere that they can help out. Last months collaboration of the month was the White Stork, a bird found in a wide range across Europe, Africa, and Asia. This months collaboration is the Golden Eagle. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. In this case Arpit Deomurari (Deomurari (talk · contribs)), is an affiliate of that website and staff of the AVIS Team. Additionaly this conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote "avis.indianbiodiversity.org". The contributions to wikipedia under Deomurari, consist entirely of spamming links, which is clearly considered WP:Spam and in apparent violation of Conflict of interest guidelines. Wikipedia is NOT a "link farm" or a "vehicle for promoting a site".
This type of behavior is unacceptable;
  • Persistent spamming
  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
These links have very little to no content, nor do the add any unique data to wikipedia. Perhaps one reason cold be that;
"This website is still being developed"[5]
In addition to the lacking of unique or usable content, there are these concerns... I'll quote;
"Modelled on the concept of "citizen science", it is aspired for ordinary citizens to participate in gathering scientific data and building this free resource on Indian Birds. We welcome you all to get involved in AVIS! You can CONTRIBUTE DATA, IMAGES, or just spread the word."[6]
AVIS website is realy no different than a blog or an open wiki, which makes it a Link normally to be avoided (1,4,10,11,12) thus fails Wikipedias requirements in our External Links policy. As such, it also fails Wikipedia's core content policy of ”Verifiability”. Specificaly "Verifiable Reliable Sources",”Self-published sources (online and paper)” and our Guideline about particular types of sources, ”Reliable sources”.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include links that clearly don't meet inclusion guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A whole bunch of pictures

I'm sure there is some good stuff in Commons:User:Ken_Billington/gallery. Most of the pictures don't appear to be in any articles. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

They seem to have been uploaded very recently. I put his gorgeous Little Stint in the taxobox, daring to hope that I was identifying it correctly as an adult. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks more like he's using Wikipedia as personal storage site contrary to WP:UPNOT. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The relevant policy is on Commons.
Oddly enough, the example in the discussion is photos of birds.
We hold many high quality images of species-identified birds, and there is no realistic educational use for a small, blurry, poorly composed snapshot of an unidentified and unidentifiable bird. Of course, there is always room for another educationally distinct image, for example illustrating some aspect of bird behaviour that we do not currently cover, even if the image is perhaps not of the highest quality.'
There may sometimes be an argument for retaining multiple images that are (from an educational point of view) quite similar, for the sake of variety and availability of choice, but there is no purpose in our hosting many essentially identical poor quality images that have no realistic educational value.'
Ken Billington's best pictures are better than anything we've got for those species. His worst pictures seem to fall in the gray area of being useful only for "variety and availability of choice". None of them look to me like the kind that clearly need to be deleted.
Even if some of his pictures do violate Commons policy, we shouldn't let that stand in the way of using the good ones. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the case is unproven, as many people put there own photographs in a gallery in a subpage, and a lot of authors have a category for their own photographs. I would go as far as saying that User Ken Billington does not have a case to answer. I think that all of the images that I have examined in his gallery are good quality and worthy. Snowman (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I do find it interesting that (though they're identified with a CC-3 license) they all say they're "not in the public domain". Surely, if he's put them onto Wikipedia with that license, they ARE in the public domain! MeegsC | Talk 02:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
CC isn't the public domain. PD means the creator has no rights at all. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
That is how I understand it too. PD is a specific licence, which is different to other licences permissible on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I would rather say that public domain is complete absence of licensing of any kind. AshLin (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out. The wiki article on Public domain shows that you are correct. PD is a definition about an artefact's status, and not a copyright licence. Snowman (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hawfinch

The Hawfinch article states that it is sometimes also known as the "European Grosbeak" - I've never heard this name before. Does anyone have a reliable source for this? In the meantime, I've tagged it with { { c n } } SP-KP (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

First added by this edit on 27 May 2008. It got a cn tag here on 23 June 2008, which was removed by this edit on 16 Dec 2009. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the claim, but left the cite tag since the opening sentence, and the rest of the article, are completely unsourced. Also removed the deprecated image gallery Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wallcreeper

I notice that we have Wallcreeper lumped in to the Sittidae rather than in its own separate family - given that most authors seem to opt for the latter, does anyone have any objection if I split it out? SP-KP (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? Wikispecies still has it in Sittidae.[7] --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 12:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Among the works that treat Wallcreeper as a monotypic family are HBW, BWP, Voous' holarctic list, Beaman's Palearctic list, Svensson's passerines guide, Clements, and Don Roberson's Bird families website. Howard & Moore, Inskipp's Oriental checklist and the IOC world list don't split them. SP-KP (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

As no objections have been raised, I've started to implement this change. I've updated Wallcreeper, Nuthatch and Sittidae. I feel the last two can now be merged and have tagged them accordingly. Nuhatch is an FA, by the way, so this merge should probably be a priority, as FAs shouldn't have cleanup tags. I'd appreciate it if at least one other editor could check what I've done to make sure I haven't made any obvious errors, or lost any important information in making this change. Also, if there are any other articles I need to amend, let me know. SP-KP (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sitta / Category:Nuthatches

On a related note (see comments about Wallcreeper above), I think that these two categories should also now be merged. Any thoughts? SP-KP (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

White Stork

In case you hadn't noticed, a GA review for White Stork has begun at Talk:White Stork/GA1. —focus 22:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting article

about a long-extinct flightless Jamaican ibis with wings that had evolved into distinctly club-like appendages, probably for territorial fights. The BBC website summarized the findings... MeegsC | Talk 03:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

distinctly weird! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Also of notice http://stats.grok.se/en/201101/Red-winged_Blackbird Shyamal (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Why - what am I missing here? This article was not far off GA a few years ago. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that was probably due to the current event of mass deaths Shyamal (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Started page on Jamaican Flightless Ibis. Nice DYK, so jump in!-- Kim van der Linde at venus 10:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
The scientific interest in the unusual bone adaptations might make this a Mid importance article. It is currently rated as Low importance. Any thoughts? Snowman (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
agree. A unique anatomical feature. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Interesting subject. As an aside, the main DOI reference does not work which rather undermines the whole article. One of the cites was given with just an ISBN which I don't think is sufficient for most readers (now fixed). --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 13:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
doi is to new to be in the system. Both were added that way as there is a bot that will do the formatting of the reference for you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Even more of an aside, which bot is that? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 13:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Doi bot, I've just run it, Kim is right, not on yet. I've cleaned up the refs, main source not printed yet, so no volume or pages. Book ref needs pages or removal. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is the bot User:Citation_bot. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the Google books link since there is currently no useful text (Google books links to copyright material often have geographical or access restrictions and are not stable). As it stand, it's just a free advertisement 15:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Nominated at DYK (Template_talk:Did_you_know#Jamaican_Flightless_Ibis) with the following people who contributed (correct if I did something wrong: Created by KimvdLinde (talk), Jimfbleak (talk), Maias (talk), Chuunen Baka (talk), Snowmanradio (talk), MeegsC (talk).-- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
cool! well done all :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Cleaned up refs again, recent addition of Gould book needs pages Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The article probably needs to say when the species was living and when it went extinct. I recall the bird was in the British news a few days ago and it said that it lived about 10,000 years ago. Snowman (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a lot that can be added. I am in the process of obtaining a free image to illustrate the article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus

There is some duplication in the articles about the species Purple Swamphen and the subspecies Pukeko. Any thoughts? Snowman (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The Pukeko is not a subspecies, nor any other taxonomic entity. It is the (originally) Maori name for the Purple Swamphen, and has become the common name for the bird in New Zealand. The species has some cultural significance in NZ, hence the article. The NZ birds are of the subspecies P. m. melanotus which also occurs elsewhere. Maias (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
As part of the discussion about merging the article back into Purple Swamphen I thought it was decided to remove biological information not specific to the New Zealand population, and make the article simply about cultural importance of the bird. I see this hasn't been done. The whole thing should be merged back into Purple Swamphen, it's just a nationalistic fork at present with no significance that couldn't be incorporated into the main article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This merge issue is more complicated than I first thought. There is a long discussion about in on the talk page and the consensus is summarized there. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Attention needed at FAR for King Vulture

Hello everyone! A few more reviews at the FAR for King Vulture (review page located at WP:Featured article review/King Vulture/archive1) would be very much appreciated. Most of the work needed has already been completed, we just need a few more sets of comments to make sure the article is back up to FA status. Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (103)

Nope, an immature Black Drongo Shyamal (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. File moved to File:Dicrurus macrocercus -Pune, Maharashtra, India -juvenile-8.jpg and file details amended. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Iris, throat, pale upper median coverts, long bare tarsus and mesial stripe suggests White-eyed Buzzard Shyamal (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
... but it does not have black stripes, which should be visible on the sides on its chin according to an illustration in one of my old books. Would is reddish tail and wings suggest Rufous-winged Buzzard? Snowman (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a Mirafra sp. most likely M. affinis but that ID is based more on gut feelings on the distribution of species in that complex rather than actual features. Shyamal (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Did you see the previous image of the side of the bird in the Flickr photostream? Snowman (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
In this case the problem is that the ground work is poor - just a couple of visits and one study of vocalizations by Alstrom found reason for a reorganization of the taxa. No subsequent careful work has been done but it would seem like M. erythroptera is a drier area bird. The boundary between M. assamica (strict sense) and M. affinis is not clear either. The couple of museums that have collections to examine are staffed by people who, to say the least, are untrained for research. Shyamal (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I will probably upload it as a Mirafra sp and not with a species identification. Snowman (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
White-lined Tanager, male and female Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Tachyphonus rufus -Asa Wright Nature Centre, Northern Range, Trinidad, Trinidad and Tobago -pair-8a.jpg and cropped version shown in infobox on species page on en wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It seems quite good for White-browed Wagtail (=Large Pied Wagtail) Shyamal (talk) 16:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. File moved to File:Motacilla maderaspatensis -Pashan Lake, Pune, Maharashtra, India-8.jpg on commons, and shown on wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Can't confirm—all the saltators in Venezuela should have white eyebrows or eyestripes and gray or grayish heads, according to Hilty, Birds of Venezuela. Grayish should be much grayer throughout. I hope someone who knows more (or has better color vision) will comment. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Can't confirm, claimed ssp has grey upperparts - it looks like a saltator though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I have changed file details to say that it is an unidentified bird. Awaiting identification. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Second thoughts. Everything, including the wire, seems to have a yellow cast. The shape of the bird, and its short supercilium are OK for Saltator coerulescens brewsteri, it's the colours that are wrong. Is it possible that evening light or some artefact has given the photo an excessively yellow tint? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
To me the sky looks blue enough. There is white on some of the feather shafts. Only the underside of the cable looks green/yellow where perhaps algae have grown in the shade. Is there any information on the juveniles? Snowman (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Standard juvenile Saltator coerulescens. • Rabo³ • 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I used the same book as Jerry, which doesn't show juv plumage, I'm happy with the id now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Cropped version of juvenile Greyish Saltator shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. What Rabo3 said. Juvenile Grayish Saltators have an overall yellow cast that is most evident in the eyebrow. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Accipiter striatus venator, Puerto Rican Sharp-Shinned hawk

File:Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned hawk perched on tree limb.jpg : FYI...

Just Created the article today. Needs further improvement. Please feel free to clean-up! QuAzGaA 20:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the article to the correct title, Puerto Rican Sharp-shinned Hawk and made these tweaks to fix typos, MoS etc. The lead doesn't fully summarise the text, and the text doesn't have a status section. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Outdated

Can someone figure out what is wrong at Maui Nui 'Akialoa which is tagged as outdated? Is the taxon invalid now ? Shyamal (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I can only assume that User:Nicolás10 was referring to the genus being renamed Hemignathus. Also the cite links are broken. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 09:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
For what it's worth, neither IOC nor AOU recognize this species. Or this genus for that matter. http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-finches.html Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
The scientific name is fine and up-to-date according to H. D. Pratt; it is the same that traditionally has been known as Hemignathus obscurus lanaiensis or H. ellisianus lanaiensis. Several significant taxonomic changes among Hawaiian honeycreeper genera and species have been proposed within the last few years. Many of these were mentioned in the Hawaiian honeycreeper chapter by Pratt in the latest volume of Handbook of the Birds of the World. I wouldn't rely on AOU and IOC for these, as I suspect they spend relatively little time dealing with long-extinct taxa. However, keep in mind that many Hawaiian honeycreeper articles on wiki –especially articles dealing with extinct taxa– need a serious review. There has been one user (or more; based on manner of writing/editing I suspect same user under different names) that added much info to many Hawaiian honeycreeper articles, including taxonomic changes. Some was good, some was questionable, and some was completely made up (including English names that I have been unable to find any support of). The worst account made claims that were so obvious false that they couldn't be missed, incl. starting pages for non-existing species. I looked through some articles where I removed a bunch of info and added citation needed tags, but in some cases I evidently didn't delete enough (e.g., [8] followed by [9], and [10] followed by [11]). The widespread problems among Hawaiian honeycreeper articles have been raised a few times here on the talk of WikiProject Birds, but I think I was the only one that systematically tried to clean them. I ended up abandoning that, as I lacked the time, interest, and detailed knowledge about this group. To sum it up: If you find questionable info in a Hawaiian honeycreeper article, it may well be false. • Rabo³ • 07:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Avifauna

Some edits have taken place recently which have altered what we have on this subject. We used to have just one page:

Avifauna

Now we have Avifauna as a redirect to Bird and a standalone, cut-down Avifauna (disambiguation).

The new arrangment seems like an odd hybrid - we have a disambiguation page when we don't need one. If we believe there is only one meaning of the term, shouldn't we do away with the disambiguation page and just have the redirect? Alternatively, if (as things stood between July 2005 and December 2010), there are multiple meanings, then the previous arrangement would seem to fit better.

Are there any opinions on which is better, or whether there's a third arrangement which is an improvement on both?

SP-KP (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the entirely inappropriate disambiguation page. Disamb shouldn't be used unless there are three or more relevant articles, in this case there is only one, since the zoo article doesn't exist. Even if it did, the bird meaning is so obviously the major one that it should not be disambiguated — it's like moving Paris to Paris (disambiguation) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; that at least makes things consistent as they currently stand. Let's revisit the subject if & when I've created the article regional avifauna (in the sense used in List of country and regional avifaunas). SP-KP (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a stub on Vogelpark Avifauna including interwikis to and from Commons. There is need for the dab page, which I have re-created. There is a page British avifauna - is this better at Birds of Britain. Snowman (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I have treated "Avifauna (disambiguation)" the same as Aves (disambiguation). Snowman (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint Croix Macaw at WP:GAR

Currently, Saint Croix Macaw is on Good article reassessment here. I nominated it for GA but was failed ultra fast on an misinterpretation of the criteria, which I am contesting now. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

And now is a good article. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Emu & cassowaries

We have Emu and Cassowaries classified in the same family. However, all of the authoritative sources I've checked split them into separate families - HBW, Clements, IOC, H&M, Don Roberson. Any objections if I implement this split? SP-KP (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Not from me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Nor me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Nor me either. Go for it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate info in Harris' hawk entry

In the article, it states (and cites) that the Harris' hawk does not migrate. It should be noted, however, that per the USFWS, it is listed as a protected species in the International Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/RegulationsPolicies/mbta/mbtandx.html#h

- Azbirdgirl (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)azbirdgirl

List of birdwatchers

The cites in list of birdwatchers are a mess. Does anyone know any reliable sources for this info? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the deadlinks, self-published refs etc (i.e. most of the entries) and marked them with { { c n } }. There are reliable sources out there for some of these, certainly, but i'm not sufficiently interested in the subject to go hunting for them. This page needs a lot of work - for a start the intro to the article is really just the intro to the first section. The other issue of course is that the numbers change quite frequently so there's not much hope of keeping this content current. SP-KP (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

There's a new cleanup listing tool, which replaces (though in a very different format) the defunct wolterbot report. It lists all of the WP:BIRD project articles which have been tagged as needing cleanup, with details of all tags. Currently, we have nearly 1800 articles on the list, some of them with multiple tags. The listing lives here. All hands on deck! MeegsC | Talk 19:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New navbox on cranes

Template:Gruidae on cranes for comments prior to roll out. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we put non-breaking spaces between the genus and species names? Right now, on my screen, the G. of the Black-necked Crane's scientific name is "orphaned" on one line, and the nigricollis is on the next. Otherwise, it looks great! MeegsC | Talk 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Template used to prevent awkward line wrapping. Does the Black-necked Crane need the two other alternative common names, Manchurian Crane or Japanese Crane? Snowman (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks good to me. And I'd suggest no to the alternate names (keep it clean and simple). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems good enough to roll out. Amendments can still be made. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I like it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Skimmer

I happened to come across this one; aren't the skimmers supposed to be under Laridae (rather than Lari) or is there some disagreement? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the treatment here is per http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/35 Shyamal (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ninja'd by Shyamal! Some treatments have gulls, terns, skuas and skimmers all under Laridae, some have them as four separate families. We follow the latter convention. I'm given to understand this is supported by modern research. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Or not if the IOC taxonomy is to be trusted. Certainly something to investigate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

New navbox on storks

Template:Storks is rolled out. Any comments? There is at least one page on extinct storks on the wiki, which I did not know where to place in the navigation template. Snowman (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ibises and spoonbills

The taxobox on the Threskiornithidae (Ibises and spoonbills) page says that are Pelecaniformes, but these are not listed in the Pelecaniformes page. Both pages can not be right. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AOU only recently (July 2010) moved them (along with the herons) to Pelecaniformes. IOC also follows this treatment: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-ibises.html This reshuffling also creates two new orders: Phaethontiformes (tropicbirds) and Suliformes (gannets and boobies, cormorants, frigatebirds, and anhingas). All were previously treated as families of Pelecaniformes. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Has this been received well enough for the wiki to follow this? The Template:Pelecaniformes and many pages may need updating. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The evidence of that arrangement of Pelecaniformes has been stacking up for some time, and the reason we hadn't rearranged it thus far was (a) some doubt over waht goes where and (b) some conservative lists sticking to it for the time being. Also Christidis and Boles used Phalacrocoraciformes rather than Suliformes but it sounds like the latter is gaining in usage (shorter too :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This wiki appears to be inconsistent with the application of any strategy. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean algorithm? Yes, it is hard, but the wiki can only reflect published consensus not predict it (sigh). Hence many intuitive classifications have to wait until there is some mutual moving forward by bird listing authorities. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Silver-backed Butcherbird

The taxobox for the Silver-backed Butcherbird uses a binomial as if it was a species and the text says it is a subspecies. Comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a cite for synonym. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

A small collaborative project to improve bird articles

Ela Foundation and Abasaheb Garware College of Arts and Sciences in Pune, Maharashtra, India run an extra-mural course in Ornithology each year. This year the 7th Course is progressing which I am attending. As part of the Tenth Wikipedia celebrations, the course organisers have decided to improve three articles on birds found in India as a symbolic gesture. The articles are :

The articles will be developed during the period 03 January to 15 January 2011. The articles will be developed in the project namespace and uploaded during the Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Celebrations in Pune on 15 Jan 2011. The project details are available here.

AshLin (talk) 05:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, glad some more folks are improving bird articles...but why not do it in project space from the get-go, as this is part of what editing the 'pedia is all about (?) I am sure we'll be glad to help out to buff towards GA or FA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There is to be a symbolic upload just this once at a function for W10 on 15 Jan 2011 at Wikipedia:Meetup/Pune/W10_Pune. The project pages where the drafts of these articles will be improved are :
AshLin (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This sort of fork in the editing of whole pages is unusual, and most probably not in line with the guidelines. It is quite difficult to preserve an edit history of both forks. If the edit history is not preserved for pages the Creative Commons licence is in jeopardy. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Just do a history merge once they are completed, problem solved. Just let us know, and one of the admins will do it. No big deal. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree that it constitutes a fork or is unusual. I have worked on articles in my userspace and moved them back in. Although I agree that a history merge would be appropriate if more than one person worked on the article in the userspace. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
All three pages the project listed here have already been edited by more that one person. History merge (what ever that is) is not available to most users. Snowman (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Everybody who can delete pages can do a history merge. One of the things you learn in 'Admin Class™' In short, move new page over old page while deleting old page, Restore deleted versions. Done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know that simple process only applies, if only one of the pages has been edited, while a fork existed. It is quite possible that the actual wiki article and the simulations in the sub-pages here could both be edited. I have not done a history merge, but I understand it is a lot more complicated when both forks have been edited during the time with the articles were forked; (see Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves and see File:Page history merge Complex.PNG). There are quite a lot of guidelines on subpages and I find it difficult to read and understand quickly, so I have invited User:Anthony Appleyard, who does a lot of page history merges, to advance this discussion. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, effectively we will have to replicate each of the edits afresh on the main page rather than copy paste the entire article. We will not attempt a page merger. AshLin (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Why exactly is the entire edit history of an external contribution needed ? Lots of editors like to work on a sandbox copy and they copy the final version in one edit to the original location - in what way does this "jeopardise" anything ? Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It would be a nice thing for the course participants to work on the main article itself, because it means they also learn how to collaborate with editors on Wikipedia. Shyamal (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Indian Myna article, reference is made to it being an urban pest and specifically to studies in Canberra, Australia. In fact, there is a (non-profit commmunity) group within Canberra whose sole purpose is to mitigate this pest bird and amongst other things, it has much information about how to do so. It would seem to be quite reasonable to include this group as an external link. Its URL is http://www.indianmynaaction.org.au/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.46.43 (talk) 07:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Maximilian Kashmirus

Does anyone want to confirm that this new article about a Roman (and Indian) ornithologist is a hoax? Maias (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Ucucha 01:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Image of an unusual variant of a fairly common Australian bird.

The well-respected "Field Guide to the Birds of Australia" by Simpson and Day, 7th edition, (how's that for a referenced source?) on p142, describing the Australian King Parrot says, and I quote: "Yellow spotted feathers on some birds are areas lacking melanin". Not only are such birds fairly rare, unless you are prepared for this, they can be so startlingly different from normal King Parrots that they may even be difficult to identify. I have a moderately good quality image of such a bird to which I have title (err, the image, not the bird) and I am happy to donate it to Wikipedia and/or Wikiproject. Would this be a contribution of value? 121.217.46.43 (talk) 07:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Old_wombat

If you're willing to donate it under a free license (the GNU or Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0 (or make it public domain, for that matter)), then it would absolutely be a contribution of value! - The Bushranger One ping only 07:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In that case the best place to upload it is Wikimedia Commons (click here). This is the media repository for all the Wikimedia projects, including the Wikipedias in many languages.
Commons' policy is to accept all images with educational value. When I take a decent picture, what I do is check what's already at Commons with that subject. If my picture is better than any other that shows that subject, I upload it. For your picture, I typed "Alisterus scapularis" into the search box and looked at all the images. I saw none of a yellow-spotted bird. So your image would have educational value for a Wikipedia article on this species and maybe also illustrate color differences in birds. I totally agree with The Bushranger—this is a valuable contribution.
To upload at Commons, you'll need to make a login as you did here. There's an "upload" tab to click on, and then you follow the instructions. If you need any help, you can get it there, and many of us here will also be glad to help. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Help wanted with WikiEditing

OK, encouraged by the previous response, I have a couple of long questions with hopefully a short answer to each. I have over the years accumulated a number of quality images of birds for which Wikipedia has few or often even no images. Also, often my images cover an interesting point in my field guide, so for each bird in question I want to put in a little bit of text with the image and then make a page reference to that point in my field guide.

Q1. Is this the right place to ask such questions; and if not, where?

Q2. What is the best practice here for multiple articles referring to the same source? Is it: (A) Make somewhere a single "global" entry for my field guide, and then have the various articles refer to it; or (B) Is it necessary to put the details for References/Cited_Texts in every article?

--Old_Wombat (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the "field guide" that you refer to needs to be clarified. Wikipedia bird articles are meant to be encyclopaedic rather than forming merely a field guide (=identification only) entry. I have added a welcome banner on your talk page with link to various core Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Shyamal (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • In answer to Q2: you'll have to put the reference in all articles. However, you can make a template like {{LoM2}} to standardize and simplify the citations. Ucucha 15:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
To take it in more steps, the top priority is to add good information with good references. (I'm glad you want to make the text and pictures work together, which not everybody on the 'pedia thinks about.) Instead of retyping the reference to your field guide every time, you can copy it from the first article you add it to and paste it where you need it, just changing the page number. Or you can put the reference on your user page and do the same.
The next thing is to make your reference look like the others in the article, so other people don't have to do that. This will often involve putting it between <ref> and </ref> tags. Many formats for references are allowed, so as you get more comfortable with wiki editing, you'll be able to use the various formats. This article and this one provide guidance.
Many articles use the citation templates for references, so at some point you'll want to learn how to use them. That's in the second article I cited above.
Once you know that, you may decide that the best way to add references to your field guide is to make a template like the one Ucucha mentioned (which I'd never thought about). If you edit the page he linked to, you'll see what the template looks like. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
In Wikipedia species articles the bird descriptions and key identifying features could go in the "Description" subheading without the need for a new "Field notes" subheading. Occasionally, a new "Identification" subheading might be needed to add a new section to the species article for a lot of new text on the topic. Upload photographs that are your own work (you will be able to upload these with a creative commons copyright licence) to Commons giving them an adequate descriptive file name with the file extension in the lower case (ie jpg) as recommended in the guidelines. Often photographs are archived on Commons without being displayed on the wiki; nevertheless, they can be easily viewed by clicking on the signposts to Commons at the bottom of wiki species pages. You can show us some of your uploaded photographs and I expect several editors will be able to help you with wiki editing step by step. Snowman (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
As I read it, Old Wombat isn't proposing a "field guide" section for articles. He or she is planning to improve articles with information from Simpson and Day's field guide. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this a famous bird guide that can have its own wiki article? If so, the title can then be wikiliked in the cite template that goes on every cited piece of information added. Snowman (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Emu for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, we'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (104)

Confirmed, only because the female Orchard Oriole, which I'd have a great deal of trouble telling from this bird, shouldn't occur in California in summer. Juvenile age agrees with relatively short tail and buffy wingbars. Subspecies californicus by range. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Not an Orchard Oriole because of the orange tones. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's helpful. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Nothocrax. • Rabo³ • 02:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Nocturnal Curassow shown in infobox. File now at File:Nothocrax urumutum -head -zoo-8a.jpg. First image of its species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Black Hornbill; I would suggest a juvenile male (since it does not have a well-developed casque, the bill/casque colouration seems intermediate between male and female, and it has the white stripe over the eye from crown to nape which is supposedly a (minority) male characteristic). Maias (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Just checked illustrations in Susan Myers' Birds of Borneo. White stripe over crown-nape confirming male. The casque is quite undeveloped - yearling?2 y. Iris brown is a juv. characteristic also. So, I'd say Juv. male Black Hornbill. prashanthns (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
File now at File:Anthracoceros malayanus -Kuala Lumpur Bird Park, Malaysia -head-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Ducula bicolor spilorrhoa. Sometimes split as a species. Gibbs, Barnes & Cox keep it as a ssp, and consider that none of the other suggested Australasian ssp can be reliably and consistently separated from spilorrhoa Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
= Ducula spilorrhoa using wiki taxonomy. Most authorities treat them as separate today. After 2005, the only (as far as I know) major authority that maintains spilorrhoa as a subspecies of D. bicolor is Christidis and Boles 2008, but strong published evidence in favour of either treatment is lacking. • Rabo³ • 07:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Possibly because these are better pictures. Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson just says, "Eyes red," with nothing about intraspecific differences. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Immature Cooper's Hawk. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jerry, I'm a bit suspect on American Accipiters, used in article now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Usually a good clue is that the immature Coop has much less heavily streaked underparts than the other two, looking white at a distance rather than dingy. This bird is one of the least streaked, with no marks on the belly.
I still think this is a Coop, but I'm a bit less confident now than when I posted. For one thing, Coops aren't shown on range maps as even breeding as far north as Quebec City, much less being there in December. For another, the terminal tail band is usually pale on all the North American accipiters, and particularly broad and white on Cooper's. So this is a weird bird.
In view of that, maybe I should give my reasons. In addition to the streaking, this bird has a graduated tail, unlike a Sharp-shinned Hawk. A Northern Goshawk would have a more conspicuously pale supercilium and a tail as wide as its body, and even though this bird's feathers are fluffed out, I think you can tell that its tail is a good bit narrower than its body. But let's see whether anyone disagrees. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Neither sharpie nor Coops should be wintering there, but it doesn't look like a Gos, which we get here. Accipiters can cause problems even here, where we don't have a middle-sized species, with female sparrowhawks sometime confused with male gos. I'd go with Coops, but I'm a Brit! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. MeegsC | Talk 02:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Cropped version shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Confirm juvenile Red-shouldered Hawk, B. l. elegans. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
File details amended without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Saint Croix Macaw

Kim's taken this to FAC. It's never an easy ride (I have the scars to prove it), so any input in terms of copyediting etc would, I'm sure, be helpful. Normally I'd have a run through, but real-life commitments mean that I'm unlikely to even review the page, let alone edit it much. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (105)

I really don't understand why people bother to upload poor photos like this. What use are they to anyone? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The aim of commons is to archive images with educational value. This photograph shows the appearance of the ibis from behind and shows the white bird foraging for food with the ibis. I have also uploaded a companion photograph from the same Flickr photoset, and I think that they are the only photographs on Commons that show these things. Commons has a collection of educational photographs of birds doing different things and photographs of birds viewed from different angles. The question you should ask for Commons photographs is "Does the photograph have educational value?" The wiki and commons uses creative commons photographs that are available for free. Can you find or do you have better photographs to cover what this photograph shows? If you think that is is poor quality then you can tag it for deletion, but I doubt if you would be deleted for the reason that you have given. Comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Dimorphic Egret is now considered as a ssp of Little Egret. The image on the Dimorphic page was a different species altogether, now removed and renamed on commons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
It the white bird a Dimorphic Egret? there is another photograph of it at File:Egret and ibis -Mida Creek mud flats, Kenya-8 (1).jpg, where the white egret seems keen to get any prey disturbed by the ibis. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In the second picture the bill and legs look spot on for Little Egret to me, but I'm no expert on herons, and I have no idea how Dimorphic differs from nominate Little Egret. The Commons cat for Dimorphic is empty too, whether that's because it's unrecognised by us I don't know. the second picture seems to rule out white morph Western Reef Heron, itself sometimes considered to be a ssp of Little Egret It's confusing, and whoever captioned this and this was confused too! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If Flickr user cuckooroller says they're Egretta dimorpha I would not question the id. Isn't it a good IOC species? [12] --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Photographers don't always get the ID right, which is why Snowman checks here. I don't think that I'm questioning the ID by saying that I don't know what Dimorphic should look like, or that garzetta/dimorpha/gularis is taxonomically tricky Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
This will not be the kind of comment you're awaiting.
The pictures could certainly be better, but I think they're both attractive on the screen (the one with the back view of the ibis is a bit comical). I think they have educational value if they illustrate these egrets' purposely foraging near ibises.
Are the egrets in the two pictures the same individual? The one we see from behind seems to have a pale base of the lower mandible and pale legs near the body, which I don't see in the other. Could that just be lighting? That's not how it looks to me.
If flickr user "cuckooroller" identified them, that's Steve Pryor, who's ID-ed birds in our discussions, and I believe him. However, I don't see where he identified them. Am I missing something?
We haven't been following the IOC on lumps and splits, just on names. It would be nice if we had a standard to replace HBW, but we don't seem to. I guess somebody's going to have to look at the evidence or decide what authorities to follow. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point with the two bird theory, Jerry. I noticed the differences too, but assumed it was lighting. The bare part colours of the first bird are more like Western Reef Heron, and the second like Little Egret, but again, I don't know what Dimorphic looks like Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson, Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania, is very ambiguous about this. Gray lores and eye ring are typical of garzetta and unusual in dimorpha (or its lores are always yellow?). Horn color on the lower mandible is typical of garzetta, yellow is typical of (or always seen on?) dimorpha. Dimorpha can but doesn't always have black streaks on the body and wings and yellow on the tarsus, especially low near the feet (which we can't see). Dimorpha is "occasional north to... Mida Creek", which appears to be about the southern end of garzetta's range. Both occur on creeks. Western Reef could occur south to Mida Creek, and I agree that the bare parts of the bird in profile are too black for it. Its bill is bigger in all dimensions than those of the other two. I wish all that helped. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Fine. • Rabo³ • 23:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, immature Grey Butcherbird. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Now described as immature. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hayman says most females look like males, so at first glance it should be a first winter. However, by November, late spring, I would expect most waders to be showing some signs of adult plumage. I've never seen northern Charadrius species in immature plumage in May, which I guess is equivalent to your November. On the full res version I can't see any feathers with dark lines or buff fringes. I would guess that it's a very plain (first summer?) adult female. I've never seen this species, so take this cum grano salis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
White-tailed Hawk. • Rabo³ • 23:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. File moved to File:Buteo albicaudatus -Salvador Zoo, Ondina, Salvador, Bahia, Brasil-8a.jpg and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Am I missing something. It is described as a Green Turaco, which looks OK. What is the suggested alternative?Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Most "Knysna Turacos" on commons, including this one, are really Guinea Turacos. I've requested renames where needed, and changed the photo in the Knysna Turaco article to the only correctly identified on commons. • Rabo³ • 23:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've trimmed the Green Turaco page a bit. In case people wonder, an explanation: 1) Green Turaco was never used as a name for an entire superspecies. The entire superspecies also contains Black-billed and Fischer's (thus, in its entirety, the members of the superspecies are allo- and/or paraspecies associated with evergreen forests). They too were once considered subspecies of T. persa, but to my knowledge there was no English name used for this broadly defined "species" that even Peters rejected in 1940. 2) Even in the more narrowly defined "four species as subspecies" treatment, there were far more subspecies than just four. 3) The name Green Turaco is still used by some authorities (e.g., African Bird Club) for the narrowly defined species that is accepted today. If all this was explained on the page, it would be difficult to justify it as anything but an ordinary article, i.e. with ref's and all. • Rabo³ • 02:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That's about the one possible angle that hides all the fieldmarks to distinguish Eastern from Western! --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I had not realised that the photograph taken at Lotherton Hall had already been uploaded to commons at File:Eastern Grey Plantain-eater.jpg. Apparently Lotherton Hall has one male and two female Western Plantain-eaters. File now at File:Crinifer piscator -Lotherton Hall, England-8a (1).jpg. Here is another photograph from Lotherton Hall - File:Crinifer piscator -Lotherton Hall, England-8a.jpg - is it any better to confirm the identification. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Lady Amherst's Pheasant. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Now at File:Chrysolophus amherstiae -captive -male-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I suspect you're right, but don't have the knowledge needed to identify a hybrid from a pure Lady Amherst's unless we're dealing with an obvious case. However, keep in mind that there are supposed to be very few captive Lady Amherst's without any Golden blood, though in many cases the hybridization happened several generations back (e.g., in the 1960s or 70s) meaning that they are inseparably from pure Lady Amherst's on external appearance. Not that I am suggesting we should rename all the photos we have of Lady Amherst's; as long as their phenotype is pure Lady Amherst's, keep them as that. • Rabo³ • 04:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking that this bird was phenotypically distinguishable, as Beebe's description of Lady Amherst's in Monograph of the Pheasants, which I linked above, starts "Top of head bronze green; long occipital crest dark red". But I was hoping someone who has better sources could confirm that. —JerryFriedman (Talk)
Yes, and as I said earlier, I suspect you're right. The final part of my comment was, as I also said, about "all the photos we have of Lady Amherst's". • Rabo³ • 10:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign names of birds

Re: "The Yellow-eared Parrot (Ognorhynchus icterotis, Aratinga Orejigualda in Spanish), ...". The Spanish name has been added recently. Does the English wiki do translations like this? Snowman (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should have foreign names when
1. English-speaking readers are likely to come across the foreign name
2. or the foreign name goes well with the description, such as a name that imitates a vocalization
3. or the bird has a popular name in a non-English-speaking culture and the article discusses the part it plays in that culture
4. and we're not going to get into a long list of names (including names in a single language—birds with wide ranges in the American tropics often have many Spanish names, and even this bird is also called periquito orejiamarillo, according to the Spanish article)
I don't think we need this one, which is an ornithologists' name that just means "golden-yellow-eared aratinga". Very few English speakers are going to look this up by its Spanish name or want to know it, and if they do want to know it, they can just click on the .es link. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I've been having a similar discussion at Talk:Kagu about the inclusion of the French name for the species in the lead. I don't think we need them in the lead except where the name is commonly used in English as well (as for example many Maori bird names are in new Zealand English), and I agree with jerry on their general inclusion, although I would include an extra circumstance for inclusion, where the etymology of the English name is derived from a foreign one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry; another question is whether such names belong in the lead, and I'd think that in most cases not, if it doesn't have some significance to English speakers. —innotata 01:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the provisos to both of your agreements. :-) On the subject of leads, the MOS says, "Relevant foreign language names, such as in an article on a person who does not herself write her name in English, are encouraged." I see no relevance that the Spanish name chosen here has to English speakers. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Does the edit summary "adding local name" as in this edit hold any water? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Where there is a predominant local language in a species' entire range, maybe it's justified. If the name is interesting or the translation somehow illuminating, all the better. --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 12:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
On the en wiki, if one language in included just because it is a local language, then presumably people will then see justification to include two, three, four, and more languages of names of the bird in its range. I think that the foreign name translation should only be included if there is a reason relevant for English speaking people other than a language translation. A good point mentioned above is where the name given by native people is often used by English speaking people as its main name or as an alternative common name. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are interwiki-links. If you wanna know what a thing is called, click it; I've recently come across a bird (can't recall which one) whose name was given in English, Spanish, Hindi, French, Chinese, and Vietnamese, all on bold. I was tempted to add Navajo to the list... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I have reverted the good faith edit that added a Spanish language translation on the Yellow-eared Parrot article, because it was almost completely irrelevant there. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if this is of any further relevance interest, but I disagree with user Sabine's Sunbird's description of the issue at question on the page Kagu as one of translation. The name of the bird mostly known in English as the "kagu" is spelled "cagou" in French, and that spelling is indeed used often enough in English to merit a redirect page Cagou. This is simply a matter of identifying an alternative spelling. For various books using the spelling cagou for the bird in English at google books see here. μηδείς (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I can primarily comment from a South American perspective, but except for the most iconic species, local birders and alike are more likely to use the scientific or English name than the local Portuguese or Spanish. Another problem is that the local names for many species are highly country (in some cases even region) specific, meaning that just because two South American countries have Spanish as their primary language doesn't mean the birds have the same names. Sure this can also be seen in English, but involving far fewer species and fewer countries. Unless it is a truly iconic species and a local name (non-English/non-scientific) is used regularly, I see no good argument for adding them to articles on English wiki. The Yellow-eared Parrot has become iconic in Colombia and it has a Spanish name that is used regularly, but that is Loro Orejiamarillo (not Aratinga Orejigualda, which is used very rarely). Whether it should be included is something I'll leave for other users to decide. • Rabo³ • 12:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
That is interesting. I might be wrong, as far as I am aware the Spanish name "Loro Orejiamarillo", has not had an impact on the English language, so I think that the Spanish name should not feature in the introduction. However, the bird's status in Colombia and its Spanish name might belong in the "Culture" section of an expanded article. The Spanish name probably would not be out-of-place in the article's current section on conservation. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It certainly seems that way. I look forward to learning more about the species now. As for the kagu - if the argument is that the name is significant in English, have it in English in the lead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Superfamilies

According to the taxobox for pitta, the superfamily Pittoidea was coined by Swainson in 1831 (at the same time he coined the family name). Is that likely? I thought superfamilies were a more modern creation. Does anyone have a site or source for taxonomic entities like superfamilies? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Because of the Principle of Coordination, the authority is the same for family-group names of any rank. Swainson likely coined only one name (which may have mean Pittidae, but also Pittinae or something else entirely). Ucucha 23:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
You live and learn. Thanks! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

White Stork, the collaboration of the month, December 2010

Quite a lot of editors participated and a lot of interesting facts were added to the page during December's collaboration of the month on the White Stork. I may be presumptive, but it seems to me that various writing styles produced a patchwork effect in the article that is needing a lot of laborious copy-editing and double checking: see Talk:White Stork/GA1 for an indication of the scale of the task. A general brainstorming exercise on the "collaborations of the month" might come up with strategies to avoid similar problems recurring in further collaborations. Any suggestions? Snowman (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like an unavoidable result of getting lots of help. The thing to do is have one person give the whole thing a really good once-over prior to nominating it. I'd also suggest that any article will undergo one really big nitpick on its way to FA, regardless of authorship. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
To his credit, the reviewer Thompsma is pretty thorough, and I think we're going through an extensive process of tidying up now. Thompsma's keenness has meant he's raised some issues more germane to bird articles in general. I sort of hoped someone else would tie this one all together but it's been patchwork. I am getting familiar with the article from top to bottm and massaging it now, although my free time has been unexpectedly erratic. I think it works best if this happens with any article - I was actually planning to do this with Golden Eagle but felt there was a more immediate need here. I don't think we need to formalise who does this - this is a bit of an unusual situation (I hope). Anyone else want to take the brunt of Golden Eagle is welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What to other WP projects do? see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-06-28/WikiProject report. Snowman (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Suboscine taxonomy

I borrowed the HBW Volume 8 from the library for a month and spent my long-weekend getting pitta on the road to respectability. While I have the book I thought I'd drag up some of the other suboscines. They aren't stubs (only a few of the recently split Old World warblers are still in our Family Stub sin-bin) but they need some work. Before I can do much I want to see what people think about the taxonomy of the assemblage. There has been some reshuffling recently, some but not all of which is reflected in our pages.

  1. The broadbills, asities, Sapayoa. These should be treated as either one family or four (with the broadbills split into two families). The broadbills as treated currently are paraphyletic.
  2. The antthrushes, antpittas and tapaculos. The data suggests that the antthrushes are closer to the tapaculos than the antpittas. At present what we've done with that information is to lump the tapaculos in with the antpittas and anthrushes in one combined family, with the suggestion that they could be two or three families. The South American Classification Committee and IOC Split the antpittas and antthrushes into two families and retained the tapaculos as their own family (while moving out the crescentchests into their own family and moving a genus into the gnateaters, both of which we have done). I think we should follow these authorities in this instance.
Don't forget Moyle et al. 2009, which doesn't say anything about broadbills, but deals with Furnariida. I already used it in Woodcreeper, Xenops and Ovenbird, but stopped short of "re-splitting" the ovenbirds despite being very tempted. Moyle et al. 2009 largely supports the overall pattern found in earlier studies, but recommends raising more to family level: Furnariidae (ovenbirds), Dendrocolaptidae (woodcreepers), Scleruridae (leaftossers & miners), Melanopareiidae (crescentchest), Conopophagidae (gnateaters + Pittasoma antpittas), Grallariidae (antpittas), Formicariidae (antthrushes) and Rhinocryptidae (tapaculos). Personally, I strongly support this instead of subfamilies due to the extreme behavioral and phenotypic divergence in Formicariidae sensu lato and Furnariidae sensu lato (of note that the option of Dendrocolaptidae and Scleruridae was disgarded earlier by SACC primarily because monophyly of Scleruridae at that time [2004] only was supported by a single data set). The taxonomic backlog on wiki is huge, unfortunately. • Rabo³ • 12:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Bird trapping, hunting, sustenance, commerce, conservation

An old and constant debate but seems like some kind of structure is needed in the Bird trapping article. I changed this article from a country based structure there and perhaps it needs modification from the current form as well since one of the key editors seems to be finding problems. Comments welcome at Talk:Bird_trapping. Shyamal (talk) 05:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Platypus capitalisation

The monotreme project links to your naming guidelines, so you may be interested in this. Contributions welcomed. Cheers! Aaadddaaammm (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't. And it isn't a bird despite the duck bill. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It probably links here just because our naming guidelines are so intelligent and well expressed :-) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Voice/communication

Snowman has raised a concern about putting voice into the species description section on the White Stork's GA talk page. (The precise comment is "It is clearly wrong to have communication in the description section.") If others agree with this comment, then our current FA articles need to be changed, as many (including, for example, Cattle Egret, Common Raven, Superb Fairywren and more) all currently include vocalisations in their Description sections. MeegsC | Talk 03:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

We've discussed this before in FACs. In some instances it works well with description, as a diagnostic tool for identification. Where voice covers a lot of behavioural information (communication) it makes more sense to have it in behaviour. The choice of the two will vary by article and should be at the discretion of whoever is working on the article. I would suggest that the line "it s clearly wrong" is inaccurate. HBW does exactly that in its species accounts, and it does the opposite in the family accounts. So either way can work. I also feel the need to reiterate that there has been considerable resistance to imposing any structure on articles - we have flexible guidelines, not rules set in stone. Just cause we do things one way on White Stork doesn't mean we have to change anything else. Each article should be considered on its own merits. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:22, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree in the flexible usage. It may for instance be ok to mention that the calls sound like some other species in the identification/ description but in behaviour it may be amplified to point out that the vocal mimicry is associated with kleptoparasitims or such like. I think the lack of a call and the existence of mere bill clatter could go into identification but the explanation of semantic contexts such as the clatter with head throw back etc fits in behaviour. Shyamal (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
May I add that my brief edit summary that is being discussed on the White Stalk page is context related to the article and not the general. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration redux

OK Mallard is the new collaboration, and Golden Eagle was a bit of a nonstarter (meh, it happens). Anyway. My free time has evaporated and I am trying to address issues with White Stork. If anyone else wants to chip in that'd be great :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

image for bird taxobox.

Medeis has made a composite image of 18 bird orders for the taxobox. I think its a good solution to what should be in the taxobox, but could use some modifications. Anyone feel like making suggestion at the talk page? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (106)

Confirmed. Somebody with better color vision will have to tell you whether it's "dull dark reddish" with a "red throat [that] contrasts slightly with dusky red underparts" (adult male) or "dark rufous-brown overall, paler below, with contrasting buff to ochraceous-buff throat" (immature or female). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry — and it's a male, as you've probably already figured out! MeegsC | Talk 02:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Shown on species page in infobox. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Must be adult male I think, though I don't have personal experience with the species. Females and immatures don't have the tail streamers to my knowledge. JMK (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Its a male alright. The Sri Lankan populations do not have the white morph in males. Shyamal (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Shown in infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly is. Rename requested. • Rabo³ • 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
File now at File:Tockus deckeni (immature male - Tanzania).jpg. Snowman (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Confirmation from Neil Baker of the Tanzania Bird Atlas, who says: "I can confirm that this is an imm male Von der Deckens." It seems to be the dusky bill tip, rather than yellow, and the slightly spotty wing, rather than all black, that makes it an immature. Zimmerman, Turner & Pearson in Birds of Kenya, mention small spots on wing coverts for immature Von der Decken's, as in the photo, and a black bill, but I suppose this one is nearing maturity. JMK 13:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I wondered why you said form (zoology), which is generally avoided. I have just looked at an old second hand book that refers to Heck's Grass Finch Poephila acuticauda hecki as the red beaked ones, and Long-tailed Grass Finch Poephila acuticauda (it does not say, but I assume it means the nominate) as the yellow/orange beaked ones. Males are females are similar, except the females may be slightly duller and may have smaller bibs. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  • To clarify (or maybe muddify) the situation regarding bill colour. Firstly, the birds are adult Long-tailed Finches Poephila acuticauda. Schodde & Mason (Directory of Aus Birds - Passerines, 1999) say of the nominate subspecies from the Kimberley: “bill mid to deep yellow”, and of P. a. hecki from the Northern Territory: “bill variably mid orange-red to usually coral red southeastwards”. Their map shows a zone of intergradation in the western NT, though not extending quite as far as Darwin. Maias (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the article with brief details mainly about the beak colour that have been corroborated above using my old book as the reference. Perhaps, this could be make into a DYK. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Form" is regularly used in field guides and alike when the author actually means subspecies. Doesn't mean we should take over their bad habit. • Rabo³ • 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • They wouldn't be wild ones, not in NT. In a zoo or aviary maybe? The Black-throat nominate race is hard to separate from the imm long-tail, especially on photos like this, but assuming they are wild, I'll plump for imm Long-tailed Finches.. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Piping Hornbill. First on wiki; added to taxobox. • Rabo³ • 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
File now at File:Bycanistes fistulator -Guinate Tropical Park, Lanzarote, Canary Islands, Spain-8.jpg on commons. Is it possible to say if it is a male, female, or juvenile?—I think it usually is with hornbills. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Both White-tailed and Red-tailed in the Seychelles. Just fledged Red-tailed have a greyish bill with a black tip of variable broadness, while the same age in White-tailed have a largely pale yellowish bill. Not sure this difference is valid for chicks, however. • Rabo³ • 17:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • For me it is a probability based guess, and I might be wrong. He took a photograph of Chauve Souris Island (File:Chauve Souris Island, near Praslin Island, Seychelles-23March2010.jpg) at 03:48 hrs on 23 March 2010 and the photograph of the chick (Flickr caption in French is "Oiseau mignon" - English: Cute bird) at 08:08 hrs on the same day (I am not sure if the camera has a 24 or 12 hr clock). So the bird is probably on Praslin or nearby. The webpage that was linked above says "Red-tailed Tropicbird Phaethon rubricauda: Distribution in Seychelles: breeds on Aride and Aldabra". Aride Island is 10 km north of Praslin Island and it would be a long way to Aldabra. Apparently several operators take tourists on day trips by boat from Praslin to Aride and return. Was the photographer on both Praslin Island and Aride Island on the 23rd? Snowman (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A lot of changes to the dimensions of large birds

See 82.9.75.165 contributions. Snowman (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, it still looks suspicious without change or addition of a cite. Maybe ask them what source they're using? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 19:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
As a (slight) aside, this happens a lot on WP:AIR's pages with regards to aircraft specifications; "number shifts" are a favourite tactic of vandals. Common practice is to good-faith revert and ask for a cite for the revised numbers. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
When the numbers are changed a little it could be difficult to tell if there has been a refinement or deliberate falsification of facts. Without references and without edit summaries, I think that it is appropriate that this batch as already been reverted. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree with reversion for the suspicions voiced by bushranger. I've seen it discussed as a vandalism tactic too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Lovebirds

In Lovebirds (which starts off well then degenerates into a how-to) there is an unsupported claim that "Peach-faced Lovebirds for example, tuck nesting material in their tail feathers". I've never seen reference to birds holding anything other than in bill or claw so is this nonsense? --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange, but true. I have referenced it. The book says "in rump feathers" and does not say tail feathers. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yep. I used to have a female lovebird. She used to do this. This is the first video of a Peach-faced Lovebird displaying this behaviour that I found. There are probably many more on there. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the behaviour actually varies across the genus, for which there is a nice scholarly references somewhere. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Spurfowl" disambiguation pages with links.

Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to the disambiguation page, Spurfowl - 150 links, to be exact. We at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate any help you could give us in fixing these ambiguous links. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

By a mile the majority of those links are from List of birds of XXXXX pages. Given that the term in that context refers to both genera, I'm not sure where the links can be fixed to go to. Perhaps spurfowl needs to be an article rather than a dab page? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
You took the words right off my fingertips. No doubt some can be fixed, though. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, redirect spurfowl to Galloperdix and have a dab at the top saying some Francolin are sometimes called spurfowl too or something like that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! bd2412 T 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I do believe that was an utterly bad choice and I would have appreciated if this was forwarded to me before that was done. After all, I was the person who modified the page just a few days ago. WP:HAT says (a comprable description is in WP:DAB):
When a term has a primary meaning and two or more additional meanings, the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page.
There is not a primary subject here, and as Sabine's Sunbird correctly said in the first post, most (if not all) of those redirects referred to the term in general (not specific to either group). I had looked through them (yes, twice!) and made the changes where needed. What an complete waste of time. At least now I wont have to waste my time and continue the update I had planned for the individual species. Cheers, • Rabo³ • 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The swingometer is pointing to "problem", so perhaps a re-evaluation is needed. I do not understand the taxonomy/nomenclature issues at the present time. I do not want to make errors by editing any of these pages, but I might have a go if someone explained the basics of spurfoul. What about turning the "Spurfoul" redirect into a set index article, which can include more explanation than a DAB, including the inclusive meaning of spurfoul? or is an "Spurfoul" article required? Snowman (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of a reply, I have reverted the good faith edits made by User BD2412, because of the differences of opinion between erudite bird article editors. My assumption is that the discussion was not complete when the edits were made, and I hope that the discussion can be continued and the best navigation solutions agreed. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I have added the WP Birds banner to Talk:Spurfowl to indicate the relevance of this dab page to WP Birds. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate the gesture, but I am seeing zero progress on actually fixing any of the links to the page. Someone who knows which "spurfowl" is being addressed in each article needs to do that, if it is to be done right. bd2412 T 02:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Like I said in the first comment, the majority of the links arguably refer to both possible genera, not one or the other. As such there is no "correct" article to direct the links to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If the "correct" answer is the generic name, then your initial comment is correct - it really should not be a disambig page at all, but should instead be an article on what it is exactly that makes a spurfowl a spurfowl. bd2412 T 17:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Spurfowl is done - great work! bd2412 T 03:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, there is also a fairly large number of links to Flycatcher. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I have added the WP Birds banner to Talk:Flycatcher to indicate the relevance of this dab page to WP Birds. Your work in disambiguating so many links is appreciated; nevertheless, please give us plenty of time to discuss the issues you raise here including plenty of time for erudite editors to participate who may be busy in real life and contribute to the wiki when they can. Snowman (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary

The dictionary definition of Rock Pigeon at Wiktionary | Are bronzewings called rock pigeons in Australia? Snowman (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New SIA

Birds for identification (107)

Sure. Non-breeding example. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
All right, I'm willing to confirm that, though this is one of the world's most polytypic birds and northwestern individuals look pretty different from the southwestern ones I'm used to. It's a member of one of what the BNA on line calls the Alaska and Pacific Northwest subspecies, probably morphnus based on range and appearance. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. Ask me a hard one. No, wait, you already have. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Shown on List of birds of Pennsylvania - one of the few photographs of a bird acutally in Pennsylvania on that list. Snowman (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Maias (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, shown on List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland. Snowman (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Female or immature Reunion Stonechat. Maias (talk) 03:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
PS: The bird above (#1078) looks like an immature of the same species. Maias (talk) 03:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Is your identification certain enough for me to upload them as these species now? —innotata 22:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can see, there is nothing else they could be. Maias (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
PS: Yes. Maias (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks; I've uploaded the images to File:Tec-tec.jpg and File:Tec-tec 2.jpg. —innotata 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

IOC names

Administrator assistance requested to move the following to their IOC names: Snowman (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the article text and infobox with the new names, so the pages just need moving. A bot fixes double redirects (or used to). Snowman (talk) 10:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Perhaps, I should have started a discussion on the São Tomé Olive-pigeon; nevertheless, a discussion has been started below. I can not move the other doves and pigeons, because the pages for the IOC names already contain editing and they need to be deleting prior to page more. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Diacritics for São Tomé Olive Pigeon

Shouldn't the diacritics be kept for the São Tomé Olive Pigeon? The IOC omits diacritics, and says it doesn't mean they shouldn't be used. —innotata 22:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Do we really need them? Personally I loathe them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:47, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
That's quite a large issue, but the article on the island of São Tomé uses them, so I rather think we ought to in this instance. —innotata 23:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the page to São Tomé Olive Pigeon without changing the diacritics. You can still have the discussion about the diacritics. I do not mind either way with this pigeon, and both ways are consistent with IOC names. Snowman (talk) 14:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Emu for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Moves for discussion

These two moves below would move the birds to IOC species names. These are well known birds and the moves might be controversial, so need discussing prior to a page move. Snowman (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Prediction - the shit is going to hit the fan with the second one. Put it through the full Wikipedia:Requested moves process. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with the first. With regard to the second, I just dislike the use of the adjective 'common' in the English names of birds; no bird is common everywhere, and those labelled so are often just common in Europe or North America. Maias (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
We could move it to flying rat, if for no other reason than I bet we could get in the newspapers if we did. :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I reckon the Rock Pigeon is pretty common everywhere...that might be one exception. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Although I dislike the name Common Pigeon, I would support the move for consistency - in order to adhere to a standard list. I do wish the IOC would not keep messing around with it so - though I accept that it is necessary for new species and splits. Maias (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I'll oppose "Common Pigeon" - over here, the A.O.U. just changed it from Rock Dove to Rock Pigeon. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Common Pigeon seems ambiguous, easily confused with Common Wood Pigeon, which are common in some parts of the worlk. In view of several objections above, Rock Pigeon kept. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Steady on, give it some time. Grumbling about it isn't the same as actually voicing an opinion at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Silly comments aside, like Maias, I don't much like it, but accept the need for the move. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. Discussion continues on moving "Rock Pigeon" to "Common Pigeon". There are various views on this one. If a consensus is not formed here as seems likely, then I am not going to be the one to propose the formal move dissuasion request. Of course, if anyone feels that it would succeed, then there is nothing stopping anyone taking it to a formal move discussion. I note the A.O.U. name mentioned above, and perhaps, IOC will follow suite. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, it's the AOU that followed suit. The BOU changed it from "dove" to "pigeon" (probably because so many people call it a pigeon), and the AOU made the same change 12 years later because it follows the BOU for birds that are regular in Britain but occur in North America only as vagrants or from introductions.[14] The BOU has apparently changed it back [15] and so maybe the AOU will too at some point, though there seems to be no proposal pending.[16] —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Turnagridae is no more accepted by the IOC --Melly42 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
While there may be a case for making the change, we don't actually follow the IOC taxonomy in the same way we do the names. Perhaps piopio would be a better place for the article though? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Apart from the IOC assessment accepted names should have priority to disputed names --Melly42 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
For that reason I'd favor either Turnagra or "piopio (bird)". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:FNAME would suggest we use Turnagra instead of Turnagridae as the article title (no opinion on whether the common name would be appropriate). Ucucha 00:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Do you have a decision? --Melly42 (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Bird ID Verification

I have updated photos of hundreds of bird species to Wikimedia and the odds are great that more than a few have been misidentified! Snowmanradio suggested I let WikiProject_Birds know about these photos in hopes that there will be some volunteers to check for ID accuracy. I would greatly appreciate people looking over my shoulder. Thanks. DickDaniels (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled upon these galleries, because two species of parrots were misidentified. Volunteers can see his galleries on his user page and subpages accessible from User:DickDaniels on Commons. Lots of good photographs of ducks and all sorts of birds there. Snowman (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Birds from the Galleries for identification:

It's a bird, it's a plane...

While certainly not within the project's scope, this might be of some mild interest! - The Bushranger One ping only 16:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (108)

White-browed Sparrow-weaver, I believe. Donaldson-Smith's is paler, with wingbars instead of patches, and has a white malar and dark sub-moustachial stripe (if those are the right names), according to Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like a male White-browed Sparrow-weaver to me. Black beak. Snowman (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like that's it, can you confirm? —innotata 01:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
The colour of the beaks of male and female may be more difficult to differentiate than some books suggest. I have not found many images of the female that would clarify this. I would prefer to say an adult male or female. It is not a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Plocepasser mahali Samburu, Kenya.jpg. —innotata 16:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe that's an adult female Golden Palm Weaver, which we don't have a picture of. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this is difficult, because of several species in the genus look similar. What about Orange Weaver due to it having a pale beak?, which is found in Western Kenya and around Lake Victoria. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree about the number of similar species! This bird is in Samburu National Reserve, in the center of the country, far from Lake Victoria. Also, I think the dark upper mandible and dark eyes rule out Orange Weaver. The only other possibility I saw in ZTP with a black and yellow bill was the Taveta Golden Weaver, which is found only around Mount Kilimanjaro, also a long way from Samburu. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have not got enough illustrations in my book of East African birds to be certain. Snowman (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like an adult male Baglafecht Weaver, Ploceus baglafecht reichenowi. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
View as seen in image looks fine for a Speke's Weaver to me. There are several similar species, but range helps to identify. Without locality specifications it is probably impossible to identify from this view without seeing feathers on its back and wings. Iris colour looks wrong for a Baglafecht Weaver to me, unless I have missed something. Snowman (talk) 12:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Hell's Gate National Park is well within the range of the Baglafecht Weaver, and this site lists Speke's Weaver there, so range won't help us. But I think you're right—what I thought was shadowed yellow on the throat is rufous, and I agree about the eye color. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I meant that the location excludes some of the similar-looking South African weavers from the differential. Snowman (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's a Red-legged Honeycreeper, but the black wings and tail make it an immature male. Flocks of this species often "pause to rest on high exposed twigs" (Hilty, Birds of Venezuela). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Hard to say. I was leaning towards juvenile, but when I trawled through images on the web to compare known juveniles and females, I couldn't find any that clearly show the difference in color. What we really need is someone who knows the species well to comment. MeegsC | Talk 16:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
mindanensis, female, based on shape of casque. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, if you are certain please amend the file details on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Donr. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine. I have amended the caption on the wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

On sea eagles and webbed feet

I was looking up information on water birds today, and I discovered that that link is a redirect (along with waterbird). Both redirect to swans and ducks and geese, with a hatnote to also see shorebirds and seabirds? I thought this was a bit strange, as this leaves out vast numbers of other water birds.

Seabirds covers marine birds (though are sea eagles seabirds or not?), but shorebirds redirects to waders (and that article is placed by Wikipedia in the seabird category for some reason), so when I try and find out whether grebes are water birds or not, I run into a brick wall of sorts. Surely the term "water bird" is much wider than just waders, swans, ducks and (sometimes) seabirds? Loads of other birds live on and in and around water, don't they? Kingfishers are neither waders nor seabirds, but they are definitely water birds.

The redirect histories are here: [17], [18]. Waterfowl is a separate article (but a merge is proposed). I also stumbled across the diving bird article and didn't think much of it. But really, I was hoping that a proper waterbird article could be written, much like the excellent seabird one.

I started by looking at the taxonomy at Bird#Modern bird orders: Classification, and from what I can see, those that could be considered water birds are:

  • Anseriformes—waterfowl
  • Gaviiformes - loons
  • Podicipediformes—grebes
  • Pelecaniformes—pelicans and allies
  • Ciconiiformes—storks and allies
  • Phoenicopteriformes—flamingos
  • Gruiformes—cranes and allies
  • Coraciiformes—kingfishers and allies

But I'm still left wondering at how seabird developed into a nice article while water bird got squirreled away as a redirect for many years? Maybe the spectrum from water to land is less well defined inland than on coasts? I did find plenty of hits outside Wikipedia for the term 'waterbird', such as this one from EOL.

I had thought that most birds adapted to an aquatic habitat have some form of webbing on their feet, which makes sense, though the penguin page fails to mention that they have webbed feet. If waterbirds are defined this way, that would deal with the sea eagles (which are raptors), as they don't have webbed feet. But then neither do cranes or kingfishers or sheathbills! Maybe this is more complicated than it looks - something to do with how taxonomy doesn't neatly dovetail with habitat adaptations and how convergent evolution has probably produced webbed feet (and the loss of webbed feet as well) many times over the course of bird evolution?

But getting back to the point of my post here, what do those reading this think? Should water bird be a separate article, or at least a short summary rather than directing to a subset of the web-footed ones, or should the matter of water birds be handled differently? Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Aha, this will be fun to unravel. The EOL page is based on Hackett, which I recall a few other taxonomists having issue with - while I like hte idea of a 'waterbird clade' and a 'waterfowl clade', I am not sure of the consensus on naming and definition. And then there are more general queries like what does the OED say etc. It'd be good to ruminate on this and clarify which authority defines what how. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I found a bit in the penguin article here:

What seems clear is that penguins belong to a clade of Neoaves (living birds except paleognaths and fowl) that comprises what is sometimes called "higher waterbirds" to distinguish them from the more ancient waterfowl. This group contains such birds as storks, rails, and the seabirds, with the possible exception of the Charadriiformes.[28] Inside this group, penguin relationships are far less clear. Depending on the analysis and dataset, a close relationship to Ciconiiformes[20] or to Procellariiformes[18] has been suggested. Some think the penguin-like plotopterids (usually considered relatives of anhingas and cormorants) may actually be a sister group of the penguins, and that penguins may have ultimately shared a common ancestor with the Pelecaniformes and consequently would have to be included in that order, or that the plotopterids were not as close to other pelecaniforms as generally assumed, which would necessitate splitting the traditional Pelecaniformes in three.[29]

But I'm not actually suggesting some really abtruse argument based on clades, but more the OED definition that Casliber suggested. What the layman would want to read when they follow a link from the term "water bird", which is used quite a lot in Wikipedia. Do some searches in article text for "water bird", "waterbird" and "waterfowl" and "water fowl". Carcharoth (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Carch, the other two pages to familiarise yourself with are the Pelecaniformes and Ciconiiformes pages. Both are starting to get a grasp on the additions/subtractions to each group (enough to make your head spin!). I will do some looking and fish out OED a bit later so we can plot out some definitions - as usual one of the frustrating things is when we need to reflect usage which seems illogical :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • The on-line OED gives some examples of old usage of water-bird, but it is not provide a definition. There is no such word as "waterbird" in OED. It would appear that for most practical purposes in English "water-bird" is really two words combined, and that it is not used to mean anything other than the association of a bird with water. This would support turning the page "water bird" into a DAB or a SIA, unless "water-bird" or "water bird" has some special meaning in ornithology. Should there be articles or DABs or SIAs on "Birds of fresh water" and "Birds of brackish water"? Snowman (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that I am with Snowman on this. "Waterbird" is one of those words that has no tight definition ("wading bird" is another), is often used carelessly, and means different things to different people - or in different countries. I think about the best we can do is to have some kind of expanded dab page that explains the various definitions and exposes their ragged edges. To try and give them some kind of taxonomic validity would make them even more confusing for many. Maias (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Further, I think "Waterbird" should be a redirect and tagged as a mis-spelling. Redirected to the dab "Water bird". Snowman (talk) 13:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It's not in most dictionaries, but it's in Merriam-Webster [19], so I don't think we should call it a misspelling. It's also in a lot of very scientific-looking books, including some titles [20]. By the way, at that page you can see a claim that "the waterbird" is the symbol of the Native American Church, something that might go on a dab or sia. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that 'waterbird' is not a mis-spelling. It is actually a fairly common term, albeit used mostly in an ecological/habitat/conservation sense and clearly intended to mean "birds that live on or around water". Good examples are in the articles we have with 'waterbird' in their titles. Waterbird Society, Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, Wallnau Waterbird Reserve, Waterbird Regional Preserve. Also, do a search in Wikipedia articles for "waterbird" and you find 621 articles using that word. If I was a dictionary compiler, I would be making notes for the next edition! What I think Wikipedia needs to do is distinguish between the cladistic sense of the word, and the 'water bird' sense of the word (i.e. birds that live on and around water). Whoever does start to tackle this should pay attention to waterfowl as well, and note that water-fowl and water fowl redirects to the ducks again. I'm happy to help out with the dab page, but I'm not going to get involved with the whole "taxonomy in flux" thing going on within Aves. For that, I'm going to come back in 5 years and see what has emerged from the dust. Finally, to pick up a point that Snowman made, I'd also like to see lists of freshwater birds, saltwater birds, brackish birds and ones that spend time in both salt and freshwater habitats (where do flamingoes in salt lakes go in that sort of thing?), but if that is too vague and difficult to do, fair enough. Carcharoth (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No-one seems to quite know what to do here, but I found an additional old discussion at Talk:Anseriformes. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that waterbird/water bird is a term used to mean more than just ducks and so forth. So I am going to boldly turn the redirect into a sort-of disambiguation page and make a start at fixing the links to go to the right places. Whether water-fowl and water fowl should be changed to redirect to waterfowl, I will leave to another day, though the merge suggestion has been there for over a year (but there seems to have been no discussion of it, which is confusing). Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm back

Just returned from six-week round-the-world trip, won't be doing much editing till RL sorted out. Incredibly lucky, just missed cyclones in Oz, Fiji and NZ North Island, also left NZ day before the quake. Only one really wet day in whole period (even missed the snow in LA!) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hope to see some nice snaps - was too busy to get to Otago Peninsula :((( Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Idea for how we choose collaborations

At the Dinosaur_collaboration a few editors were concerned about whether to work on the February collaboration when it is nearly March (see Talk:Apatosaurus#Comments). This led to musing on the issue of the purpose of cycling through successful collaboration nominations on a monthly basis if some aren't going to see much action. Thus the rules there have changed so that the timing for choosing a new collaboration is now linked to a previous article attaining Good Article status. This strikes me as a very good idea, as it is more directly in line with the aim of producing Good/Featured content. Since reactivating, some articles have received little activity. I have a bunch of stuff to add on Mallard but am a little busy for a while and White Stork has proven to be alot more detailed and interesting than I thought at the outset. This way, articles might cycle through very quickly (I could see some well developed species articles maybe at GA in a week or two) or big articles thoroughly (say, Passerine, Parrot or Wader might take two months, but it would be great to get it right and do it justice). How do folks feel about tweaking the rules here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

  • I think that is worth a trial. I also think that the vote should include a brief line on what the voter could contribute to the writing of the article. Voters could also opt to have there vote counted as a half or a quarter of a vote, if they feel that they would contribute only a little. I think that some people might be reluctant to vote, because they might feel obliged to contribute quite a lot. Some people might vote because an article sounds interesting, but do not want to contribute much. Having the votes weighted towards contributions, is more likely to produce winning articles that turn out to have quite a lot of editing and collaboration. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes - worth a try. Maias (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
What suggestions to you think are worth a try? Snowman (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I think historically folks were always supposed to comment on why, but often we just think, "yeah, that's a good choice". It is a straightforward task to add to the introduction on how to vote. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I am uncertain regarding Snowman's voting scheme. I can see the stated merits but also do not want too much bureacratic process. Another issue is a time limit - after a long period of stagnation it should be time to move on and pick another topic; however, if progress is being made, even quite slowly, we should keep it going. Maias (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
... but if it is not working, then something else might be better. What about writing down likely contributions when voting? Snowman (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
That would be especially valuable if the topic is big and complicated (such as the higher taxonomic level ones that I find a bit daunting) that require a fair amount of expertise from at least one major contributor. Maias (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) my interpretation was not that votes did not count more as such, but that (say) if an editor noted that, say, two other editors declared they had good sources and were prepared to really work on the article then the thrid editor might vote support as well and hence that article was more likely to be nominated (?) Or that editors could ask editors that if an article had support votes, all of which had no comments, then was anyone actually prepared to work on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Knowing what editors intend to contribute to a collaboration is information that is likely to influence the votes of others. I guess that there would be a snowball effect with votes accumulating where there seems to be a conglomeration of anticipated contributions. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Another idea is to have oppose votes. I would oppose passerine coming up again, because it is simply too hard for a colaboration. Again, I think it would not be unreasonable to explain why you oppose an article. I also think it might be worth moving to a bimonthly scehdule. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping to keep it positive and hence restrict to support votes, in that absence of supprt (or supporting something else) is equivalent without being a wet blanket as such. Setting it at bimonthly I find depressing. I'd like to think we can churn them out a bit faster if they unfold that way (hence linking directly to the GA objective). Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think it should only be on positive votes, so that suggestions do not get negative comments avoiding potential disappointments. Snowman (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Crunch time...

Okay, it is now March, so technically we should cycle it over to the new one, or is everyone okay with trialling the above (i.e. leaving it as Mallard until Mallard reaches GA?). I do have some more material to add to Mallard and am happy to push on with it. It also gives us some ideas about how to run it once Mallard reaches GA (i.e. cycle through some easy ones or some big ones) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea of working on an article until it reaches at least GA. Most of us are busy periodically in RL, so that would give a more realistic chance for the chosen articles to be advanced beyond where most of them are now getting. MeegsC | Talk 05:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, there should be a maximum time for an article to be the collaboration. ie The article is the collaboration until it reaches GA for a given period of time (3 or 4 or 6 months?) whichever is the sooner. Snowman (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd certainly second that notion too, Snowman. Sometimes, an article just doesn't "go" no matter how long we give it! MeegsC | Talk 15:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not a total time, but if an article has had no improvement for a month, then we discuss whether to archive. I was very keen on Mallard...and then sat down to look at it last night...and groaned (I think it'll be very complicated :( ). I was taken aback when I typed in "Mallard" to Web of Science"...where to start...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think Mallard is an important article. I probably will not be able to contribute much. There are lots of images of Mallards already on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
A policy of "change collaboration after little activity" might encourage people not to edit to speed up the change. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Eurasian Collared Dove

Re: File:Streptopelia decaocto; Szczecin, Poland 3.JPG. This image is used on the Eurasian Collared Dove species page with the caption that this species can become tame. In the UK these doves are amongst the first to scatter on becoming aware of a human. There main defence to to fly away as fast as possible. I presume that the photograph caption is somewhat anecdotal, and that the doves in the photograph must have been domesticated unknown to the photographer. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly encountered species that have varying degrees of approachability by location. I understand that Hawfinches, which are very wary in the UK, are very approachable elsewhere, and visa versa Eurasian Robins in Britain are much tamer than elsewhere. And I have also encountered situations were birds become habituated (as opposed to tamed or domesticated) in certain specific locations, usually associated with feeding. I'd suggest that is what has happened here and that the birds are habituated, not domesticated. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, I've sen a vagrant Ring-necked Duck on the UK joining other ducks in coming for bread. Some individual birds in protected situations have even learned to help themselves to food (Takahe, Weka) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have evidence that wild Eurasian Collared Doves commonly become habituated or tame. Ducks may have a different nature to doves. Ducks are bigger and not so susceptible to being preyed on by hawks, and also they can go on the water to avoid mammals. I have not come across any habituated wild Eurasian Collared Doves in the UK. Snowman (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The ones in our backyard (in Norfolk, East Anglia) were certainly habituated; they'd stay on the ground (or in a nearby tree) while we threw seed out for them. And we had regular Sparrowhawks, so they were definitely taking a chance by feeding in our garden. That said, just because they haven't been habituated in some parts of England doesn't mean they aren't habituated anywhere in the world!MeegsC | Talk 15:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, over here doves are more cautious due to large numbers of pet cats is a big English city. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Habituation to humans, esp when being fed, overrides fear of predators unless they are actually visible. Robins are notoriously easily habituated, often to hand-feeding, even though they are a favourite snack for cats and sparrowhawks. Pigeons in rural areas are often wary because they are shot or scared by farmers, but in urban areas are less cautious, as evidenced by the feral pigeons in many cities Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Wild animals have innate fears. Feral pigeons are from stock that have been bread for thousands of years, so some of their innate fears have been selected out, and I do not understand why comparison of feral pigeons with wild doves is relevant. Similarly pet dogs have been bread for thousands of years for their temperament. I understand that only 1-2% of wild foxes of wild stock have a capacity to be habituated, and it takes many generations of selection to make foxes good pets - there are well known Russian experiments on breeding wild foxes. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Wild animals have innate fears that can be quickly overcome if they don't feel threatened by the thing they're approaching or being approached by. I just returned from Trinidad & Tobago, where many wild birds — which have presumably had only neutral or positive experiences with the humans in their territories — will sit right on tables and chairs beside people and help themselves to food off the plates and tables. I'm talking things like motmots, doves, tanagers and Bananaquits. They aren't domesticated. They aren't pets. They aren't "tame". But they're very, very approachable. Apparently, where you live in England, people aren't uniformly nice to doves, so they've learned to avoid people as being scary things. (Lots of people in cities don't like pigeons and doves, so that doesn't surprise me.) In other parts of the world, that isn't necessarily the case, though I'm sure it is in many cities. And, by the way, we had a fox that lived in our neighborhood in Norfolk that would approach to within 2 feet of us to get raisins. It took a few weeks to convince him we wouldn't hurt him, but he learned pretty quickly! The difference between that and a "good pet" is significant, and I'm certainly not saying he would have been a good pet. But he was certainly becoming habituated. MeegsC | Talk 14:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
" Wild animals have innate fears." (ref?) — No, they learn them. Juveniles of many arctic waders are very confiding (they migrate separately from their parents) and my "birds in restaurant list" shows many wild species will learn to sit on chair backs waiting for pickings. At O'Reilly's in January, Rosellas, King Parrots were hand tame, and Brush Turkeys wandered around the site. Domestication is a different issue altogether. Getting an animal to do what you want is an entirely different matter from feeding them (not necessarily intentionally - the propensity for robins to follow a gardener digging the soil is well known Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
As our article notes, by the way, European Robins do that more in Britain and Ireland than on the European Continent, because historically they were hunted much more on the Continent. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Are Robins still hunted on the continent? Of course, animals have innate fears to aid survival. Humans have innate fears for lots of things and also innate disgust for germs and parasites. Innate meaning genetically determined. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

<--[outdent] Not legally. But thousands are still shot and trapped in places like Malta and Italy. MeegsC | Talk 19:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That is a travesty, but why should that affect Robins in France or Spain, as not many migrate that far. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
There are both learnt and innate aspects of wariness in many species. Learnt wariness can be culturally transmitted, for example a young blackbird can learn to fear another bird, even a harmless one, if it sees a peer reacting to it. Similarly tameness can be the result of habituation (like at feeding stations) or innate (like on islands without predators). Perhaps we need an article on wariness (biology). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sure fear can be learnt as well. Lorentz writes about how his Jackdaws learnt fear from the other Jackdaws in the group in King Solomon's Ring (nonfiction). There probably should be an article on this, and I am thinking about what it could be called. Young parrots are wary of something they have never seen before. Snowman (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone ever noticed how even within the same flock, different individuals can have markedly different responses to human presence? I'm thinking of gulls in particular here, specifically those large mixed flocks of Herring, LBB and GBB gulls. Approach them in, say a field or car park and whilst some will immediately fly/run away, others will stand their ground and eye you warily (perhaps to see if you come bearing food?) - and very occasionally, there will be one or two that will actually choose to approach you, all fluffed up and head-flicking, begging for food... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
These sort of simple observations can help to understand animal behaviour. How would you interpret your observation? Snowman (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Fear, wariness, we're talking about the same thing. The behaviour Snowman describes is neophobia, although if I recall in crows and ravens it is older birds that are more neophobic. It certainly can be learnt. And Kurt is correct, it varies by individual. There is a great deal of literature on the subject, and we already have an article on one aspect of it, Island tameness. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Imprinting (psychology) and Neophobia (fear or dislike of new things) have a wiki articles. Snowman (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
My guess (only a guess, mind) would be that the approachable/confident gulls are the ones that have been directly fed by people the most. If you have a particular 'local gull' (as I had), you can change her behaviour from fearful to actively demanding food from you simply by feeding her regularly. I've seen it stated that gulls in areas with few people (such as the high Arctic) will not allow a human within 500 yards before fleeing. Not sure how true that is - but that's what I have been told. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would anticipate that there is genetic variability for behavioural characteristics as well. Snowman (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
See Silver Gulls; File:Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae -Sydney, NSW, Australia -eating-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

White Stork...

has passed GA. Given it's a big article, it'd be good to see waht else needs to be done pre FAC, so all input and nitpicking appreciated as FAC is next stop....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (109)

Yes, Great Cormorants as stated; adult (left) and immature (right). Maias (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Commons file details updated. Wiki article too crowded with images to add another. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have vetted the ID's, or done any necessary analysis for the following: Birds 1077, 1085, 1087, 1091, 1092, 1093. The comments are on the flickr click-throughs, and in some cases I have incorporated comments for more than one bird, e.g., the Puerto Rican Streptopelia decaocto.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. Processed for the wiki. I am not convinced about the dove in Puerto Rica, but I am not saying you are wrong. Snowman (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Snow, the Piping-guans are in genus Pipile, not Procnias (a cotingid-related genus)Steve Pryor (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Whoops, I had several pages open in the browser, and I presume that I copied the binomial from the wrong page. Snowman (talk) 09:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Mimus polyglottos -The Bahamas-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Thayer's Gull, unfortunately. I'm thinking Laughing Gull, which must be abundant in Kemah, Texas, but I hope someone who knows gulls will do this one so a desert dweller like me doesn't have to. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Put in "unidentified birds" category on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, adult non-breeding Laughing Gull. That's what I call sharp focus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Larus atricilla -Kemah, Texas, USA -flying-8a.jpg without implying corroberation. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Snow, it is an adult female Lophophorus impejanus. Fife Animal Park is not part of the ISIS system, so you will have to take my word for it.11:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)Steve Pryor (talk)
Thank you. Female Himalayan Monal shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_53&oldid=1078968324"