Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 70

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Loopy30 in topic Article title spellings

Bird FA league table

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I just sorted all our bird FAs into orders to get some idea of spread. No surprises really. Anyway, gotta run. If someone else wants to do a geographic breakdown by continent be my guest. Was also going to do by classification level but obviously we have loads and loads of species (duh!), so some higher level articles I guess would be good...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

By order

  • N/A (13 articles)
  • Passeriformes (78 articles)
  • Struthioniformes, Rheiformes, Tinamiformes, Apterygiformes, Galliformes, Phoenicopteriformes, Pteroclidiformes, Mesitornithiformes, Cuculiformes, Musophagiformes, Otidiformes, Opisthocomiformes, Eurypygiformes, Phaethontiformes, Coliiformes, Trogoniformes, Bucerotiformes, Leptosomatiformes, Cariamiformes (all zero articles)
By this, it might be good to improve some articles that are in orders with 0 featured articles. I suggest that we do the willow ptarmigan or the white-tailed ptarmigan, as they are both Galliformes that are good articles. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
willow ptarmigan looks ambitious, especially as there is ongoing discussion about the status of the red grouse as species or subspecies. The white-tailed ptarmigan looks concise and manageable. Cwmhiraeth is still active and might be interested at a collaborative tilt at FAC. FWIW, there is also great spotted kiwi....and Djibouti francolin is also a galliforme GA. Sandgrouse is also GA. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm willing to join in collaborations if you want to work on white-tailed ptarmigan or sandgrouse, particularly the latter as they are such interesting birds. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I prefer to start on short stubs, as they have almost nothing unreferenced, likely because there is almost nothing there. Any really short articles you want to do? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
This looks like a good one, I removed some uncited information, added a bit, and organized: red-billed tropicbird. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Cuckoo has been on my to do list for a while. I got it to B a long time ago, and I think maybe I should see if it can be pushed in the right direction. Trogon is similarly placed for a big push, if people are looking for articles to work on. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Toucan

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just two days after the month-long page protection was completed, the vandals are back. Previous thread here. Can this be protected again? Thanks, Loopy30 (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I will ask for pending changes, as there is the occasional good edit from an IP. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Corvus species

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:List_of_Corvus_species#Former_species to weigh in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Archive 70/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Birds.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Birds, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Breed confirmation (Ancona ducks)?

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I took 3 photos yesterday in Wright Park, Tacoma, Washington, U.S., which I'm pretty certain are Ancona ducks, but I'm not exactly a poultry expert. I realize in particular that it can be hard to visually distinguish an Ancona duck from a Magpie duck, but I'm pretty sure the speckling on these is too irregular to be a Magpie duck. I figured I should just put them here rather than in the Ancona duck article until someone can confirm. - Jmabel | Talk 15:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Jmabel: I am not an expert on domestic duck breeds, my interest is in wild species. They look like a domestic breed to me...If I were you, I'd comb through the active Wikiproject Birds to see if anyone has interest in domestic fowl, and ask them. If you get no answer, you may want to try the web. [1] looks like a great site....I hope you publish your photos on the appropriate Wikipedia page, and participate here in whatever effort you choose.....I hope I was able to help. Let me know if I can assist further....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, you might try WP:POULTRY too... MeegsC (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ranni Forest Division

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, birders and bird experts! I came across the following article, Ranni Forest Division. In the section Ranni Forest Division#Birds, there is a Ranni Forest Division#List of birds. It is rather extensive, but:

(a) there are no headings at the tops of the columns;

(b) none of the bird names are linked; and

(c) at least on my screen, the table is extraordinarily wide from left to right, requiring that I move my screen over to see what is there.

I'm wondering if this list of birds could be improved. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the problems go deeper than that! All of the species listed under "mammals" are actually birds, as are some of the things listed under "reptiles". The problem with the table appears to be cosmetic; the editor who added it just didn't format the table properly. Not sure it's really worth saving, unless we can find some reference online that supports the lists! MeegsC (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, MeegsC! I had left a similar note at User talk:Apokryltaros#Ranni Forest Division, thinking he would be more interested in the fauna section, but he figured out the same thing you did!  – Corinne (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

School projects

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

It looks like some unannounced school project is requiring students to update biology articles, as a number of bird articles have had major updates recently by folks who don't know about such things as putting references after punctuation, only putting access-dates on sources with urls, etc. I've pinged a few of them, asking if it's a class (typical scenario: all posted within the past few days as one huge entry, all put up by red-linked users who've worked on only one article, etc.) but haven't heard anything back from anybody. Sigh; it would be nice to know which professor is requiring it, so that we could ask him/her to pass along some style tips! Anyway, here are the few I've found — looks like there's been some good info added. Spotted shag, white-shouldered ibis, spotless crake MeegsC (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out MeegsC! I agree the content add far outweighs the style errors. That can always be fixed! Here here to more Wikipedia editing from the next generation!.........it would be nice to know what professor is requiring it not only for style, but to add words of encouragement!....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the above; certainly a big plus no matter what. Hopefully we can teach them about that one ref tool where you put the DOI in and it gives you the ref, as I find it annoying to do references to scholarly papers (tool is here). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Birds of the Central Indian Highlands

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came across this article in my quest to take a bite out of the Feb 2009 orphans backlog. It's an orphaned article that comes across a bit like an essay, but I'm not sure. Could someone who knows anything about the topic have a look and tell me if it looks like something useful? If not, I can take care of AfD'ing or PRODing. If it does look encyclopedic, can someone suggest where I can link it to de orphan it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding information on the birdgloss template to the project page

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all. The glossary is now quite far along. I propose that a section be added on the main page with this text:

==Linking to definitions in Glossary of bird terms==
The headlined glossary article contains definitions for many terms that may be useful to link to in bird articles. (Nevertheless, please be mindful of Wikipedia:Overlinking.) Links to definitions in the glossary may be added in other articles and pages using Template:Birdgloss – {{Birdgloss}} – in the form {{Birdgloss|term}}. This will work for exact terms or phrases defined in the glossary, or those anchored to a definition. If a term you wish to link is not already defined or anchored in the glossary, you can pipe a link to a definition, in the form: {{Birdgloss|actual term|display term}}. See the template's documentation for more information.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I changed a bit, mainly because there were some errors in terms of unbalanced brackets. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 16:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Rallidae to Rail (bird)

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Just a note, I just moved the page Rallidae to Rail (bird). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Riley.....normally English names are always preferable to scientific names. However, the Rallidae also include coots, and gallinules which are technically rails, but are not called that in English......maybe a change back to Rallidae is appropriate here?....Pvmoutside (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I think such moves should be discussed before, not after, they are done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as the article calls the lot of them "rails" throughout, I'd say this is fine. If we are going by "rails sensu strictu", the article would probably need to be heavily restructured? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I did this because of the fact that the family usually is called the rails, and because of there fact that the article uses "rails" as a term encompassing the whole family. There is precedent for this, take the auks for example. I should have discussed this before though—I will certainly do that next time. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to add to the pile on about discussing first, but retrospectively I'm fine with this move. It is the widely accepted name for the family. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Rail is not only the family Rallidae but also the genus Rallus. I would keep the name Rallidae. --Melly42 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Rallus is not the only genus of rails. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
If one does move the title to the more "specific" page, then one will have a good number of people searching for the family that will instead by brought to the page that just covers the rails that are named the rails. And if one does that, then what would stop one from including the rails that aren't in the family Rallidae? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 13:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
As is, Rail is a disambiguation page anyway, so a search will not lead directly to either the family or genus article. --FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this discussion be moved to the Rail (bird) talk page?....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Knob-billed / Comb Ducks

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

While updating list of birds of Madagascar, I discovered we currently have but one article for Knob-billed and Comb Ducks, despite the fact that the IOC (and many other) taxonomists consider them to be separate species. If anyone's feeling inspired, and looking for a project to take on, it should probably be split into two articles. MeegsC (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MeegsC.....I'll try to jump on it tonight or tomorrow......I see the IOC and IUCN split, but Clements (and ebird) still have them together......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Done....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thanks Pvmoutside... MeegsC (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge Coues' gadwall?

Latest comment: 6 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

I just noticed that Coues's gadwall is considered a subspecies of Gadwall, if not just based on aberrant specimens. usually, we don't have separate articles about bird subspecies, unless a lot can be written about them, but that doesn't seem to be the case here, since so little is known about the bird. So I'm thinking it would be better to just merge the articles, both which are pretty short, any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree on merge, two questionable specimens of an unconfirmed extinct subspecies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep (for now). The two pages are each long enough to be kept separate, as neither are stubs and several other subspecies pages are kept that contain even less material. The argument to merge should instead be based on the reliability or lack of support for the recognition of Coues' gadwall as a distinct subspecies. 'Cheers. Loopy30 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Which other subspecies articles do you mean? It is generally the rule that such are covered at the species page. I don't see a good case why it should be different here, neither article is very long. Once the info about the living gadwall is eventually expanded, the text about the supposed subspecies will only amount to a small part of the entire article, and a seperate article for it would seem like a pointless appendage. A similar case of how an extinct subspecies is dealt with in an article about the entire species could be golden swallow, a recent FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk, I agree that subspecies should be covered in the species page however, it has not prevented their occurrence: See Sanford's bowerbird, Shetland wren, Cebu hanging parrot, Degodi lark, Mesopotamian crow, New Zealand fairy tern, Chestnut-mandibled toucan, Citron-crested cockatoo, Cantabrian capercaillie, etc. Also happens for other animals such as Baikal sturgeon, Crawshay's zebra, Bolivian river dolphin and so on. Loopy30 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd agree with merge. In this case, there's certainly not much information to expand the "Coues' gadwall" article beyond what currently exists. If some study later shows that it is indeed a separate species (which seems unlikely), we can always split it out again. MeegsC (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep (for now)....enough written to keep as article, even being a subspecies....However, article name should be moved to Coues's gadwall since the naturalist's last name is Coues to follow naming convention....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, per WP:COMMONNAME, the current title should probably be kept, as it seems that most sources call it "Coues' gadwell". Also, in English, one can choose, if it is a proper noun and ends in s, whether to just add the apostrophe or add the apostrophe s. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
normally I'd agree with you Riley, but the Wikipedia naming convention does not follow proper English rules when dealing with species using proper last names.....see Saunders's tern, Forbes's snipe, Forbes's forest rail, Forbes's blackbird, Forbes's plover, Ross's goose, Harris's hawk, Harris's sparrow, Harris's antelope squirrel, Jones's roundleaf bat, etc....
  • Keep - Seems to be enough sources that focus on this subspecies to warrant a separate article. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
But not enough information. That's the important difference. There is not enough information for the article to grow beyond it's current size, and all of it would fit snugly in an expanded article about the regular gadwall. And the issue of subspecies not having their own articles is also pretty important. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
True. But we don't care (at least very much) about how much information a subject has in terms of notability, we care more if the information is verifiable. Based on the number of articles, I would say that it is verifiable. Also, having an article for a subspecies doesn't mean that one can't expand an article on the species. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
We do care, otherwise every subspecies of bird would have its own article. But almost none of them do. There doesn't seem to be a guideline for this, but it is pretty much an unwritten rule by now. As in this case, there usually isn't enough info about individual subspecies to warrant separate articles. And in this case, the subspecies doesn't even seem to be valid, which is even more reason for merging it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I favour merge. The extra information could easily be incorporated into the main species article. I think where possible we should try to avoid creating more and more short articles. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Normally I'd agree that subspecies articles are too specific given all the work that needs to be done yet to the species level. FunkMonk, I think you are assuming too much that if we keep this article, then every subspecies would have an article written about it. The subspecies is listed on the IOC roster. We do have articles like Vietnamese pheasant, for example, that are not valid species, as well as a number at the subspecific level. As Rileybugz points out, the article is big enough and referenced enough to keep.......I'd ask at what point is an article big enough to keep. Regarding Aa77zz's point, I agree we should avoid creating more and more subspecies articles, but it has been created (since 2007), and if we merge this, then should we be consistent and merge all subspecies articles and state we not allow them on the project page?
That pheasant should likewise just be merged. We need to have some sort of consistency across articles, and the closest we have to a standard is that subspecies are redirects in most cases by far. In my opinion, a subspecies article split should happen only if a species article becomes too large to contain the information , and if there is enough info to make a sizeable article about the subspecies (such as what happened to Emu/King Island emu). FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
What do you mean with merge? Will you move the complete information to the Gadwall article or will you short it to a few sentences? --Melly42 (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Merging should always mean retaining all information, just in the same article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Because we have several other articles on extinct bird or mammal subspecies. Coues' gadwall is regarded as valid by HBW Alive, Howard & Moore, and IOC. --Melly42 (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I stated earlier, "good" subspecies articles do exist, but this one isn't one of them, and never will be. Imagine that someone expanded the gadwall article to its full potential, including all the information about the subspecies. What point would there be in having a semi-stub about one of them? See for example how I incorporated practically all info about two dubious species into the Rodrigues parrot article. To me, that's leagues better than having a stubbish article that will never evolve on its own. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
General comment. We rightly endeavour to have a separate page for all bird species, no matter how paltry the amount of information present, with the hope or expectation that it will be expanded with future contributions. Although these short species articles (stubs) are acceptable to us, perhaps we should not allow any bird subspecies pages to develop in the same manner. That is, a proposed policy could be that all bird subspecies information at first be placed only on the respective species page and not split off to form a separate subspecies page until such time that a critical mass of subspecies information (not just a re-hash of info applicable to the whole species) has been added. This could be when a potential subspecies page would be classified as a 'start' class article (not stub), or each potential subspecies page could be considered on a case-by-case basis in this forum. Adoption of such a policy would then result in the task to merge all current subspecies stub pages into their respective species pages. Loopy30 (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking; if the species article is already expanded to its full potential (such as emu), and a subspecies has too much specific information about it to fit in the the species article (such as King Island emu), only then should it be split. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
There's also the issue of some subspecies flipping to species and vice-versa.......I still don't understand the harm in keeping a multi-referenced subspecies article if it has already been created,and is beyond a stub, but can live with a merge if that's concensus.......Pvmoutside (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
There's no harm as such (bird articles are rarely harmful), but I think the standards/precedents issue is pretty important. Also, though it may not be a stub, it contains all there really is to say about the bird, which isn't much, and, in my opinion at least, does not even come close to warranting a separate article, compared to so many other bird subspecies which are simply merged. It's disputed validity certainly doesn't help either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Should this discussion be moved to the Coues's gadwall or gadwall talk page?....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
It could be continued there. In any case, since it touches on a wider issue, it may warrant a wider discussion (as here). FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:WikiProject Birds/Missing IOC names/Bird names

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The subject list, and its parent (WP:WikiProject Birds/Missing IOC names) are left-over from a Birds Project To Do list task circa 2012 to ensure that all IOC names were represented with a WP page (or at least a re-direct). Since the red-links that were listed have now all turned blue, can we summarily delete these two pages? Loopy30 (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You could remove the blue links, but I don't see why we should delete the page itself. I would expect the list to be under constant evolution, with both new species being discovered, as well as being split off existing species. So it is good to have just in case we get another backlog. The dinosaur project, which prided itself in always being up to date when it came to new taxa, has recently slowed down, and it can take months before articles about new genera are created, for example. Could happen here too, and in that case, it would be nice to have a place to add them. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hooded seedeater

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

What should happened to this article as this bird no more valid anymore? --Melly42 (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

If it is just a colour morph of the Yellow-bellied seedeater (as the higher taxon aerticle suggests), it should be merged into there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
When I am understand the article by Areta et al 2016 correctly It might be also merged with Sporophila ruficollis or Sporophila caerulescens Areta et al --Melly42 (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, from my cursory glance of the plos article, it seems there are two specimens, and each has been assigned to a different species in the study. Since the male type specimen was shown to be ruficollis, the article should be merged there. The female specimen has been assigned to another species, but since it is not the type specimen, that doesn't really matter. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Bird Songs

Latest comment: 6 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

as an effort to improve articles on birds, i would like to add calls of different species of birds. some calls are available in wikicommons, but not all. can i add media files from Xeno-canto library which are under creative common license. Is there any rules i need to follow while adding them . Can anybody explain the procduresIamsalin (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Best to upload files at the commons. They have a help desk which links to [frequently asked question]. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there any prohibitions in uploading creative common licensed material from xeno-canto to wikicommons? Iamsalin (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It would depend on the type of creative commons license used. Ones that do not allow modification or commercial use would probably not be welcome. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:55, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
      • what about CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licensed files.is it okay if i upload the files to wikicommons if i credit the recordist. Iamsalin (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
        • Iamsalin, I assume you saw the answer just added on Commons? [2] It appears that only CC-BY-SA licenses are suitable (share alike licenses) - this does not include ND variants (which stipulate "no derivatives"; this however is something that Wikipedia explicitly allows). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC) Add: I do get the impression that the majority of files on xeno-canto are of the share-alike type though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
          • Thanks for the clarification -- Iamsalin (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Iamsalin. On the project page you will see a section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Linking bird calls and songs, which you might find of interest. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Fuhghettaboutit We need to be play the songs directly in the article, not through any external link. What will happen if the medias are somehow removed by xeno canto -- Iamsalin (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I was not suggesting that finding suitably licensed songs and calls and uploading them was not a worthy goal! But if you can't procure a recording that that is possible for, the external use of xeno-canto is better than nothing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Dispute at Bird

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Trying to avoid an edit war over lead of bird, please check out Talk:Bird#Lead_dispute. Cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought this interesting

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Some of you may already be aware of this (the discovery is a few months old) but some not. It might be something for mention in our feather article (if not already there; I haven't checked). Anyway, it appears we have our first true detailed picture of feathers in dinosaurs, not just fossilized impressions but whole feathers from a dinosaur tail preserved in amber (apparently evidencing that barbule development was significantly earlier than thought): Here's the link. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been mentioned at feathered dinosaurs for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Preening (bird) is the WikiProject Bird Collaboration

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I realized brolga is ineligible as it is already a GA. There is no time limit to a collaboration. It only stops when an article is GA, and then we choose the next one. First time I can recall a non-article as a collaboration. So go for it folks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

NB: Any other unsuccessful collaboration nomination (in this case Parrot) sits there until it's had three bites of the proverbial before being archived. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Improving for FAC doesn't count? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, it's just that GA is sort of a stable version, and once an article is there it's generally not a huge leap to FA-hood. The biggest hurdle is adding and tidying up before that..in which case I suppose we should be cleaning up current GAs and sending them to FAC easily....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Not all GAs are equal though, some would need a lot of work before I supported at FAC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
True that, particularly the older ones. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Here's a good free review article to start with: DELIUS, JUAN D. (May 1988). "Preening and Associated Comfort Behavior in Birds" (PDF). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 525 (1 Neural Mechan): 40–55. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1988.tb38594.x.</ref> Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Hamerkop question

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Does anyone have access to Arvind N.; Tyagi, Rajiv (2004). Encyclopaedia of Birds. Anmol Publications ? I cannot find reference to One unusual feature is that up to ten birds join in "ceremonies" in which they run circles around each other, all calling loudly, raising their crests, fluttering their wings. in any other source, be it journal or HBW. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It does not sound like a reliable source considering the publisher. Shyamal (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take it out. I should be able to replace citations to HBW for the rest of the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Follow up hamerkop question - how is it that the genus was described decades before the species was? Any idea of a source that could explain that too? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:58, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    Well that's just weird! The book where Brisson establishes the genus clearly refers to the hamerkop, which still has the same French name (L'ombrette) as it did then! I don't know why his original scientific name for the species (Scopus fuscus) didn't take priority over Gmelin's name. MeegsC (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    I've delved briefly and turned up a paper titled "Collation of Brisson's genera of Birds with those of Linnaeus" by Joel Asaph Allen, which I've not had time to read in detail. It states (p. 323) of Brisson that "his specific names are not available, since they are binominal only exceptionally and by chance." William Avery (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    Sorry. I messed up the URL for the paper. Corrected now. William Avery (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
    Thanks that's a really useful paper. And Brisson's an interesting guy, I've claimed his article for our project as he deserves a bit more written about him! Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I've recently looked into Brisson 1760. In 1911 the ICZN ruled, as Opinion 37, that although Brisson didn't use binomial nomenclature, the genera introduced in Brisson 1760 were allowed. There was a problem with this ruling and in 1955 it was replaced by Direction 16. In 1963 the ICZN backtracked slightly and in Direction 55 restricted the allowed genera to those listed in the Latin tables contained in Volume 1 ("to promote stability in ornithological nomenclature"). Brisson included the genus Scopus (for the Hamerkop) in the table on p. 48 in Vol. 1. IOC 7.2 lists 61 genera that are currently credited to Brisson 1760. The ICZN references are:

Template:Birds

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Apologies if this was discussed while I was on my long sabbatical, but what on earth is going on with Template:Birds? The groups of taxa at the bottom seem to lack any understandable structure. The articles listed in the right hand columns range from entire orders (including passerines, meaning half the world's birds) to genera containing a single species (Anhima)! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:32, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

List of birds of South Texas - candidate for deletion?

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I looked at List of birds of South Texas for the first time today and wonder how it was approved for publication. It has no references, follows no standard taxonomy (seagulls !), and is far from complete. The article doesn't even look like a worthy candidate for restoration, because South Texas as shown is a political, not biogeographic, area. If folks agree, can someone with the necessary authority level delete the page? Craigthebirder (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I suggest a WP:PROD.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
States, provinces, and countries for that matter are political and not biogeographic, but South Texas is not defined even politically very well and too small politically to constitute a list.....I'm OK with Craigthebirder's and/or SchreiberBike's suggestion. Also, there are a number of lists in Category:Lists of birds by location that may be too small for the project to keep....... Pvmoutside (talk) 00:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Seeing no objections, I'll initiate the PROD. Craigthebirder (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

List of genera

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The article Woodpecker is currently being reviewed at GAN. I have been asked to provide a source for the section List of genera which organises the genera by subfamily and tribe, and has been in the article for a decade. Does anyone know where the list came from, and have there been changes since? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be an original synthesis although some parts of it seem to agree with sources such as doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2015.08.025 and others as indicated here. Would be hard to find a consensus perhaps marking out points of difference in recent works and uncertainties that remain would be useful. Shyamal (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. That was most helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, just wonder if there is any template or program in the project to recruit newcomers or new editors to join the project? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. If we see an editor that we think would make a good addition, we usually tell them on their talk page. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I usually use a standard introduction and mention the project. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, an invite/intro like this can be copied if you see someone contributing to bird articles. Loopy30 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I see. I am a PhD student from the University of Minnesota. We are planning on a study to help projects recruit new editors to contribute. I am not sure if this is something WPB would be interested in. Here is our project detail. Bobo.03 (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bobo.03:, the above link doesn't work! MeegsC (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't usually alter anyone else's post, but I've amended the link. I hope that's OK. William Avery (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, William Avery for fixing the link. Yeh, Please let me know if you would feel interested in the idea! Bobo.03 (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi RileyBugz, Loopy30, MeegsC, William Avery, following the previous discussion, I made a set of recommendations (it might contain some blocked editors who I will remove later). You'll notice that they are split between new editors and experienced editors. What do you think?

Username Recent Edits within Birds Recent Edits in Wikipedia First Edit Date Most Recent Edit Date
Thankuali (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-17 2017-7-17
ADBICBP (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-17 2017-7-17
Goldenfire4422 (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-14 2017-7-14
Alnassri (talk · contribs) 1 1 2017-7-15 2017-7-15
Videsh Ramsahai (talk · contribs) 43 1756 2011-6-5 2017-7-21
Elmidae (talk · contribs) 62 7040 2015-1-11 2017-7-22
Mariomassone (talk · contribs) 66 17216 2008-10-16 2017-7-22
Avian appreciator (talk · contribs) 44 414 2013-11-17 2017-7-15
1256wiki (talk · contribs) 37 966 2016-12-9 2017-7-22

Bobo.03 (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Crow

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is anyone else wondering why Crow doesn't immediately lead to the Corvus article? It seems like when people type in "crow," they're looking for stuff in the Corvus article. I'd say rename Corvus to "Crow" (or just redirect "crow" to Corvus) and the current "Crow" article be merged with Crow (disambiguation)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The Crow article page as it currently exists is a duplicate of the info in List of Corvus species. It is just a list of species that include the name 'crow' in their common name and all the species are from the genus Corvus, no other genera. I propose the following:
  • The current crow article be deleted (any info to be kept from the page, like the hatnote, can be added to List of Corvus species)
  • The Corvus article can then be re-named as 'Crow', with 'Corvus' re-directing to Crow'.
Loopy30 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I think if I remember right the hangup was Corvus includes ravens, rooks, and jackdaws, whereas crows are crows. However rail(bird) has crakes, bush-hens, gallnules, and coots under it, woodpecker has piculets, sapsuckers, flickers, and flamebacks under it, hummingbirds and parrots have all sorts of types under them so whatever consensus would like to do.....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would totally support this but in the past I think it's been resisted. The jackdaws should be split out now anyway, per the IOC and others, BTW. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Northern shrike split from Great grey shrike

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

  − As of the latest IOC (see here), these have been split, with this paper listed as a source. Have started a page that has been a redirect for 14 years.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

usually I wait until the IOC draft pages become permanent, but not only is there the article you cite Cas, but the American Ornithological Society has also recognized the shrike split (along with the duck genera additions, along with some other changes in both the AOS and IOC updates. When that happens, I've never seen the IOC retract the species from the draft. Also, Clements should be out in less than a month to re-enforce many of the changes........Pvmoutside (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm almost done updating the U.S. state and Canadian province lists, which use AOS taxonomy, so any time one of you wants to make separate species pages, go for it.Craigthebirder (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand swan is distinct from Black swan

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

A new study suggests that Cygnus sumnerensis is distinct from Cygnus atratus. The Chatham population should be regarded as subspecies Cygnus sumnerensis chathamicus.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1859/20170876

--Melly42 (talk) 09:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

wait for IOC to recognize....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC):::
Does IOC recognize pre 1500 extinctions? I don't think so. According to the paper the New Zealand swan and its relative from the Chatham Islands became extinct between 1280 and 1450 AD --Melly42 (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Melly, you are correct, and I stand corrected. The IOC only lists extinct birds at beginning of European exploration......I'm OK with the change....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
The article needs an update and expansion (in particular according the taxonomic history and the findings from the Chatham Islands) --Melly42 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Still, we have a page on New Zealand swan that could do with referencing Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
that and a few thousand other bird pages....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at TOL about caps for IUCN status

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Formatting issue 1 - IUCN status - although we already don't cap IUCN status. Amusing to see we've gone to a near-mythic the project that can't be named status, and that everything is still 100% our fault. ;) Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, does it never end? FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
does it really matter? IuCn status shows the same on the species pages, whether its capitalized or not, yes?....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Genus for western jackdaw

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've added a query on the western jackdaw talk page as to whether we should follow the IOC for the genus. At the moment the article is a muddle. Aa77zz (talk) 11:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Museum resource

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've just found that the Auckland War Memorial Museum's images are online and on Wiki-friendly licenses, and they have 8000 images of birds and other terrestrial vertebrates. Useful if you want to illustrate articles on extinct local species; for example they hold the only North island snipe kin in existence, or want some moa bones. Check it out here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

FA + GA update

Latest comment: 6 years ago78 comments8 people in discussion

Looks like Grey-necked wood rail is almost over the line at FAC (good job Riley). Coming up through GAN, I just nominated Inaccessible Island rail prior to sending it to FAC, and Cas has Green Rosella, which I'm about to start reviewing. There are two other bird articles in GAN, Columbidae (which will need some expansion prior to FAC) and Red-billed quelea. Also Pigeon guillemot is shaping up nicely as a co-nom for me and Riley (just need to add some info on calls). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll review one of the GAs soon, but got my hands full with reviewing octopus for a little while... FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Green rosella has passed GAN. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Nice job everybody! I don't think that I will do any GAN reviews, but I will try and do whatever FAC reviews that I can. Me and Cas are working on the red-billed tropicbird. I feel like we might be able to do a push to get the bird glossary to featured list status, but that would likely take multiple people. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like Cas nominated the red-billed tropicbird for GA status. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 20:01, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed I did....I made it a co-nomination. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Aa77zz has done some edits on pied kingfisher...geez that has some nice photos..I mention this as a lot of it is about momentum and interest at the time.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm reviewing Red-billed Tropicbird, and Funkmonk is reviewing Red-billed Quelea - so do I have to change Inaccessible Island Rail to Red-billed Rail? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Reviewing yrs now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh, we could do a Eurypygimorphae Featured Topic....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I just reckon it'd be cool with tropicbirds, sunbittern and kagu. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
I could do one or two of the tropicbirds. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about buffing red-tailed tropicbird as well...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
That one I've seen (and is in BNA). Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
What's BNA? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
BNA = Birds of North America. It's now available online, and some of us also have paper copies. MeegsC (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Damn...didn't get to library to check some stuff for the tropicbirds...never mind..green rosella is at FAC...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I GA passed Red-billed quelea yesterday, good work by a first time nominator, hope we'll see more. In one of the coming days I will GA nominate Guadeloupe amazon, and if I can expand it enough (description and intro are unfinished), maybe FAC. The bird itself isn't especially remarkable, but there is some nice historical artwork associated with it, and a somewhat interesting mystery mix-up case involving a fantasy macaw... FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Melampitta is at GAN. Because if you're going to pick and obscure family with very little known, go big or go home? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Guadeloupe amazon and Green Rosella are both at FAC. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
And now the red-billed tropicbird is too! RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll take the pitohui soon, I'm a bit uncomfortable with higher level taxa. On this note, seems the Columbidae review has stalled? It's a rather important article, so would be good to get it right. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Melampitta has passed GAN and I'm currently reviewing Birds in culture. With regards to pigeon I'm not sure why it stalled, but the article looked like it needed some more content. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I am reviewing Mallard at GAN. Anyone is welcome to chip in with comments. Has the potential to be a big and complex subject....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging all - I think Talk:Mallard/GA1 is nearly done...and Mallard is looking ok-ish. If anyone can see anything else that looks doable let me know in the next day or so. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cas liber: I have some pages in a book that has some info about the eggs. I could email them to you Monday if you want, as I am too lazy to do the stuff needed to update it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: Fix incorrect ping. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Brolga has long "tarnished" the front page of the Bird project as a demoted FA. It was also featured very long ago, before the overhaul of FA criteria. ‎Cwmhiraeth has since improved it to GA status, so maybe it would be worth giving it the final push, so we can remove the speck from the front page? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Have ruminated on that several times and have planned to do just that...some time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Collaboration of the month? That takes me back! Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
We-ell, speaking of which, is it worthwhile reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration so big, broad bird articles can be thrown on the wikitable and everyone chip in? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea Cas! We've got a pretty strong membership again, so we might actually get somewhere! ;) MeegsC (talk) 08:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I think from past experience that tighter focused articles are easier to colab on that big families or topics. But I'm down. And certainly keen to help with Brolga. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I did the GA reivew of Brolga, so I might be ineligible to take part in nomination... But hey, we need reviewers at FAC too, so I can certainly review the further improved version by that time. FunkMonk (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
The GA review was a while ago and does not preclude getting stuck into it for the final stretch and becoming a nominator. I have reopened the collaboration and slung up a couple of ideas. The other idea was a migratory bird that a lot of us might know...Short-tailed shearwater, red knot (again), common tern, Parasitic jaeger, Great cormorant or something else. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I've just moved the brolga from genus Grus to the resurrected genus Antigone - following the IOC (and H&M4, HBW alive and Clements 2016). - Aa77zz (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice, seems the Grus page needs to be updated accordingly... FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on it. -Aa77zz (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi all!! Hope you are doing great. Could you give any suggestions on Black stork? Thanks a bunch.   Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I will take a look. I contemplated reviewing it but I have some stuff to add to it I think. I need to sleep and will look tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a big bunch buddy. Also, you can pick up American black duck anytime, although if due to any reason you are unable to, that would be fine too. Thanks again!   Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
American black duck needs a good, solid copyedit; it really isn't ready for GA yet — "american" rather than American, "canadian" rather than Canadian, a mishmash of singular and plural verb tenses, poorly constructed run-on sentences all over the place... MeegsC (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm starting on that. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I see that Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) is in the WikiCup, which may explain the sudden rush of not-really-quite-ready articles they've put up for GA. ;) MeegsC (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the bigger reason is my English not really being upto very good standards, so I get a few errors. However, I referred other bird articles and added content and only when it had all the topics of feeding, breeding, etc. (and any more particular to that bird), so I put it up for GA. I apologize for that; however, am referring a lot in order to get a very good prose, just like most other editors over here.(for example it's vs its :P) Adityavagarwal (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I think the next bird I will work on is echo parakeet, but I don't have many sources about extant birds. Did you say once you could send me the relevant HBW pages, Sabine's Sunbird? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, got it! FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Welcome. Does anyone have access to Emu? I would dearly like this paper [3] for rainbow pitta - annoyingly back when I was at uni I read it and cited it at pitta but didn't save it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: I think my access to Emu is working....but that link is to an article on the Chestnut Rail...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
It is but it discusses othe anvil using species in the area. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Sabine's Sunbird: ok, I sent it to an address you sent me a message in 2011 if it is still in use, otherwise ping me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I have moved in to help buff Black stork, which covers a lot of countries. Bit patchy still and if anyone has anything to suggest or add, it'd be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I sent you some useful content from BNA to help you with that article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! MeegsC, do you want to get rid of the misc. section, start a status section, and expand the distribution section? I left it for you to do. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

  • Pigeon guillemot and black stork are both at FAC now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • It could use a solid copy edit to catch sentences like this: This species can be found to habitate the area around isolated, deep freshwater lakes. I'll take a deeper look later if I have time. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I think I fixed that, but I don't really know what the problem is. The sentence that you mentioned is grammatically correct. I did change it a bit although, but I really don't see that problem. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Its grammatically correct (well, I'm not certain habitate is a word) but it is inelegant and clunky and not plain English. This species lives in isolated deep freshwater lakes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
And now the black-throated loon is up at FAC. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 15:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The brown pelican is now up at GAN as well. Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, a week or so ago, somebody nominated an article I am working on, the black-necked grebe to GAN. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 12:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Featured topic?

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think that we could probably get a featured topic revolving around the swallow. If we do, then we should probably collaborate to make everything easier. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

83 species or so and 19 genera is a pretty big ask. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I've written a few FTs, but only of three or four articles (mainly on swallow genera as it happens). The whole family I think is unrealistic. Better to do a single genus, like Tachycineta or a smaller family, like Gavia
Gavia would probably work, in that case. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 10:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, Gavia is interesting too. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Low-importance bird articles

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not understand this category. Can someone explain why an article about a particular species is deemed unimportant by this group. Low-importance to who? Thanks. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Charles. As a rule of thumb, a handful of topics are top importance (bird, seabird, orders, that kind of thing), families are high importance, genera are mid importance and species are low importance. Some iconic, widespread or particularly well known species may have higher importance, but in general the reasoning is that higher order subjects are more important than very specialised ones (albatross is more important than black-footed albatross, for example). Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Great white pelican

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello there! Does anybody have any access to the HBW pages of the great white pelican? Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll send you HBW Alive which you can use as an alternative ref if necessary Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Conflict between # of FLs listed at project page, versus # listed at the showcase

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Glossary of bird terms has just been promoted to featured list (though the bot hasn't done the close yet). In wondering if I should update the numbers here (I wasn't and still am not sure if it's done by a bot or not), I noticed that on the project page (first headlined link above) it says there are 23 featured lists, but at the Showcase (second headlined link above) it says there are 20 featured lists, followed by a listing of only twenty list articles.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

xeno-canto

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Have we discussed the reliable source-ness of xeno canto before? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I did address this question to an extent at Talk:Blue nuthatch#Comments in response to the first comment. Maybe that will provide at least a start for considering the issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I certainly know of misidentifications on Xeno-Canto and their own forum does not have a good way to discuss and mark questionable identifications. Shyamal (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Clements checklist update is out

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you don't already know, the 2017 Clements checklist update is out, so I'll be checking them against IOC and adding/moving pages around as time allows. Feel free to jump in if you are so inclined, many species pages done, but other tax may not be....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few new Caribbean and South American families. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Reorganizations to watch

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Lerner, Heather; Christidis, LES; Gamauf, Anita; Griffiths, Carole; Haring, Elisabeth; Huddleston, Christopher J.; Kabra, Sonia; Kocum, Annett; Krosby, Meade; Kvaløy, Kirsti; Mindell, David; Rasmussen, Pamela; Røv, Nils; Wadleigh, Rachel; Wink, Michael; Gjershaug, Jan Ove (2017). "Phylogeny and new taxonomy of the Booted Eagles (Accipitriformes: Aquilinae)". Zootaxa. 4216 (4): 301. doi:10.11646/zootaxa.4216.4.1.

Mark for archival. Shyamal (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

TFA

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

If you have written a bird or any other FA which has not run as WP:TFA, can you check that it is listed at WP:FANDC (there is also a WP:FADC, but I'm not sure how a bird would be included there) please? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Added one (the black stork). Adityavagarwal (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

FLRC notification

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have nominated List of birds of Puerto Rico for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

ID help?

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Hi! I'm not clever enough to identify this bird, which I saw at Għajn Żnuber, Malta, in October 2009. I thought it was a pipit, but can't seem to find one that matches. Someone here will probably id it in 10 seconds. Two more pictures: 1, 2. Thank you! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Those yellow legs are a bit odd - none of the local pipits has those... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
A list of plovers from the region would be good to check against. Shyamal (talk) 03:47, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I thought it looked a bit like a fluffed-up Charadrius! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Young Eurasian Dotterel? Maias (talk) 06:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree, you can even see the pale line across the breast Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Indeed – so much so that I might even have been able to see it myself without having it pointed out. Many, many thanks to all for their help in solving this very minor mystery. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

ISO 4 redirects help!

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

{{Infobox journal}} now features ISO 4 redirect detection to help with the creation and maintenance of these redirects, and will populate Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects. ISO 4 redirects help readers find journal articles based on their official ISO abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys. A → Journal of Physics A), and also help with compilations like WP:JCW and WP:JCW/TAR. The category is populated by the |abbreviation= parameter of {{Infobox journal}}. If you're interested in creating missing ISO 4 redirects:

  • There are links in the maintenance templates to facilitate this. See full detailed instructions at Category:Articles with missing ISO 4 abbreviation redirects.
  • |abbreviation= should contain dotted, title cased versions of the abbreviations (e.g. J. Phys., not J Phys or J. phys.). Also verify that the dots are appropriate.
  • If you cannot determine the correct abbreviation, or aren't sure, leave a message at WT:JOURNALS and someone will help you.
  • Use the link in the maintenance template to create the redirects and automatically tag them with {{R from ISO 4}}.
  • WP:NULL/WP:PURGE the original article to remove the maintenance templates.

Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Going to ping Derek Andrews (talk · contribs) on this since you seem to have an interest. (See also this link)Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:47, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. My interest was in cleaning up the hatnotes on one article, but I will help with all those others. Before I go ahead and create all those redirects, can you confirm that we really want the redirects without the periods after each abbreviation? That doesn't seem to fit the normal usage of ISO4 from what I can gather, but I can see how it might help as a catch-all. Derek Andrews (talk) 10:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, both dotted and dotless variants are to be created. The reason is that both are likely search terms, and that many omit the dots as a stylistic variation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Lark id

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not convinced that File:Mongolian̠short-toed̠lark_(Calandrella_dukhunensis_)_I_IMG_4695.jpg which is heavily used is even a Calandrella, looks more like a Mirafra. Shyamal (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Barn owl

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is an FA but probably needs a complete review with the new split of the Eastern barn owl. Maybe collaboration material. Shyamal (talk) 13:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Most of the content in the new article does not seem to actually be about the eastern taxon? FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Now that the barn owl has been split by the IOC (into Western, American and Eastern barn owls), the content will indeed need to be reviewed and most of the information split and moved to the new pages. To some degree, this has already been initiated. Some notes on page titles:
  • Barn-owl is the family (Tytonidae) page. This should be moved to 'Barn owl' (no dash) after the content of the current barn owl page has been broken up and transferred to the respective new species pages.
  • Barn owl should then be converted to a dab page, modeled after the Masked owl page.
  • Common barn owl currently redirects to barn owl. The target should be changed to Western barn owl unless references exist that the American or Eastern barn owls have also been referred to by this name in the literature.
  • Ghost owl also redirects to barn owl. The target should be changed to Western barn owl unless references exist that the American or Eastern barn owls have also been referred to by this name. Loopy30 (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, I'd leave everything as is right now until more tax groups recognize the splits....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Using navboxes to show bird names using your favorite World List

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Birders love lists, but each has his favourite world list - one way Wikipedia could accomodate different tastes is to use Navboxes with options - See Larks#External links for an attempt at doing this. If the project thinks the idea is worth pusuing, I have no doubt that we can find a less clunky way of using Navboxes. Alandmanson (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

FA/GA production line continues...

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Right folks, there are two articles at FAC ( Pied butcherbird FAC and Common loon FAC )and four at GAN (American black duck, Black-necked grebe, Brown pelican and Northern rosella) - all input welcome. It's great to see renewed activity over the past few months! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

web based tax references

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can anyone recommend a good web based taxonomy reference? All the ones I know do a good job with species, genera, families, etc. Having trouble with finding something web based that can help more obscure tax such as subfamilies, sub and superorders, and the like that is up to date....best I can find is ITIS, but I'm not sure how up to date it is.......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Have you seen John Boyd's Taxonomy in Flux Checklist [4] - his tree view is pretty awesome - and updated regularly using the latest papers. Alandmanson (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Boyd's site is great as a pointer to those papers. And often a good summation of some higher order stuff as well. We just can't reference the site itself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Seasonality in Wikipedia viewership

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article on the sarus crane is the first result on Google searches and it would appear that there is a very gentle peaking corresponding to the breeding season. Have not seen many other species (esp. large and conspicuous ones that make people search online) showing this pattern. Shyamal (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I think almost tripling the page views is a bit more than "very gentle"! Interesting....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Category:The Avicultural Magazine, 1913

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, anybody here who can confirm this is a "Chestnut-Bellied blue rock thrush? If yes, I would add it to the category. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Chestnut-bellied rock thrush Shyamal (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
(ec) That's a mix-up name, apparently; it seems to be a chestnut-bellied rock thrush. --14:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Shyamal, that means I can add it to the Category:Monticola rufiventris ? Lotje (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes! Shyamal (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  Done Lotje (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Egretta species

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm getting lost regarding the status of various Egretta species - Egretta garzetta, Egretta gularis, and Egretta dimorpha - and apparently so are some other people. These three species seem to have been shuffled around recently in ways that aren't entirely clear. There's a summary by IUCN: Egretta gularis (del Hoyo and Collar 2014) contains the taxon dimorpha, which was previously included within E. garzetta following Kushlan and Hancock (2005). Prior to that, all three taxa were treated as separate species following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993). - which honestly doesn't clear things up much. I don't have access to a recent del Hoyo.

Was E. dimorpha subsumed by E. gularis? How does that fit with the statement in Egretta garzetta about lumping garzetta and dimorpha? (apart from this latest series of edits that plain renames it to E. garzetta and presumably should be reverted directly...) ITIS still has dimorpha as a vaild species [5].

Anyone got the overview here? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I suspect that we will need to wait for a phylogenetic study with large scale sampling which takes into effect the possibility of some hybridization. In addition the variable plumages mean that some species are better recognized in the dark phase alone making distribution notes incomplete and possibly affect sampling for studies as well. It certainly is murky at the moment - Christidis and Boles cite a study - "McCracken and Sheldon (2002) found no difference between nominate garzetta and schistaceus using cytochrome-b sequence data" - that is pretty improbable! Shyamal (talk) 09:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
We follow the IOC here which lists each as separate species:
The wikipedia article for the dimorphic egret was under Egretta garzetta dimorpha which I've now changed to Egretta dimorpha.
  • The dimorphic egret is considered as a subspecies of the little egret by both Clements and Howard & Moore 4 and as a subspecies of the western reef egret by HBW alive.
  • Note that the IUCN follow HBW alive and eBird follows Clements. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems clear enough for the time being (at least the classification attributions are clear). Dimorphic egret certainly needs some love, will spruce it up later today. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Article alerts

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

For some reason we both have an article alert section[6] way down which automatically lists articles that are up for promotion, yet we also have a manually updated "under consideration for upgrading" section, which takes some effort to maintain. Wouldn't it be best to leave this for the automatic procedure (which is much more reliable and complete), and move that up/consolidating the two? FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good. Move up the auto one and nuke the manual one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Moved up. I think it looks pretty good, and it will save continuous work... FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • On this note, where did the "hot articles"[7] go? Seems you started the page, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Psittacine

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that psittacine redirects to parrot, but psittacines redirects to Psittacinae. They should probably both point to the same page, but I'm not sure which is more appropriate. Any suggestions? Deli nk (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it should even have its own article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh, reading this again. I just saw this was not about the pigment psittacin, but about the clade. I changed the redirect to Psittacinae accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Liberian greenbul

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As the Liberian greenbul is an aberrant specimen of the icterine greenbul both articles should be merged. --Melly42 (talk) 09:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Support the merge. 23:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the merge. Until we do not have additional evidence that an aberrant evidence such as this one is truly a unique species recognized by the IOC, it is better to keep the articles merged until further notice. --N. Jain (talk to me) 14:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that this species is now a junior synonym, it should of course be merged, as is standard practice. The text should be transferred to the parent article.FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD for Chris Sherwin

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a biography at AfD that may be of interest to this project - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chris_Sherwin. Atsme📞📧 02:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

should have been a bot

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

just catching a large number categories of birds that have not been tagged for the project...

have thought while doing it - on main space - front page of category -

link to the portal (the portal is up to date and referable, yes?)
or just a sentence -
this category is about birds - any thoughts anyone? JarrahTree 00:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Feathered dinosaurs

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I thought some of you might be interested in this BBC radio program on the evolution of birds:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b099v33p

Aa77zz (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Interesting find! Thanks for sharing it. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
On this note, I've long thought Sinosauropteryx, the first known feathered dinosaur, could be a good contender for FAC, especially now it's colouration is also known, which makies it even more notable... FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Wood stork taxonomy

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I'm having a bit of trouble with the taxonomy section of the wood stork. Specifically, I find that here, the wood stork (which was sometimes called the wood ibis, as it is there) is given the binomial Tantalus loculator, which is a binomial that can actually be seen in the writings of Linnaeus, here. But, on the same page, Linnaeus describes the species Mycteria americana—the current binomial name of the wood stork. So, I don't know exactly what do to. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Our article Aves in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae cites: Allen, J.A. (1908). "The generic names Mycteria and Tantalus of Linnaeus, 1758" (PDF). The Auk. 25 (1): 37–38. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
They are the same species but Mycteria americana has precedence as it is higher up the page. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for finding that. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Gymnogyps

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

I just noticed that Gymnogyps is a R to monotypic taxon redirect to California condor (Gymnogyps californianus), although there's also the articles Gymnogyps amplus and Gymnogyps varonai and potential for pages Gymnogyps kofordi and Gymnogyps howardae as done in the Hungarian Wikipedia: hu:Gymnogyps.

The California condor article is featured so I don't want to futz around with it, not being an ornithologist, but either there should be a proper page for the genus or these should all be merged with G. californianus.

(Personally I dislike the convention that monotypic genera get redirected to their sole species; they're ontologically distinct, have different histories, different wikidata pages with different authority control links, and it means articles have to get merged/split if genera lose/gain species, but this seems to have been standard for some time...)

I'm not sure what the best solution is, but I figured this would be the place to let people know. Thanks! :) Umimmak (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Gymnogyps should be separated, but I see absolutely no point in having separate articles for monotypic genera. Whatever unique history a genus has from the species should simply be covered at their common article (which is not always at the species level, see discussion:[8]). FunkMonk (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Second FunkMonk. Since Gymnogyps seems to have a few fossil species, it should be separated out. But, in the case of genera that are monotypic, splitting the pages would just be redundant; they would have the exact same scope, just with different names. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree in separating out monotypic genera if there are one or more extinct species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Agree to separating genus from species page when there are two or more species. If one or more species is extinct and only one species is extant, that would not be considered a monotypic genus and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA would not apply. This will help to better integrate with articles on extinct taxa. 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Also agree.....created Gymnogyps page and associated links with updated pages....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Bird controversies

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Something I was musing on was that buffing to FA/GA was a good way of protecting articles form certain arguments - there are some things that kids love to argue about such as largest stars, most poisonous snakes, whether Tyrannosaurus, Carcharadontosaurus or Giganotosaurus is the biggest dino-predator etc. Anyway, was trying to think if folks had seen any for birds - I do recall some argy-bargy over the biggest raptor - Harpy eagle vs Philippine eagle vs Steller's sea eagle - does anyone else remember any other controversies? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

i.e. anyone interested in buffing one of the three big eagles....or any other controversial article? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Such fanboy controversies mainly reach feverish levels when it comes to extinct species (I ran into it when working on Giganotosaurus). Off-hand, it could for example be whether Argentavis or Pelagornis were the largest flying birds. Same goes for largest flightless birds, which could be Aepyornis or Dromornis. On this note, Haast's eagle could also be an interesting subject, the largest eagle ever... FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Aaah the old elephant bird/moa controversy....interesting. All have potential. I might start with Steller's sea eagle...just tinkering and seeing if it grabs me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
I'd be interested in helping with that – just as soon as I get back from Chile (i.e. Monday)... Have some interesting sound recordings and photos/videos to process! MeegsC (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Steller's is a pretty spectacular eagle, would be happy to help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of behaviour sections

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

It seems that there is some agreement to change standardize the ordering of the behaviour sections (specifically, the feeding and breeding sections), to breeding and then feeding. See this section for discussion: User talk:Casliber#WP:BIRD standard article sections. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is the same as the standard article layout sequence as listed on the main project page. It is not a new change and has been in this format for over eight years. The discussion was just to ensure consistency between articles. Loopy30 (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. Changed to standardize, which should be more appropriate. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 22:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I've always gone feeding then breeding - imitating the order of the HBW. I'd be leary of being made to change this without good reason. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I've done the same, Sabine's Sunbird. I think that was the "agreed" order at one point, and I've just continued! MeegsC (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Elaborating on my point, I'm not someone that's ever going to go along with enforced compliance to an arbitrary stylistic preference, and to me that's what this is. There are genuine alternate pov regarding other structural layout questions for our article, for example does voice go in behaviour or description (a reasonable case can be made that it depends on how much behavioural info is know about voice). This though, is an inconsistency so minor it's taken us 8 years to notice. Chances are no one else will ever notice. So let everyone keep doing it the way they've been doing it and leave it well alone is my suggestion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

List of birds of Canada and the United States

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I've created a merger proposal for the list mentioned above on the article's talk page.......Pvmoutside (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

merger proposal has been up for 10 days.....looking at past comments and history, unless someone objects, I'll set up disambig pages to List of birds of Canada and List of birds of the United States. Alas, the Wikiproject will lose a featured list....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
List has been split....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

FAC and GAN

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is one article up at FAC as of now; the southern boobook. As for GAN, the wood stork has just been added. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 18:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

RSPB Minsmere is also at FAC. William Avery (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Preening

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we're getting close on the preening (bird) article; we should probably add a few more bits to the "preening action" section (explaining about the zipping up of barbules, for example), and the first paragraph in that section needs a source. Plus the lead needs expansion, obviously. It would be great to get a few more eyeballs on it, to see what else might be missing, so have at it, everybody! And, while we're at it, right now, preening is a redirect to personal grooming (which is largely human-centric). Since the word preening is almost exclusively used to describe the avian activity (with grooming used more commonly for mammalian species, do you think we could replace the current redirect with this article, and have a hat note at the top to cover the rare case where people wanted to read about humans preening instead of birds? MeegsC (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

For barbule zipping, there's a useful biomaterials-focused paper here that one could mine: [1]
Agree with making preening in the bird-specific sense the main redirection target. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sullivan, T. N.; Pissarenko, A.; Herrera, S. A.; Kisailus, D.; Lubarda, V. A.; Meyers, M. A. (2016). "A lightweight, biological structure with tailored stiffness: The feather vane". Acta biomaterialia. 41: 27–39. doi:10.1016/j.actbio.2016.05.022.

Gregory Mathews

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This chap is intriguing as someone who published a comprehensive work on the birds of Australia...aaaand was an extreme splitter. Dominic Serventy gave an address, the first page of which is visible here. Penhallurick reports on scientists' reaction to Mathews here near bottom of second column. I am pondering whether a note and explanation on Mathews' splitting nature is good to have on any articles that mention his taxa. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably good in the same way as mentioning Walter Rothschild's habit of naming new species on the scantiest of evidence in articles about his more dubious taxa... FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Large cactus finch / Española ground finch

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Back in March of this year, the IOC name of this species was changed from large cactus finch to Española ground finch. However, instead of redirecting to a new name, the article was copied and pasted into a new article with the new name, so we now have two identical articles — one moved, and one copied and pasted back into the original name. Can an administrator please clean this up (and sort out its associated talk page, history, etc.)? Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  Done I have done the history merge but not sure which revision is the best to go to. Please check. Shyamal (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Handling of splitting

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

There is a problematic handling of the article Osprey (GA) which has been apparently incorrectly split out into two articles Western osprey and Eastern osprey. I think the usual approach would have been to move the main (older) article to Western and split out the Australasian subspecies to the other OR as we have often suggested in the past to keep phylo-splits (where only genetics differ and most other behavioural and ecological bits are more or less expected to be similar) to one page with redirects. Shyamal (talk) 13:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to make a few amendments to this as well as the cactus finch case above which are both issues created by copy-paste moves by User:Pvmoutside. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Usually that is the case when splitting, but Osprey is still a valid article as many taxonomic authorities do not recognize the Western/Eastern Osprey split. The IOC, which the Birdproject uses as our reference, does. I thought it better to keep all the history in the Osprey article.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
If in doubt, I think the best option is not to split. To split and keep the parent taxon is especially problematic. Shyamal (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no doubt. There are a few species like Osprey, Great Egret, Cattle Egret, and Barn Owl, where a reader can find both the non-split article and the split articles depending on what source they choose to use. There are other species like green-winged/Eurasian teal and the bean geese where one regional authority recognizes a split, and another doesn't, yet we have articles for both......no system is perfect......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
What a mess. The talk page didn't get moved; talk page history is now at Talk:Osprey. Osprey is now a disambiguation page (with 1000+ incoming links) with a hatnote to the "real" disambiguation page; that's not going to fly with the folks who care about WP:MOSDAB. The "Western osprey" article is really about the genus Pandion as a whole; it mentions two fossil Pandion species, repeatedly discusses Australian populations, and give range and population estimates that apply to P. haliaetus sensu lato. And there's also a stub on the genus at Pandion (bird). Move western osprey back to osprey, fold in Pandion (bird), and recast the taxobox to be about the genus. Minor changes are needed to make the article correspond to the genus. Major changes are needed to make it be about western ospreys. Start a new article for western osprey. Plantdrew (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I would follow the format of great egret/eastern great egret. Osprey was previously the main page and everything worked, but someone disambiguated the page. I think the format for great egret/eastern great egret works (western osprey is moved back to Osprey, and eastern osprey remains a viable article). I believe there were 3 previous pages with western great egret the 3rd option, then western great egret was redirected to great egret, and eastern great egret continues as a page.......The small problem is the IOC, the standard the project uses split the ospreys as viable species, where most other tax authorities don't......Pvmoutside (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC):
@Casliber: @MeegsC: @Jimfbleak: ...others., this looks like a major decision. Splitters v. Lumpers. Redirects or articles about both smaller units as well as larger units? Shyamal (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC);
Agree with you Shyamal worth discussing. Barn owl and cattle egret are designed similarly to the old osprey set up.....also the problem of regionals: green-winged/Eurasian teals, the bean geese, the scoters......Pvmoutside (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

If the above is too long here is a summary - Example situation: Cattle egret Bubulcus ibis splits to Western cattle egret Bubulcus ibis (narrow sense) and Eastern cattle egret Bubulcus coromandus - here the options could be:

  1. - make two redirects from the new splits to old Cattle egret article and make notes on taxonomy - ie make Western cattle egret and Eastern cattle egrets into redirects
  2. - move one and create one - ie move Cattle egret to Western cattle egret (as it stays as Bubulcus ibis) and start new entry for Eastern cattle egret
  3. - PVMoutside's solution - copy Cattle egret to Western cattle egret cutting out some bits into Eastern cattle egret but keep Cattle egret as well (earlier also implemented also at Osprey-Western osprey-Eastern osprey)
  4. - Others?
I think the best solution is to have the page apply to the least specific rank when moso, for a monotypic genus; this means that if a monotypic genus is suddenly split into two species, then the previously existing article would now be the genus page. For non-monotypic genera, keep the original article describing both species, and then make new articles for the new species. This rule wouldn't apply if a. the original article is pretty much a stub or b. the new species are distinct in ecology, description, etc. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Our standard treatment is the species - we need to ensure the material is true to the taxon and that varies on where each one has been studied. Difficult to generalise. I'll have a look at these later. Bit busy currently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not in favour of PVMoutside's solution as it requires one to improve two articles for every edit involving an addition of information - one for Cattle egret and one for either Eastern cattle egret or Western cattle egret - also it means duplication of large chunks of text. A split like that could well be handled in one article. Shyamal (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, the cattle egret's split is under discussion on the IOC page, so maybe hold off on that one for now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

New page

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just created capital and income breeding, which is an article about, surprisingly, income and capital breeding. It could be expanded, and is particularly interesting, so I thought I'd post it here. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Southern boobook

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

its FAC is moving slowly....any interested revewers most welcome Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Pecking

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started Draft:Pecking. We have no article on this behavior! bd2412 T 01:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for your project?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happy new year! As you may remember, I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute. See my previous post. I’ve been working it on in the past several months, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it. If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Range map

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could somebody please make a range map for the wood stork? I prefer that it be based off of HBW. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Whoever does this might also want to use eBird data.Craigthebirder (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Define IUCN initialism in bird articles?

Latest comment: 6 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

MOS:ACRO recommends that initialisms should be defined on their first use on a page, for example "International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)". However the style guide also lists "exceptions" for well-known and common initialisms, such as UNESCO, NASA, PC, HDMI, and sonar. Is IUCN common enough to be considered a MOS:ACRO exception within WikiProject Birds articles? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not believe that the acronym is sufficiently well known to be used without a definition. It is better to use the full name and avoid making the reader click on the link. As with any abbreviation, if the name is only mentioned once in the lead and once in the body of the article there is no need to use the abbreviation; it is only when the name is mentioned on multiple occasions is it worth defining. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
On that note it's almost always used at least three times in quality birds articles: once in the lede, once in the body, and once always initialed in the infobox. It should then at least be defined once, but is it necessary to define it in the lede and the body? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think so; I've always just defined it in the lead. This is because people who want to know what the abbreviation means will either follow the link from IUCN or will look it up (either in the article with the abbreviation or on a search engine) or they will be knowledgable enough to know what it means (as most people reading the whole article are probably looking for detail, and not quick information). RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Any uncommon initialism such as IUCN should be defined at the point of its first use within the article (but not infobox). I have just come across an article where this was removed and have now restored the "(IUCN)". Loopy30 (talk) 14:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This is all pretty much what I thought. I came across user Ettrig removing the initialism from a featured article I had worked on, and found that they were doing this on a big list of articles. I asked them to revert but it seems they've chosen to ignore me. I'm about to proceed with rolling back their removals, per this discussion. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The intro is to be concise, that is it is not to contain more words than necessary. It cannot be seen as necessary to mention the origin of the vulnerability evaluation twice. The name of the origin is not even information about the species. To repeat, knowing the name of IUCN is not even neede to understand the information that is given about the species. I have gone through the FAs for non-extinct bird species to see how this has been handled: nothing on conservation status - 34; no origin for info on cons. status - 34; only acronym - 17; only full name - 15; both name and acronym - 34. (Not 100% exact counting, of course.) So dual naming is common but not used in an absolute majority, and definitely not as a rule. It is also the most extreme variant. I have seen the argument that explanation of the acronym is needed for the use in the taxobox. I think this argument is false. The taxobox is never designed so that it needs support from the article text. This can also be seen in the fact that a large majority of the FAs for birds does not provide this support. In addition, the design of the taxobox, putting "IUCN" in parentheses, shows that the full name is not seen as important. The full name is too much in my view. Full name AND acronym is definitely too much. --Ettrig (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree, necessarily, except that it is absolutely necessary to define the initialism if it's going to be used in the infobox, as it seems we've established that IUCN is not a well-known-enough initialism to be an exception to MOS:ACRO. But this shouldn't be a problem: infoboxes are supposed to reflect information in the article prose, so every article which uses IUCN information in the infobox should be basing it on referenced information in the body (not lede) of the article. If the body sections contain wording such as "According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)" then my feeling is this satisfies ACRO as far as defining the initialism, and so it's not necessary to repeat it in the lede if it's not important information for a summary. And whether or not it's important probably depends on the status: I imagine it's crucial information for example for the kakapo, probably much less so for the Canada goose. But this treatment would be an exception to the established rule; what do others think? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
There are about 100 featured bird species articles that do not define the acronym in the intro. And you say it is absolutely necessary. Or do you mean it is OK to do it right at the end of the article? Something that you think is "absolutely necessary" was missed in the FAC process 100 times. Your argument is far beyond reasonable, again. --Ettrig (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
My argument is no more unreasonable than yours that we can just ignore the style guide because you don't like it. I could just as easily go around adding it to any of these articles where it's missing, citing the style guide, but that would be no less reckless than you going around mass-removing it.
It seems to me that Aa77zz made a good point that I overlooked on first read through this. If the IUCN (expanded) is only mentioned once or twice in an article then it should be unnecessary to use the initialism at all - it's of no use to readers, and perhaps the style guide needs to be refined on that point. The problem is the infobox, since birds infoboxes typically always have a conservation status section which contains the initialism, linked to IUCN Red List. I propose that the initialism in the infobox can be ignored for the purposes of the style guide, since spelling out the full name of the organization would hopelessly clutter the box, there are many articles which don't reuse the initialism outside the infobox, and the infobox should be supplemental to the article anyway (I don't know if it is even observed by screen readers). I suggest:
  1. if an article uses the full name only once or twice, the initialism needn't be included;
  2. if an article uses the initialism in the body (but ignoring the infobox) it must be defined on its first use (even if the first use is in the lede section) per ACRO: International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Does this seem reasonable to everyone? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is what I strived for. Thanks! --Ettrig (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with this; I don't now see any significant argument (except the "let's follow the style guide" one) against this compromise. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 02:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to change guidelines on the naming of articles about monotypic taxa

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a proposal to change the guidelines on the naming of articles about monotypic taxa at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Monotypic genera. Please join in the discussion there. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Tagging

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently, I have been trying to make sure that most category talk pages in the Birds project have been tagged for the project...

As a considerable number of the latin named categories have no easy identification of being related to birds in any way the plan is to add a link to the birds portal in category main space (main page as opposed to the talk page).

When I started doing this in the plants project, some eds objected in that they considered their portal a 'weak point' of the project.

Any thoughts on this here? In the event of no response or low interest in the subject, the link to the portal will start soon. JarrahTree 09:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New page with issues

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

If anyone feels up to it, a new genus page was created today Nok (genus) that's a bit rough. I'm sure the page creator would welcome help to improve it! Enwebb (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've redirected it, since it doesn't appear to be accepted by the IOC. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 17:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
As a monotypic genus it should simply redirect to the species. Even more so since it will take some time before/if the genus is generally accepted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, that was the solution I thought would be most practical. Enwebb (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with FunkMonk. Regarding monotypic genera, I think it is best we let it suffice with a simple redirect to the species. However, what happens when more species are added to the genus (i.e. taxonomy revisions, fossil discoveries, etc.)? Do we go by the number of extant species? N. Jain (talk to me) 18:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Usually the genus article is spun off in that case. See for example Gymnogyps. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

merging American sparrows and Passerellidae

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With the Emberezidae family split, any objections of merging these to articles together? I think the only difference is the genus Chlorospingus is in Passerellidae but not in American sparrows, but I'm guessing pretty easy to accomodate. American sparrows is older, I can move Passerellidae to it, and merge any information that is not common to both of them. Any preferences on what the article should be named (keep as American sparrows or swap to Passerellidae)? ......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Although American sparrows is older, Passerellidae is linked to from all the taxoboxes. Possibly merge to Passerellidae and then rename page to New World sparrows? Loopy30 (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Pigeon pics

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The WMF are running an awareness campaign, asking people to upload pictures of pigeons (feral, wild and captive) to Wikimedia Commons. They're being asked to add them to commons:Category:Unidentified pigeon breeds if they are not sure of they breed/ species. If any of you are Columbiphiles, please help to identify and re-classify the pics. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Birds of the Miombo

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Merger discussion of Category:Birds of the Miombo at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 3#Category:Birds_of_the_Miombo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Accipitriformes

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So, I just noticed something very odd recently. We have the New World vultures in a separate order, when the IOC (supported by genetic studies) consider them to be included in the order Accipitriformes. So, why don't we redirect the article on Cathartiformes to Accipitriformes, and correct the species/genus/family articles? RileyBugz会話投稿記録 21:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Done!.....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

IOC Version 8.1 (Jan 25, 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

new taxonomic changes are out from the IOC (published yesterday). I'll get to 'em as I have time, but feel free if the mood strikes you......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Have done some. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Please could an administrator move: White-headed stilt -> Pied stilt Thanks Aa77zz (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
looks like 2 species are called pied stilt. The pied stilt now redirects to the black-winged stilt. I can switch the white-headed to pied per IOC, and have a redirect note on the black-winged stilt page if no one objects.......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
You should probably put a hatnote on the pied (as was white-headed) stilt page too, with a link to the black-winged stilt page. MeegsC (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
MeegsC...done....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful about WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. IOC probably has some spelling convention of its own, which likely violates the Wikipedia guideline. Also, as far as I know, Wikipedia common name policy applies, not whatever some particular external authority chooses to use. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Copy of my message posted on User talk:Pvmoutside#Undiscussed WP:ENGVAR moves BarrelProof, what's the tie? The munia occurs only in the BE countries of South Asia, the hawk and the thrasher don't occur in any English-speaking and the catbird's range includes the BE countries in the Caribbean, such as Jamaica. Three of these species don't occur in the US, and, despite what many Americans think, it's not compulsory for all New World countries to speak AE yet. Please revert your incorrect edits Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. The Tricoloured munia is only in BE countries. So the article about it should use BE spelling. If you take a look, you will see that I was objecting to a change from BE to AE, not the other way around. Also, WP:ENGVAR is not just about WP:TIES. If a spelling convention has already been established in an article, it should not be arbitrarily changed. Please also note that my comment here did not mention any particular articles. I just said to please be careful about WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. Do you disagree with that? Have you seen me making any "incorrect edits"? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • As a non-member of this Wikiproject I predict that changing the spelling of IOC English names to match editors' consensus on the ENGVAR to be used will produce endless conflicts, so seems to me to be a thoroughly bad idea. It also prevents proper sourcing of the English names. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
    • This discussion isn't (at least primarily) about changing the spelling of IOC English names. It's about changing Wikipedia names to match IOC spellings. Is there some guideline that says not to follow WP:ENGVAR for birds? This discussion reminds me a bit of when we used to have a different capitalization rule for birds and butterflies than for everything else on Wikipedia. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
      • in this case we are talking about the name of the animal, not the language used. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
        • Specifically, I think we're primarily talking about the spelling of the name of the animal, and perhaps also the spelling within the affected articles. We might also find ourselves discussing other aspects of the names, in cases where there could be a difference between the actual WP:COMMONNAME and the name selected by IOC, using whatever criteria they use. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Indian paradise flycatcher

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hello bird experts. Could someone help me with this old query please? The photos I have of the bird is a white long-tailed flycatcher from Sri Lanka. Is T.p. leucogaster ("Himalayan paradise flycatcher", as mentioned on the article) the correct identification? Thank you in advance! Rehman 04:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Rehman: Almost certainly impossible for these to be reliably identified (by anyone) to subspecies simply by looking at photographs. Worse is that the populations and the genetics of the colour forms are not well worked out. If you saw the bird breeding in Sri Lanka and the attendant adult male was rufous (and not white) then it would be the supposed T. p. ceylonensis but if you saw it in winter you can give up all hope as you will also have males from the Indian populations (whether they are T. p. paradisi or T. p. leucogaster or both is yet another unsolved puzzle - the difference between them according to Ali and Ripley is that the latter tends to have a slightly narrower bill!) where the males could have either rufous or white plumages depending on age or population. The idea of starting articles for subspecies is not something that has clear consensus on WP:BIRD, and is especially problematic when all that can be achieved is a polluted mess of unreliable media and associated information. Shyamal (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with @Shyamal:. I've replaced the Ceylon paradise flycatcher article with a redirect to the Indian paradise flycatcher. It didn't contain any information not already present in the Indian paradise flycatcher article. According to Birds of South Asia (Rasmussen and Anderton 2012 Vol 2, 2nd Ed pp.332-333) the race ceylonensis is "slightly paler above and on breast than nominate". - Aa77zz (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the detailed replies Shyamal and Aa77zz. I took this photo in November 2016 (in Pannipitiya, Sri Lanka), and this photo in February 2018 (in Puttalam, Sri Lanka). While both are long-tailed with white plumage, I guess there's no way of knowing the exact subspecies per above...
On a separate note, would either one of you know what is the species of this bird and this bird? I went on a birdwatching safari and managed to identify most birds, and but couldn't identify these two... They were all spotted in Wilpattu National Park. Thank you in advance! :-) Rehman 16:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I've never visited Sri Lanka and don't go birding - but I'll make a guess. It is difficult to make out the colour of your first link - but my guess is a green imperial pigeon - see here. Your second link looks like a grey heron (Ardea cinerea) that I see in parks near my home in London. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Aa77zz. :-) Rehman 22:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Article title spellings

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a discussion underway following a move request for grey hawk. At its heart is whether we should continue to follow IOC spellings for article titles or allow changes to the spellings to fit the ENGVAR in use of the country where the species is located. Please review and comment if interested. Loopy30 (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_70&oldid=1076157641"