Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 62

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Casliber in topic Golden-winged Sunbird
Archive 55←Archive 60Archive 61Archive 62Archive 63Archive 64Archive 65

List of mystery birds

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion
List of Wiki bird species pages where the binomial name nor the common name in the article do not correspond to a name for a bird on the IOC list 3.1. Are there any spelling mistakes. Will altering the capitalisation or hyphens enable a species page to be mapped to a species on IOC? Are there gender problems with any binomial names? Are there any subspecies with the wrong sort of taxobox? Are any of the taxoboxes formatted incorrectly? Are there any hybrids or extinct birds? Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The list is not a talk page, so no need to sign. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
  • An puzzling example: Italian Sparrow (Passer italiae) as in the Wiki taxbox, but neither the common name nor the binomial name are on the IOC spreadsheet 3.1. The taxobox is presented on the Wiki as a conventional species tabobox. Is this taxobox misleading? Snowman (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is a misleading taxobox. "Italian Sparrow" isn't widely accepted by international bird taxonomy authorities. It isn't considered a species by the IOC or the IUCN, for example. Its genetics show clear evidence that it is a hybrid between Spanish and House Sparrows. MeegsC | Talk 18:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there a better way of summarising this hybrid in a taxobox? Snowman (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The HBW includes it, and a good deal of lists have included it as a subspecies. The IOC cites Hermansen et al., who conclude that it's of hybrid origin, but distinct, stable, and reproductively isolated, so therefore a species. —innotata 20:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
...but IOC have not got it on their world list. Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have added "| classification_status = disputed" to the taxoboxes for most the the hypothetical species. This renders "disputed" clearly in the taxobox. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The species is on the IUCN Red List, in a different genus[1] (I searched for the species name). —innotata 20:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I see. What about Puerto Rican Quail-Dove? I have removed "| status_system = IUCN3.1" from the infobox. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the Red List includes such fossils. —innotata 20:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Administrator assistance requested to move: Snowman (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Article with a trinomial as title

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Re: Pyrrhula pyrrhula cineracea. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the only reference I could find for a common name is Gray Bullfinch which appears on Avibase. All other sources I saw only recognize it as a subspecies as specified, with no other confirmation of a common name for the subspecies...Pvmoutside (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
HBW has both common names for the subspecies. My preference would be to move it to Baikal Bullfinch if noone has any objection. Maias (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have changed it to a subspecies taxobox. What should be done about the redirect from Pyrrhula cineracea? This taxon also appears on the genus page, Pyrrhula, where amendments might also be needed. The title probably should not be the trinomial name on the Wiki. Is the article likely to advance beyond a Stub? Why not merge it into Eurasian Bullfinch? Snowman (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, unless the taxon is fairly distinct and there is a reasonable amount of information available about it - enough, say, to make it a start class article rather than a stub. Maias (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have just found the Russian article, which is quite a long article and includes a gallery and sounds (I have not checked copyrights). The title of the Russian article translates to "Grey Bullfinch" and it appears to have a wide range (beyond Lake Lake Baikal and Russia), so would "Grey Bullfinch" be a better name for the sub-species article, if it is not merged. Snowman (talk) 07:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
So much more boring, though. 'Baikal' is much more distinctive and descriptive. Maias (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
If it stays as a separate article, Avibase Gray is clearly inappropriate AE, and I'd agree with Maias that Baikal is better than Grey (precedent in Baikal Teal). I'd be inclined to merge, but no big deal either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand that the evidence for it being a separate species is very scanty, so I think that it is slightly better that subspecies is changed to a redirect and merged. Incidentally, two of the references on the current trinomial page are dead links (which I have not attempted to fix). There is also Baikal Bush Warbler on the IOC list, but no more. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I might have a look at what can be done in a couple of days or so, but if there is no info then merging and redirecting is probsbly the way to go. Maias (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm ok with any option, if you need another opinion....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I just fixed the dead links by using the Checklinks tool to link to the archived versions, FWIW. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I have expanded the article a little and moved it to Baikal Bullfinch. Thanks to all who hae helped. I note that there are several good photos of the bird on the web if anyone can get access to one... Maias (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah! Nice photos - thanks, Snowman. Maias (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ditto!...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Birds

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should this list be deleted? Comments please at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life/Articles without images/Birds.

I would like to know a bit more about the list before anything is done to it. Do you suspect that it should be deleted and if so why? How was the list made? Why has it not been brought up-to-date? How accurate is the list at the time it was made? Why not keep it and bring it up-to-date? Snowman (talk) 11:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Warbler Finch split

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The SACC split the warbler finches a while ago, so I got around to splitting the pages. Now Warbler-Finch is a disambig to the two species Grey Warbler-Finch and Green Warbler-Finch. BTW, The Green Warbler-Finch page is locked. Page currently at Green Warbler-finch, if someone would do the honors.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Should the split be more widely accepted amongst authorities before it is used on the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so.....Looks like we've been deferring to the continental committees (where there is one) if the group is solely under their auspices for other species. I've been holding off on things like Cardeluine finches, seedeaters, and the tern-gull-skimmer family merge because it looks like the jury is still out....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion
  • Re: Automatic taxoboxes. Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/use says that the "automatic taxobox" template should not be uses for species like birds. It says use "speciesbox" instead. There are several bird automatic taxoboxes, so I think these should be converted to "speciesbox" or back to a normal manual taxobox. It also says; "Please remember: There's not yet consensus to convert all taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes. Please use your discretion when converting: and always preview your edit before saving." Template:Automatic taxobox/doc/new says; "This template should not be used for species". Snowman (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Re: Antbird. This has an automatic taxobox and surprisingly a red link to Thamnophilida pops up in the taxobox. Does anyone know how to remove the red link. Is this taxon well known enough to have its own page? Should this automatic taxobox be changed back to a normal taxobox? Snowman (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a red link because someone's spelled the family name incorrectly. It should be Thamnophilidae. MeegsC | Talk 22:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Can it be corrected? Snowman (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. This is actually a clade thing. I know little to nothing about cladistics; guess we need to check with one of the Wiki's cladistic experts, though I'm not sure who that would be. MeegsC | Talk 22:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The page did not have a red link in the taxobox before it had an automatic taxobox. 5 Nov 2010 was the last time the normal taxobox was shown on the page, which was replaced inappropriately with the next edit by an automatic taxobox. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like some admin needs to set up a suborder automatic taxobox and it should be good to go?......Pvmoutside (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why is it inappropriate to use an automatic taxobox here? MeegsC | Talk 23:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I've set up a redirect so that it isn't a redlink at least. Not sure if there's a better solution short of writing the article for Thamnophilida. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It is fine using an automatic taxobox on a family page as for "Antbird" (but not on a species page - see guidelines). However, the automatic taxobox on Antbird rendered a redlink, which has been fixed with a redirect. Please note that there is no consensus to roll-out automatic taxoboxes of any sort. That is a neat fix to make a redirect from Thamnophilida to Tyranni, if it is correct. Snowman (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I have found 90 automatic taxoboxes, 85 speciesboxes, and no subspeciesboxies on bird articles. A lot of these are on fossil and extinct birds. Some automatic taxoboxes are being used inappropriately on species pages. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
If some of the automatic taxoboxes are used inappropriately, then at some point they can be changed? Maybe the autmatic taxobox author can help?....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's ok to use {{Automatic taxobox}} on a species article; it's no big deal as far as I know. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It sounds to me the not many people have read the relevant Wiki literature? (see pages have linked above). The Wiki guidelines say: Snowman (talk) 08:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
All these bullets sound good, I'm just saying it's not a big deal. It's not like "oh noes we must urgently swap out our automatic taxoboxes for speciesbox!". I use speciesbox for species and so should everyone else, but I don't think it's worth anyone's time to go replace them all or loose any sleep about it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There are not many automatic taxoboxes inappropriately on extant bird species pages. There are many appropriately on higher order taxa especially extinct taxa. Here are some that on extant bird species pages (they might be the only ones for extant bird species): Snowman (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
  • 1 House Sparrow - Automatic taxobox
  • 2 Russet Sparrow - Automatic taxobox
  • 3 Saxaul Sparrow- Automatic taxobox
  • 4 Sind Sparrow - Automatic taxobox
I think that these sparrow automatic taxoboxes should be changed to manual taboxboxes or speciesboxes. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think only admins can set them up/change them, etc....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. I have just changed the four sparrows to speciesboxes. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
You are correct Snowmanradio, I stand corrected....You can add and change speciesbox info without being an admin, but the majority of the automtatic taxoboxes for the higher taxonomy tree should be done first, otherwise the speciesbox will be rather empty and the speciesbox wont recognize a genus or family for example if they haven't been created first.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hey there, I was paged today or yesterday about this. Looks like I took long enough to get here; Erik's provided the same advice I would have. The {{speciesbox}} is preferred for species, but the {{automatic taxobox}} may be used in its place and is the only automatic option for taxa of higher ranks. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pelican is now GA, and House Sparrow was leading in vote count. A good candidate actually to be given a shove over the GA line. Well done to all who helped with Pelican - with a bunch of us it should be not too tricky at FAC to address issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of St, St. or Saint

Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments5 people in discussion

https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&action=edit&section=27 The following is where the Wiki page names differ from IOC spreadsheet 3.1. Are there any taxonomy issues? Do these need moving? Are there any missing? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Snowman (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Same common name on Wiki and IOC:

The following page names are on the Wiki. Are there any taxonomy issues? IOC does not have these common names, but may have the scientific name. Are these all extinct birds? Do they need moving? Snowman (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Snowman (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Opinions on page move: Suggestion: If Sooty and Sweep were editing here they could answer with voting symbol "+" to indicate a page needs moving or a "-" that it does not need moving before a symbol for their names. So Sweep would first of all state that his symbol is "Sw" and vote "-Sw" or "+Sw" and Sooty would indicate his symbol of "So" and use this to vote. We might be quickly see which are the non-controversial page moves. Anyone can ask a question and indicate a voting symbol for their question. These pages may be easy and some replies might be "yes to all"; however, there may be some more problematic lists soon about page name changes where opinions may be needed on individual pages. The question here: Should the Wiki use "St."? Symbols are "+"=yes and "-"=no. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

  • "Sn" Snowmanradio = symbol for opinions. (see example of opinion after Macaw) Snowman (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't get the above paragraph, on voting. As far as what forms of Saint we use, most places have their own customs as to which forms (Saint, St., or St) are used. British English uses St, as in St Albans and Bury St Edmunds, since the t is the last letter of the word, similarly to Mr without the period, and while St. stands for Street; I think there's a U.S. state with towns called St. Mary and Saint Mary or something similar. Then, bird names not matching the normal place name is common. If there's more than one form in use for a place, it probably doesn't matter which we use, but for all of these it looks like the IOC is using St. where it is not customary, so I don't think we should follow. —innotata 15:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is more to the Saint name that I first thought. Sooty (So) has two yes votes (+So); see 1 and 2 above (macaw and dove). Sweep (Sw) has one no vote (-Sw) on 2 (dove). I would rather use "St" or "Saint" than "St.". Perhaps, the dot might get confused with a full-stop. Can IOC names have localisation or does IOC only have "St."? Snowman (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Re-think: this voting system is probably too easy for people to forge. Might be better to sign with ~~~ not ~~~~ (name without date) and indicate preference. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
  • ...but not necessarily. if this word/abbreviation is a localisation variant. About variants the IOC says "and perhaps others". To me, unless stated otherwise on the IOC website, this is likely to be a language variant. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Snowman that this comes under local variants and should not be subject to heavy-handed standardisation. The Saint Helena prefixed birds come from the name of the locality Saint Helena, in turn named after a saint. A variant example is St Kilda Wren, named after St Kilda, Scotland which is not named after a saint but is of obscure origin. The full stop (period) after the "St" is simply American usage and not general British (or Australian) usage - though American usage does crop up from time to time. Maias (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the two examples are an excellent illustration, the relevant islands are always written as shown, and the associated birds should keep the same form. The full stop in St is more variable in use, but in general it's a AE/BE thing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The Wiki article is spelled out in full "Saint Lucia", so would this be the preferred language variant here? Snowman (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There are none with "Saint" or St on the IOC list. The IOC have these: Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • 1 St. Helena Petrel
  • 2 St. Helena Rail
  • 3 St. Helena Crake
  • 4 St. Helena Plover
  • 5 St. Lucia Amazon
  • 6 St. Vincent Amazon
  • 7 St. Helena Cuckoo
  • 8 St. Helena Hoopoe
  • 9 St. Lucia Warbler
  • 10 St. Lucia Oriole
  • 11 St. Lucia Black Finch

Are there any missing? Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

And also these abbreviations: Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • 1 Mrs. Hume's Pheasant
  • 2 Mrs. Gould's Sunbird

Are there any missing? Are there any other abbreviations used in bird names? Are "Mrs" and "Mrs." also abbreviations with different local language versions? Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Mrs is traditional in BE, but Mrs. is common today, and American English might be used in the articles. Doesn't matter in the way messing up a place name does, at any rate. —innotata 20:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I note, with regard to St or St, generally used as abbreviations (with exceptions such as St Kilda) that a WP guideline is that abbreviations should generally not be used in article titles. I suggest that the full "Saint" {or "Street" for that matter) should be used except in special cases. Maias (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

The sentence in the Wiki guidelines is; "Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser)." There seem to be a lot of pages with "St"; St Michael's Mount (UK place name), St Leonards, New South Wales (USA place name). The articles listed in the dab St. Mary's Church is useful at looking at the use of "St", "St.", or "Saint" all over the world. Snowman (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I think St is the exception to the rule, it's almost standard for churches, common for geographical locations, and my only FA starting with St was never challenged as to its title. It also reflects the fact that in normal speech we tend to say "snt" rather than Saint (and the personal name, "St John", is pronounced sinjent) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying that you think it "St" should be used in bird names? Snowman (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
So most of the bird species presently living (ex St Lucia Black Finch) use St. instead of St or Saint. Be nice if we can get 'em consistent. Anyone mind if I change the remaining to Saint in keeping with Wikipedia rules? (will probably avoid problems down the road). Luckily there aren't many of them...Pvmoutside (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean, but it looks like all the birds with a form of "Saint" in their names are named after places that commonly use only "Saint" (with the exception of the St Kilda Wren, from a place not named after a saint according to MeegsC) and in the case of Saint Helena at least don't use "St.", so I suggest we move them all to the full word. —innotata 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with Innotata's suggestion of changing all listed to Saint except for St. Kilda Wren......How's everyone else?...Pvmoutside (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
There are a few with "Mount". I did not find any with "Mt" or "Mt." It appears that abbreviations are not used for "Mount", so it would seem to be consistent to not use abbreviations for Saint as well. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

As previously, if there are any missing please let me know. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Why has St Lucia Warbler has been moved to St. Lucia Warbler? I presume that the plan is to move it to Saint Lucia Warbler. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Now at Saint Lucia Warbler. Snowman (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for moving Saint Lucia Warbler. Page was locked when I inadvertantly previously changed to St. Lucia Warbler. Was going to note on my next locked page list.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
IUCN use the localised form "St". I think it is fine that the Wiki page name follows the Wiki page name guidelines. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (146)

Latest comment: 12 years ago34 comments5 people in discussion
Yes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Update: file description amended. Snowman (talk) 09:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks both of you ;) Totodu74 (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It's an hornero, or some other terrestrial furnariid. I'm sorry I can't help from there. Natureguy1980 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Adult femaleJimfbleak - talk to me? 05:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: file description enhanced. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Other than the female Vermilion Flycatcher below, these are all Darwin's "finches", and as such, will be very difficult if not impossible to identify to the species level. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This new version is 4.64 Mb and the version uploaded earlier is tiny. Please always upload the largest image available on Flickr. The earlier version File:Passer rufocinctus Kenya.jpg is only 471 kb and is up for deletion. For the other images in the photo-set, someone should upload the larger versions to replace the tiny versions. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It could be an immature—I don't have much detail on rufous sparrow ID currently—but you're probably right; the review bot should upload the largest version, and the photographer might not have had a pro account at the time or something. —innotata 15:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You might be right, but I do not know when it gained this functionality or what bot does that. You could try putting the {{Flickreview}} template on the files again and let the bot have another look. Sometimes, flickr photographers update the original images with slightly different versions or edited versions. It is possible that the larger versions appeared on Flicker after the original posting. Snowman (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You can upload the larger versions over smaller versions if they are identical, but smaller OR if there are two versions only differing in size then add the {{Duplicate|namexyx.jpg|reason}} to the smaller version to have the smaller version deleted. Snowman (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Has this weaver or this bird been uploaded? I do not know what the species are, so I can not check Commons categories. Unfortunately, I accidentally upload images to Commons that have already been uploaded. I often check Commons categories before uploading an older flickr image, but sometimes I do not know where to look. Snowman (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) You can search the Flickr IDs (eg "7247480674") on Commons, which is how I avoid uploading duplicates—neither has been uploaded, and no similar images appear in a search for her name. —innotata 16:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you for uploading the larger version of "Turdoides hypoleuca -Kenya-8.jpg". This tool indicates duplicates with a warning in red text, but I do not know how reliable it is. Searching for flickr numbers on Commons is new to me. How do you do that? Snowman (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Bird 1469. File:Emblema picta.JPG | Painted Finch. File found on Commons. Male, female, or juvenile? Snowman (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_5

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_July_5. Several bird categories have been nominated for renaming because their latin names are ambiguous. Inputs welcome. KarlB (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Wiki bird species pages not at IOC English name

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Wiki bird species pages not at IOC name (June 2012). The list excludes differences due to accents and localised spelling. It is about 2% of all Wiki bird species pages, so not many left to change. This might not be a complete list. The differences may reflect controversial taxonomy. Many need an administrator to move, because the target pages have been edited. Any comments. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

At least two of these are artefacts due to the domesticated forms of Wild Turkey and Helmeted Guineafowl having the same taxobox as the wild birds. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I have put a strike out through those two variants and unlinked them. Snowman (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are. Mannikin has a problem, though, in that it's easily confusable with the New World manakins (Pipridae). Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What difference does that make. Parakeet is used for some long-tailed parrots from Australia, India, and South America. Snowman (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions about extinct Mauritian birds

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I'm currently expanding the articles about extinct Mauritian birds, but I've run into some problems that I'm unable to resolve, so I hope someone here might have better knowledge (though these issues are extremely obscure). I've copied my questions from the respective talk pages, so the wording is a bit informal:

Is there a type specimen of the Dodo, and which specimen is it? Being coined by Linnaeus, I guess not, but an ornithologist at the Zoological Museum in Denmark claimed it was the Copenhagen skull, even though it seems doubtful. I took some photos of the skull, and the little paper attached to it state it's a syntype. A paper mentioning the Prague skull also states it's a syntype.[2] It would also be nice to know what the specimen numbers are for the Oxford and Copenhagen specimens. Another thing, island gigantism seems to be relevant to this bird, but none of the sources I've found mention it. If anyone knows a source where this theory is applied to the Dodo, please fill it in!

The sources also seem to contradict each other over what the name Didus nazarenus is attached to, a description, or a combination of the description and some Solitaire bones? If the former, it is a synonym of cucullatus, if the latter, it is a synonym of Pezophaps. On top of that, three different authors are credited for the name in different sources!

Some 19th century and early 20th century sources mention that a supposed gizzard stone of the Rodrigues Solitaire is housed in Cambridge, but no later sources mention it. Anyone know what happened to it, and if it was genuine?

Lastly, there seems to be uncertainty over whether the Red Rail and the Rodrigues Rail should be kept in the same genus, Aphanapteryx, or in separate ones. The latest sources I have, authored by Anthony Cheke and Julian Hume, prefer to keep them separate, but literature not much older unites them. What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Olson (A synopsis on the fossil Rallidae In: Sidney Dillon Ripley: Rails of the World - A Monograph of the Family Rallidae, 1977) and Mourer-Chauviré (The avifauna of Réunion Island (Mascarene Islands) at the time of the arrival of the first Europeans. In: Avian Paleontology at the Close of the 20th Century: Proceedings of the 4th International Meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, Washington, D.C., 4-7 June 1996. 1999) the Rodrigues Rail should be placed in Erythromachus as there are several morphological differences between the two species. Hume followed this assessment in Lost Land of the Dodo (2008) and Extinct Birds (2012). By the way Milne-Edwards described the Rodrigues Rail as Erythromachus leguati and according to the ICZN this name should be prefered. --Melly42 (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I was also under the impression that seperation was preferred, so I'll go ahead and do it (there is a redundant Aphanapteryx article), thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The IOC prefers Erythromachus too IOC Extinct Birds list but BLI (respectively the IUCN) prefers Aphanapteryx. --Melly42 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... IOC has the higher "authority" on birds, right? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
normally, yes --Melly42 (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Alright, followed that. In the meantime, I've been able to find references to the Solitaire gizzard stones, but the rest still needs to be figured out. FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Laughingthrushes

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

A recent publication doi:10.1093/sysbio/sys027 suggests the following placement for members of the clade within the Timalids that has been treated as the subfamily Leiothrichinae

  • Genus Alcippe for (variegaticeps, ludlowi, brunneicauda, poioicephala, morrisonia, pyrrhoptera, peracensis, nipalensis, grotei)
  • Genus Grammatoptila ([Garrulax] striata)
  • Genus Cutia (nipalensis)
  • Genus Turdoides (nipalensis, altirostris, caudata, earlei, gularis, longirostris, malcolmi, squamiceps, fulva, aylmeri, rubiginosa, subrufa, striata, rufescens, affinis, reinwardtii, tenebrosa, sharpie, hartlaubii, melanops, squamulata, leucopygia, bicolor, hypoleuca, hindei, leucocephala, plebejus, jardineii, gymnogenys, [Kupeornis] gilberti, rufocincta, chapini, [Phyllanthus] atripennis)
  • Genus Garrulax (cinereifrons, palliatus, rufifrons, perspicillatus, leucolophus, monileger, lugubris, strepitans, milleti, maesi, merulinus, canorus)
  • Genus Ianthocincla ([Garrulax] sukatschewi, cineracea, rufogularis, konkakinhensis, ocellata, lunulata, bieti, maxima, pectoralis, albogularis, ruficollis, nuchalis, chinensis, vassali, galbana, delesserti, gularis, davidi, caerulata, poecilorhyncha, mitrata, sannio, [Babax] lanceolata, waddelli, koslowi)
  • Genus Trochalopteron ([Garrulax] cachinnans, jerdoni, lineatum, virgatum, subunicolor, austeni, squamatum, elliotii, variegatum, henrici, affine, morrisonianum, erythrocephalum, ngoclinhensis, yersini, formosum, milnei)
  • Genus Heterophasia (capistrata, gracilis, melanoleuca, desgodinsi, auricularis, pulchella, picaoides)
  • Genus Leiothrix (argentauris, lutea)
  • Genus Minla (ignotincta, [Heterophasia] annectans)
  • Genus Crocias (langbianis, albonotatus)
  • Genus Liocichla (omeiensis, bugunorum, steerii, phoenicea)
  • Genus Actinodura (sodangorum, nipalensis, waldeni, souliei, morrisoniana, egertoni, ramsayi, [Minla] cyanouroptera, strigula)

IOC has largely gone with these recommendations and has been even bolder in treating the Leiothrichinae as Leiothrichidae. Regardless, splits like Trochalopteron based on very different morphology (plus other studies doi:10.1111/j.1463-6409.2008.00355.x) have been around for a considerable while (at least since Rasmussen & Anderton 2005 Birds of South Asia...) and the recent changes of moving these articles into Garrulax following a rather old treatment is a bit retrograde even if IOC is not to be used as a taxonomic reference. Shyamal (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It appears the Laughinthrushes are in a bit of transition according to many sources. Some authorities use the older treatment Garrulax (Clements, IUCN (predominantly), Howard & Moore; others use Trochalopteron (IOC, Zoonmomen, Rasmussen). propose no change until more of a consensus is reached (or we settle on a tax authority).....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
This is not the only group that is in transition. The problem is that not all material is available for any single study and so it is going to be done in bits and pieces. There really is no need to wait for a single source that compiles it all and definitely no reason to follow a single old work because it serves that purpose. While IOC may not be suitable as a source for higher level classification, it can in general be used as a source of scientific names for species. When differences exist across major recent sources, I think the reasoning for not following the IOC has to be made on a case-by-case basis. The Trochalopteron situation has been refined over time and there really is no reason to go back to an outdated source because work is in progress. The recent work fixes some paraphyly instances, but explicity reaffirms and confirms the splits begun in earlier works. In the particular case of Trochalopteron cachinnans, it would be particularly confusing to have a contradictory taxonomy section. Shyamal (talk) 13:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually think it is more confusing to list the species in question as monotypic when in fact it is not. Some authorities list it and others in the Trochalopteron genus, others keep them all in Garrulax. Often there are studies which are published that reassess entire genera, families, orders for that matter. Sometimes the are accepted, sometimes they are not. Regarding species pages, The IUCN and Clements are pretty good about updating their sites on a regular basis. In this case the IUCN is different than everyone else in naming it another genus altogether. Ideally, being an Old World bird, Howard & Moore would be the better source, but it still looks like a while til we get their updates (they still have it as Garrulax). Mind if we switch it back to Garrulax until at least Clements changes (or we decide on a world taxonomic standard)?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The old treatments use the single Garrulax which is part of the trash can that is being resolved in the major new work (doi:10.1093/sysbio/sys027) - if you see this synthesis you can see why Garrulax senso lato is particularly inappropriate. There is really no world taxonomic standard - there will not be one for a long time simply because of the nature of species. I think we can be more than sure that the trees being resolved now are correct. There may however be nomenclatural problems, but there does not seem to be such a problem in the Trochalopteron case. For the laughingthrush article you could use the above mentioned placement as a standard based on the reference above while also mentioning that they belong to Garrulax sensu lato. That should more than satisfy old-timers as well as those seeking fresh insights. Shyamal (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
"more confusing to list the species in question as monotypic when in fact it is not" - could you expand what you say here? ? The species Black-chinned Laughingthrush is not monotypic as it has two subspecies. If you meant monophyletic - then that is precisely the problem with Garrulax sensu lato and the new recommendation in this 2012 paper attempts to amend exactly that situation. Shyamal (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

RM

Latest comment: 12 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. I'm wondering if we could get some more comments at the requested move at Talk:Suliformes. Cheers, 09:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I wish....I wish.....oh well.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
BTW - template:Pelecaniformes might need adjusting given the IOC and AOU have given their stamp of approval of the divorce of pelicans.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that....IUCN lists as Ciconiiformes but both AOU and IOC list as Pelecaniformes....What is a person to do? I suggest leaving as is until more of a consensus is reached (or we decide on a tax standard)....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Given Suliformes is settled (apart from the name), I moved the template to template:Suliformes and removed pelicans, and begun reconstructiing the other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
When I wrote the original Pelican navbox, I was trying to get the family lines to collapse, so that only the order line appeared. The crow template is excellent example of what I was trying to achieve. I left it as it was, partly because it does not look too bad, but I wonder if the two new templates would be better collapsed into the order line only. Snowman (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Are there any extinct ones to go in the templates? Snowman (talk) 13:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think putting extinct ones which can be classified would be good. You are welcome to fine-tune the templates - I had also been expanding template:Pelecaniformes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I have been putting the binomials as well as the common names recently in new navboxes; see Template:Storks. Snowman (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
That looks good. Aesthetically it is nice to break up the bluelinks with black text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how complicated the extinct pelicans are nor how difficult they might be to add to the navbox. However, if the template only includes extant species it would be useful for the navobox to indicate this. The storks navbox says "19 living species in six genera". The Tasman Booby (?subspecies) is extinct. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
??? - I thought I got them all.... the Tasman Booby is not distinct from one of the subspecies of the Masked Booby...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pygmy Eagle

Latest comment: 12 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

The Pygmy Eagle has an implausible taxobox saying it is a species and giving it a trinomial name. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Gjershaug et al. 2009: "The available morphological and genetic evidence thus strongly and unambiguously supports the specific distinctness of A. weiskei". IUCN/BLI and IOC accept species status as Hieraaetus weiskei. Burmeister (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
www.worldbirdnames.org/Archives/n-raptors.html seems to agree; Little Eagle is Hieraaetus morphnoides and Pygmy Eagle is Hieraaetus weiskei. I'll fix. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind, I guess they don't agree. Which is it; A. weiskei or H. weiskei? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
So, there seem to be 2 issues: 1) The genus is listed as Hieraaetus according to the IUCN, Howard & Moore, Clements, the IOC and Zoonomen; Aquila is listed as the genus by Gjershaug 2) regarding its species status: IUCN and the IOC list it as a species; while Clements, Howard & Moore, and Zoonomen all list it as a subpecies........Pvmoutside (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I am in the middle of a few other issues at present, but there are papers showing the relationships between Aquila and Hieraaetus to be complex (some or all of the latter lies within the former) and hence a recommendation for the above species to be moved to Aquila - I will find a bit later when I have some time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The generic arrangement present in IOC and IUCN/BLI is derived to Helbig et al. 2005 [Mol. Phylog. Evol. 35: 147-164]: Aquila and the revised Hieraaetus are treated as separate genera. Christidis & Boles 2008 follow this arrangement too. Gjershaug et al. 2009 follow Sangster et al. 2005. [Taxonomic recommendations for British birds: third report. Ibis 147(4): 821-826] and Gjershaug 2006 [thesis - Appendix B] and treat Hieraaetus within Aquila. Debus et al. 2007: "The genera Aquila and Hieraaetus, as traditionally constituted, are now known from DNA studies to be paraphyletic, with some in one genus more closely related to those in the other, and vice versa (Wink & Sauer-Gürth 2004; Helbig et al. 2005; Lerner & Mindell 2005). They could thus either be merged, or each genus (in a narrower sense, with some species transferred between these genera or to other genera) could continue to be recognised. A comparative behavioural study of the Wedge-tailed Eagle (a ‘core’ Aquila eagle) and the Little Eagle could identify any differences, and thus shed light on the validity of separating the small, ‘pied’, plumage-dimorphic eagles in Hieraaetus (cf. Helbig et al. 2005; Lerner & Mindell 2005)." I think that the two genera arrangement is more conservative and used in recent literature [IOC, IUCN/BLI, Christidis & Boles 2008, Clements update august 2011]. Specific status of weiskei was suggested for Bunce et al. 2005 [PLoS Biology, 4, 1–4] and recognized by Lerner & Mindell 2005 and Gjershaug et al. 2009. Howard & Moore [2003] is pre-2005, only Clements and Zoonomen not recognized yet the specific status. Burmeister (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So it looks like the most straightforward thing is to list it as a species with subspecies listed as a synonym Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I think that the taxobox was correct for a subspecies, but there was something wrong with the taxonomy. Snowman (talk) 23:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It looks ok to me...unless I am missing something....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
And we missed a massive expansion of Little Eagle - would've made a good DYK...oh well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FAC queries for Pelican

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all, Pelican is probably the most joint-worked on article we've worked up in a while, so I was thinking of making as a conomination with Maias, Jim, MeegsC, and Snowman (if you are all happy to be involved, or leave out if you prefer - either way is ok - Cwmhiraeth has already declined) - it is tricky as it is a genus article and I feel pretty good about it (the speciesbox looks great!) but could be tricky if we have to fetch alot of content or something.....can anyone see anything else they think we should improve......? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me to be good to go; it's always possible to do small tweaks and find odd additional nuggets of info. Reviewers' feedback may be useful. Maias (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok - up now Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Double-crested Cormorant

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See discussion on whether to include the alternate colloquial name of "nigger goose", currently disputed. go to Talk:Double-crested_Cormorant#Inclusion_of_colloquial_name_.22nigger_goose.22 Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (147)

Latest comment: 12 years ago33 comments5 people in discussion
Yes, adult female. (I think it might be more accurate to say in the file description that the American name for this species [not subspecies] is the Northern Harrier.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Wiki article says; "C. c. hudsonius (Linnaeus, 1766), the Northern Harrier, breeds in North America ...", which seems to suggest that the subspecies is called the Northern Harrier. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Image shown on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Jerry on this one. Most Americans that I know call this species "Northern Harrier", though a handful do call the Eurasian subspecies "Hen Harrier". While that may change if the IOC name gains traction, (i.e. with more people referring to the species as a whole as Hen Harrier) it's certainly not the case now. MeegsC | Talk 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Meegs. I'm going to change the article based on this: "The Northern Harrier (called the Hen Harrier in Europe and Asia) is a slender, white-rumped, medium-sized, and low-flying raptor of upland grasslands and fresh- and saltwater marshes. The only representative in North America of the cosmopolitan genus Circus, the Northern Harrier breeds throughout North America and Eurasia." (BNA on line.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The article explains the common names better now. I have corrected the image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Jerry, since the IOC name is now officially Hen Harrier, we should probably say "The Hen Harrier (called the Northern Harrier in North America) is a..." since we've agreed to use those names. MeegsC | Talk 11:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Never mind. I've actually read the article now!  :) MeegsC | Talk 11:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Selected for infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Confirm all five thrashers. The long-bills both seem atypical—the first has an unusually pale head and the second has an unstreaked belly—but they've got other typical characteristics. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. The two Long-billed thrasher photographs are the first photographs of the species on Commons, the earlier images of the species on Commons are paintings. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Could the atypical appearance be anything to do with hybrids where two species' ranges overlap? Snowman (talk) 10:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I was pleased to see that we finally had photos of Long-billed, so thanks.
Sorry to mislead you about the "atypical" appearance. The photos of Long-billed at BNA have rather light-colored heads and unstreaked central bellies, so I don't think there's anything atypical at all, contrary to the impression I got from Sibley. Incidentally, the breeding range doesn't overlap with the Brown Thrasher's. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
As Jerry said, nothing unusual about the birds in the photos and no chance of hybrids. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Fine. I have shown both images of the Long-billed Thrasher on the species page. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The text in the article would need to be amended to fully explain that they have "un-streaked central bellies" to reduce further confusion. I do not have access to the references in the article. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A different version of the image seems to have been uploaded before and identified as a Southern Brown Kiwi. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
According to this paper, it appears only North Island brown kiwis have been released on this island: http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/science-and-technical/drds208.pdf FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a lovely Red Kite. MeegsC (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Milvus milvus -near Brienzersee, Canton of Berne, Switzerland -flying-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 07:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

AOU changes

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

This year's AOU supplement is out! And it's got lots of generic splits. We seem to have split Thryothorus already. Since our articles on Carpodacus and Leucopternis expected splits, I added the ones from the AOU to the articles, but maybe we need new genus articles. What do people think? Then there are many more exciting changes, notably no more native American Caprimulgus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jerry for the heads up. I've split off the Leucopternis hawks as stated. The only thing I'd be careful of is to double check with other involved committees. For example, the North American committee has split the Gray Hawk/Gray-lined Hawk, but the SACC has not. Wait on the split until both committees have synched up? Should we stay conservative?. I'm leaving the current structure in place for now....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Somebody ought to finish up the Buteogallus thing by merging Harpyhaliaetus into it (already suggested at Buteogallus and recognized by the SACC and now the NACC). Maybe me.
Harpyhaliaetus done-although I didn't merge the genus article. I referenced it as a past genus for the 2 species. Not much of an article though, I'm OK with a merge....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The split in the Gray Hawk doesn't affect South America, as far as I can tell, so the SACC won't have anything to say on it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
It has a profound effect, as all the birds in South America are now Gray-lined Hawks per NACC. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Murrelets are done......Caprimulgus next.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I should have said the split of the Gray Hawk affects the SA list only through the English name, so the SACC doesn't have to vote on whether to recognize the split. Of course the English name is important for our article title(s). There is a proposal at the SACC to change the English name, with four votes in favor and none against so far. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Antrostomus nightjars moved from Caprimulgus. I thought I'd wait on the two Hydropsalis nightjars since the SACC still has them in Caprimulgus......Jerry, since the South American Buteo nitidus kept its scientific name, but also kept its english name, I believe they would still need to vote (which as you indictated they are doing) because technically by keeping the information listed as is the South American species refers to the bird pre-split.Pvmoutside (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Pronunication question

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

What is the correct pronunciation of "Batis"? SP-KP (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The ba part is pronounced like the start of "bat", and the tis rhymes with "sis". The emphasis is on the first syllable. MeegsC (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Meegs. SP-KP (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I've always heard "BATE-iss" (long A), but I'm far from an expert of African birds. Since it comes from the genus name, there would technically be no proper pronunciation, but that's not to say there isn't a most common version that's widely accepted. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, how about "Apalis"? SP-KP (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've heard two pronunciations for this one: First = A (pronounced as in "cat") + PAL + is (rhymes with "sis"), with the accent on the PAL. Second: "App" + "pal" + "is" (rhymes with "sis") with the accent on "APP". MeegsC (talk) 18:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

IUCN status checking and updates

Latest comment: 12 years ago30 comments4 people in discussion

"| status = LC | status_system = IUCN3.1" is often written in taxoboxes in one line. The example here does not have an in-line reference. I am thinking about checking and perhaps up-dating some taxoboxes with details as seen on the IUCN website. If the status or status_system need amending, I think that I would prefer to write it as two lines for uniformity of the taxobox. If the single line is factually correct, I would not make an edit to put these two fields on two lines unless it was part of a general tidy up of an article that included several changes. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

There are over 8000 bird species pages on the Wiki with titles and binomials that both correspond to a species on the IOC spreadsheet (ver 3.1). I guess that most of these would map to a species on the IUCN website making it possible to scrape relevant information from the IUCN website and put it in relevant species taxoboxes. Of course, the information added to the Wiki would need an in-line reference. I think a script could write the in-line reference including the url to the correct IUCN page. I would like to use an in-line reference in a standard format. I guess that many pages might be affected, so I would appreciate comments on the format of the in-line reference, what to include in it, and where to write it. Snowman (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've been going through our enormous list of articles with problems, updating many, and have been adding the following {{IUCN2008}} script for species with matching IUCN pages.
| status_ref = <ref name="iucn">{{IUCN2008|assessors=BirdLife International|year=2012|id=106006977|title=Uropsila leucogastra|downloaded=28 June 2012}}</ref>
This creates a standard output, as illustrated below:
^ BirdLife International (2012). Uropsila leucogastra. In: IUCN 2008. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Downloaded on 28 June 2012.
You'd need to be sure the article has a reference section (i.e. with a {{reflist}} provision) in order for the output to display correctly, and would need to leave off the |name= parameter, to avoid clashing with any ref already set up for the article. And obviously, you'd need to replace the |id= parameter with the appropriate species number! In a perfect world, there'd be a new template, called IUCN2012, as the 2008 template (last one available) now displays an incorrect date. MeegsC | Talk 17:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I have already got a list of 10064 IUCN urls to all 10064 species (binomials) with status reports (or a "not assessed"/"DD" remark) on the IUCN website; however, I have not written the script yet and I am not promising anything. I think that I might use this list rather than on-the-fly scanning of the IUCN website to write the "|id=" or url. The in-line ref also needs the binomial and this is easily extracted from the taxobox and can be used for writing and checking. Good thinking about the "reflist" template or equivalent. I note that the IUCN template is not ideal, partly because it renders the wrong date. Also, I do not like "downloaded on ...", because it should refer to accessing information to be consistent with other in-line references. In the example you have given, I think it would be better to write "| status_ref = <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/106006977/0 |publisher =[[IUCN]] |title=''Uropsila leucogastra'' |work= [[IUCN Red List of Threatened Species]] | year=2012 |accessdate=dd-mm-yyyy}}</ref>" (the last "/0" in the url might not be needed). What date for the literature should go in the ref? This cite template renders as:
1. ^ "Uropsila leucogastra". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN. 2012. Retrieved dd-mm-yyyy. Snowman (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Can we get it to render the scientific name in italics? And you're correct; you don't need that trailing "/0" in the url. MeegsC | Talk 22:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, the italics was not carried over with the copy and paste. I have corrected the italics above. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks great, Snowman! And if we could run something that populated the articles automatically, it would be hugely helpful. The links were removed several years ago when the IUCN changed its numbering scheme, and it's been a long old process reinstating them! MeegsC | Talk 23:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I also think it looks great! Any way to automate the process and take away manual work is fantastic (providing the automted tasks don't cause more problems than they're worth!)....Pvmoutside (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Populate articles with what? Snowman (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think IUCN have 10065 birds and Birdlife have 10064, and I think that 9300 of these are not affected by a controversial or recent taxonomy changes, but I might be wrong. I think that there will be over 800 to do manually or examined to see if the taxa on the Wiki corresponds with the taxa on IUCN. If there is equivalence or if the article can be updated using reliable evidence so that the taxa on the Wiki and IUCN are equivalent, then these "approved" articles can be processed by the script, I hope. I am not promising anything. It is likely that problems will be minimised by prior discussion and consensus. If anyone is updating UNCN statuses and links manually, then it might be best to focus on the list of over 800 controversial taxa. Snowman (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I have got a script with some basic functionality and I have been using it to do some edits. I will need to test it a lot more and watch out for teething problems. It is only editing articles where both the binomial names and common names are the same on the Wiki and on the IOC, so help in updating the lists of name incompatibility will be useful. Snowman (talk) 14:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Is this an automatic, or a semi-automatic script? Be sure to get any "bot" approved so that you don't get yourself blocked! MeegsC | Talk 14:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. It is semi-automatic at present and I check all the edits before they are saved. Snowman (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
What about this citation template?: {{IUCN|id=106008367/0 |title=''Passer domesticus'' |version=2012.1 |year=2012 |accessdate=4 July 2012}}. It expands to: "Passer domesticus". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. International Union for Conservation of Nature. 2012. Retrieved 4 July 2012. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Great! MeegsC | Talk 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed the template when my edit was amended on the House Sparrow page and this prompted me to look at other IUCN templates. Relevant templates are Template:IUCN2012.1 and Template:IUCN, which I am thinking about. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Groundwork: I need to scan IUCN website to scrape from it the assessors and the year of the latest assessment for each species for the other fields of the IUCN template. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Birdlife International are the assessors of the conservation status for all bird species? I have checked 10064 bird species webpages on IUCN and BLI are the assessor publishing a report in 2012 on all of these pages. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they are. MeegsC | Talk 23:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
During testing, I am using the accessdate of 5 July 2012, because that is when I extracted the information from the IUCN website. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
After testing the script on about 250 species pages at least three of these pages have been subsequently vandalised and the wrong status put in taxoboxes by IP editors. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Noi they are not. I believe if you look they will have actual people documented as the assessors. The few that I have worked on in the last two months--Ratites-- I changed the assessors to their names speednat (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you mean the reviewers and not the assessors. Look at this IUCN page as an example. As far as I understand the assessors are BirdLife International for all bird species. I do not know what the reviewers do, but they might be people working for IUCN, who review information about bird populations. If I have misunderstood this, please give examples to explain who you think the assessors are. Snowman (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Speednat, according to the IUCN website, the relevant citation should read (for Common Redpoll, for example) "BirdLife International 2012. Carduelis flammea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 15 July 2012." See the page Snowman linked to above for the actual example. MeegsC | Talk 23:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • For referencing I have been putting one of the IUCN templates in the taxobox on the "| status_ref =" line as indicated in the taxobox template page; however, a AnomieBOT has moved some of these with the edit summary "Moving refs out of templates"; here is an example. Should AnomieBOT be doing this? Snowman (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I did a test run of about 150 pages yesterday on articles where the IUCN status and IUCN reference both needed updating, so some of the main text sometimes needed updating manually. Other bird pages showing the correct IUCN status will not be a complicated as these. My script writes the IUCN reference and some regexes running in sequence do some other semi-automated tasks. To scale this up to editing 1000s of bird pages will require a script that runs fully automatically as a bot. So far I have got a script that is suitable for semi-automatic editing and I can now focus on getting the script ready to run as a bot. I am not promising anything. Snowman (talk) 10:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That's super Snowman. Even a semi-automatic script will be faster than anything we have available now! MeegsC | Talk 11:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think I can scrape the status criteria for each species from the IUCN website (example is "B1ab(i,ii,iii,v)" for Ortalis erythroptera), but there is not a field for it in the Taxobox template. Are the status criteria any use anywhere on the Wiki? Is there anything else on the IUCN website, apart from the conservation status, that might be useful on a Wiki species page? Snowman (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have scraped the status criteria for each species, and I am wondering if status criteria can be useful anywhere on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I have been testing the script and I have got a small list of improvements to make to the scrip. I have got a few ideas from feedback and edits that have followed my script assisted edits. There is a lot of heterogeneity, even in taxoboxes especially in the worked-up articles, that it is sometimes problematic for regexes to pick-up patterns. Another problem is that sometimes IUCN uses different binomial names to the Wiki and so it is difficult for the script to associate a Wiki species article to a species on IUCN. I am thinking about scanning the synonyms section of the taxobox, which might partially overcome this nomenclature problem. At the present time I think that I could make a bot from a cut-down version of the script that I use for semi-automated editing and apply it to 100s or 1000s of suitable Wiki bird articles selected by a prior scanning process. If successful, I might apply it to mammals articles. I am not promising anything. Snowman (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing Clements names

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

We went through an exercise a while back to complete our coverage of IOC names; I thought it would be good to do the same for the Clements list. Here are the Clements English names which are redlinks, and which do not seem to be just capitalisation/hyphenation or Btisih/American spelling differences. I'll post a follow-up with missing scientific names in due course. SP-KP (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Update - scientific names added too SP-KP (talk) 22:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ballman's Malimbe * Bangwa Warbler * Black-bellied Tanager * Canary Flycatcher * Dark-crowned White-eye * Dja River Swamp-warbler * Flores White-eye * Forbes's Rail * Gibber Chat * Golden-bellied Euphonia * Greyish Flycatcher * Grey-throated Bulbul * Great Kai White-eye * Green-throated Euphonia * Hawaii Creeper * Immaculate Cupwing * Indian Thick-knee * Indian Tit * Kandavu Honeyeater * Kulambangra Leaf-warbler * Lake Lufira Masked-weaver * Large-tailed Dove * Little Flycatcher * Little Kai White-eye * Magellan Cormorant * Margelanic Whitethroat * Marquesas Imperial-pigeon * Masatierra Petrel * Mayr's Rail * Mountain Meliphaga * Mourning Collared-dove * New Caledonia Goshawk * Newton's Parrot * Nilgiri Shortwing * Niuafoou Scrubfowl * Northern Logrunner * Papuan Drongo * Phelps's Brush-finch * Philippine Magpie-robin * Principe Thrush * Pygmy Cupwing * Red-breasted Dotterel * Rimitara Reed-warbler * Roberts's Prinia * Ruaha Chat * Rufous Shrike-thrush * Sakhalin Warbler * Scale-breasted Woodpecker * Scaly-breasted Cupwing * Seram Myzomela * Seram Oriole * Seychelles Parrot * Spot-breasted Meliphaga * Spotted Rosefinch * Sri Lanka Bay-owl * Sunda Honeyeater * Taiwan Cupwing * Tanzania Seedeater Yellow-bellied Fairy-fantail

Thinornis cucullatus * Cyanoramphus saissetti * Apus aequatorialis * Apus salimali * Apus cooki * Ceyx cyanopectus * Ceyx argentatus * Megaceryle maximus * Ceratogymna subcylindrica * Ceratogymna cylindrica * Megalaima annamensis * Megalaima faber * Certhiasomus stictolaemus * Drymotoxeres pucheranii * Amblyornis newtoniana * Pygochelidon melanoleuca * Orochelidon flavipes * Orochelidon murina * Orochelidon andecola * Atticora pileata * Atticora tibialis * Pardaliparus elegans * Pardaliparus amabilis * Melaniparus guineensis * Melaniparus niger * Melaniparus albiventris * Melaniparus leuconotus * Melaniparus rufiventris * Melaniparus funereus * Melaniparus fringillinus * Melaniparus fasciiventer * Melaniparus thruppi * Melaniparus griseiventris * Melaniparus cinerascens * Melaniparus afer * Macholophus holsti * Sittiparus semilarvatus * Pheugopedius spadix * Pheugopedius fasciatoventris * Pheugopedius euophrys * Pheugopedius eisenmanni * Pheugopedius genibarbis * Pheugopedius coraya * Pheugopedius maculipectus * Pheugopedius sclateri * Pheugopedius felix * Pheugopedius atrogularis * Arizelocichla montanus * Arizelocichla tephrolaemus * Pycnonotus cinereifrons * Hypsipetes rufigularis * Bradypterus timoriensis * Dromaeocercus seebohmi * Prinia substriata * Sylvia margelanica * Zosterops feae * Zosterops santaecrucis * Schoeniparus brunnea * Muscicapa siamensis * Copsychus fulicatus * Copsychus pyrropygus * Copsychus mindanensis * Cyornis brunneatus * Cyornis nicobaricus * Cyornis umbratilis * Cyornis olivaceus * Cyornis oscillans * Cyornis ruficauda * Cyornis colonus * Eumyias additus * Vauriella gularis * Vauriella insignis * Vauriella albigularis * Vauriella goodfellowi * Brachypteryx albiventris * Larvivora sibilans * Larvivora ruficeps * Larvivora akahige * Larvivora komadori * Larvivora brunnea * Phoenicurus fuliginosus * Phoenicurus bicolor * Phoenicurus leucocephalus * Monticola erythronota * Saxicola bifasciatus * Myrmecocichla collaris * Turdus roehli * Turdus xanthorhynchus * Temenuchus pagodarum * Spreo unicolor * Dicaeum ignipectum * Nectarinia bocagei * Macronyx fuelleborni * Melozone albicollis * Carpodacus rhodopeplus * Carpodacus severtzowi * Chloris spinoides * Chloris monguilloti * Chloris ambigua * Acanthis hornemanni * Spinus spinescens * Spinus yarrellii * Spinus crassirostris * Spinus magellanicus * Spinus siemiradzkii * Spinus olivaceus * Spinus atratus * Spinus uropygialis * Spinus barbatus * Alario leucolaemus * Sporaeginthus formosus * Spermestes cucullatus

Lastly, I've saved the remaining (i.e. "easy to fix") missing names at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Clements names redirects. Sorting these out seems like an easy task for a bot, or AWB - any volunteers? SP-KP (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

All the "easy to fix" redirects are made. Some are double redirects and I presume that a bot will fix them in a day or two. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Great work, thanks. SP-KP (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages VIII

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The White-eyes look pretty good. Only two locked pages:

........Pvmoutside (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame - I much prefer "silvereye" (which runs off the tongue so much more easily) than "whiteye" for Zosterops species. All species in oz were called silvereyes before....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (148)

Latest comment: 12 years ago39 comments7 people in discussion
Northern Hawk-Owl. MeegsC (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Surnia ulula -Blackbrook Zoo, Staffordshire, England-8a.jpg —innotata 17:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
This species is not one of the hawk-owls (Ninox), so it should not be hyphenated. Does IOC really hyphenate something AOU does not?!?! Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Surnia ulula=IOC=Wiki=Northern Hawk-Owl. Snowman (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
It's a Cattle Egret, so was correctly identified before. MeegsC (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The question is whether it's an Eastern or Western Cattle Egret, as Commons follows the IOC split. —innotata 19:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I expect that they are wild birds that have found a safe place to nest at the zoo, so does the location help with the identification. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If they are wild birds they would be the western species. Maias (talk) 01:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The yellow eye means it's not a juv. The unbarred wingtips, gray hood, and lack of white rump make it a Spotted Harrier. The streaked (rather than spotted) breast means it's a subadult. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Circus assimilis -Karratha, Pilbara, Western Australia, Australia-8.jpg on Commons. Selected for species page on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Selected for species page on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 07:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
They are Greater Blue-eared Starlings (Lamprotornis chalybaeus). Dger (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Lamprotornis chalybaeus -Kruger National Park, South Africa -adult and juvenile-8.jpg on Commons and shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Adult female. Maias (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Update: image description on Commons enhanced. Shown in infobox on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 08:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Not a pheasant. A Black-fronted Piping-Guan. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Pipile jacutinga -captive-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Dusky Thrush. I'm not aware of any similar-looking species, though. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The Dusky Thrush article says that it was once thought to be conspecific with Naumann's Thrush. Snowman (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Many still consider them conspecific, in fact. But they look very dissimilar. Here is a Naumann's Thrush for comparison: http://www.birdskorea.org/Images/images2008/02/Naumanns-Thrush_RN.jpg Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Selected as the infobox image on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Huh? Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
IUCN consider these two taxa conspecific; see IUCN page. What should be done with the IUCN ref and IUCN status on the Dusky Thrush page? Snowman (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Ptilinopus roseicapilla? --Leyo 09:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Mariana Fruit Dove at File:Ptilinopus roseicapilla -San Diego Zoo, California, USA-8a.jpg Snowman (talk) 09:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Grosbeak Starling A very cool bird! Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Scissirostrum dubium -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -two-8a (1).jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

"Its natural habitats are subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests, subtropical or tropical moist montane forests, and plantations . It is threatened by habitat loss."

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

A large number of species articles were created automatically by a User:Polbot in 2007. The species information was sourced from the IUCN red list of threatened species published in 2006. It turns out that around ~7000 Wikipedia articles have the phrase: "Its natural habitat is subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests. It is threatened by habitat loss.". Quite a few articles, like Blue Paradise Flycatcher (fixed) appear to have this statement incorrectly. Presumably, there was either an error with the bot, or errors on some pages on the IUCN website. This doesn't just affect bird articles, obviously, but it needs to be fixed, probably by bot. Basically I think that if the article was created by Polbot and that text was in the initial file revision, then the line of text should be removed. Any errors should pop up on watchlists. Can anyone help here? Snowman? JJ Harrison (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This should be approached with some care, as the list JJ has pointed to isn't as straightforward as the above suggests. Some species say "tropical moist lowland forest", some say "tropical moist highland forest", some say "tropical moist shrubland and forest"... I'm not convinced this was as error. MeegsC (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
If you put quotation marks around the above sentence (i.e. to get only exact matches), the number comes down considerably. The exact matches number 1,320. See here. And that's all species, not just birds. MeegsC (talk) 12:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Blue Paradise Flycatcher has been recently amended and it now says "It is uncommon in the under-story of lowland forests." and is not sourced from IUCN. Perhaps it would be useful if new text was rephrased to clearly say where is is usually found and not where it is uncommon. IUCN giving an easily understandable positive statement of where it is found currently says; "... is confined to primary and secondary forest, mostly in the lower-lying areas." The original article text said; "Its natural habitat is subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests" As far as I can see the main difference between the original text of the article and the current information in IUCN is the presence or absence of the word "moist" and I would guess that the original text was basically correct. What is a moist forest? Are all forests moist? Do dry forests exist? Are there any other forests apart from moist forests in the Philippines? The Wiki article on the Philippines says; "Most of the mountainous islands are covered in tropical rainforest", which indicates that the forests there are rather wet. I note that "It is threatened by habitual loss" has been deleted. I think that this may have needed modification rather than deleting, since the IUCN gives a different emphasis saying "... is therefore likely to be declining moderately rapidly as a result of habitat loss and degradation". I think that some articles have the old IUCN references included as archived in-line citations, so it might be interesting to check the original source from these. In-the-round, I can see that improvements to the Blue Paradise Flycatcher may be needed, but I am wondering what priority to put it. Does anyone have more evidence or more examples that might help to evaluate the suggested problem that might affect thousands of articles? Have I missed something? Snowman (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have amended the article, with one script-assisted edit and one manual edit, but I have only used the IUCN as a source and I am sure that the stub can be improved a lot more. I have kept "under-story" in, but I can only guess what it is? Is "under-story" jargon? Snowman (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Try understory. MeegsC (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I should have been a bit more clear. The problem with the flycatcher phrase, apparently in other Phillipine bird articles too, is the text "subtropical". I don't think that subtropical forests occur in the Phillipines. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
The Philippines includes a lot of islands that span quite a large range of latitude; see File:Philippines (orthographic projection).svg. I understand that tropical and sup-tropical zones are largely defined by a latitude range, but this may not be the same for climates typically found in these zones. I read a bit about subtropical and tropical climates in Wiki articles. The article on subtropics says that subtropical climate can occur "within the tropics themselves" and also includes the Philippines in the list of zones with subtropical areas. Unfortunately, this part of the "subtropics" article is unreferenced. Snowman (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Tropical vs. subtropical, in terms of habitat designation, has nothing to do with latitude and everything to do with temperature. On the equator (and in the broader area we think of as "the tropics"), there are subtropical, temperate, and alpine areas because of elevation. Subtropical forests not only exist in the Philippines, they are widespread in mountainous areas. Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I've been fooled by a rather unfortunate choice of definitions! JJ Harrison (talk) 09:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Shortwing (Asian thrushes) / Brachypteryx

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Once upon a time, I believe all the "shortwings" were in the genus Brachypteryx, but that's not the case any more. We currently have one page called Shortwing (Asian thrushes) - not just Shortwing because that's a disambig page (although possibly an unnecessary one - I don't know enough about falconry to comment), and Brachypterx redirects to it, although the page has a taxobox which implies it's only about Brachypteyx (to be fair, I just added a mention of two of the other three non-Brachypteryx to it, but one was already there). What's the best solution here? I'm inclined to make these two separate pages. Also any comments on the name of Shortwing (Asian thrushes)? Plural is surely against MOS, and would "Asian bird" be a better name, to avoid getting into the complexities of the definition of the word Thrush? SP-KP (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Swedish (?) baby bird identification

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
 

Copied from WP:RD/S

Can someone identify these birds? The caption is "min egen bild" ("my own photo") with a marker identifying it as Swedish; the user has no other uploads, and the filename is not particularly helpful. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Birds are not really my thing, but I get whip-poor-will vibes looking at them, or perhaps some other brand of nightjar. Looie496 (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The WP:BIRDS guys might be the ones to ask about this. They have regular 'birds for identification' discussions on their talk page. I don't think that any of them regularly contribute to the refdesks, but I'm sure that they'd be able to come up with a concrete answer, or at least narrow it down to a genus, if it happens to be one where the young of many species look very similar... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Look like baby European Robins. Definitely not nightjars of any sort (though I can see why you'd get those "vibes"), as those species don't build nests; they lay their eggs directly on the ground. MeegsC (talk) 03:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Now moved to File:Baby European robins in a nest.jpg and categorised. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

D. Ian M. Wallace

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

D. Ian M. Wallace has been nominated for deletion. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Ian M. Wallace. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

FAC/GAN news

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Missing Birdlife International names

Latest comment: 12 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Birdlife International is the only other world checklist that I'm aware of which is available online (I don't think Howard and Moore is - does anyone know otherwise?). Here are the missing English names, and the scientific ones will follow at some point. SP-KP (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Abd Al Kuri Sparrow * Abyssinian Citril * African Olive Ibis * African River-martin * Asian Black Bulbul * Asian Crested Ibis * Asian Crimson-winged Finch * Asian Dollarbird * Asian Green Broadbill * Australian Sacred Ibis * Black-backed Bush-finch * Black-headed Penduline-tit * Black-throated Seedeater * Blue Saw-wing * Bornean Forktail * Bougainville Bush-warbler * Bracken Warbler * Cambodian White-tailed Robin * Cameroon Mountain Saw-wing * Caspian Reed-warbler * Cassin's Grey Flycatcher * Chatham Bellbird * Common Grasshopper-warbler * Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon * Dusky Crag-martin * Eastern Paradise-whydah * Ethiopian Bush-crow * Ethiopian Grosbeak-canary * Eurasian Chaffinch * Eurasian Crag-martin * Eurasian Scaly Thrush * Everett's Scops-owl * Fluting Wren * Fork-tailed Drongo-cuckoo * Giant Eagle-owl * Greater Striped-swallow * Grey Crowned-crane * Grey-faced Citril * Grey-green Bush-shrike * Grey-rumped Swiftlet * Hawkins's Rail * Iberian Green Woodpecker * Inaccessible Bunting * Kenya Rufous-sparrow * Kordofan Rufous-sparrow * Large Pied Cormorant * Leeward Islands Reed-warbler * Lesser Striped-swallow * Liben Lark * Madeira Laurel Pigeon * Malaysian Night-heron * Mangrove Reed-warbler * Mauritius Duck * Mauritius Night-heron * Mauritius Shelduck * Moheli Warbler * Moluccan Drongo-cuckoo * Mo'orea Reed-warbler * Negros Scops-owl * New Guinea Cuckooshrike * New Zealand King Shag * Northern Brown Kiwi * Northern Olive Thrush * Ochre-winged Honeyeater * Olive-bellied Double-collared Sunbird * Pacific Warbler * Palau Scops-owl * Pere Bonvalot's Tit * Perija Brush-finch * Philippine Honey-buzzard * Philippine Woodcock * Principe Thrush-babbler * Reunion Night-heron * Ringneck Parrot * Rodrigues Blue-pigeon * Rodrigues Night-heron * Russet Hawk-owl * Ruwenzori Ground-thrush * Sahelian Woodpecker * Sakhalin Grasshopper-warbler * Shear-tailed Grey-tyrant * Shelley's Rufous-sparrow * Solomons Hawk-owl * Southern Rufous-sparrow * Southern Saw-whet Owl * Sowerby's Barbet * Spotted Treecreeper * Tabon Megapode * Tibetan Ground-tit * Tschudi's Tyrannulet * West Himalayan Bush-warbler * Western Spot-billed Duck * White-cheeked Oliveback * Xingu Scale-backed Antbird * Yellow-browed Citril * Yellow-eyed Cuckooshrike * Yellow-legged Gallinule * Zambian Barbet

I think it depends on the spelling in many cases. IOC has sometimes another spelling than BLI. --Melly42 (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That's right, in many cases, all that's needed is a redirect. SP-KP (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

And here the scientific names. Note that some of these are for taxa which Birdlife does not recognise as full species. SP-KP (talk) 17:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

not only that, some of them are invalid (e.g. Rhea nana) --Melly42 (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
can you explain what you mean - do you mean invalid in the technical (ICZN) sense? SP-KP (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Rhea nana is only known by one egg which turned out be an egg of Pterocnemia (Rhea) pennata. In the ICZN sense it means that the holotype lacks diagnostic characters --Melly42 (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's that one resolved, then - it's a synonyn of Rhea pennata and so just needs to be a redirect. Tell me if you disagree. SP-KP (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree but it should be mentioned in the Darwin's nandu article --Melly42 (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good point, it should. Would you mind adding a mention - you clearly know more about this nomenclatural issue than I do. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Rodrigues Blue-pigeon is now Alectroenas sp. (according to Hume 2011 (Hume, J. P. (2011) Systematics, morphology, and ecology of pigeons and doves (Aves: Columbidae) of the Mascarene Islands, with three new species. Zootaxa 3124: 1-62.) / Hume/Walters 2012) Extinct Birds. Formerly this was the name for Alectroenas rodericana, which is now called Rodrigues Grey Pigeon. Both species are different. --Melly42 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
So this one (and the other newly described species) needs a new (stub) article, if I have understood you correctly? SP-KP (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There is no formal scientific description of the Rodrigues Blue-pigeon (its existence based only on a brief mentioning in an account by Willem Bentekoe, 1619). Maybe we should wait until it has a full scientific name --Melly42 (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Uh-oh, Bontekoe was responsible for the White Dodo myth by mentioning "Dodos" on Réunion as well, so I'd certainly wait! FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems like the Rodrigues Blue Pigeon is known from subfossil material after all, and has received the name Alectroenas payandeei (Hume 2011). It has no connection to "Alectroenas" rodericana, and there are no known contemporary descriptions. Bontekoe (and Feuilley) described the Réunion Blue Pigeon, Alectroenas sp., which is not known from any physical remains. FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Acrocephalus avicenniae * Acrocephalus fuscus * Aimophila petenica * Alcippe annamensis * Alectoris whitakeri * Amazilia distans * Ammodramus beldingi * Anser middendorfi * Aquila africanus * Asthenes usheri * Atlapetes paynteri * Atlapetes torquatus * Batrachostomus pygmaeus * Bradypterus kashmirensis * Branta hrota * Calidris cooperi * Calonectris borealis * Caprimulgus otiosus * Catamenia oreophila * Certhilauda damarensis * Cisticola taciturnus * Colinus ridgwayi * Collocalia cyanoptila * Collocalia marginata * Collocalia nitens * Crypturellus idoneus * Cypseloides major * Cyrtonyx sallei * Diomedea gibsoni * Drymophila subochracea * Enicurus borneensis * Eos goodfellowi * Eremopsaltria mongolicus * Erithacus superbus * Fluvicola atripennis * Gymnocrex intactus * Hirundo badia * Knipolegus cabanisi * Larus atlantis * Larus graellsii * Larus taimyrensis * Loriculus bonapartei * Loriculus salvadorii * Lorius amabilis * Lorius tibialis * Megapodius stairi * Melozone fuscus * Microeca tormenti * Milvus fasciicauda * Monarcha malaitae * Monticola semirufus * Motacilla alboides * Motacilla baicalensis * Motacilla cinereocapilla * Motacilla feldegg * Motacilla flavissima * Motacilla iberiae * Motacilla leucocephala * Motacilla leucopsis * Motacilla lutea * Motacilla ocularis * Motacilla personata * Motacilla simillima * Motacilla subpersonata * Motacilla taivana * Motacilla thunbergi * Motacilla werae * Motacilla yarrellii * Myiodynastes solitarius * Myiomela cambodiana * Myrmeciza stictothorax * Myrmornis stictoptera * Necropsar legauti * Nectarinia fuelleborni * Nectarinia graueri * Nectarinia hofmanni * Nectarinia usambarica * Ninox rotiensis * Nisaetus limnaeetus * Ochetorhynchus melanura * Oenanthe melanoleuca * Otus everetti * Otus nigrorum * Otus stresemanni * Pachycephala tenebrosa * Parus degener * Parus hypermelaenus * Parus ombriosus * Parus palmensis * Parus teneriffae * Parus ultramarinus * Parus weigoldicus * Passer yatii * Passer zarudnyi * Phaethornis porcullae * Phlegopsis paraensis * Phyllomyias leucogonys * Phylloscopus benguetensis * Picumnus salvini * Platysteira hormophora * Ploceus victoriae * Porphyrio indicus * Porphyrio melanotus * Porphyrio poliocephalus * Porphyrio pulverulentus * Pterodroma deserta * Ptilinopus epia * Ptilinopus mangoliensis * Pyroderus granadensis * Pyrrhura chapmani * Pyrrhura hypoxantha * Rallus obsoletus * Rallus tenuirostris * Rhea nana * Sarcoramphus sacer * Scytalopus opaca * Serpophaga araguayae * Stactolaema sowerbyi * Synallaxis elegantior * Synallaxis superciliosa * Tachybaptus tricolor * Tachyphonus nattereri * Thalassarche platei * Thamnophilus pernambucensis * Threnetes loehkeni * Thryothorus albinucha * Thryothorus colombianus * Thryothorus paucimaculatus * Troglodytes beani * Troglodytes martinicensis * Turdinus marmorata * Turnix novaecaledoniae * Xiphocolaptes franciscanus * Xiphocolaptes orenocensis * Zoothera ruwenzorii * Zosterops saypani

Some of these binomial names are on BLI as NR or taxa that are not recognised by BLI. Do these need a redirect? Snowman (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd argue that some should be, but I think we should decide this on a case-by-case basis. For example Branta hrota is recognised as a species by one national taxonomic committee and two journals, so should be included as a redirect. SP-KP (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Platyrinchus

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This genus might have its own family Platyrinchidae (originally created by Bonaparte in 1854) soon which means that it is proposed to split it from the family Tyrannidae. The family will also include the genera Neopipo and Calyptura. Source: http://192.38.112.111/pdf-reprints/Ohlson_Ibis_2012.pdf / http://www.nrm.se/en/menu/researchandcollections/departments/vertebratezoology/birds/publicationsbirds/abstracts.2947.html#Calyptura -- Melly42 (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Shortwing (Asian thrushes) / Brachypteryx

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Once upon a time, I believe all the "shortwings" were in the genus Brachypteryx, but that's not the case any more. We currently have one page called Shortwing (Asian thrushes) - not just Shortwing because that's a disambig page (although possibly an unnecessary one - I don't know enough about falconry to comment), and Brachypterx redirects to it, although the page has a taxobox which implies it's only about Brachypteyx (to be fair, I just added a mention of two of the other three non-Brachypteryx to it, but one was already there). What's the best solution here? I'm inclined to make these two separate pages. Also any comments on the name of Shortwing (Asian thrushes)? Plural is surely against MOS, and would "Asian bird" be a better name, to avoid getting into the complexities of the definition of the word Thrush? SP-KP (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving out of archive to see if anyone responds. SP-KP (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Shortwing (passerine)? Maias (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
An alternative would be to dump the dab - make "Shortwing" (or "Shortwing (bird)") the Shortwing page and add a hatnote saying "For short-winged hawks see Accipiter". Maias (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, there shouldn't be DAB pages with only two entries, particularly when (as in this case), there is a clear primary usage. Shortwing should be the entry for the Brachypteryx, and there should be a hatnote to Accipiter. However, there are potentially more things that could be added to the DAB page, including a group of small airplanes regularly known as "short-wings", a type of stone fly from the western US and a style of men's dress shoe. (Google "shortwing" or "short wing" for these and more.) MeegsC (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Mauritius Blue Pigeon mystery

Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
 
Image claimed to show a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, 18th century

If anyone knows anything about the identity of an 18th century illustration I brought up here[4], please chime in! My question copied from there:

The picture here is often claimed to depict a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, but reproductions of it I have seen in books have all been very small and in black and white (Fuller 2001, Cheke & Hume 2008). This full version shows some differences from images based on specimens, and does actually look like a Seychelles Blue Pigeon instead (red forehead, blue feet and tail). Anyone know what's up? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming that the illustration is a good likeness, the mystery illustration and the photograph of a Seychelles Blue Pigeon look somewhat different to me mainly in the colours on the head. Also, one had a grey bill and the other has a yellow bill. It is interesting that the mystery illustration looks completely different to other illustrations of Mauritius Blue Pigeons and I wonder why this might be. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The source in question is not displaying it any longer as a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, and I think it is save to conclude based on the plumage differences that it is indeed a Seychelles Blue Pigeon, especially considering that it was based on a captive specimen in Europe. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
What source in question do you mean? The article? Hume's book "Extinct Birds" from 2012 also includes a black and white drawing based on the old picture. Makes me wonder whether these authors have ever seen that colour version... FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to a PDF from Melly, it seems it can be sorted out. Hume 2011 explains the difference by the surviving skins being females, whereas that one image depicts a male (which was described as "infinitely more handsome" than the female by a contemporary writer). I buy it since he also points out that the illustration doesn't show "facial crenulations" (brain-like lump at the base of the beak), which are present on the Seychelles Blue Pigeon. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I wondered if sexual dimorphism in the Mauritius Blue Pigeon would explain the difference in the images, but the Wiki does not say anything about sexual dimorphism in the related Seychelles Blue Pigeon. Is this an omission? Snowman (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The Huma article states both sexes of the Seychelles species have red foreheads. So I'd find the explanation for the old painting being a male to be a bit of a stretch (as all surviving specimens lack this feature), if it wasn't for the fact that it does seem to lack the "facial crenulations". FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I wonder what juveniles and sub-adults looked like. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Leguatia gigantea?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 
Frohawk's restoration (depicted as a giant rail) from Rothschild, 1907

"Leguat's Giant". Does this name warrant an article? Most modern authors assume it was based on a flamingo, but this cannot be confirmed. Birdlife.org mentions it could be a stork, based on a bone described in 1987.[5] Here is Leguat's figure of the bird[6], which has since been found to be based on a drawing of a yet unidentified Asian bird.[7] FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Cheke & Hume (2008) and Hume & Walters (2012) it was almost certainly a confusion with a flamingo. So taxon is invalid or at least controversial. They did also name only Leguat's account (1708) as source. And according to the bone, i think it is just an undescribed bird not referring to Leguat's bird --Melly42 (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkMonk (talk • contribs)

Dummy sign for archival Shyamal (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC) Also see User Melly42's edit, which separated User FunkMonk's signature from text. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Rodrigues Pigeon

Latest comment: 12 years ago22 comments3 people in discussion

On another note, Rodrigues Turtle-dove (?Nesoenas rodericana) seems to need an article, I redirected in error. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see that might actually be Rodrigues Grey Pigeon now? Or are they different? FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Hume (2011) we have:
  1. Dubois’s Pink Pigeon Nesoenas duboisi
  2. Madagascar Turtle Dove Nesoenas picturata
  3. Dufresne’s Pigeon Columba dufresnei (=Nesoenas madagascariensis)
  4. Réunion Turtle Dove Nesoenas aff. picturata
  5. Mauritian Turtle Dove Nesoenas cicur sp. nov
  6. Rodrigues Turtle Dove Nesoenas rodericana (formerly Alectroenas rodericana and Columba rodericana)
  7. Mauritian Wood Pigeon Columba thiriouxi sp.nov.
  8. Réunion Wood Pigeon. Indeterminate genus and species.
  9. Mauritian Blue Pigeon; Dutch Pigeon; Pigeon Hollandais Alectroenas nitidissima (there is by the way a nice b/w illustration by Sonnerat in Hume's paper and a photo of a specimen from the MNHN in Paris)
  10. Rodrigues Blue Pigeon Alectroenas payandeei sp. nov.
  11. Réunion Blue Pigeon Alectroenas sp.

source: Julian Pender Hume (2011): Systematics, morphology, and ecology of pigeons and doves (Aves: Columbidae) of the Mascarene Islands, with three new species In: Zootaxa 3124: 1–62 (2011) --Melly42 (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see, our article was outdated and still went with the Alectroenas classification. I've fixed it now. I've got to get my hands on that paper! FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Rodrigues Grey Pigeon should be moved to Rodrigues Pigeon (IOC name synch) --Melly42 (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. And thanks again for the paper! FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The use of the name Alectroenas rodericana is invalid (Hume (2011), Hume & Walters (2012), IOC (2012)) as it is has been revealed that this pigeon belongs to the genus Nesoenas (Hume (2011). Hume (2011) and Hume & Walters (2012) named this species Rodrigues Turtle Dove but the IOC (2012) reduced its common name to Rodrigues Pigeon. According to the name Rodrigues Grey Pigeon, it seems that this name was also used for the Rodrigues Pigeon. As I have pointed out above the Rodrigues Blue Pigeon is no more Nesoenas (formerly Alectroenas) rodericana, but an undescribed Alectroenas sp. only known from Bontekoes account. If the name Alectroenas rodericana is still in use at the IUCN (respectively BLI) they should change it to Nesoenas rodericana (to correspond with the latest taxonomic work) --Melly42 (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Has the paper been reviewed? Some projects would not update articles based on one primary source. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hume 2011? It says "Accepted by S. Olson: 11 Oct. 2011; published: 08 Dec. 2011". FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I have not got the paper, so please explain a bit more. Are you referring to the normal pre-publication stages to the publication of any scientific paper? Snowman (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Well it was published by Zootaxa, so I guess it is published and peer-reviwed. I can send you the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I presume that for Wiki purposes it is a primary source. A peer-review for the publication process would not make it a secondary article for Wiki purposes. Has anyone else (apart for the Wiki) in the world changed a taxonomy list based on this newish paper? Snowman (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Are there any policies that prevent the use of such sources? Most of our articles about newly described species are only based on the papers that originally described them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Lots of primary sources have been used to write bird articles. Bird articles are written based on the best evidence available. A primary article would not be used in a medical article in case the new article is out-on-a-limb. In the case of an bird article that suggests a change in bird taxonomy, would it be better to wait to see how new taxonomy data is received or change the Wiki taxonomy before the new taxonomy information is used by taxonomy authorities and even before the new scientific paper is reviewed? I think sometimes the implications of new papers are discussed in bird articles. Snowman (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
In the case of the Blue Pigeon, it is not a taxonomic revision, but a new species, which has never been named or referred to any existing genus before. The grey pigeon is another case of course, but it does not seem to be controversial, and does not affect the article in anything other than Alectroenas (which was considered outdated in any case) being replaced with Nesoenas. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
See IUCN. Alectroenas rodericana has common names Rodrigues Blue-pigeon or Rodrigues Pigeon. This is the 2012 IUCN version dated at a time after the 2011 paper was published. Sources are conflicting here. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, now I see what the problem is. When rodericanus was moved to Alectroenas at some point, someone must have coined the name "Rodrigues Blue Pigeon", as well, it was thought to be a Blue Pigeon from Rodrigues. Therefore we seem to have two separate birds which have been referred to by that common name at some point. So perhaps we should see what the literature says. There must be other such recent reviews than Hume's. What is their source for that common name? FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, another problem is that the IUCN has never rewritten the article for Alectroenas rodericana since 2000 (see Stattersfield & Capper: Threatened Birds of the World, 2000). The change from Alectroenas to Nesoenas was in 2008 (see Cheke & Hume Lost Land of the Dodo). So we still have to wait until the IUCN published a real update. --Melly42 (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The 2008 book only lists it as ?Nesoenas, the "full" move was first done in the 2011 paper. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Copied from another section: Seems like the Rodrigues Blue Pigeon is valid and known from subfossil material after all, and has received the name Alectroenas payandeei (Hume 2011). It has no connection to "Alectroenas" rodericana (a synonym of Nesoenas rodericana), and there are no known contemporary descriptions. Bontekoe (and Feuilley) described the Réunion Blue Pigeon instead, Alectroenas sp., which is not known from any physical remains. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I have mistaken the Réunion Blue Pigeon with the Rodrigues Blue Pigeon --Melly42 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypothecial extinct species

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Is there a reason why this article is reduced to parrots? --Melly42 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Is is an incomplete article. I have just added an {{incomplete}} tag. Anyone is welcome to add to the article. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Parrots are overrepresented in that category due to Rothchild's naming-frenzy in Extinct Birds (Rothschild book)... But there is a whole chapter about hypothetical birds in the 2012 Extinct Birds, there are many Birds of Paradise and Hummingbirds as well (many are thought to be one-off hybrids instead of actual extinct species). FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
If this list should only include hypothetical extinct birds it should be renamed into List of hypothetical extinct birds. Additional it should draw the line between hypothetical extinct taxa on the one side and doubtful and invalid extinct taxa on the other side. Example: Anodorhynchus purpurascens is not hypothecal but invalid because the painting based actually on the Hyacinth macaw. --Melly42 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The 1907 painting was only meant as a reconstruction, so has no relevance to its validity, the species was based on an old description. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages IX

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Found these below. Two are my typos......

..................................................Thanks!..Pvmoutside (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If this is for page moves, I'd like to add Broad-billed Moa → Coastal Moa. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that the references that you have found (according to your edit summary here) should be added to the page. The recent change in the first line of the text to "Coastal Moa" is not readily verifiable. I think that its common names should be better verified and explained in the text to justify the requested page move. This extinct species is not on IOC nor IUCN. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I did a search on Google scholar, all recent papers (that used common names) referred to it by that name. Could of course need a source, though our Moa articles are generally in a very bad shape. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Unknown tyrant flycatcher in the Pantanal

Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

File:Tyrannidae Pantanal.jpg moved to File:Myiozetetes cayanensis Pantanal.jpg

Can anyone identify this tyrant flycatcher I photographed in the Pantanal? It might be one of the following species:

I hope it's fine to ask such questions here. --Leyo 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The white throat eliminates Yellow-throated Flycatcher (Conopias parvus) and Three-striped Flycatcher (Conopias trivirgatus), both of which have yellow throats. The stubby bill eliminates Lesser Kiskadee (Philohydor lictor), which has quite a long, slender bill. And the pale fringes on the wing coverts — and lack of significant rufous edging on the primaries — eliminate Rusty-margined Flycatcher (Myiozetetes cayanensis). So by process of elimination, it looks like a Social Flycatcher (Myiozetetes similis), which is quite common on the Pantanal. MeegsC (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! You also ruled out other tyrant flycatcher species not mentioned above, didn't you? --Leyo 10:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC) PS. If this page is the right place for such questions, I might post a few other of my bird photos that I could not identify.
I couldn't think of any other likely confusion species. But then I haven't spent a lot of time in Brazil! I'll be seeing some of the world's top Brazil specialists in two days, and I'll ask them to take a look. Go ahead and post any of the others you're wondering about, and I'll have them check those too. MeegsC (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. I am not doubting the correctness of your identification. I was just wondering how strongly you have focused on or trusted in the above selection. --Leyo 14:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Bret Whitney, one of the specialists I mentioned, said it's a Rufous-margined Flycatcher. Sorry about that!  :/ MeegsC (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for asking him. Is that Myiozetetes cayanensis, where it says “Rusty-margined Flycatcher”? --Leyo 00:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops! Sorry, that was my mistype. I'm not doing too well on this one! LOL. MeegsC (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. --Leyo 07:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Stelgidopteryx ruficollis?

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is my lay identification of these two swallows in the Pantanal correct? --Leyo 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The first two are Gray-breasted Martins. The last is a Southern Rough-winged Swallow. All per Bret Whitney again! MeegsC (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you and him. At least one was correct. :-) --Leyo 00:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Why have the corrected file names not changed to red links? Is there a problem with Commons? It looks like the incorrect file names have been deleted in the file log on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Green Magpie

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

When people move a page please do remember the taxonomy (= modify text to fit the new taxonomy; new page for Bornean GM; Short-tailed GM to disambiguation since that name covers Javan+Bornean GM's and neither is the primary topic→WP:2DAB). 62.107.239.1 (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

"Five times own weight" vandal

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nwood63137 contributions has been adding nonsense to bird of prey articles (5x own weight, cattle, goats etc) I've blocked him after he's had a number of warnings, just keep an eye on any raptor pages you watch in case any edits have been missed and not reverted. Also possible that activity may resume under this or another name when block expires in a month. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Von der Decken's Hornbill as a pet

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey guys - does anyone here happen to have a good ref for Von der Decken's Hornbill being kept as a pet, as opposed to an zoo/aviary/breeder bird? I wanted to add a brief mention of that in the article (I presume that it's often by the same crowd that like to keep pet Toucans) but all I have is YouTube videos and commercial sites at the moment. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages X

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Carrying some over from the last group, as well as some additional:

...................Thanks!....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Bird page at AfD

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just FYI, a bird related article, List of Little Penguin colonies is being discussed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Little Penguin colonies (2nd nomination). First Light (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (149)

Latest comment: 12 years ago48 comments7 people in discussion

Birds for identification are usually done is sets of 10 here. The numbering makes it easier to find in the archives and the series has a format that most people here are familiar with. The next series is "Birds for identification (149)" and starts with bird 1490 and ends with bird 1499. Snowman (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Both vultures are C. burrovianus. 2nd with active moult in remiges, giving it a superficially C. melambrotus pattern on one wing. 212.10.64.226 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the identification and explanation. --Leyo 22:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that it is not fair tactics to reveal a fairly precise location after someone has tried hard to identify with only rather vague location details submitted with the identification request. I note that the image description on Commons has rather vague location details. Snowman (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
(Comment to your deleted statement) My preliminary identification was Blue-fronted Amazon, but among other things its beak seems to be larger.
When you click on observation in the range map, there is one point quite close to the location (Transpantaneira between Poconé and Porto Jofre). So, I think Yellow-crowned Amazon is correct. --Leyo 22:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC) PS. “South of Poconé” was not really a new information since Poconé is located at the northern end of the Pantanal. [Added by Leyo 10:55 30 August 2012 (UTC)]
I would encourage people to list locations here in a way that can be readily understood and preferably with out the need to cross-reference or extrapolate information from other pictures on Commons or another image website, especially since most people will not be very familiar with geography of places far away from where they live and errors can be made by presumptive extrapolation. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I am beginning to think that it is a nominate Blue-fronted Amazon, perhaps immature or a female, and I might guess a immature female. There is a small blue patch of fethers above the beak. The yellow on the head is variable in this species. Females have less yellow on the head. The parrot with its back to the camera (on the right) has more yellow on its head. Adults have orange irises and juveniles have brown irises. The one in the centre of the picture has brown irises. See File:Papagaio (Fêmea) REFON 010907.jpg, which is said to be a female. Snowman (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
How many parrots were there in the group? Did they look like a several of a family or two of a pair? Did they have a nest near-by? Snowman (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
There were only two and no nest. Unfortunately, they flew away shortly after being spotted. The photo is the only shot I could take. --Leyo 22:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
My book says juveniles have dark brown irises and adults have orange irises, and perhaps they mean a darker brown colour than shown by the parrot in the centre of the photograph. The behaviour tends to suggest that they are a bonded pair. I think that their location, behaviour, and appearance indicates that they are a pair of adult Blue-fronted Amazons. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
What does your book say about the Yellow-crowned Amazon (in addition to what is in the article)? --Leyo 13:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The behaviors of A. aestiva and A. ochrocephala are essentially identical, and they're closely related. Or rather, south Amazonian A. ochrocephala is very close to, and may hybridize with, A. aestiva (see 2nd paragraph in Yellow-crowned Amazon#Taxonomy). The species limits in this region are not nearly as striking as most literature suggests, though there certainly is a clear tendency towards "typical" A. o. nattereri features (small yellow crown patch, at most faint bluish tinge to forecrown) in the north and west (Amazon), and towards "typical" A. a. aestiva features (extensive yellow around eyes, clear blue forcrown patch) in the south and east (Pantanal+Cerrado). Regardless, this photo shows what generally is labelled as A. aestiva based on appearance (clear blue forecrown, extensive yellow around eyes incl. below) and range; it is one of the most common parrots in the region. You can't really separate male/female with any sort of reliability. Sure females have less yellow on average, but there's plenty of overlap between the sexes. Disregarding the issue of possible intergradation, A. ochrocephala is common in northern and western Mato Grosso, but absent from the south and east, and entirely absent from Mato Grosso do Sul. The claimed GBIF records from southeast MT on IUCN's map (well outside its general range) should be considered questionable; I've seen plenty of people mistake immature A. aestiva for A. ochrocephala. For anyone with an interest in this pair, it is worth checking the Brazilian site wikiaves ([8], [9]). If looking at their maps, keep in mind that locations are listed by municipality (cf. municipalities in MT), distribution gaps for A. ochrocephala in W. Amazonas and N. Pará are artifacts of limited observation effort in these regions (it's regular throughout), some distribution clusters for A. aestiva in southeast Brazil are introduced populations, and the SW Pará record of A. aestiva is an individual that was seized by IBAMA and released (=unnatural occurrence). 212.10.64.226 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It is interesting to see the presentation style on Wikiaves. I note that their material can not be used commercially, so their images can not be transcribed to Commons. Could you clarify if you think the bird in the centre of the photograph is a juvenile or an adult Blue-fronted Amazon. I presume that intergrades are healthy. Are intergrades common? Is Blue-fronted Amazon <=> Yellow-crowed Amazon a continuum? Snowman (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
@212.10.64.226: Thanks a lot for the detailled explanation.
At stated above, my first guess was A. aestiva, but the picture of another Amazona two days later (now uploaded as File:Amazona aestiva Pantanal.jpg and georeferenced) created doubts. This second bird seemed to fit much better to the appearance of A. aestiva. --Leyo 22:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If that is true, I hope someone has written a letter to IBAMA about their strategy of releasing parrots back into the wild. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
PDF about the birds of Serra do Cachimbo (an interesting place w. remnant populations of several species) + info (in Portuguese) about A. aestiva in the region. The parrot in Leyo's photo is adult or nearly so. If intergrades between A. aestiva and south Amazonian A. ochrocephala are common is an open question that hasn't been fully resolved. Are A. aestiva with reduced facial pattern evidence of intergradation with south Amazonian A. ochrocephala, and are South Amazonian A. ochrocephala with more extensive facial pattern evidence of intergradation with A. aestiva? At this point we can guess, but don't know for certain. What we do know is that genetically the split between these two amazons doesn't make sense and strongly suggests extensive introgression+gene flow, cf. Ribas et al. 2007 (full citation in ref. list of Yellow-crowned Amazon article). 212.10.85.38 (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to this photo? I ask because also the other photo is mine. :-) --Leyo 14:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
The individual on the photo you just linked is unquestionably an adult. In my last comment I was talking about your other photo, the bird in the center of this. I believe this is the one snowman asked about in his earlier comment. 212.10.85.38 (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. I found my guidebook about parrots and the image database on Commons quite useful when thinking about the identification of Amazon parrots from their external appearance and location. Out of interest, how would an ornithologist identify a bird, perhaps one with a slightly atypical appearance? What sort of literature and databases would they refer to? To what extent is bird identification at art or a science? Snowman (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
To conclude: What would be the best way for the description on the file page? Maybe something like “Two Blue-fronted Amazons (Amazona aestiva) in the Pantanal, Mato Grosso, Brazil. Based on their appearance, they might be hybrids with Yellow-crowned Amazons (Amazona ochrocephala).”? --Leyo 15:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the erudite IP says that they look like Amazona aestiva. You could add that the location is where intergrads between Amazona aestiva and A. ochrocephala can be found. Snowman (talk) 12:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Like this? Feel free to rephrase. --Leyo 20:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Update: I read the taxonomy section of the Yellow-crowned Amazon Wiki article and re-read the discussion above and then made some amendments to the English file description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
T. erythrolophus x T. leucotis. A reasonably common hybrid that has happened in several zoos. Not the first photo of this combination on wiki: Bird Kingdom#Gallery. 212.10.64.226 (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. That would explain it. Hybrid moved to File:Hybrid tauraco -Bird Kingdom, Niagara Falls, Canada-8a.jpg on commons. Extra files: I did not notice the en-Wiki file in the gallery of the Bird Kingdom article before. I have transfered it to File:Hybrid tauraco -Bird Kingdom, Niagara Falls, Canada-8a (1).jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Confirm female. Maias (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like Red-tailed Laughingthrush - nice if someone else can confirm. Maias (talk) 11:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Searching for this bird, I have just found this page about the zoo and it shows a labelled photograph of this species. Moved to File:Garrulax milnei -Bird Kingdom, Niagara Falls, Canada-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, the caption there says Red-winged Laughingthrush, but I think that's wrong. Maias (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, I did not read the caption on the webpage properly. There are a lot of laughingthruses. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Commons has this species in the Trochalopteron genus category. Have there been any classification changes? Snowman (talk) 12:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
We know that Garrulax is polyphyletic. Molecular studies have been done suggesting ways of breaking it up. I guess IOC will implement such changes eventually, though it is keeping the genus together for now. Maias (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Northern Mockingbird is the only bird in California, and perhaps all of North America, with that wing pattern. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Mimus polyglottos -Stanford, California, USA-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel sure that amazona is right. Thick bill, no significant white spots on wings, streaked rather than barred flanks. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. --Leyo 19:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Philippine Hawk Owl

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I've created a file "Philippine Hawk Owl distribution.PNG" from the data in the new Forktail paper by Rasmussen et al splitting Philippine Hawk Owl into seven species, showing the distribution of each species. I've added it to the article in a fairly basic way: would anyone like to take a look and try to improve it. SP-KP (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not checked the details on the map. To me it does not fit will on the page, because the map is about species and the text in the article lists subspecies. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm anticipating that we'll adopt the paper's recommendations- you're right, the page is a bit of a half way house at the moment. SP-KP (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I see the news article is available but has she published yet? And it brings me to a larger question. In this case, it looks pretty good that Philippine Hawk-Owl should be split. Do we have a vetting process in place in case a species paper does get rejected? I know the AOU and Clements only update on a yearly basis which gives some time for vetting depending on when papers are published......just asking.......Pvmoutside (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Forktail 28:1-20. We don't have a formal vetting process - we just use our collective wisdom to decide whether a split is well-supported. SP-KP (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Gibson's Albatross

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it species, a subspecies of the Wandering Albatross or a subspecies the Antipodean Albatross? We seem to be inconsistent, unless I am missing something. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Australian Government [10] treats it as a subspecies of the Wanderer. Maias (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Alternative names

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Resurrecting this thread to see if we can get this lot finished off. SP-KP (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Birdlife International names

Abyssinian Citril * Asian Black Bulbul * Asian Crested Ibis * Asian Green Broadbill * * Black-backed Bush-finch * Black-throated Seedeater * Blue Saw-wing * Bornean Forktail * Bracken Warbler * Cambodian White-tailed Robin * Cameroon Mountain Saw-wing * Caspian Reed-warbler * Cassin's Grey Flycatcher * Ethiopian Grosbeak-canary * Everett's Scops-owl * Grey-faced Citril * Grey-green Bush-shrike * Grey-rumped Swiftlet * Mangrove Reed-warbler * Moluccan Drongo-cuckoo * Negros Scops-owl * New Guinea Cuckooshrike * Northern Olive Thrush * Ochre-winged Honeyeater * Olive-bellied Double-collared Sunbird * Pacific Warbler * Palau Scops-owl * Perija Brush-finch * Philippine Honey-buzzard * Principe Thrush-babbler * Ringneck Parrot * Rodrigues Blue-pigeon * Russet Hawk-owl * Ruwenzori Ground-thrush * Sahelian Woodpecker * Sakhalin Grasshopper-warbler * Shear-tailed Grey-tyrant * Solomons Hawk-owl * Sowerby's Barbet * Tibetan Ground-tit * Tschudi's Tyrannulet * West Himalayan Bush-warbler * Western Spot-billed Duck * White-cheeked Oliveback * Xingu Scale-backed Antbird * Yellow-browed Citril * Yellow-eyed Cuckooshrike * Acrocephalus avicenniae * Acrocephalus fuscus * Aimophila petenica * Alcippe annamensis * Alectoris whitakeri * Amazilia distans * Ammodramus beldingi * Anser middendorfi * Aquila africanus * Asthenes usheri * Atlapetes paynteri * Atlapetes torquatus * Batrachostomus pygmaeus * Bradypterus kashmirensis * Calidris cooperi * Caprimulgus otiosus * Catamenia oreophila * Certhilauda damarensis * Cisticola taciturnus * Colinus ridgwayi * Collocalia cyanoptila * Collocalia marginata * Collocalia nitens * Crypturellus idoneus * Cypseloides major * Cyrtonyx sallei * Drymophila subochracea * Enicurus borneensis * Eos goodfellowi * Eremopsaltria mongolicus * Fluvicola atripennis * Gymnocrex intactus * Hirundo badia * Knipolegus cabanisi * Loriculus bonapartei * Loriculus salvadorii * Lorius amabilis * Lorius tibialis * Megapodius stairi * Melozone fuscus * Microeca tormenti * Milvus fasciicauda * Monarcha malaitae * Monticola semirufus * Motacilla alboides * Motacilla baicalensis * Motacilla cinereocapilla * Motacilla feldegg * Motacilla flavissima * Motacilla iberiae * Motacilla leucocephala * Motacilla lutea * Motacilla simillima * Motacilla subpersonata * Motacilla taivana * Motacilla thunbergi * Motacilla werae * Myiodynastes solitarius * Myiomela cambodiana * Myrmeciza stictothorax * Myrmornis stictoptera * Necropsar legauti * Nectarinia fuelleborni * Nectarinia graueri * Nectarinia hofmanni * Nectarinia usambarica * Ninox rotiensis * Nisaetus limnaeetus * Ochetorhynchus melanura * Otus everetti * Otus nigrorum * Otus stresemanni * Pachycephala tenebrosa * Parus degener * Parus hypermelaenus * Parus ombriosus * Parus palmensis * Parus teneriffae * Parus ultramarinus * Parus weigoldicus * Phaethornis porcullae * Phlegopsis paraensis * Phyllomyias leucogonys * Phylloscopus benguetensis * Picumnus salvini * Platysteira hormophora * Ploceus victoriae * Porphyrio indicus * Porphyrio poliocephalus * Porphyrio pulverulentus * Ptilinopus epia * Ptilinopus mangoliensis * Pyroderus granadensis * Pyrrhura chapmani * Pyrrhura hypoxantha * Rallus obsoletus * Rallus tenuirostris * Sarcoramphus sacer * Scytalopus opaca * Serpophaga araguayae * Stactolaema sowerbyi * Synallaxis elegantior * Synallaxis superciliosa * Tachyphonus nattereri * Thalassarche platei * Thamnophilus pernambucensis * Threnetes loehkeni * Thryothorus albinucha * Thryothorus colombianus * Thryothorus paucimaculatus * Troglodytes beani * Troglodytes martinicensis * Turdinus marmorata * Turnix novaecaledoniae * Xiphocolaptes franciscanus * Xiphocolaptes orenocensis * Zoothera ruwenzorii

Page move requested

Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Can an admin please move Hood Mockingbird to Española Mockingbird? The IUCN name is now the latter. Several redirects (Espanola Mockingbird, Mimus macdonaldi and Nesomimus macdonaldi) will also need to be redirected to the new name. Thanks! MeegsC (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Move done, a bot should fix the double redirects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Where does it say this is the new IOC name? I am wondering if there is some confusion here, because the Wiki mostly uses IOC names and not IUCN names. If this bird has been moved to its IUCN name, then this is controversial here and so I have moved it back. We have Mimus macdonaldi=IOC=Wiki=Hood Mockingbird. Snowman (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Okay, so the IOC renamed three of the mockingbirds to the Spanish names of the islands rather than the English names (fair enough, since they're owned by Spanish speaking people) and left one name using the English name for the island. Makes no sense at all to me! :P (Goes off to write email to the IOC people.) MeegsC (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Hood Island was named after Samuel Hood, 1st Viscount Hood and this fact can is not changed by renaming the island. There are many birds with people's names as part of the common name. Why change the name of the Hood Mockingbird? Snowman (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the bird is named for its occurrence on the island rather than for Mr. Hood. The other Galapagos islands were also named by the British for British people: San Cristobal was Chatham and Floreana was Charles. However, they have all (i.e. including the island formerly known as Hood) now been renamed. The other mockingbird names have been changed — by the IOC — to reflect their "new" island names; they are now the San Cristobal Mockingbird and the Floreana Mockingbird. I fail to see why the Hood Mockingbird remains named so! I've emailed the IOC, asking for clarification. Perhaps you are right in that the bird is named for the person rather than the island. Perhaps it was just an oversight. We shall see! MeegsC (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I presume Mr Hood's name is the same in Spanish and English. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
And Charles? They've managed to change the name of that one (island and bird), which was also named for an English person! I'm afraid I don't get your point. MeegsC (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess that there may have been political reasons for the Spanish to change the name of the island, which was named after an English King. Snowman (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Right. And they changed the name of Hood island too, presumably also for "political reasons"! So what's the difference?! MeegsC (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
After hearing what you have said, I do not understand it either. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to make things more interesting a similar renaming has been done for the reptiles of the Galapagos. For example, the Hood Lava Lizard is now called the Española Lava Lizard (Microlophus delanonis). Most of the islands were named after various royal English figures, most likely as tribute for funding the expeditions. The islands "official" names are now Spanish but many of the binomial species names still remain having been derived from the Englsh names of the islands, e.g., Microlophus indefatigabilis, Microlophus duncanensis, Chelonoidis nigra hoodensis, etc. It is not unreasonable that bird naming follow this model. Dger (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
And it would make sense if that was the case with this bird's scientific name. But it's scientific name is Mimus macdonaldi, which clearly has nothing to do with Hood!  :) MeegsC (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

black vultures

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So, we have Black Vulture (an FA) and Black vulture (a disambig). Is that reasonable, or should one be moved somehow? MeegsC (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Since the dab has only two entries, I have changed it to a redirect and tweaked the hatnote at Black Vulture. However, if any more 'black vulture' headed pages are created, the dab should be resurrected. Maias (talk) 03:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
According to the Wiki and IUCN, the Red-headed Vulture is also known as the Indian Black Vulture. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Three new editors joining WikiProject Birds

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, not sure if this is the right spot to put this but I wanted to give notice that myself, TKYung, and Zhangt2413 are joining this project as part of our university's course on Behavioral Ecology. Birds have been extensively studied in terms of animal behavior, and the three of us are looking to familiarize ourselves with the editing process and hopefully contribute to some species' pages using the knowledge we'll acquire over the course of the semester. WolfyFTW (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats awesome! Welcome to the project!.....If you have any questions, leave them here, and one of the seasoned editors will I'm sure give an answer.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, welcome aboard! There's always plenty to do, please ask if you need any help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Lewin's Rail page

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The picture top right is of Buff-banded Rails. 03:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.9 (talk)

The image is from www.oiseaux.net and it says the birds in the illustration are Lewin's Rails there. Please explain why you have stated that the image is identified incorrectly as Buff-banded Rails. Snowman (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I think the anonymous poster is correct. The birds illustrated exhibit the buff breast-band that is supposedly diagnostic of Buff-banded Rail. Maias (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure if there are any rail species that look similar. Could the old illustration have faded? Snowman (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Snow, I have reviewed the replica of the Gould lithograph. It is Gallirallus philippensis, and there is no doubt. Neither the Lewin's, nor the sometimes considered related mirificus, have a buff-breast band, nor the white supercilia, plus the bill conformation is different.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Buff-banded Rail moved to File:Gallirallus philippensis by John Gould.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Project page

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  • I've added two tools here, a duplicate link detector and a web archive. Apologies if everyone but me has been using them for ages.
  • The project page is quite long and rambling. Should we aim for something more like this, with everything hived off to subpages?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think this would be a really really good idea. We can shamelessly copy their layout but alter it to serve our own needs.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a nice page organization to follow, although that project does not have such strange needs as highlighting the naming convention. Shyamal (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional new editors joining WikiProject Birds

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Much like the post above, I wanted to introduce myself, Tianyi Cai, and cobiorower. We are also currently enrolled in the Behavioral Ecology at our university. We are interested in exploring the entries on different bird species, specifically in the context of sexual selection, sperm competition, and sexual conflict. In doing so, we are hoping to become primed in the inner workings of Wikipedia and hopefully contribute our research and study to the pages. Samara levine (talk) 05:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to you all! Let us know if you need any help, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Additional new editors joining WikiProject Birds

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! Much like the post above, I wanted to introduce myself, Tianyi Cai, and cobiorower. We are also currently enrolled in theBehavioral Ecology at our university. We are interested in exploring the entries on different bird species, specifically in the context of sexual selection, sperm competition, and sexual conflict. In doing so, we are hoping to become primed in the inner workings of Wikipedia and hopefully contribute our research and study to the pages. Samara levine (talk) 05:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Project page

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I've been playing around with the project page as mentioned above, I've just done as far as featured/good content to get some feedback before possibly wasting a lot of time

  1. I don't know why there is a huge gap next to the navigation panel, it doesn't happen in the Milhist header, but I don't know how to fix it
  2. If we go down this route, we need a proper project banner like Milhist, any volunteers?
  3. Any comments or suggestions?
  4. Feel free to revert or change any or all of my edits

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I think adding tabs for the subpages (rather than just links on the main page) is sleeker, and also allows people to find what they're looking for faster. I can work on that, if you don't have time/interest... MeegsC (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd welcome that, since I'm not sure how to do it, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
The linked suggestion for an updated version WP Birds main page does not work well on my screen using Mozilla Firefox, because the space taken up on the right by the general information box becomes a permanent right margin for the rest of the text right down to the bottom of the page. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history page does not suffer from this problem. Web page designers would normally test pages using a variety of browsers on the most popular operating systems, but I am not sure if this is necessary using Wiki mark-up code. I thought that the new WP Birds main page was going to have tabs at the top of the page like the Military history WP main page. I have only had a brief look at the Military history WP main page and I think that it could be quite difficult to set up, but it looks relatively easy to modify once set up, and I think would be better than the existing WP Birds main page. I am focusing on semi-automation and images at the moment, so do not want to meddle with the WP Birds main page. A Wiki mark-up code wizard from WP Military history or an editor monitoring the help page might be able to set up a skeleton page with tabs on which the WP Bird stuff can be added. Snowman (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
What fonts and images would be nice in such a banner? We could have some kind of stylized logo. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Snowman you are welcome to change it. The tabs is a very good idea as we have alot of information that can be distributed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I've added in the tabs. What would we like to break out? I've started with Members, Showcase (our featured bits), Taxonomy & References, and Assessment, just so people can see how it might look. Should Tools be a tab? And should Assessment not be, since it's in our navbox? Suggestions appreciated! MeegsC (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
That looks so much better! Milhist have formal A and B grade assessment procedures that we don't, so no reason to keep the "Assessment" tab. I think "Tools" would be good, alternatively, there might be a "To do" tab to bundle all the stuff at the bottom of the existing page, I'm happy with either Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
For me, the tabs effect make the main page look a bit more like a finished item. I think that a highly visible "Todo" tab could be worth a trial. Of course, the new main page might benefit from testing out various suggestions. Snowman (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that the green headings are probably effective to emphasise the difference of the WP main page to encyclopaedic content pages. However, I am not convinced that green is the best colour. A colour similar to the taxobox colour might work better. If it is not quite the right shade for headings then it can be adjusted a little and still look similar to taxoboxes. Alternatively, I think that the green could be toned down (made paler) to appear less glaring. Incidentally, there are Wiki guidelines that suggest avoiding garnished colours in navboxes. I expect everyone will have a different opinion for the colours. Snowman (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
@Snowman, my only criteria for the colour was that it was different to MilHist (lightsteelblue I think), it's templated, so feel free to change it to anything you think is more appropriate. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:26, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I've changed it to taxobox rgb(211,211,164), looks better imho Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
  • All the new talk pages might be a bit more difficult to watch and look at regularly. All the talk pages for the sub-pages, might need a header directing people to the main talk page for general discussion and specifying the use of the particular talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Back issues of this journal (127 years worth) are going online at the Biodiversity Heritage Library site, for free. The link to the journal's page is here. I'm not sure how far they've gotten with the scanning, but it should all be online in the next few months. By the way, this looks like an excellent site; I'll add it to the "references" tab. MeegsC (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Project page, phase II

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We seem to have got up and running remarkably quickly, some things to think about

I personally think we have the right number of tabs now, do we need to discuss any others?
The resources page is a bit of a mess, needs trimming and alphabetising, and I don't think we use HBW for our taxonomy now.
The main page has a lot of stuff that accumulated for historic reasons, such as the how-to for taxoboxes. Most are done, and in practice I guess we just copy and modify an existing box rather than start from scratch. Can the page be trimmed?
I think we could still do with a project banner, like Milhist

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Shortwing (Asian thrushes) / Brachypteryx

Latest comment: 12 years ago24 comments6 people in discussion

Once upon a time, I believe all the "shortwings" were in the genus Brachypteryx, but that's not the case any more. We currently have one page called Shortwing (Asian thrushes) - not just Shortwing because that's a disambig page (although possibly an unnecessary one - I don't know enough about falconry to comment), and Brachypterx redirects to it, although the page has a taxobox which implies it's only about Brachypteyx (to be fair, I just added a mention of two of the other three non-Brachypteryx to it, but one was already there). What's the best solution here? I'm inclined to make these two separate pages. Also any comments on the name of Shortwing (Asian thrushes)? Plural is surely against MOS, and would "Asian bird" be a better name, to avoid getting into the complexities of the definition of the word Thrush? SP-KP (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving out of archive to see if anyone responds. SP-KP (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

What about Shortwing (passerine)? Maias (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
An alternative would be to dump the dab - make "Shortwing" (or "Shortwing (bird)") the Shortwing page and add a hatnote saying "For short-winged hawks see Accipiter". Maias (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation, there shouldn't be DAB pages with only two entries, particularly when (as in this case), there is a clear primary usage. Shortwing should be the entry for the Brachypteryx, and there should be a hatnote to Accipiter. However, there are potentially more things that could be added to the DAB page, including a group of small airplanes regularly known as "short-wings", a type of stone fly from the western US and a style of men's dress shoe. (Google "shortwing" or "short wing" for these and more.) MeegsC (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I would keep it simple and use "Shortwing (bird)" rather than "Shortwing (paserine)". The use for hawks is explained on the falconry article. Snowman (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've almost sorted this out now. I just need someone to move "Shortwing (Asian thrushes)" to "Shortwing" and we're done. SP-KP (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be at least three "shortwings". "Perilestidae is a family of damselflies in the order Odonata, which are commonly known as Shortwings." Is the thrushes article the primary article? Snowman (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jim. It sounds as though we do need a disambig page rather than just a hatnote, as there are several other possible meanings. I'll sort that out. SP-KP (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
What happened the the dab with three items on it? If it was deleted, then please return it. Snowman (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I might have lost track a bit here. As far as I can see there has never been a Shortwing (disambiguation) page, I assumed the current Shortwing served that purpose. Snowman, can you clarify what exactly needs to be restored? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you have missed something here. The dab that I am talking about is the dab that was at "Shortwing" (that you deleted), and I am not talking about the redirect at "Shortwing (disambiguation)". I see that you have deleted the dab that was at "Shortwing" from the deletion log. There are more shortwings than the birds as I explained above. You also seemed to miss my question above asking if "Shortwing" for the birds is the primary topic or not. The dab page that was at "Shortwing" included a list of three including "Perilestidae". Please reinstate the dab that was at "Shortwing", move the page about thrushes to "Shortwing (birds)", if you think that there is a primary topic for the thrushes then please start a discussion prior to making the thrushes the primary topic. The suspect that shortwing meaning in falconry might be a equally well used term than the meaning for the thrushes. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The deleting admin says that he might have lost track here, so I have asked another administrator to look at it. Snowman (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, I think that's sorted, let me know if I've missed anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Should it be "Shortwing (bird)" rather than "Shortwing (birds)" ? SP-KP (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I think that a singular title is useful for pleural wikilinks (for example [[pagename]]s), but this does not apply when there the page title ends in brackets. I have no particular objection to "Shortwing (birds)" since there are several shortwings and I would have no objection if someone moved it to "Shortwing (bird)", which may be less controversial. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It has come to my attention that WP needs to address the defacto naming convention for birds that is used, whereby all words are capitalized. Please see a proposal to rectify this, at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Proposal - bird names. Upon outcome of the discussion the appropriate section can be added to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Organisms and Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms Apteva (talk) 04:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"WP needs to address the defacto naming convention" It does? Why? Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Lark Bunting

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Lark Bunting is not entirely conform to MoS. How should it be tidied up? Does a new author need and assistance? Snowman (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. More direct communication than tagging will be needed I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I've posted a comment on her talk page, please tweak if you think it's not supportive enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I have just removed two huge chucks of copyvio. The editor was an IP back in March 2010, and there seems to me that there is little point in giving advice on the IPs talk page, since the user will probably not use that IP again. Snowman (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The "Sexual Selection" section looks rather good, but I can not prove that it is copyvio or not. Should it be deleted or not?. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Golden-winged Sunbird

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

A new editor has made comments on the talk page of the Golden-winged Sunbird article. This comment could be the basis of some discussion on the talk page of that article. Incidentally, should the new paragraphs of this article be in USA English, UK English, or is there a localised form of English that could be relevant for this African bird. Excuse my ignorance on what languages are spoken in Africa. The comment mentions the lack of an importance rating, and I wonder if anyone has any opinions on how to rate this. One of my assumptions is that assisting with MoS will help the new editor learn the ropes here. Snowman (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

See my message Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
The article has had a big expansion, so it would probably be easy to get a DYK out of it. Snowman (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

To concur with the bird name discussion on this page, I decided to start a request for comment (RFC) concerning this WikiProject.

Link to RFC: WT:CAPS#Request for comment Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 19:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Um. Not quite sure why this user feels Jim "censored" his entry, but whatever! Here we go again. Apparently experts aren't experts here at Wikipedia. I'm tired of fighting this one, and can't be asked to lock horns with the angry, sneering folks who've been bashing this project on the caps page. In fact, I've specifically stayed away from the latest "discussion" because I'd rather spend my time in productive article generation. MeegsC (talk) 21:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_62&oldid=1046362437"