Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 16

Video Links and one more request for advice

Alright, I'm going to go full speed on my bird videos. I've removed the watermarks so they can be usable for Wikipedia. There's now a small copyright notice at the bottom - off picture - and not referring to any website. This way there'll be some kind of reminder. Does it pass muster? Meanwhile, here are links for editors to add to articles if they'd like. Painted Bunting sings-[1] Golden-cheeked warbler sings [2] Yellow-breasted Chat sings-[3] Brown creeper creeps and calls-[4] black-throated gray warbler sings and forages- [5] BirdViewer (talk) 17:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Task lists

I know how much everyone loves tasks, so I've put this one on the tasklist. I reviewed our bird family pages and made a note of which ones were stubs. It would be great if all our family pages were at least better than stubs. I mostly went by what the article review said; in some cases articles are listed as start that are only just start or arguably even stubs. At any rate there is plenty to do here. We probably won't get all of them done, theer are simply some families for which hardly any info exists. Melanocharitidae is a good example, I tried to expand it last year but drew a blank info-wise, although it is slated to be in the next HBW. Anyway, if you have some time add a few lines to these articles and take them off the list. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I search for etymology of Mallard and platyrhynchos. Thank. 86.72.170.168 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mallard" is "Old French mallard, (also modern) malart mallard drake, probably formed as MALE adjective and noun + -ARD." (New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 1993). I've expanded the abbreviations. I don't have a source for platyrhynchos, but it means "flat-billed" or "broad-billed". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.76.216.153 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Song Thrush

Can do with more eyes and hands as it stands on FAC Shyamal (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New article

Just added Bird atlas. Shyamal (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stats

Bird is now the top hit on google for keywords "bird", "birds" and it seems to be getting http://stats.grok.se/en/200801/Bird 116901 (Jan), 132310 (Feb) hits. Clear weekend lulls ! Shyamal (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD

Some expert attention might help at the Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian Parrots

Issue closed. Shyamal (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New species

Togian White-eye! Does anyone have access to the Wilson Journal of Ornithology? It would be nice to flesh it out, perhaps "Did you know?" it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Will try and add an illustration based on the artists image - if there are photographs in the description paper, I would be interested in having a copy to work based on it. Shyamal (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Illustration added. Drop me a mail if you want the description paper. Will try and add some more from that soon. Shyamal (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hooded Crow

FWIW I figure it's about as comprehensive as it can be without delving more into offline ornithological journals. I have put it up at GAN. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole load of pop gen stuff in the more obscure European journals primarily. But that is best added as a bulk. In any case, if anyone has contacts in Iraq, I have always longed for a photo of the Mesopotamian birds. In fresh plumage, they are possibly the most elegant crows. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gallinule or moorhen?

The SACC is proposing to list Gallinula chloropus as the Common Gallinule instead of Common Moorhen. Maybe I shouldn't mention this here, but it got me curious about how birders and ornithologists would react to the change, and I just started a thread at rec.birds about it, if you'd care to participate. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems very sad, I can never understand the 'anger' that 'common-name' conflicts provoke, wish these people would put their passion into conserving the bird-life. Aviceda talk 19:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There was an interesting discussion in the back of my Birds of Australia (Pizzey, Menkhorst & Knight) about the importance of common bird names as a tool for conservation. I doubt that the change in South America would attain any traction outside South America, but it occurs that bird common names would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. It isn't like there isn't enough ink split on the subject that we couldn't reference it properly, and it would be useful for all concerned to have a centralised article on historic and recent trends (such as the derided "globalizers" mentioned in the article), up to and including HBW and Gill and Wright. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm in favor, especially because I don't know of any such history (so much of what we do is already somewhere else on the Web), but for that very reason it won't be easy. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems a good idea; one could start by simply discussing the standard sources we use. There have been Spanish standard names proposed in Ardea I think. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Spanish, Mexican, Andean, Argentinean? There's definitely a standard set of French names.

Another good source is the BOU site, which has some remarks on 20th-century history and on hyphens, and notes that vernacular names have been more stable than scientific names in recent years.

By the way, I'll bet most of the SACC members who showed strong emotions on "gallinule" and "moorhen" probably spend most of their energy on conservation and other science, and were just taking the chance to vent for a minute or two. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I've worked with these sorts of people and it's something they tend to go on about at length at the end of the day over a beer. Actually, usually around the fifth beer. Incidentally, another good Auk article on the subject with some of the earlier background is here (A Guide to Forming and Capitalizing Compound Names of Birds in English ). Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) EXTRA - Some free Auk articles on capitalisation, for it and against Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This subject comes up frequently on the Birding-Aus Mailing-List, have a look at this thread Aviceda talk 02:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Emperor Penguin at GAN

I have polished this up a bit and is now looking quite nice. Anyone feel free to chip in and help. I have not completed referencing, mainly wasn't sure about obviously notable thngs like March of the Penguins etc. I know they will have to be done for FAC though...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reviewing this, please feel free to add comments, in particular, I'd welcome input on whether all the cultural bits should be there. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New article - possible merge candidate

An article that has been newly created Egg tossing (behavior) may well be worthy of merging into Infanticide (zoology). However it may be well worth keeping if there is substantial bird-related material. Shyamal (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a bit confused as it stands. It implies that eggs are ejected with a toss of the beak, but a Cuckoo chick lift the host's eggs out by balancing it on its back Jimfbleak (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Vermiculated/Guatemalan Sceech-owl

A page for the Vermiculated Sceech-owl was requested and someone without knowledge of the split made the page. Not sure how you can deal with this but right now there are two pages for Megascops guatemalae and still none for the real Vermiculated Screech-owl, Megascops vermiculatus. RN1970 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Are we recognizing M. vermiculatus? If so, according to what authority? If not, it should be a redirect to M. guatemalae. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I just saw it was removed from the request page and then checked the page itself. If not having two species, neither of the current pages are correct as one uses Guatemalan Screech-owl (only the correct name for the split species) and the other page which uses Vermiculated Screech-owl has a text that only matches the split M. guatemalae. RN1970 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I checked it out when I did the screech-scops-split. The information someone had put up there or in the article requests seems to be from a parsed list. So we have basically 3 taxonomies that mutually contradict each other.

In any case, IIRC the SACC should have an opinion on it and give sources. BirdLife may also have something, older perhaps but good to have as a baseline. I remember that the splitting situation seemed anything but resolved to me then. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The SACC calls it Megascops guatemalae Vermiculated Screech-Owl. Their note is

Cory (1918), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Marks et al. (1999), and Dickinson (2003) split this into two, Megascops guatemalae (Mexico to Costa Rica) and M. vermiculatus. König et al. (1999) split this species into four: M. guatemalae found from Mexico to Costa Rica; M. vermiculatus ("Vermiculated Screech-Owl") found from Costa Rica to northwestern Colombia; M. roraimae ("Roraiman Screech-Owl", "Tepui Screech-Owl," or "Foothill Screech-Owl") found in the tepui region; and M. napensis ("Rio Napo Screech Owl" -- an inappropriate name) found in the Andes. Hardy et al. (1999), based on voice, also recognized Pacific slope centralis as a separate species; this was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal passed to retain broad M. guatemalae until thorough, formal analysis of entire complex is published. [6]

They also note "Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered M. sanctaemariae and M. hoyi conspecific with M. atricapilla, along with M'. guatemalae' (but treated vermiculatus as a separate species)."

Anyway, RN1970, thanks for pointing out this problem. I suggest we move the text at Vermiculated Screech-owl into Guatemalan Screech-owl, with revisions, and leave Vermiculated Screech-owl as a redirect until that formal study is published. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about this and just asked a friend who does to make sure I got it right in my last post and (luckily!) I did. The two articles are both wrong if only having a single species. The name Guatemalan Screech-owl is only used for M. guatemalae when the more southernly forms are treated as separate species:

• Guatemalan Screech-owl - M. guatemalae (Nicaragua and north)
• Vermiculated Screch-owl - M. vermiculatus (Costa Rica and south)
• The Vermiculated is sometimes split into even more species and is then only found in Costa Rica, Panama and north west Colombia with other: Choco Screech-owl, M. centralis (west Colombia, west Ecuador), Roraima Screech-owl, M. roraimae (south Venezuela, Guyana, north Brasil), and Rio Napo Screech-owl, M. napensis (west Amazon).

If only having a single species the single species is the Vermiculated Screech-owl, M. guatemalae and all other are subspecies of it. The name Guatemalan Screech-owl is only used for M. guatemalae when the other are different species. RN1970 (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

That way it makes sense! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

GA/FA

• Emperor Penguin through GA, please suggest or make improvements to get to FA
• Song Thrush finally through FA, my thanks to all those who commented, and especially to those who made improvements or voted in support of this fac. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cattle Egret is new collaboration, really interesting bird which should have loads of interesting stuff to add.
  • I've done a bit on taxonomy and appearance - hadn't realised how different the two subspecies were in breeding plumage! (only seen Asian race as non-breeder)Jimfbleak (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
• Moa fizzled a bit....oh well...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Real life caught up - I won't be able to do much till the 2nd of April. See ya all then! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dendrocopos medius sanctijohannis

Picus sancti johannis named after Oliver St John (civil servant) by William Thomas Blanford

Does the above name refer to a race of Dendrocopos medius or is it one of Dendrocopos syriacus or some other? The pictured species is from the Persian region and is figured in Blanford's Persian Boundary Commission report. Shyamal (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Dendrocopos medius sanctijohannis (Blanford, 1873)

Syn.: Picus sanctijohannis Blanford, 1873

(This is because there is no "Picus sancti" of course)

"Zagros Middle Spotted Woodpecker" would be a reasonable common name. It is endemic to the Zagros Mountains.

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Accipitridae

The new paper is out, I have commented on it. What do you think? Fat books will need to be read - the system Wikipedia uses is from 1931, in its non-recognition of the "true eagle" clade! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pink-headed Duck

Has anyone in recent times actually put this into Netta? The IUCN does not even discuss anymore that it was once proposed. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

According to this blog

Livezey to argue that the two should be regarded as congeneric. With Rhodonessa coined by Reichenbach in 1853 and Netta by Kaup in 1859, the former supposedly had priority, so the Red-crested pochard – a familiar species to anyone that knows ducks – became renamed Rhodonessa rufina (Livezey 1996).
However, Livezey had made a mistake, as Kaup named Netta in 1829, not 1859, so in later publications he switched things round, now sinking the Pink-headed duck into Netta, and hence renaming it Netta caryophyllacea (Livezey 1997). This hasn’t been widely accepted however.

The Pink-headed Duck article cites the Livezey paper and puts it in Netta. The blog author however suggests that the two genera should be left alone ! Shyamal (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

new category of articles to improve on on Collaboration page

here I started a list of bird articles which are blessed with either a Featured Pic or havea good selection of images to illustrate an article. Given this can be the hard part of improving an article, I thought listing a few of those articles may be another place for folks to choose from. Please add more if/when you find them Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Birds of prey task force

Mentioned in the recent news letter, i am looking for someone to help lead this task force. respond on my tak page please. -Tobi4242 (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Although unable to help with "task force", I am sure most of us will pitch in to requests for content help here. Shyamal (talk) 01:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

FA/GAupdate

Chough now at FAC, Emperor Penguin soon to follow as well Jimfbleak (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The flying penguins

Sorry, a day late, this should have made it to the newsletter ! [7] Shyamal (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good fun! The BBC "broke" the story on 1 April, showing the "footage" their wildlife units had gotten while reportedly in the area filming something else. Too bad they couldn't convince David Attenborough to do the narration—that would have made it even more believable! : ) MeegsC | Talk 08:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

assessment categories

I would like to suggest adding a list-class category, as there are lots of bird list pages and other wikiprojects have these, however I have no idea how to do this Dixonsej (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the list class option. Shyamal (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Shyamal. What's the code to use? I tried "List", but got a red-link saying there was no such category. Next question would be, should we have some way of distinguishing our Featured Lists? (i.e. a FL class?) MeegsC | Talk 07:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Its class=List or class=list. Sorry, missed updating the documentation. Maybe we need another FL category ! Shyamal (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The category page needed a dummy edit or a super-category addition which has been done now by James. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Subheading names Distribution vs Range

OK, do we all feel these are synonymous? If so, which one do folks prefer?

PS: Sorry I forgot to add that I've been using Distribution and habitat, so I did mean 'X' and habitat WRT this poll. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Distribution

1. .Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC) (only because that is what I have used so far and switched over, but I could be persuaded otherwise)
2. I like these polls. The other possibility is only Distribution range to differentiate from fossil range etc. Shyamal (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Yes, but I don't mind Jimfbleak (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Though I prefer "Distribution and habitat" myself. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This is definitely even better especially when habitat associations and preferences are better understood. The most unusual heading for this is Occurs used in Rasmussen & Anderton(2005) The Birds of South Asia. Shyamal (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• MeegsC—though I think Rufous-crowned Sparrow's idea is even better.

FA/GAupdate

Emperor Penguin now promoted to FA, Chough still at FAC Jimfbleak (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks to all for giving another aussie (well, Aussie Antarctic territory) bird the once over...and now Cockatiel has scored an equaliser vs White Wagtail in a tight match at Bird Collaboration....and does anyone have the book on the European Robin, Redbreast by Andrew Lack? That would get this one to romp home in an FAC no worries...just not easy to get here in Oz.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

OR?

Green Peafowl seems to be brimming with WP:OR. This concern has been raised many times in the past. Shyamal (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Southern ground-hornbill

Southern ground-hornbill needs moving back to Southern Ground-hornbill or Southern Ground Hornbill to accord with project naming policy. Maias (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Done to Southern Ground-hornbill as suggested in Ground-hornbill. Shyamal (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:BirdTalk

I was wanting to edit this template but wanted to run this by everyone at first. Sometimes when I am flicking between pages, the handiest page to jot things on is this one - i.e. discussion page of the birds wikiproject. I think it would be good having a direct link on the template to the discussion page of the project (some other templates such as Wikiproject Medicine do already). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Someone recently added the WT:BIRD redirect with an expression of surprise ! Shyamal (talk) 05:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Subheading names Feeding vs Diet

Just for Shyamal

Feeding

1. I prefer this Jimfbleak (talk) 11:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Feeding, for me, seems broader than diet - including associated behaviour rather than just nutritional intake items. Maias (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
3. FWIW, HBW uses Food and feeding... MeegsC

Diet

1. Prefer this as I suppose I just don't like -ing words. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This is actually a tough one and I think the full set of suggested sections should go back as a future reference on the WP:BIRD page with the pros and cons. This is tough especially when dealing with species that have entries for aviculture as well as wild birds. What about the human activities of "breeding" pheasants and "feeding" chicken ? Are they also under the same section or is there a separate aviculture section? I think the title for this section, as it concerns wild birds, needs to allow for inclusion of foraging techniques (eg: sweeping bill in water) as well as diet. Shyamal (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I am conflicted here I must say; I have used and (emotionally I guess) prefer diet, yet the use of Feeding as a subheading allows it to include foraging behaviour more easily than writing something cumbersone like diet and foraging behaviour/hunting etc. However, having breeding and feeding looks a bit odd. I am stuck here :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Have I mentioned that I like it when you can tell from Wikipedia that lots of people have written it? Spice of life and all that. Now, taxonomy—there's where we need standardization. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bird names/naming

Requesting an article on the naming of birds including matters of Latin, English and other languages. History, standardization attempts and other matters could go there. A summary should appear also in the Bird article. It is something that many non-birders are surprised by. Shyamal (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. We have Timeline of ornithology as one point. In Banksia we have Taxonomy of Banksia which may be a fair example to compare with. So...Taxonomy of birds? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

template footer birds

User:4444hhhh has been moving the template footer birds to template dinosaurs (edit history here.) It got moved back once with a request that consensus be sought, but he has moved it back. While no one here doubts that birds are descended from dinosaurs, I don't think there is any benefit in converting a bird template into a bird and dinosaur template. I've moved the template back and reverted the changes for now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Subheading names Reproduction vs Breeding

OK, given these two are synonymous, we may as well have all the bird articles having the same ones. Which do we prefer? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'd almost suggest that you'd use breeding with regard to a species and reproduction at higher level, but I'm nost sure why I'd suggest that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction

1. .Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (If we need a standard, I prefer this one- for some reason, it sounds more encyclopediactric (is that a word?) and formal to me)

Breeding

1. .Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (I suppose I like this one very slightly more as it is plainer English but I am not fussed)
2. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC) (If we need a standard, this one is slightly better. )
3. Covers a little more - including courtship, nesting and chick raising - reproduction is much narrower. Maybe use reproduction as a sub-heading of breeding if there is detail on developmental or physiological aspects. Shyamal (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
4. MeegsC—as Shyamal says, a bit broader than Reproduction...
5. Since Bird Nookie appears to be off the table entirely, I'd support Breeding. Often, and with great enthusiasm. - Ken Thomas (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No standard needed

1. Not only don't I see any need for a standard, I think we have more urgent things to work on than words which there are few or no objections to. If we have to have a standard, though, I prefer "breeding", as simpler and more English, as well as maybe more inclusive, as Shyamal says. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jerry, this takes all of about 5 seconds to fix, I just thought that uniformity looks really good and the use of either of these two appeared completely arbitrary, hence we get it over and done with now and move on. Now back to the FAC....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We all like both uniformity and variety, but some of us prefer more toward one side and some more toward the other. Good thing there are so many different kinds of people in the world... sorry, that was my POV :-) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I prefer "breeding" too, Well-bred Jim (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Another dilemma

I just (prematurely) moved List of birds of Tasmania to List of Tasmanian birds thinking all our FLs were like this - then I looked at a few (oops). Do we have a preference what we call them all?

List of X-n birds

1. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (by the slimmest of margins)

List of birds of X

I am completely stumped and couldn't make up my mind actually, by a whisker I like (1) but not by much...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I mistaken and we discuss this before and I missed it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the "List of birds of Tasmania" because the country is a noun and not an adjective. For some areas the adjective might not be obvious. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I prefer this one too. MeegsC | Talk 11:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Can get too inconsistent with areas like Trinidad and Tobago, Togian Islands. (Reminds me of an old question - Why Canada Goose and not Hawaii Goose?) Shyamal (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I too prefer this one. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Identifying a dead bird

I've just been told on the Science Ref Desk that the dead bird in this picture is a Northern Gannet. Another picture (where the head is more clearly seen) is here. I'm seeking more opinion here, just to be absolutely certain. I don't suppose any article will want a picture of a dead gannet (though we do have a roadkill article, we don't have a seakill article!), but maybe someone will one day. Maybe Wikibooks or something. Any ideas what might have killed it? I think it got washed ashore. Oh, and I know the filename is wrong. :-) Actually, if you guys don't mind, could you comment on Image:Swan grooming plumage.jpg and Image:Swan eating grass.jpg and Image:Dove house.jpg? Any chance of saying something more specific than "swan" and "dove" for these? Carcharoth (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A dead gannet absatively..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, the first two are Mute Swan.."preening" would be better than "grooming plumage" I guess.. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Preening redirects to personal grooming, and has a section on birds preening. Is there an article on bird behaviour or anatomy where bird preening is covered? Any dove enthusiasts about? Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your doves are domestic pigeons. You might check with OnorioCatenacci, who's a pigeon breeder, to see if he can tell from the photo which breed they are... MeegsC | Talk 23:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I dropped a note over there, though I see that I'm now confusing species and breed. You told me the species, and said I should ask him the breed, but I asked him the species. At least I've now discovered dovecote. And the pigeon fanciers are all here. Someone should be able to help eventually. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

At a complete back track... If you do want a few photos of some dead birds then I'll be happy to CC any of the ones on this page: http://www.pbase.com/wangi/portobello_beach_dead thanks/wangi (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is also the 'delightful' Commons:Category:Dead birds. No, I'm not going to ask for identification of those! :-) Thanks for all the help. Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

But wangi's page there was interesting. Seems most seabirds die of exhaustion at sea (particularly in stormy weather) and are not washed up on land, but if the conditions are right, their bodies can start washing up on beaches. Maybe that's what happened with the gannet I found. Carcharoth (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. If would have known there was such a demand for dead bird photos, I wouldn't have scolded my cat for dragging all her trophies into the house. - Ken Thomas (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

catkill? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aviculture

Is there enough interest to start an WikiProject:Aviculture? Possibly as a sub project of WP:Birds. Just to gauge the level interest, can the people interested form a list here? Snowman (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be, which is a shame. Perhaps WP:BIRD should draw up some guidelines and set up some resources in the interim. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Snowman, if you'd like, I'm happy to float the idea in the next project newsletter, to see if we can drum up some interest... MeegsC | Talk 03:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC) but am

I guess that no more readers will read the newsletter than this talk page, but thanks anyway. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Snowman--do we need to ask permission to set up a subproject? I mean isn't that sort of the notion of a wiki in the first place? Make a small modest start and build from there? Is there any reason we can't simply create an aviculture subproject and those that care to can work on it? I'm interested in helping with a subproject specifically related to issues of Aviculture. Sorry--maybe this is all covered in a FAQ somewhere so if it is apologies in advance.OnorioCatenacci (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This had got very little interest here, so I feel that WP:Birds has no remit to make any polices on aviculture issues. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can make the jump from editors not having time to join another WikiProject to editors not having an interest in aviculture issues! I, for one, am very interested in all birds—incuding those which are kept as pets. However, I don't feel I have the time to commit to another project. Are you thus saying I, as a WP:BIRD member, should have no voice in aviculture-related articles?! Phooey on that! : ) MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Many individual WP:Bird members, including yourself, make valuable contributions to aviculture related articles. I think that you have extrapolated a meaning beyond what I wrote in my reply to a comment above. My reply was that WP:Birds should not make policies for aviculture issues (WP:Aviculture does not exist) as little interest was shown in a WP:Avicutlure project by WP:Bird members. Snowman (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just joined WP, so am new to all this. I work as a companion parrot behaviourist in the UK and am interested in the welfare of birds in aviculture I'm also interested in wild birds, and came to WP looking for info on sexual dimorphism in adult Jackdaws (C. monedula) (No, I didn't find it!) If an Aviculture section was started, I would contribute to it. Alfie1960 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how one joins this project but I would like to--and I would also support an aviculture subproject. I'm a pigeon fancier in the United States for whatever it's worth OnorioCatenacci (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! We're glad you're interested in joining us—there's certainly plenty of things to work on! Joining is easy. Just add your user name (alphabetically) to the "Participants" section on the main project page, and you're in. (Click the "Article" tab at the top of this page.) Please feel free to contact any one of us if you have any questions. MeegsC | Talk 18:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aviculture as a WikiProject:Birds Taskforce

Would anyone else be interested in starting an aviculture taskforce? I, for one, would be interested in such an undertaking.--OnorioCatenacci (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aviculture Project Proposal FYI

Worth taking a look at. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Aviculture Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Which Canada Geese courting? You decide!

Commons has two pictures of Canada Geese in mating-season display: this and this. I think either would be a good addition to Canada Goose, but I'm recusing myself from the decision because of bias. (I also linked to versions without author information in case anyone else is biased by names.) So which should it be? If you've got a clear preference, you can probably just be bold and add it to the article, maybe where the crèche is now and move that picture down a little. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Second one. And for a second there I thought you were going to ask me which subspecies of Canada Geese was there, which is a much harder question! Whew! Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Good choice! By the way, there was a high-school kid there, a future ornithologist, and I really should have admitted my ignorance and asked him about the subspecies. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines for common names for families, subfamilies

I've been thinking lately about the titles of the family articles. In the past most of these have settled the common name for the family, except where the common name is a double (Shearwaters and petrels, for example, which according to MOS is incorrect, and thus is at Procellariidae). There has been a tendency lately, not widespread mind, for articles to get moved from this for rather pedentic reasons. Oriole got moved from the family page to the genus page because of one member of the family that is called the Figbird. Likewise Dove got moved to Columbidae, which although more accurate is less intuitive to members of the general public (for whom, generally, we are writing this). Lorikeet got moved to the Lories and lorikeets because "some of them are Lories, not lorikeets" (never figured out if the two are interchangeable like dove/pigeon, heron/egret), which while preferable to Loriinae as a title for the lay reader is unfortunately incompatible with the MOS (and harder to work into links). I'm a tad worried that soon people will be calling for Cuckoo to be moved to Cuculidae because some cuckoos are called anis or coucals or koels, or any variation on that theme.

I wonder if we need to expand the guidelines we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles. Basically something like article titles for taxa higher should preferably use established common names for families unless the common name is plural. Common names are mostly taken from the HBW, so we could use their names [8] as the standard. Thus cuckoo would stay where it is, as the common name for the family in toto. Procellariidae would have to stay where it is because the established common name for the family is plural. Etc etc etc. And Oriole can go back to being the family page, not the genus one. Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To me it depends. I agree with you about "Oriole", because to the extent that I have any thoughts about the Figbird, I think of it as an oriole. But I disagree about "Cuckoo"—I don't think of roadrunners and anis as cuckoos. I'd call that family "cuckoos and allies" or "Cuculidae". Incidentally, we need an article on the genus Vireo; currently Vireo gets you Vireonidae. In this case, I don't think of greenlets, peppershrikes, or even shrike-vireos as vireos. It's more appearance than the name. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd second Jerry on those. I guess if in doubt, things can always be listed here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I think of an ani as an ani and a cuckoo. As in a ani first, but also a member of the family "cuckoo". Same way a Sulphur-crested Cockatoo is a cockatoo, and it's a parrot. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And if anis get moved to a family of their own, which Ani (bird) says has been proposed, will you stop thinking of them as cuckoos?

Discussions in alt.usage.english ("Is a hamburger a sandwich?") suggest that people who care about hypernyms (words for categories) disagree strongly and think their positions are obvious. Unfortunately, we're stuck with that problem. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, unless they got moved to a different order. I mean, the cuckoos in America (like the Yellow-billed Cuckoo) are no more closely related to the Common Cuckoo or the Long-tailed Cuckoo than the anis are. Common names are a convenience, they aren't spectacularly good at showing links. And they are going to split the Kakas and Keas out of the true parrots, but they'll still be parrots. I always used to think of European Robins as thrushes, only now they are flycatchers. But I guess you're right in that some people will never agree to these things. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Another point, and one I didn't make above. When writing the articles is is dramatically easier to use common names. I'm currently dramatically expanding antbird at the moment. It is much easier to refer to the family in general as "antbirds often eat the babies of moose" rather than the more cumbersome "Members of the family Thamnophilidae often eat the babies of moose". Most family names are rather long and non-intuitive. As someone who tries to write about families a lot, "cuckoo" is preferable to "cuckoos and allies" or cuculids or "birds in the family Cuculidae". Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with SS, but I'd like a ref for the diet of antbirds please (:

Jimfbleak (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There's always "thamnophilids", though I can see why some people object. In this case, I think of antshrikes, etc., as antbirds. But I don't think of geese as ducks or thrashers as mockingbirds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

for as little or as much it's worth, i am also in agreement. i'd particularly love to see this implemented with mammal entries, but i figure that's something best left to WPMammals. - Metanoid (talk, email) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Red-billed Chough

Many thanks to those who helped get this through. It must be unusual for an article to change its name halfway through FAC too! Jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! I'll bet you feel quite... I can't say it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You should have gone with it Jerry, Jim has plenty to crow about (yes, I went there, and I don't egret it!) Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vireos: flocking or territorial? And common names again: What should "vireo" mean?

Salaman and Barlow in The Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds say that the tropical members of Vireonidae (or just of Vireo?) maintain year-round territories and the northern migrants maintain winter territories, but Howell says that lots of species in both categories join mixed feeding flocks and that the Warbling Vireo is a dominant species in such flocks. Who's right? Could they just join the flocks when the flocks enter their territories? Does anyone have a better source?

Also, currently vireo redirects to Vireonidae. I'd kind of prefer it to be the name of Vireo (genus), but I note that Howell calls the Vireonidae "vireos", as do Salaman and Barlow. Any thoughts? Using "vireos" for the whole family is convenient in the family article, not so much in the genus article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding territories, territories of different species will overlap, but are not defended against different species. Territorial species with territories smaller than that of the mixed flock will join the flock at the start of their territory and peel off when it reaches the other end, but core memebrs of the flock may hold a mutual territory that they defend together (albeit against only other flocks with the same species composition). This article [9] discusses multi species flocks further south than Howell and Webb's book would cover, which are dominated by antbirds.

Namewise, when I think of Vireo I think of the whole family, but I have only seen one non Vireo vireo (in Belize). I'd refer to the family as Vireonidae in the genus article but leave the main article as viroe for simplicities sake. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Neotropical treasure trove

I recently discovered this Flickr user who has about 500 great photos of Neotropical birds. I found it through an image uploaded onto the commons, but I don't think it has much been raided for Wiki needs. It is in Spanish so has eluded my earlier attempts to find South American bird images. He has binomial species names for all the images though Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware of this one from Brazil [[10]] but Celso is a regular contributor to the Birds-Pix Mailing-List, I have similar contacts throughout the world if required Aviceda talk 02:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Photographs from people who are willing to release them with a free license are always welcome!

A well-known New Mexico birder, Jerry Oldenettel, has CC-by photos from his recent Costa Rica trip and Oaxaca trip. I just got the Elegant Euphonia, and I see someone got the Crimson-collared Tanager. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Some very nice photos but are they reliable? I browsed around and stumpled upon several places where the identification was questioned. See some of the comments under these [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] and [16]. Can someone check them? At least one of them is already used on wikipedia: White-spotted Woodpecker. RN1970 (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ornithology textbook

Does anybody have a copy of Proctor's or Gill's (or anybody else's) ornithology textbook to hand? If so, does it explain in any detail how the primaries are connected to the wing bones? Is it just a ligamental connection, or are the quills actually imbedded in the bones? HBW seems to suggest the latter, but I can't find any other source that confirms or details this. (I've been asked by a reader to explain the connections more clearly in the Flight feather article.) Any help would be appreciated, as my copies are in a storage unit on another continent! MeegsC | Talk 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a copy in the library, I'll duck in and have a look after lunch. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gill simply states that they are attached. None of the other books I looked at shed any further light on the subject, but I didn't stay for long. I'll think about where to look and who to ask. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Feathers are not embedded in the bones, I think. If they were, the bones would have "feather sockets". Feathers sheaths (each containing a feather) must be connected to each other and to the bone by a strong connective tissue of some sort, I think. I doubt if distinct ligaments are present. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, distinct ligaments are present for the secondaries, at least. Many species have a row of quill knobs along the trailing edge of the ulna—one for each secondary feather; these knobs are the points where the individual feather ligaments bind to the bone. (This is also a feature that's being used to assess the potential flight ability of feathered dinosaurs; the presence of quill knobs may indicate these dinosaurs had at least some flight capabilities...) The situation with primaries, however, is much less clear. The actual method of attachment is surprisingly poorly documented, other than to say the feathers "attach directly to the bone"! MeegsC | Talk 22:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I just found this ancient text (1898) Frank Beddard that has some nice illustrations and some details on the topic (public domain) - scan available on http://www.archive.org/details/structureclassif00bedd Shyamal (talk) 05:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice, but still no details on the method of attachment! : ( MeegsC | Talk 21:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a nice photograph of a penguin ulna showing a series of depressions in this paper - Gerald Mayr (2005) Tertiary plotopterids (Aves, Plotopteridae) and a novel hypothesis on the phylogenetic relationships of penguins (Spheniscidae). J. Zool. Syst. 43(1):61–71. But this appears to be where the connective tissue anchors itself rather than the feather base. Feather primordia are supposed to be dermal although some 'bone morphogenetic protein seems to be involved.[17] Shyamal (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

List of NA birds

Our featured List of North American birds has been nominated for removal here, and is engendering quite a heated discussion. We may want to weigh in. Nice that the nominating editor didn't even bother to notify us! MeegsC | Talk 13:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this has led to a proposal to rename the article with a much less acrimonious discussion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested photographs

Is there a dedicated area or page here for photograph and image requests? Snowman (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Add the following to the BirdTalk template on the article's discussion page: |needs-photo=yes (You can also add |needs-audio=yes if a sound file would be useful). Right now, we have no way to specify an image. These parameters put the articles into the Category:Bird articles needing photos and Category:Wikipedia requested audio for animals. MeegsC | Talk 21:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

There are over 6600 on the list, so if one is added it probably will not be noticed. However, I wonder how many on the list have suitable "free" images on internet databases that can to be uploaded to the wiki? Snowman (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested in trying to hunt down free pictures, if someone would show me how. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no one process. Most of the images we have come from 1) Wikipedians 2) The US federal government and 3) Flickr images posted with either a share alike or attribution licence. More recently Flickr has proven invaluable but it can be time consuming to hunt the images down, especially ones posted in languages other than English. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For hundreds of free pictures, see above. Or do you mean you need to know how to download the pictures from the Web? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Basically, I was hoping someone would tell me which specific licenses work for Flickr and and what other sites we can draw pictures from. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(Un indent) Creative Commons Attribution and Attribution Share-alike. Do an advanced search on Flickr, then select Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content and tick Find content to use commercially and Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon. These meet our requirements. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds great. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This tool will do most of the work for you in transferring the image to wiki commons. It requires some details to be completed manually. You need to be logged into commons to get it to work, so you need to have a commons account. You can search flickr using flickr's advanced search - the only images that can properly be uploaded are the ones you find by ticking the boxes at the bottom of the advanced search page; tick "search creative-commons licienced content", and then tick both "find content commercial use" and "find content to modify". When you have found a good image, cross check its identity or save the link for identification later, go to the maximum image size, copy the url of the biggest image into the uploading tool, write in a good name for the image, click a few buttons in the correct sequence, read the warning and information hints on the pages as the upload tool does its work, write in some extra details, edit the uploaded page and write in the correct categories and make any other modifications needed. I think it is best done with several browser tabs (or windows) open at once and refer to then as needed. Many of the photographs on flickr are not labeled scientifically, and some labels are incorrect. Use all your skills in bird identification. I have looked through all the free images that came up with a search for "parrot" (over 3000). Searching for "Polly" came up with a few more parrots (and a lot of other stuff). I have been working from a great range of images from the search for "Galapagos" and there is still some work to be done there - I am not sure what the small brown birds are. Sometimes important details are in the image tags, which might refer to a zoo or place. It can be interesting, because there are some great images there, but it can be tedious looking through many photograph sets. Snowman (talk) 13:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Donb't be scared to upload something unusual and bring it here for ID, we've gotten a few good images for new species that way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That would work, but the file name of the uploaded image might need to be sorted out after identification. It can be identified before upload by referring to it with an external link to flickr. After identification a better file name can be chosen. Snowman (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tassie Wedgie

Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle needs to be moved to Tasmanian Wedge-tailed Eagle per WP:Birds naming policy. Maias (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Shyamal (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Regional naming conventions: Great Northern Diver or Common Loon?

Gavia immer breeds and overwinters in Europe and North America. In Europe it is known as the Great Northern Diver. North Americans call it the Common Loon. In cases such as these, which name is more appropriate for the article title? It has been argued that population numbers and cultural status should affect the choice of title; the MoS does not seem well suited to resolve this issue. Seems a useful thing to discuss and resolve here. Quaternion (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a big war topic - don't expect a MoS solution soon - I think the AOU has recently rejected an IOC proposal on this name. Right now it is partly based on creation priority. Shyamal (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. If that's the case, then Wikipedia is not the place to resolve the issue. We should probably leave it as is until these groups reach some consensus. Quaternion (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of logic in the Lepidoptera and other entomology groups suggesting that widespread species with more than one common English name be retained under their scientific name, e.g. Orgyia antiqua for Rusty Tussock Moth/Vapourer. Maybe "we" should adopt the same principle—after all, the BOU/BB and AOU have been battling the Loon/Diver issue for years, and consensus seems unlikely this side of Armageddon!—GRM (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Except that, AFAIK, every one of 10,000 bird species' articles is at the common name. Change one to binomial, change them all. This is the worse possible solution IMHO Jimfbleak (talk) 17:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah for the day when as high a percentage of lepidopteran species has its own page as the birds do!—GRM (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Or the 300k beetle species or 30k Asteraceae..anyway...tricky...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)