Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 39

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Noodle snacks in topic Image names

Peer review requested

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. British Birds Rarities Committee is now at Wikipedia:Peer review. Please could I ask editors who regularly contribute to WP:Bird to take a look and comment at its peer review page? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (28)

Latest comment: 14 years ago38 comments8 people in discussion
Snow, for both these photos. We will just have to take their word! The separation of latirostris from baudinii, in a captive context, and therefore out of any wild geographical reference, is just about impossible, and, for me, guesswork. If you show me the two species side by side, I can tell them apart, but show me either one in a monospecies group, and it is just very tough.--Steve Pryor (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I am beginning to think that the two can be identified from their beaks providing the photograph shows the beak clearly. I think that you need to take into account that the parrot may have its beak open, partly open, or closed, and take bearings and map out of parts of the beak that do not overlap when the beak is partly closed or closed. Taronga Zoo's does have a latirostris according to the zoos website, so 281 is probably one of these. I have been searching the internet for images to make comparisons, and I plan to look at 280 again. Were latirostris from baudinii once classified as subspecies of the same species? Snowman (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
According to HBW latirostris from baudinii were "long considered conspecific" Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
That explains some of the terminology on some webpages. Why were they split? Snowman (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Because in spite of partly overlapping ranges they have different ecological differences, stemming in part from significantly differently sized bills. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem with this ID. The one on the left is surely female, the other I can't see the nape or the leading wing edge and so I can't sex it for sure. The location is in El Oro Province, coastal SW Ecuador.--Steve Pryor (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Looks like a male Chestnut-eared Aracari. Hard to tell the subspecies from this angle, but based on the colour on the side of the head, it's probably castanotis. MeegsC | Talk 19:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Pteroglossus castanotis -Chanchamayo Zoologico-8a.jpg on commons, and cropped version show in infobox. Snowman (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Could be Plain Parakeet (Brotogeris tirica). Snowman (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The ID is correct as per the photo label. Buceros bicornis. The poor condition of the anterior part of the casque might draw one to believe it to be female, but it is an adult male with the anterior casque having been damaged most likely from the bird attempting to escape.--Steve Pryor (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Damage to beak might be misleading so not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a funny one - he's all fluffed up which did make me think of a Salmon-crested for a second, but the colouring - white with a yellowish tinged rump - gives it as Cacatua galerita. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
It is definitely not a Salmon-crested. Yellow on the underside of the proximal ends of large feathers could be any of the Cacatua. It reminds me of an Umbrella Cockatoo, but I am not saying that it is an Umbrella Cockatoo at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Here is an "all rights reserved" photo of an Umbrella at the same zoo. I think that this is likely to be the same parrot as 287, and it seems to be on the same sort of tree branches. There are several others in the photostream. There appears to be a Yellow-crested Cockatoo at the same zoo, which seems to me to shows more yellow on the underside of the tail feathers and its feathers look more streamlined. I think that the Yellow-crested has faint yellow ear patches. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I never knew Umbrellas had the yellowish rump. Ok, I'll go with that as yellow-creted have yellow ear patches. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
yes, and Umbrella Cockatoos have yellow on the proximal parts of the underside of their larger wing feathers. They also have yellow on the deeper parts of their crest feathers, but you can not usually see this unless you can examine a co-operative parrot. Umbrellas do not have any pink or salmon feathers anywhere. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Cacatua alba -Kansas City Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the final assessment. Cacatua alba.--Steve Pryor (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Might be Asian Glossy Starling - Dougjj (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Definitely Aplonis Starlings....maybe Metallic? (their tails look tapered) Aviceda talk 06:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes they are Metallic Starlings.. Particularly Aplonis metallica metallica --Ltshears (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to commons at File:Aplonis metallica -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg. Swingometer pointing to Metallic Starling - article says they are Australasian birds. Snowman (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Red-collared Lorikeet, and the name is rubritorquis, not rubiginosus. Aha! I can see a DYK here....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
File:Trichoglossus haematodus rubritorquis -Lion Country Safari-6-4c.jpg; is the one on commons labelled as a T. h. rubritorquis. 289 looks more like a T. h. flavicans to me. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
OK for rubritorquis. I don't have the Forshaw, but he Juniper & Parr have plates that I find deceiving. Most of my database photos for this race are just like this. I have found it much more common to have orange on the neck slash and the upper breast, than having it outright red.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that 289 in the aviary is OK for rubritorquis? What your you call the file on commons of the bird perching on a hat? Snowman (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that is what I am saying, and I did look at the photo on the hat from which the first linked photo was derived. No problems with it. This might be a question of age (or, alternatively a question of the captive diet). Perhaps the older adults have an appearance more in line with what I have for the plates of this bird. However, I do not usually rely on the book plates for my final analysis. I leave that to my database.--Steve Pryor (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, although, I am not sure why some have green wings and some have olive-brown wings, which has confused me. I often look through many photographs shown by an internet search as well as looking at the book illustrations when making an identification, but there are few photographs available for this subspecies. Rename under way to File:Trichoglossus haematodus rubritorquis -aviary-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

White-chinned and similar redirects

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments9 people in discussion

Does anyone know what the policy is for disambiguation pages like White-chinned, White-bearded and Pink-throated, and redirect pages like White-barred, White-bridled and Pink-necked? Just wondering, as user:Neelix has been very busy making such pages, and I was under the impression that at least the disambiguation pages fall under Partial title matches. • Rabo³ • 15:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that there is no such thing as a "White-chinned" so this page should be deleted, or turned into a redirect. I think other pages like this should be treated similaly. Perhaps, (I am not sure) they could be all wrapped up in a single page called something like "List of common word combinations used in animal names", and so the editors work will not be lost. The next questions are; "Should there be a redirect named White-chinned? and, if so, where should it redirect to?" I have not thought it through fully yet. Snowman (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
They seem to fall fairly clearly under Partial title matches and should be removed in my opinion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, there is no such thing as a "White-chinned", so it should not be a redirect or a page name. I suggest batch deletion in a formal AfD for this type of page name. Snowman (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
An alternative would be to be to rename the pages "List of things described as white-chinned" etc, or "List of birds described as... " if it only covers birds. Then "white-chinned" would simply redirect there. Maias (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh dear. I am a little dismayed - my thoughts are with Snowman (delete), or with Maias (list of ...x). As is, thye would not be defined anywhere or apply to anything. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There was a delete consensus the last time this happened with partial scientific names. Shyamal (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My feeling is that going to AfD for batch deletion is inappropriate, when there is a simpler and more courteous solution. As far as I can see, Neelix is a long-term editor who has contributed much, especially in the areas of disambiguation and making navigation easier. At worst the new pages are harmless. They may well be useful for some and interesting for others. If apparently going against the letter of some subsection of MOS gets up one's collectgive (and consensual) nose, then change the titles to some acceptable format, such as putting 'list' in the name, then maybe we can breathe more easily - and perhaps find time to untangle our collective knickers. Maias (talk) 02:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I think that discussing pages for deletion need not be discourteous and I see no discourtesy in this sensible discussion so far. Snowman (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Before continuing, it is important to realize how many pages we are discussing here. Spaced over the past three years, I have created hundreds of disambiguation pages based on species descriptors such as Yellow-breasted and Grey-backed. The first barnstar I was ever given was for my extensive application of such disambiguation pages, therefore I have spent a lot of time creating them. The majority of the entries on these disambigution pages use the descriptors (such as white-chinned or pink-necked) to distinguish them from other species; when discussing the various species within a genus, it is common to refer only to the descriptor because the rest of the name is often the same. Would it be possible to simply label these pages as set indices? Neelix (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Set indexes isn't a catch-all for anything that looks like a dab but doesn't act like a dab. Lists of all articles that have a particular phrase in the title or that start with a particular phrase aren't dabs, and usually they aren't set index articles either (unless all the articles (starting) with the phrase have some other attribute unifying them as a set). -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
On thinking about this for a while, I think that these pages should be deleted for the reasons given. Perhaps they could be replaced with pages with names like: "List of phrases used in animal names (A to D)", "List of phrases used in animal names (E to G)", and so on, an perhaps separate sub-lists for bird names, animal names and insect names and so on. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Just for the record, the reason I was asking was not to have them all deleted, as I think they're pretty harmless. It was because I have started pages when birds have been split into several species/new species have been described and in many other cases I have added alternative names to species when they were lacking. With the limited time I often have available, I am hesitant adding names to pages that risk deletion because they're against wiki policy. If they're fine for wiki policy, it would also mean that there are several redirects that I have failed to create where no page currently exists. • Rabo³ • 16:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Something else to consider: birders often abbreviate bird names (Icky, Pec etc.), and I think it's right that we set up these abbreviations as redirects (where they are unambiguous). Clearly some of Neelix's redirects are abbreviations that aren't in common usage but if we do a bulk delete, we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. SP-KP (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

While I see that point, I'm not sure it's relevant in in this particular discussion. Of course I have not checked all the pages, but all the ones I have checked do not match abbreviated bird names used by birders. When such names are abbreviated, they're generally also modified slightly, as can be seen in the Sharp-shinned Hawk. 05:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Unsigned comment; this edit by Rabo³ at 05:09, 6 June 2009
Without directly implying anything about the merits of the pages in question, I guess that many harmless pages are eminently deletable. I think that the notability of the pages in question are not established by describing them as harmless. It may be worth noting that pages that were considered to be encyclopaedic at one time may not be at another time; see WP:CCC Snowman (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Slightly off topic. I kind of agree with the idea that we can leave it for now. The reason why we don't have "articles with the term X" is that one can use a search engine with the keyword "X" to find info. There is currently no working, large scale semantic search engine and so once that comes up, this kind of page would be redundant. Recently I needed to find references on birds falling prey to fish and the keywords that I tried on search engines failed to give me the right results and hopefully semantic search engines will one day be able to identify the parts of speech, search for object with given adjectives, separate variations in the object, subject and verb and so on. Shyamal (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
They could all be replaced with lists, so I do not see what search engines can not do is entirely relevant. I tend to be in favour of keeping pages, but to me the reasons given here for deleting these pages seem to be better than for keeping them. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (30)

Latest comment: 14 years ago43 comments8 people in discussion
beautiful, this is a male of the eastern race philippensis Aviceda talk 05:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Subspecies added to file description of this Blue Rock-thrush; image shown in gallery on stub article, and three more uploaded to commons from same photostream. Incidentally, the flickr photographer has a number of good photographs with "free licence" of a range of species, if anyone needs them. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
They are indeed some lovely photos. The ones of kingfishers hunting are particularly useful. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Ten kingfisher images uploaded to commons with file names beginning with "Alcedo atthis". Snowman (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Immature Black-crowned Night Heron? (Nycticorax nycticorax) Aviceda talk 18:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Or Yellow-crowned Night-Heron? The relatively big pale spots on the wings look like Black-crowned, but the partly dark lower mandible, distinct streaks on the neck and breast, and relatively long neck and legs (with the tibia visible) look just like Sibley's picture of immature Yellow-crowned. Of course those pictures are of U.S.-and-Canada birds, but I still suspect this is Yellow-crowned. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Can't argue with that, never having-seen a YCNH. Aviceda talk 07:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
IUCN does not list the YCNH on the Galapagos or Ecuador, and also IUCN does not list the BCNH on Galapagos or Ecuador. Is that a problem? Wiki has a page List of birds of Ecuador, but not a list for the Galapagos. There are thought to be some Lava Heron x Striated Heron hybrids on Galapagos, but I do not know what juvenile hybrids look like. Snowman (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
There's some confusion at the IUCN. They don't list either of these night-herons for Mexico, but Howell and Webb show both as wide-ranging in Mexico. We need to ignore their country lists till they fix this (and I hope the lists didn't have these omissions when Polbot made those stubs!).
Both these night-herons appear on bird lists for the Galapagos; this and this were the first two I looked at. You can also find on the Web unmistakable pictures of Yellow-crowned Night-Herons in the Galapagos [1] [2] (some of them labeled Lava Heron, though, such as this).
I feel sure the bird in the picture isn't a Lava or Striated Heron, which have considerably thicker necks, as you can see at Lava Heron. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Standard immature Yellow-crowned. Endemic subspecies pauper is common on Galápagos. To my knowledge only a single confirmed record (an immature in 1971) of Black-crowned on Galápagos. • Rabo³ • 16:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Nycticorax violaceus -Galapagos Islands -juvenile-8.jpg on commons, and a cropped version shown on Yellow-crowned Night Heron page. Snowman (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Red-flanked Bluetail (Tarsiger cyanurus)Aviceda talk 18:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Rename under way to File:Tarsiger cyanurus -Japan-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Dinemellia.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
White-headed Buffalo-weaver uploaded to File:Dinemellia dinemelli -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
At the present time the article on the White-headed Buffalo-weaver has prose size of 10 words (excluding captions) and five images. Snowman (talk) 07:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Haliaeetus pelagicusSteve Pryor (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Steller's Sea Eagle uploaded to File:Haliaeetus pelagicus -San Diego Zoo -aviary-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The flickr labelling indicates that it was photographed at the Desert Botanical Garden, Arizona, USA, and I see no indication that it is feral. It could be cared for by the Desert Botanical Garden who may also provide nest boxes; however, I think some sort of lovebirds are feral in Arizona. Here is an adult one at the same place, which also shows that sunflowers are grown there and left to go to seed providing some food. Juveniles have a lighter pink on the face and more green on the top of the head - like the one in the photograph. It does not have the brown at the base of the beak of the juvenile, so my guess is that it has the appearance of a wild-type sub-adult or a young Peach-faced Lovebird. The image has been on commons for some time at File:Peach-faced Lovebird -eating seeds from tree.jpg. Snowman (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It has no wing clips, I see no indication it is in captivity and the species is feral in Arizona. If it quacks like a duck and looks like a duck.... Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This page on the gardens website says that they aim to attract birds to the gardens, so your assumption is likely to be correct. Nevertheless, they may be somewhat dependant on the gardens partly because of all the trees and plants they grow specially for food for birds. After reading this webpage from the gardens website, I think it would be reasonable to call the lovebirds there feral. "Feral" added to commons file description with a mention of the work the gardens do to attract birds. Snowman (talk) 06:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Is it a young Peach-faced Lovebird? Snowman (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
It might be useful to compare it with the recently fledged lovebird on the right of this photograph of a family of four; File:Lovebirds.family.jpeg. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know about the appearance of juvenile Peach-faced Lovebirds in detail? Snowman (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
On thinking about it, perhaps there should be more caution in identifying this feral parrot which appears to have a slightly atypical appearance. At present, I am not entirely sure if this is a match for a juvenile, so I have written a cautions description for the image on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Confirmed. • Rabo³ • 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Little Tern subspecies on rump and tail pattern is Sternula albifrons sinensis, also correct for stated location jimfbleak (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Whoops; it has the wrong copyright licence, so I can not upload it. Snowman (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Green-cheek. • Rabo³ • 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
File on commons re-uploaded as File:Pyrrhura molinae -pet shop-8a.jpg and old file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 309. Parrot in bird park probably in Indonesia. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Easy-peasy, it's an adult male Moluccan King Parrot - good to find birds from non-anglophone countries....I can see a DYK coming up...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Alisterus amboinensis -Taman Mini Indonesia Indah-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it is an adult, but my book says that the male is similar to the female. Cropped version shown in article infobox being better resolution than the previous photograph. There are six subspecies in book, but I can not tell which one it is from this view of the parrot. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (31)

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments7 people in discussion
  • Northern. • Rabo³ • 13:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Tauraco leucolophus -Brevard Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Acrocephalus orientalis Oriental_Reed-warbler fairly recent split from Great Reed-warbler. Aviceda talk 18:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I did look at the Great Reed Warbler article and I did wonder why this one was probably in Japan, but it does not say anything about a recent species split there. Snowman (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 313. File:Crimson Rosella2.jpg. Its back looks paler than usual. Why is this? Which subspecies? Photographed near Gloucester, NSW, Australia (location from recent message from photographer on my talk page). Snowman (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It is an immature bird showing the last vestiges of green plumage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In that case, I think it should probably be removed from the infobox of the Rosella article and replaced with a photograph showing at least one adult parrot? What should the image description say? Snowman (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It should say something like 'immature bird witn vestiges of green juvenile plumage' I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I am having doubts, because there are three subspecies of the the Crimson Rosella each with a slightly different scalloped feather pattern. I am beginning to think that it is an adult female P. e. elegans. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 314. King parrot for identification. Apparently Jurong Bird Park has two Papuan King Parrots and about 15 Moluccan King Parrots, but no mention of Australian King Parrots. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That one looks like a moluccan. I will double check a pic Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
To me, this one has a pale green shoulder stripe on each wing, which is not a feature of a Moluccan King Parrot. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Papuan King Parrot uploaded to File:Alisterus chloropterus -Jurong Bird Park -male-8a.jpg on commons. First photograph of its species on the wiki and show in article infobox. Snowman (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Well done on noticing the stripe. You are right. Hooray, a photo :) Casliber (talk · contribs)
Red-tailed Black Cockatoo - nice image of male on left and female on right. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Might need to be careful with this one, this is often classified as Peaceful Dove. See Geopelia. Aviceda talk 04:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

More feedback

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ruff is now on Sandy's list of FACs needing feedback. I don't mind failing if I get "oppose" reviews, but I'd hate to lose this one just because it has no votes one way or the other. The review page is here. jimfbleak (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Red-throated Diver now nominated at WP:GAN. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Importing bird sounds

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Now if I am able to track down some sounds, is it straightforward to convert various files like mp3 to OGG format? Anyone done this already? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be a lot easier on Linux systems than on others. I will be happy to help with any conversions, minor fixes such as noise reduction, amplication or so on. Shyamal (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Very easy on my Mac as well, so I can help if need be. MeegsC | Talk 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured topic?

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Despite the more than 100 FA and GA articles, we still don't have a featured topic. With Red-billed Chough at FA and Alpine Chough at GA, it seems to me that if Chough can get to GA it meets the FT criteria. Any views? jimfbleak (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the idea of improving it towards nominating a featured topic. I think much of what could be added is already present in the two chough species articles. Apart from what is common to both being included, is there anything else needed? Maias (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
PS. Unless I am misreading the FT criteria, it would involve upgrading Graja to GA, and I have doubts about whether this is possible given the information available. Maias (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Featured topics are new to me, so I have been reading about the criteria. I guess that the set of four (or three) articles referred to could be adapted to fulfil the featured topic criteria. I think that a lot of work will be needed to bring the two smaller articles up to GA and to make all the pages consistent - at the present time the sub-headings of the two big articles are in a different sequence and the infobox images are a different width. There might be more to write about on the genus page with the Graja as well. I think that it would be an interesting discipline in consistency and if you want to do it go ahead. I think it would bring some kudos with it. I will look for an image of a Graja on flickr for the wiki article in the weeks ahead. If there is not enough content on Graja, criteria 3c seems to give some room for articles that do not have enough content to make a GA. Another possibility is a Fairy-wren topic, where there are six FAs out of 12 species pages and one genus page; the set would need at least seven articles bringing up to GA grade and consistency work. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I would have to re-borrow the fairy-wren books, but it is a possibility. The new-world vulture one was left off agonizingly close too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for comments.
  • Quote from Graja: There is no English name for this subspecies Why is it on en-wiki, when it is an exclusively Spanish word for a species with an established English name? To my mind, this should become just a redirect to Red-billed Chough since the Spanish/|Catalan names are the only difference from the English article. I'll do that unless people disagree
  • It's not even standard Spanish, the article says it only means this bird in the Canary Islands dialect. So we has a non-standard Spanish dialect word referring to that tiny part of a subspecies' population living on a single island (La Palma)
  • I note Snowman's comments on a consistent structure for the two Chough article, that's a good point, but relatively straightforward to fix.
  • The genus article will need a fair bit of work, but there is plenty of material. I think the main challenge is to change the emphasis of the topics, so it's not just a straight copy of chunks from the species' articles. An obvious tweak is to give more weight to the difference between the Chough genus and other corvids, rather than contrasting the two species as tends to be the case in their own articles.
  • If anyone thinks the fairy-wrens or New World vultures are closer to FT, I'd be happy to help, but I have no proper sources for either group, so I'll probably work up Chough anyway.
thanks jimfbleak (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think chough is easiest. Main thing is to emphasize taxonomy on genus page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never actually participated in FT, but I have read through some FTC discussions. One of the things they tend to look for is "no obvious gaps". If you include the Graja article, then people may ask "why one subspecies and not the others". On the other hand, if you say "we're only looking at genus and species articles", then it's quite possible that they'll simply let you ignore Graja. Bear in mind that, like any other discussion, the option exists to modify the structure during the discussion...you can start off excluding the Graja, and if people make a fuss you can upmerge it. Guettarda (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Monotypic groups must be easier! Shyamal (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the Graja should be excluded from the FT and should probably be upmerged. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with upmerging Graja (considering that it only really deals with a small part of the subspecies' range) as the best way to deal with a messy situation. Maias (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Proposed the merge here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have listed FT possibilities that I am aware of on the main page. Snowman (talk) 09:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Based on this Chough looks Ok as a potential FT, thanks for work on images/captions, Snowman. jimfbleak (talk) 12:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Same image on two species pages

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

See South Polar Skua and Brown Skua which shows the same image in the infobox on both pages. Snowman (talk) 10:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. • Rabo³ • 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
See also; Bird 328, a skua for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (32)

Latest comment: 14 years ago37 comments8 people in discussion
Possibly Ural Owl ssp japonica(?) Aviceda talk 04:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Ural Owl uploaded to File:Strix uralensis -Kushiro Zoo -Japan-8a.jpg on commons. Subspecies not specified. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Confirm Tom's take on this, and also as to the race. This is the Hokkaido ranger, i.e., japonica. The other two ranging taxa in Japan are much darker, and easily distinguishable from this race.--Steve Pryor (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. Subspecies added to image description on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. It is a Black-capped Parakeet. I have corrected it on commons. • Rabo³ • 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. First image of its species on the wiki. Renaming image of Black-capped Parakeet under way to File:Pyrrhura rupicola -captive-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Actitis macularia.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Spotted Sandpiper uploaded to File:Actitis macularia -Alaska-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. And great photo that - I like ones which capture the capricious playful nature of the birds :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the photograph, but I hope that the parrot has got something else to chew in its cage. I could be a good illustration on an aviculture page to illustrate something about cages. I brought it here, because I think that it is a Western Corella, partly because it does not appear to have red/orange on its chest even though the cage hides part of its front. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
The bill looks too long for Western, IMHO. MeegsC | Talk 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It looks similar to this Western Corella. Snowman (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
It is hard to judge the bill length with only half the bill visible, but the markings between the eye and bill are not intense enough for the Long-billed, although it could be a juvenile, which has a shorter bill and less intense colour. The WEstern has pale markings between the eye and bill like this one, it should be noted that these are not always clearly shown in guide illustrations (it is clear in my HBW but not my Pizzey & Knight) Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I think that there is enough of the upper mandible visible to get a good measure of it. The illustrations in Forshawe 2006 show rather similar beaks for both the Long-billed and Western, and there is no mention in the text of identifying the species by beak length; instead, the pink/orange colouration is described in detail for the two species. I think that it is a Western Corella for the same reasons as SS. Rename under way to File:Cacatua pastinator -beak -captive-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
As this is a caged bird, the photographer (owner?) may know which species it is. Was the photographer asked? MeegsC | Talk 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it was taken at a zoo in Australia on 10 May 2008. I have not asked the flickr photographed, and I think that there is no need to ask now. Snowman (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Prong-billed Barbet (Semnornis frantzii); the file needs to be renamed, as it was apparently misidentified initially. MeegsC | Talk 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Rename under way to File:Semnornis frantzii -La Paz Waterfall Gardens-4a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
griseiceps means grey-headed (there are some variations in the species, but still nothing like that individual). It's a Glaucidium brasilianum. • Rabo³ • 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for identifying this as a Ferruginous Pygmy-owl. I see that you have corrected the commons file and started rename to File:Glaucidium brasilianum -Macaw Mountain Bird Park-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a Brown Skua (Subantarctic, to be exact), but I have seen neither that nor the South Polar Skua for ages (hint, New Zealand members ;-). I also think the two photos (File:Skua (js).jpg and File:IMG 0645-skua-rothera.jpg) formerly used in the gallery for the South Polar Skua are Brown Skuas. For one of them it is said that it is "probably a South Polar Skua from its location", but that's wrong: Both South Polar and Brown breed on the Antarctic Peninsular. • Rabo³ • 23:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That is interesting. Can any of the photographs be shown on the Brown Skua page? Snowman (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That depends on how sure we have to be. I'm quite sure about all three, but no 100%. • Rabo³ • 01:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Another pointer that is not totally conclusive is that bird 328 was photographed in Durban, South Africa and South Polar Skua, (Stercorarius maccormicki) is listed as a Rare/Accidental species there, according to the wiki "List of birds of South Africa". This is party why I put Catharacta antarctica. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Tricky. It is a Schalow's Turaco, or a Livingstone's. They are usually easiest to tell by locality, which we haven't got, but the colour of the mantle, which we can't see, or the length of the crest, which is somewhat subjective. So, uh, probably? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Monotypic genus

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I have noticed that monotypic genera don't have an article, when the link is clicked it redirects to the species that is in that genus. would it be appropriate to make an article for a monotypic genus or are genera like that supposed to redirect to their only species? --Skinips (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is simply that two separate articles on what is essentially the same thing would be redundant. Any information that could be included in the genus article could just as well be put in the species article. If a species in a monotypic genus is split into two, that would the occasion to create an article for the genus, as well as separate articles for the two species. Maias (talk) 04:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The same is true for monotypic families and orders. If a family only has one species, or one genus, then there is no need to replicate the information. Ultimate example - Hoatzin, (order, family, genus and species) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem has been that there is no clear guideline on this within the WP:TOL projects. There have been discussions on this topic and some have suggested that the best location is the species or lowest taxon which is considered "concrete" while others have considered that the highest containing monotypic taxon should be the location. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life/Archive24#Monotypic_genera_articles Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(flora)/Archive_1#Monotypic_genera Shyamal (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a naming thing though isn't it? Kagu is a family, genus and species (extinct species notwithstanding) but the common name is the species name thus it sits there. Likewise monostypic genera, the common name is the species name. Monogeneric family goes up, not down, however, which isn't fantastically consistent I guess (Fantail), but at least works where the family has a common name. Arguably though the common name for a family with a single species is the same as the species, (Kagu, Hoatzin). This isn't a spectacular problem is it though? At least not compared to others. (Like, how the hell does the Ovenbird get given to the species not the family?) Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing to add to the main issue discussed here, but re: ovenbird. I do think it is fair to have ovenbird reserved for Seiurus aurocapillus (which is a New World warbler). When speaking about the family (which probably will be split soon, again) people usually use the plural ovenbirds, which already redicts to the correct place. Increasinly, furnariid(s) is used instead. • Rabo³ • 05:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Yes, I am one of those that could use a term such as furnariid, and do, but this is not the norm. The tendancy to want to allow the term ovenbird to be applied only to the one genus of New World Warblers seems to me to be iffy in the sense that it gives great weight to a North American slant because it is a bird with which North American birders are very familiar with. However, for many, many non-northamerican birders, if they see ovenbird(s) they think first of some member of Furnariidae, and not first of Seiurus. However, I can contemplate the more restricted use to Seiurus with the capitalized C and in the singular.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Split again? Luv a duck they just lumped them. And I was just considering working on that page too (an important family needs a better page to my mind). "Le sigh" Anyway, furnariid may be used by some probably as often as procellariid. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a lot of "new" old material here that often has fascinating titbits from history: http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=ornithology%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts Worth a browse. Shyamal (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [3]

-- Mr.Z-man 23:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comments on Talk:Albinism in birds Shyamal (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Pukeko

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Pukeko#Rename. I think the article as it stands is a little problematic. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks to all the project members who help steer Ruff through the treacherous waters of FAC to its apotheosis. A bird as weird as this needs an FA (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Congrats and well done Jim! Another feather for your well-feathered cap! :) MeegsC | Talk 17:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Image names

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Are there any project guidelines or preferences on the file names of images? Is there a view on file names that consist almost entirely of the name that an owner had given their pet parrot? It might be useful to have something to show some photographers. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No guidelines that I am aware of. The commons has some vaguely defined ones (make it appropriate and descriptive) if memory serves. I would hazard that binomials + something are best, for more usability among the languages, but it doesn't really matter as the end user doesn't usually see them unless they click on a pic. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The way I look at it, as long as the image is categorized correctly or added to the correct species page, the filename is not blatantly misleading/wrong (e.g. there was a photo of a Ringnecked Parakeet and a Sun Conure I found on Commons last week and had renamed, the filename of which contained 'Melopsittacus undulatus'), utterly generic or just a jumble of numbers and letters then it's not really a massive issue. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Generic image names are often easy to transport into different language wikis. This file name is probably useful in Germany; File:Webervogel.jpg, but on commons it is listed as an unidentified bird. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
It means weaverbird in German. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What about File:Blauköpfiger Spatelschwanzpapagei.JPG? Link should turn red soon when filename is changed. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
For the uninvolved, the reason I requested the rename of Blauköpfiger Spatelschwanzpapagei (which means Blue-headed Spatule-tail Parrot, i.e. Blue-headed Racquet-tail) was because it had the wrong identification. I included the German name of the correct species in its new description but for convenience ended up going for the scientific name for the file name. It's now here. • Rabo³ • 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for clarification. I probably would not change a file name that was the correct common name in any particular language. The point I am trying to make is that an English common name might be clear to us, but difficult to use in different language wikis. Visa vesa a German name is not easily understood here. It seems to me that the binomial name is more easily used in a greater number of different languages. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, and tend to use binomials myself for that reason, but it is worth remembering that hopefully the image is in thr right place anyway (on its common page) where its title won't really matter. Does the bird wikiproject on commons have an opinion (or are we all that project anyway)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I think that it would be worth having a presence on commons. At the moment bird images are part of the "tree of life" commons project. 86.162.47.222 (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
See commons:Commons:Naming_conventions. The policy is Latin binomial for biology-related content. This makes sense as it is language neutral. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_39&oldid=1160939768"