Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Rufous-crowned Sparrow at GAN

Philcha is being thorough (which is good as less to do at FAC). If anyone can help push this through this wuld be good. My questions, is the 'rodent run display' the same worldwide? I have explained it beofre in Superb Fairy-wren and others but is it the same in hte US? Philcha suggests elaborating and reffing is good there. Also, in articles with US spelling, I presume we are using 'fall' instead of 'autumn' (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the other stuff, but "autumn" is perfectly acceptable US usage. (Since a misplaced click brought me here, I might as well comment) Guettarda (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw also, my (non-american) preference would be "autumn". "Fall" is pretty jarring to non-American readers. Sentences like "...was found in the fall" always seem to need reading twice for me :) Stevage 22:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "rodent-run display" is as understandable here as it is in Oz. In the U.S. I wouldn't capitalize it (unlike the use at Superb Fairy-Wren). "Autumn" is fine, as people said, though you can throw in a "fall" if you want for variation. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - Rufous-crowned Sparrow has now passed GA. congrats all who chipped in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done, R-c Sparrow (and helpers)! MeegsC | Talk 10:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming article of interest

This should be in Science soon, but here is an article written for the WAPO (subscription may be needed but is free). Pretty cool avian science. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The coolest part seems to be deriving geographic location indirectly from a combination of day length (for latitude) and precise times of sunrise and sunset (for longitude) - unless I am misunderstanding the methodology. Maias (talk) 00:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hawaiian honeycreepers family vs. subfamily

I think the article Hawaiian honeycreeper should use the family status as even HBW 15 (which will be published in 2010) will use the family Drepanididae (see http://ibc.lynxeds.com/family/hawaiian-honeycreepers-drepanididae) --Melly42 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

For the most part the Handbook has remained locked into the taxonomy decided upon over 15 years ago. That is why last year in #12 the Australian chats were treated as separate from the honeyeaters for example. We've long gone past treating something as a family just because HBW does so, and from memory the case for the Hawaiian creepers being finches is pretty strong. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Scope of project - bird parasites?

Should articles on bird parasites, e.g. family Hippoboscidae, be tagged as being within the scope of the project? Some Hippoboscid genera, e.g. Ornithophila, exclusively parasitise birds. I note that the project scope includes bird diseases but does not mention parasites. Maias (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see why not. They are relevant to birds. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree - many parasites are species-specific too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless we plan on actually contributing to these articles is there really any point in widening our scope and expending time tagging these articles? There is plenty of useful work to be done with what we already have. Tagging articles should only happen for a reason, to draw interested editors towards the project, and realistically how many potential editors are we going to find in the field of bird parasites that wouldn't find their way here anyway? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am certainly not going to spend time searching for such articles in order to tag them. I imagine that they would all come primarily within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods anyway. I am just charting the fuzzy marches of the project. Now, back to the heartland... Maias (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I never add parasite info to articles... although my loathing of parasites might contribute towards my disinterest. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I always do, rounds out Survival, helps with difficult groups like Aerodramus. Useful tip acquired when trying to help a guy with a tick embedded in his navel - don't waste gin, it's not strong enough, need meths. jimfbleak (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Armchair "ticks"

Well, almost! While moving some country/state lists into the new FL class, I discovered we've been short-counting our GA/FA articles by a couple. So we now have 48 FAs, 16 FLs and 32 GAs—and are even closer to the 50 FA and 100 FA/GA goals we've unofficially set for the project. MeegsC | Talk 18:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. There have to be a few more that aren't too hard to push over into GA I guess...Red-throated Diver must be close. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, R-t Diver is getting pretty close—just a bit more habitat and breeding stuff to sort out first. And maybe a distribution map. MeegsC | Talk 01:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It is an milestone, but is it less than 1% of the bird species pages. Snowman (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

source on raptor migration in Thailand

If anyone's interested, you can e-mail Dr. Robert DeCandido at rdcny at earthlink point net for a pdf of a recent article he co-wrote on raptor migration at Chumphon and Prachaup Khiri Khan. With spectacular pictures. (I've asked him whether he'll release some.) Many of his other publications on raptor migration are available on the Web. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. http://www.orientalbirdclub.org/publications/ba10pdfs/decandido-raptorthailand.pdf looks interesting. Shyamal (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the reason you have to e-mail him for the most recent article is that he doesn't want his pictures on the Web, where people can steal them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

technical question

Is it possible for me to put a message at the bottom of my talk page that will stay there and make it difficult for editors to edit below that message? jimfbleak (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ornithology is listed at GAN

OK folks, Ornithology is listed at GAN, so having a look and chipping in might be of help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

...and we have a tie on the collaboration page

OK, I will give it another couple of days, so can some folks cast a tiebreaker or three? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Pictures with two identifications

While trying to identify a picture Snowmanradio found on Flickr, I noticed that File:Myiarchus_ferox.jpg and File:Myiarchus_tyrannulus_-8.jpg are duplicates. Can anyone tell which species it is? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A difficult genus. dark bill rules out M. swainsonii, looks too large for M. tuberculifer. The base of the bill appears to be pink, bill of M. ferox is completely black, and there is rufous in the wings and tail, so I think this must be M. tyrannulus. jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tags on species stubs

Discussion and note here. I'm not sure this is much of an issue with bird species stubs, but I know this project is active on Wikipedia. --KP Botany (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong picture

File:Canard_de_maurice.jpg. Could someone rename this picture. Because this is definately not the Mauritian Duck. --Melly42 (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite what it says on the description, I'm not sure this is really an image created by the uploader; this looks like an old image rather than something painted recently—particularly since it says "Musee de la Civilization" on the bottom. We might want to check for matching images on-line to be sure it's really a free image. MeegsC | Talk 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a Labrador Duck, as painted by James J. Audubon. It's on the Musee de la Civilisation's website. Not sure about copyright, but it's certainly not "original artwork by the uploader" (Phylstyxx), which is how it's been labelled! MeegsC | Talk 19:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the image is from the work Birds of America (1836). So it should be in the Public domain. I've just dropped a note on the Commons upload page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canard_de_maurice.jpg#Summary --Melly42 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the image on commons. Presumably, it should be possible to get a higher resolution image of the illustration. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a better version, not retouched, so still meets PD-Art licence jimfbleak (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The slightly higher resolution image is now uploaded to commons. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK Possibility for Yellow-throated Honeyeater

see this ref. Apparently the species has a habit of collecting hair from live animals in order to make a nest. Noodle snacks (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have it to 3.9x or so, but need someone with more books than me to write an extra paragraph or so. My book collection and easy to find content on the internet is more or less exhausted. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a bunch of stuff, is much more needed? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, that hits the 5x requirement. I will submit it shortly. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Am I missing something here? Looking at the revision history, it appears to need around another 3,400 bytes for 5x expansion since 17 Feb. Maias (talk) 02:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• There needs to be a 5x expansion in the prose portion, things like taxoboxes or images don't count.Noodle snacks (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• My computer counted that the readable prose size at 119 words on 17 February and exactly 600 words about 2 minutes ago. Is there a minimum now? I think that they usually like DYKs to be at least 700 words. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know the metric used for article length is number of characters in the prose section. The stated minimum atWikipedia:DYK#Selection_criteria is 1500 characters. The article is a bit over 3700 at the moment. It started at 671 before the expansion commencing on the 17th, working out to a roughly 5.5x expansion. Little Wattlebird went through without a hitch recently and that is considerably shorter. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• The page you linked is useful. I did not know that lists can be DYKs. Snowman (talk) 13:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Journal access

I have just gotten hold of the DVD published by the Bombay Natural History Society with scans of its journal pages from 1883 to 2003. In case anyone needs to look up anything there, do let me know. Shyamal (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And I have a DVD for the entire set of British Birds (away for a fortnight's birding from this evening though). jimfbleak (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I also have the British Birds DVD, but I'm not going on holiday until the 2nd March! Grantus4504 (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Birds of the Western Palearctic does not seem to be much cited out here, does anyone hold the electronic version of that amazing work? Shyamal (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard copy of the two volume concise edition which I invariably use as a ref where appropriate for my WP bird articles. I also have quite a few world/Northern hemisphere family monographs from the Croom Helm stable (Sparrows and Buntings; Shrikes and Bush-shrikes; Finches and Sparrows (holarctic); Ducks, Geese and Swans; Nightjars, Frogmouths, Potoos, Oilbird and Owlet-nightjars; Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse; Swallows and Martins; Tits, Nuthatches and Treecreepers; Seabirds; terns (holarctic); gulls (holarctic); crows and jays, thrushes, pigeons; procellarridae; starlings and mynas; New World warblers) These are useful as authoritative sources and they often have a taxonomic intro jimfbleak (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I have the electronic version of BWP, but only the 1998 edition. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month is...Cockatoo!

The article is good shape, with a structure that lends itself towards expansion. Go at it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Unidentified audio

I have just uploaded an audio file from USFWS of "shorebirds". It sounds like just one species to me, but I have no idea what. The file is Shorebirds.ogg; if anyone can provide any better info than just 'shorebirds', please do. There are some more there of birds to upload and many of them aren't very clear regarding species. Richard001 (talk) 06:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

merging genera?

The 2008 Christidis and Boles lists the Indian Mynah as Sturnus tristis not Acridotheres tristis. I am not familiar with taxonomy of starlings, but if the genus Acridotheres has been sunk into Sturnus (well, does anyone know if tehre is consensus), then I guess the pages should be merged (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and it has been ignored in the January 2009 genus update of the IOC, who went along with many of the proposed changes in Christidis and Boles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, thanks for hte heads up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this for real?

• Mid easter lark

I came across this article while looking through Category:Bird stubs this morning. I wanted to add a taxobox, with all the details, but I can't find any other source verifying the existence of a bird called the "Mid easter lark". Here's one example of a source that didn't pan out. Any ideas? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a bogus species. I deleted the page. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

King Vulture

In case anyone hadn't already noticed, King Vulture is featured on the main page today—and its been subject to a vandal-fest so far. All hands on deck! MeegsC | Talk 08:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong picture

File:Polyborus lutosus.jpg

this is not the Guadalupe Caracara, as Audubon was already dead when this species was discovered. (the original description of the picture in Birds of America is Caracara eagle) --Melly42 (talk) 15:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Galleries (again)

Recently there has been some discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy regarding the correct use of 'Galleries' on Wikipedia articles prompted by my comment Why Galleries are useful, this came about as it was felt (justifiably in a few cases) that Galleries were becoming 'repositories' of images that have no relevance to articles. The general consensus (IMHO) seems to be that they are a useful inclusion if kept along the lines of "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.". There was also a feeling that the current policy was to actively discourage their use, hopefully this has been rectified by new wording (as outlined in the discussion.). Another point raised was rather than just 'Gallery' the title should reflect it's purpose, say 'Images illustrating variations in plumage'. I have just edited Whiskered Tern in an attempt to rectify this and would be grateful for comments (particularly over my choice of title.....which could be improved...I'm sure!) Please let me know what you think. Aviceda talk 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (13)

• 130. File:Amazona amazonica -pet perching finger-8a.jpg. To confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• 131. Grey and white bird for identification. Snowman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Other pictures in that stream were taken in Hong Kong, which might help narrow it down. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Female Oriental Magpie-Robin (Copsychus saularis) had a look through the first pages of the photostream, most are captives, Wood-duck, Bar-headed Goose, Spotted Dove and a (wild?) Black Kite.

Uploaded to File:Copsychus saularis -perching-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• 132. Grey bird in Domenican Republic for identification. Snowman (talk) 23:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a Gray Kingbird. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Tyrannus dominicensis -Dominican Republic-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• 133. Brown bird in Brazil. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Myiarchus sp.? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks more like Yellow-bellied Elaenia Elaenia flavogaster to me jimfbleak (talk) 13:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm convinced. Least I got the right family. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Elaenia flavogaster -Brazil-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• 134. Parakeet for identification. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Turquoise Parrot. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not recognise it from the back, but it is obvious now you have identified it. The chestnut patch on the shoulder would indicate that it is a male, I think. Uploaded to File:Neophema pulchella -back-6a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, male. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• 135. File:Amazona dufresniana -two captive-8a.jpg. File on commons to confirm identity. Snowman (talk) 10:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

yup. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• 136. Parrot with red beak for identification. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Olive-headed Lorikeet. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Uploaded to File:Trichoglossus euteles -captive-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• 137. Parrot with black beak for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Amazona festiva bodini. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Amazona festiva bodini -two captive-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• 138. Colourful parrot for identification. Snowman (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blue-crowned Lorikeet. Much nicer than the one I took in Tonga. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Uploaded to File:Vini australis -two on a perch-8a.jpg and used in infobox. The previous infobox image from Tonga is now in the main area of the page as it shows the side of the parrot well; can you add the zoo in Tonga where it was photographed to the commons image description? Snowman (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

No zoos in Tonga, it was simply in captivity on a resort on Fafa Island (already mentioned). Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Was it a pet parrot? Was it in a aviary with a collection of birds at a tourist attraction? Snowman (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Closer to a pet. The island was cleared of rats to protect some birds (and presumably not disturb the rich tourists), but the parrots were not free but kept in cages. But it hardly qualified as a big display, just two cages with these and Red Shining-parrots. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• 139. Parrot with red beak for identification. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

SE Asian Blue-rumped Parrot (Psittinas cyanurus).....sad individual should be released (please don't use the pic on the species page!) Aviceda talk 20:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Going on the other images, I guess that it is with another and that it has a nestbox. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Psittinus cyanurus -captive-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Bird videos

Re the bit in the March newsletter: I've started to upload some of my seabird clips to the Commons. I've added videos to Puffin, Atlantic Puffin, and Common Guillemot. All the videos were converted to .ogv files using ffmpeg2theora-0.23 but I had a problem with the Guillemot clip - it turned out 'pillarboxed' rather than widescreen. Any theora experts out there? Grantus4504 (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Must admit, I used to use ffmpeg2theora on the command-line and it seemed to do a good but basic job. Now I use the GUI-driven KinoDV and find that I have to check that I'm using the correct aspect-ratio in preferences (16:9 rather than 4:3) That's about the best that I can offer....Aviceda talk 20:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Aviceda, for some reason the Guillemot vid seems to work this morning. I've downloaded new oggcodecs this morning but it shouldn't have made a difference when viewing the files with the java app. If it ain't broke... Grantus4504 (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that it was nothing to do with the video software, but to wiki meida memory cashe renewal time delay. I see that the Guilemot video was modified over the original version which was a different size, whose dimensions were temporarily retained by wikimedia software. It happens to still photographs too. It seems to me that sometimes this can be cleared by saving the en wiki page again but not always. Otherwise, recently it is usually cleared by next day, although, it can take several days. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Black Drongo

Is languishing in GA review. Shyamal (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks a bit more promising now. Anyone else is welcome to chip in and help, though I think most queries of the reviewer hae been addressed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thick-billed Parrots

What would be the best name for the genus "Thick-billed parrots". There is already a species page "Thick-billed Parrot". Should it be renamed to "Thick-billed parrot (genus)"? Snowman (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i would choose the scientific name --Melly42 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is WP Bird policy to use the common name where there is one. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Species: "Thick-billed Parrot" and genus "Thick-billed parrot", hat note at the top. Problem solved. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Header signposts added. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the page might be a DYK candidate with a hook something to do with the Think-billed Parrots in the USA; although, I am running out of sources. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Page size:

• 2 March 2009 - 125 words
• 3 March 2009 (a few mins ago) - 503 words (excluding text in table) Snowman (talk) 11:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have more stuff to add, just need the time, but we still have 4 days for that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I just counted 627 692 745 words, but I am still adding stuff. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I will submit the DYK, with as hook: ... one species of the thick-billed parrots was found in Arizona, USA, and that attempts to reintroduce the species have failed? and picture Image:Thick-billed Parrot 2.jpg-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Could someone who has not done much work on the page please rate it. Snowman (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Acoustical luring

Have put a few ideas for this article on my sandbox [1] please feel-free to start an article with it! Aviceda talk 07:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually the description said "...which is a method used by some predatory birds to lure potential prey into reach" (which is luring by birds as in http://hawkmountain.org/media/053.Atkinson%201997.pdf) and I commented privately that this may perhaps be rather narrow with the suggestion that a broader topic like avian foraging could include this where other foraging techniques (baiting by herons etc) could also be included. Shyamal (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, not sure how I overlooked that, I'm glad I didn't start the article! Maybe it could be used in the Birding article? Aviceda talk 10:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Avian foraging" would be a very broad topic—are you considering including all the articles about hawking, gleaning, etc.?

"Acoustical luring" could be a section of Aggressive mimicry. Baiting by herons wouldn't fit there, though. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding to "aggressive mimicry" sounds like a good idea. Yes, "avian foraging" is a rather broad area, but these large structural articles are useful in placing more detailed bits - for instance to make one aware of these articles on hawking, gleaning etc. Shyamal (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I should have realized that, considering that "aggressive mimicry" is set up the same way that you're describing for "avian foraging". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Crowned Eagle

Could someone have a look at this page? It appears to be repeatedly vandalized from one IP, and I'm not sure how to roll-back to the correct-version. Aviceda talk 10:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone has kindly fixed it. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubt

I have some little problems in my computer, so i want to know if anybody can ask the author of the this website to use their images: http://www.arthurgrosset.com/ I have the doubt after reading his copyright notice.--Diucón (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

His copyright makes clear that we cannot use his images as they are not free for commercial use. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct. His images can not be uploaded to wiki. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ornithology

This have been nominated at WP:GAN and I've posted my initial comments. The nominator has not responded so far, and is not one of the recent editors. You might want to have a look and decide whether you want to try to improve the article within the review timescale. --Philcha (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Licmetis

Perhaps the page on "Licmetis" should be renamed "Corella (bird)", and then, perhaps a discussion could be started to see if it should be the primary page for "Corella". Snowman (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a very good idea. I would welcome someone doing this. Does anything need to be deleted or merged? (i.e. that needs an admin?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Done, and I think most main editors here are admins anyway. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the cockatoos should be the primary page, so I have started a discussion on the move Corella (bird) to Corella. See discussion on Talk:Corella (bird). Snowman (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is now closed and the consensus was to keep "Corella" as a dab page. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kabuthar

File:Kabuthar.jpg; name of the species???? --Docku: What's up? 23:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon Columba livia. Isn't 'kabuthar' Hindi for 'pigeon'? Maias (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and yes. --Docku: What's up? 00:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cockatoo history

I am beginning to spruce up our collaboration Cockatoo but I have very little on the early history. I recall that an early genus name was Kakatoe which somehow became Cacatua (why I don't know, be nice to explain somewhere, although maybe better on white cockatoo page. I also added material from OED which recalls the name orginating in 17th century. It would be fascinating if tehre were some accounts in early discoveries/voyages of first encounters with cockatoos by Dutch explorers. I have never seen anything on this and am hoping some of the more ornithologically expert may have a lead or three. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, I have commented on Kakatoe on the Cockatoo talk page. Maias (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (14)

• 140. File:Cacatua moluccensis -profile -head-8a.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. By the way, the series where you get these from contain several species for which we have no images yet, but I am not good enough with the flicker upload bot to do it. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you list the links of these flicker images and the corresponding wiki pages below? Snowman (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

• 141. I have to check a few later tonight, but here is already one: this Maroon-fronted Parrot. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Or is it a Thick-billed Parrot? Snowman (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No, thick-billed is bright red. But I will check later for juveniles. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Rhynchopsitta terrisi -captive-8a.jpg on commons. I think that it is an adult, and that in both the Maroon-fronted Parrot and the Thick-billed Parrot the juveniles have a pale bill and lack red feathers above the eyes. Unfortunately, the size of the parrot is not apparent on this photograph. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed not a juvinile. Length is about 38 cm. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Length of the Thick-billed Parrot is 38cm and length of the Maroon-fronted Parrot is 40 to 45 cm. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I used a older reference in which they are considered subspecies from each other. That explains. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• 142. File:Eleonora Cockatoo.png to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a subspecies fitzroyi, as that subspecies has a pale blue eyering. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the uploader to upload some more photographs. Snowman (talk) 11:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• 143. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36718407@N00/3191475432/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/36718407@N00/3191474006/ Great-billed Parrot. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Both uploaded to commons some time ago. Snowman (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• 144. File:Black parrot-2 31l07.JPG looks like a Greater Vasa to me. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is the female in the photograph. I also have the photograph of the male, but there was too much sunlight from behind the cage and it did not turn out well. Awaiting further comments. Snowman (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

File details amended to Greater Vasa Parrot. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Another parrot was in the same aviary; I think it is a male; on commons at File:Black parrot (male) 31l07.JPG. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The small zoo where they are kept say they are Lesser Vasa Parrots. Awaiting further comments. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It still looks like a greater to me, but if they say it is the lesser, go with that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a subspecies in mind? I recall its body being about the size of an African Grey Parrot, but with a longer tail. Zoos can get identification wrong. For me, its identification remains a bit of a problem. Does the sexual dimorphism give a clue? Snowman (talk) 09:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

After some more digging in the literature, and your size indication, I have changed my mind and agree now that it is most likely a lesser. Greater are substantially larger than the African Grey. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• 145. http://www.flickr.com/photos/36718407@N00/3191475534/ Lesser Vasa. Compare to 144 and it is obvious. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what this black parrot is. It is not obvious to me which it is. 144 is photographed in day light and 145 is photographed in artificial light. The beak colours of this species change seasonally. Awaiting further comments. Snowman (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a careful look at the relative size of the beaks, which is the main difference when the light is bad. The Greater has a stout beak, the lesser does have a much finer beak. Overall size is another which is obvious in the pictures. Beak size is the main characteristic in the field to distinguish them with, and it is actually quite obvious once you have seen them in the field (which I did). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the flickr photographer, who says it is a Lesser Vasa. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Coracopsis nigra -two captive-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• 146. Water bird. Is it the European subspecies? Snowman (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, Porphyrio porphyrio porphyrio Grantus4504 (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Porphyrio porphyrio -Europe-8.jpg‎ on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• 147. File:Funchal Botanical garden - Coracopsis nigra IMG 1837.JPG. File on commons to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really possible to ID because the beak is damaged, and not enough other characteristics. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to identify. I guess the beak deformity could be due to beak and feather disease? Snowman (talk) 09:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Going on feathers on lores and lack of clarity of eye rings, I think it is a Lessor. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• 148. Red bird for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Scarlet tanager is I am correct. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Piranga olivacea -perching-8.jpg on commons. I do not know much about these, but it would appear to be the male. Now in infobox on Scarlet tanager page because this image is better. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Correction: deletion of file File:Piranga olivacea -perching-8.jpg is under way, and link will turn red when file is deleted. Re-uploaded to File:Ramphocelus bresilius -zoo-8a.jpg.

• 149. Egret for identification with phase of plumage. Snowman (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Snowy Egret in breeding plumage Grantus4504 (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Uploaded to File:Egretta thula -Mexico-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

GAN

Ornithology, Black Drongo and Tree Sparrow all at GAN jimfbleak (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Note the next one through will be our 99th Recognised content thingy, and the next after that....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ID

File:Unidentified bird1.JPG got one more... --Docku: What's up? 12:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Indian Pond Heron. Shyamal (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. --Docku: What's up? 12:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What should be at White Cockatoo?

OK, I have moved Calyptorhynchus genus to Black Cockatoo as that is the name for the birds in the genus and is pretty clear in all the bird texts I have. There is alot of interesting taxonomic work that might be too detailed for the Cockatoo page, so beefing up or creating a White Cockatoo page may be a good thing.

The current is a redirect to the Umbrella Cockatoo, for which it is an alternate name (incdentally it is also an alternate name for the Sulphur-crested Cockatoo here in Oz.

Options are to make White Cockatoo a dab page to the two species and the subfamily Cacatuinae or the genus Cacatua (can be applied to either as we often broadly classify Major Mitchells and Galahs as white cockatoos. Or make it the subfamily page and mention the two species which may be called white cockatoo within it. Input? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this a widely accepted common name? Does it include corellas? In any event the capitalisation for a group of birds is lower case. Does "White cockatoo" have a precise meaning.. Snowman (talk) 11:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes, ok, lowercase noted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would have been better if you would have discussed the change of Calyptorhynchus genus to Black Cockatoo as it appears to me to be controversial. In any event the capitalisation is wrong for a group of birds. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's talk about it over there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

With capitals, "White Cockatoo" is another recognised common name for "Umbrella Cockatoo". Currently, "White Cockatoo" is a redirect to "Umbrella Cockatoo", which is correct. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Major Mitchells are sometimes referred to as pink cockatoos. Major Mitchells and Galahs are sometimes referred to as pink and grey cockatoos (or somethink like that) and are included in the group of dark cockatoos. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra notes on term

C&B 2008 uses white-cockatoo as name for white cockatoos in Cacatua (but not Corella subgenus). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Cameron p.6 does the same now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Forshaw 1978 says of Cacatua 'the so-called 'white cockatoos belong to this genus...' (incl. leadbeateri but not galah.)

Alan Lendon's Australian Parrots in Field and Aviary (p. 83) has chapter Cacatua subheaded "White Cockatoos"

I think that name changes and redirects for "white cockatoos" may be complicated and would need to be fully considered. Some of your references are quite old. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuff it. Maybe just make the genus name at Cacatua rather than at any common name (given tehre is more amibguity than with ;;Calyptorhynchus) and a note at White Cockatoo as to all the uses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it is probably better to start the article at Cacatua anyway, leaving any naming arguments to a possible move proposal later, if anyone is that bothered... Maias (talk) 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Calyptorhynchus

Can anyone confirm that the recent page name change of "Calyptorhynchus" to "Black Cockatoo" for a genus of "dark cockatoos" is correct. In any event the page capitalisation should be lower case for a group of birds. I think that this move is controversial. I would ask you to revert it back and discuss the move as for a controversial move. The Palm Cockatoo is not in this genus and is also black. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

See talk of that page. I will get refs. Palm Cockatoo never called a black cockatoo. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

But you have made a page called "Black Cockatoo", which has the wrong capitalisation for a group of birds. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

looks like Kim's fixed it jimfbleak (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The following are sources:

• Forshaw 1978 (PotW) p. 113 'The 'Black Cockatoos' belong to this genus'
• Christidis & Boles p. 150 'The 'Black-Cockatoo' genus....'
• Cameron p. 6 - also calls it black-cockatoo genus....

Damn,damn damn, never noticed the hyphens :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Forshaw. 2002 (the amended third addition). Parrots of Australia. "The 'black cockatoos' belonging to this genus are ...". This does not imply anything about black cockatoo refering only to one genus. Snowman (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Refs showing that Palm Cockatoo can be called a black cockatoo:

• Parrots of the World; an identification guide. 2006. Forshawe. plate 1 and plate 2 are untitled "BLACK COCKATOOS" (capitals throughout) and includes the Palm Cockatoo. I am very doubtful that "Black cockatoo" is a term that is widely accepted to refer only to the genus Calyptorhynchus. Snowman (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Juniper and Parr give an alternative name for the Palm Cockatoo as the Great Black Cockatoo. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• It is hardly surprising that someone might refer to the Palm Cockatoo as a black cockatoo, on account of it being a cockatoo what is black in colouration. I agree with Snowman, the usage is ambiguous. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the page should be reverted back to the scientific name, because I think that a controversial move made unilaterally without discussion. If anyone wants to move the page from the scientific name, then a formal name change discussion can be started and this would be in line with wiki guidelines. See also the discussion on Talk:Black cockatoo. Numerous piped links were also redirected to the newly named page without discussion. Snowman (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Erm...yes Snowman, when an article is moved, one tends to do that to avoid double redirects. I moved it as it appears to me pretty obvious, but as it is not unanimous and due to the Palm Cockatoo (which I don't feel is an issue but others do) I will move it back. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have removed your archive formatting placed needlessly here in the middle of a talk page, because the discussion is on-going. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• It seems to me that many of the piped links were to avoid a redirect and not a double redirects. The redirects Black cockatoo, Black Cockatoo, and Black-cockatoo would probably need directing to Cockatoo and not back to Calyptorhynchus. Snowman (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any further comments or observations? Snowman (talk) 13:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Better still make a disambiguation page for them - redirecting to cockatoo is much less accurate than listing the genus Calyptorhynchus and the Palm Cockatoo. I am not too fussed and I am tired and going to bed now. I will see what has happened in the morning Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I anticipate a 12 to 24 hours break, which I will use for thinking time. I think a dab for "Black cockatoo" could work; although, there may be alternative solutions. I would welcome any other views or observations from anyone, and I welcome assistance in writing a dab or in providing an alternative solution collaboratively.Snowman (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Foreshaw. Parrots of Australia. gives an alternative common name of the "Red-tailed Black Cockatoo" as the "Black Cockatoo", so I have added this to the dab. Snowman (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

crane???

wonder what this is?? both same bird... --Docku: What's up? 11:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC) File:Crane behind a tree.jpg and File:Crane in water.jpg

Great Egret Ardea alba. If its a wild bird, this will tell you the race jimfbleak (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

awesome. thanks again. --Docku: What's up? 11:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

wonder if it is possible to change the file name. --Docku: What's up? 12:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the photos in this group and they all seem to be Cattle Egrets. A Great Egret should show a much longer beak and a more sinuous neck. Shyamal (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

thanks. --Docku: What's up? 00:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they look more like Cattle Egrets.

I'm not sure how to rename images on Wikipedia, because I upload all my images to Commons. I'd like to suggest that you do that too. You can give them the right scientific names now that you know what they are (e.g., Bubulcus ibis behind a tree.jpg). Also, please give the location for all wildlife pictures—at least the country, but as much additional information as you're willing to provide. You can do this in the file name or the description. Anyway, thanks for uploading these and checking them! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bird biogeography request

Hi!, I would like to see here an article to translate about bird biogeography (or bird filogeography?)- Thank you all!. From theSpanish bird proyect - Rajoch (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you rephrase that without using long words? Snowman (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent rating?

Why is Bald Eagle rated high importance while American Black Vulture is rated low? (Both are FAs.) Xasodfuih (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Importance is more a measure of popularity - compare http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Bald_Eagle with http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/American_Black_Vulture but yes it can be inconsistent and perhaps the traffic rate should automatically set this field ! Shyamal (talk) 02:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this project have an assessment department where people can request rating of a page. This is useful for editors who have worked on a page and might want to request a independent opinion. I have seen two pages rated as B class recently by one of the main editors of the page. I thought there was a wiki guideline which says that it is better to get an independent assessment for rating articles, but I can not find it at the moment. Snowman (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Found it; see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment. I have added one to the list to be assessed. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on improving articles in taxonomic order. I ave made improvements to all Ratites and Albatrosses (not just species artcles, but also genus, family etc...) I was unaware of this option to have them rated, but from this point forward I will post all individual articles. However if requested I will list all articles from these earlier edits to make it easier. Please let me know. speednat (talk) 14:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

You have been working hard. I find it a little difficult to focus on where to start with so many articles, and there is no where obvious for comments as they are currently listed. An article list might help so that editors can say what they have assessed, and it might save several editors grading the same page and reduce duplication. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that "requests for assessment" has not been used a lot, but perhaps this will change now. Lets see how it goes. I will start a new section at the bottom of this talk page, so that it gets more attention. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bullfinch.

Two things, should Northern Bullfinch be forward too Eurasian Bullfinch, as this is the title in the book of Field Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe.? Also is this pic good enough to be included in the page? I took a pic of him last year when I rescued him out of the greenhouse. The poor feller was a little in shock at the time! Govvy (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that is an extremely cute photo (might be time to expand the article so as we can fit more images in). We often get loads of photos of common birds; the trick is to try and get as diverse images as possible - baby birds, birds displaying some form of behaviour etc. You are welcome to try and expand the article too :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you add where the photograph was taken in the image description on commons? Snowman (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Added the location, I don't know what to put in bird articles other than a picture and I thought I should ask the project as I thought it should be put to the people that work here on what type of pictures should be included in the bird articles otherwise you could end up with loads of pictures just for one bird! Govvy (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons is the best place for an image bank as it were. Other important details are subspecies, sex, and what the bird is doing (i.e. a particular behaviour). A diversity of images is good, and can be used on genus or family or species list page, or locality page (for a national park etc). Some food for thought anyyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)