Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 50

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Snowmanradio in topic Birds for identification (81)
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

Stonechat albofasciata

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My next pictures for upload are of a pair of Common stonechats (albofasciatus), African stonechats (albofasciatus), Ethiopian stonechats, Saxilla torquatus, Saxilla torquatus albofasciatus or Saxilla albofasciatus. (all different names for the same thing). As far as I can see the classification seems in a worse state than Turdus abbisinicus. I'm inclined to just call him 'Alby'. Does he get an entry of his own? Any thoughts? -Br11n (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Both Wikipedia and Commons list the African Stonechat as Saxicola torquatus—here's the Commons article. I recommend uploading your pictures with "Saxicola torquatus albofasciatus" in the name. (And since you wrote "Saxilla", I'll mention the importance of spelling carefully when uploading to Commons, since mistakes in file names there are a little harder to fix than other mistakes on these wikis.) If you want, you can add a note to the image description about other names.
As for whether we need a separate article, I think that should wait till the ornithologists reach a consensus, or till the correct treatment becomes obvious to the experts here (not me!). Until then, I think what we've got is fine. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Eurasian Crag Martin

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

First Ptyonoprogne workup through GA now, any comments, additions or sources before it goes to FAC? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Streaky Seedeater (variable greenish edges to the primaries)

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am drafting a short page for this species User:Br11n/Streaky_seedeater. Please check my photograph in view of the inconsistent description in my sources and several local lookalikes. ( In passing: or the next month or so I cannot browse flickr or upload to Commons: flickr needs too much bandwidth and the Commons upload form makes it impossible to specify categories with a poor connection: I can only use wiki uploads, so I have to do it this way) - Br11n (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (73)

Latest comment: 14 years ago25 comments7 people in discussion
  • You already got the Pied Crow (#4). All the black crows (1-3 + 5) are Cape Crows. The last easily confuse due to its apparently tailless appearance (leading to easy confusion with Fan-tailed Raven → very different shape of head, bill and wings), but either it's just the angle of the photo or the bird lost its tail. The fine bill, clearly shown on the first three photos, excludes all other African corvids, including Somali. • Rabo³ • 21:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I remain doubtful: I am familiar with Cape Crows in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Ethiopian birds have a distinct brown wash on head and shoulders which is lacking in S.A. The flight profile of some soaring birds is distinctly fantailed. Hopefully I'll get photos.Br11n (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • While I fully understand your doubts, this is one I have absolutely no doubts about. *No* other African Corvus has a bill anything like that and the flight shape is unlike that of the other Ethiopian Corvus (all of which I had the pleasure of seeing last fall). A brownish tinge to the plumage of otherwise black birds is very common, and usually explained by age or (in adults) wear and exposure to sun. Here is a quote from the entry for the Cape Crow in Handbook of the Birds of the World v. 14: "with wear, plumage becomes less glossy, at times even quite brownish. Juvenile is similar to adult, but plumage softer and dull sooty brown." Check also the decidedly brownish Cape Crow on the photo (may be deleted soon; suspect it's copyvio) currently used in the taxobox of that species' article. It is from Namibia, i.e. same subspecies as in South Africa (not that there are any differences in colour between the two subspecies; they only differ in size). • Rabo³ • 03:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirm. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have asked at the Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop to see if the image can be improved. Snowman (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Amazing shot. Looks exactly like a Yellow-green Vireo as stated. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Vireo flavoviridis -Panama-8a.jpg and shown in infobox on species page. First image of the species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Confirm, other Panama species would be Turquoise Cotainga which has a much paler throat and neck with clear border. This is an immature bird as shown by buff tips on flight feathers (these vanish after a year). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • HBW doesn't explain how to ID the sexes before one year, just that the the immature is like the female (but with the buff tips), presumably therefore it isn't possible to tell. It is certainly not unusual for sexually dimorphic species to show no or little differences in young birds.Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm convinced. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It could be, but the illustration shows a narrower band across the chest. I wonder if these are Motacilla alba persica, but I can not find an illustration of one to compare it with. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
  • My illustration of persica shows a great deal more black on the face than dukhunensis, but then again my illustration of dukhunensis shows more black than Shyamal's, so perhaps this one will remain a mystery. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (74)

Latest comment: 14 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion
Where are our shorebird experts? I'm convinced the peep is correctly identified as a Semipalmated Sandpiper (just from books, not experience), and the dowitchers are certainly dowitchers, but I'm going back and forth on whether they're Long-billed Dowitchers or Short-billed Dowitchers. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
One of each? The one behind is longer billed than the one in front. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The two species overlap a lot in bill length. Gray face, neck, and breast suggest Long-billed. Short-billed is much more common in the West Indies (this picture is from Barbados) than Long-billed, if the latter occurs there at all. Short-billed likes saline habitats, especially mudflats; Long-billed likes freshwater pools. (Is there any chance this is salt water?) If you can't hear the calls, you're really supposed to tell juveniles apart by the, wait for it, tertials, which are plain with a buff border in Long-billed and heavily barred and looped throughout in Short-billed. Are we seeing tertials here? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, they must be (I was confused by the names earlier). —innotata 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Commons file details amended. Snowman (talk) 12:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
What others occur in Kuwait, though? —innotata 19:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Brown headed Cowbird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Whoops wrong license - different licenses in the same Flickr photo-stream. Snowman (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

FA news

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Eurasian Crag Martin now at FAC, and Cas has a weird Oz plant there too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

African Mountain Thrush (Turdus abyssinicus)

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

I have drafted a new page User:Br11n/African_Mountain_Thrush but need discussion. I am hazy about zoological classification. The species is not included in the IUCN lists. Neither is the species listed in 'Birds of East Africa' (Stevenson & Fanshawe). Sinclair & Ryan call it 'Mountain Thrush' but Wikipedia uses this name for Turdus plebejus. Br11n (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It currently appears as a subspecies of Olive Thrush. The IOC list that we follow splits it as Abyssinian Thrush, so it's fine to create the new article. Make sure you add the species to the list at Turdus, and create redirects to your article from what appear to be a multitude of alternative names #redirect [[article name]]. Any problems, come back here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I've moved the article to the mainspace seeing that we need an article. —innotata 14:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Great! but I'm no zoologist, so what is the correct moniker in the 'species' and 'binomial' box?Br11n (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I would look for more evidence of a species split in addition to IOC evidence prior to making a new species page. Erudite comments needed. Incidentally, I have not seen someone move someone else's sandbox to make an article before. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I haven't seen Brian make more detailed articles, and he was asking if it was ready. Some authorities recognise it, (including) Sinclair and Ryan, as noted. —innotata 14:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The Usumbara Thrush also needs an article. —innotata 14:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Some other authorities recognize the split (the Commission internationale pour les noms français des oiseaux; Morony, Bock, and Farrand [Reference List of the Birds of the World, 1975]; and Peters) while others don't (Clements, Howard and Moore, HBW, the African Bird Club), according to Avibase. Of course, it's not that big a deal whether we pick one side or the other of a controversy, but where there's no consensus, I think it's better if someone who knows the arguments makes the decision, which I hope is what happened in this case. Anyway, if we're recognizing this split and the Usambara Thrush (and Oldean's Thrush?), we need to change the range we've got for the Olive Thrush.
Brian, what goes under "species" is T. plebejus and what goes under "binomial" is Turdus plebejus. It's not as mysterious as it sounds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
The situation in the Olive Thrush species complex is messy and not completely resolved, and while I would support having separate articles for T. olivaceus, T. smithi, T. helleri, T. ludoviciae, T. abyssinicus and T. roehli (but not T. oldeani or other), I would suggest people read up on the situation (e.g., Bowie et al., 2003 in Ostrich 74, Bowie et al., 2005 in J. Avian Biology 36(5), Voelker et al., 2007 in Mol. Phyl. Evo. 42(2)) before making the new articles. First, the split of the Turdus abyssinicus is in not very recent, as our article suggests (citing IOC, 2010). This is an old split, followed by a merge, and then a (re-)split. Secondly, there are hybrid zones, uncertainty over which taxa belong in the northern Mountain and the southern "true" Olive (even if recent data to some extent has solved this, leaving the swynnertoni group with T. olivaceus), uncertainty over what exactly is going on in the Usambaras (where thrushes that do not completely match what usually has been published on roehli have been observed), etc. Anyhow, we're getting there with the Olive Thrush species complex, but the situation remains, well, complex. • Rabo³ • 04:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you innotata for your help while I am learning to edit wikipedia pages and for clearing up after me in several places. I do not have access to book, library or internet resources to write any more, but if any of you can sort it out, please do! Meanwhile the bird in question has been nestbuilding just outside the window. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turdus_abbisinicus1.jpg Maybe I can get pictures of nest, eggs, young, fledglings etc. Any tips on photographing nests without driving the hen off. ( Ethiopian birds are very tame compared to those in Europe of southern Africa.) Br11n (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
From the image metadata, I note that you are using a Olympus C-765 Ultra Zoom, a 4 Mpix camera with a 10x optical zoom. I would expect this to give quite good pictures. I wonder why your pictures are generally a bit blurred and mottled. I wonder if you are using any digital zoom, which could produce a magnified picture, but with resolution no better. I generally find it better to work within the optical zoom and not use the digital zoom capability. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Viduidae

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

I've just moved this page from Indigobird, bu the talk page needs to be moved. I did not move it to Vidua, since the HBW recognises the Cuckoo Finch as part of the family (the HBW chose this family for its preview of its next volume). —innotata 18:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I wish you hadn't done that move. Common names are to my mind to be preferred because the readers seem to prefer them; for example articles like duck get twenty times more readers than Anatidae. Yes, technically some indigobirds are actually called whydahs, but the article was fine where it was. I've never understood why people get so het up about the title not being inclusive enough. Please at least mention these kinds of moves before making them. I've moved the talk page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry: I had originally intended to make a requested move, but I thought I would probably get nothing of a response as usual, and that this was unlikely to be controversial. It seems that indigobirds and wydahs are names for different sorts of Vidua species, and that those called "wydahs" are much more well-known. The HBW uses the name "Wydahs and Indigobirds" for the family. —innotata 21:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
To clarify: it seems that neither indigobird nor wydah is a name that is often accepted as a name for the whole group—that wydahs are certain indigobirds, or vice versa. If you can show that one term is used for the whole group, often, then I'll support a move to that name. —innotata 01:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Meh. We're not supposed to use plurals (like we wrongly do for Lories and lorikeets) thanks to some policy or guideline or another, and scientific names tend to be unfamiliar and unliked by laypeople, so personally I see nothing wrong in sacrificing a little inclusiveness (leaving the article at Lory or Dove rather than Loriinae or Columbidae) in favour of simplicity and recognisability. Whydahs may not be indigobirds but anyone finding the article for the family at Indigobird would not be particularly surprised or upset (except the pedantic "ZOMG! Pigeons aren't doves" crowd). But whatever, this isn't a battle I'm ever going to win. Incidentally, are we ever going to do anything about the fact that we have two crow articles, one at Crow and one at Corvus (genus)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Having our "Swallows and martins" article at Swallow doesn't seem to have caused any problems. Martin (bird) is a redirect, and the first sentence of the "Swallow" article clearly indicates that both are included. Couldn't we do something similar with indigobird and whydah? If whydahs are indeed "much more well-known", then put the article there, and redirect indigobird. MeegsC | Talk 02:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Don't mention the swallow article! Now that you've mentioned it some well intentioned editor is going to move it! Dammit. Along with antbird, parrot, falcon, trogon, toucan, tyrant flycatcher, bird-of-paradise and others. Dammit, now I've done it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
The page name "Viduidae" seems fine to me, and better and more accurate than the previous name. The redirects will lead readers to the correct page and introduction does the necessary explaining. Is a Cuckoo Finch a indigobird, a whydah, or neither; its species wiki article does not define it as either, which would make the original family page name "Indigobird" even more inappropriate. Snowman (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I have difficulty in interpreting "Meh" (above). Snowman (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Goodness, Sabine's Sunbird! I don't really think any of the others you named should be moved (except "Lories and lorikeets", to "lory" or "Loriinae", presumably) But it seems the situation is different here. I've heard about whydahs, and seen their name used for the Viduidae, read a book about them even, but I've never heard of "indigobirds", and looking at mentions of this family like the HBW, neither name seems to be a collective for the group. —innotata 13:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying you would, I'm saying other people will. My comment was more tongue in cheek than anything. Nor, again, was I asserting, at any point, that indigobird was the collective noun for the family (it might be but I do not know), I was simply saying that it would not be the end of the world if the article sat there anyway. And snowman, meh (m-e-h) has several meanings, but was meant as a verbal shrug of the shoulders and to indicate my increasing lack of interest in this discussion. An interest that has long since passed, and we all have better things to do than have me rail about this anymore. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
For an essay see WP:Beans. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, right, more important things to do. Most people don't have time for things like this (but I do !). Would these things include identifying photos, besides working on articles? I have only been adding a selected few birds, to avoid flooding this page and getting this response. What does the essay have to do, and why did you have to add that silly note to it, Snowmanradio? —innotata 20:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Anyone can amend the essay, if they can see an improvement. I think the essay is fairly easy to understand, and it is about giving editors ideas which is tangentially relevant here. I would be grateful if you would re-think your comment that refers to my edit to the essay as "adding that silly note to it". Snowman (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The "easter egg" link is an example of something not to do, and your addition is quite obvious. Again, most people rather enjoy those easter eggs on talk pages and project humour pages. Are you bothered by my comment? —innotata 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just been clearing out the Commons unidentified categories, mostly. Nothing more to be said about my submissions here. —innotata 23:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I understand what was meant by "Meh" now: the external link to the Urban Dictionary points to a variety of meanings, and I found the illustration useful. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

IUCR

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

There have been a number of edits changing the IUCR status in infoboxes that do not correspond to the IUCR website; see Blue-crowned Lorikeet, Crimson Shining Parrot, and Blue-eyed Cockatoo, and others. I would like to make sure that the status is correct, but I am wondering if I missing anything about recent IUCR updates? Snowman (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

You aren't missing anything. This sort of vandalism keeps on happening. —innotata 14:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I've gone through those of this user's contributions that haven't been reverted already. Only the edits to cane toad were correct. —innotata 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

BBOC

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Can anyone help get a copy of Hall,BP (1956). "Variation in the Flycatcher Shrike Hemipus picatus (Sykes)". Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 76 (4): 63-64 ? Shyamal (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, I just need the titles (not necessarily the text) of two articles
  • Baker, E C S (1933) Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 54 p.24 and
  • Sykes, William Henry (1832). Proceedings of the Committee of Science and Correspondence of the Zoological Society of London pt2 (18): 83. Thanks
Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
"Catalogue of birds of the Raptorial and Incessorial Orders observed in the Dukhun" pp. 77-99 Page Shyamal (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
It is in the library here (after I figured out it was the Ornithologists' Club and not the Ornithological Club... thanks Jimfbleak). I can have a look in a few days. That means I'll also be able to find the title of the Baker paper. Ucucha 17:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Jimfbleak: The article has no title. It is part of a series of recordings of talks given at a meeting of the Club. This piece includes only p. 24 and starts "Mr. E. C. Stuart Baker forwarded the following description of a new race of Krimnochelidon concolor :—" The new race is Krimnochelidon concolor sintaungensis and is slightly darker than the nominate. Wing length is 112 mm in a male and 108–110 mm in females; tail length ~55, bill at front 20, tarsus 7. From the Shan States of Burma near Sintaung at about 6000 ft. Ucucha 19:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I can also view BBOC copies, but not soon; if you need one some time this summer or fall, I can get it (though I'm not sure how far back the issues go—I think they have 1950 and 2009). —innotata 17:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

did you know....

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

World Migratory bird day is 8-9 May - can we do a special occasion of migratory bird articles? Can we bombard dyk enough with enough 5x expansion of migratory birds? Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We can probably manage that. Be good to have migratory related hooks. I'll hold off on Long-tailed Cuckoo, which has a great migratory hook, till then. Perhaps Northern Bald Ibis or Common House Martin could be the Featured Article of the Day? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Or how about Arctic Tern, which migrates 44,000 + miles a year? By May, it'll be 3 years since it's been on the front page. MeegsC | Talk 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
(sigh) once on the main page, never again. As far as an offical DYK set-aside, the idea received a cool reception, but we can still buff a bunch of migratory birds 5x around that time. I am sure there are stacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 07:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we make a standing list of migratory bird stubs of less than 150 words or so which might be good to buff up in a couple of weeks just beforehand? All the shearwaters are too big already :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Think passerines! I could do Dead Sea Sparrow (245 words), but I don't feel like doing it soon. —innotata 22:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

WP:BIRD's naming conventions have come up for discussion on the Village Pump policy page. As this discussion may affect the WikiProject's use of capitalization in article titles, I am informing the relevant WikiProject. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Must be that time of year again. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What time of year? I've noted that this is a well-beaten debate, and the discussion has moved on. —innotata 20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
What Sabine's Sunbird means is that this gets brought up every year. Actually two or three times every year. Gets kinda old after a while... MeegsC | Talk 00:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. (Also, the conversation there is still active). Firsfron of Ronchester 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
I meant that I noted that this hasn't really been settled, and a discussion will get old. I'm still commenting, to signal support for van der Linde's opinions. —innotata 15:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
And there are two proposals now - vote early and vote often! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Presentation on the hu wiki

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Re: hu:Románia madárfajainak képtára - any views on this style of presentation as an assisting page to a list of birds. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It's very neat. It could be possible with some of the European lists and maybe some US State lists, where we have all of or close to all of the species. Not going to happen for places like Africa or Asia for a while sadly. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it could work for some country lists. —innotata 20:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Only problem? When you're somewhere with slow internet connection (like the hotel I'm currently in), the page takes forever to download, thanks to all those pictures. I agree it's nice to look at though — eventually!  :) MeegsC | Talk 05:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Good point. Perhaps we could have it as an alternative list to a more text-based list. List of birds of Austria and Visual list of birds of Austria, something like that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That's what hu.wiki does, and Snowman suggested. —innotata 00:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
You're right, I missed that first time around. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is Jack Snipe called Jack?

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

It seems a strange thing to call a bird by a human first name. Was it first found by a guy called Jack??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.244.185 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it comes from the Welsh giach. I'll add this to the article if I can find a good source. —innotata 19:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Added to the article with citation to the Century Dictionary online. —innotata 20:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
It probably does come from "Jack". I'll update the article. There are other birds with the human name "Jack", the Jackdaw and the Jacky-winter, and compare "jackass" and "jackrabbit". Other birds given human names are the robin, martin, and magpie (Mag for Margaret). "Jay" may come from the Latin name Gaius. "Jenny wren" and "tomtit" never became official. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Tomtit did in New Zealand. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:42, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Oxford Book of Bird Names says Jack refers to the snipe's small size (Jack Curlew is the Whimbrel). There was also a popular tradition that this bird was the male of the Common Snipe, probably through misinterpeting Jack as meaning male, rather than just diminuative Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
In Jackdaw and Jack Bird (Fieldfare) Jack refers to the call and is onamotopeoic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The NSOED gives the meaning of "small" as originally deriving from the name. Other examples include jacks and the jack in bowls. In "a male hawk, esp. a male merlin" it has the advantage of meaning both "male" and "small". (Note British use of "hawk" to include falcons.) I'm not sure why the name means small—maybe because it used to mean a commoner, an inferior man.
The OED and other dictionaries say that "jackdaw" is from the name. What's your source for the onomatopoeia etymology? Maybe my statement is more controversial than I thought.
I should have guessed that my statement about "tomtit" needed to be checked. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Jackdaw from OBBN as stated for the snipe, OED more likely to be right Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

House Sparrow subarticles?

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I've been mulling the idea of splitting subarticles off House Sparrow so as to improve it recently, and I'd like to see what others think. There are a number of arguments for and against splitting articles like this, but what matters is how much detail we need on the House Sparrow. What does everybody here think? —innotata 22:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP is aimed at a general audience, not specialists. For a species, my own view is that it should preferably be a single article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
  • WP has articles that start with a general introduction without jargon and may continue with specialist information written for a general audience. WP aims to accumulate the whole of human knowledge. The WP tree of life says to start with the higher order taxa and when the pages are full, then make sub-pages for the lower order taxa. I am not sure what content is planned for the House Sparrow sub-pages; however, in-the-round, if the House Sparrow page is full, then sub-pages would be valuable for extra relevant information. Snowman (talk) 09:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Re Jimfbleak: There are a couple of species articles with subarticles, all of them domestic animals so far. The House Sparrow could possibly have subarticles as well.
Re Snowmanradio: I think your advice effectively says "don't make subarticles". I was thinking about making subarticles for the topic headings like "distribution and habitat" or "description", to include details of general interest which would not fit in the main article, details worth including in most articles (the history of the House Sparrow in Northa America is the example that made me put this query out). I don't think subspecies articles are at all needed, or that they would go beyond stub size.
In any case, I think I'll slow down on editing House Sparrow and work on Spanish Sparrow, and see if that provides me with ideas. —innotata 15:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that "History of the House Sparrow in North America" would be a possible supporting page. Budgerigar might give you some ideas, because it has so many supporting pages that they have their own navbox. You might make sub-pages for subtopics on the House Sparrow, but not a division of the main page to form pages from what are now sections. Snowman (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is needed at all. The situation here would be more like that at cat or Charles Darwin. On its own, the history of the House Sparrow in North America would not be a decent article. I don't think it will be any good to split House Sparrow right now, but I'm still uncertain. —innotata 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License content

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Maybe this is old news, but the site Zoologische Mededelingen has a CC-BY-3.0 licence for all their articles. See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=zoomed;cc=zoomed;sid=233cf96e72e622027b93189b0d1d85b3;rgn=main;tpl=home.tpl I found a lot of articles on Birds (click on the 2006 issues for instance). Maybe usefull? Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know anything about copyright, but I think that means we can copy images. I meant: not text and maybe not tables. —innotata 01:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC) I think a lot are reproductions of old images, which will be in the public domain. —innotata 15:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
And Contributions to Zoology too... that gives some nice papers. Ucucha 15:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That was exactly why I mentioned it! :) I'm working on butterflies and moths myself, but have noticed the great bird articles that are present on wikipedia, so I thought I might give you guys a hint so you might improve even more..! Ruigeroeland (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've started uploading images from Bijdragen tot die Dierkunde, but no birds yet. —innotata 01:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

More IUCN mischief

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

75.170.31.191 (talk · contribs) has been falsely changing the IUCN status on bird taxoboxes, and might be the same editor mentioned in the "IUCR"(sic) thread above for doing the same thing. A few examples:[2][3][4][5] Since WP:AIV isn't yet fully convinced that this is vandalism, this is just a heads-up to make sure any IUCN changes you see on bird articles are really legitimate. First Light (talk) 02:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Does it justify a status check by a checkuser? Snowman (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there are similar sorts of edits to plant articles as well. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The IP is now blocked for two weeks. I didn't see their account vandalizing plant articles - is there another one doing that? First Light (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd say this is almost certainly vandalism. It happens often, and often occurs along with other disruptive and deceptive edits. —innotata 15:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
What do people think of the edits to this plant; Tabebuia aurea. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like that earlier (or the same) user, Birdlover777 (talk · contribs), messed with Tabebuia aurea and Cupressus macrocarpa. I guess we can only watch for more of the same, and/or ask for checkuser help. First Light (talk) 17:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

"yellow-tailed hawk"

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is there an animal commonly (sometimes) referred to as "yellow-tailed hawk"? if so, what's an alternate name and/or scientific name? (I have Atseełtsoii in Navajo, but cannot find the corresponding en-article...) See also this picture Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing, afaik, commonly known under this name, and I can't recall seeing or reading of any bird that fits this description. Google goes straight to Red-tailed Hawk. If this is a N American term, Ferruginous Hawk is probably the most likely candidate, given it's pale tale, but that's just my guess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
The bird in the picture is a Red-shouldered Hawk, a bird of eastern North American and California. Its yellow feet misled the photographer. (Almost all North American hawks have yellow feet.)
There's another discussion of the phrase here. Note the link to our article on Thomas Yellowtail, from another Indian tribe.
People name colors differently—as in Purple Sandpiper, Purple Martin, and Purple Finch—and cultures definitely name colors differently. I don't think there are North American hawks that most of us would say have yellow tails. If there are, they're probably odd Red-tailed Hawks. So unless Navajos are still seeing this bird and could identify it in a bilagáana bird guide or take a picture or point it out to a birder, I think it will have to go unidentified. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I found it. It's indeed Buteo borealis. (There is no Atseełchííʼ ("red-tailed hawk") in Navajo) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Bird finally beats chicken

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://toolserver.org/~alexz/pop/view.php?proj=bird&month=Apr10&limit=500&offset=0 this might be a useful guide... Shyamal (talk) 08:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

900 hits a day for Cloaca? Wow!. Must be all those Roman history buffs... Maias (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (76)

Latest comment: 14 years ago27 comments6 people in discussion
House Sparrow, bibilicus if in Jordan. —innotata 22:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
House Sparrow uploaded to File:Passer domesticus -Jordan-8.jpg on commons. The camera has geotagged the photograph. I have added the subspecies that you indicate to the image description without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the subspecies, since the photo was taken in March, when there are wintering birds in Jordan, and its plumage is fresh. Also: the House Sparrow has subcategories on the Commons for females, males, videos, etc. —innotata 13:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Red-vented Bulbul, I'd guess P. c. humayuni, but Shyamal's your man to nail the ssp. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Pycnonotus cafer -Pune, Maharashtra, India-8.jpg - subspecies details can be added, if it can be identified to subspecies. Snowman (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
In these wide-spread species without any real disjunctions I think the subspecies should not be taken too seriously. The problem is that clinal variation has not been well studied and with no information on the gene-flow, the whole concept is only suited for twitchers as yet another entity to tick. The location for this bird incidentally should fall within the range for the nominate. humayuni is from the arid zone. Shyamal (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirm ID. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you tell the two subspecies apart, but Karori is on North Island and modern translocations (like Karori) are sourced from the correct islands. Assuming the photo was taken where it said it was it would be a North Island bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. The external website that you linked is informative. I have removed subspecies identification. I realised that it was on the North Island, but I (wrongly) thought that as it was a sanctuary it could have birds brought in from the South Island. Awaiting more information and comments. Snowman (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. MeegsC | Talk 15:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Image selected for infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Signpost Interview

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Hello WP:BIRDS,

Innotata requested a Signpost interview; we have an opening for May 24. The team will begin assembling the questions and would appreciate all members to participate. Just head to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk/Interviews2 and have fun!

On behalf of the Signpost, thank you! mono 00:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Questions have been posted.--monoNational Pretzel Day 04:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the goal of this exercise? I think that the questions would be expected return a biased result, because only members of WP:Birds are invited to participate. I also think that this question is loaded: "What motivated you to become a member of WikiProject Birds?", and I think that is likely to return a bias towards positive opinions. I request that this exercise is abandoned and replaced with an exercise that all editors or readers can participate. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the problem. This isn't an article, it's e-journalism and a chance to show the project to a wider audience. There is nothing to stop you giving critical or negative responses if you wish to do so, I don't think there's any censorship. Surely " all editors or readers can participate" if they wish to, but since this is an interview with the project, it's difficult to see why they would wish to do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The invitation is "would appreciate all members to participate". I would interpret this to indicate that non-members and readers are not invited to participate. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever read any of the Signpost project interviews, Snowman? They're basically a plug for the WikiProjects, explaining a bit about them from current members' points of view, in an attempt to help attract new project members. I'd suggest you read a few of the back issues to see how they work... MeegsC | Talk 11:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that there should be a link with the above request to a page where this exercise is explained. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's an archive of some of Signpost's previous WikiProject articles. Please read a few for a better understanding of the sorts of questions that are asked, and what sorts of responses are typically chosen. As I said before, it's a way of letting the wider Wikipedia community know about some of the lesser-known projects. Typically, Signpost is read by people who are already quite active as editors; you can get it delivered weekly to your talk page, for example. MeegsC | Talk 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
And most projects have coordinators interviewed. —innotata 15:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I hope that no one will take the overall tone and outcome and anything other that what it is - the views of the members of this project. I think that it is unfortunate that non-members have not been invited to respond. If I was a member of this project, probably the most important thing that I would say in view of the number of missing photographs and place-holder photographs, is that new users could make really useful contributions by taking photographs of wild or zoo birds where ever they live or visit, and upload them for identification or to be catalogued on commons. New users may also like to contribute by sharing photographs of their pet birds. If anyone who has been invited to reply also has this view, then please give it as a reply to the question; "How can a new contributor help today?". Snowman (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see you can't comment, Snowman. —innotata 15:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> I see now what you are getting at, you are such an active participant, it never occurred that you weren't formally signed up - I'm certain no one is going to object to you commenting, it's not a closed shop. Or sign up to the project - you are more active than many who are already on the list! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jim, surely you're a member of the project, even if you never signed your name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago I made a proactive decision not to formally join this project - sometimes this helps me to see things from a distance. Some people do not formally join projects and there is a userbox so show this, but I can not show this userbox, because I have joined a project that I started and made its first project pages. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You regularly join in discussions about improvements, content and guidelines, review articles, aggressively hunt down images for the project and generally work to improve Wikipedia's coverage of birds. You may not have formally joined but you are a participant, and Wikiprojects in general and ours in particular are informal anyway, so there is clearly no problem with you or any other bird editing editor commenting on the interview. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
And you can add your name to as many projects as you like—I'm listed at 10. I didn't notice that how few of the bird editors are listed on the project list. —innotata 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
You can be a member of as many or as few projects as you like. Snowman (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

FPC

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Just noticed this image File:Steppe-Eagle444.jpg - I am sure it is Milvus migrans - not sure if it is lineatus or govinda though. A pity nobody asked out here... Shyamal (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The description labels it as Black Kite, but the file name is certainly misleading. Can we get it changed? MeegsC | Talk 12:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I have initiated a file rename to File:Milvus migrans -Kathmandu, Nepal-444.jpg without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ringnecked Parakeet vs. Alexandrine Parakeet

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Could anyone tell me how closely related these two bird species are, in terms of percentage of shared DNA? I know that they're closely related enough to crossbreed and that the Alexandrine looks like the next layer of the Russian doll when stood beside the Ringneck. Thanks. --95.148.107.78 (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

They are quite close per this study http://kar.kent.ac.uk/6781/1/Groombridge_&_Nichols_&_Bruford_PsittaculaParakeets_April_2004.pdf I am not sure what measure you want - the interpretation of sequence similarity (selected loci) figures is quite complex - and whole genome comparisons are rare. Shyamal (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The appearances are different in criteria other than the size of the two parrots. I understand that species in a genus need to be more than about 2% DNA different (DNA in the chromosomes in the nucleus) to be easily distinguishable as these two species are. I am not sure about the much smaller amount of DNA in the mitochondria in the cytoplasm, but measures of the difference in mitochondrial DNA can be a yardstick in biology and phylogeny. I guess that cross-breeding may not be as significant as it sounds, because species in different genera can cross-breed. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem edits

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

67.248.165.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is making numerous small edits to bird and fauna articles, first by adding lizards, crabs, and various other small creatures to their diets. Now they are changing the size of numerous birds. This edit[6] and some others like it are obviously false, while most of the others would require research to verify. There are about 50 recent bird article edits that would need verification or reverting. Would someone like to verify, or perhaps revert the lot of them? First Light (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted several and so has User:Sabine's Sunbird - this "frog and rodent diet" vandal has been around before - and these stealthy changes without citation are not worth having even if some of the facts are plausible. Shyamal (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted any remaining vandalism from this IP address. —innotata 15:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Is the Jackdaw the second smallest or smallest Corvus? This IP changed it to the former. —innotata 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks everyone, I'll be more ready to revert in the future. —Unless there's a good source clearly saying so, wouldn't all of this 'smallest', 'biggest', 'third smallest', etc., be original research? Especially since 'smallest' could mean height, wingspan, or weight. First Light (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Lengths of small Corvus in cm from Crows and Jays by Madge and Burn: Jackdaw (Western Jackdaw) 34-39, Daurain Jackdaw 32, Northwestern Crow 33-41, Tamaulias Crow 34-38, Sinaloa Crow 34-38, Palm Crow 34-38, Jamaican Crow 35-38. It is difficult rank them all by size, because of the size range given for the species. According to these measurement in this book, the Daurain Jackdaw is the smallest Corvus and then there are several all about equal second. Mathematically the Jackdaw is probably about forth or fifth smallest going on the midpoint of the ranges provided, but the group in second place are all about the same size and this guess at extrapolation may not be the right way to determine the sequence. This reference says that the "Jackdaw is one of the smallest Corvus", which is what the wiki article on the Western Jackdaw says in the introduction. Going on this book, I think that it is probably an oversimplification to say that the Western Jackdaw is the second smallest, and it would be better to say that the Daurain Jackdaw is the smallest Corvus and that the Western Jackdaw is one of several that are about equal second smallest. Are other references consistent with this or not? Snowman (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no books on european corvids currently, but your (conservative) approach sounds prudent Snowman. Ucucha wondered why I hadn't listed Yellow-tailed Black Cockatoo as largest cocky as it had been wirtten, but it is so because of its long tail and Palm Cockatoo is bulkier, so the question is often more complicated than initially seems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Map needed

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Grey Currawong recently passed GAN - and needs a map. I left a request at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop but difficult to gage how active the page is or if anyone will take up the request. If anyone wants to help out I'd be grateful, or alternatively point me in the direction of some freeware which I can edit .svg/.png files etc. Also, the article was harder than Pied Currawong as less is known, but any copyediting or suggestions much appreciated before I send it to the snake pit Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

GIMP is a open source version of Photoshop which I have used to make maps in the past. This is a good site to get PD maps to use in GIMP. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Inkscape for SVG is my preference, especially since vector maps are more amenable to modifications and corrections. Shyamal (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all. I will have a play. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (75)

Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments7 people in discussion
Asian Fairy-bluebird Irena puella Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Irena puella -Disneys Animal Kingdom, Florida, USA-8a.jpg on commons and shown on wiki species page as it is a better than the previous infobox image. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Of the Djoudj images, 3,4,7 and 8 are African Darters, the rest Great Cormorant ssp lucidus The Prespa marsh is a mixture of Great Cormorant (ssp sinensis?) and Pygmy Cormorants Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
The Brazil one is Neotropic Cormorant Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Djoudj National Bird Sanctuary, Senegal. I think that the List of birds of Senegal needs an update in the darters section (I do not have the right reference books). Are there any Long-tailed Cormorants in Djoudj. Snowman (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Barlow et al. says long-tailed is "widespread along all coastal and riverine delta habitats". The darter is "seasonally common to locally abundant throughout wetland Senegambia" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Does the Long-tailed live in Senegal? Which species of darter is this? Snowman (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The comment above is specifically for Senegal, it's even more abundant in The Gambia. Breeding resident in any wetland. African Darter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The "List of birds of Senegal" had the wrong binomial for the African Darter, so I have fixed it. Snowman (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Possibly Scaly Francolin. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hammerkop, from an odd angle. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Hammerkop uploaded to File:Scopus umbretta -Oregon Zoo, Portland, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Confirm ID. Nice to have another shot of this species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Australian Owlet-nightjar uploaded to File:Aegotheles cristatus -Wollombi Valley, New South Wales, Australia-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page with the other photograph. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Mute Swans. MeegsC | Talk 22:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK hooks

Latest comment: 14 years ago31 comments10 people in discussion

I was musing on DYK hooks after I realised I have never had one reach 5000 page views, and concede that most of mine are inherently dry (i.e. I work the stub up and then find a hook which is ok-ish). Maybe a different tack is to think of some outrageous sounding facts and then really buff some article which might already be sitting at 200 words or something. Can anyone think of any? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sex always sells! Find some bird with a wacky sex life — Dunnocks, perhaps, or Lesser Prairie-chicken or one of the phalaropes — and write a compelling lead, and you're in!  :) MeegsC | Talk 20:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Did you know that scientists no longer consider tits in Japan to be great? Maybe we should save that one for April 1st. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I would think that a basic scientific or historical hook would be more appropriate for the main page. "People once thought that swifts had no legs". The image could also help. What sort of hooks have been the most successful? Snowman (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
There is a collection of most popular at Wikipedia:DYKSTATS. Sex does sell though. I think we could fivefold expand an article of up to 250 words maybe but more than that may be a big ask...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sexy, gruesome, cute and wacky seem to do well. But if those don't fit, just go for enigmatic. Maias (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Darn, the Phalaropes are pretty buffed already :( - anyway, will think on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at DYKs with over 20,000 hits there are quite a few about people. Is there interesting hook about ornithologists, bird keepers, or humans and birds. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is the absurd and perhaps trivial facts that are best for the column, Snowman. I used a hook that stated that the first recorded recipe was for the fish Cepola macrophthalma, rather than a hook about its burrowing. If people are drawn to an article, they can find the "basic scientific facts". I don't know of any migratory bird sstubs that I have a decent source to expand; perhaps there are some Parulidae. —innotata 13:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
(Butting in.) I have got a lot of views for some rodent articles: eastern chipmunk (hoards a lot of stuff), eastern harvest mouse (lives for less than a year), Key Largo Woodrat ("builds enormous homes"), Sciurini (the eastern gray squirrel is a living fossil), Tachyoryctes rex (abbreviate it). Some of those are facts that aren't really surprising when you are knowledgeable about the animals, but that nonetheless are surprising to the general readership; perhaps there are similar opportunities for birds. Ucucha 14:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Believe me I am wracking my brain....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the species that have recently had a photograph shown for the first time (or those where a better photograph has become available) might give you some ideas. I recall that Andean Cock-of-the-rock, a DYK with over 7600 views, was the work of a small collaboration that became interested after a new photograph was uploaded, although an old photograph of its upper body was shown on the main page. Snowman (talk) 15:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

What about Anodorhynchus, a genus page. There may be possibilities for a hook on something about the possible existence or extinction of the Glaucous Macaw, or how the Lear's Macaw got its eponymous common name. Snowman (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Good ideas here, but how catchy a hook do you need? The current DYK mentions the startling fact that a medieval Greek liturgical manuscript was used in a treatise on the Greek liturgy. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Getting a hook on DYK is not too difficult; getting one that attracts a lot of views is. That one will only get a few hundred at best, I expect; a good one gets many thousands. Ucucha 17:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that is what this discussion is about, isn't it. I must say I like the Japanese Titsuggestion for next April 1. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It is good to remember that views are based on chance and timing as much as article and hook quality. Those lectionaries and codexes are really exceptional, and some DYK reviewers don't like running these. —innotata 18:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
FWIW and FYI, one that I wrote (heh, actually, the only one of mine that's ever been up there - mainly because I don't actually write many articles) - Cookie (cockatoo), "... that 76-year-old Cookie (pictured) is believed to be the oldest Major Mitchell's Cockatoo in any zoo?" got 6000 views. So, perhaps working on something at Category:Famous birds, or an article about a famous bird not yet covered here? Dunno, just an idea. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: It would seem that Sparkie got 6.7k views when it was on the main page. People like parrots. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

At first, the idea was migratory birds. I think more of us are interested in species than individual birds. —innotata 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

How about "...that James Bond declared the Puerto Rican Nightjar to be extinct — but it was later rediscovered?" Good old 007 (ha ha) ought to net us a few views! MeegsC | Talk 20:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Looks nice (though we seem to have dropped the migratory bit by now, as with the tit). I'll probably just go for some dry warbler hooks, and maybe make a massive expansion of a migratory Passer sparrow. —innotata 20:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Sociable Weaver was 211 words - a good hook should be easy as the nests are amazing. Can we get it to 1055 words then? I don't have much on south african birds though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Update:Unless someone hasa stack of material, that one will be hard. I don't have much :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
SASOL just has ID stuff and it doesn't reach The Gambia or Kenya, which Meegs, Jerry and I can source adequately Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
A quick check of Google Scholar shows lots of articles on the species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I can scan a bunch of books on South African birds today. And don't you have the HBW, Sabine's Sunbird? —innotata 17:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
HBW hasn't gotten to the weavers yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got "Roberts Birds of Southern Africa", which has lots of info. However, I'm up to my eyeballs at work at the minute, so may not get a chance to help out quickly enough. MeegsC | Talk 21:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Which edition is it? Snowman (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was looking through some old hook results - a good pic must work well as Andean Cock-of-the-rock got over 7000 hits at DYK. Also, Swift Parrot is one of only two migratory parrots, but would be a big challenge as it is already 295 words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a head's up, Great Auk is now at FAC. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC) ..it was lonely, so I had to fix that --> Grey Currawong nominated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (77)

Latest comment: 14 years ago39 comments6 people in discussion
By range - fusca Shyamal (talk) 09:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Image shown in infobox. Snowman (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed an Egyptian Vulture pic, but I don't see a flickr link; was it labeled as something else there? MeegsC | Talk 18:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The external link to the image on commons is "Pariahkite", which is given as the source in the information box on commons. I guess that it is the Indian subspecies of the Egyptian vulure, but I am not certain enough to add this detail to the image description. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Pariah Kite is actually another name for one of the subspecies of Black Kite, so that name is definitely wrong! I don't know enough about subspecies to ID definitively, but I'll see if any of my books say anything... MeegsC | Talk 00:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes indeed Neophron percnopterus ginginianus (named after Gingee Fort) would be within range. Apparently only size variations and possibly clinal although it is said that the nominate African form has a dark tip to the bill (study needed per Rasmussen & Anderton 2005). Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I have opted to leave the image description as it is with the location of the bird clearly indicated, which should suffice; however, anyone can add to the image description on commons preferably with details that they are certain of. Commons has over 40 photographs of the the Egyptian Vulture and several good ones from India all with pale beaks. There are several other vulture photographs showing a black-tipped beak, but generally these are without the location or the vulture is photographed in a zoo. For this bird many of the commons photographs of birds in the wild would be much more useful if the locations were provided. It is surely an argument for editors to try their best to determine the location from flikcr (or other source) - a bit of searching may be needed - looking for a map of geocoordinates (may not be present), date of the photographs (usually provided), checking if there are any clues in the labelling, or in any other photographs in the photostream taken at about the same time. If the location is provided by the source, then it can then be transcribed from the source to the commons image description. For me the importance of the location may not always be apparent at the time of upload. Snowman (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
This is a Hooded Crow, which is sometimes considered to be conspecific with Carrion Crow. MeegsC | Talk 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Corvus cornix -perching-8.jpg on commons. I have selected it for the infobox on the species article. Unfortunately, I can not determine its location from the information given on flickr. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Greylag Goose MeegsC | Talk 12:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Anser anser -Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, England-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Male Common Eider. MeegsC | Talk 12:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Somateria mollissima -on land -male-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Female Common Eider MeegsC | Talk 12:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Somateria mollissima -on land -female-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Common Bulbul. I can't tell the subspecies, but maybe somebody with more knowledge can. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Pycnonotus barbatus -Lake Baringo, Kenya-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a Spotted Morning-thrush, ssp. guttata by range and appearance. (The more richly colored one in the taxobox might be intercalans, but the photographer forgot to say where he took it.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a Dark Chanting Goshawk (which we don't have a picture of), by range and general dark appearance—in particular, the visible part of the wing seems to be all dark. I'd feel better if someone could corroborate it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you are right Jerry, although a view of the rump or more of the wing would be good. Southern Pale Chanting Goshawk is much more widespread in SA, but I noticed Kapama in the tags on the Flickr page. That's up by Kruger, virtually the only area where you get Dark, but not Pale Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Melierax metabates -Kapama Game Reserve, South Africa-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Added to taxobox, though it should probably be cropped for that purpose. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Cropped version now show in infobox. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

birds for deletion

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

FYI, a bunch of bird articles have been nominated for deletion via WP:PROD, see WP:PRODSUM for May 2/3

70.29.208.247 (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. Have you thought about logging in with a user name? I would support the deletion of pages like "Green-and-black". It would be useful if the tables there listed pages with prod also had a column for WP projects, so that we could more easily see what pages are listed. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Snowman, doesn't seem anything worth fighting for Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I am usually a keeper at AfD but I couldn't see those as beneficial either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to the project

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Bird is TFA today. Ucucha 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Robins in Canada

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Robins. I have a Robin that flies constantly into my window and leaves a substance on the pane of glass. The bird has been doing this for the past 5 days. It starts early in the morning and does it all day. Since it is mating season,in Canada, I suspect it has something to do with that.

Can you give me your comments on this situation and tell me how to stop the bird? It is annoying and making a mess of things.

Bill Sayer

Brechin, Ontario —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.174 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Is the glass reflective so that the bird can she a reflection of itself? Does it do this to any other objects? Snowman (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hi Bill: Your guess is right; the robin is seeing a reflection of itself and assuming it's another male robin. It's thus trying to drive that "other robin" out of its territory. If you have some screening lying around, you might try taping that over the window for a few days (until the robin's raging hormones tone down a bit). Otherwise, you're just going to have to wait a few weeks until the breeding season progresses to the point where he's feeding youngsters—then he'll be too busy to attack your window. MeegsC | Talk 11:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been looking for ornithology-related books and suchlike to add to Wikisource (a Wikimedia project containing free texts); does anybody have any suggestions? Currently there's very little, though there is The Passenger Pigeon, which may be a useful source for the article. I'm looking for comparatively recent publications (authors who died in the 1930s), also shorter ones and forward-thinking ones.

So far The Grouse in Health and Disease, Edmund Selous, and Conwy Lloyd Morgan look interesting, as do these journals for which volumes from 1922 earlier are in the public domain: The Auk, The Condor, The Wilson Bulletin, Pacific Coast Avifauna (all US, at SORA), and The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (PD in India from over 60 years ago, PD in US also from 1922 earlier). —innotata 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Robins in Canada

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Robins. I have a Robin that flies constantly into my window and leaves a substance on the pane of glass. The bird has been doing this for the past 5 days. It starts early in the morning and does it all day. Since it is mating season,in Canada, I suspect it has something to do with that.

Can you give me your comments on this situation and tell me how to stop the bird? It is annoying and making a mess of things.

Bill Sayer

Brechin, Ontario —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.144.174 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Is the glass reflective so that the bird can she a reflection of itself? Does it do this to any other objects? Snowman (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
    Hi Bill: Your guess is right; the robin is seeing a reflection of itself and assuming it's another male robin. It's thus trying to drive that "other robin" out of its territory. If you have some screening lying around, you might try taping that over the window for a few days (until the robin's raging hormones tone down a bit). Otherwise, you're just going to have to wait a few weeks until the breeding season progresses to the point where he's feeding youngsters—then he'll be too busy to attack your window. MeegsC | Talk 11:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikisource

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've been looking for ornithology-related books and suchlike to add to Wikisource (a Wikimedia project containing free texts); does anybody have any suggestions? Currently there's very little, though there is The Passenger Pigeon, which may be a useful source for the article. I'm looking for comparatively recent publications (authors who died in the 1930s), also shorter ones and forward-thinking ones.

So far The Grouse in Health and Disease, Edmund Selous, and Conwy Lloyd Morgan look interesting, as do these journals for which volumes from 1922 earlier are in the public domain: The Auk, The Condor, The Wilson Bulletin, Pacific Coast Avifauna (all US, at SORA), and The Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society (PD in India from over 60 years ago, PD in US also from 1922 earlier). —innotata 20:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Vulture id

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 135-KB-17-095, Tibetexpedition, Erlegter Schneegeier.jpg Does not this looks more like a Lammergeier, wedge tail and pointed wing ? Shyamal (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, have changed the category on commons - seems like there is a series of raptors collected in that expedition - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Fauna_of_Sikkim Shyamal (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I need an interview done here with the most active members by Monday. Thanks!!!

Belugaboy Talk to Me! 22:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with this? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
suggested page seems to be for the Mammal Project anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to be a mix of both. Some of the questions could be good though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I think our interview is over, and it's a bit long. —innotata 17:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
This week's report on U.S. Roads was really long. I'll clean this report up and publish it. Thanks! Belugaboy Talk to Me! 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Belugaboy has been up to, but Mono already conducted the interview for WP Birds and the article is almost ready for publication. The length was not a problem. Look for the article this week in the Signpost. Thank you for participating and I apologize for any confusion my fellow WikiProject Report writers may have caused. -Mabeenot (talk) 05:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have video of the funny "wok wok wok" call for use if wanted.

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

well, 3 short videos with the funny sounding "wok wok wok" call of the Northwestern Crow. I've only loaded one to flickr, but will agree to the TOS of wikipedia with the creative commons license open for use and editing. I do not know how to add it to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwestern_Crow page. here is the link to the flickr video : http://www.flickr.com/photos/sspyndel/4588613808/ it is shot in Horseshoe Bay, BC, Canada. A link to my video on flickr or actually uploading it directly to wikipedia is fine

my email is sspyndel@yahoo.com

thanks, Lisataime.Sspyndel (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Please change the licence on flickr to such a creative commons licence. I was preparing to upload it until I saw the flickr licence. It should turn out similar to File:Platycercus elegans -Canberra, Australia -feeding-8.ogv, which I uploaded from commons from this file on flickr. If you want to upload it yourself, it needs to be converted to ogv (which is now the preferred file extension to ogg) on your computer before it is uploaded to commons. Snowman (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

more unreferenced changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

This edit changed the time from hatching to leaving the nest of Golden Eagle chick. I do not know if it is correct or not. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd already seen this and rolled it back. Unreferenced changes to numbers by ISPs are usually sly vandalism, if it's genuine then it should be referenced or at least have an edit summary explaining why it's been changed. My practice may not strictly be assuming good faith, but I've never had any comeback from an ISP on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I generally find that unreferenced changes to numbers in articles by ISPs is vandalism, and sometimes a series of vandalism across several pages needs fixing. I reported to make more editors aware. Snowman (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The megafauna changes mentioned above were also sly vandalism. I saw that the same IP range has been doing it since last year,[7] and warned, many times for the same thing (even then, there were still about 70 birds in the megafauna category until yesterday). IUCN status also seems to be a similar target. And then there's the "frog and rodent diet" vandal.... First Light (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is different people, often well-intentioned, who incorrectly change IUCN status. —innotata 15:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree, IUCN sometimes malicious, but often people putting local (US, OZ etc ) status Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, we mustn't be too quick to jump on IP-users as vandals. Seems to me from looking at the IPs that the IUCN guy is someone completely different to Megafauna Guy and Diet Of Frogs And Rodents Guy. If someone is using a dynamic IP, you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they may not have seen any messages left for them explaining what they've been getting wrong. Of course, that only goes so far... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right regarding IPs - I'll be more friendly with them until proven otherwise. And yes, even the repeat offenders are different people that seem focused on their peculiar specialties. First Light (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Could we perhaps put a hidden message right before the categories of those articles that are repeatedly being incorrectly designated as megafauna? That would eliminate any chance a dynamic IP user may not have seen the message. MeegsC | Talk 01:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
For the next step, I would go along with putting a hidden message before the categories of up to 10 of the species most often mis-categorised to say; "Please do not add the Megafauna category. Megafauna are animals over about 50 Kg". Snowman (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea also. (let's change 'add the' to 'add any', since there are a few different megafauna categories being added). First Light (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Of course, "any megafauna category" would be better. Snowman (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to go ahead with adding that to the obvious candidates, I think it would be good. I just reverted four more edits by Diet Of Frogs And Rodents Guy, aka 67.248.165.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He had already received level 4 warnings, so a block may be appropriate if an admin is seeing this. First Light (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks as though he's using a static IP, so blocked for 3 months. This has gone on for long enough. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That was quick.... First Light (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BIRDS' worst article?

Latest comment: 14 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Parrotlet - I think so. It may even be the worst animal-related article on WP - I'm struggling to think of anything else that I've seen in this area that's been so filled with cruft, opinion and unreferenced information. It popped up on my watchlist again yesterday and having had another look, I was tempted just to stubify it on the spot (perhaps I should've done so weeks ago).

Does anyone here know enough about this form taxon to do something with this mess? I'm honestly at a loss. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I cleared away some of the brush, but all the avicultural stuff still needs to be sourced or removed by someone who knows what they're doing, and then it needs to be rewritten in adult English. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Also - five genera of parrotlet, or three? Are the species in Bolborhynchus and Brotogeris sometimes referred to as 'parrotlets' in aviculture? I've never heard of this before. Someone's original research? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Does "parrotlet" have any taxonomic meaning, or is it just a term for small New World parrots? Is there any point in having a taxobox? Maybe any useful content could be merged to the appropriate species or genus articles and Parrotlet either made a redirect to Neotropical parrot or a disambiguation page for any species whose common name uses the term. Maias (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you're right. The SACC thinks Touit and Nannopsittaca are very close, but puts four genera between them and Forpus. There doesn't seem to be any avicultural reason to treat them together, as only Forpus is common as a pet. So a dab page sounds like the best solution, and any useful information at the current page could go under Forpus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess that the page has been edited by new editors, and I was pleased to see good edit summaries explaining the tidy up. Snowman (talk) 09:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd support converting it into a dab page. Reading through it again, the majority of the avicultural stuff would seem to be referring to Forpus birds - probably the ubiquitous Pacific Parrotlet. Though the diet section seems to be the standard (unreferenced but not obviously wrong) 'list of healthy foods for pet psittacines' that's been cut+pasted into several parrot articles over the past couple of years. Did someone mention giving this sort of thing its own article, which could then be linked when required (in order to avoid repetition, considering that a lot of these birds will basically thrive on pretty much the same diet) a while back? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Apart from small parrots I can not find any other meanings, so I do not think that there is a need for a dab page. Snowman (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to Maias' suggestion of using the page to disambiguate all the species known as 'parrotlets'. Maybe something along the lines of what's been done with Raven (or perhaps as they've done at Toad)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That dab page does not have the primary use here, so the dab page should be called "Parrotlet (disambiguation)". The difference is that there are lots of other uses of Raven, Rook, and Toad. Parrotlet can only mean the small parrots, so "parrotlet" is the primary topic. Presumably all the parrotlets would be on the parrotlet page, so I do not see why a dab page is needed. See Catbird, which is the primary topic, but has some lessor uses. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Sorry - I might not be making myself particularly clear. That's exactly what I was trying to get at - putting a list of parrotlet species on the parrotlet page and deleting/moving to somewhere more appropriate whatever else is currently on there (look at Raven - that's what I'm thinking of). Would that not be a dab page, of sorts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes - or something along the lines of Catbird. Indeed, only create Parrotlet (disambiguation) if it's required (I don't think it is). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the parrotlet page needs to be an article, so that there is room for explanation. A list of parrots as in a dab will not be adequate. "Catbird" is an article and quite informative for a short stub. I think that a dab might be useful, if there is anything that is called a parrotlet that is not a small parrot. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds reasonable to me. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] On the subject of New World parrot relationships, this article might be of interest.

Is what we want a {{SIA|birds}}? That produces [REDACTED].

—JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the template here adds hidden categories to this page. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I would never have known that. I've taken out the template; if people want to see what I'm talking about, try purple sage. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Winston Churchill's parrot - video

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Just found a recent video of Charlie (parrot) on YouTube for anyone that cares. I'm still not convinced that the Churchill claim is accurate. The parrot in the photo with W.C. doesn't look like a B+G Macaw to me. Based on the pale tone of the upper beak, it would appear to either be a Scarlet or a Red-and-green. The facial features look different too. I wouldn't really like to comment on the actual age of the bird - parrots don't really age visibly to any great extent, do they? Any thoughts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

  • I understand that Blue-and-gold Macaws have all-black beaks as chicks and as adults, and the bird on Churchill's right shoulder does not look like a pure-bred Blue-and-gold Macaw to me. Is this bird on Churchill's shoulder claimed to be Charlie? Who is the Cockatoo with Charlie and Churchill? Sometimes old macaws have osteoarthritis and do not like moving their legs. I do not know how old the bird in the youtube video is, but it seems to be able to mobilise on its feet ok. Snowman (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The video would seem to imply that the bird on Churchill's shoulder is supposed to be Charlie. There'd be no reason to show the photo otherwise. I'd also have expected the macaw's eyes to look less 'clear'. Aged parrots tend to suffer from cataracts. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though, as they say... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
If a mystery cockatoo can appear in the photograph with Churchill, then so can a mystery macaw. The macaw in the video appears to be looking around, so its eyesight is reasonable. Snowman (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Return of Diet Of Frogs And Rodents vandal

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

They are now editing as Alpha957 (talk · contribs) and should be blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of the recently blocked 67.248.165.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I'm bringing this here because non-bird-savvy admins seem to have a hard time believing this stuff. First Light (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh, I've reverted almost 40 of his lizard,frog,mice,rodents additions that had been in articles for up to a year. First Light (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked. I've also tweaked the block settings on his IP to prevent him editing through any other dormant accounts he may already have registered. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - in perhaps an over-abundance of good faith, I've put a note on his talk page explaining what is happening, since at least we have a registered account we can start talking with. First Light (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's another IP, 74.70.146.172 (talk · contribs), with another 15 long-standing lizard,frog,mice,rodents edits that were still in place. First Light (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
And another, who made just two edits: 74.70.150.7 (talk · contribs). First Light (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Plus 72.224.58.27 (talk · contribs). First Light (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (78)

Latest comment: 14 years ago46 comments8 people in discussion
  • The text says "von Anonyma fotografiert fuer [uploader]", which means "photographed by anonymous women for [uploader]". Ucucha 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I did not translate that using a web translator before. OK, I have left a message (in English) on the up-loaders talk page on Commons requesting clarification. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Resembles a Rock Sparrow/Petronia. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It's probably in South Africa, though. Ucucha 21:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably a White-throated Canary. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a Serinus (sensu lato) species, as Snowman and MPF suggested, but is it possible to identify the species without locality info? I think there are Petronia species in ZA southern Africa. —innotata 23:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
According to my forth edition of Roberts Birds of South Africa the only Petronia in South Africa is the Yellow-throated Sparrow and that does not have yellow at rear end. Snowman (talk) 08:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
We don't know for certain the picture is from South Africa, do we? —innotata 16:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I have asked the author (a multi-linguist of Afrikaans, Dutch, and English) where the photograph was taken. Snowman (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The user hasn't edited for some time, so I think it'd be good to try to ID this bird without locality info. —innotata 16:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert on birds of prey hybrids, but I can't see anything that detracts from it being Am Kestrel. It's so distinctive that I wouldn't expect that any hybrid with other American falcons could look like this. Even hybrids with Common Kestrel, not likely in the US, would show changes to the shape, head or tail patterns at least Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I have shown it on the species page. It is a male is it not? Snowman (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I've changed the license to "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons". Will that free up the access? Tiderolls 14:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd say Cooper's Hawk, but I'm a Brit, so best wait for a US opinion. The licence isn't usable anyway, since it is non-commercial. Needs CC-by SA-3.0 or similar Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a Cooper's Hawk to me too. I don't think we really need such images, and images must be free for commercial use for Commons upload. —innotata 15:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Cooper's. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirm PECO. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a bit confused about differentiating it from "sympatric Red-faced Cormorant". Snowman (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Red-faced have much more extensive red around the eye and upper face, whereas the Pelagic has a smaller are of red below the eye. The bill of the Red-faced is also yellow in breeding birds, which the Pelagic doesn't. The two are only sympatric over in Alaska, and the Pelagic is the only one found south of Alaska. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Uploaded to File:Phalacrocorax pelagicus -San Luis Obispo, California, USA -nest-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Two other photographs uploaded from same photo-stream. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The one on the left is a female, the one on the right a juvenile. Females have yellow and black barring on the breast; juveniles have more narrow barring of green and pale yellow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly what I thought. Is the juvenile male or female? Snowman (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
HBW doesn't explain how to tell juvenile sex apart. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Correctly labeled by the photographer. A juvenile. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. American Dipper uploaded to File:Cinclus mexicanus - Nason Creek, Washington, USA -juvenile-8.jpg on commons and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Common bird names on Wiki Commons

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

I assumed that wiki commons would also use common bird names generally in-line with en wiki (and the IOC). I am having a discussion on my talk page on wiki commons about this after I did some (non-controversial) category moves; for example "Category:Blue-and-gold macaws at the Jurong Bird Park" to "Category:Blue-and-gold Macaws at Jurong Bird Park", and several others. Any opinions? Snowman (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think that on Wiki Commons, where many different languages are involved, that it might be better to use scientific names in category titles. That way, there would be no question as to which species was being represented. MeegsC | Talk 17:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The way I look at it, as long as the scientific name is present and correct in the filename or description, whether a bird is listed as (for example) a Parakeet or a Conure, or a Cockatoo or a Corella (or named in another language entirely) is not particularly important in the grand scheme of things, provided that it's identifying the correct species. It's still more accurate than Bird1484682621.jpg or IMG836482.jpg, or MyPetParrot.gif, or whatever. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
File names are a different issue. The topic here is category names. Snowman (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The reason I suggested they be scientific names is because these pictures are used by all wikipedias, not just the English one; I'm not sure it's fair to expect them to have to translate the English common names! MeegsC | Talk 20:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. We biologists have a perfect system in place for this, so why not use it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that categories should have an internationalized name and include the binomial name; however, I think that the guideline on commons is that category names on commons are in English. I would say that binomial names are used in English. I nearly always use the binomial for file names. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't know that about category names on Commons. Guess we should use the same names as on English wikipedia then, so that people can look them up if they need to. MeegsC | Talk 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
What exactly did you just mean by "we should use the same names as on English wikipedia"? I also think using binomial names (and adding English words for subcategories such as "Passer domesticus (males)" and those like "moles in art") is best, and it is done currently on Wikimedia Commons. —innotata 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
What I meant is what I said! If the rule of thumb is that all Commons categories are in English (as Snowman said) and that binomial names should be accompanied by an English name (as I believe Snowman suggested, if I understand correctly), then the English names that accompany the scientific names should be the same English names as the ones in our wikipedia! So the category would be "Gavia stellata — Red-throated Loon", for example. I'm not sure which part of that you're not clear on, so I'm not quite sure how to explain it differently! MeegsC | Talk 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I still don't get what you mean. You think categories should actually be named Binomial name, dash, English name? Or should English names be mentioned in the category text, as with categories with a taxonomic navigation template currently? —innotata 23:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Snowman, you said "I would agree that categories should have an internationalized name and include the binomial name". I really don't care what Commons does. I was trying to contribute to the conversation you started. Now I'm wishing I hadn't bothered. It seems rather Anglo-centric to me to use only English in category titles, rather than scientific names, in a dataset used by people who speak multiple languages, but if that's considered desirable (as it appears to be), who am I to argue? Although, according to the Commons naming help, For biological taxa, the scientific Latin names should be used (see Commons:WikiProject Tree of Life). So it looks like English names should not be the default. But do whatever you want to do. I've contributed all I'm going to to this conversation! MeegsC | Talk 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought Commons categories are supposed to be using scientific names—commons:Category:Aves, for example. But there is also commons:Category:Birds, and I don't really see the logic. commons:Commons:Language policy says category names should be in English, but the proposal commons:Commons:Naming categories says scientific names should be used. Ucucha 18:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposals are not policy or guidelines. I hope that this is sorted out, because there are suddenly a lot of new categories on commons with the English common names included in the category name. I have been working to tidy them up - sometimes these new categories do not even have the English common name name capitalisation correct. Snowman (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hummingb ird page comment

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

On the hummingbird page;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hummingbird

you get the impression from the range section that hummingbirds only exist in North America.What about the rest of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bramwell (talk • contribs) 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hummingbirds are found only in the Americas—North and South America—, as the range section states. —innotata 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right, Alex, in that most of the "Range" section deals only with North America — where a tiny fraction of the world's hummingbirds live. We'll work to include more information from points further south! MeegsC | Talk 19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Like centers of diversity?
We could also include less information from the north. There's probably too much on Rufous Hummingbirds wintering in the southeastern U.S.. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Significant parts of the hummingbird article are in need of work, but I've added a few lines to range. Still most on the US+Canada hummingbirds, but at least people now have a chance of putting it into perspective. Should someone feel the urge, it could use a few lines on the comparably low diversity in the Amazon versus the northern Andes (cf. "species pump"), and arid versus humid climates. • Rabo³ • 07:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

New antpitta species

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

was announced today; it's the Fenwick's Antpitta, with life history detailed in a journal article linked to from our article. Needs expansion and could be a nice DYK, if anyone has time to help... MeegsC | Talk 22:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. Very interesting story of the illegal specimen and its effect on the type designation ! Shyamal (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Just for the record, the story is a bit more complex than what has been been published so far. There's a reason a brief, somewhat irate comment was posted on this matter on xeno-canto by one of the top authorities on antpittas. • Rabo³ • 15:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The story that's more complex than it appears is the specimens taken without permission? I take that since your comment is "just for the record", the article doesn't need to be edited to reflect that greater complexity?
I couldn't find "Fenwick" or "fenwickorum" at xeno-canto, by the way. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
My previous comment was aimed at what has been published on this matter so far (species description and associated editorial). Will leave it at that, as I have no intention of becoming directly involved in the mess. • Rabo³ • 16:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay. In case anyone else is as curious as I was, here's a forum thread on the subject with a link to the editorial (in Spanish), a summary of the editorial in English, and a distinguished ornithologist expressing doubts that the matter was handled the right way.
Lots of great work on the article, especially by Maias. —JerryFriedman (Talk)

Bearded Woodpecker

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Bearded Woodpecker has a different genus on commons and en wiki. Which is the correct genus? Also in Category:Dendropicos namaquus on commons. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought the commons uses a different overall taxonomy to us. That said, we aren't 100% consistent ourselves, and this is one that the IOC places similarly to the Commons. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Commons has the more conservative taxonomy. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The only reason we have this and two other species in Thripias is because they were started by Polbot based on the IUCN entries. The IUCN still have them in that genus, but I guess they simply haven't reviewed this as none of them are threatened. As far as I know, no recent taxonomic authority recognize Thripias. I haven't thoroughly reviewed recent papers that include the supposed Thripias, but a fast search didn't result in anything that appears to justify it as a separate genus (I could have missed something). I have therefore moved them to Dendropicos. If someone is aware of recent papers that justify the separate genus, this can always be reverted. The only thing I have left is Category:Thripias. • Rabo³ • 06:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Between Polbot and enthusiastic editors splitting and lumping without discussion we have quite a few anomolies like this. Perhaps we need to initiate an effort to identify these problems. As for the cat, it can be emptied and nominated for deletion surely. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The Thripias genus page redirect and the Thripias category remain. I think that the Thripias genus page redirect could be kept on the assumption that an explanation about the defunct Thripias genus name is added the Dendropicos genus page, and possibly on the talk page of the redirect. This could help people who have found the genus name Thripias elsewhere or those who are confused about the genus name and look for it on the wiki. I do not immediately see any advantages in keeping birds in the Thripias category, and it could be confusing. The Thripias category could be changed to a category redirect to the Dendropicos category and the species removed from the Thripias category. I have tidied up the Commons categories and included a category redirect there. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Bird call

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I need help identifying this. It was singing all weekend but for the life of me I could not find it! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unknown_bird_call_MN_052210.ogg I'm hoping it's of value to the encyclopedia, but who knows since I can't figure out what it was. It was taken on the 22nd in Minnesota near the St.Croix if that helps. Thanks! - Ravedave (talk) 00:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a pretty short cut, but Baltimore Oriole comes to mind; they have a clear musical whistle like this (though it tends to be longer). Any of those around? MeegsC | Talk 02:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
That was the whole call. Repeated like that every minute or so, all day. There were lots of Baltimore Orioles around actually. But the ones I was able to locate had a different call. This must have been one with it's own song I kept hearing around. Thanks! -Ravedave (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move question

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Is it a good idea to move Jackdaw to Western Jackdaw, which is its IOC name? Is this a controversial move? Snowman (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't particularly controversial (anymore than Blackbird was). I would suggest leaving the redirect pointing at Western Jackdaw, as I would guess this is the species everyone would be looking for. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree with that too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Without reference to my own opinions on this topic, these two opinions (above) may tend to suggest that changeling the WP birds policy on naming to use commonly used names rather than IOC names might help users find the pages they are looking for. Snowman (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
I suggested nothing of the sort. The Western Jackdaw is known informally as the jackdaw, much as the Eurasian Blackbird is known informally as the blackbird. In one case the informal name is a suitable redirect, in the absence of many other birds commonly using the name, in the other it isn't (as many birds use that name). The actual location of an article has less relevance for readers looking for a subject than the intelegent provision of redirects and dab links. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
So the page move is not controversial. Snowman (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think the page move would be controversial. I'd move the current article to Western Jackdaw and redirect Jackdaw to the new article location. MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Denham's Bustard

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Our article on the bustard species Neotis denhami currently lives at "Stanley Bustard". However, both the IOC and HBW refer to this species as "Denham's Bustard". Are there any objections to moving the article to that name? MeegsC | Talk 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the name Stanley Bustard used very much? Snowman (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Denham's Bustard gets the most hits, and is used in a majority of the books I have. Stanley's Bustard and Stanley Bustard show less than half as many hits (and many of the latter are mirror sites of Wikipedia), but are also pretty popular and should certainly be maintained as redirects (if this move goes through). MeegsC | Talk 15:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
What to you think of the page move suggestion above about the Jackdaw? Snowman (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that you are describing a page move to "Denham's Bustard" that is not controversial. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (79)

Latest comment: 14 years ago32 comments8 people in discussion
They look just like House Finch nestlings (I have some in a big cholla, where they're not very convenient to photograph), and the eggs, photographed here, look just like House Finch eggs, though they're identified as "sparrow eggs". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Carpodacus mexicanus eggs.jpg and File:Carpodacus mexicanus in nest.jpg. —innotata 19:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed - only worry would be Chloropsis aurifrons that has a brighter orange forehead. Shyamal (talk) 02:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
As per photographer. Iole indica treated as monotypic - or sometimes placed in the Sri Lankan subspecies guglielmi. Shyamal (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yellow-browed Bulbul uploaded to File:Iole indica -Bodhinagala Forest Reserve, Sri Lanka-8.jpg on commons. First image of the species on the wiki and shown on species page. Snowman (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
As per photographer. Shyamal (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Snowman (talk) 07:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
The location is Corbett National Park Shyamal (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Identification is correct but the colours have been messed up by contrast enhancing. • Rabo³ • 10:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I think it is distorted mostly be excess saturation rather than contrast. I have uploaded an modified version with the colour saturation reduced by about 50%. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm the photographer. That was taken at the Dallas Zoo (Oct 30, 2008). I have identification for some of the animals, but not this particular one. -- Whpq (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Collared Finchbill. • Rabo³ • 10:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Collared Finchbill uploaded to File:Spizixos semitorques -Dallas Zoo, Texas, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
The adult is obviously correctly identified, but identifying the ducklings will be difficult. I don't have any books discussing Old World ducklings except Bent; I'll see if that's enough. —innotata 15:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Found it. Cut-throat Finch uploaded to File:Amadina fasciata -Paignton Zoo, Devon, England -male-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
A waxbill: Long-tailed Finch Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Long-tailed Finches (estrildid finch) uploaded to File:Poephila acuticauda -Indianapolis Zoo, Indiana, USA-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 08:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Confirmed. Good to get an easy one. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I did not think it was easy to tell the difference between a Lessor Roadrunner and a Greater Roadrunner on appearance. Is it a male or a female? Why do some roadrunners have some red on the head? Anyway, this is an informative photograph showing the configuration of the toes. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The differences are fairly slight, but this bird clearly shows two of them: its bill is quite large (certainly as long as the head, if not longer) and its median chest is heavily streaked. The latter would be unstreaked on a Lesser Roadrunner. Sexes are similarly plumaged, with males averaging slightly larger, so it's impossible to tell the sex of this one. The red on the head is part of the orbital skin; however, the red is right at the back – almost on the nape. It's covered by the crest feathers when the crest is lowered, as it is on this bird. MeegsC | Talk 21:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I see what you mean about the red on the head. I have shown the photograph on the species page for anyone that wants to inspect the configuration of its toes. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
There apparently is a difference between the sexes in adults, according to Birds of North America Online. Between the blue eye-ring and the "chrome orange" rear part of the bare skin (hidden here, as MeegsC said), the central part of the bare skin is light to medium blue in adult females and young, white in adult males, and sometimes patched blue and white in immature males. The next image in the photostream shows the head closer, and I'm getting a feeling of light blue there, which I guess would only mean that it's not an adult male. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

List of birds of Tasmania

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have nominated this at FLC here --> Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of birds of Tasmania/archive1 -->and have modelled it one some of the most recent ones. Bird lists are good value and I thought it'd be good to buff a few as well. All comments on how to improve welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Having such lists is good. I am just wondering whether it is best to stick rigidly with links to the species articles rather than to endemic subspecies articles. In this case an example (maybe the only one?) is the link to Australian Masked Owl rather than Tasmanian Masked Owl, which is probably more relevant to people seeking information specific to Tasmania rather than to the species as a whole. Maybe both should be included. This question, of course, also potentially applies to similar lists (if and when created) for other states - such as Yellow-tufted Honeyeater or Helemeted Honeyeater for Victoria. Is there a precedent in existing lists? Maias (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of - I was considering a link to the subspecies in a footnote maybe (?) If we treat "species" as the default/standard bird 'entry' (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

ID needed

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

[8] -- taken in Beijing. Cheers, Jack (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on File:ArdeolaMap.svg - Ardeola bacchus (See below )Shyamal (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think it might be a Yellow Bittern; the back looks too patterned — and the bird too small — for pond-heron. MeegsC | Talk 15:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it looks like juvenile Yellow Bittern, and shows the black edge of the folded primaries, which of course are pure white in Chinese/Indian/Javan Pond Herons Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks all, looks like that to me. Is it worth me uploading it? Jack (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Definitely ! Shyamal (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Megafauna?

Latest comment: 14 years ago62 comments10 people in discussion

Is there a bright line between megafauna and not-all-that-big fauna? 125.164.15.8 (talk · contribs) is adding everything from Wild Turkey to Roseate Spoonbill to Scarlet Macaw to the various Megafauna categories. I can't imagine those are megabirds or fauna, but what is the definition, just in case I really run into a really Big Bird? First Light (talk) 02:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that 40-45 kg is the most used definition,[9] so I'll go with that until I hear otherwise. First Light (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a bit of a bizzarre term if you ask me, and I wouldn't include it in an article except in contexts like "Pleistocene megafauna". Usually I take it to mean quite large animals, but in the deep sea it means anything that is not miniscule, virtually all adult fish for instance. —innotata 15:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I removed a bunch of megafauna categories the other week added by 125.164.24.87 (talk · contribs) (and had a general sweep of the 'Megafauna of...' cats). Seems to be a recurring thing. Perhaps it would be a good idea to determine here which bird species *are* definitely 'megafauna'? Ostrich, Emu and Rhea, certainly - but are there even any other extant species that would fit the description? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The two bigger cassowaries (also in Category:Scary animals), and maybe the Dwarf Cassowary and the Emperor Penguin.
Okay, I've +cat'ed Northern Cassowary, Southern Cassowary and Emperor Penguin. Dunno about the Dwarf Cassowary - the article says that it only weighs 18kg... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah. You're telling me that I should pay attention to whether a weight is given in kilograms or pounds. :-) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The term is also used in "charismatic megafauna". However, I'm not sure why anyone needs a category for it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Persistent bugger, now he's adding birds again, and a brand new redlinked category to prehistoric creatures: 125.164.8.210 (talk · contribs). Is that too big of an IP range to block the entire range? Here are some others from the same person/range: User:First Light/Fauna vandalism. — First Light (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I could anon-block his range - but it would mean blocking a /16 (i.e. 65536 IPs) and it would seem that there are constructive IP edits coming from that range too. Just a quick random sampling would suggest that there is at least one person on there whose entire raison d'etre here is to add categories and list items en-masse without discussion or responding to user talk queries - may be the same guy. I've found similar looking edits going back to 2007. Perhaps it might be an idea to request an edit filter entry (disallow addition of cats containing the term 'megafauna' + 125.164.0.0/16, i.e. that IP range)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not only megafauna, though: he was recently also adding other non-existing categories (Special:Contributions/125.164.19.155). (That it is the same person we can safely assume.) Ucucha 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I figured the IP range would be too broad, and stop some legitimate editors. How would an edit filter work? Would it stop such edits, or just tag them? I think that if the filter also included 'extinct', 'mammal(s)', 'rodents', and of course 'megafauna', then it would at least catch quite a lot of the abuse. Other terms could be added as needed, I would think. First Light (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It could do either, depending on how many false positives it throws up in the testing phase - might be possible to completely disallow category additions from that range if it's too hard to pin down specifics (I am not an edit filter handler - so don't take that as a given). Also, it seems that this guy has been at it since *2006*. Crap. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
More examples [10], [11]. This is either long-term abuse or long-term failure to understand. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
And here I was thinking it was a child that might grow up some day. Because of the sneakiness of some of the edits, it sounds like the abuse filter might solve the problem. Many of the IPs have received warnings, so the editor doesn't have an excuse. Add 'megamammal' or even 'mega*' to the filter also. Could an edit filter handler look at this thread and give us an expert opinion? First Light (talk) 00:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Now we have 125.164.23.5 (talk · contribs). First Light (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've asked Shirik, who is experienced with the edit filter, to comment here. Ucucha 01:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ucucha, I saw your post on Shirik's talk page and thought I'd get some more details from you. The edit filter needs very specific parameters in order to work well. We cannot, (as suggested above) block all edits that add the word 'mega*' to a page. That would undoubtedly make too many false positives. Can you give us some narrower conditions to look for? Remember that examples are good. Tim1357 talk 01:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Disallowing the addition of any category containing 'fauna' (EDIT: i.e. 'fauna', '-fauna' and 'fauna -') from that specific range would be a place to start - if that's possible to do. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
There are several examples above; see the IPs listed at User:First Light/Fauna vandalism, for example. I think one of the main problem lately has been with the addition of redlinked categories; is there anything the editfilter can do about that? Ucucha 01:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the edit filter is capable of checking that an article or category actually exists (or at least it wasn't when I once suggested something along those lines in a different situation). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Actually, I just realized that I can limit the filter to the 125.164. range. That means blocking *mega edits is a bit more reasonable. Ill make one in a few minutes, and send you a link to it. Tim1357 talk 01:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As a matter of interest, would it cause too much collateral damage to simply prevent any IP in that range from adding new categories to existing articles? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"mega" is not the only problem, though; see the one I linked above (Special:Contributions/125.164.19.155). Ucucha 01:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I created the filter, but I haven't turned it on. We have a condition limit, and I fear that this will eat it up. Im going to let Shirik have the final say. Tim1357 talk 02:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In case category addition can be controlled - there is another "nationalist" vandal that may need to be reined in - seems like s/he has moved from birds to fish/frogs etc - dynamic IP mainly from Manchester but sometimes temporarily moves to Dublin - have added a sample of the IPs on User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Nationalist_vandalism Shyamal (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone - let's see what the mega-expert filter editor says. First Light (talk) 03:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Ucucha, bad timing on the request. I've no objections to what Tim1357 put together, except I made some optimizations to it. I've enabled it; it's running log only for now to evaluate accuracy and performance but I forsee no issues. How frequently does this occur? (I.e., if something is wrong with the filter and it's not catching anything, how many days should go by before I start worrying?) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, something tells me that this filter isn't right. Can someone go over exactly what they want blocked again? Right now we're looking at a filter that blocks any addition of the words "mega" or "fauna" from that IP range. That can't be right. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds crazy. Here are a couple of common samples of what we're trying to stop. It goes back a few years, and is extremely persistent: [12][13]. They have other common disruptive edits, but the megafauna category additions are the worst. Thanks, First Light (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok then how about this: Preventing addition of any category named "mega" or "fauna"? Completely blocking any text with those words seems overkill, and prone to false positives. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that would be a great, great start (assuming you mean any category that 'contains' "mega", "fauna", "-fauna", "mega-"). I think that is also what Kurt Shaped Box has suggested above, if you have the patience to wade through this mega-wall of words. Thank you, First Light (talk) 04:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in Shirik (and Tim). This guy has also been busy with categories containing "Extinct", so perhaps that should be blocked too. Ucucha 11:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That's right - there may be one or two more. First Light (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Added extinct to the restrictions. Also, keep in mind, it's currently running log-only, so these edits will still get through. But we'll know where to look for them. Once we've finalized what's desired then we can take more drastic measures (like blocking the edits entirely). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

First hits

Are these hits accurate? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's the guy. Two of his edits would appear to be correct, the other (to Ekorus ekakeran) adds a non-existent category. From what I've seen, a mixture of good and crap edits is part of his MO. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's a direct hit. This is a much higher than normal success rate for this type of edit, since he slaps those tags on any fauna article he comes across. He does have other edits to cartoon character articles (usually dealing with um, big, animals), but those won't be affected by this filter. First Light (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Because this has been running for a few days without issue, I changed the filter to block those edits. Tim1357 talk 16:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Now it's woodpecker categories

125.164.32.50 (talk · contribs) is adding new redlinked categories to bird articles, perhaps due to not being able to add the megafauna cat. It's surely the same user, evidenced by their earlier edits to fictional/cartoon creatures. Are various "Woodpeckers of Asia", "Woodpeckers of North America", etc. categories valid? Should the category be created, or should the edits be reverted? First Light (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And today they are at 125.164.29.226 (talk · contribs). First Light (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a good question. As far as I can see, none of his 'Woodpeckers of...' additions appear to be factually incorrect. I'm not really sure, to be honest. It might actually be useful to categorise some of the larger families of birds by continent... FWIW, hasn't actually tripped the filter again since it was set to disallow. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Megafauna Man finally tripped the megafauna filter, about 20 times today. Then he went on a red-link category spree that included 60+ woodpecker category additions (I reverted them all because I saw another bird editor doing so), and now he's moving on to various "carnivore" categories, "extinct rodents", Category:Even-toed ungulates of Asia, and Category:Even-toed ungulates of Africa. No, I'm not kidding about those last two. Is there anything else that can be done to stop this to stop him? Can the filter be changed to stop all category additions? First Light (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've put a warning on the talk page to stop adding categories without discussion with the projects. If this fails, I'll block him/her Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if it is one of the IPs used by a large ISP, in which case it could block a lot of people. Once a whole small country was inadvertently blocked out of the wiki. I think it is possible to find out what the IP is, which would be advisable before blocking it. Snowman (talk) 07:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
It's a Jakarta ISP, even if it's dynamic may not be many contributors to en-wiki. I'll try to check before I block Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Good timing with the warning, as he made a few more edits (something to do with video game characters) from the same IP address just twenty minutes later, so we can now be sure that he saw your note. Typically he moves to a new address in the 125.164.* range a couple times a day. First Light (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
To me, sounds that there is no point in a block as he or she would move on to a new IP after a few hours. Are you sure the IPS range is not for the whole of Jakarta? Could it be a number of different people? He or she will be alerted by a message on his or her user talk page until the number changes. Does he or she respond to messages delivered in this way. Suggest confronting with a message saying that we know what is happening, while a particular IP number is still in use by him or her. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
There are a few wiki users with special powers to check users and block (if needed) vandals across all the wikis and I suggest asking one of these users about the problem. Snowman (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit filter has effectively blocked him from the megafauna category edits. If all category edits could be added to the filter, I think that would solve the problem—that assumes it's an appropriate use of the filter. Kurt Shaped Box mentioned above that the 125.164.0.0/16 IP range might have some legitimate editor(s) also. Note that megafauna man also edits cartoon/video/comic characters who are also animals, along with some dinosaur type of edits. Is there any way a civilian can view the edits of that entire range to see if there would be collateral damage to blocking the range? First Light (talk) 20:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Added "Woodpecker" to the limitation until I have enough time to evaluate the practicality of blocking all categories from being added from that range. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Shirik, if you don't object, I'll change the filter to log only and make that so. Tim1357 talk 22:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
No objection here, but that means everyone will need to keep an eye on that filter for items that need to be rolled back --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)Go to My Preferences > Gadgets > User interface gadgets and enable Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions forms. Then you can just search 125.164.0.0/16 in Special:Contributions as you would for a single IP/username. Though there would almost certainly be some degree of collateral damage if disallowing the addition of *new* categories from that range, an explanation could be provided via editnotice to inform any affected users of the necessary purpose behind it (and how to request that legitimate edits be made). It's still preferable to just slapping a block on the entire range for the sake of one disruptive user. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
--->Thanks - and like you mentioned above, there are a few other editors clearly using that range, so there would be collateral damage by simply blocking the range. But I bet that blocking all category edits to taxobox articles would have few or no false positives by the filter. First Light (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the vandal is only attacking animal pages, so maybe it would be appropriate to block the addition of categories (from that IP range) for any article that has a {{Taxobox}}. Tim1357 talk 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, if that can be accomplished. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Disallowing any category edits to articles with a taxobox by editors from 125.164.0.0/16 sounds like a simple and excellent solution, if it's doable. First Light (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I have set up the filter for this as requested, currently running log only. I am, however, concerned with the performance of this filter. Checking for {{taxobox}} is not easy, and we may not be able to justify this filter for that. We may have to limit ourselves to adjusting the filter as we can, and settling for an approximation instead. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
How is the logging going? Here are the IPs he edited from the last two days: 125.164.20.22 (talk · contribs) and 125.164.11.148 (talk · contribs). The first one is more of the same, adding or changing to bogus categories, with the occasional lucky correct one. In the second, he is focusing on cartoon characters, and adding more redlinked categories. He's theoretically seen warnings twice now—in one case editing right after the warning, which means he must have seen the note on his talk page. In the second case, (the second of the two IPs above), he re-added several redlinked categories after the warning. With the cartoon character changes, it's not as important, since they don't have the same preciseness with their articles, compared to animal species. First Light (talk) 20:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Megafauna Man is still alive and well (i.e., not extinct). The filter was helpful when it was turned on. Would it be possible/advisable to go back to the filter, w/out the taxobox parameter? Adding 'mammal' and 'extinct' to the category parameters would help, as you can see from his latest spree as 125.164.25.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), all reverted by User:Apokryltaros. Thanks, First Light (talk) 04:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Those edits should have been caught. There was an error in the filter I hadn't noticed. It is fixed now. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! First Light (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

beak vs bill

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Anyone aware of any sources discussing the interchangeablility of these terms? Are they fully so? I was asked about it at List of birds of Tasmania and I began changing all to one, but decribing a raptor with a 'hooked bill' sounded funny to me...If there is discussion it would be good to add to our own article on beak concerning the use of terms. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a somewhat old book (1835) that talks about the interchangeability of the terms, and what generally distinguishes them. Here's a more recent one — with rather less information! Basically, in the beginning all beaks were bills, but not all bills were beaks. It took a strong, hooked bill to be a beak (i.e. raptors, parrots, etc.) Now the terms have become more interchangeable. MeegsC | Talk 02:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This came up also during the Bird FA preparations. As you say, describing the beak of an eagle as a bill sounds odd, as does describing the bill of a duck as a beak (or a duck-beaked platypus!). Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know of sources for the origin of the association of the word "peacock" with pride, pomp and vanity. Shyamal (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Various mentions by Shakespeare (see here) and goes back further; SOED mentions 1518 so full OED should have that source at least. Maias (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, a quote and citation would be useful at Indian Peafowl. Discovered another source which lists other usages Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I looked it up in the OED. The oldest citation is actually to Chaucer's Troylus and Criseyde: "He hitte hym atte fulle, And yet as proud a pekok [v.rr. pakoc, pocok] kan he pulle." The OED also has some other marginal meanings for the word. Ucucha 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. And another (non-English) mention from Plato Shyamal (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Herring Gull‎ > European Herring Gull‎

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article has been moved (not by me) to European Herring Gull‎ per a discussion on the talk page. I've made a few edits in an attempt to whip the article content into shape to reflect the narrower scope, i.e. referring solely to Larus argentatus - but I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look over it and fix up/change anything I may have missed. Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Diet Of Frogs And Rodents vandal again

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

67.248.166.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is back at it with edits like this[14], and in the same IP range as the currently blocked 67.248.165.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He made more unreferenced changes after a warning. Since he typically seems to edit from the same static address for days-weeks at a time, a block would be effective. First Light (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And now Alpha9875 (talk · contribs), a sockpuppet of the above, and a sock of the blocked Alpha957 (talk · contribs). First Light (talk) 14:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Both were blocked. First Light (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Now editing from 67.248.178.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - could use a block. First Light (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And 72.0.155.78 (talk · contribs). First Light (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked that one for six months as it appears to be static. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FA/FL/GA news

Latest comment: 14 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Current noms at FA and FL

I'm reviewing, but I'm no expert on Oz birds, so feel free to add comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Two lists are at FLC at the same time and they are quite different: one has tables and the other has flat lists; one has photographs mainly from the locality and the other has photographs from elsewhere (or of unknown location). Any comments on uniformity across lists? Snowman (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • My opinion on uniformity: preferred. A lot of wikiprojects have "style guides", perhaps this one could too. My opinion on "local" photos: if the image of the bird is representative and of good quality, that's paramount, rather obviously, to a blurred background of somewhere "local". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Is a bird in Ireland or at an unspecified location representative of a bird in England? Should an Irish or a German bird be shown on an English list without a caption saying where it is from? Snowman (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • With the Tasmania birds, I have tried as much as possible to use Tasmania images. Luckily Noodle Snacks has taken many excellent images from locations in Tasmania. I can see that it might be alot harder for more localised lists. I feel the lists look better as white without the tables, and currently most lists are the same way. Jim do you have strong feelings the other way? How do others feel? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer the appearance of tables for lists, especially where they are heavily annotated, like Leicestershire and Rutland, but I don't mind what others use. If i had to rely on local images (not an MoS criterion) for a county list, it would have very few, and be criticised on that basis. As long as it's the correct taxon, it doesn't matter where it's taken, it's what it looks like. Locations should usually be on the image info page, not in the caption. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If good photographs are available, I think that you need a good reason for showing images from elsewhere or from an unknown location. Also, I think that non-local birds shown on regional pages (this should happen a little as possible) should be adequately captioned (including the location) to avoid giving the wrong impression to people who do not look at the image descriptions on commons, and on downloaded pages. Great care is needed when adding images of migrating birds to regional lists, because a particular plumage phase may never be seen at that locality, or they may not show breeding behaviour at the location, and so on. The setting (background scenery) of the photographs from elsewhere could also be misleading. I recall that MoS would says show relevant images, so it is matter of WP project interpretation of this. What is good science? Snowman (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not so, Jimfbleak; I have diversified and all of my open GANs are now actually about bats. They can fly, so you bird guys should like them. Ucucha 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Flying rats, I'll have to have a look Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Patagonian crested duck

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The page Patagonian crested duck has got a number of problems. There are images of this subspecies on Commons, so it this page worth keeping and improving. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I have done some improvements but it could use more. Maias (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Super. Can you confirm bird 811 is one of these? Snowman (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that only the nominate subspecies occurs in the Falklands, with the distribution of the much rarer Andean Crested Duck restricted to the Andes from Peru to northern Argentina. Not sure yet how to tell the subspecies apart, nor whether there is any range overlap. I will try to find out more. Maias (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Guidance

Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland is intended to eventually be a sub article from a proposed text article Birds of Leicestershire and Rutland. I am thinking in terms of the following structure

  • Lead
  • Habitats
  • The birds
Main article: List of birds of Leicestershire and Rutland
  • General — typical of lowland farmland, no coast or highlands
  • Effect of changes in agricultural practice — decline in farmland birds, as elsewhere in England, recovering of raptors after the banning of DDT-type pesticides
  • Effect of reservoirs and gravel extraction — creation of open water bodies, especially Rutland Water, and the effect on water bird populations
  • Colonisation and introduction — natural colonisation by eg Collared dove, introductions eg Little Owl, Mandarin Duck, Osprey
  • Ornithology in Leicestershire and Rutland
  • History of ornithology in the counties
  • Ornithological organisations and reserves

This is a bit of a departure for me, and I'd welcome any comments on the proposed structure. Anything missing? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
that makes sense Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what you mean. Countryside in Rutland, Rutland Water, Forests in Rutland, Eyebrook Reservoir, Cropston Reservoir, Countryside in Leicestershire and Forests in Leicestershire are existing commons cats, plus all the bird cats. What did you have in mind? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Rethink: perhaps a commons page and a commons category for the birds of Leicestershire and one for the birds of Rutland would support the wiki page. The birds actually being photographed in these places. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Page moves

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Administrator assistance requested to move page names to the IOC names:

both done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have done the post-move page tidy up. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Shenanigans

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

FYI, apparently User:Ethancollierwilson has been duplicating pages at redirects. I have just reverted Crab-Plover to a redirect to Crab-plover. Maias (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I clean up a few more. I came across Colluricinclidae, which is apparently a family without a Wikipedia article—according to ADW (not a reliable source), it includes Colluricincla, Oreoica, and Pitohui.
Technically, Ethancollierwilson's articles should most likely be deleted and then recreated as redirects, since the articles do not attribute the authors of the articles they copy and are therefore copyright infringements. Ucucha 07:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Birds for identification (81)

Latest comment: 14 years ago29 comments6 people in discussion
Based on range it is the nominate subspecies. Maias (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I have uploaded another Patagonian Crested Duck image from the same flickr photo-set. Snowman (talk) 10:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The Imperial pigeons have black wings and dark eyes. This doesn't look as if it's in an aviary, judging from the videos, so I'd go for a feral pigeon of an albino type (red eye too) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It's a juvenile, no obvious way to separate the sexes in young birds that I can see. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Male Writhed Hornbill. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • To me its head and particularly sides of head and neck are not like the bird in the pdf: although, the pdf does not mention subspecies. To me its head and neck looks like some of the images of swifts (? misidentification ?) from Spain in the Common Swift category on commons, which are puzzling me. The Palid Swift is also found in Spain (according to List of birds of Spain). You are probably right, but I am not certain enough to upload it yet. Snowman (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The pdf is bound to be the European race, very little difference from nom though. I looked at the pica image full screen. It shows scalloping on the underparts, the dark eye patch stands out against the pale forehead, and the throat patch is quite large. The colour looks better for pallid, although the light may be a factor there. Your call really on this. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Song Sparrow; tail's way too long for Savannah Sparrow, as suggested by photographer. MeegsC | Talk 06:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Melospiza melodia -Palo Alto Baylands Nature Preserve, California, USA-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
House Finch. MeegsC | Talk 06:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Uploaded to File:Carpodacus mexicanus -Alviso Marina County Park, California, USA-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_50&oldid=1166664070"