Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38

Birds for identification (25)

Confirm as nominate ssp A. i. interpres jimfbleak (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Subspecies of the Ruddy Turnstone added to image description. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Trumpeter Hornbill? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I welcome your opinion, and I note the "?". I presume that is also a hint for others to give their opinion too. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, bucinator. An adult male.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
File description on commons amended. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Could be a female (like it's labelled) Aviceda talk 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Adults have yellow irises and juveniles have brown irises. Snowman (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Not on the photo I've just been looking at....can I email it to you? Aviceda talk 10:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
My reference for the the iris colours is Forshawe (2006), but it does not specifically mention to colour of the female's irises refering only to adults and juveniles, and there are no illustrations of juveniles. I think it is a female because of the amount of red on its front, but I am wondering if it is a juvenile or sub-adult female, because it would appear to have a dark iris. Also its beak appears to be a variegated dull-yellow and brown. I am not sure, the iris might appear dark because the iris is difficult to see or the pupil dilated. I do not use e mail on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is photo of adult male and female parrots with yellow irises; File:Australian king parrot couple.jpg. I have just looked through quite a lot of King Parrot photographs and the adult female seems to have a yellowish base on their upper mandible. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I would say so. Aviceda talk 06:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It looks like green areas are turning red. Snowman (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Doug, easy one. Confirmed. The persistence of the greyishness on the mantle (but it has been lost on the rump) would seem to indicate a subadult male bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Steve, uploaded as File:Lamprospiza melanoleuca-2000124.jpg and added to the article. - Dougjj (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Should the file name end with 2009124? Snowman (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right Snowman, good catch. How can I change the file name? - Dougjj (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought is was a good digital photograph for one taken nine years ago. As it is in use on en wiki, I think that the best thing to do here is to upload another one with the correct name and tag the bad name file with {{bad name|put name of correct file here.jpg}}. The bad name file will be deleted after a day or two or three. Then put the good name image in use on the en wiki. It is quite easy to make a typo when uploading, I find, and I have done this re-uploading quite a lot. Image names can not be moved on commons easily - I guess that it is a safeguard against vandalism. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Image replaced on commons & and the old version has been tagged, thanks for the suggestion. - Dougjj (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
That should work. The bad name link (above) will change colour to red after a few days after it has been deleted, and the new good name file will stay blue. I see you have uploaded the good name file to File:Lamprospiza melanoleuca-20090124.jpg. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, when you add a new species to the wiki you will usually have to make a new species category for it - did you see the red-linked species category at the bottom on the photograph's page? Often, when a photograph of a new species to the wiki commons is put in its species (a new species to wiki commons) category, the species category will give a red link at the bottom of the photograph's page, so you will need to make a new category for the species putting it as a subcategory to the genus. Occasionally, if it is also the first of its genus then you will also have to make a category for the genus, putting the genus into a higher category. This species is in a monomorphic genus, so I have just added the new species category to the family category, as there is no need for a separate genus category. When I made the new species category (sub-category to the family in this case), the link to the species category at the bottom of your new photograph turned blue. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
The other approach to this is to make a "gallery" article about the species, which is what I've often done. This is more work, but it has the advantage that the photos can have captions. This guideline says either method is allowed.
By the way, Doug, why did you upload the image to both .en and Commons? As far as I know, uploading it to both is a waste of effort (though not much effort). Did I miss something? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
It is also possible to make a gallery page after categorising. The gallery page needs to be categorised as well. Snowman (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Jerry, I believe I uploaded the image only to Commons and linked to it in the article. - Dougjj (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Doug, I misunderstood. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Good information on adding species to Commons Snowman, I'll start doing that. To be quite frank, I didn't know how new species were added on Commons. I envisioned a Wizened Wizard (senior all knowing bird editor) deciding the time had come to add the missing species, and doing so with a restricted-use BirdBot or something similar. I'm still using training wheels, they're getting good exercise. I do appreciate the help from the folks in the community here. - Dougjj (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably not the place to ask, but why does the commons have a page and a category for a species, when they essentially do the same job? I always make new categories for new species (and genera if applicable) but I can't see the point of a species page which replicates the category. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure. sometimes I make a gallery page where there are several images and I just choose the best images to go in the gallery. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The species page can have more information, such as the author, year, and complete classification that the user can see without ascending through the categories. It can also have captions mentioning subspecies, sex, plumage, location, etc. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Pullus. Genus Caracara. Impossible to determine species.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
What is Pullus? Snowman (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Caracara -chick -Beauval Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Snow, just ornithological lingo. Pullus: pl. pulli, Latin = nestling. A chick or nestling before it is fledged. Op.cit.: The Ornithologist's Dictionary, Erritzoe, et al.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a relevant redirect should be on the wiki and written into a wiki article. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Pitta-like Ground-roller. Nice find. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Atelornis pittoides -Zurich Zoologischer Garten-8a.jpg on commons. The first photograph of it species on the en wiki used in the infobox, and the second on commons. There is another very good photograph on commons - I moved it from the family category to a new species category. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Tragopan satyra - adult male.--Steve Pryor (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Satyr Tragopan uploaded to File:Tragopan satyra -Zürich Zoo-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Probably Red Turtle-dove (Streptopelia tranquebarica) but seems to be missing a black hind-collar, worth getting a second-opinion. Aviceda talk 09:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I thought it might be a Plumbeous Pigeon, but I'm not sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Will have to give my usual 'disclaimer' (no experience in South America!) but the new Restall field-guide doesnt show Plumbeous to have a black/white under-tail pattern. Aviceda talk 10:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tom, getting ready to delve into the neotrops are you? Upcoming trips? By the way, I much enjoyed your Fiji photos, and if I am not mistaken you took a jaunt up to Arunachal Pradesh?

--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

How about Madagascar Turtle-dove (Nesoenas picturata)? Snowman (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Another I will try and find time for. The picturata looks a lot like S. senegalensis, and so on first impression, no. This is probably tranquebarica, but will have to see if there are any confusion species.--Steve Pryor (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Tail pattern is right for Streptopelia tranquebarica jimfbleak (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The dove in question has a variegated area over its ears and no collar is visible. S tranquebarica looks like it has a collar from the wiki images. Bear in mind that Zurich Zoo has a special show of animals from Madagascar - see the website. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK. This time Snowman gets the kewpie. He is right. The undertail of tranquebarica is totally white but dorsally only visible are white lateral rectrical edges. This undertail is consistent with only picturata. The particular bird is the nominate race (from Madagascar, but also introduced into other islands such as the Seychelles). Moreover, the bill of tranquebarica, since it is a smaller bird overall, is weaker than this bill.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Are there two names for the genus, Streptopelia and Nesoenas? Snowman (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Nesoenas picturata -Zurich Zoo-8a.jpg and used in infobox on Madagascar Turtle-dove page. Name as on wiki used. Snowman (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
You mean is the bird put into two genera? Well, for years there has been a sort of taxonomic hopscotch going on with the relationships of the Pink Pigeon, Madagascar Turtle Dove, and Laughing Dove, and all have been until recently collocated in Streptopelia. Even more distantly in the past all three have been treated in genus Columba. Then Nesoenas was erected for Pink Pigeon, and picturata was still left with senengalensis since it was supposedly closer related to senegalensis, than mayeri (Pink Pigeon), now the latest installment has it that picturata should be congeneric with mayeri! The upshot, I would not hold my breath on the last word being out for the relationships of any of these three birds, or of other related Streptopelia. So, it is just something to take note of, and watch for possible different interpretations in the future.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I will not change any of the names on Commons or en wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Birdlife says it is native on Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mayotte, Réunion, Seychelles. And says introduced to British Indian Ocean Territory. Snowman (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Snow, I should have been more precise in expressing myself. I was talking only of the nominate picturata picturata. Here is the breakdown: rostrata (Seychelles); aldabrana (Amirantes Is.); copperingi (Aldabra, South I., Glorieuses Is.); comorensis (Comoros Is.); picturata (Madagascar), however picturata picturata introduced to Seychelles, Amirantes, Reunion and Mauritius. The birds you mention in British Indian Ocean Territory refer to the introduction of a once-thought race chuni, then found to be hybrid picturata x comorensis, on Diego Garcia (Chagos Arch.).Steve Pryor (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Snow, for me it is just some sort of domesticated chicken.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bird Lists

I'm currently undergoing a FLC for List of Maryland birds and two project-wide issues have been brought up. First, naming. One reviewer brought up the point that "List of ____ birds" is not gramatically correct and is a generalization. This is the list format for at least all of the State Lists and some of the country lists too. "List of birds of Maryland" would be my preference for a standard name, while the reviewer prefers the more specific "List of (all) birds found in Maryland". How does everyone here think they should be phrased? One of these two, the original, or another idea?

The second question is about organizing the lists. Presently our lists, like all ornithological lists, are in taxonomic order. One reviewer wants the lists to be placed in a sortable table so that the lists can be ordered alphabetically by scientific and common name and by rarity. What are your opinions on this idea? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No opinion on the first point; on the second, tables can be useful on bird lists, particularly when you are trying to convey a lot of information. I don't think they would be useful here because for most families there are no more than ten species and the only other sortable field would be the extinction/rare/introduced field, of which there are not many. It might be useful to have a table if you conveyed information about resident versus summer visitor versus winter visitor versus passage migrant versus accidental, or some other field (see List of birds of Fiji for an example of tables used to convey extra info) to improve readability, but making the tables sortable is still probably not needed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Cf. Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (long lists)#Proposed move and merge and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions/Archive 11#Naming conventions for lists. Matthewedwards :  Chat  04:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Taxonomic listing, what a can of worms! Taxonomic lists are rather special lists. Personally, it is intuitively difficult for me to see how they can not be treated as a special case of listing, and therefore allowing a different set of rules to be applied. I have occasionally asked myself if the Wiki has a standardized reference to be looked at from which all bird lists derive. In other words, of all of the multitude of world authorities, and local authorities, is there one authority that is used at least for establishing the so-called taxonomic sequence of listing? Likewise, which authority for world-listing is considered to be the standard for determination of generic name gender assignment, and therefore compatible desinence of subspecific names? Which authority is being looked at for the many changes from one generic name to another? Which authority is being looked at for the many changes due to elevation of former races to good species? Is the list to include such things even as one vagrant record from, e.g., the dufus bird in lumpalumpa land in 1877? How are certainly extinct species to be treated? All of these questions come into play when redacting a bird list. As to the original question, and I am sure there is some codified wiki reason not to allow it, I still like simple and understandable solutions, such as "Bird List: Maryland"Steve Pryor (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The colon can be used in page titles, if that's the codified wiki reason you mean; however, either WP:LIST or WP:SAL (perhaps also WP:LISTNAME) says articles in the form of a list should be titled "List of yadda yadda"; there are a couple of exceptions. Discographies are either Discography of Girls Aloud or Blur discography, and an article about a television season is often something such as Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7). Matthewedwards :  Chat  07:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with changing the ungrammatical "List of ___ birds" to the more grammatically acceptable "List of birds of ___". I don't think adding all would be appropriate, as the list is only those which have been recognized by some authoritative body (i.e. a records committee) as having occurred in the state/region (i.e. potentially not "all" at all!) As for the sortable table idea, are they saying the whole list should be sortable? That the family header paragraphs should be eliminated and only a listing of species included instead? If so, I'm not sure I'd agree with that suggestion at all. Many of the people who are likely to use these lists (based on comments left on some of the list pages I have on my watchlist) have no idea where to start looking for the appropriate bird; the family headers should be a short two to four sentence summary that helps point them in the right direction. Eliminate that, and I'm not sure you have a list worth anything at all for the average Wiki reader. MeegsC | Talk 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
The "List of Brobdingnagian birds" form isn't strictly ungrammatical. It's just a miss-application of a word form pedantically reserved for people, not animals, plants or cathedrals. The Brobdingnagians are the human citizens (er, giants, I guess...). Best to stick with "List of birds of...".
As I've argued elsewhere, list forms with extensive taxonomic gobblegook may be fine for overall scientific lists, but are inappropriate for general regional or country lists. For those it's better to just keep the order and family-level headings (with the common-name equivalents), and leave out all the rest - including the redundant words "order", "family" and especially "genus". I don't agree with including that introductory para for each family though. It adds nothing that isn't available at one click (on the family name), and just makes the lists long, repetitive and difficult to read (because it's harder to see the actual bird names!). Also strongly dislike table lists - sortable or otherwise. Clumsy and ugly.
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Country_lists#List_template / format. I recommend the example at List of birds of Queensland (not mine!). It's tidy, easy to read, and works well. The only change I would make is to remove the scientific name wiki-links once the red link typos are fixed, to make the common names stand out.--Gergyl (talk) 04:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Mirafra moves

We seem to have some name clashes at Mirafra javanica and Mirafra cantillans and it seems that has several under "Bush Lark" rather than the older "Bushlark" spelling and so several articles may have to be moved if this is fine. Shyamal (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Red Knots

From the article page It is sometimes said that the Red Knot gets its name from King Cnut, but there is no factual basis for this story.. According to HANZAB, which is a pretty good source, the specific epithet is indeed a reference to him, according to legend he also considered it a delicacy. It also says the English name may refer to either the king or the noise it makes. Does anyone have a source on it not being named after the king, otherwise should this be changed? Also, be aware the Red Knot is the collaboration of the month and I've managed to do some work on it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The NSOED says only that the origin of the English name is unknown and may be imitative.
You might be amused by my short compilation of transcriptions of Red Knot calls here. It's post 71—you'll probably need to go back. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Some images lacking location information (appear to be African) with identification requested. Shyamal (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

They are all easy, exception for the fledgeling of what?, and the Lamprotornis. Will try and find time this evening if they haven't been done. The last photo, however, (zimbabwe bird set) has two birds, the larger is Alopochen, the other Blacksmith Plover.--Steve Pryor (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Smallbird3.jpg THis looks like a saw-wing, which would be a nice genus to have more images from. This is a Grey Go-away-bird, which suggests the images are South Afrian. I'm fairly sure this is a White-browed Sparrow-weaver, but I don't have my SASOL with me so I can't help with the others (other than some guesses. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
The first looks like Dicrurus. Have passed a note to Neelix for the location.--Steve Pryor (talk) 10:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Smallbird.jpg looks like a Lilac-breasted Roller. -Dougjj (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'd agree with Doug on this one. MeegsC | Talk 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Bird5.jpg might be a Greater Blue-eared Glossy-starling, difficult to tell from the angle. - Dougjj (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this is a Cape Glossy-starling; Greater Blue-eared should have a bright cobalt-blue belly. MeegsC | Talk 22:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Meegs, you're right. My booboo. Should have caught this.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Orangebird.jpg looks like a White-crowned Robin-chat. - Dougjj (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
White-crowned Robin-chat doesn't have the orange collar; this is a Snowy-crowned Robin-chat. MeegsC | Talk 22:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Good calls Meegs. - Dougjj (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Bird articles needing photos

It looks as if the category has dropped to 5,738; I'm sure it was about 1000 more than this just a few days ago. Anyone know what's happened? Richard001 (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed Polbot running through removing the tag if there was an image in the taxobox. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Any idea whose initiative that was? There are a lot that need that done, though there may also be some that need additional images where people have requested them, which could be a bit of a bother if they get removed. Then again, humans could remove the tag just as easily without realizing the request was more specific. Maybe we need an "additional images" request to separate the articles with nothing from those that just need more/better images. Richard001 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Polbot is run by User:Quadell, not sure who asked him too but he could have just seen a need and been bold. I see Snowman has raised some concerns on Polbot's talk page. Personally I have no problems with the tag only being used for articles with no images at all, in circumstances where that doesn't work adding the tag back is no biggie anyway. Most of the remvals I saw were legitimate cases where an image had been added sans a removal of the tag. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I do not know why the bot operated without prior liaison. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

BirdLife and the IUCN changes to Red List birds

Published today. Some good news, some bad. Scary to see so many New Caledonian birds uplisted, but also some birds downlisted because they are doing better. Anyway, we need to try and update our lists and references in the light of this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Should there be a template for 2009? The species pages on the IUCN website still feature the 2008 status. Snowman (talk) 13:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
The IUCN lags behind Birdlife by about a month if memory serves. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Published today: the new IOC list, for those who are interested. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonelli's Warblers

I've split up the Bonelli's Warbler article into articles for the constituent species. If anyone has a bored moment and would like to check whether I've made any slip-ups in doing so, please do. The one thing I didn't touch were the interwiki links, as I don't speak any other languages than English fluently enough to be able to tackle that. SP-KP (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've done the same to Olivaceous Warbler now too. I've left Orphean for the time being though, as not all authorities have adopted the split. SP-KP (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've run through the Bonelli's and Olivaceous and completed the taxobox details jimfbleak (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (26)

260. Catbird for identification. Snowman (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Snow, labeled correctly by the user. That is what it is.--Steve Pryor (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Dumetella carolinensis -Wisconsin-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

261. Owl probably at Zurich Zoo. Snowman (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Snowman—this is an Eurasian Eagle-owl. MeegsC | Talk 21:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Bubo bubo -Zürich Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

262. Arini probably on the Caribbean coast of Columbia. Snowman (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Tentatively, whatever the ranging race is on this particular island of A. pertinax.--Steve Pryor (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Brown-throated Parakeet uploaded to File:Aratinga pertinax -Colombia-8.jpg. For me, a match of the Aratinga pertinax aeruginosa and photographed in territory where it is known to be. I think it is in national park 22 on this page; List of national parks of Colombia. Snowman (talk) 07:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

263. tall grey bird probably in Columbia. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Weird. Looks like a stone-curlew of some sort, but none that I am familiar with. An immature?
This is a juvenile Yellow-crowned Night Heron. MeegsC | Talk 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Meegs has it.--Steve Pryor (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
D'oh! Way off then :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Licence on flickr has changed, so not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

264. black ground bird in probably in South America. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a screamer, a little dark (??) for the Southern Screamer? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Cas is right—it's a screamer. But it's a Northern Screamer. Please use this to replace the hideous painting now on the article page!  : ) MeegsC | Talk 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Chauna chavaria-8.jpg and linked in article's infobox replacing previous artwork. It is the first photograph of its species on the wiki and the second image after a painting. Snowman (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

265. green Arini in probably in South America. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks Brotogeris, but need more info as to locale.Steve Pryor (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Yellow-chevroned Parakeet uploaded to File:Brotogeris chiriri -South America -in tree-8.jpg, but subspecies not clear to me. Snowman (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Snow, the reason I am so hesitant is that most of the birds from this user seem to have been taken in the Colombian Chaco (Chaco = northwestern coast in Colombia), and here I don't have a good Brotogeris match with this bird. The photo itself does not allow us to see the rest of the leading wing edge. I ask myself if possibly the user shot a species out of normal geographical context for him? Steve Pryor (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I did consider the photographers "home range" prior to looking in the book about the genus. This photograph was taken in Jan 2007 and some of the ones in Columbia were taken in Aug 2007. I see no reason to suppose that this photographer was completely restricted to the Caribbean Region of Colombia. There is a wide range of dates in the photo-stream and the author probably travelled widely to pursue his photography hobby or work. He even has a "flickr pro" photo-stream. Anyway, what do you think are differential species?Snowman (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I might just send him a note. Part of the problem is considering the age of this bird, and part of the problem is not being able to see well the wing edge below the yellow flash. Initially, I was wondering about versicolurus.--Steve Pryor (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I will think at it again. There is a wide range of dates in the photo-stream and the author travelled widely to pursue his photography hobby or work going to the very south of Columbia in January 2007 to within the range of the White-winged Parakeet B. versicolorus. At the present time, I think that you are probably right in being certain that it is unclear, but I am still thinking about it. Snowman (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I see it from your point of view now, and with the information I have I can not give a certain identity. I think I saw the yellow in its wing without white feathers and jumped to a conclusion. We also can not see its chin. You have given me doubts of the identity, so I will put it in a the genus category and make other correcting amendments. The flickr photographer appears to be in the southern "pan handle" of Columbia, between Peru and Brazil in early January 2007 to take this photograph, but this is too far north of the range of the chiriri according to the range map I have. I can not exclude a chiriri from its appearance, but other species look similar and the photograph only shows parts of the parrot. It could also be a young versicolourus with few white wing feathers. Snowman (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have checked all my books, and every other thing that I can recall. I remembered that there are feral populations of chiriri, but not in this zone, rather (near Lima) in Peru. You are right, there is a location attached to this photo near Leticia, just about as southeast in Colombia as you can get (actually this location is quite near the just across the border location of that Toucan - Palmari Reserve). So, I am reasonably certain that this is Brotogeris versicolurus - just a photo that does not allow us full view of useful features. There is no other Brotogeris morphologically possible in this locale (this isn't sanctithomae, nor cyanoptera).Steve Pryor (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
File renamed to File:Brotogeris species -south Columbia -in tree-8.jpg, and old bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Location more clearly given in the image description as south Colombia, as in the file name. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Rename under way of White-winged Parakeet image to File:Brotogeris versicolurus -Leticia -Colombia-6.jpg. Amendments made by User Rabo3 noted. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

266. File:Crow in Flight -Delaware-8.jpg. Crow in America. Snowman (talk) 09:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like an American Crow based on bill thickness. However, the other possibility is the Fish Crow, which I'm not familiar with. As the two species are almost identical except in size and vocalizations, my ID is tentative. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

267. large bird probably in South America (might be in Columbia). Snowman (talk) 07:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Jabiru mycteria.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Licence on flickr has changed, so not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

268. Toucan for identification. Snowman (talk) 12:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ramphastos vitellinus culminatus - would not appear to me to be fully adult, not juvenile, but not yet adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Channel-billed Toucan uploaded to File:Ramphastos vitellinus -Palmari Reserve -8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

269. File:Aratinga pertinax venezuelae -Venezuela-6.jpg. File on commons. To confirm identification. Apparently a pet in north Venezuela. Snowman (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 22:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


I started doing a ce on Red Knot, but gave up because trying to fix the references was too time consuming. Can we agree the following, especially on collaborations?

  • If we use a template for a ref, we only use "cite" and not "citation" (the two shouldn't be mixed, and citation style is very rare in this project)
  • If a template is not used, the reference should still be formatted in accordance with MoS. Anyone unsure how a book, journal or web reference should look need only look at the project FAs
  • Aim for consistency of style. Common problems:
  • For authors, "surname, first name" is standard, so best not to have any "first name surname"
  • Authors, book titles and journal articles often have non-standard capitalisation in the originals, these should be changed, so "JONES, Fred (2009) Breeding Behaviour of Buzzards" becomes "Jones, Fred (2009) Breeding behaviour of buzzards"

I know that this is all familiar stuff to the old sweats of the project, but if everyone stuck to a standard, it would be much easier to get collabs up to GA/FA. It's easier to get the refs right initially than to sort out the mess later. When I'm looking for an article to work up, I tend to avoid those with too many existing refs, since it's easier to start from scratch. jimfbleak (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Having recently worked on a biography GA, I entirely agree. Incidentally, I think that you are wrong about the capitalization books, see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Capitalization, so the book stays as Breeding Behaviour of Buzzards. Snowman (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant that the author's name should be entered as "Jones" not "JONES", though I agree with you about the book title. MeegsC | Talk 21:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree the JONES should be transcribed to the wiki as Jones. Snowman (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

After much nagging I have been using cite templates of late. I've had the cite button put on my toolbar, but it handles coauthors like so

last=Martin|first=Graham R.|coauthors=Theunis Piersma|
whereas these can also be rendered, possibly more consistently, like
| first = Bas | last = va Balen | first2 = | last2 = | first3 = | etc etc etc

Because the cite button is so easy I've just been using that, I really should spell it out better. But note to Jim, I don't think BMC journals have page numbers (you added them to one of the cites). Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The only problem is I prefer an 'author=' spot and stick all the authors and co-authors in it, easiest is to just stick everything in 'last=' slot and rename after cite has spat out formatted reference. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
PS: Maybe if we all chip in and fix a few refs of Red Knot, it will lessen the pain....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
sorry for bad caps exemplar, Rapid Population Decline in Red Knots: Fitness Consequences of Decreased Refueling Rates and Late Arrival in Delaware Bay was a better one, fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain the new example? Snowman (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Not sure I can. At a recent FAC, it was stated that article titles in refrences should be written in "normal" capitalisation as per MoS for text, even if the original capitalisation is different. There is obvious logic to this, since it follows MoS and gives consistency of style (as with name order above, it looks odd if the capitalisation varies between references). Having said that, I can't see a formal requirement in the citation guidelines. I think it's basically for consistency of style. jimfbleak (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I see, book titles are the only exception. The wiki avoids unnecessary capitalization. One reason for maintaining book title capitalization is that it helps disambiguation (or more precisely book capitals are transcribed to title capitalization). Snowman (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps MOS or CITE are the place to ask. I have always faithfully rendered titles of journals and articles as they are; even if the titles have grammatical mistakes or inaccurate titles; this is about helping the reader find the citation in question. I concede this is less important for caps though, but I still favour replicating whatever style it was written in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What would you do with a title like "BIRDS OF ANTARCTICA"? Snowman (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't always use the font on the front; even books that use all caps on the cover (for example The SIBLEY Guide to Birds) use more normal caps inside (The Sibley Guide to Birds in the publishing details page). But like I said, this is a broader question, not one relating specifically to birds, and it would be good to get a wider range of opinions. I certainly claim no expertise. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that it would be better to see what MOS says, that to obtain a range of opinions. For headings in all caps, see WP:ALLCAPS. MOS says not to copy the all caps format that may be found in newspapers headings and other titles. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent and slightly tangential) I have also been searching for the one that recommends using the last two digits in page ranges, to no avail...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Macaroni Penguin FAC

Macaroni Penguin at FAC - fire away...Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Piece o'Code

Hi folks, as you know we have a lot of stubs of birds (mainly South Asian and Central American) for which large image libraries exist on Commons (kudos to the contributors; outstanding work!). Of course, one wants the article to have images and link to Commons, but even a single taxobox image makes the layout of a stub messy (much whitespace below text). Adding the usual Commons linkbox makes the stub look even worse.

I recently found a nice piece of code that is very useful in such situations. Many probably don't know it, so here it is:

{{commons-inline|taxon name here}}

(works also with Commons categories)

It produces a link like this: Media related to Aves at Wikimedia Commons

With the "-inline" version, you can link to Commons in the External Links section (or References, or simply below the main text, if no EL is present). This way, a bit of whitespace can be avoided, and the stubs look better. Sometimes - when we have two or three sentences in addition to the Polbot code, taxonomy stuff for example - it is already enough to make the stub look not bad at all. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Cool, any with potential headline-grabbing hooks for DYK you can also let us know - my knowledge of neotropical birds is minimal..Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Simply check out your pet articles; if there is no WP:CITESHORT reference section, click "edit" to see the source. There may be annotations regarding leads. I have added some that were DYK-worthy.
I have added quite a few papers regarding SAm ornithology. The Fieldiana and other oldschool stuff is mainly about synonyms, specimen data. But there are some BBOC papers, and many from assorted boletims and revistas; with a bit of Babelfish they're pretty easy to understand. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Pdf tool available

Just thought I'd bring this to your attention from Wikizine [[2]] In April a new function was enabled to make "books" of pages of the wiki. The added pages can be stored, exported as PDF or OpenDocument. Also is there the option to order your "book" (= collection of wiki-pages) in print. It is enabled on most projects and wikis but not on all. Look for a book toolbox in the side menu., looks very useful. Aviceda talk 04:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Alpine Chough

I've been working on this, and when it has a map I may send it straight to FAC since it's relatively short and Ruff is still stalled at GAN. Can anyone help with the following

  • anything specific to this species on predators (at present assumed same as for Red-billed Chough
  • anything on diseases or parasites
  • anything on culture (unlikely for a high mountain species which doesn't occur in English-speaking countries, but who knows?)
  • any thing else with regard to content or improvements to text

thanks jimfbleak (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I can buff up the unrelated White-winged Chough...and if that is all of them then we can do a featured topic :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Not forgetting Chuffy Chuffnell... Maias (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for suggestions, I'm dead chuffed jimfbleak (talk) 15:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
However, seriously, if you wanted to go for featured topic for the two chough species, would you have to also get FA for Pyrrhocorax and Graja as well as the two species articles? Maias (talk) 05:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The featured topic criteria aren't that stringent. If Alpine gets FA, Pyrrhocorax at GA would, imho, fulfil the requirements. I think the genus would be a difficult FA anyway. I'm surpriesed we have no existing FTs, what happened to New World vultures? jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
It has stalled with the New World vulture article itself needing to reach GA to finish it up (and maybe Cathartes). Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Down feather/Powder down

Down feather and Powder down have been candidates for merging since December of last year; AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) made the suggestion, and I can't see any reason not to merge them. Are there any dissenters out there? It would be great to have some feedback at the appropriate talk page. MeegsC | Talk 13:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So what is the white powder that white cockatoos have in their plumage? Snowman (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
That's "powder down", which is a specially-modified type of down feather. Many parrots, herons and some raptors have small patches of down feathers that break down into tiny particles, which can then be preened through the plumage. It helps waterproof and clean the feathers, and contributes a sheen. MeegsC | Talk 15:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. What is the "dust between the frons" mentioned in the "down feather" article? It would be interesting to see some photographs taken using a powerful microscope. Snowman (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm assuming that's someone's attempt to explain what the powder looks like; both articles need a bit of clarification! MeegsC | Talk 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
The two articles are a bit confusing, and so I would support this merge with article clean-up. Snowman (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
It might be better to merge both Powder down and any info relevant to birds in Down feather into Feather, while the rest of the info in Down feather (relating to its use as insulation in human products) either stand alone or be merged into something like Thermal insulation. Maias (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
PS. will copy the above to the relevant talk page. Maias (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish

Okay, I will be absent from wikipedia till further notice. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I hope this doesn't mean they're planning to put a highway through Earth!  ; ) Good bye and good luck with wherever you're headed! We'll miss your efforts... MeegsC | Talk 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI - map request page

Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop. Not used it but looks promising. Just not sure what licencing to place on the source material to upload and have asked for guidelines here Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to explain that you have some copyrighted material that they can use as references to make a map for the ranges of the Australian Magpie, and see what the answer is. Are there any webpages that you can direct them to for the information? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. The material in the books is much better. I have asked on the map page now (fingers crossed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Nasty orders

What to do with

  • ratites?
  • psittaciforms?
  • falcons?
  • storks?

Here's my take at the last 5 years' publications,as far as I have seen them:


Struthioniformes = Struthio, the largest clade that includes ostrichs but not elephantbirds. I.e., the ratites are a form taxon of paleognaths, and most most orders are monotypic to family (except emus & cassowaries). Tinamous stand as one order among them. The case for them being closer to rheas than kiwis are to moa is, I believe, well warranted, but not robust. Maintain Tinamiformes and Rheiformes as distinct and let that decide the phylogeny of the rest, in essence.


de-emphasize Cretaceous origin. If you can check out Gerald Mayr's Paleogene volume, DO IT!!! Systematic Biology had a paper about the supposed Cretaceous origin of pigeons recently. Like the parrot paper, they oversold it; if you overlook the "mine's older than yours" it is really good though and the last paragraphs of their discussion state a few interesting observations. This DNA sequence hodge-podge of neognath lineages is, as the fossil record runs, right in the ground zero of a 10-km piece of extraterrestrial debris. We know the base of the "higher waterbird" radiation is Cretaceous, but not by much (not 10s of Ma); we know that little between that and passerines makes sense and that clocks go wild in that part of the tree.
Psittaciforms are candidate near passerines, possibly next to ?trogons (I never could remember... mousebirds? cuckoos? One of the other guys with funny feet, which is basically which "near passerines" in effect is. Go figure.)
NOTE: Mayr believes the "Danish parrot" is fishy. I remember reading something on the DML about it. As regards the molecular clock paper, their math is actually neat, but note the caveat "if NZ was not often very much under water in the Miocene". Which, as they actually themselves cite, as far as we can tell from the rocks deposited and from the bottlenecks and bottlenecks in about every NZ gene we read, it was very much indeed. As long as the base of your psittaciform tree is the nestorids & kakapo, you won't get a reliable mol-clock estimate. You also need to use at least one internal and two external calibration points with fossils. Then you can get a rather good mol-clock estimate I suppose. But nobody has done that yet. Thus in spite of all the nifty math, there is no piece of hard evidence in favor of a (deep) Mesozoic origin of Psittaciformes and about a pitcherful of fossils and a few trainloads of Neogene marine sediments in Fiordland tentatively against it.


The big question. A relationship with seriemas seems plausible enough; the falcons are of American or African origin. The problem here is that the entire "diurnal raptor" stuff is too confused. Essentially, no theory exists that has not heavy data weighing against it at present. The huge Livezey/Zusi morph analysis (but caveat e.g. Mayr's comments about it!) might actually be worthwhile, as regareds the "raptor" lineages' relative position.
As regards Accipitrids, it's (Secretarybird (Osprey - rest)). The falcons are not very close, but how "not close"? Closer than owls for example? New World vultures? The big problem is that from the fossils it looks as if there was only one major radiation of diurnal (and possibly nocturnal too) raptors. The NW vultures and teratorns stand apart as it seems, but the molecular data puts the former closer to the accipitrids again in recent times?! Something is not right about the genomics of these guys. There is almost no agreement on what the falcons are not close to, which is a very bad sign.
Our accipitrid systematics is totally messed up, it's a festering sore (though at the genus level there has been much improvement; good job y'all!). The entire diurnal raptor section must be reworked from the ground up.
So I would, in fact, scrap the while "Accipitriformes" stuff, be ultra-conservative and use a minimalist approach until the whole section can be rebuilt on a more secure footing:
merge Accipitriformes (Stub-High) and Falconiformes (Start-Top) in the latter. It may well be wrong, but otherwise we'd have to discuss everything twice. And both articles need a complete rewrite except for the top-level systematics section.
create baseline, very conservative systematics. (I could add the fossil record at that stage. Which is problematic)
expand intro telling reader that the following is probably wrong.
create barebones discussion section, start accumulating literature in Talk.
Update accipitrid systematics. We are pretty (90%ish certain) about these, a completely robust phylogenetic and systematic baseline exists, and implementing that'll keep us occupied for half a year or more. Take that time and review the "Falconiformes" data, as we did for Passerine.
Sorry, I seriously oppose merging it back. Most studies are clear that those are two orders and not a single order. What we have to do is create a page for raptor, and dump all the generic stuff about those two oders in there, explain there are at least two order, and devote al space in the order pages for the order specific stuff. being conservative here is ignoring a lot of studies that are very clear about this. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The SACC has now split the Accipitriformes from the Falconiformes. I don't see even a proposal before the NACC. Christidis and Boles have split them too.
Are there other lists that are updated reasonably often, so we can wait for them? As far as I can tell, the BOU doesn't list orders.
But if we are conservative, I don't think that means merging Accipitriformes with Falconiformes (or Accipitridae]]). We can keep the article but note that the taxon is recognized by only some authorities. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but Accipitriformes were always a trans-Atlantic difference of opinion. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that we do not have a robust phylogenetic hypothesis for these now. See this:
  • Sibley sucks extremely at the highest levels. Immediate "neighborhoods" are often surprisingly good (if badly rooted often). The traditional laout (sans NW vultures) is retrieved.
  • c-myc clades the traditional groups and NW vultures which have one indel, and nightjars which have 2 (and as good as certain are entirely wrong there). Note that minor lineages and basal taxa of known major clades (sunbittern, cypselomorphs e.g.) attach wildly and may locally mess things up, and that zones of low support around indels, where without the indelled lineage support ought to be better, often indicate such "rogue" minor lineages.
  • PEPCK has accipitrids in a wildly mixed-up group and falcons close to rollers. This sequence seems only good to resolve within-order phylogeny. Note however accipitrids are still closer to flamingos, charadriiforms and storks that to most others (including falcons).
  • A whole bunch of mt and nDNA of "higher waterbirds" has accipitrids and NWV with charadriiforms and Mirandornithes in a weakly-supported "clade". No falcons, and 10 bucks says if you include a chicken and a duck they'll root the tree somewhere between the NWV and accipitrid split and the next node downstream Twist the tree like that, higher waterbird phylo unfolds itself before you (Penguins and tropicbirds? Someone ought to test that, definitely). I'd go as far as to say: plug falcons into this tree, if they attach between accipitrids and NWV one order it probably is. If elsewhere, it depends on where. Case for 2 orders would rather good strongest if they attach between Mirandornithes, charadriiforms and Acc+NWV. If they plug into "higher waterbirds", that's more like LBA and "we can't tell from the data".
  • RAG-2 has no idea what to do with them. Thus, morphological data attracts all "raptors", but that's just what it would do without any mol data either. The morph data is few and not really good.
  • c-myc and RAG-2 together are adamant that they have no idea what to do with them.
  • The summary hypothesis argues for a three-way split of the "ancient" diurnal raptors, putting the falcons in the vicinity of these and the Mirandornithes + chardriiforms. This arrangement is probably due to sucky rooting in the "higher waterbird" tree; when falcons were tested vs M-C they had no motivation to go near them.
Then you have the stuff discussed by Mayr. He is loath to threat them as one order, but if is one single treatment has best overall support, it may well be single-order :| Not by much, but it is definitely a contender, and better than the "near passerine parrots falcons" thingy... Mayr is too coy to say this, but better near passerine candidates are not nearly as near passerines as they ought to in the Science mega-tree)
It might be an option to do it Mayr's way and lump, but use quotation marks throughout to indicate that this group is highly doubtful. Molecular behavior of the NWV is odd, and they do make reasonable relatives of e.g. adjutants. And finally, Stintonornis and Horusornis want to be plugged in a cladistic analysis.
But I'd say iron out the coarsest bugs, and establish a robust accipitrid systematics first of all here (we can do it, the data is there). "One order or two" doesn't really matter as much as not expanding the order-level article(s) much beyond Start, really. Because we run an about 50:50 chance that any expansion (in either direction) beyond Start or perhaps B-class will soon require an inordinate amount of overhaul - overhaul that everyone will hate to do (the nasty feeling that you proudly promoted something very foolish on WP stings badly, I have been there). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your technical points above. However, it makes a lot of sense to me to work on the things we're sure of and not expanding the order articles until there's a consensus on the systematics. I agree completely with the unsigned point that natural-history writing tends to present a single side of a taxonomic controversy as the truth, and I think that's one place we can do better. That's what I tried to do by putting "Falconiformes (or Accipitriformes, q.v.) in the accipitrid taxoboxes. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
(Speculation follows:
Note that Masillaraptor (a caracara-but-no-caracara-ish thing from mid-Eocene C Europe) would extremely well fit into an out-of Africa radiation, the falcons deriving from westward-blown (and bottlenecked) colonists of South America, and the accipitrids diverging northeastwards... the ancientmost lineages in every accipitrid clade except the most modern ones are heavily present in sub-Saharan Africa and SW Asia. These both + NWV derived from relative of the original "higher waterbird" and of K/PG boundary origin - the caracara-falcons (or NWV and then caracara-falcons as first to make successful landfall in the devastation that was W Gondwana)? Whereas Messelastur as a relative of the Laurasian (transatlantic) Strigiformes, and together close to the cypselomorph/nightjar/oilbird ancestor and of slightly younger (Paleocene) age?
It provides a reasonable explanation for a whole damn lot of the inconsistencies, and it fits smoothly in place and time. And we would in fact have 3-4 parallel radiations towards true "raptor" lifestyle, 3 from an opportunistic (beachcombing?) diurnal megacarnivore of "Africa" and one from a dedicated arboreal crepuscular "aerial hawker" of "Europe".
Unfit for Wikipedia as such, but try to draw up a similarly well-working scenario for (Aussie/NZ) parrots and (Aussie/SEAsian?) passeriforms as falcon relatives. The Science scenario is parsimonious on one train of evidence; it utterly blows on all outside its scope, because there the proposed relationship simply makes no sense. I have seen robust mol-data; it looks different. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC) )

storks (and herons)

Same thing as Falconiformes, but a bit less confused. It rests on one or two fossils, basically. Re-merge I'd say, mainly because it will create MAJOR taxonomic mess viz. Pelecaniformes; if storks are that distinct, Scopus starts to make a case for a merger. We can retain the old "meso-Ciconiiformes", add a caveat emptor, write a nice section on taxonomic and systematic history, and wait for someone to do a cladistic analysis including the Cretaceous-Paleogene fossil record. That should resolve it. I do not think it'll be more than 2 years from now.

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, do you mean the humungous Ciconiiformes with just about everything (well, penguins, kitchen sink, etc.) in, or what, one containing pelecaniformes only. Bit lost here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Nooooo, the Sibley ones? Of course not! I mean storks, herons, ibises.
I am against mergers based on what is going to happen. If we have good sources fro that, yes, but not just based on the gut-feeling of what is going to happen. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Er, so what is consensus now on ciconiiformes? Is it roughly what we have on the pages (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with remerging the Ciconiiformes, the split was premature. I think the Falconiformes split was probably premature too. User:4444hhhh initiated these vast moves without discussion, and I'm sorry but if it comes down to trusting one user's taxanomic opinion over another's Dysmorodrepanis wins every single time. I'm assuming that he is talking about reversing the change that moved the Ardeidae, Balaenicipitidae (the Shoebill), Scopidae (the Hammerkop), and the Threskiornithidae out of the order. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
before we rush again and merge everything again, before we split it again, can we get a discussion not based on someones reputation, but based on sources? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. As long as we do something (as opposed to discuss for a while, then have the conversation die off and nothing end up resolved). At the very least if it id decided to only retain storks in Ciconiiformes the article should sit at stork, not Ciconiiformes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The one I am most interested in at the moment is Pelicans - C&B was the one who moved pelicans into ciconiiformes (closer rel is the whalebill/shoebill) and renamed pelecaniformes phalacrocoraciformes. I'd be keen to know when consensus comes on this and how we judge that it does. I thought that was a more solid move than the herons etc. moving out (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

There is not much disagreement anymore that the pelicans, shoebill and hammerhead are closely related. I have to see any recent study that shows conclusively that it is different. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a start (yay), but what do we call the order in the meantime? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
If something is published, use that name, if not, leave it unnamed. We are not here to determine taxonomy, just to report what we know. Generally, now that it is obvious that the bird phylogeny is not matching with the traditional taxonomy, and the taxonomy has not yet caught up sufficiently with that, we will have some clades that do not yet have names. So be it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
(sigh) I know, I am not proposing any OR, just keen for a heads up as we go I guess :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Cas, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh, guess I responded in part to the frequent observed POV in bird articles, especially if it concerns phylogeny. I think we much more often should write that we just do not know, that there is no consensus, that things are in flux. It sucks, but at the same time, it is the most accurate. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
One major failing of natural history books from times past (well ones aimd at the general population) was to present ideas as fact or set, and one of the great things here is to be able to present things at times in their state of flux, which I find pretty fascinating - a great thing to teach kids is how one bunch of scientists believe X and another bunch Y, but I digress...well not really. 21:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The Shoebill and Hammerkop? Totally pelicans. ;-) If I understand the C&B way correctly (sorry, still can't look it up) - that there are no more Pelecaniformes, but Phalacrocoraciformes and Ciconiiformes - I would be quite in favor of adopting that. It is a respectable source, it represents phylogeny adquately, and it is a very "clean" and satisfying move for the time being. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Hint: look at the billtip of Pelecanus, Scopus and Balaeniceps. Then compare Ciconia, Ardea and Threskiornis. Sabine's Sunbird (thanks m8!) will probably have seen such a structure time and again in other "higher waterbirds". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)