Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 75

putting a protonym/original combination in a taxobox

I wrought this: Ash-winged_antwren - see the ref tacked onto the binomial authority. It works but is maybe a bit messy. When original name data (aka protonym info), typically with a BHL link, is at hand, is there a better way to store it somehow? Wikidata? I see no special provision for the original combination in taxobox/speciesbox templates (although I suppose a protonym is a kind of synonym). FWIW, NL:wiki has a 'source' ('bron') item that can be used for it: its value gets attached to the taxon's name authority. Thoughts? - Kweetal nl (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Protonyms are typically listed in synonyms ig; at least, that's what I've been doing, with a more contextualized mention of the protonym in the text. AryKun (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Right, that's reasonable. Then there is also the ref that contains the BHL and bibliographic info and link. I suppose it belongs to the authority and it will be handiest to have the ref/note on the current name. Kweetal nl (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

However, a secondary reference should always be given to support the use of an authority; a reference to a description does not show that it was the first use of the name. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't quite understand; do you agree the info is added adequately in the cases of Slaty cuckooshrike and Andaman cuckooshrike? There, I added 'protonym: ' as a prefix on the ref so that there can be no doubt. I also added the protonym as a synonym. - Kweetal nl (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

What about putting protonym in parenthesis after the name in the synonym section?

The approach taken by the Dutch wikiepedia is interesting, e.g. nl:Grijsvleugelmiersluiper. I'm not sure how much support there would be for parameter support for adding various synonyms. The content for the synonyms is free form so a header could be used for the protonym. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

(protonym) seems like a good idea, thanks. I've done that for the two species above. Kweetal nl (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I support putting "protonym" in brackets after the synonym (with a link) as suggested by Jts1882 eg. "Motacilla rubecula (protonym)". Ideally the original description will be cited in the body of the article but if it isn't then a reference can be added to the original description (protologue). As pointed out by Peter coxhead, ideally another reference is needed to support the claim that the cited reference is recognised as the original description. I usually cite Peters for this – scans of the 16 volumes are available from BHL. Sometimes it is more complicated – Peters has errors and sometimes earlier protonyms have been discovered. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I see. What do you think: the protonym names I have here were called 'protonym' by its species' AviBase page. Do you not think that that is an authoritative enough source to accept 'protonymy' (if that is a word) if it says so? Does it still need an extra source (like Peters)? - Kweetal nl (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

To return to the question above "do you agree the info is added adequately in the cases of Slaty cuckooshrike ...?", any reasonably authoritative source of taxonomy would satisfy me. In this version of Slaty cuckooshrike, there's no secondary reference after the authority, so my preference is for this version. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think my question is about what 'secondary reference' meant:

1. do there need to be two sources (so that they validate each other, as it were

2. is one source more ultimate an authority than the other

I assumed 2., but you mean 1., right? - Kweetal nl (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that, what is meant is, say the original reference is Linnaeus, 1758 (pg. x), one reference will be Linnaeus, 1758 (pg. x), and the second a (more recent, perhaps synoptic) reference asserting that the relevant original reference is Linnaeus, 1758 (pg. x), Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Technicallly the most correct way to write a name is for the current combo Genus species (orig.author date) sec. current combo.author date. The Protonym in the synonymy would be listed above this as Genus species author date. Following the correct setup of a synonymy has its advantages as the styke has meanings within itself. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding possible use of a shareable library of citations for articles in this project

 Courtesy link: Template:Reflib

Hello, I'm Mathglot. I have a question for regulars here, involving the possibility of creating a shareable library of citations that could be of use to editors writing articles that belong to subtopics of project Birds. Here's how this idea came about: I have long worked in various topic areas that have numerous articles where a fair number of quality sources tend to turn up again and again in multiple articles in that topic area. In my case, one such area involved articles related to the topic of French criminal law. I noticed that the same sources kept popping up, and I couldn't remember where I had seen that reference before, and wasted a lot of time either hunting it down, or just creating the citation all over again. This happened frequently enough that I finally got tired of it, and resolved to do something about it, and the result was my first "reference library", located at {{Reflib/French criminal law}}. It wasn't long before I'd created two more (Vichy France, and Ancient seafaring) for myself. Now I've started to branch out, creating a couple more outside my areas of interest or expertise. One user who was helping me with creating an Anglo-Saxon history library, thought that the Birds project might be amenable to this idea, so I thought I'd come over and ask.

I know nothing about Birds (except that the Pūteketeke was elected "bird of the century" in New Zealand), but I'm pretty sure that the top-level topic, "Birds", is far too vast and general to have any citations that turn up habitually in member articles across the board, so "Birds" is not a likely topic area for a reference library. (Neither is any top-level topic; e.g., "World War II" ⟶ 'no', but "Vichy France" ⟶ a big 'yes'.) The "reference library" concept is most useful where there is a well-defined subtopic where a number of citations keep popping up among articles related to that subtopic. The reference library idea, even if it matches a subtopic well, is not that useful if the subtopic is mature and relatively stable, because whatever citations related articles might have in common, there's no reason to change the way they are accessed now, if it's already working fine. But for subtopics undergoing a lot of expansion or seeing the creation of new articles which have citations in common, it can be really helpful, and save a lot of time and constant reinvention of the wheel.

Which leads to my question: are there any subtopics of this project that are like that, i.e., relatively active and expanding, and having a fair number of the same sources that keep popping up among various articles in your topic area? If so, I'd love to hear from you, with a view towards possibly collaborating with you in the creation of a reference library for your subtopic that could help in rapidly sourcing new content in those articles. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many general references keep popping up while editing bird articles. Off the top of my head, such a reflib could probably use the Helm Dictionary, all of the Helm Identification Guides, major regional field guides, topical books like Australian Bird Names, Extinct Birds, and all that, and each of the major checklists (Clements, IOC, BirdLife), probably with different versions for each yearly update. There's also the older works that are kinda outdated but useful anyway for taxonomy, like Clement's original checklists and older synonymies by Gray, Salvadori, Mathews, and Temminck. All in all, I can think of around 70ish books that might be worth putting into this, not including individual versions for each modern checklist. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@AryKun: you're right, I am surprised! I guess I'll have to stop making that kind of assumption, just shows how little I really do know about the subject, but I'm not only surprised, I'm curious and interested. I would love to have a list of those 70ish books in {{cite book}} format. Is this something we could work on together, or do you have it tucked away somewhere, similar to Mike's list of references that I can just grab, and work on importing? Lmk. (No need to ping, I'm subscribed; what about you?) The ideal format for the purposes of Reflib, would be a list of citations as in the "Works cited" section of an article, one per line, in CS1 format ({{cite book}}, {{cite journal}}, etc.). Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll try clapping together a list of a citations I already have formatted in my sandbox. AryKun (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Note: should have been slapping. AryKun (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

That would be great; I look forward to it. Mathglot (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm trying to get a handle on this. I can see ways that this or something like it would work and I think it would be wonderful to streamline referencing. Please link to an article which uses this system well so I can look at it in use. I do note that very few articles about birds use short citations in-line, but that could change, and there might be some other solution when long citations are used inside reference tags (much more common in the articles I work on). Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  15:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, SchreiberBike. Yeah, I'm really interested in streamlining and democratizing referencing. There's also a "specialization" benefit I can see on the horizon, namely, it might open up a new field of gnoming, for folks that like to poke around the encyclopedia, looking for incomplete citations to polish up; this would give them a destination to revisit from time to time. About the sfn vs. inline issue: I have thought about that, and it's actually an undocumented feature that you *could* use reflib inline, like this:—I think Bede talks funny.—I just don't know if it makes sense to do so, and if we do enable that, there might be a better way, requiring some changes to the template. But that link is just a demo that the capability is there, I just haven't figured out the best way to do it (well, I haven't even had time to think about it yet, really), but the capability is designed in from the beginning. As far as an article that uses Reflib, you can have a look at Code pénal (France) (simple), The Vichy Syndrome (middling); French code of criminal procedure (a bit longer), or Glossary of French criminal law (long, complex, mixed-use). HTH; lmk if you have any questions. Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

References

I did play with an idea for having reusable references for use with the template {{BioRef}}. I set it up as a convenience when reorganising the taxonomy templates using particular taxonomies. There are only seven references in my list at Module:FishRef/refs, two of which happen to be bird related:

{{BioRef|ref|Cracraft-2014 }} produces a citation for Cracraft et al (2014).

{{BioRef|ref|Oliveros-2019 }} produces a citation for Oliveros et al (2019).

Another template is {{cite Q}} where the information is obtained from Wikidata. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Jts1882, wow, I had no idea of the Module and the {{BioRef}} citation wrapper. Reflib has the same false positive harv warning message issue as any of the wrappers, so you'll be familiar with that already. There's a lot here to look at and consider, might need to get back to you on it. But it does make me wonder if Reflib could benefit from being in a Module, although for the time being, one of the things I like about it is how clean and simple it is; it's kind of riffing on the Unix tool philosophy of doing one thing well, and then maybe combining it with other tools that do their thing well. Oh, and I'm not a cite Q fan, although I can't help being seduced by its cleverness and bit of "magic". The problem I have is not with the template, but with the provenance of the data; WD simply doesn't have the verifiability concerns that we do here at Wikipedia, and I'm hesitant to promote anything that might tend to lessen the overall verifiability level of the encyclopedia. But that's a whole, 'nother discussion, so I'd better shut up now, before I get into trouble. Lots to think about in your coomment, thanks for raising this! Mathglot (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking some more, there's a lot of similarity between {{BioRef}} and {{Reflib}}, in that they both take a pretty brief kind of input, and produce a (potentially lengthy and detailed) citation as output; maybe not too surprising, as they are both essentially citation wrappers. They serve different audiences, perhaps, and there's certainly room for both, I think. I'm not above stealing good ideas from other templates or modules and please feel free to do the same! Mathglot (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

There are two separate issues, how to store the data and how to process it. My module is a general module for generating citations to various mainly taxonomic databases and the flexibility of a module is essential, so when I added the reference feature the module page for storing data was automatic. Your method of storing the references in template pages with labelled sections is probably easier for people to extend and add their own subpages and references, as it doesn't need understanding the Lua format. I'd still choose a module to process the transclusion, as it can loop though the data rather than be repeated a finite number of times, but that's a personal choice.

Another issue to consider is whether to always use the template or to use substitution (e.g. {{make cite iucn}}, which takes an IUCN red list citation and generated a cite web citation). —  Jts1882 | talk  11:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about the storing/processing thing, too, and I'm amenable to switching to Lua eventually, although at least for me, prototyping with templates is quicker for me to create and change, and once it matures, then maybe switch over for performance, as well as ease of handling looping and maintaining context via local variables. (I did find Module:Params that has a lot of cool stuff that allows template writers to deal with a number of things that would otherwise be difficult, including unknown params and unknown number of params, so that's very helpful. If you want to see a simple use of it, try {{Remoteref}}. Thought about substitution, too, as another option (but that can be added in at the end when it stabilizes) and also even using Reflib as a copy-paste repository and skip the transclusion entirely; that will probably be the choice of certain users, and whatever way it's useful to users is fine by me; that's documented on the /doc page somewhere as yet another way to use it.

As far as transparent data to make it easier for users to deal with, maybe the template format has some advantage there over a module, but not much; I've seen some Module data subpages that look pretty straightforward, although they have brackets and such (but then, so do citations), and I suppose if we wanted to, we could define a plain-text style Module subpage that the Module would just slurp and parse. But I'm getting a bit far from the main topic.

One thing I tried recently in the {{Reflib/sandbox}} failed utterly, which was an attempt to generate citations wrapped in named ref tags, and to transclude that in a list-defined refs section in the bottom matter of an article, and have the mw sw recognize the refs and link them up properly with named refs in the body of the article, but that didn't work at all; it seems the <ref> tags aren't "seen" in time to treat them as refs; I'm guessing this is very similar to what happens with any citation wrapper template, which generally requires addition of {{sfn whitelist}} to provide an empty destination anchor point, because wrapped citations aren't seen in time to be detected, either. (This is T22707.) I'm guessing that emitting a citation wrapped in ref tags from a module wouldn't work either, but if you know a way, please let me know. The one thing I think could work, is if we use subst; it *is* possible to emit the citation embedded in ref tags via template (sandbox rev. 1190798716 did this just fine), it's just that the ref tags aren't recognized if produced via template; but if we subst it, then that ought to work because the string emitted by the template is a proper citation template embedded in ref tags, and there's no way it wouldn't work if substed, afaict. But I think we can't get around T22707 without substing, unless you see a way. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the template subpages is easier for most people and it gives a nice listing of the references as they should appear, unlike the module subpages.

Not sure I'm getting what you want to do with ref tags, but using my module version I can output with named ref tags and reuse the reference, e.g.

• Basic template call: {{BioRef|ref|Cracraft-2014}}
  • outputs: Cracraft, J. (2014). "Avian Higher-level Relationships and Classification: Passeriforms". In Dickinson, E.C. &; Christidis, L. (eds.). The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. Vol. 2 (4th ed.). Eastbourne, U.K.: Aves Press. pp. xvii–xlv.
• Wrap in ref tags: {{BioRef|ref|Cracraft-2014 |reftags=yes }}
  • outputs:
• Reuse reference with <ref name=Cracraft-2014/>
  • outputs:
• Then it appears in the reference list as a single reference with two uses.

References

Is this what you want? I can write a lua module to retrieve the references using your section layout in templates. I already have lua code for "transcluding" sections. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC - renominate?

Earlier this year, Therapyisgood nominated Markham's storm petrel for FAC, and while the reviews were positive (I had just begun mine), the nominator withdrew it, and is now retired from Wikipedia. This is a shame, because the article seems to have been pretty good (two supports:[1]). Anyone want to renominate it or join me in renominating it? Pinging the reviewers so far, Dunkleosteus77, Jimfbleak, WereSpielChequers, and Jens Lallensack for ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd like to see it be an FA. Anyone who knows about birds (which is why I couldn't finish the article, plus some of the original GA comments need looked at by an expert, especially ""Wilson's storm petrel Oceanites oceanicus may have been the first storm petrel to inhabit the Northern Hemisphere, thus possibly originating the Hydrobatinae subfamily" this is saying Wilson's storm petrel is the last common ancestor between Oceanitinae and Hydrobatinae (which I very much doubt), and that's not how you use the word originating" and the saltpeter comments need reviewing by an expert because the source says saltpeter but the article links niter, and I'm not sure if that's what the source meant) who wants to nominate it as such has my 100% approval. I have seen @FunkMonk:'s work and am a fan. Additionally the file copyright may be an issue, the original uploader doesn't appear to own the copyright and no orts. Therapyisgood (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good, I would be in for that. Needs a little work before re-nominating, many unresolved FA comments and so on. Will have a look at the issues mentioned by Therapyisgood. Regarding the picture; I pointed out a free one in the FAC, and here [2] is another one that is even better. Both are flight photos, however, can try to ask for permission to get a sitting one too. I have access to the Birds of the World source (it's free here in Brazil). Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Great to have your blessing, TIG. And nice with the free photo and other observations, Jens. Perhaps easier to work on now after you've had your hands at a bird FAC yourself? I'll start by reading the rest of the article soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I will write to some of the other photographers in Inaturalist if they are willing to change the licence of their photos so that we can use them. Next, then, let's discuss how to split-up the work. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Also a heads-up: The official common English name (and hence the article title) might change next year or so, as they are going to rename all birds of the Americas that were named after people [3]. Which is a very good thing I think. Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:28, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the European storm petrel FA, so I have some decent sources, including a subscription to HBW on line. I'm pretty busy in RL at the moment, but if any one wants the text, just let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think my queries were addressed, not sure if I have more to do on this one though I did slide down various rabbit holes in my reading around this so no guarantees that I won't come back. ϢereSpielChequers 08:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

• @Therapyisgood: Do you (or anyone who is reading here) still have the book "Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the World" by Onley and Scofield (2007) that is cited in the article? If not, I will request it at the Resource Request. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

  FunkMonk got it, and just sent me the pages. Thanks, Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Therapyisgood, the article is getting very close to FAC-shape, do you want to be co-nominator, if not just nominally? FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: yes, I'd like to be a co-nom in name only. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Ravens of southern Wisconsin?

I know the common raven is found in the northern half of Wisconsin. One winter in southern Wisconsin I heard a raven croaking. I can tell the difference of the caw of the crow, from the croak of the raven. I also know ravens don't migrate. Why was I hearing a raven? EAGLITIZED (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not social media, I think that you question would be better asked at the "Wisconsin Society for Ornithology". or on Nextdoor.

The common raven already appears is listed as part of the List of birds of Wisconsin#Crows, jays, and magpies section. Peaceray (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

EAGLITIZED Hi, birds can occasionally occur outside of their range; they're birds after all, they can fly just about anywhere that isn't extremely hostile to them. Looking at the eBird map, common ravens also seem to be common throughout Wisconsin, only really being rare south of Madison and Milwaukee, so it depends on how far south you were. In the future, please remember that this page is for discussions related to Wikipedia articles about birds, not general discussion; if you have any questions about birds in general, you can ask them at the Reference desk. AryKun (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Golden eagle range?

Every map says Scotland is the only place in the UK that golden eagles are found. I learned there have been sightings of them in Ireland and England. If I'm right, can the map on Wikipedia be changed? EAGLITIZED (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Would you supply a citation? Peaceray (talk) 02:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Our map does not say that; it also includes the population of eagles in Lake District National Park in northwestern England. A range map is not meant to be a record of every place some species has been seen; it shows where the species is found consistently. Wikipedia is also a reflection of what other sources say about the issue. The map at golden eagle is based on the IUCN Red List; we can update our map when they add any other populations that have become established. AryKun (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Two kinds of bald eagles?

I know there are two subspecies of bald eagle: haliaeetus leucocephalus and haliaeetus washingtoniensis. I also know bald eagles range in color: dark brown to black. Do the subspecies and colors correspond with each other? EAGLITIZED (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Data related to Haliaeetus leucocephalus at Wikispecies

On English Wikipedia, Haliaeetus leucocephalus is a redirect to bald eagle. There is nothing on Wikipedia about haliaeetus washingtoniensis although there is a Wikidata item for Haliaeetus leucocephalus washingtoniensis

I think your question would be better asked at the "American Ornithological Society". Peaceray (talk) 03:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

EAGLITIZED The two subspecies only differ in size; washingtoniensis tend to be larger than leucocephalus. The dark-plumaged birds you're thinking of are juveniles, who tend to have a darker brown colour than adults. No bald eagles have black plumage, though. See here for more information. AryKun (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

If the binomial Haliaeetus washingtoniensis has ever been published, it should be a redirect. FunkMonk (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't been published far as I can see; Audubon described it in Falco (using three! different epithets) and it was made a subspecies afterwards; the subspecies is also apparently dubious but generally recognized, described from a lost type that was much larger than any known bald eagles and which may have been a fabrication. See Bird of Washington. AryKun (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Peters checklist (and IOC) mention it as a subspecies https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16108941 - Kweetal nl (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

It is generally recognized as a subspecies, but the type is apparently really dubious. From BOW: "Note that if two subspecies are recognized, neither H. l. washingtonii nor H. l. washingtoniensis —with a type locality of Henderson, Kentucky—should stand as valid because the given description of the type specimen is several standard deviations too large for even the largest Haliaeetus eagle, and thus cannot be referable to any particular extant population. Both names, nonetheless, have been used for northern breeders." AryKun (talk) 05:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Is eBird a reliable source

@Waterfaux and Aceater: Is eBird a reliable source for lists of birds of a country or region in Wikipedia? My understanding has been that it is not since it is crowdsourced. There are birds in country, state, etc., lists which have eBird as their only reference.

I think where the reference is to an individual's life list or something similar on eBird, they should definitely be removed. I'm not sure about when eBird is the only source for the presence of a bird in a region. Thank you for your input.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:35, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: They are reliable sources. For example, when I added the the Red-breasted merganser in the List of birds of Nicaragua using eBird as a source; which is this one https://ebird.org/map/rebmer, zoom in the map to look for the country "Nicaragua", next click on where it says "Street" on the map link I provided, and then you'll see where the species was sighted. So I am kindly asking you to please do not remove the eBird references. --Waterfaux (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Ebird is primary data that needs to be interpreted by an ornithologist, because it is not that easy (you need to make the distinction between possible misidentifications, rare vagrants, escapees, etc.). If we interpret it ourselves, I think that would already be WP:OR. If the written sources, and published range maps, do not show that it is present in a particular country, we should not list it as well, in my opinion. Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Waterfaux and Aceater:@SchreiberBike: I asked the same question three years ago - it was answered in the negative. See the thread here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 72#Is eBird a reliable source?. Craigthebirder (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Craigthebirder: I will tell you what, I'll remove the eBird sources and everything should be all right once the eBird references are removed. --Waterfaux (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@Waterfaux and Aceater: Thank you. You didn't say so, but I assume the removals will include the eBird data, not just the references to it. BTW, my personal opinion is that eBird data, when carefully used, is reliable, but the consensus is otherwise. So I follow it. Craigthebirder (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there is a simple answer. The information is crowd sourced, but there is some curation. If there are hundreds of sightings in a region, then I think that is going to be reliable, but if only one then that would need further verification. However, is making this determination common sense or original research? Overall, I think it should be acceptable to use eBird with appropriate caution in some instances, although it's probably best used in addition to a secondary source. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that Wikipedia rules (WP:OR and WP:Synth) are quite clear here. Also, to include eBird records in the lists (such as List of birds of Nicaragua), we need to determine if these are regular, accidental/vagrants, or introduced, which requires even more OR. This cannot be simply based on mere counts of sightings; e.g., there are hundreds of sightings of a single escaped Eurasian eagle owl in New York. Do we have a specific example where eBird might be acceptable and cannot be replaced with an uncontroversial source? Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Spanish imperial eagle#Requested move 6 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Spanish imperial eagle#Requested move 6 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

IOC 14.1

The spreadsheets for IOC 14.1 were released at the end December 2023. Note however that the home page here has the header "Due to winter vacation schedules, we do not anticipate completing the BOW pages for IOC 14.1 until March, 2024." I find this bothersome as when citing the IOC I usually link to the appropriate Birds of the World (BOW, html) page. (not to be confused with the Cornell "Birds of the World" pages). It appears that producing the IOC BOW pages from the spreadsheet involves considerable effort. I'm surprised that a script cannot be used to automate the process.

IOC 14.1 increases the total number of extant species from 11001 to 11032. Most (or perhaps all) of the changes are part of the Working Group Avian Checklists (WGAC) initiative to align the three main world lists: IOC, ebird/Clements and BirdLife/IUCN. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd just update the pages and the ref titles; the webpage links stay the same with every update iirc, so they'll be fine in two months. AryKun (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Version 14.1 has lumped the northern royal flycatcher (O. mexicanus), the Amazonian royal flycatcher (O. coronatus), and the Pacific royal flycatcher (O. occidentalis) as the "tropical royal flycatcher" with the binomial O. coronatus. It left the Atlantic royal flycatcher (O. swainsoni) unchanged. How do I properly combine the three pages into a new "Tropical royal flycatcher" page? I know copy-and-paste is wrong. Or better still, can someone who knows how just do it? I have drafted updates to the royal flycatcher and Atlantic royal flycatcher pages but have not uploaded the changes because they have hotlinks to the nonexistent tropical royal flycatcher page. I will update "tropical" after its components are combined. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made a start - I've moved the nominate Onychorhynchus coronatus "Amazonian royal flycatcher" to "Tropical royal flycatcher". This page now has to be updated to include any useful content from the other two articles. The former species articles can then be replaced by redirects.

Lumping is much easier than splitting. Hooded pitta has been split 5 ways - I need to create 4 new articles. - Aa77zz (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks ever so! I'll draft the tropical royal flycatcher revision in the next day or two and upload the several updates when all are done. Craigthebirder (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Northern harrier § Redirect from Marsh hawk

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Northern harrier § Redirect from Marsh hawk. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 18:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Cleanup of laughing owl

Hi folks, I want to make some updates reflecting the change of Laughing owl from Sceloglaux albifacies to Ninox albifacies. The new synonym's noted in the article but the underlying data and categorisation still need cleaning up. I think this will involve updating the item for N. albifacies to fill it in properly, and changing the label of the Laughing owl item to S. albifacies and linking it as a synonym. Then, creating an N. albifacies commons category and moving the contents of the S. albifacies one over, and finally updating the article.

Does that make sense? Am I missing anything essential? Thanks! Avocadobabygirl (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've renamed the Commons category, but yeah, the rest should definitely also be done. FunkMonk (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @FunkMonk! Avocadobabygirl (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikidata situation is a mess, as the sources with identifiers use a mix of the names and most other Wikipedias still use the old name. If we change the sitelink, we lose the interwiki links. The German wikipedia remains sitelinked to Sceloglaux albifacies even though it has changed to Ninox albifacies. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that is complicated. I've done some additions to the N. albifacies item, and moved a few bits over from the old one but I see there's still a lot intertwined. How doable is it to make the changes to the other language wikis/what's the best way to ask other users to make those changes? Avocadobabygirl (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ernst Mayr

It seems to me that this edit ('toning down') strikes me as incorrect revisionism. What do you think? - Kweetal nl (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernst_Mayr&curid=9238&diff=1199339955&oldid=1199257038 Kweetal nl (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree. The reference on his life (On the Importance of Being Ernst Mayr) makes clear his important role in developing evolutionary theory, which describing him as a German-American evolutionary biologist fails to convey. Some people know the value of nothing (to continue the Oscar Wilde theme). Perhaps the reference should be moved to the end of the sentence to make clear this is a sourced evaluation of his importance. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Birds of the World website as source

Since the Handbook of the Birds of the World as a handbook has been put online as the well-maintained Birds of the World (albeit with a subscription access model), is it a fair resource to use regularly for habitat, diet, etc. behavior? I was considering making a template for it, e.g., "Template:BOW" that would autofill the website information (https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/******/1.0/introduction) and just request a title and optional author and date information. Reconrabbit 23:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I have used BOW as the main source for writing almost 1700 species' pages supplemented by info from field guides and whatever else I can find. (South and Central American and a few Caribbean species - example here: Dusky-throated antshrike) I can't tell what the result of using the template would look like. Would it copy the BOW intro into the Wikipedia page? That's pretty close to unacceptable plagiarism even if surrounded by quotes. How would the citation work? Craigthebirder (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering that the BOW pages each have an individual DOI, I would need a lot more template/metadata knowledge to put something together that could just pull all the information if it was fed a title and/or URL. Just thought it would be a useful addition, and hadn't seen it mentioned before, but it's beyond my capabilities for now. Thanks for your input.

As for what the template would look like - I was just anticipating some kind of easier-to-use citation to insert that worked like a combination of techniques used to create Template:GoldBookRef and Template:Sigma-Aldrich to generate a citation with accurate URL and DOI based on some other parameters. Reconrabbit 00:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I would find this super useful. Can you do a template where we just need to enter one parameter (e.g., the title of the BoW page) and the full citation including authors and doi and so on is pulled automatically? Can you also add an additional optional parameter for the chapter (I mean, many BoW accounts are split into multiple subpages like "Identification", "Breeding" and so on, and it would be nice to be able to specify those easily). Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've created a template to do something like this at Template:BoW. I'm still a template novice, so it won't give any errors right now, but the "required" parameters are "title" and "file". Title is the name of the page, and "file" is the id that the doi/url uses. Accepted parameters are "authors", "year", "title", "chapter", "file", and "accessdate". Still working on documentation.

Here's an example: {{BoW|title=Mourning Dove ''Zenaida macroura'' Version 1.0|file=moudov.01|authors=Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, D. Miller, R. E. Mirarchi, and T. S. Baskett|year=2020|accessdate=February 25, 2024}}

Which produces: Otis, D. L., J. H. Schulz, D. Miller, R. E. Mirarchi, and T. S. Baskett (2020). Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Version 1.0. In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, B. K. Keeney, P. G. Rodewald, and T. S. Schulenberg, Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. doi:10.2173/bow.moudov.01 Retrieved on February 25, 2024.

Let me know what you think. I do realize that this is in most cases slower than just switching to visual editor, putting in the DOI for a page to the automatic citation tool, and using that, but this method creates a "cite web" template with the editors listed instead of a "cite journal". Reconrabbit 02:51, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

So it can autocomplete all parameters based on the ID except for the title? Just out of interest, why is that, why is title completion not possible? My only other suggestion is to rename "file" into "id". Because that's what it is, "file" can be anything and is really not obvious. Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It can't really autocomplete anything, it just inserts text into a citation that is common to all BoW pages. I didn't use "id" because I wasn't sure if it was possible to use that particular string. Jts1882 has a better solution below. Reconrabbit 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You can use {{BioRef|BOW}}. See Template:BioRef#Birds for examples. You can give it a |title= and |url= or |title= and |id=to generate a basic citation. The template wraps {{cite web}} so you can use any of the CS1/CS2 parameters, e.g. for adding the author parameters, version, etc. Perhaps the easiest is to use the parameter |citation= which parses the citation given on the BOW page (just copy and paste it). I can add other options if required. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for, thank you! Much better integration than whatever I was trying to do. Reconrabbit 19:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the option with just copying the recommended citation from the BOW page, and have the template parsing it. Will definitely use that in the future. Thanks. Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The {{BioRef}} is a general one handling a variety of sources handled by a module. Usually I make more intuitively named templates for particular sources (e.g. {{cite mdd}}, {{Catalog of Fishes}}). I was thinking of {{Cite BOW}} but we could use {{BoW}} if that is preferred. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If the template is going to generate something that can be read with WP:COINS then {{Cite BOW}} would be more appropriate than {{BoW}} which just generates a plain text citation. Reconrabbit 17:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer {{Cite BOW}} as it makes the purpose of template clearer, and is consistent with widely used templates such as {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}}. However, that is inconsistent with most of the templates in Category:Biology source templates. But there is also an issue raised at Template talk:PLANTS#PLANTS template used for Sfn causes "Harv and Sfn no-target errors", that was solved by creating redirects with "Cite" (I don't really understand what was going on there). Plantdrew (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll create {{Cite BOW}} later today. As it uses {{Cite web}} it should generate the COINS data correctly. The |citation= option splits the authors into |lastn= and |firstn= and these are passed to cite web. I might look at a substitution option so the author parameters appear in the template call in the page wikitext.

That sfn error is strange and the fix stranger. I think the fix is due to the use of a redirect rather than including cite in the template name, although I don't understand it either way. {{Cite BOW}} will handle all the CS1/CS2 parameters so you can use |ref=Anchor, |mode=cs2, etc for customising the citations. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I've created the template at {{Cite BOW}}. The |citation= option may still need tweaking. Parsing the authors and editors needs to take account of one, two and three author/editor cases. I think editor is now OK, but I haven't checked two authors. There may be other odd cases where the format of the citation is slightly different. Incidentally, I don't like the position of the editors in the output (before the title), but that is a CS1/CS2 decision. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Nice! I just tested the |citation= option with a few examples, and can't spot any issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. This template going to be a great help since so much time is spent writing out citation parameters. Reconrabbit 14:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Tangentially related: is there no article on Birds of the World in its current form? I'm not even seeing reference to it on Cornell Lab of Ornithology or Handbook of the Birds of the World. Reconrabbit 14:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's probably notable, but very niche, so there aren't any non-primary sources that could be used for it. It's technically a journal I guess, so maybe WP:NJOURNALS could be used? AryKun (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's cited in plenty of articles on checklists and has an article in The Wilson Journal of Ornithology about it, at least I think that's what this is about - can't read the full text right now [4]. I've got Draft:Birds of the World right now. Reconrabbit 15:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the article in Wilson's is about the book, The Complete Birds of the World. I'm fairly sure independent references can be found to establish notability, although one option is to have a section in the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. However, eBird has an article (note the website infobox) and other taxonomic databases have articles (e.g. Reptile Database, ASW6, POWO, WFO) so it shouldn't be too controversial. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Re your draft: maybe a mention of the free parts of the BOW? For instance, the Key to scientific names, an etymological database (no subscription is needed) and a huge resource with its 40,000 items with information on the meaning of all scientific bird genera names and epithets... - Kweetal nl (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! It ties into an article I just translated, James A. Jobling. Reconrabbit 20:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There should also be some mention of incorporating content from HBW Alive. The BOW Source Content has some information on sources drawn upon to create the online BOW. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

We seem to have two articles about the the kagu, Rhynochetos jubatus. Should we combine them?

We seem to have two articles about the the kagu, Rhynochetos jubatus.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kagu

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhynochetos

Should we combine them?

- 189.122.84.88 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

They were historically separate because some papers argued that there was an extinct species, Rhynochetos orarius, but most recent papers argue that this species is a synonym of the living Kagu. I would support merging the genus and the extinct species into the main Kagu article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, the extinct Lowland kagu should be merged in with them. I don't think we ever have multiple species articles without a genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

That was exactly what my comment was proposing. Sorry for not being more clear Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh yes, I guess since you linked the binomial instead of the article title, and I was half focused on work, made it more confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

IOC names vs ENwiki: User:Kweetal nl/IOC enwiki backlog

I produced 11,000+ wikipedia scientific-name-urls with the 11,000+ scientific names from IOC 14.1, and for each, on the page that wikipedia sent back, I checked the name and authority. The ones that differ are in this list. There are 23 left.

The results are here: IOC - enwiki backlog. There seems to be a small backlog; maybe this helps to get these updated. Feel free to update any fixes on that page.

(sometimes just the redirect is wrong/obsolete, I think.)

Hope this helps - Kweetal nl (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)