Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 69

Old World oriole

Currently, the family Oriolidae page redirects to 'Old World oriole'. This was certainly more than reasonable when created 10 years ago as at that time the family consisted of 30 Old World orioles and only one figbird (which itself was formerly considered as a member of the genus Oriolus). Today however, the family consists of the piopios (2), figbirds (3), pitohuis (4) and the Old World orioles.
I propose that the family information currently on the Old World oriole page be moved back to the Oriolidae page and then the genus Oriolus page be re-named as 'Old World oriole'. This would reflect more accurately the information on the Old World orioles.
' Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I can change the names easily enough, if it is ok. Somebody else will have to implement the other information, although. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Loopy30: I have the pages all ready, can I/should I make the change? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: Before the pages are changed, I was looking to see if anyone had a reason to keep them the way that they are at present. Also, are you able to rename in a way that preserves the page history? There's no rush here, I can wait a few days and see who chimes in. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Loopy30: I don't know, I will hold off. I do think, although, that we will probably have to do some sort of copy and paste move so there isn't much disruption. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't cut and paste to move pages, admins can move them and retain the edit histories, and we have several here, myself included, that will happily do this if consensus determines a move is optimal. As for the move in question, I lean to Oppose. Family names (or higher order taxa names) named after common names for species do not require every species in that family to be named the same. Gadwalls, teal, shovelers, garganey, and scaup are all ducks after all. As the authors of the paper put it in the title of their paper when they moved the piopio to the family "The New Zealand Thrush: An Extinct Oriole". Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird notes the heart of the question. Are the other genera in Oriolidae all considered to be orioles? And what is the common name for the family? The IOC lists the English name as "Figbirds, Orioles & Turnagra". Similarly, Anatidae is titled "Ducks, Geese & Swans" by the IOC and the wikipedia family page is titled "Anatidae" rather than "Ducks", despite containing many genera of ducks.' Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm also arguing against being overly nitpicky because there is value to be had in having common names used for high level taxa. Because readers tend towards common names not scientific ones. But also, I would argue that if a bird genus or species moves to a new taxa with an established name then it is a X, even if it's common name doesn't change, as demonstrated by the piopio article, Piopio are, or were, Old World orioles, as are figbirds and pitohuis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 12:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I'm not dismissing the arguments made for change out of hand, I lean towards Sabine's Sunbird's view on this, keeping the common name. I think the scientific name should only be used where there is little alternative, such as Anatidae Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Indomalayan ecozone

According to iora They are one of only three bird families that are entirely endemic to the Indomalayan ecozone. They were formerly grouped with the other two of those groups, the leafbirds and fairy-bluebirds, in Irenidae. And yet at Rail-babbler, This is one of only three bird families restricted to the Oriental zoogeographical region.. Before I tidy away this mess, are there any other families that are one of the three and only three bird families found only in the Indomalayan ecozone? The cupwings and bristlehead seem to have avoided this epiphet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Atlantic article on bird taxonomy

Nothing new, but an interesting read.......[1].....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Family authority source?

Does anyone have a good source for family authors? Zoonomen only does genera and below? I was trying to find out who the author was for the potoos, it was changed from Bonaparte last year but never linked, I assume its Jean-Charles Chenu & Marc Athanase Parfait Œillet des Murs, (I also assume the switch was correct) but it would be good to confirm. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

The standard reference for family names is:

Bock, Walter J. (1994). History and Nomenclature of Avian Family-Group Names. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. Vol. Number 222. New York: American Museum of Natural History. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)

It can be downloaded from the website of the American Museum of Natural History as a 48MB pdf file. It isn't possible to link to individual pages as one can for books on the BHL website. The family Nyctibiidae is listed on page 142 with the authority as Chenu and des Murs, 1851. On page 232 of Bock the publication is given as:

Chenu, J. C., and O. des Murs in: J. C. Chenu (ed.), Encyclopedie d'Histoire Naturelle. Paris: Marescq & Compagnie. There is some uncertainty in the year. I found the family "Nyctibiinés" on page 176 in Oiseaux Part 2 available on BHL here. Note that the Chenu and des Murs don't use the modern standard idae ending for a family. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

What an interesting document the Bock is. There's some general history of ICZN in there, including an analysis of Francis Hemming's role, on pages 42-44. William Avery (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the source Aa77zz. Will no doubt be useful going forward. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:47, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

We've got images covered, but birds sing

Hello all. Some time back, when I was working on Przevalski's nuthatch, I imported a template from the French Wikipedia, to {{Birdsong}}. I've just got around to polishing it and providing documentation. It allows an easy and I think attractive link to xeno-canto, and direct placement up to four Commons audio files for bird calls and songs. I've been using it in bird articles I've worked on, but I don't think anyone is aware of it because I never advertised it anywhere. The question is, do you think it should be featured in the Wikiproject, and if so, where should it be added? Of course, if anyone has suggestions for changes to its output, please tell me (or be bold).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to have an optional parameter to change the bird image to use. Shyamal (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that all the other boxes in articles are slightly shaded in grey so it would be good to match. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Shyamal, Sabine's Sunbird: Both suggestion implemented. Now has a light grey background; you can specify any image you want; documentation has been updated.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Good stuff. Tried it out at oilbird which I'm working on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. Nice article, and one where calls are of particular interest.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, anyone have a suggestion for where to add this to the project?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If everybody is ok with it, it might be nice to start a new section on the project page under the distribution maps section. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Great. Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

List of nocturnal birds

I almost want to nominate this list for deletion. Seems woefully incomplete. Just a list of some owls and one kiwi and the kakapo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe better off as a category? FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I found it looking for an article about nightbirds, same as we have one about say seabirds. Perhaps that would be the best move? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I think that it would definitely be better as a category. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:46, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

yep....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed! Better off as a category rather than as a stand-alone list. N. Jain ^{(talk to me)} 02:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to update the petrels

I don't think the changes to the petrel order Procellariiformes are going away, so perhaps its time to update the pages to reflect this. I propose

• Breaking up the storm-petrels into the two families widely accepted to exist now.
• Merging the diving-petrels into Procellariidae

This would probably entail from a practical point of view:

• Diving-petrel becomes a genus page.
• New family pages for northern storm-petrel and southern storm-petrel (family names used by HBW)
• De-taxobox storm-petrel. Use content to build up new family pages and ultimately reduce to dab page.
• Update Procellariiformes page to reflect new taxonomy
• Update Procellariidae to reflect added genus (morphologically quite unique within the family)
• Update species pages for storm-petrels and diving-petrels

So, thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Breaking up storm-petrels seems good by IOC, and so does the diving-petrels proposal. So, basically, we should do this. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: I can do some of the species pages, but somebody else needs to do the new family pages and such. (I also won't be updating the leads and such right now, I might do it when the family pages are created) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

um....storm petrels and diving petrels already in their proper spots according to IOC and Clements?....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside and Sabine's Sunbird: What do you mean by proper spots? If you mean by how they are classified, the IOC has the austral storm petrels in the family Oceanitidae (also, let's use IOC names since they are our defacto standard) and the northern storm petrels in the family Hydrobatidae. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I see the diving petrels have been merged but Procellariidae hasn't been updated much to reflect this. No matter, I can attend to that. Still need to update Procellariiformes too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: happy to follow your lead on this one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• If people are happy with this I may start next weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I need a paper

My days of having a uni library are long over, can anyone help out? I'm after this paper on swallow flight efficiency. I've cited it, but want to confirm that the figures in the abstract (and later papers that cite it) apply to swallows entirely and not just swallows and swifts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems that (I'm just looking at the abstract here) they apply to Hirundines and swifts. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, but the same percentages turn up in HBW for just swallows, so I'm confident about the numbers but would like to read the paper. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah... You should probably also make a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Got it, thanks :) And those figures were indeed for swallows. A great paper to cite in that article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Rollers

Hi, could one of the administrators move/rename the following pages to conform with the IOC common names? (ref)

• Rename Cinnamon roller to Broad-billed roller (currently re-directs to Cinnamon roller)
• Rename Dollarbird to Oriental dollarbird (currently re-directs to Dollarbird)

Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

• Done. Incidentally, you could have moved the dollarbird yourself, non-admins can move pages over redirects with no other history of edits. Also, a pox on the IOC for splitting single name species or well established species by adding more words. Why not just call the azure dollarbird the azure roller and leave dollarbird alone? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Sabine's Sunbird. And good to know about moving pages over redirects too. 'Cheers and happy birding, Loopy30 (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

Ruddy

Members of this WikiProject are invited to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Ruddy concerning the page Ruddy, which was recently turned into a disambiguation page. Cnilep (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Range map needed

I need a range map for the golden swallow. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Based on which sources? FunkMonk (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Preferably HBW. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy help

Hello! Can somebody ready to dedicate multiple hours to looking through google searches and museum archives please find out the person, the year, and the book in which Ceratophyllus is described? I tried looking into it, and I am unsure that the year provided in the infobox (of Ceratophyllus) is correct. So, please, can somebody find this out? In advance, thank you very much. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Ceratophyllus Curtis, 1832: 417; type species: Pulex hirundinus Curtis, 1826; Reference: Curtis, J. 1832. Ceratophyllus elongatus. Yellow Bat's Flea. In British Entomology; Being Illustrations and Descriptions of the Genera of Insects Found in Great Britain and Ireland: Containing Coloured Figures from Nature of the Most Rare and Beautiful Species, and in Many Instances of the Plants Upon Which They are Found, Volume 9 (Folio 417) no pagination; see here and hereBurmeister (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page for Bird that Does not Exist

I recently found a Wikipedia page for the Newfoundland Crossbill. Except that this bird does not exist. I could not find a single resource other than the paper provided online or in a book to prove that this bird exists. A google search turns up nothing, and Sibley Guide to Birds and Peterson Guide to Birds of North America both agree. One of the sources leads to the range map of the red crossbill, a different bird. Can someone delete this article, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FDeBasket (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Article is here Newfoundland crossbill. It looks like a subspecies article for the red crossbill - the article cited (or at least linked to) refrers to a subspecies by this name. I suspect it can be merged back into red crossbill. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

IOC confirms existence of subspecies with that scientific name. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 04:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

One day someone will take the plunge and formally split the red crossbill, and it will be an identification nightmare for all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:26, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow, I honestly never thought that I would see a group of birds harder to separate than the sparrows. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 04:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

We do have articles for subspecies, like red grouse and not universally accepted species like Scottish crossbill, but this article is unsourced and apparently largely unsourceable, I'd recommend making a redirect if it can't be sourced, only merging if the text is verifiable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Citing old school

I'm working on the Inaccessible Island rail at the moment (since weird flightless rails are a thing here) and I'm wondering how to cite the original description here. Who iis the author of a report of a presentation? Lowe is the authority, who is the author? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not Percy Lowe as the author? The previous page (p. 174) has "Dr Percy Lowe communicated the following:-" - Aa77zz (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess that will work. Ta. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

FA again

Thanks for the great FA drive. There are areas like nature reserves and ornithologists where we could do with more FAs, if only to give more TFAs, since there is unlikely to be more than one actual bird article scheduled each month. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think that it might be good to maybe do bird parasites, as those are within our scope. Also, it would be more familiar to most people here probably. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:40, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I was going to say most parasites are pretty obscure, but actually avian malaria would be a good collaboration. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a great idea. Fond as I am of the moorhen flea, it doesn't quite have the same global impact. And it doesn't stop us writing up the odd reserve or person a well. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking Harenna Forest or Sanetti Plateau. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that it might be best to do the hen flea, as it already has some sections and isn't too crazy of a topic. (edit: unless a lot of people are willing to work on the avian malaria page, as I am not too experienced in that subject and would probably only be able to do minor research, copyediting, and organizing) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There are some interesting articles about coextinct parasites, such as Rallicola extinctus of the huia, and Columbicola extinctus of the passenger pigeon, which was rediscovered on another host. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Birds for ID

Been a while since we did this one of these.

• Bird in Madagascar. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a dedicated project-page for this? FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Possibly a female Schlegel's asity? Maias (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviating scientific names

Hello! I just wanted people of the proposal to change the manual of style so that scientific names are expanded in each section. The discuss is here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Organisms#Abbreviations again. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Bird of prey, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Stafford Canary

http://www.staffordcanary.co.uk/history.htm http://animal-world.com/encyclo/birds/canaries/StaffordCanary.php https://www.staffords-usa.com/standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.130.189 (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

that is, the aforementioned IP user would like someone to write an article about the Stafford Canary breed, and has supplied some sources which may be of use. DS (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Standard for taxonomy

It seems that we don't have a standard for taxonomy. I propose that we use the IOC World Bird List as a standard. We already use it as the standard for common names, and it is updated four times a year. If we could just standardize what we use for taxonomy, then we wouldn't have to debate over splits and such. Using the IOC World Bird List would, overall, make things a lot easier for us all. Any thoughts on this? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if we adopt a standard I think it's worth raising substantial changes here first anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As to the proposal, I'd be interested to know if there are any competing taxonomies we could easily follow, and what people think about the IOC's. I'm broadly in favour of having a default position, even if we are super flexible about deviating from it. But it would be good to know what options exist and what pluses and minuses there are to the options. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• To what extent should we follow them? For example, we pretty much always create new articles for new species or splits when suggested in research papers, but such changes take longer to be incorporated into the IOC lists. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: We should probably stray away from them if there is consensus (say 3/5 or so of major authorities agree) that a change should occur. We should probably continue to create new articles for new species and splits suggested in papers, but we should add in the lead that they are unofficial (until confirmed by IOC). RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I thought we decided about 8 years ago to follow IOC. I also hold off on splitting unless the IOC does. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Seems it is only spelled out on the project page that this goes for common names, not taxonomy? It would seem to be implied, but perhaps good to make it very clear... FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, what's in a name? The key detail now missing on the project page is stating whether we consider our definition of taxonomy to include classification or just nomenclature/common names. While the proposal to follow IOC as a standard for nomenclature was accepted and closed here, the follow-on proposal to follow a standardized taxonomy for classification was never actually completed/resolved (see here). There has been some debate on this issue, but usually only focused on specific taxa (see example). To move ahead on this, I strongly support following the IOC standard for both naming and classification of bird taxa. Advantages would be the frequent updates (currently four times per year) and the coherence of a worldwide system. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 16:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems that we agree that we should switch to the IOC for taxonomy. So, it seems that we should implement that. For splits proposed by research articles, I propose (no pun intended) that we include information about the proposed split in the non-split article. For example, if say, the emperor penguin were to be split into the emperor penguin and the super-emperor penguin, then the information about the proposed split would be included in the emperor penguin article, not in a separate article. Thoughts? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Only been a day, no need for a rush ;) Plenty of people haven't spoken yet and it's a big change. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Relying on a single source for the taxonomy would help to make this encyclopedia more coherent. At the moment it is difficult to align all the articles above the species level - we have articles for genera, tribes, subfamilies, families etc. When the sources used for articles at the species level disagree on the genera, it is tricky to source the information in the genera articles and above. I would be happy to adopt the IOC list as the standard for taxonomy as we already do for the English names. This would make life simpler, avoid conflict and allow editors to concentrate on adding content. There are particular cases where I personally disagree with the position currently adopted by the IOC but overall I think aligning with the IOC would be beneficial. The IOC list relies heavily on two people: Frank Gill and David Donsker. Obviously, if in the future these individuals are unable to devote as much time to the IOC list, then we would need to reconsider our position. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree that we should follow the IOC. Changes are done a bit haphazardly now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I also like the IOC because it publishes regular updates on at least a quarterly basis. One of the problems I see is the AOU (North and South America) doesn't follow it entirely. They standardize on Clements which also publishes a yearly update. Many of our country/state bird lists also use Clements. One of the problems of Clements are English names will not entirely match up. I can be convinced to use Clements or IOC. Lately, I have not added species pages unless the IOC and Clements agree......You asked for other taxonomic sources I've seen referenced or I've used outright...Howard & Moore but no online update available, Donergan-same issue, IUCN-online tax available but no notice of updates and tax sometimes lags, ITIS-same as IUCN, Zoonomen-online but no notice of updates........

The AOU doesn't follow Clements - it is the other way around - Clements follows the AOU (now AOS). But the IOC also generally follows the decisions made by the AOU committees. It for birds that only occur outside Europe and the Americas that things get more tricky. By the way, I've updated and expanded the list of sources on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/References. -Aa77zz (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As a small point, I don't think it is the other way around as the AOU (AOS) is a North American list, and the Clements list is a world list......For long term stability, as a point of discussion, the Clements list is maintained by Cornell University, with a group of 6 on the committee. May be a bit more stable? Pvmoutside (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

The authors responsible for the Clements list and the IOC list plan to collaborate. The web page of the BOU announcing that they have decided to follow the taxonomy of the IOC list here states: "In their respective submissions, the IOC World Bird List and eBird/Clements had stated their increasing collaboration, and their agreement that a single global taxonomy was desirable."

That seems a pretty good argument for me to follow the IOC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't work on birds much, so don't let me derail you, but as far as I can tell, neither IOC, Clements nor HBW deal with subfamilies or tribes nor modern birds that went extinct before 1500 (e.g. moas). IOC is a fine choice for a taxonomy standard, but if subfamilies must be sourced somewhere else, it's probably inevitable that there will be some disagreement between the other source and the IOC. Is there a good source for subfamilies? Plantdrew (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to standardize on IOC taxonomy, at least for the "List of birds of..." pages. I have recently updated a large number of Western Hemisphere country lists to the most recent versions of the taxonomy they were originally written in. The creators overwhelmingly used Clements, with the US and a few others following AOU (now the AOS), and none using IOC. I've also redone the Kenya and Tanzania lists; they were originally and still are Clements taxonomy. And I looked at over a dozen other countries' lists in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceana, and they were mostly written using Clements with several (Great Britain, Morocco, South Africa, and Australia) each using a different something else. None used IOC taxonomic sequence, though some used IOC names. Standardizing on IOC taxonomy would require wholesale rewrites of hundreds of "List of" pages, not just those of countries, but of states, provinces, and other areas within countries. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Those articles already don't follow our current taxonomy, which is an ad hoc warping of HBW as it was nearly two decades ago. So would changing our taxonomy have that much of an effect? Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused - this topic began with "It seems that we don't have a standard for taxonomy." Was HBW a formal standard? If so, how could so many pages have been created not using it? Given the results of my incomplete survey of "List of birds of..." pages, it seems Clements is the de facto standard for them. Re your specific question, if a standard is implemented (be it HWB or IOC or even Clements) and pages have to hew to it, then that means major revisions. And if pages don't have to hew to it, it's not a standard.

I'm not even sure that a standard taxonomy for individual species pages is desirable, given the fairly large selection of reputable ones to choose from (see http://www.internationalornithology.org/birdlist.html for a list). It's vital, however, that whatever the page type, the source and version of the taxonomy used be properly cited.Craigthebirder (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

HBW was the standard at the start. Then avian taxonomy started moving fast and the HBW didn't (at first, it's gotten a bit better). Clements is the standard for list pages because most list article were started by a bot that used Clements as a source. I agree that list pages should generally cite their sources and explicitly state which system they use. Species pages and family pages should (when they get beyond stub) at least briefly mention differences in opinion. Personally, I think it would be fine to change the overall taxonomy and leave the lists as is as the lists state which taxonomy they use. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. And the "also called" alternatives in many species accounts are very useful, but should say who uses each name cited.Craigthebirder (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• We've had a discussion, should we put it to a !vote to see where consensus lies? Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If there is to be a vote, we need to know exactly what we're voting for or against. It's far from clear what "standardize on IOC" means. Just English names? English and scientific names? Names and taxonomic sequence? Just individual birds' pages? "List of birds of..." pages? I point out again that including the last of these would require updating essentially every list, because I found none that currently reference IOC. Good or bad, Clements is the de facto standard now for "List of.." pages.Craigthebirder (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

English names for species should already follow IOC unless we've discussed and decided otherwise. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

I suggest the following proposal, please support, oppose or propose a counterproposal:

• Wikipedia's taxonomy for bird species, subspecies, genus, family and order pages follows that of the IOC, unless consensus determines there's a reason not to. This decision does not affect country, state or other regional lists that use a different, named, taxonomy, or other articles that discuss bird biodiversity or birds in general. Where disagreement exists between the major taxonomic authorities, articles should note this.

We could also include a clause stating that moves to conform with this decision should still be discussed here out of courtesy. (Like me wanting to merge the quailfinches, per IOC and HBW). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I support the proposal Craigthebirder (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - It is about time that we attempt to standardize our taxonomy. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - This proposal makes sense to me and will be easier to implement and keep current than others. Loopy30 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - for all reasons above....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - been doing this pretty much anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support (I guess I forgot to). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - For now but we will need to review this decision in 4 or 5 years. Aa77zz (talk) 09:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I, too, thought this was already the standard, so good to see it being specified. FunkMonk (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I thought this is what we already did too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this has gone on for over seven days, and only one active member of the project (MeegsC) has not contributed so I would suggest that we close this, as consensus is obvious. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Does someone with familiarity into the coding used on the WP:BIRD page want to add the agreed wording? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Should I replace this: "Agreeing on a taxonomy is not easy. Not only does bird taxonomy vary significantly from one authority to another, but it is in a state of constant change. There is no single authority to rely on; no one list can claim to be the list. However, the de facto standard for Wikipedia bird articles is the IOC World Bird List which is updated four times a year (currently version 7.1). This is preferred for all articles, although exceptions may be made in particular cases." It is in the taxonomy section, so I think that it would be appropriate. RileyBugz (p)^Yell | _Edits 12:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I took a stab at updating......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Did I miss something? I can't see any change. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, found it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

So, will you implement the change about the storm petrels? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a couple hours of work, but I will try and get started tomorrow (I've been asked to re-review a massive FAC). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Pomarine skua

Catching up on IOC names now, I noticed they changed the name to pomarine jaeger. I know the Old World side likes to call all the jaegers as skuas, so my plan is to just change the text of the article itself to jaeger, along with any article/redirect that is region neutral. All Old World articles will remain as pomarine skua...Also by changing the pomarine to a jaeger, it would unite the 3 jaegers to make for less confusion......Thoughts????Pvmoutside (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Just looking at the google search results for "pomarine", I can see that most have switched to "pomarine jaeger". Basically, it sounds like a good idea. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Jaeger is good. When you're done I'll delete the direct links to pomarine skua in the state lists I track (they already display as jaeger).Craigthebirder (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Taiga bean goose and Tundra bean goose

Just an FYI......I've split the bean goose into the above 2 species based on the IOC taxonomy. I'm following the green-winged teal/Eurasian teal, American/European herring gull format, but in reverse......Let me know if you think it should be different.....I'll disambig in a few days if everyone thinks the split is OK...Pvmoutside (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Good by me. Will eliminate bean goose direct links like I stated for pomarine jaeger.Craigthebirder (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Storm petrel question

When I've the northern and austral storm petrels, would people prefer that I left the existing article at storm petrel, without taxobox, or that I moved the existing article to northern storm petrel (which retains the family name) and created a new redirect page for the two new articles. I'm leaning towards the latter to avoid having three articles, but I think its worth seeing what people think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I like the latter option also. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the latter.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll give people more time and make the move tomorrow. Ta. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Family split - do we have a authority for the family name for the austral storm petrels? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

IOC calls it the austral storm petrels... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I meant the scientific authority for Oceanitidae, sorry should have been clearer. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Still the IOC... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be Forbes, 1881 - see this but the circumscriptions of the old and new families are probably different. I guess however that the name authority would not change. (tagging ICZN Commissioner @Dyanega: ) Shyamal (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Case referred to, Case 2024, was resolved as follows: "The name Hydrobatidae Mathews, 1912 (1865) (type genus Hydrobates Boie, 1822) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology, with an endorsement that it takes the precedence of the replaced family-group name THALASSIDROMIDAE von Miiller, 1865." The name Oceanitidae (1881) is older, and would have precedence any time the two families are grouped together. Anyone using Hydrobatidae as a family that includes the genus Oceanites would be violating the Code. Only one other WP article needed to be changed to reflect this, so hopefully it's all clear now. Dyanega (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Query about whether heights given are above sea level or ground level

I was just reading the article on 'List of birds by flight heights' and it occurred to me to wonder whether the heights given were above sea level or ground level. Saying that a bird is flying 29,000 feet up over the Himalayas, doesn't tell me if that's 29,000 feet higher than the mountains or sea level. Mountain heights are given as being above sea level so I'm wondering if these bird heights are, as well.

It's just - it's not so impressive for a bird to be 29,000 feet up, if, in reality, it's only a few thousand feet above a mountain - I think! I could be wrong; how thin the air is might make it impressive.

Anyway, I was hoping someone who knows the 'ins and outs' of this topic, could add more detail. I've been doing a little wandering around the internet and haven't noticed this question addressed so I thought everyone's favourite site could do something about it.  :-)

Mathsgirl (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mathsgirl, Altitudes are expressed as heights above sea level (ASL). It is indeed impressive that a bird can fly that high. Most helicopters cannot and very few living things survive above 20,000 ft ASL. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Common ostrich

Reading through the common ostrich article, would it be better to move the physiology and perhaps the domesticated pieces to Struthio, since those pieces apply to the genus? I'm not an expert on physiology, but I'm guessing it does apply to all ostriches in the genus, whether living or extinct?......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching the split of the ostriches and have been formulating a response (although I have a lot on so I wasn't in a hurry).

• To answer your question, I think it would be good to have that information at genera or higher level, but its fine to also have it at species level too.
• Also, I think ostrich should redirect to a higher taxa than species, Struthionidae or Struthio. Since we favour holding articles at common names where possible, ostrich should be the article title.
• Finally, I think we can merge Struthionidae or Struthio. Of the four genera doubtfully assigned to Struthionidae, two have their own families now (Eremopezus and Remiornis) one is only tentatively assigned to the family (Palaeotis) and one doesn't even rate its own article as is possibly synonymous with Struthio anyway. (Orientornis ). I think we can have a single higher level taxa article for the ostriches at ostrich, and expand it using content from the species articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ramphastides family pages

It would probably be good to move the four family pages (excluding toucan/Ramphastidae, as they do not need to be moved or anything) for the families in the infraorder Ramphastides. This would mean moving Megalaimidae to Asian barbet, Lybiidae to African barbet, Capitonidae to New World barbet, and Semnornis (monotypic family Semnornithidae) to toucan barbet. We would have to disambiguate on the last one, although, as there is a species of the same name. So maybe make it "Toucan barbet (genus)"? Or maybe disambiguate the species. I prefer the former, as the top hits on google are for the species. Anyways, thoughts on this proposal? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 05:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm down with all of that except Semnornis to Toucan-barbet. I think it will have to sit at Semnornithidae. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

So is it ok if I do the first three (not Semnornis) soon? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think it's fine, prefer common names almost every time. Semnornis should move to Semnornithidae at the same time I think (It simply doesn't really fit at toucan-barbet since that's a species name too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Semnornis shouldn't move to Sermornithidae per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. When did that policy come into place, and why? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, but what is the reason for not following it? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say that family outranks genus.... but whatever. I'm not looking for any more fights with the rule policy. I just had never heard of this rule before. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I will move the first three. The New World barbet may take a bit, as it is not just a simple page move. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Shoot, I can't. Can you do the first two, while I work on the New World barbets? (Actually, I only need an admin to move the Asian barbets) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved Asian barbet, other two were done by you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency here and elsewhere in use of quill, rachis, shaft, stem, etc.

I have noticed in writing the glossary a striking inconsistency, sometimes quite direct (meaning I actually came upon a sources commenting on it, but I have not been able to find that again unfortunately) in the use of rachis and (or versus) quill, versus calamus, versus stem, versus shaft.

On one side, some authorities use quill as the central or main stem or shaft of feathers, as broken up into the calamus (proximally or below) and the rachis (distally or above), further defined as the rachis being the portion of the quill, as central shaft, stretching above the superior umbilicus, and the calamus being the portion of the quill stretching below.

Others, diametrically, use quill as just the basal part – as a synonym for calamus (see e.g. our article on Feather development) – with the rachis as the central stem or shaft. From our article on Feather:

A typical vaned feather features a main shaft, called the rachis. Fused to the rachis are a series of branches,... At the base of the feather, the rachis expands to form the hollow tubular calamus (or quill) which inserts into a follicle in the skin. (Italics and underlining mine.)

Yet, for instance, see this diagram from Pettingill (page 31 Ornithology in Laboratory and Field). He also defines rachis at page 29 as [only] the "distal part of the shaft..." And here's the real kicker. At page 250 of A study of the structure of feathers, with reference to their taxonomic significance, Asa Chandler provides this definition for quill:

The main stem of a feather, including both shaft and calamus (Coues, 1884; Beebe, 1906, et al.). Synonyms: main stem (Nitzsche, 1867)...

Anyone have any idea how to handle this conflict? In the glossary, I had used the latter definition for quill, i.e., that provided in the quote above, and apparently used by Pettingill for this meaning, which contradicts the use in our articles on Feather and Feather development.

I don't know what to do with this; I don't know which definition to use in the glossary and to make consistent use of in the many entries where rachis and quill and shaft and stem are used in defining the location of others feather structures. I suppose I could painfully source the contradiction itself, and say in the glossary something to the effect of that "quill" and "rachis" will not be used except where absolutely necessary to remove the ambiguity, and that in such cases, they will be used for X and Y meanings.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I decided to and have explicitly defined the contradiction in the definition for quill. If anyone in the future happens to come across a source actually talking about this directly, please let me know as I would want to add that to round out the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

AOS vs IOC splits/lumps

I'd like some feedback regarding IOC species splits vs regional lists. The SACC of the AOS (previously AOU) publishes regular updates throughout the year on taxonomy. As we know, the IOC does so on a quarterly basis. We are following now the IOC for taxonomy, but do allow for exceptions. The IOC has recently split (January 2017) some of the Galapagos finches, but as of today, the SACC has yet to follow suit. Any preference on holding off the splits or should I split now. Seems like the yellow-rumped warbler has already been somewhat split (The rumor is the NACC is splitting this summer). I'll follow the split yellow-rumped warbler format for North and South American birds unless someone objects.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Who else has split the Galapagos finches? If any of the major authorities have started to do it, then it would be good to do it now. It may be good to do it now anyways, but it, of course, should be noted in whatever page that the split is not uniform. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If you aren't comfortable with a split, leave it be. Unless you're planning on working on the articles there's plenty of other things going on. But if you think there's a reason to wait, that's enough for me to leave it for the moment. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm comfortable either way, just gauging any opinions out there....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The SACC doesn't consider the Galapagos to be under their jurisdiction despite the islands' being part of Ecuador, so SACC won't be addressing the splits of endemics there. (The Galapagos are too far from the mainland.) On a semi-related note, I erred when I updated List of Birds of Ecuador by not separately sourcing the Galapagos endemics, because I reference only the SACC list. Will fix as soon as I can get to it.Craigthebirder (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought I saw Galapagos endemics last time I looked at the list and they are there, so the SACC does review the Galapagos Islands....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I correct my earlier error - the SACC does indeed "claim" the Galapagos. They passed splits of Sharp-beaked Ground-Finch and Large Cactus-Finch a while ago and have a brand new proposal for English names. Doesn't change our approach, though. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Re splitting the yellow-rumped warbler - I suggest waiting until the NACC publishes their decision, which most likely Clements will then adopt and (I hope) also the IOC. Splitting now would be speculative, however much we listers want it to happen. Craigthebirder (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the suggestion Craig. Will take it under advisement. The IOC has already split, so it is more than speculative for the species page. It may be speculative on the country pages depending on the source the country page uses. Most of the yellow-rump warbler country pages use Clements, so holding off on those would make sense. Commenting generally, there are a number of species pages where the taxonomy of the species pages do not match the country lists, and I don't think it creates huge issues.........Pvmoutside (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I missed the IOC split and see it now. So splitting the species page into myrtle, Audubon's, and Goldman's pages makes sense to keep species pages following one source (IOC). I do suggest keeping a yellow-rumped warber page which simply says IOC splits it and links to the three new ones. That'll keep the country pages simple until AOS and Clements follow, which I suspect they'll do....Craigthebirder (talk) 01:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Craig about the country lists, when we moved to IOC above we agreed to leave the country lists as they are. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The country lists should update when their point of reference updates.......Pvmoutside (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes of course. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've decided the best thing to do is to keep the conspecific articles as a bridge article to accommodate the country pages where the reference has yet to recognize the species split. So where our species, genus articles, etc. which standardize on the IOC can link to that species name, the country articles can link to the Clements name, or whatever reference the country list standardizes on. Maybe I'm making it too complicated, but it works I think. See Stewart shag, bean goose, and yellow-rumped warbler....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a good choice - more informative than a simple "see the two splits" page. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Would it be worth including sensu lato following the binomial in the taxobox (and/or in running text) in cases where an article on the unsplit species is retained? Another issue is that moving these pages can mess up Wikidata links. I'm not sure that there's really much that can be done about that as Wikidata may be covering multiple species concepts in the same item anyway. I do see that Wikidata's Large Cactus Finch item has a dead-link to IUCN (IUCN no longer covers the broad species concept), and links to NCBI and ITIS where a broad species concept is being used. Right now the Wikidata item links to Española ground finch due to the page move used to create that article, but I'm thinking that the Wikidata link to en.wiki maybe should be changed back to large cactus finch. Plantdrew (talk)

Toucan

Can anyone explain why IP editors are determined to insert the "fact" that toucans are called Brazilian geese in South America? I'm in danger of slipping into an edit war, even though its uncited, and as far as I can tell uncitable (I have looked). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope. Also, I'm pretty sure its not edit warring to revert incorrect information. I will help out a bit when I can. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I lied. I just found out that it is edit warring, but I think that if we can agree (probably here) that it is not true that they are called Brazilian geese in SA, then it should be ok. So, it would probably be good if people could contribute to this discussion. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit is where the "fact" snuck in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Definitely up to no good—they are using multiple IPs. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked a few weeks ago on this 'fact', including some spanish language refs and could not find anything to support this. Also, the toucan page is one of the most frequently vandalized pages on my watchlist, and would not be surprised if this is just hoax material. At the very least, it is unsupported at this time. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case, pending changes is likely order here. Anybody want to protect it? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Given that I'm involved, I'll leave that to someone else. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Since you are (presumably) on, could you possibly protect this? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 04:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done semi-protected. Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• An imitation of Brazilian aardvark hoax. William Avery (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the frequency with which this article is vandalised even without the Brazilian nonsense, is there a case for extending semi-p beyond the week imposed by Shyamal? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think so. I think, although, that it might be worth adding pending changes after the semiprotection expires. Maybe make the pc a week or so, and if somebody tries to add the fact during that time, then the pc would be extended or semiprotection would be reinstated. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, now that it is unprotected, it looks like the vandalism is starting. I recommend putting it back up at semi-protection. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind. Actually, it seems that only PC is needed, as the page was vandalized 4 days after it was protected, and by a seemingly vandalism-only account. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hoopoe break-up

Per IOC, I'm going to create separate species articles for the hoopoes (where they haven't already been made) and leave hoopoe as the family/genus page. This one has been a long time coming I think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

yep......Pvmoutside (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Interesting observations

So, I recently saw some mourning doves foraging on the ground outside of my house. There were three—two adults and one juvenile. Interestingly enough, even though the page on this bird says "They stay nearby to be fed by their father for up to two weeks after fledging," I saw the juvenile eating seeds by itself. The family (I suspect it is a breeding pair with its young) did forage close together. This was on April 8, 2017, 14:29 EST, northern hemisphere, so during spring. Any explanation? Do we need to update the page? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Heheh, updating the page based on own observations would very much be WP:original research, but if a source can be found, of course... FunkMonk (talk) 20:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, haha, I was asking if there was a source for that behaviour, or if the source that it cited was unreliable, to remove it until a better source could be found. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, since this is during the spring, there may be no inconsistency... fail. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

FA plea

We are beginning to have a problem with WP:FA in that the supply coming through WP:FAC isn't keeping up with WP:TFA. There's only so much one project can do, but if anyone who has done one before feels like another go, that would help. Similarly, an FA virgin might fancy a go. Between us we can help with sources, guidance and reviewing if anyone is motivated to take on the challenge Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I'll give it a go! Can you have a quick look at red-throated loon and let me know what else you think might be wise to do/add before I head to the lion's den? MeegsC (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe some sort of monthly or bi-monthly (or indefinite for each article) project collaboration could be started? There was one at the dinosaur project once, but it stalled. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

There was here too, but I'll have a look at MeegsC's loon first, and comment on her talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I would like to try and get some articles on swallows to FA status (or at least GA status), but how does one get an article into WP:FAC? RileyBugz(talk) 02:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

See the FA criteria:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

RileyBugz If you choose a species, I'll do what I can to help you. Recent/current submissions at WP:FAC include Tahiti rail and Eurasian rock pipit, which will give you an idea of structure. We can help with sourcing and peer review if needed. It's a lot of work, but everyone should do at least one WP:FA! GA is easier, but still needs comprehensiveness and good references. If you look at the refs that FunkMonk and I have used, it will give you an idea of the quality of refs needed, but as i say, we can help with that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I think that I am going to try and get back on improving the mangrove swallow article, and I am going to add refs in my spare time. I just didn't go deep enough into the google search, I am finding stuff now tho. Thanks! RileyBugz (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: I just nominated it as a good article. If I can get it to a good article, then I will submit it to review for an FA. User:RileyBugz (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

RileyBugz. OK, good luck at GA. Once you are through that, we can have a look and see what more needs to be done to reach FA standard Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Just got through GA, no comments lol. I just nominated it for FA. I am unsure about the country links, so could somebody possibly help with that? Thanks for all the suggestions. If anybody wants to review it, it would be great. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 18:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, that is kind of unfortunate, seems like a "rubber stamp review". There should pretty much always be suggestions for improvements in a review. At a glance, the intro seems too short, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I was kind of surprised and kind of suspicious since I have had encounters with that editor before. Anyways, thanks for the notice about the lead being to short, I expanded it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have a few that I have half-improved and can get back into. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Update

Okay, in the interests of keeping the production line moving. Mangrove swallow is at FAC, and will be very shortly joined by red wattlebird. If folks can chip in that'd be great. Also there are some bird articles that are Good Articles and not far off a crack at FAC too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed the red wattlebird a few hours ago, just to let you know. Also, I am pretty new still to FAC, so I might make some wrong suggestions. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The water pipit is now a featured article, mangrove swallow, red wattlebird, and red-throated loon are at FAC now. I plan to try and get the tawny-headed swallow when the mangrove swallow is done, any refs would be appreciated (the tawny-headed swallow isn't studied very well, so there might not be too much info on it). RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC) (Edit: actually I will be working on the white-rumped swallow)

(Update) - The Siberian accentor is at FAC now! I am also going to try and get something about this FA run in the Signpost. Good job everyone! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, the bird-project is exploding with FAC activity these days, after years of almost no nominations of living birds. Exciting! Sad to say I'm very busy these days, so it will probably take a while before I can review them all, if I even get to it before they pass. So when I get the time, I'll start out with those that have less than three supports (those with more will pass in any case). FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

(Update) The mangrove swallow and the red-throated loon have been promoted. Over a span of two days (January 21st and 22nd), six articles have been promoted! That is an average of three per day! Good job to everybody here! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool! I just noticed a long article about the extinct Lord Howe swamphen has just been published[3], so I think I'll try to get that to FAC soonish... FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll finish polishing up chimney swift next; it's been years in the works! MeegsC (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

(Update) - The red wattlebird has been promoted, but the Siberian accentor has not been promoted. The grey jay is also now at FAC! We are having an article in the Signpost done about us, which is really exciting. Basically, the world is all sunshine and rainbows. Good job everybody! (Now, get back to regulating the fusion in the sun!) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I notice that Kori bustard has a lot of content and could possibly be brought up to FA standard relatively quickly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

(Update) - Both the white-rumped swallow and the great spotted woodpecker are at FAC. The Siberian accentor has been promoted. Good job everybody, keep working on those articles! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

...now joined by Yellow-faced honeyeater...and grey jay has been promoted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

(Update) The great spotted woodpecker has been promoted. Good job! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• The article turnover-rate right now is incredible! It's like shooting sitting ducks, clay-pigeons, lame ducks, etc... FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I see Cas has nominated Red-headed myzomela and I've put White-naped Xenopsaris up for GA before FA. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird: I won't do a GA review of it, but can I do some copy-editing on the white-naped xenopsaris, just to help out? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Already has a reviewer who's copyediting, thanks :) Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

(Update) - The white-rumped swallow has been promoted. FA production isn't too bad, 25 this month as of this post (2 less than the date for me). Collaboration might be something to do, it would make FAC a lot faster (I think). RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

(Update) - Carnaby's black cockatoo is at FAC, although most of you probably watch the FAC page anyway, so you probably already know it. Good job everybody! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

(Update) - Rodrigues parrot has been promoted, and the white-naped xenopsaris is now at FAC. Carnaby's black cockatoo will probably be promoted soon. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: the red-headed myzomela is also close to promotion. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, this is long overdue, but the cape sparrow and the golden swallow are at FAC. The red-headed myzomela and Carnaby's black cockatoo have been promoted. Nice job! We will most likely have to focus on other things in our scope, like parasites, ornithologists, etc. I propose that we work on Ceratophyllus gallinae, or maybe avian malaria, but the latter will be a big project. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Idea

So, I have an idea. The idea is that somebody could ask for a quick review on their talk page (what I mean by quick review is just noting things that need to be improved, like certain sections, not like a full FA review) on an article that they are trying to get to FA status. This would encourage people who aren't sure if their articles meet FA status yet to continue improving it to FA status, and give them a good idea if they should nominate their article for FA. Otherwise, it would take a long time for potential FA articles to actually get to FA status. Basically what I am asking is for people to post articles here that they think might meet FA criteria, and have members place really quick reviews of the article to give them an idea of where it is at. My post here would be the white-rumped swallow. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe there could be an internal peer review page for the project? The general peer review process seems to be insanely slow. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, seems it already exists[4], but appears dormant? Perhaps it could be resurrected... FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would prevent articles from being at GAN or FAC, so probably not. I just want like a quick review, not really a nitpicky review thing like FAC. Just like a general review, say suggesting sections that need to be expanded, and whether the user thinks the article is ready for FAC. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

As the nominator you can close a Peer Review at any time though, so doesn't really stop a GA or FA nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casliber: Ok. What you did on the talk page of the white-rumped swallow was pretty much what I wanted. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I just finished a long awaited expansion of the old Rodrigues parrot GA, which I think I'll nominate once my current FAC is over. Feel free to add any comments, some of it may be a confusing/complicated read, and I'd of course like it to be as understandable as possible. I've merged some dubious species in the same genus that were formerly in their own article into it. I found it better to discuss these in an article about the valid species they're associated with, since they are not recognised by either the IUCN or IOC, and were named under spurious circumstances. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Rodrigues parrot is now at FAC, but I'm awaiting a newer restoration... FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I took giant nuthatch close to the point where I thought an FA would be ripe (in the page history, not its current content), but I've left it fallow because there's a really difficult task with reconciling conflicting sources. Once I get motivated to take it past that hurdle, It will go to FAC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, reconciliation isn't always possible, sometimes you just have to say "A says this, B says that". Let us know if you want a pre-review or PR before FAC. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I will! Thanks for offering. (I did that the last time around.) Yes, I will keep mentioning the conflict itself in mind. It was a bit deeper than that, with the sources themselves being unclear and referring to others they relied upon, that I would want to look at, but them not identifying the source they relied on in turn with sufficient specificity for me to find it. Much of it has to do with how much how much mental energy I can devote and time I have to expend at a given time, depending on what's going on in RL.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm working on the golden swallow, and would like some comments. I think it might be ready for FAC, but there isn't much content. This is due to the lack of research on this bird. So, do you people think that it is ready for and has enough content for FAC? If anybody wants to help on the article, feel free to. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't send it to FAC personally, it is kind of thin. Not a criticism, some species just are under researched. That said, have you poked through Google and Google Scholar as hard as you can? I found some articles on the White-naped Xenopsaris , especially one in Spanish, that really fleshed out the article and pushed it from too thin to just about enough. Also, do you have access to HBW alive? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not have access to HBW. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I emailed you their bibliography for the species, but it has a thin entry so there may well be very little to say. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Checking it out, it does seem that there isn't much material at all on this bird. I don't think I will get much more information from the sources you provided. Any ideas of how to add to the article to get it ready for FAC? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's possible. It happens, I've started working on articles and gotten stumped by a lack of information. But maybe someone else has ideas. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: Surely there must be some more information on the timeline of the extinction of the nominate subspecies somewhere (last sightings etc.) - it might not be easily searchable. Sometimes material on a taxon is in papers that do not come up in a google search of the taxon name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Who described the subspecies, and when? What do the subspecies names mean? Range map? The intro does not seem to summarise the entire article, no description, for example. Stuff like this is good "filler" when little else is known. But if no other info can be found, this simply means that the article is comprehensive, and that's all that matters at FAC/GAN. Article length itself is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You can only write what's known, which makes it comprehensive. There is always something you can add, even if the bird is little known, such as the history content for FunkMonk's corpses or the searches for several near-extinct rails Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Me and Cas are improving it. I have expanded the lead and added who described the subspecies. I can't seem to find what the subspecies names mean. I have just requested a range map. It seems that the main point of interest will be the status section. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure HBW Alive's dictionary of bird names is accessible without a subscription. Here is its entry on sclateri. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

There's a map on Commons[5], maybe too low res. I'd also swap the photo in the taxobox with the one sowing the full bird and no hand... FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The map is too zoomed out for me, it would be nice to get something centering on the islands where it is located. I don't know about the other photo for the infobox, it may be slightly too low res, anybody have a comment on this? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(De-indent) On the image thing, per MOS:LEADIMAGE Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic;. The image of the whole bird should be in the taxobox, and the image of th head used elsewhere. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I just moved some images around. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Does the article look ready for FAC now? Or is more work needed? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks better now, the description in the intro seems slightly too detailed, maybe (has it been copied word for word from the description section?)... FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• White-naped xenopsaris passed GAN, can someone check the formatting of my references before I send it to FAC? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not experienced with this, but just from looking, I see that only some of your refs have dois and only some have isbns. I don't know the exact policy, so you may have to keep one or both of them, but I suggest that you remove them, as it would take much less time than scouring around for the dois of all of your refs. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

ISBN would be for books and doi for journal articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but consistency is still needed with doi citations. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Not every article has a doi yet. JSTOR is working on it, Cotinga doesn't seem to, Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• White-naped xenopsaris is up for up for FAC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cape sparrow is a FAC now; would anyone like to help with black-throated gray warbler? (it could use a better description section) —innotata 17:13, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey innotata! Looks like there's some content at HBW that can be added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

It would probably be good to split some of the stuff in the distribution section into a separate status section. I might work on it later, but I am currently working on a lot of articles. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/White-naped xenopsaris/archive1 is almost there but needs a source review, if anyone can help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Same for the golden swallow, except with an image review. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd do the image review, if I hadn't created one of the images myself, so a "neutral" opinion is needed... FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• The pigeon guillemot is being improved, but I wonder if somebody could find the original description of it. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Does the pigeon guillemot look ready for FAC yet? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

There was material I planned to add from BAN before I went on holiday, particularly in morphology. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration

I think that we will need to start collaborating more to keep up our production rate. I think that it might also be good to have some kind of place where we put articles that we are working on or something. This was mainly inspired by Sabine's Sunbird kanban. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps make a list of things people are working on, then people can help on whatever they want? Personally, I've long wanted to get Mauritius parrot up to snuff... But I have few book sources on extant birds. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've gotten swallow pretty close to GA, need to update the taxonomy with some more recent info about the relationships in the family and within the passerines. Given how many FAs we have for the species in the family, seems like a good one to knock off. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking something like a list, but I thought that it would be better to have different sections or something. Have a section of articles that people want to work on, one for articles that they are working on, possibly one for articles that people want to have reviewed before GAN/FAC, and one for articles that are at GAN/FAC. The third one could be merged with the fourth, and the first one may be something that should be removed, as otherwise the work might get too spread out or overwhelming. Articles that haven't been worked on for a while would be removed. Thoughts on that? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I have banded stilt sitting at GAN if anyone wants to review it....genus or family level groups are good things to improve too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that I will review it, but I have done some copyediting for you. I might do a bit more in the future. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

It got a good grilling at GAN and is now at FAC. Other articles....@Sabine's Sunbird:, @Jimfbleak:, @Shyamal: I came across Red knot which a lot of work was done on a while ago. Might be good to go over this and get it over the GA line....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm on holiday, will look when I get back. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I am working on Woodpecker with the aim of getting it to GA, if anyone else wants to join in. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Evolution article

• D'Urban Jackson, Josephine; dos Remedios, Natalie; Maher, Kathryn H.; Zefania, Sama; Haig, Susan; Oyler-McCance, Sara; Blomqvist, Donald; Burke, Terry; Bruford, Michael W.; Székely, Tamás; Küpper, Clemens (2017). "Polygamy slows down population divergence in shorebirds". Evolution. doi:10.1111/evo.13212. ISSN 0014-3820.

Interesting article—could be used to update evolution article or something. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 12:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC at Talk:American Pekin

I invite you to the RfC discussion, Talk:American Pekin/Archive 1#RfC Previous and Current Revisions, to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Cattle egret breakup

How are people feeling about the IOC split of Eastern and Western cattle egret? I am uncomfortable with the split....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that it would be best to wait, but I think that if somebody can find a research paper that supports the split, then it should be done. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 01:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The IOC doesn't arbitrarily split species. Rather it does reference other taxonomists work. The split is under discussion at the IOC according to the eastern cattle egret listing, so my preference is to wait in this case....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Teah, but it could have split it for morphological differences. In my post, I meant advocating the split through a phylogenic position. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Given they have "status under discussion" against the entry I say leave for now. If we do split leave cattle egret as genus page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I'll bridge it, like I did with Taiga, Tundra and Bean goose unless there are objections. When (or if) the IOC merges, then I'll do as well. Looks like osprey follows the same route with an eastern and western species split........Pvmoutside (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

By bridging I assume you mean you'll leave cattle egret where it is and create two new articles for the species? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

yes.....already done.....have a look....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I assume Bubulcus and cattle egret will be merged eventually then, since they will be about the genus level? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Description of grey-necked wood rail

Hello! It would be nice if somebody could get the citation for the description of the grey-necked wood rail. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 16:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz, it is at http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/218386#page/139/mode/1up pg 119 as Fulica Cajanea. Muller translation of Linnaeus Natursystem Supplement p.119. All original citation references can be found on Avibase for each species. This reference can then be searched for in BHL or SORA. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Glossary of bird terms and {{Birdgloss}}

Hey all. I've spent the last many months drafting glossary of bird terms, and recently posted it. I tried hard to write it to a high standard, maybe to eventually become Wikipedia's first FA for a glossary. Many definitions were culled from existing articles (probably some of you had a hand in; thank you!; copyright attribution was always provided in the edit summary when this occurred) but there is also much new content, and many definitions for common use terms for which there was nowhere to link to in bird articles—which was the germ for writing it; I kept finding that was the case for common bird description terms I was using ("the upper parts are.." what are "upper parts"?)

If you come upon a term you want to link to that is not included, please add it with a good cite following the glossary markup and form of other entries—which try to provide not just the name but anchors for every name variant, plural that might come up, and grammatical variants. There is a template for linking to any definition or anchored term in the glossary (piping to anything you'd like works too): {{Birdgloss}}. For example:

"Many of the tumbler pigeons had {{birdgloss|addled eggs}} that they {{birdgloss|overbrooded}} for up to 3 weeks past the normal time."

results in:

"Many of the tumbler pigeons had addled eggs that they overbrooded for up to 3 weeks past the normal time."

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Fuhghettaboutit: This is outstanding. I'll start linking to it straight away. Thank you. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow! That's a lot of terms! Amazing job, I can't imagine how long it took. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• Nice work! I have some more terms that could be added, though I don't have time right now myself: pygostyle, notarium, furcula (wishbone), synsacrum, and retrices (could be mentioned under tail). More can probably be found at Category:Bird anatomy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful response. Thank you! RileyBugz: Gobs:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Resident (as opposed to migratory) would be good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:49, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

It might also be nice to add all of the coverts and plumage terms, stuff like that, but that is probably for later, as that might take some time. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 • @FunkMonk: So far I've added pygostyle and furcula. Tail already mentions and links to rectrices, which has its own definition. Can you be specific about what you'd like to see there?

 • @Sabine's Sunbird: I've added resident.

 • @RileyBugz: Can you tell me what additional entries you'd like to see related to plumage as well as coverts? Did you see that the entry for coverts links to wing coverts and tail coverts—there is a lot of dense ground covered between the three.

There are many entries you *may* not have noticed because of alternate names or multiple terms defined in one location, and maybe because I used the Humphrey-Parkes term for the main name of various plumages and moults and then, of course, listed alternate names, all of which are anchored. For example:

 • alternate plumage (a/k/a nuptial plumage a/k/a breeding plumage);

 • basic plumage (a/k/a non-breeding plumage a/k/a winter plumage – the entry for which also defines supplementary plumage);

 • cryptic plumage (the entry for which also defines phaneric plumage;

 • definitive plumage;

 • prealternate moult (a/k/a prenuptial moult);

 • prebasic moult (a/k/a postnuptial moult – the entry for which also defines postjuvenal moult);

 • morph (a/k/a color morph), etc.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, no problem with the rectrices then, I spelled it wrong when I searched the page... FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit This is wonderful! I'm sure this is a great launchpad for future works that may be in the pipeline. I will be sure to take a good look at this when I have a little more time, but at first glance, I'm impressed! N. Jain ^{(talk to me)} 00:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Njain1091: Great! and thank you for the kind words. Feel free to add definitions yourself, but I am happy to try to do so if you drop me a line (maybe at the articles' talk page with a ping, or there plus a prompt at my talk page).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

<--outdent

I'll add my kudos — this is a great article! As for additions, how about fecal sac (see fecal sac)? MeegsC (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@MeegsC: Thank you. Added!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: Perching is not in the glossary, you linked to it in passerines, but it seems that you forgot to actually create it. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: Perching bird and perching birds are anchored in the definition for passerine, because the definition starts with: "Also, perching bird." (i.e., defined as a synonym). We could have a stand-alone definition for "perching", but I think it's fairly in the common vernacular. -Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: And flight isn't? RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

The way I think about it is that there really are a few thousand terms that could be included, so we must be selective with our editorial judgment on inclusion. I'm not saying perching necessarily should not be, but the analogy to flight is I think an inapt one. Flight is so integral to birds, and its definition provides lots of information beyond the everyday understanding of the word. It's not that "perching" isn't integral per se, but do you see it as being a container for any technical content beyond a simple and common definition that most people already know? Please keep in mind that part of the purpose here, at least in my mind, is not just to provide all terms one might expect, but what we would think people would naturally want to link to as part of bird article writing (within the bounds of WP:OLINK). I would think flight? – "absolutely"; perching? – "unlikely". Again, this only even came up because you thought I had dedicated a spot for it but forgot to define it, when that wasn't the case.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

More that are needed (feel free to strike out things once you have completed them):

• Colony (and possibly natal colony)
• Insectivore
• Granivore
• Possibly other "-vores", I don't know
• Breast band
• Alarm call
• Flight call
• Pithing

Probably more. I was about to include wingspan, but I did that. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I can't find a direct source for breast band, only sources describing birds with them. I had the same problem with natal colony I have been trying hard only use sources that define terms directly. Pithing bothers me and I don't want to look for sources. I think it's not core and can be left out though. If you feel strongly, please do so.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I may do pithing in the future, but I am kind of discourage since the first page of google results is literally just about chickens. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wing chord (biology) could be merged and redirected into this glossary too? Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to find a source for the unsourced language there but failed to find one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Per excellent suggestion above, I've added an entry in the glossary under dietary classification terms (-vores), listing 14 feeding strategy words, with a sort of mini-article introduction. All are anchored with plural and adjectival forms, so for any of them, these grammatical forms will work: {{birdgloss|frugivore}}, {{birdgloss|frugivores}}, and {{birdgloss|frugivorous}}.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! That must have took a long time... nice job! Also, I left a question on the article talk page. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

FYI, we are going to use British English in this article, so it would be nice if people could assist with consistency. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 20:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Migration is needed... RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Fuhghettaboutit, this is a great resource and is well done. I appreciate your efforts and have started to link terms to it from bird pages. Loopy30 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Loopy30: Great! That's exactly the purpose I started it for and thanks very much for your message at my talk page!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Precocial and altricial are needed. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah good, I will get to them soon.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Nest box might also be a good idea. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I actually just went ahead and did altricial and precocial, in addition to doing nidicolous and nidifugous. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Fuhghettaboutit: What a great project and thank you for all the hard work you have put into this. What about including "casque" - the "helmet" that some hornbills and cassowaries have? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey DrChrissy. Thanks for the kind words! I have added an entry for casque.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Possibly wanderers. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 19:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I looked for wanderer. Unfortunately, I was not able to source a direct definition, at least yet. In my travels though I cam across and added a definition for the related "vagrant". Also, because I don't want to lose it if a definition is later added for wanderer, I am placing here this snippet I had started for its definition (just as a holding spot I can always come back to): ""Peregrine", as in [[peregrine falcon]], is from the Latin, ''peregrinus'', which means wanderer.<ref>{{cite book|last=Egbert|first=Hobart|title=The Ornithologist and Oölogist|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=J4cVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131|year=1893|publisher=Joseph M. Wade|page=131}}</ref>"--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

A source for portraits of ornithologists

It appears that the Smithsonian has been scanning a number of albums and field notes as part of the Biodiversity Heritage Library and the contents are released without copyright claims - one that I found of some interest was Alexander Wetmore's photo album with a number of photos from the XII Ornithological Congress in 1958, Finland and includes pictures of many ornithologists who currently lack photos. Shyamal (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice find! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I do a lot of copyright work, so if it might be useful, to the best of my understanding: It would not really matter what the Smithsonian says because it would not appear they own the copyright to most of these works (and no derivative work in them is created by their scanning because it results in no significant original transformation, modification or adaptation) but it also seems insignificant to me that they do not provide copyright information, because we are required to assume all original work is non-free copyrighted, unless we have affirmative evidence to the contrary. That being said, we can derive public domain status with some key data—mostly from timing, coupled with publication status—which can be summarized as:

• Created/photographed prior to 1896 (whether published or not) = PD.
• Published before 1923 = PD.
• Published after 1923 and up to 1977 without a copyright symbol = PD
• Published between 1978 and March 1, 1989 without a copyright symbol and not registered since = PD
• Published from 1923 to 1963 with a copyright symbol and copyright not renewed = PD
• Unpublished and created/taken before 1923 = PD 70 years after author's death (so the author's identity must be known).
• Unpublished and created/taken after 1923 = too complicated to get into without a year.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Dang... I think we are in the last "complicated" situation - I am not sure when a photo album in the Smithsonian Archives becomes "published" or whether it is treated as unpublished according to US copyright. Shyamal (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Link to specific ones and I'd be happy to take a look.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Any of the people pictures in the book linked above Shyamal (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Yeah, sorry. As far as I can tell those were not "published" in 1958, even though they're using that word, but taken in 1958, and just published, and as such will be out of copyright in the U.S. 70 years after Alexander Wetmore's date of death (because of this coupled with this (so in 2048). If they really were published in 1958 (and not "renewed"), however, I think they're PD. I don't want to cause you or anyone to not use these based on misinformation so I'll ask for a second opinion at WP:MCQ.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Brown-headed cowbird

While reading over the brown-headed cowbird page I noticed that some of the sections imply that they are quoting studies, but this is not immediately obvious. The text in these sections seems out of context. For example, take a look at this section. I'm not sure if text was plagiarized from a study, or if an editor quoted a study without giving additional context. The bottom line is that it would help to look over the page. N. Jain ^{(talk to me)} 14:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Subdivisions of the family Laridae (Gulls, Terns, Skimmers) in H&M4

Could someone with access to The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. 4th edition Volume 1 ISBN 9780956861108 check on how the 23 genera in the family Laridae are subdivided. Specifically, are the terns considered as a subfamily Sterninae or as a tribe Sternini? Similarly, are the gulls considered as a subfamily Larinae or as a tribe Larini? Thanks - Aa77zz (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I cannot access the book, but normal taxonomic practice would mean that it belongs both in the tribe as well as the subfamily above it. (i.e. it cannot belong to *only* a tribe in the hierarchy of Linnean ranks) Shyamal (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I now see that the question is between

• Laridae
  • Larinae
    • Larini - Gulls and skimmers
    • Sternini - Terns

and

• Laridae
  • Larinae
    • Larini - Gulls and skimmers
  • Sterninae
    • Sternini - Terns

Rank decisions are usually based on estimates of the time of divergence. But perhaps the new IOC list 7.2 or the H&M will clarify this. Shyamal (talk) 01:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The noddies have traditionally been placed in the tern family Sternidae but the study by Baker et al (2007) doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0606, Erratum doi:10.1098/rsbl.2006.0606erratum found that the noddies were sister to a clade containing the gulls, terns and skimmers. If this is correct it doesn't make a lot of sense putting the noddies in the same subfamily/tribe as the terns. But this is OR. I'm be back in London in a couple of weeks and will visit a library to look at H&M4. Aa77zz (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Pigeon guillemot description

Hello! Can somebody please help me and find the source for the pigeon guillemot description? Thank you! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, do you mean the original description by Pallas? If so, try this link, pg 348. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah—thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 04:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The date is 1831, but he died in 1811, so I should still say that it was described in 1811, correct? I will put it in for now, but please tell me if I am wrong here. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The publication date alone matters. 18811 is what all sources seem to have. Shyamal (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The volume date on the publication provided was 1831 only because it was a second edition that was scanned into BHL. If you look at the cover page (here) you will see that the original edition was indeed published 1811. Shyamal is correct, the publication date alone is all that matters but I think his 1881 is a typo. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 11:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Yes. Shyamal (talk) 05:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Laridae

I've created a simple Laridae page to link gulls, terns, and skimmers due to IOC and Clements taxonomy. Feel free to add, edit, or replace....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I've drafted an expansion but am waiting for IOC 7.2 (coming very soon) before finalizing and uploading it.Craigthebirder (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

7.2 out now, but you could have updated prior as the draft did not involve Laridae....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Note on Commons

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#File%3ACuculus_canorus_egg.JPG Maybe someone here can help identify this curious egg whose attribution to a cuckoo is questioned. Shyamal (talk) 05:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Here it is: File:Cuculus canorus egg.JPG. Common Cuckoo is rare visitor in Alaska and never was found, as far as I know, in Great Smoky Mountains (East coast). North American Cuckoos are not brood parasites, so it's definitely not Cuckoo's egg. Hunu (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Could it belong to a cowbird? Shyamal (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Brown-headed cowbird "Rare breeder in Southeastern Alaska, accidental elsewhere"? http://aknhp.uaa.alaska.edu/species_summary_reports/pdfs/64.pdf William Avery (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! And who is the host of the nest? Hunu (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the point being made above by William Avery is that it is very unlikely to belong to a cowbird. Shyamal (talk) 14:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but this photo was made in East coast (Great Smoky Mountains). I mentioned Alaska because it's only place where Common Cuckoo rarely could be found in USA. Hunu (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

In Europe, host eggs are usually much smaller than the cuckoo's. What is the likely host in Alaska? cuckoos are quite specific in their choice of host Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Excuse me for my rusty English. But this nest was pictured not in Alaska, but in Great Smoky Mountains. So of course, It is not cuckoo. Hunu (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

<--(OUTDENT) The spotted egg looks good for brown-headed cowbird, a brood parasite common in the east, and certainly present in the Great Smoky Mountains. These cowbirds have been recorded parasitizing scores of species in North America -- some with larger eggs, and some with smaller. I'm not sure the host species can be identified, given the plain white eggs; these could belong to any number of species. MeegsC (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Hunu (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Range map needed

Hello! I need a range map for the grey-necked wood rail. I would prefer that HBW be used as a source. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I can do one - can you either email me a photo or link? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 14:44, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's a link to the eBird reports of that species: http://ebird.org/ebird/map/gycwor1?neg=true&env.minX=&env.minY=&env.maxX=&env.maxY=&zh=false&gp=false&ev=Z&mr=1-12&bmo=1&emo=12&yr=all&byr=1900&eyr=2017 Craigthebirder (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The map currently in the article is no longer correct, given that the species has now been split; HBWs map predates that split. The break comes in Costa Rica, with both species occurring in places there. MeegsC (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MeegsC...Pvmoutside (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Would be good to see how the split goes map-wise visually...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm... Well, can you make a new one? Thanks, Pvmoutside, for taking the map off of the article, or otherwise I doubt that I would have noticed. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Find me an image where I can see where to draw the line and I will happily modify the map Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The split is seen here. The subspecies cajaneus and avicenniae is what we want. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, needed a chunk of uninterrupted time to do this - will do so tonight (Australian East Coast time...). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Status on this? RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot. Will get onto it later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yellow-streaked greenbul range map

With the separation of Sharpe's Greenbul, the indicated area west of Lake Malawi (sw Tanzania, ne Zambia and n Malawi) should be removed from the range map of the yellow-streaked greenbul. Can anyone revise the map file (File:Phyllastrephus flavostriatus distribution map.png)? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)