Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of South Carolina birds

This was nominated for AfD here [1] when in very bad shape. Any help organising it on the lines of the excellent List of Oklahoma birds would be greatly appreciated. 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: This has now been taken care of (for the most part). -- Basar (talk · contribs) 08:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Bird list header

In Archive 10, I mentioned that I was thinking about creating a template to store all of the heading text that we use for bird lists. Well, I have now created it {{Bird list header}}. I believe I have incorporated all of the suggestions given in Archive 10 successfully. Let me know what changes need to be made etc. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think I have a fairly stabilized version of it now and it has been completely implemented in List of South Carolina birds. I am wondering if you feel that this is a worthwhile template and if I should continue to deploy/develop it. I also have a specific issue which has two solutions, and I am not sure which is best. Transcluding section headers causes the section edit button to not work properly, so I have disabled the edit section links. All that means is that you have to edit the whole page, not that big of a deal, but odd. The alternative would be to not transclude the header itself and just transclude the text directly below the header. This means the headers would have to be included in each list which would be a little more work (not much) and the header text would become unstandardized—not that big of a deal since it is small and unlikely to be updated too often. I was wondering what your opinions are. Right now I am leaning towards not including the headers because there may be in issue with the way automated programs create the advanced TOCs some of the lists use. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


The last six "Bird genera without articles" on the project page are all tits. Given the state of the taxonomy as described on the family page, I for one have little appetite for tackling these - even finding authors may be difficult. Any volunteers/suggestions? Jimfbleak 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You can see whether what I did on Periparus and Pardaliparus makes sense. All done by assiduous research of Paridae—no knowledge of my own (which may be obvious). —JerryFriedman 05:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I found the author for Pardaliparus in a snippet view of The Zoological Record, if that's of any interest at this late date.
If we're serious about breaking up Parus this way, we need to change Parus and the Polbot stubs.
By the way, Paludipasser isn't a tit. As far as I can tell, it's a monotypic genus for the Locustfinch, which "we" (I had nothing to do with it) place in Ortygospiza. However, it's too late at night for me to check this. —JerryFriedman 05:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Jerry, I can see the light now. I've tidied Pardaliparus so it's internally consistent. Jimfbleak 06:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
But what should we be consistent with, this article or other articles that place those species in Parus or Periparus. I'll try to take them all into account. —JerryFriedman 19:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we seem to have taken different approaches to this -you've put them in Parus, and said that some authorities think otherwise, whereas I've put them under eg Sittiparus and said that they are often placed in Parus. In both cases the taxonomic issues are clear, so I don't know if it matters other than in a consistency of approach. I don't mind which way it's done.
I can't find authors for Sittiparus or Macholophus, and in the latter case there seems to be doubt about whether Black-lored Tit should be included. Harrap and Quinn, Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers recognise all these Parus offshoots as subgenera and possible future genera, but have Macholophus as monotypic with just Yellow Tit. Jimfbleak 07:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The Birdlife lists also have Macholophus as monotypic with just Yellow Tit. but the Black-lored Tit article also throws Yellow-cheeked Tit into the pot Jimfbleak 07:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
"The Birdlife lists also have Macholophus as monotypic with just Yellow Tit" - not here which is as default authority as it would get in lieu of a more recent source I think.
So it's Macholophus redirecting to Parus, no? As it is a) unrecognized by the default source & based on good data (-> redirect) and b) were it recognized (if Parus were ludicrously oversplit, or as subgenus) it would have 3, possibly 4 species (as per Gill), not just YT: YT, YcT, BlT, and possibly WfT (semilarvatus) as per Harrap and Quinn (?) that species' allied to YT[verification needed]
References for YT would be the Gill paper and possibly the HBW species article and maybe there's something in the family article too (which would give 2 different refs even, the sp article for using Parus for the YT and the family one as a justification for sinking Macholophus) - HBW usually discusses recent taxon changes they support.
I might look at the situation on the Parus main page. That is not satisfying to me anymore and the source of much of the confusion too. Anyone have access to Peters' Check-List? Because that would be good to get it on solid footing. Vaurie has no paper on Paridae in his AMNH series I can find. Dysmorodrepanis 16:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've just been trying to make things consistent with Paridae (so I called Periparus a genus but only said some authorities consider Melaniparus a genus). I'll be happy with anything that makes our articles consistent with each other but doesn't call the other schemes wrong. Not being ludicrous would be even better.
I noticed the volume of HBW that covers tits is due out next month. —JerryFriedman 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
An amusing point about Sittiparus, by the way, is that the author himself was later convinced that it was "inadmissible" [2]. I guess later authors found it useful. —JerryFriedman 04:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Range Maps

Does anyone know how to make a range map? I've noticed that some of the bird articles have them, and the California Condor article I'm working on could benefit from one. I'd make it myself, but have no idea how. Could someone inform me or make one? BirdLife International has a map that could be used as an example, but I don't know image copyright laws. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I discovered that one can have editable spot maps and made a trial at White-tailed Iora. Shyamal 06:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
WOW! Now this is cool! Dysmorodrepanis 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The White-tailed Iora map needs to be moved into the taxobox with the usual "| range_map =" formatting - not sure how to do it with all that fancy coding. As a temporary measure I've left-aligned it so it doesn't leave that huge gap in the text - MPF 09:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a very simple range map and added it to the page, but I should probably mention a few things:
1. It's butt-ugly if you look at the full-size version. Most of my range maps are kind of intended to look best in the thumbnail view typically seen on the article page. For the most part, they're also really only intended as placeholders to serve the purpose until someone with better graphics skills than I have creates better ones.
2. None of the range maps I could find for the California Condor agreed with each other, so I kind of combined several of them to make the range map I put in the article. I would imagine the percieved discrepancies will probably cause some grief among people who get really worked up about that sort of thing.
3. When I added the map, it adjusted the formatting of the article and seems to have screwed up several of the images. I started to go back in there and tweak it a bit, but you said you'd been working on the article so I thought I'd probably be better off letting you make the adjustments to get the look you want. 'Card 04:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the condor map. The images look fine as you put them. I've got to switch the measurements, one final copyedit, and it should be ready for FAC. Unless someone thinks I should wait until the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo FAC is wrapped up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Red-tailed Black Cockatoo at FAC now

'nuff said. Please come and look and offer suggestions on how to improve if poss. I laid it out like Common Raven...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sort of random, but California Condor will be ready in the next 12 hours for a FAC. Do you think I should wait to nominate until after Red-tailed Black Cockatoo passes (or fails, I guess), or does it really matter?Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Nah, no point in waiting...FACs a big place..cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Bird ranges and systematic bias

Some bird articles describe the bird's range from a very biased perspective (presumably that of the author) - for instance, the Common Teal article, although describing a bird whose range stretches from Iceland to Japan via Africa, describes its range starting from a British perspective, where it is a winter visitor. Perhaps it would be a good idea to gently warn against this in the Project guidelines. ArzelaAscoli 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it breeds pretty widely across Britain. However one describes a range, one has to start somewhere; my tendency is to start at the northwest corner of a range and work south and east from there (so for Common Teal, I'd say something like "Iceland south through the British Isles [I agree Jerry has a point below re English-speaking readers] to northern France, and east to Kamchatka and northern Japan, with the southernmost breeding birds in the Caucasus". - MPF 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's a problem for American birds, too—I've added information about Mexican ranges to several articles on North American birds. Presumably a lot of the bias comes from the sources. However, it is reasonable that more English-speaking readers will be interested in the parts of birds' ranges in English-speaking countries. —JerryFriedman 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone up for starting a bird clock?

I'm interested in starting a Bird Clock on Wikiversity, following the model of the v:Bloom Clock, which has been running for about a year now. The goal is to collect data from contributors about where and when particular species of birds are seen, and then use this data to create local dichotomous keys (see this bloom clock page for an example), track migration times, and so on.

I don't know all that much about birds, to be honest, but I've learned a lot about plants I wasn't familiar with on the bloom clock, and a few people I know (who are not "wiki people") have been using the clock to identify wildflowers, and suggested doing it for birds as well. --SB_Johnny | PA! 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo question

Hi folks, I'm not a member of this project, but my brother volunteers at Bird Studies Canada and he has hundreds of great pictures of birds and I thought I might upload a couple where they are needed. However, 99% of the birds in those pictures are being held in people's hands, even after you trim most of the pictures, you can still see that they are being held. So, I was wondering if that type of picture was acceptable or if you prefer pictures of birds in more natural settings. Thanks for the time, Scorpion0422 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Upload any you like, but please remember by doing so, you are agreeing to release the photos under licenses that allow e.g. modification, and commercial use by others to make money from them without anything coming back to yourself. Check whether that is something you and your brother are willing to accept! You would also need to check whether Bird Studies Canada have any say in the matter, if the photos were taken under their juristiction; they might need to agree to it too. Hope this helps! - MPF 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
All of the pictures are taken by us and they're all just people holding birds outside of a banding station, so I don't think we would need any sort of permission. Instead of uploading a few of them, tomorrow I'll post all of them on myspace or something so people can take whatever they want. Just so everyone is clear, this is what most of them look like - just an image of a bird being held and in most cases, you can't see their feet. If that kind of image is acceptable, then I have dozens that could be of use. I also have a few images from around a banding station - tools, nets, birds in the nets - and they could also be useful. -- Scorpion0422 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My advice would be to create an account on Wikimedia Commons (if you don't already have one) and upload the photos there. If you add the photos to the correct WikiCommons category and/or page (Dendroica petechia, for example) then future editors of the relevant Wikipedia articles (Yellow Warbler, for example) will find them and use them if they're appropriate. Generally speaking, I've found that editors prefer to use the most natural-looking photos they can find to illustrate a specific bird article (assuming decent resolution, lighting, etc.) but feeder or handheld bird photos are often used when natural-looking shots aren't available or aren't good quality images. Handheld shots are also sometimes used in the body of the article because they may show a specific characteristic of the bird that other, more prominently placed, photos don't. 'Card 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't have the time and every single image would need cropping and resizing. I'll just put them on flickr or something and then people can choose. -- Scorpion0422 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Is Commons really any harder than Flickr? But anyway, pictures of handheld birds are often really useful, so just let us know where you put them. I see you're an experienced Wikipedian, so no point in talking about licenses. —JerryFriedman 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the note (on my talk page); I guess I mistook "not a member of this project" to be "not a member of wikipedia as a whole" in error. On whether in-the-hand bird pics are helpful; definitely yes where it is a species where wikipedia doesn't have any pic at all or just one of those archaic PD 19th century paintings. If there are already good in-the-field pics, then less important. Take a look through Commons and see what's missing or deficient. - MPF 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Okay, here is a small sampling of what I've got. I'll admit that part of the reason why I just didn't upload them here is because I'm not sure exactly what type of birds some them are, so I figured I'd throw them on flickr and let others decide. Please note that this is just to show you most of the birds that I have images of. If you don't like a particular image, there are likely other pictures of that species. For example, I have a dozen pictures of that hawk. I hope they are of use and if you want any others, simply ask and I'll upload them. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think some of those are valuable pics because some small song birds can be difficult to get a good photo of, or at least we don't have any on Wikipedia. However, the license you gave them isn't compatible with Wikipedia. The share alike attribution license would work. – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Like I said, I have more that I can upload. I just didn't add them all because they are 2 megs a piece and I have a SLOW internet connection and I don't have enough time to resize them all. -- Scorpion0422 17:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more specific; it is the noncommercial part of the tag that Wikipedia can't accept. They look good though, I think I'll transfer over some of the vireos. And I'm glad they weren't resized, I like all of the resolution:) – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fixed again. -- Scorpion0422 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I uploaded two pictures to Commons:Category:Vireonidae, and ya, each one takes awhile. They are in the articles Philadelphia vireo and Blue-headed vireo. – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No problems, happy to help. Like I said, I have other images, and there are probably a couple of birds I forgot to post, so if anyone wants different pictures of a certain bird, don't hesitate to ask. -- Scorpion0422 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't have one of the Great Black-headed Gull by any chance, do you? (Awww, it was worth a shot - I've been trying to find one for ages)... --Kurt Shaped Box 06:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll work on getting you one this weekend... MeegsC | Talk 08:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Illustration offer


If there is any request for bird illustrations where none are forthcoming, please do let me know and I can try to produce some passable illustrations. Birds with flat colours are easy, those with striations and complex patterning are hard. If there is some group of species that can all be done using one template with only colour variations, it would be particularly easy to produce. Feel free to drop requests on my talk page. Shyamal 09:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps some extinct species such as the adzebills? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. Would help if there are some reference illustrations that you find are particularly accurate. Shyamal 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This is th best one I've seen. [3] Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I see many illustrations avoiding the profile view. None seem to show a pervious nostril that one would expect from most Gruiformes. Any detailed images showing the skull (also the carpometacarpus) ? Ichnotaxa must be fun for illustrators with so much room to innovate for colouration :) Shyamal 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Anybody have any idea what's happened to the display of the conservation status in the taxoboxes? All those little circles (with the different levels of status) have disappeared, leaving a big white gap in the display. MeegsC | Talk 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There's currently a technical problem that is interfering with the rendering of small images and thumbnails. Hopefully it won't be too long before they find the bug. (See the sitenotice on commons for updates.) --SB_Johnny | PA! 15:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles on Birds on AfD

I've nominated several articles on birds for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluvialas. Those familiar with the subject may wish to participate in the discussion. NeilN 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As you found, these are fictional birds invented as a teaching example. I left a vote to make an article that explains that. —JerryFriedman 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

list of bird species without articles

There seem to be an alarming number of Coenocorypha snipe without articles, with only three other Charadriiformes being without articles. Are these all real, extant species? If not can someone who knows trim the list? Jimfbleak 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Shorebirds only accepts the two species with blue links; the others are all either extinct, or recent results of a splitting spree. I'll see if I can work out which is which and tag the extinct ones with a dagger - MPF 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
the New Zealand snipes are an ongoing project of mine, I can unlink the extinct ones that won't get articles. The splitting spree is the result of pretty good but ongoing research (Colin Miskelley anticipates a paper by early next year on the subject). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I might have dropped some refs in the source code as annotations, IIRC it's basically species vs subspecies status and the question has been pondered by Miskelly, Worthy et al for some time. Dysmorodrepanis 14:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So far, there seem to be fewer missing articles than I expected - even big groups like the tyrant flycatchers and the hummers produced only a handful. I have sources for some of the missing species, including three of the Galliformes, Jimfbleak 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Bare-eyed Thrushes

I just discovered (via an interaction with a French wiki contributor) that we've got two Bare-eyed Thrush articles on our wiki. One is Turdus tephronotus, the Bare-eyed Thrush according to world listings. The other is Turdus nudigenis, which is called the Bare-eyed Thrush in the New World. The world listings all call this one the Yellow-eyed Thrush. Right now, Bare-eyed Thrush on the English wiki points to the New World species; should this be pointing to the African one? (Right now, the only way to access the African thrush species is via the scientific name.) MeegsC | Talk 23:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think, and add disambiguation at T. nudigenis. Or make BeT a disambiguation (which is the more cumbersome way, and not really necessary I think). Or move tephronotus to BeT (which is the most radial way and although according to SOP I think I personally wouldn't do had I happened across it)
Also it might be good to make it '''(American) Bare-eyed Thrush''' and '''(African) Bare-eyed Thrush''' in the articles or maybe (because it's not really official) with unboldened (<location>). Dysmorodrepanis 00:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

California Condor at FAC

California Condor is now a featured article candidate. Please come over and help review the article. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yay! It passed! Thanks to everyone who helped or supported the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


Several bird articles, for instance Chiffchaff claim that they are in the family Phylloscopidae but I can find no reference tothe family on the page Passeri. Is this a real family? If so the page needs to be written. Dixonsej 11:09 13 september 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dixonsej (talkcontribs) 10:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dixonsej: According to the Passerine article, Phylloscopidae (leaf-warblers and allies) were recently split from Sylviidae. So yes, the page does need to be written! MeegsC | Talk 12:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
See Old World warbler, also for references. Passeri is the one such page that has not been overhauled (I wanted to, but then I postponed it til I could look into the "Corvida" in detail); Passerida and Passeriformes are already updated.
I noted that Phylloscopidae is the last new sylvioid family (apart from the "African warblers" which are yet unnamed and need to be verified as a family) that remains unwritten. Cool! Dysmorodrepanis 16:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Thanks to polbot and project members most of the previously redlinked genera now have articles linked to them. At first sight, species look more daunting, but I wonder if we could adopt the following procedure. If you see a redlinked species, search on its binomial and see what comes up. A run through tyrant flycatchers and sunbirds suggest the following outcomes:

  1. article exists under different common name - solution: make redirect
  2. article exists under different style. For example Polbot uses Gray even for old world groups, and there were many redlinks of the Bristle Tyrant (instead of Bristle-tyrant) variety. - solution: make redirect
  3. The redlink is for a split not recognised by polbot, eg Eastern Olive Sunbird - solution: make redirect to eg Olive Sunbird, modify article to mention sometimes split
  4. Article really doesn't seem to exist - I'm not clear, for example, why Carp's Tit doesn't have an article. - solution: make a to-do list of these

Any thoughts? Jimfbleak 10:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

For seemingly non-existent articles, a search for the scientific name usually brings up the article. These cases are usually where species lists were built from a source that does not "HBW standard" common names.
I have already found a handful of these; in such cases I change the link to the IUCN/BirdLife/HBW (=species article) name, and give the other (redlinked) name as an alternative. Usually even bolded, because even though HBW/BirdLife does not use these names, AOU or some other expert source does. Dysmorodrepanis 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I started to do something like this and went through the orders taxonomically. I got to Falconiformes before I stopped (California Condor FAC, King Vulture research). Here is my list of articles needed through the falcons. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the list to the project page. I've got Pheasants of the world and the new albatross etc book, so I should be able to do some of these over the next few weeks. Jimfbleak 05:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added a few more to the missing species list using the Sibley-Monroe checklist as my source. SP-KP 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

3. Does that mean that we're using the IUCN (Polbot's source, as I recall) as our taxonomic authority, or just for those species that Polbot didn't create? —JerryFriedman 13:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If there's nothing more current available, probably yes - for birds, IUCN uses BirdLife's names, and these are the HBW names which we use as default. Dysmorodrepanis 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See also here for the new species recognized by IUCN and included in the 2007 redlist. Dysmorodrepanis 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I thought the redlinks in our family lists (I count 6 missing parrots, not 1) were left by Polbot because it was using different taxonomy from HBW. But you're telling me that those redlinks are mostly places where our family lists use a more current revision than HBW/IUCN, which are pretty much the same?
Anyway, the new IUCN revision looks interesting, but are you suggesting that we follow it, or see it so we understand why we might have discrepancies? —JerryFriedman 04:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Anyway, of course there are differences between the IUCN and HBW (or at least the IBC). For instance, the reason two Calamonastes species are on the list of missing species is that Polbot made them under Camaroptera fasciolata and Camaroptera undosa, following the IUCN, but the IBC has them as Calamonastes fasciolatus and Calamonastes undosus. Should we stick with one authority or the other, or decide case by case? —JerryFriedman 04:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topic Question

Hey. I'm considering going after a Bird featured topic, but I have a quick question. Would a featured topic be considered comprehensive if it included a bird family as the head article, all of the species, but not the non-monotypic genera? Any thoughts would be appreciated (and I'll probably post a more detailed post about my idea later) Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a bird expert (I'm actually not sure why I have this page on watch) but a Featured topic should be as comprehensive as possible, but if something isn't a full part of a topic and is kind of a gray area, I think its excuseable. -- Scorpion0422 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Great idea BTW. I think the nest thing is to let us know which family or defined topic you're thinking of (New World Vultures perchance?) and we can discuss waht articles need to be included. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I have considered pushing Procellariiformes for FT, using it and the four familes as the topic. Two are already featured and one is b class. For RCS's question, I suspect it depends on how many genera were being ignored and what they were. Details? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, some details. I was actually thinking of two possibilities: New World Vultures (gasp!) or an Extinct Birds of North America topic. For New World Vultures, we have one already featured (California Condor), 2 B class (New World Vulture and Andean Condor), 3 Starts (King Vulture, American Black Vulture, Turkey Vulture) and 2 stub (Greater and Lesser Yellow-headed Vultures). New World Vulture, Andean Condor, and Turkey Vulture are (in my opinion) Featurable and King Vulture and American Black Vulture are most definately good article-able, possibly (at a stretch and a lot of work) featureable. (I'm working on King Vulture in my sandbox and think what I have now is in the same ballpark as GA, though I am still gathering a bit more information). However, there is just not that much out there on the 2 yellow-headeds, and getting them to GA will be extremely difficult. Also, all but the genus Cathartes (Turkey and 2 Yellow-headeds) are monotypic, so I'm not sure if that should be included. It is currently Start-class and probably is GA-able.
Another possible topic is one on the Extinct Birds of North America. The lead article would need to become a featured list and would include Ivory-billed Woodpecker (GA, should be FA), Bachman's Warbler (stub), Eskimo Curlew (start), Passenger Pigeon (Start), Carolina Parakeet (start), Labrador Duck (start), and Great Auk (B). I don't think that subspecies would be involved. There is a lot of info on these species out there, and all are GA-able. This topic would also have more variety than one on New World Vultures.
Also, Casliber mentioned a Ratite FT (was in my mind but, to quote Casliber, that is "a taxonomic can of worms" and some of the Cassowaries and Kiwis may be difficult). Sabine's Sunbird also mentioned a Procellariiformes FT. What do you all think? Any one of these is, in my opinion, doable (except maybe the Yellow-headed Vultures), and would be a great thing for this Wikiproject to do. Personally, I think that, if we decide to go for a FT, we should start a new page dedicated to Bird Featured Topics and make it similar to the one in the Simpsons Wikiproject. Any thoughts, comments, other ideas? Rufous-crowned Sparrow 02:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a ratite FT (because there aren't many ratites, so there would perhaps be less work). If you go with extinct birds of North America, though, I could contribute more. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
As someone who does more reading of bird articles than contributing, I would just say that I think extinct birds of NA would be the most interesting featured topic. I think I would find the vultures topic second most interesting. The problem I see with the extinct birds topic is that the lead article would be difficult. My only idea would be to create an extinct birds by region list (the current is by taxonomic order). I think linking to the NA section of such a list would be sufficient, but I don't know. Now that I think about it, listing extinct birds by region would be a rather interesting list even if this topic is not chosen. – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Ratite taxonomy isn't that much of a barrier, it just means a lot of waffling about the options. I think extinct birds of North America is actually quite a good idea. Don't worry too much about the yellow-headed vultures, it should be possible to get them as far as B, and not every article has to be featured quality. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I love the idea of setting up a potential Featured Topic Page where folk can discuss topics, what to include and to what level - I'll look at the Simpsons soon. Extinct birds make me a bit depressed so I like the idea of the New World Vultures - here the actual intro page would be the Cathartidae which would have all the fascinating stuff on what they are related to. I'd merge all monotypic genera into teh species unless there's a good reason. Cathartes 'd be pretty small too. WRT Ratites..would be good but possibly more ambitious. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Featured Topic Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Featured topic Drive are the two pages that I set up. I've been a part of 3 FT drives, so if anyone has any questions about FTs, feel free to ask me. It would be great to see a Bird related FT and I'll help out if I can.
As a side note, I think "Extinct Birds of North America" might be considered too broad of a topic as I'm sure there are many extinct birds out there (as well, there isn't a "Extinct Birds of North America" article). Usually a topic should include everything, rather than the most well-known/common articles. It wouldn't hurt to check out some of the failed FTCs and try to learn from their mistakes. -- Scorpion0422 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thats the glory (right word?) of North American Extinct Birds- there are only 4 definate extinct species since 1500 and 3 probables. However, if we tried to include subspecies, the list would grow. Health Hen, Dusky Seaside Sparrow, another Seaside Sparrow, and probably several other not-so-famous subspecies have become extinct. However, I think that a feature list for the head article and the 7 species would work. Does someone want to create a featured topics subpage? I'd do it, but I don't know how to change the template and stuff. Probably could be put next to Collaboration, Assessment, and Peer Review. There we could summarize what each of our 4 possible topics would entail and vote for which one to do. I could write summaries for each topic if someone else could actually create the page. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 Done Sure, I can do that. – Basar (talk · contribs) 00:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I put the entire summary on the new Bird FT page! Come out and discuss. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 02:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Spindalis GAC

Puerto Rican Spindalis has been nominated for good article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone who has done a couple reviews and worked with a couple of the GAC people, I'd say that they would want to see those references in "cite web" format before passing it. Just a side note. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Why? Scales badly and cannot handle 20% of what I've come across reference-wise in any meaningful way. Sometimes, you simply need to cite sources in Finnish... and notify the reader that s/he need not despair, for an English abstract or summary is provided. Technically possible w/template, but you may in that case scrap the template altogether and even save some bytes. Access/version date format handling also is BAD. Breaks easy and/or is not unequivocally recognizable as YYYYMMDD. Dysmorodrepanis 22:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


Does anyone remember why we have the drongos, fantails and monarch flycatchers all lumped in Dicruridae? Anyone know which modern treatment does this? We ususally stick with HBW unless there is a good reason not to, so I'm wondering what the reason is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like Sibley-Monroe. Shyamal 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Kay, so if I were to do all the work, would anyone mind if I changed the articles and the respective species articles to reflect the more widespread view that they are three related but separate familes? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
DNA sequence data strongly supports that they are distinct families, and that the 3-family Dicruridae assemblage is paraphyletic gets relatively decent support (Pachycephalidae stand a bit apart methinks). Dysmorodrepanis 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sparred owl

G'day Birdies - could someone please look at the above article and tell me if it is a hoax please? If so, please speedy delete. Gillyweed 11:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[4] seems to suggest existence. Shyamal 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of reputable sites (google "Sparred Owl" to see, for example US and Canadian government sites, the Owl Foundation, etc.) which report these hybrids, which are indeed known as Sparred Owls. MeegsC | Talk 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I was wrong and have amended the article based on the research I found. Thanks for your help. Gillyweed 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest redirecting to Spotted Owl. Hybridisation between spotted and barred owls is a threat to Spotted Owls and the material (one line of it) is best covered there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Template modification requested

Can somebody with more knowledge than me please modify our Bird template to include the new Bird nest article? I've moved it over to article space, even though it's not done yet, because I'm off on yet another trip and didn't want somebody else to duplicate all this work! There's still a lot to do—including the bits listed on the discussion page. MeegsC | Talk 18:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done Sure. – Basar (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! That was quick! MeegsC | Talk 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Buff-bellied "American" Pipit

The more I look around, the more resources I find ;-/ Can someone check the talk page at American Pipit and comment on my remarks? I wish not to make an even larger fool of myself... mdf 12:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You're asking about this picture? I think you're right that it's a pipit. As far as I can tell, all the thrushes in its range have light feathers below the eye but not so much above and behind it, all have white bellies rather than buff, and none have dark marks on the back. Then particular thrushes have features that rule them out, such as spectacles or streaked throats. But we'll see what the experts say. —JerryFriedman 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Pipit, no question about it. SP-KP 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
not an expert or even American, but it looks like first-year Swainson's Thrush in Clement and Hathaway, Thrushes to me, head pattern looks wrong for pipit, but young Swainson's has some pale above the eye, and shows the weak wing bar. Doesn't American Pipit have dark legs? Jimfbleak 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The bird here is an American Pipit. It has no primary-projection, it has head:body proportions of a pipit not a thrush, typical pipit bill shape, median-coverts pattern and shape, greater-coverts pattern and shape, and ... well, it just looks like a pipit, and not at all like a thrush. Leg colour is fine for an American pipit, as is head pattern. Young Swainson's would show a "thrush-type" wingbar formed from narrow pale tips to the median-coverts, and spot-bars rather than streaks below. I can only conclude that I can't be looking at the same photo as other people! SP-KP 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with the pipit assessment; it's sure not a Catharus thrush! Young thrushes of that genus have spots or bars (rather than streaks) on the underparts, a pale loral area, an unmarked back and a primarily dark bill. As to the bird in the picture having pink legs, HBW says that non-breeding Buff-bellieds of the nominate subspecies "occasionally show pinkish-tinged legs". MeegsC | Talk 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for causing all this confusion. I was mostly concerned about the pinkish legs. Dark legs are usually listed as identifying marks of the bird but I've also [read since] that paler legs can be found occasionally, so I guess I feel corrected here... Wwcsig 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


This is a sad little stub that has been tagged unreferenced since June 2006. I am thinking it would be best to just redirect this to parrot, but I thought I should see if the wikiproject has any objections before being bold.--BirgitteSB 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be a disambiguation page between the current avicultural term and Lanaʻi Hookbill. Don't know how many other species are there in that genus. Perhaps User:Dysmorodrepanis knows !? Shyamal 01:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

  • 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October
Ryper (via WP:PROD)
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Let it go, it's just a foreign dicdef. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


It's a Peruvian word for caciques and oropendolas, maybe especially the Yellow-rumped Cacique (or maybe not). —JerryFriedman 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Nestling (via WP:PROD on 17 September 2007) Converted to disambiguation page
Now marked as a speedy delete for copyvio. Circeus 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the copyvio and made it a dab page, but maybe it should be a redirect to Bird#Breeding. We'll see what people do. Do we have any separate article on young birds? —JerryFriedman 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

List of bird species without articles

Two queries

  1. Campbell Island Snipe AFAIK this has not been described formally - should it be in the list when it hasn't even got a binomial name?
  2. Vietnam Partridge. I know the species exists, because it's in my book, but I can't find a red link for it under anywhere outside this list. Where is the Wikipedia article it came from?

Jimfbleak 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The Vietnam Partridge is listed at Partridge as Annam Hill-partridge. I didn't look anywhere else. —JerryFriedman 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jerry, added it to Arborophila too now, Jimfbleak 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The Campbell Island Snipe is a unique form, it is simply curious that it hasn't been described yet. According to Colin Miskelly it should be some time next year. I'd say leave it for the mo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

List of bird species without articles

There are probably still less than 100 to do so far. Is there anyone with specialist knowledge who could clear up some of these groups, like the one parrot and the handful of Procellaridae? I'll do the pheasant family, but still checking other families for missing species. Jimfbleak 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I can probably take care of the parrot. For what it's worth, I believe that the ringneck species listed is generally viewed as a naturally-occurring hybrid. Voodlecat 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
After going through the family articles, there are just 99 species to do, including a fair number of dubious snipes. Jimfbleak 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it worth moving the list to the main project page, since it's shorter than the list of red-linked genera previously there? Jimfbleak 10:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll do the few remaining Pyrrhura's. I've already dealt with some of the members of the P. picta/leucotis complexes, but for the last few where the available data is less certain, I'll wait till SACC have decided (a proposal on the last few species is currently up for voting). Rabo3 12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Migrating birds can see magnetic fields

Anyone care to tackle this one? A Visual Pathway Links Brain Structures Active during Magnetic Compass Orientation in Migratory Birds. What it's saying, as far as I can tell, is that birds have magnetic field detectors in their eyes, i.e., that they can (literally) see the Earth's magnetic field. Astounding information, but I don't feel too confident on comprehending the concepts. But maybe none of us can, it must be like describing sight to the blind. - MPF 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for pointing out this interesting work. Added a statement with ref to this on Bird migration. Shyamal 04:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I already mentioned it in the main bird article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Had not seen these bits carefully enough. The reference you have added in bird is an excellent review and the new paper makes more sense in the light of that one. The new paper however has a new line of evidence with brain-eye connections being shown. Shyamal 04:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Black-rumped Buttonquail

Polbot wrote an article for Hottentot Buttonquail Turnix hottentottus, which treats the forms nana (much of sub-Saharan Africa) and nominate hottentottus (restricted range in coastal South Africa) as a single species.

Madge and McGowan, Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse, which tends to split, nevertheless treats this buttonquail as a single species, but named Black-rumped Buttonquail Turnix hottentottus.

Authorties which split always have the restricted range endemic as Hottentot Buttonquail Turnix hottentottus and the widespread form as Black-rumped Buttonquail Turnix nana.

It seems to make sense to follow Madge and McGowan, and use the English name of the widespread form for the unsplit species, with a mention of the split of the (impossible to see) fynbos form, so this is what I’ve done. Any views? Jimfbleak 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

HBW (or at least the IBC) lumps them as Black-rumped Buttonquail, and Hottentot is a silly name (not to mention un-PC) for anything widespread in Africa, so I think you were right to overrule the IUCN. —JerryFriedman 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing accipiters

We don't have articles on

Apparently we lump them with the Sharp-shinned Hawk.

Here's what the AOU's South American Classification Committee says:

10. Accipiter striatus was treated as four species in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Thiollay (1994), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001): velox of N. America, chionogaster of Middle America, ventralis of the Andes, erythronemius of lowland southern South America); Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1949) considered erythronemius (including ventralis) to be a separate species from A. striatus, and Friedmann (1950) and Stiles & Skutch (1989) considered chionogaster and erythronemius as separate species from A. striatus. [split almost certainly good, but no published data support this split; check Storer (1952). [According to HBW account author Rob Bierregaard, through correspondence with Tom Schulenberg, no published data support this split and he was basically forced to comply with species taxonomy given to him.] Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) did not follow this split and provided rationale against following it. Proposal needed.

What do people think? —JerryFriedman 22:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

HBW treats them as distinct. I'd suggest having short articles on them that say among other info, that they are frequently treated as subspecies of A. striatus. Going by the plates in HBW, there are readily identifiable plumage differences between them, particularly for A. chionogaster. - MPF 14:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason I had doubts about that was that even the HBW author disagreed with HBW! However, I now think you're right. Every species we've been adding after Polbot has been controversial, and I've been following HBW. This is just more of the same. —JerryFriedman 04:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Having a fair deal of field experiance with the involved taxa, I'll add that the morphological differences really are fairly small (mainly in pattern on underparts; even within taxa, as evident in the polymorphic ventralis). The behavioral and ecological differences are fairly small, too, with all showing a perference for temperate to subtropical forest and woodland. I'll vote for keeping them together, and thereby following most recent authorities (after all, the HBW volume dealing with this group is pretty old by now). As noted above there really is no good published evidence that support this split, and we're basically down to "they look a bit different and are found some distance from each other, so they're differenct species" (!!!). That doesn't work if following BSC. I'll vote for writing a single article with the additional info on the possible splits, making the appropriate redirects, and then wait and see if info published at some point in the future ends up validating the splits. Rabo3 12:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
If the single article idea is voted in, I can add a bit of basic info (morphology, ecology, taxonomy, etc) on the three Neotropical taxa to the already existing article for A. striatus and make the various needed redirects. Rabo3 12:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Ferguson-Lees and Christie is searchable at Amazon! This could be very helpful. They do indeed lump these hawks, but they're rather equivocal about it. ("The Central American chionogaster is smaller and plainer black and white than its neighbours; it and the dimorphic and slightly differently proportioned ventralis in Andes have perhaps the strongest cases for treatment at the species level".) Their rationale is evidence of gene flow between ventralis and nearby populations of erythronemius, plus I guess Storer's point (which not everyone seems to believe) that plumages of the southernmost "Sharp-shinned" population, madrensis, approach those of chionogaster.
It seems that there's so little evidence either way that we can do it either way. Eventually someone will do some more detailed studies, but until then, we just have to pick one—and I'm happy to abstain from the voting (not that it will be decided by a majority), given that you have field experience. —JerryFriedman 15:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll go with a single article. I think you need to be pragmatic about this. If someone has a particular interest/good source they can always split later. Jimfbleak 05:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. I'm a bit busy the next few days, but will deal with the article later this week or next week latest. Rabo3 00:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Comments on the proposed merger of Nidification and Bird nest would be welcome here. Shyamal 09:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Vocal mimicry

Is there currently any article on this topic? It would be nice to have one so as to clear up any confusion with mimicry. I can't see anything under vocal mimicry or song mimicry. Richard001 06:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


If someone has access to Ginn, H.B. & Melville, D.S. (1983) Moult in Birds. BTO Guide or other works which cover moulting in birds extensively, they could help by fixing the moult notes and references in the bird article. Shyamal 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon FAC

Peregrine Falcon has been nominated as a featured article candidate, so come on out and review! Also, the King Vulture article will most likely be nominated for FA status in the near future, so please come and give it a look-over before I nominate it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Binomial name credit

On the Weka article, Anders Erikson Sparrman is credited with the binomial name of "Gallirallus australis". However, Sparrman actually chose the name "Rallus australis", i.e., one under a different genus. Frédéric de Lafresnaye is the person who placed it under the Gallirallus genus. Who should be credited? --Teggles 19:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

For some reason there's nothing about authorship at International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, but the relevant ICZN rule seems to be
"50.3.2. Change in generic combination of a species-group name does not affect its authorship (see Article 51.3 for the use of parentheses to indicate changed combinations)." [5]
So I think Sparrman is the right choice. I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. —JerryFriedman 17:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Jerry is right, the author that first described the species gets credit, even if he placed it in the wrong genus or if he described it as a subspecies and it was later elevated to full species. That the genus was assigned by Frédéric de Lafresnaye is indicated by the brackets around teh author and date. (Sparmann 1786) Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Alright, thanks to both of you for your help. --Teggles 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Some things we need

Shyamal's request for help with the section on molt at Bird made me think that we might need a whole article on it.

I feel more strongly that we need full coverage of bird "topography" so we can refer to it. In addition to the illustration Shyamal did of a profile, we need one of a head, one of the upper wing surface, and one of the lower, with the feather tracts labeled, including those that are not at Flight feather. I think it would be great if you did those, Shyamal. They could go at Bird anatomy, though Feather is also a possibility.

I think we also need an article on young birds and parental care. Now we have short pieces at Bird and Bird anatomy (of all places), but I don't think we have anything about brooding or begging or terms such as "nestling" and "fledgeling". We could also discuss such facts as that all Passeriformes are altricial and all Galloanserae are precocial (if I've got that right) while the Alcidae have a wide range. We could survey some of the variations, such as crèches, sandgrouse bringing water in their belly feathers, and nightjars and megapodes that can fly before they're full-grown. —JerryFriedman 14:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to help out in illustration if reference sources and ideas can be suggested. Regarding feather tracts - I recently added this illustration of pterylosis. Again an evolutionary treatment of patterns of pterylosis would be great, if someone has access to material on that. Shyamal 04:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, apparently I didn't mean "feather tracts". I meant things like lores, scapulars, greater coverts. Examples of the kind of illustration I have in mind are in most field guides. Here's one and another one and a slightly less technical one and one you might be more familiar with. You may have to be a member of Amazon to see these, but if you're not, membership is free and you get to search lots of books (with some limits). —JerryFriedman 05:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I just looked at your page, and maybe you've done them! Image:Underwing.svg, for example—but nothing links to it. I think it should be added to Bird anatomy or Father and that's something I could do without your help. It seems that the only one you could still make is a view of the upperside of the wing. —JerryFriedman 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You mean the redlink plumage feature, as per supercilium. Or maybe "plumage feature" should redirect to a proper page at Bird topography, as per Category:Bird topography.
Nice feather tract pic BTW. Dysmorodrepanis 22:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)