Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 25

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 16 years ago by Snowmanradio in topic Another Flickr user willing to release photos
Archive 20←Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27→Archive 30

City parrots

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

On a different topic, how to you rate the external links to "City parrots"? Snowman (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

City Parrots appears to largely be a collection of news items from around the world. A fast look suggests they do that well, but a large percentage originate in one form or another from elsewhere (if you go down to the end of many of the articles I checked, you'll find a link to a source). I presume links - if possible - should use the original source rather than a source reproducing the info in one form or another. • Rabo³ • 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about the BBC; the BBC does not generate news, it gets news from somewhere else and reports it. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but they write their own articles rather than just reproduce them (and even then, if news reported by BBC clearly has another source and BBC adds nothing new, I'd argue that the original source should be used - if possible). Here are links to the first three articles on City Parrots with a link to the source. As you'll see, they're essentially copies: CP article with source, CP article with source, and CP article with source. • Rabo³ • 20:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I see that now. They have a flickr site. See some wiki edits putting city parrots on the wiki here: a single edit, anonymous editors contributions Snowman (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it falls under WP:NOTLINK. However, I could say the same about the FreeParrots.net link placed there. Unless someone can add a valid reason for their inclusion, I'd support removing both. I'd also support removing the link to the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, but for a different reason: It might be a relevant authority in some animals, but that is hardly the case in birds, and its importance in any article trying to present up-to-date taxonomy in birds is questionable (let's just say that there's a reason why it isn't included in the list of taxonomic resources on the frontpage of wikiproj. birds). • Rabo³ • 03:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

World Parrot Trust Parrot Encyclopedia

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

What do you think about the external links to the World Parrot Trust's 'Parrot Encyclopedia' that Pippirosie (talk · contribs) has been adding to various species articles over the last few days? Fair or foul (fowl?)? I'm struggling to decide whether they're useful additions or not. Discounting the possible (probable) spamming issue - is that site reliable? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed this user too, and it appears adding links to that page is his/her primary reason for getting an account on wikipedia, which at best is questionable. However, the (admittedly rather few) pages I've checked were actually reasonably good, even if a bit dated in some cases, and as they're from the World Parrot Trust - a highly respectable organization - I suspect they will grow better over time. So my conclusion is that while this users actions are very questionable, I won't be removing those links when I come accross them (at least if the remaining pages keep the standard of the pages I have checked). • Rabo³ • 05:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I have also noticed the alphabetical march through the parrot pages. I suggest asking a direct inquiry to the editor, about any associations with World Parrot Trust. I have checked the linked website too and I opted not to remove the links, as they seemed to be quite good and often have images of species that the wiki does not have. It would be great if the World Parrot Trust provided some parrot photographs for the wiki to help to complete the wiki collection. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I will inform user Pippirosie about this discussion. • Rabo³ • 19:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As the links have been generally complemented here, I think that it is unlikely that the edits will be reverted. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
As noted earlier, I won't be removing them if the remaining follow the standard of the pages I have checked. However, even good pages have been placed on the wikipedia blacklist when added in the general manner done by this user. Two examples of this are ARKive and Fauna Paraguay, which both have been on that list not due to them having "bad content", but due to them being added in a problematic manner by certain users (WP:EL#ADV). • Rabo³ • 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to be removing them either - but it will only take one admin to notice the editing pattern, block the user for spamming, revert everything en-masse and add the site to the spam blacklist... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm an admin and I dislike linkspam, but I'll pass on deleting the images for now based on the above sentiments. I agree with Snowman that it would be nice if the people who used us to generate webtraffic, even if for a good cause, actually donated us some images in exchange, or wrote something, or whatever. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It would be good if the editor would reply to my question on his or her talk page or take part in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
(After edit conflict)I'm getting slightly concerned that Pippirosie seems completely unwilling to discuss her edits and is just continuing to plow on through her alphabetical list of parrots. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I've reverted one of his/her edits, as it used an out-dated taxonomy for Pyrrhura picta, and both their photo and link to a recording involved Pyrrhura amazonum. I won't start systematically going through the wiki parrot pages, but whenever I come accross a page where I judge the link to be outdated - I'm removing it (but I'll leave anything I judge to be "ok"). Same when I judge their page to add nothing that isn't already included in the wiki-page, as could be seen in Blue-headed Macaw. Could I make a mistaken judgements? Surely, but the user evidently isn't interested in discussing the additions of links. • Rabo³ • 02:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think we could ask an administrator who is independent of WPBirds about these external links. I would have expected the person who has added the links to have replied by now. The Worl Parrot Trust website does include a forum. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see the link to this discussion on his talk page among all the warnings. I reverted all of his changes that I was able to do via rollback. Any pages where he wasn't the last editor remain in place. If you decide the links are worth keeping, feel free to go through my contributions and use rollback on my reverts to re-instate the links. The lack of dialogue from the user in question may mean that he's using a bot to apply the changes. Sorry for the extra work that I've caused if you decide the links are worth including. --GraemeL (talk) 21:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your recent comments and please forgive my lack of response to your previous queries. I am a new contributor to Wikipedia and was unaware that any of the submitted entries could be misconstrued as being spam. All of these entries have been entered by me and not a bot over the past several days. The entries posted have been done so in the spirit of sharing information sources that are credible, well-researched and intended for educational purposes - of which the links in question meet this criteria. I was unaware that these efforts would not be well regarding. I will query the WPT on their willingness to contribute photos and other resources. Based on my experience in assisting them as a volunteer, I suspect they will be happy to aid where they can and have the rights to do so. Many photos at their site are from 3rd party sources. Regarding the taxonomic classification for Pyrrhura picta, et. al., the encyclopedia at the World Parrot Trust site was based on classification system as outlined in the recent reference guide, Parrots or the World - An Identification Guide, by Joseph Forshaw, published in 2006. J. Forshaw is generally regarded as one of the leading parrot experts in the world, having authored several guides and reference books on the subject. Justification for his hierarchy structure is given in the publication. Will watch for your reply to this note comment further as needed. Appreciate your guidance in this matter.Pippirosie (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad we finally got some dialogue going. I'll leave you ornithologists to sort this out. If you do decide to revert my rollbacks, they were in two lots just before my first post to this thread. (Removing this from my watchlist. Drop me a line if you need me.) --GraemeL (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, greatly appreciate the promptness of your reply. Will review the welcome and rules document and contribute appropriately in the future. Will see if I can get WPT to upload some new photos soon.Pippirosie (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Pippirosie, as only indirectly related to the discussion here, I have posted a reply to your taxonomic question here (Pyrrhura picta taxonomy) on my talk page. If you have any comments relating specifically to that, feel free to reply there. • Rabo³ • 14:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Introduced Birds of the world

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have to return this book to the library in a few days, but was planning to add to the Red-whiskered Bulbul and Red-vented Bulbul pages before I do. If anyone else wants me to check and add to any bird let me know quickly as I have to return it on the weekend. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. Would be nice if you could look up Corvus splendens and Corvus macrorhynchos (also culminatus and levaillanti) - some of my future targets. Shyamal (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
There's some basic information from this book (I got it from my library as well) at list of introduced bird species, if that's any help. Frickeg (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Bother. Had to return it (sorry) but I can get it again soon. I did get out the Penguin monograph/book :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

request re: maps

Latest comment: 16 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Before adding a map for a species, especially if a species you're not very familiar with, please do considered checking if it is just somewhat accurate. Nothing extreme, just to avoid the biggest mistakes where the maps are off by 1000s of kms (or, as is the case with the map I recently removed from the Chestnut-mandibled Toucan, manage to show the main distribution on the wrong continent!). • Rabo³ • 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Should this map be deleted from commons? Snowman (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would think so. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be careful about deleting it from commons without checking with other projects first. The annotations on the map are in German; it's possible that their project is using a taxonomy where the Chestnut-mandibled and Black-mandibled Toucans have been lumped. Some authorities consider them to be subspecies. I think that as long as we remove it from our project, that should be sufficient! MeegsC | Talk 23:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
There are no taxonomic treatments that would make the map even remotely accurate, as it would require removing the entire nominate population and finding a taxon in the north-western Amazon basin. Regardless, I'm not up-to-date on the rules on deletion in commons but if that map should be deleted then Image:Ararauna_map.png (map for Ara ararauna) and Image:RosttöpferWorld.png (map for Furnarius rufus) fall in the same category. Good maps for both these species can be found here. Personally I don't mind too much except that when removing these things (same applies to mistakenly identified photos) I can often visit the page a few months later and remove it again. And before this becomes too much of a deletion discussion, the initial comment was mainly ment as a request of treating additions of maps to an article in the same way you'd treat additions of text. Before adding the latter, I'm sure you'd make sure it was reasonably accurate. • Rabo³ • 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough; I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about South American toucans! : ) I only meant it might engender some ruffled feathers (so to speak) on other projects if Snowman removed the map without first letting them know why he was going to do so. But if it's that incorrect, perhaps it's not being used anywhere else. MeegsC | Talk 11:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I have listed all the three maps indicted here to be inaccurate for deletion on commons. The uploaders have been informed and anyone can contribute to the discussion of the formal deletion request on commons. If they are deleted, then they are unlikely to be used again. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just found a range-map for Chestnut-breasted Munia on Commons Image:Areale L. castaneothorax.JPG however I don't seem to be able to include it in the taxobox, does it have to be a .png image rather than a .JPG? (Might be worth checking it's veracity before including it, too) Aviceda talk 04:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have added the map to the infobox without implying corroboration on information. Snowman (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, did you find out why it wouldn't display,,,,obviously doesn't matter that it's a jpg. Aviceda talk 19:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I presume that you tested your edit with "show preview" because there is no sign of your edits to the infobox on that page. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Needs-photo often missing

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments8 people in discussion

I have seen quite a few bird articles that don't have a photo and clearly need one, yet aren't part of the photo request system. I think it would be a good idea to search these all out and tag them - it should be able to be done mainly by automated processes, no? We want to get photos for all articles that need them, but it would be good to first know exactly how many there are to get. Richard001 (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. If possible, it would also be a good idea if this automated process could remove the need-photo in pages where it already has been provided, but the user who inserted the photo forgot to change this on the talk page (that seems to happen rather frequently). • Rabo³ • 03:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Most of the photo-needed tags were added by PolBot when it created the majority of the bird articles. But any articles created before then without images would not have had the tag added when the initial round of bird-talk tagging happened. Personally I'm dubious about the usefulness of the tag. But it is infinitely preferable to a clunky placeholder in the taxobox asking for one I guess. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles with photo requests that do have them are probably just as common and should also be dealt with. One problem though is that some have non-photographic images, e.g. drawings from Haeckel etc, and I'm not sure how a bot could distinguish them (probably a good reason for a human-bot combination). Why are you dubious about the use of the tag, Sabine's? I use the category it places photos in to find articles needing them, then I get photos for them. If there was no such category, I would have to go to every page looking for ones without photos. Richard001 (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess your way would make it useful. But for me... I find images, check the article to see if it needs one, and then add them to the commons if there isn't one or if the one we have is rubbish. If we already have images I move on. The only time I use the tags it to remove them when I haved added an image, so for my way of doing things it just adds a step. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
The specially designed bot could search within the infobox only for an image after the "image = " and only "jpg" images. If there are any other sort of files (ie. svg, .gif, and so on) in the infobox, they could be listed for a human to sort out. The WP banner could be updated accordingly by the bot, and script would not be difficult. In this way, by selectively searching within the infobox for jpg images, the bot will be correct almost all of the time, I guess. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

We only need to get someone to create such a bot. I haven't had much luck in the past, though. I think we need more bot makers. Richard001 (talk) 08:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a list Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Articles_without_images maintained by User:Eugene_van_der_Pijll that may be helpful. Shyamal (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Last run March 2008. I wonder how his list is derived? Surely there are more than 1,335 missing species images out of over 10,000. Snowman (talk) 11:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have asked User:Stepshep about a semi-automatic script and he is planning something. but I had to call it off. See User talk:Stepshep#Idea for new bot. Snowman (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to list pages without an infobox, such as lists of species. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Now how is a bot supposed to be able to tell when the article is a list of species or not? Do with the list as you like (edit away, move to your project space, whatever makes you happy), if it is of no use to you I'll gladly delete it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think some of us will find that very useful. Thanks!
Of course if we had thought about it in advance, we could have asked the bot to exclude pages without an infobox, pages whose title starts with "list", pages with WP:BIOGRAPHY tags, and things like that. But it's easy enough for us to ignore them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Have already added 4 missing images using sheps page, very useful tool, thanks. Aviceda talk 00:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Going off you're comments I'm working to better filter the list. My only thing with skipping pages without an infobox is it appears some pages need them but don't have them: African Owl for an example. Are there any other words that should be filtered, and if you're sure about the infoboxes, which ones should I look for? ie template names. Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, feel free to edit the list when an article has a request added/doesn't apply. A little over 4,000 articles removed from the list. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Rename List of British birds: introduced or feral species

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I want to suggest a rename of List of British birds: introduced or feral species to List of introduced or feral bird species of Great Britain again. There was one opposition last time, though I'm not sure it was necessarily against my proposal. The current name is messy and against nearly all pages on Wikipedia. Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: grammar dictates that as a bare minimum this should be changed to "...introduced and feral species..." rather than "...or..." (one could argue that each species is most likely either "introduced" or "feral", but I would say that the list includes both types "introduced" and "feral"). I would also reiterate a preference for clarity and completeness and (given that some, if not many, authorities use a restrictive definition of "feral") the inclusion of "escaped" in the title, e.g. "...escaped, introduced and feral species..."—GRM (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
It's mostly the colon that I object to. Jack (talk) 04:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "List of non-native birds of..."? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hen Harrier pictures

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article on the Hen Harrier could do with better pictures - ideally, a fine-plumaged male, and a female showing the "ring-tail". Can anyone assist, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently no more free ones are found on flickr by using a search for "Hen Harrier"; however, it is possible that there are others listed under a different name, like the name of a zoo, or a witty comment. Sometimes you can ask a flickr photographer to change the licence of images that are not free, by logging on and using flickr email. Good luck. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image priorities - families without images

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

We are making good progress at acquiring images of birds. In concert with our aim of getting as many images as possible, I think a good goal might be to get a representative photograph of every bird family. At present we are missing images of the following families (or sometimes considered families)...

Overwhelmingly these are monotypic families and small families. Lots of Wallacean birds here, but a couple of suprises, like honeyguides. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm that this has been correctly identified [2]? If it has it would be our first honeyguide, but it looks wrong to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
It is correct. Unless presented with a good reason, you can trust Alan Manson's South African identifications. (not really that important, but I'd also point out that except for the rather widespread eared-nightjars, there are no Wallacean groups in the above list) • Rabo³ • 11:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Err, right. I was trying to think of a term that covered the Sundas, Philippines and New Guinea. But you're right, Wallacean is the transition zone (Sulawesi et al). Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
There are a couple of my images on White-throated_Eared-nightjar one of which you could substitute, but then you would duplicate media. Not easy species to get images of, but someone might to look and do some asking on OBC Images Aviceda talk 02:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah ha, I didn't know we had those. I'm not worried about duplicating media. Besides, the criteria is to have at least one photo of each family, for example we have several penduline tits but we have a drawing in the taxobox of the family. Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Domesticated pigeon breeds

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A quick look at the many birds in this category indicates that they do not have infoboxes. Is there still a pigeon sub-project? What is the infobox policy here? Snowman (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding as if I'm splitting semantic hairs, there is not (and never has been) a pigeon sub-project; there is a [domesticated] pigeon task force.:-) I mention this because we never really had sufficient interest to create a sub-project but there are a few of us involved with the task force that keep an eye on the various domesticated pigeon articles.
Most of the birds in the domesticated pigeons category do not have infoboxes yet because many of the articles are stubs. I assume you're referring to the birds project infoboxes--we also have a customized infobox that makes more sense for the domesticated pigeon breeds. The standard bird infobox is not quite a good fit for a great deal of the domesticated pigeon breeds articles since they are describing man-made breeds of pigeons as opposed to naturally occurring species. --Onorio (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sure this is explained on your task force pages, but the wikilinks in the nav box have disappeared. A specialised infobox sounds fine. Where is the information on the task force infobox? Can you wikilink one or two articles here showing examples of the new taxobox? Snowman (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Regional bird lists

Latest comment: 16 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

I have been looking at our regional bird lists again, and I have a few questions I think the project as a whole should consider:

  • Do we think that headers for each subsection, containing very brief description of the family/order, are appropriate? (See List of birds of Thailand.) Or should it just be a listing of birds with no "family/order" introductions? (See List of Texas birds.)
  • Personally, I think the headers are important. I'm assuming that the people most likely to use these lists are casual birders (if they're birders at all) who are trying to put a name to something they have just noticed for the first time. The header should help them narrow their search to those species most likely to have been their bird—through a very brief description of habitat, unique behaviours, etc. I don't expect keen birders would use these lists (as they'd be likely to look for information elsewhere), so just listing species with only a scientific family name as a header is not going to be at all useful for the average reader. MeegsC | Talk 09:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The current standard for FL seems to require a reasonable amount of text in the introduction to the whole article, and for the intros to the section. This also gives more room for images. I don't think that many of the older country FLs would now survive review because of their shortcomings in prose or referencing, and to reduce the text would not be helpful jimfbleak (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If we include headers, should we include the "total number of species" for continents, countries, etc., or just the number found on the list? Most of the listings currently say something along the lines of There are 43 species found worldwide, and 6 in Guatemala. or There are 27 species worldwide, 20 in North America and 4 in West Virginia.

I'm working on several country lists, and have been wrestling over some of these issues. It would be great to get some feedback from others! MeegsC | Talk 09:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


  • Some lists have an image in almost every section and some have fewer images. How many images would it be best to use? Is it best to provide an image of common species or the rare species, or is it best to use the best image available? Would photographs of rivers or forestes or the environment help? What about maps? Snowman (talk) 12:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I think a map is a great idea! As are photos of unique environments (the spiny forests of Madagascar) or important geological features (the Gambia River in the list for The Gambia, or the Sahara desert for Mali, for example). As for bird photos, I think it's good to have as many as possible , without overdoing it—that is, without having pictures extend beyond the end of the list. (I always set my default size to 300px, so that I can see how the unsized thumbs I put in the article would look if someone had their default set that high). We should always try to choose pictures that are representative of how the bird would appear in that area: for example, we should show Great Northern Diver in non-breeding plumage if we're putting its picture on the Morocco list, because it's only ever been seen there as a winter vagrant. And I guess it would be better to include regularly-occurring species rather than rarities, given the choice. (Obviously, if all species for a particular family are vagrants, then you have to include a rarity if you're going to put a picture in that section.) MeegsC | Talk 12:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
  • If lists are tabulated, it's difficult to have more than one image per section unless they are incorporated into the table, which looks tricky, otherwise agree with MeegsC. I Agree that image should be appropriate (correct ssp too). Not convinced of the point of a map unless it is more than a bare country map (eg main habitats or topography shown). Habitat pictures I think should be kept to a minimum. jimfbleak (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if you list multiple pictures at the beginning of a section (i.e. before that section's table), they will display alongside the table just fine. They don't have to be incorporated into the table itself. MeegsC | Talk 13:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, MeegsC. I'd add:
If the country has a national bird, I'd illustrate the lead with it.
If you know of birds that have other special significance (widely familiar, mentioned in folklore, gave names to sports teams, etc.), it's nice to show them.
I like captions mentioning the status of the birds. their significance to the country, or interesting facts about them.
It's great to include pictures taken in the country and say so in the caption.
It's also great to include the right subspecies, as you said, but not so bad to show another subspecies if it's visually indistinguishable from the right one.
It's good to include birds that occur in different ways—resident breeder, migrant breeder that (mostly) leaves, in-country migrant, non-breeding bird that occurs in only in migration, non-breeding winter visitor, frequently occurring wanderer. I agree that rare vagrants should be avoided if possible.
Unlike at a species article, it's probably better not to have a picture for a family than to have one that was obviously taken in captivity, maybe unless the bird is commonly kept in captivity. But no zoo specimens.
The perfect list would make a reader from that country say, "This is a good look at our birdlife. When I translate this, I'm going to use exactly these illustrations."
I've tried to do all these things at List of birds of Kenya, except that I know almost nothing about Kenyan folklore. Also, User:Sandhillcrane has added a number of pictures, mostly without captions. I haven't checked them for plumage or subspecies or suggested that he or she do so. Because now that I've said all that, taxon articles are more important to me. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Cannot help with folklore but if you want pictures of birds taken in Kenya you are free to use these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lipkee/sets/72157607175725273/ (222.252.232.129 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

When I was in Kenya, I too noticed that the birds just found themselves in front of my lens—but not like that! I'll definitely be uploading some of those, especially where they're better than the ones we have or show something different. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Our first Rufous-bellied Heron uploaded to Image:Rufous-bellied_Heron_(Ardeola_rufiventris).jpg and put on taxoboxes in four languages. I'm mentioning this so the many other people uploading these Kenya images won't duplicate effort. —JerryFriedman (Talk)
Our "life" Wire-tailed Swallow as Image:Wire-tailed swallow adult (Hirundo smithii).jpg and Rufous Sparrow as Image:Rufous Sparrow (Passer ruficinctus ruficinctus).jpg, and an African Hoopoe as Image:African Hoopoe (Upupa africana).jpg because I didn't realize we had any. I'm hoping those red links will turn blue sometime soon. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Birds on commons for identification

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In case people are unaware of this, there's a whole category full of pictures of unidentified birds on Commons that might be helpful if identified: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_birds FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder—I hadn't been there for a while, and there are some easy ones again (except for the ones I just cherry-picked). For confirmation, this is a Capped Heron, right? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a Capped Heron. • Rabo³ • 08:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Cropped image of Capped Heron linked in infobox. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The link to the domesticated pigeons taskforce seems to have been removed from the project navbar (among other changes). Would the person responsible please revert his changes or rectify this? I would go ahead and revert the changes myself but I'm not sure I understand what this person was trying to accomplish with his changes so I'd prefer that he remedy this.--Onorio (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for the task force and I eventually left a message on this page. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
You can get to the taskforce page here. There are a few places where the infobox has been implemented: King pigeon article, Jacobin article and English Fantail article.
I would appreciate it if Richard001 would please explain why he removed the links to the task force page or he would restore them. I do not recall any discussion of removing those links and it occurs to me that perhaps he just made a small error in editing.
Looking at other projects' home pages, for example Military History, I see links to project task forces so if the standard in this regard has changed it's not apparent to me. As I said before, I would revert the change myself but I'm not sure what he was trying to achieve with his change and I don't want to regress his change unnecessarily.--Onorio (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well since there doesn't seem to be any objection, I re-added the link to the Domestic Pigeon task force.--Onorio (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just meant to add the photos needed link - didn't realize I had messed anything up. My friend noticed I messed the colours up though, so I wouldn't be surprised. Richard001 (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Bird portal

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

What about a bird portal? Snowman (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I must be misunderstanding you. Otherwise what's this?--Onorio (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I did not know that existed. Snowman (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome. I thought I must be misunderstanding what you meant by "portal". :-) --Onorio (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I didn't realize we had one either, though I pay virtually no attention to portals (nothing held against them or anything). It's always a good idea to check the probable title first though :)
Does anyone formally (or semi-) maintain it? Maybe a media section could be added, e.g. a few photos (new ones and/or good ones), and an audio and video file. Richard001 (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New photos/media?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Keeping track of new articles is important, but it would also be quite cool if we had a 'new photos/media' page, perhaps on the Commons, for recently uploaded images, audio or video of birds. Would that be doable? Richard001 (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if it would be doable, but it certainly would be a good idea. It would make it far easier to discover photos uploaded under the wrong name, too. • Rabo³ • 08:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Theoretically sound, but I doubt if it would work; see archived discussion on this topic. Snowman (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Could you give a hint on where? Without knowing the exact nature or approx. timing of the discussion you refer to, it would require some checking to find in the by now rather large archive. • Rabo³ • 18:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_16#Requested_photographs. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. • Rabo³ • 03:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

African Rail photo

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am trying to add an image to the taxobox, but it doesn't seem to be working for some reason. Can anyone see why? Richard001 (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it. The taxoboxes are playing up if you have the parameter image_width present but don't have a value in it. This can either be fixed by giving it a value or simply removing it. I really should drop a note at template talk:taxobox to mention it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
image_width eh? Thanks for that. (I thought it had fixed itself at first when I returned to it from here.) Richard001 (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I brought it up at template talk:taxobox and the bug has now been fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Birds for identification (3)

Latest comment: 16 years ago42 comments6 people in discussion
Uploaded to Image:Dicrurus paradiseus -Kerala -India-6.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:Dicrurus aeneus -Kerala -India-6.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have an Indian bird book hand, but they are both drongos. I think the first is a Greater Racket-tailed Drongo. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Confirm above. The other is a Bronzed Drongo. Shyamal (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Great Bowerbird? (says so above the image) Aviceda talk
I should have said to confirm identity. Are you just going on the caption on flicr or can you make a definite identification? Snowman (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It's definitely a Great Bowerbird.....did you suspect another species? Aviceda talk 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I am cautious about species identification and flick labels. Snowman (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:Chlamydera nuchalis (Great Bowerbird) -Australia-4.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Dreadful photo, the colours are all off. I think it is a Mariana Fruit-dove, as it is the only Ptilinopus I can see that has a mix of green and grey on the neck. But I would hesitate to upload it based on the difficulties identifying t, the quality of the image and the facet we alredy have better ones. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I did not know what it was. Another dove with a bright colour on its head is the "Superb Fruit-dove". I will take your advice and not upload it as the wiki has other images of it. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks rather like female Many-coloured_Fruit_Dove from Fiji, but it also appears to have a dark-bar above the yellow on the breast and greener head, Aviceda talk 19:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
That's two Beautiful Fruit-doves. • Rabo³ • 04:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I have just put a strike through above, and plan to upload it soon as "Beutiful Fruit-doves", pending any other comments. Snowman (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:Ptilinopus pulchellus -Amsterdam Zoo-6.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The already indicated identification is fine. A male. • Rabo³ • 13:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have been uploaded independently to commons at Image:Progne elegans (southern martin).jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Sociable Weaver is correct. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:Philetairus socius -nest in South Africa-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Either a Versicoloured or a Plain-bellied Emerald. Most likely the latter but need a better view of the tail or a more precise locality (than just Brazil) to identify it. From the same photo stream you might consider uploading this bat - Platyrrhinus sp - either P. lineatus or, less likely, P. recifinus. • Rabo³ • 08:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Bat uploaded to Image:Platyrrhinus -upside down-6.jpg. Snowman (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
The plumage pattern looks like a Whistling Kite, but I'm not sure the shape is right. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's a Whistling. • Rabo³ • 08:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. A male. Other photos that might be of use are the Madagascar Crested Ibis, Storm's Stork, Black-necked Crane, and this pair of African Pygmy Geese (there's actually a better photo of that species in commons, but the user who uploaded it has uploaded numerous photos where the claimed copyright is extremely suspect... the entire lot should probably be subjected to a mass deletion request Many of them should probably be requested for deletion). • Rabo³ • 08:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Bird 30 uploaded to Image:Pteroglossus viridis (male) -Bronx Zoo-8.jpg Snowman (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Others uploaded to:
Image:Lophotibis cristata -Bronx Zoo-8.jpg - Madagascar Crested Ibis
Image:Ciconia_stormi_-Bronx_Zoo-8.jpg - Storm's Stork
Image:Grus nigricollis -Bronx Zoo-8.jpg - Black-necked Crane
Image:Nettapus auritus -Bronx Zoo-8.jpg - African Pygmy Goose. - Snowman (talk) 10:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:Ramphastos vitellinus -Brazil-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

All photos in list below have been uploaded -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Appreciation to flickr photographer

#31 is Ramphastos vitellinus ariel. In addition to that, there are several interesting mammals there:
* Tayassu pecari: [3]
* Ateles marginatus: [4] (<-- hadn't noticed this photo was all rights reserved)
* Ateles paniscus: [5]
* Callicebus moloch (sensu stricto) <-- taxonomy of this group is ever-changing. Remember to include the sensu stricto in the description: [6]
* Callicebus nigrifrons: [7]
* Pithecia irrorata: [8]
* Pithecia irrorata: [9]
• Rabo³ • 17:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

All photos in list above have been uploaded -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Appreciation to flickr photographer. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

White-throated Toucan. As for subspecies, it is a tucanus-cuvieri intergrade (which would fit perfectly in the article, where the large hybrid zone between these two taxa also is mentioned). • Rabo³ • 15:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Uploaded to Image:Ramphastos tucanus (intergrade) -Brazil-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Alagoas Curassow, Mitu mitu

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm a little confused about a photo at Flickr that is suitably licensed, titled 'Mitu mitu'. It has the same name as this species but looks too big and dinosaur like. However, birds are themselves Saurischian dinosaurs in the broader, non-paraphyletic sense, so I'm not 100% sure what's going on. I should probably upload this anyway, but is it the same species as the article? If not, what is it? Richard001 (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to judge size from a photo and haven't looked at curassow skeletons recently, but with that casque - if it indeed is a Mitu - it would be Mitu tuberosum. For a period, it was considered a subspecies of the much rarer Mitu mitu, meaning that you'll often also get a few photos of M. tuberosum if doing a search for Mitu mitu. • Rabo³ • 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Another Flickr user willing to release photos

Latest comment: 16 years ago46 comments7 people in discussion

Z Faisal is willing to release photos. He seems to have uploaded a lot of photos of the birds of Bangladesh. Richard001 (talk) 10:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! He has some fantastic photos! We'll have to cut the watermarks off though—they're pretty enormous! MeegsC | Talk 10:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, watermarks can be a pest, especially when cropping them out will mess the picture up. I just got one of a White-throated Swift with a watermark, though that can be cropped by the crop bot quite easily. Richard001 (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
And another: Michael Woodruff - he's willing to release most of his upon request. (Yes, his have watermarks too). I think I should start compiling a list of Commons-friendly Flickr people at Commons... Richard001 (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, he has a number of genera and species we are missing. The Tawny-throated Leaftosser [10] is a genus we don't have, the leaftossers. Scaly-throated Foliage-gleaner is another furnid genus we don't have [11]. We also lack antpittas and finally I love antbirds so much I FA'd their family page, so could I have [12]. I can start-class any of these articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have passed your request on to Michael. Richard001 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

We're generally doing rather poorly on Neotropical species and a large percentage of his photos from Ecuador and - to a lesser extend - Costa Rica, would be both new species and genera. A list of species from his Ecuador gallery that would be nice on wiki is below, but it is long (if it takes up too much space here, you can move it to my talk and add the appropriate link from here) and it is entirely possible he may not want to release that many. If so, the ones marked with a # are the ones I consider least likely to fall into this projects hands from other sources. The ones marked with a ¤ are species that are of greater interest to most "normal" people (and therefore would be nice), but photographed rather frequently and therefore likely to fall into the hands of this project eventually even if he doesn't allow usage of his.

All below uploaded______________________appreciation to flickr photographer

All above uploaded_______________________________appreciation to flickr photographer
See below for more requests. There are a lot more in the series.

Edit break (uploads)

  • More requests from the same flickr series

Could the following be changed to a wiki suitable licence please?:
All below uploaded where licence permits-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-appreciation to flickr photographer

I've not included his photos of the Scarlet-bellied Mountain-Tanager, as I know of another we perhaps can use; User_talk:Howcheng#NBII_photos. (and yes, then there's Costa Rica, but comparably fewer there) • Rabo³ • 17:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you link it here, if it has not been uploaded yet? Snowman (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There parrots can be uploaded when their licences are changed:

Got a couple of the African Bush-warbler from another guy. Richard001 (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for properly identified, named (both common English names and scientific as per Clements 5th. Edition) and tagged birds you should try this site of http://www.flickr.com/groups/birdguide/pool/ Most contributors should be pleased to help out with Wiki. Apologies for not signing out properly, still learning the ropes here.(Lipkee (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Got one for African Cuckoo-Hawk, and more on the way. After exams I'm planning to do a whole day of Flickr work and see how many images I can get. Ultimately I want to get more people doing the same though, so will have to do some evangelism too.
Would there be any benefit in breaking the requested photos category down by taxa, or should we just leave at as one (very large) category? Richard001 (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any change from "all rights reserved" at present. What about just starting at the top of the list and working down? Snowman (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Depending on his view on releasing photos, you may want to start with the ones marked with # or ¤ (for the reasons mentioned in my earlier comment [just before the long list itself]). Also, please do remember to including the locality when uploading the photos (several of the species in the list are certainly going to be splits into several at some point in the future). • Rabo³ • 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm too busy at the moment, but I should be able to transfer some on the weekend if nobody else can. I have got some of the Abbott's Booby though, which was (alphabetically) at the top of the 'list'. Richard001 (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to go through them top to bottom and won't work on any other bird requests until they are done. Feel free to join in - you just need to transfer them from Flickr (and preferably add categories and such, just look at what I do), add them to the article and remove the image request on the talk page. Richard001 (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Excellent! I'm not up-to-speed on uploading photos to commons (and admittedly that's one part of wiki that completely fails to grasp my attention). Just one thing: Could you avoid linking Yanacocha? It is excellent that you include the locality, but in this case the only wiki article for Yanacocha is some mine in northern Peru (rather than the Yanacocha referred to in this case - an Ecuadorian reserve not far from Quito). For now I've removed the links where they had been inserted. • Rabo³ • 05:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that too (though it wasn't clear if they were related - Ecuador shares a border with Peru) and removed some of them. I just left the captions out for some of them. If you're interested in helping transfer them I'm happy to train you up. Richard001 (talk) 06:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I can help the uploading. After uploading could they be marked, so that they ones that still need uploading are easy to find. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
For now I've added a line through the above list - everything above seems to be done. • Rabo³ • 02:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that there are some parrots in the flickr series too. Snowman (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Does the flickr photographer know about the list in this section? Snowman (talk) 12:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And another

Just a heads up that Tropical Pete, who is based in Micronesia has also indicated a happiness to change his licenses and has change a few that I have asked for, including (and this will make Snowman happy) the endemic [144] Pohnpei Lorikeet. I've gotten him to change the licenses so that we have images for all the species that are new, if there is anything else you want let me know and I will ask. And if you have an account go and say nice things about his images (I have been pulling Golden White-eye up to DYK standanrd and beyond on his account). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have enhanced the contrast of the new lorikeet image. Yes, it is the first one of its species on the wiki. There are a lot of good photographs there. Can you identify the kingfisher flying? Snowman (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I need to check, but I'm fairly sure the Collared is the only Saipan species of Kingfisher. We could certainly use images of that subspecies. I'll ask for the dove too, and the tern feeding the chick, but the RFBO? We have tons of images of that species and I have tons on my harddrive if we really need more. Maybe I'll upload some this weekend. But, hey, I'll ask anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I realise that we have RFBooby images - I selected it because it was a good photo of one flying, but if you have others that is fine. It is interesting to see the lizard in the flying kingfishers beak. It is great to get a species (or subspecies) photograph that is not on the wiki, and it is also great to get a photographs of the bird doing different things from different angles. Some really good photographs are added to the wiki collection because they are better quality than the existing ones. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the in-flight kingfisher is a Collared. The Rufous Fantail of the aptly named subspecies saipanensis would also be nice. • Rabo³ • 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC). Uploaded. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What about Micronesian Kingfisher? Snowman (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't occur on Saipan. Although species limits of Pacific kingfishers are notoriously tricky (the Collared Kingfishers around Fiji, Tonga, Samoa for example). As long as we retain all the info on the location and subspecies then if the taxonomy shifts we'll be all right. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Does the flickr photographer know that there are more licences to change? Snowman (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
He's changed them now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Great and much appreciated. I have uploaded all the ones above with an appropriate licence. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • All in paragraphs above uploaded+++++++++++++++++++Appreciation to flickr photographer.

Alan Manson is also willing - in fact pretty much all of his uploads seem to be CC-BY-SA. I have discovered a couple of good finds in the last day, I'm sure there must be plenty more if someone wants to have a look. Richard001 (talk) 04:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

There are a number in this series of animals in Pittsburgh National Aviary. Most already have an appropriate licence. Snowman (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


  • All in paragraphs below uploaded==================Appreciation to flickr photographer
I haven't requested his photo of a Bat Falcon, as should be able to get this and this (speaking of this useres photos, this [153] would be nice, too. Male above, female below). • Rabo³ • 06:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Three images in above line uploaded (for a long list, I prefer list format with the wikilink and flickr link, as makes pages easier to find with less chance of mistakes with species I am not familiar with.). Snowman (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- and just to make sure people don't forget, there are still the photos here. A very fast look at his South America - Argentina galleries revealed several species without photos on wiki (e.g. [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172] and [173]), and other where we do have photo, but the ones in that gallery would still be nice, as showing very distinctive subspecies (e.g. [174], [175] and [176]), much more natural looking (e.g. [177]), or a different gender (like this female [178] matching the male we already have) • Rabo³ • 13:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • All in above paragraphs uploaded=================Appreciation to flickr photographer

Sometimes where there was already an image in the infobox the new image was not linked to the wiki page. Sometimes not sure if the bird was male or female, so not mentioned in file name or description. Sometimes for new uploads the image link remains a redlink for a few hours recently, also if it is red then the image can sometimes be brought into view by clicking the show preview sandbox (without making any edits) and then save page (again without making any edits, unless you had any edits to make.) - Snowman (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

and another (2)

Cannot help with folklore but if you want pictures of birds taken in Kenya you are free to use these: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lipkee/sets/72157607175725273/ (222.252.232.129 (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC))

I have basically finished with all of Alan Manson's Flickr uploads today. There are a few Cisticolas at the end, though they are unidentified and probably unidentifiable, so I have chosen not to upload them along with one or two others either of very low quality or of a common species with nothing novel about the photo (e.g. gender, behaviour). I'll move on to another set now. Richard001 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_25&oldid=1038264516"