Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Botswanan Weaver ID

I've been flipping through Flickr and found this image. The only thing that I can think of, from the fact its Botswanan and by looking at my field guide, is that its a Holub's Golden-weaver. However, the drawing doesn't appear as vibrant a yellow. Does anyone want to confirm or dispute me before uploading? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my SASOL with me, but as a general rule vibrancy isn't something that is well captured in field guide illustrations. If that is your only concern then I say go with it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

True. I need to get some sleep, but I'll upload it sometime tomorrow unless someone raises an objection. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there could be a dedicated area (separate page) here for identification problems. The page could be quite well organized with lists or tables and the problem images identified, the licensing clarified, with several people contributing. The good images or where new images are needed can be uploaded to commons with the helper tools. Some people might find it interesting and the more people looking for bird photographs the better. Just a suggestion, or this page could continue to be used. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Update

OK, Cattle Egret is sitting at WP:GAN...I have a monograph-type book of all the penguins :)...quite a bit of work was done on Huia and it hasn't been nommed at GA which may be a good staging point. I'll leave a note on the talk page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Cattle Egret is looking good for FA, just some more tinkering. Although as the most successful colab in ages I think it'll either have to be co-nominated or a number of us will have to recuse ourselves from voting. Incidentally, I won't be here next week (most probably), I'll be on Kapiti mistnetting birds. The head of my school's bioacoustic lab has offered to lend me some recording gear to, so might be able to record the calls of kiwis, takahes and saddlebacks. Hurrah! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I always stick in supports or moral supports as I feel that two active editors (if one is assuming good faith) have twice the chance of picking up errors, especially as we all nitpick each other's work (which is good!).Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

John Gould collaboration on Wikisource

English ornithologist and researcher of Australian animals John Gould has been chosen as Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week. Please contribute. —Pengo 04:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Project welcome banner

I've spent some time tonight messing around with a potential welcome banner which could be sent to new members as and when they sign up, as it seems to me it might be a good idea to make more of an effort to welcome them. After all, we get so few! :P See the first effort here—any thoughts appreciated! Is there anything else we want to mention, for example, or other pages which might be useful for project newcomers? MeegsC | Talk 21:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It would also be good to have a version we can use to invite people who edit bird articles but haven't joined. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks nice. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

But, there is nothing listed there to do with images or photography to work on. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured lists

Although the attempt to de-feature List of birds of the New World ex-colonies or whatever it is now called seems to have failed, there are several currently featured lists that I think are much more vulnerable. Several have incorrectly formatted headings throughout eg "Bitterns, Herons and Egrets" should not have caps except for the leading one, since herons and egrets are groups, not species. At least one list has no in-line citations at all, although all those I looked at did appear to have a reference section. IMHO, these would be difficult to defend against delisting, and could do bringing into line with MoS. I've done Thailand, because that's my baby, but others need much more improvement to maintain standard Jimfbleak (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• One of the ongoing complaints about these lists is the lack of in-line citations, particularly in the family header information. One possible solution, which could be ultimately be rolled out across any current/future bird list, would be to put that family information into a series of templates—one for each family. This would allow us to easily maintain (with references) data that is appropriate to the whole project. (If, for example, the Alaotra Grebe is determined to be extinct, we will currently have to go through all 100+ country lists to update the number of grebes worldwide—a statistic which Polbot put into every list it made.) I've started converting and in-line referencing headers in the List of birds of The Gambia (only the first few families so far); see the References section at the bottom for an example of the outcome. This would obviously take a lot of front-end work (there are some 270 families of birds we'd have to work up, after all) but it would make creation of future lists—and maintenance of the ones we already have—much, MUCH easier!
• Another potential issue is that many most of our lists were created by Polbot directly from Avibase. This is likely to constitute more of a copyvio than did the List of North American birds. MeegsC | Talk 09:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'll nick your in-lines for now and add others as and when.
• I don't know if any of the featured lists were polbotted? as for the rest, they are dreadful and if they have not been significantly modified, no great loss. Jimfbleak (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see how to use the list header templates, but as a computer illiterate, I don't know how to create them Jimfbleak (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• A comment about the number of grebes (or any other family); for most families the number of species is kinda vague. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So vague as to be almost useless, though I think ballpark numbers are interesting.

I'd love to see family-boilerplate templates. And edit them. But I don't know how to make them.

Something that does need in-line notes is differences between, say, the ABA-area list and our usual taxonomy, e.g., Yellow-crowned Night-Heron (genus name) and Rose-throated Becard (family), and I'm sure there must be a different lump or split somewhere. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'm happy to set up the templates (which can then be edited by anybody) for each of the families. Give me a few days to sort out the best method, and I'll let everybody know what's next! : ) MeegsC | Talk 08:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've put a list of all the bird families on the Country lists page. I guess the first step would be to get the text for each family listing exactly as we'd like it, with proper references. Once we've got agreement on length and content, I can put 'em into template format. We should probably keep the listings to less than 4 lines (even if placed next to a 300px picture), since most of our lists are illustrated now. And I'd suggest we include enough basic info that someone unfamiliar with bird families might be able to work out which was the right one if they tried to identify a bird they spotted on holiday (or at home!)—i.e. general size, some brief idea of habitat, maybe food or behaviour. Any other suggestions welcome! MeegsC | Talk 23:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Two other comments: 1) You've got to scroll down the talk page a bit to get to the family listing and 2) don't worry about putting the order and family before the actual listing—I can do that when I'm building the template. Oh, and if you've got suggestions for the four families I've already put into templates (working on The Gambia list), please feel free to list them. I can certainly change what I've done for those... : ) MeegsC | Talk 23:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Upsetting foundations

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.10.004

Takahashi, M. Arita, H., Hiraiwa-Hasegawa, M., Hasegawa, T. (2008) Peahens do not prefer peacocks with more elaborate trains. Animal Behaviour. 75(4):1209-1219

Seems like a paper that is going to ruffle lots of feathers this season. Shyamal (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Analogue Video-Clips

Recently I've been running through the list of "bird articles with missing images" and noticed that I had old analogue video-clips of quite a few. I spent most of the weekend looking for open-source software that I could use to convert the clips to the correct format (I've gone for the GPL'd Theora, Ogg) I've created eight and posted them to Commons and added them to their respected articles.[[1]] (they are all my work so no need for 'watermarks, copyrights etc) but am wondering about the varying quality. I've made the frame-size on the 'article' 250 pixels, although the original (on Commons) will probably be somewhat larger (300-350 pixels). I would really appreciate if I could get some experienced bird-wikipedians to look over and let me know your feelings,....Aviceda talk 02:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The nuthatch and pigeon looked fine, more than adequate. I can't imagine there are many clips of the nuthatch anywhere at any rate, so it's all good! Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I find videos look good in articles with sufficient text. Somehow they seem to hog too much space on stubs. Brings to mind the data/ink ratio of Edward Tufte. I suppose it would be best to let folks here know when videos are added to stubby articles, so they can be fleshed. :) Shyamal (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shyamal, have put quite a few clips up [2]...do I need to notify anywhere else?Aviceda talk 10:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That should definitely suffice (PS insert here -> as a notification), Tom. Another user (User:Jmgarg1) has flooded with images some species that are close to me and feel quite guilty about not having done much about the state of some of those articles. Shyamal (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like you don't feel a need for me to post my clips from Goa? Aviceda talk 06:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. The more the merrier !! Shyamal (talk) 07:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Shyamal, I misread "That should definitely suffice" to mean no more clips! Aviceda talk 08:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to speak for Shyamal, but I think he meant you don't need to put notification anywhere else—that notification here would suffice! As to clips, we'd like to have one or more for every species on earth, please! : ) MeegsC | Talk 10:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Pamela C. Rasmussen

I’m try to work up this article to at least GA. Since biography is a new departure for me, I’d welcome any comments for improvement on its talk page Jimfbleak (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another free resource

I just discovered that old issues of Malimbus, the Journal of the West African Ornithological Society, are available free online. Nice stuff since African ornithology is generally hard to cite. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice indeed! Thanks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Identify Darwin's finches

Darwin's finches 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

I could upload them when I am sure what they are. I find the names on the flickr uploads confusing. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

At least one of them has already been uploaded at Medium Ground-finch. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. I think one has been uploaded (not by me). There is nothing wrong with double checking the species. Has the uploaded species image been identified correctly? Snowman (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've got a photo field guide to the Galapagos. I'll give it a try tonight. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me: I saw one web page (not necessarily correct) that said that the Nazca Booby did not occur on the Galapagos Islands, but the Masked Booby, and two other boobies did. Two of the photos on the Nazca Booby wiki article are from the Galapagos, so are these Nazca or Masked Boobies? Snowman (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to my book, the Nazca Booby used to be a subspecies of the Masked Booby unique to the islands. While it has since been split, I am not sure if any other Masked Booby subspecies are found there. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Are there both Nazca Boobies and Masked Boobies on Galapagos? Snowman (talk) 10:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've been through my book. #1 is a Large Cactus-finch. #2 I believe has been uploaded corectly as a Medium Ground-finch. I'm nodding off now, so I'll wrap up tomorrow. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like 4 has got an even larger beak than 1. Snowman (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Coming soon

The 2008 Red List, which is the four-yearly serious update of conservation status. Due to hit on May 19th, and no doubt quite depressing, as well as a bit of work updating changes. Any chance a bot can do it, plus create list of changed articles that would need checking to make sure the text matches? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Polbot handled the 2007 Red List, although I suspect it only created articles, rather than updating existing articles. I've left a message on its talk page, drawing its attention to this thread. Does this update imply a version number increment to IUCN 3.2? Hesperian 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FLRC followup

We finally had someone (Orlady) willing to take the time to list those statements most in need of citations (at least in his/her opinion) in the List of birds in Canada and the United States. I've done a bunch of them, but don't have access to the AOU checklist information—except for what I can find on the net, which doesn't include the area changes. Can anyone source those sentences? The list of things still needing references is here. MeegsC | Talk 17:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, can anyone please source the family introductions for monarch-flycatchers, thornbills and fairy-bluebirds in List of birds of Thailand Jimfbleak (talk) 08:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Paleognaths

I have outcommented a lot on the Paleognath page. What is the use of a cladogram if it is not sourced - and cannot be sourced, because no consensus exists, and moreover a lot of taxa contained are not paleognaths?

It was really really weird. Gansus yumenensis a paleognath? Dinornis gazelle (sic) a valid species? And it totally disagreed with Ratite.

I have since long collected some refs for ratite phylogeny and could give it a shot, see what can be done in the absence of a consensus. But what I need to know is this - should we unite the ratites in Struthioniformes (perhaps using superfamilies if that can be sourced) or should we give each lineage of paleognaths its own order? Basically - which one of the two systems in the Paleognath taxobox is preferred by the Project? Both are feasible, as long as the opinion on ratite monophyly is so uneven (Ratite flightlessness was almost certainly not monophyletic - see Palaeotis, but see also figure 12.4 here though this changes things relatively, not absolutely).

The one consensus exists that it's (tinamous(lithornithids+ratites))all other living birds. But how distinct the different ratite lineages are from lithornithids and each other is the crux. This is somewhat scathing in its opinion, but about sums it up nicely. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

(I daresay that all cladistic analyses will fail if one does not exclude kiwis - morphologically too aberrant, genetically too drifted - and only includes one of ostrich and rheas - they stink of convergence it's not nice anymore. Perhaps the only way to crack this one is to do a kind of "reverse cladistics" - look for retained plesiomorphies, not for shared apomorphies. Because convergent evolution runs rampant in these - and if they're indeed as neotenic as they seem, on a molecular level too) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the latest word on the issue, and it's about as good as it gets. Lacks fossil taxa of course. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

In a curious sort of déjà vu, I don't care whether we call them separate orders or a single order, as long as we've got good sources and make the lack of consensus clear. By "we" I obviously mean "you", and I know I can count on you to do those things.

If the decision is really arbitrary, we can always go with HBW, as we have for so many other things. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

en mass changes

There have been two editors making mass changes to species pages today. I am not sure if they are running bots or not. I wonder if anyone might like to contribute to the discussion with has started on the users talk pages, or perhaps the discussion can be continued here.

• User:Betacommand, who had been changing all the categories to DEFAULTSORT. I think that this does not work for species because of the odd results on the genus category; see Category:Colibri and many others. If all the species are defaultsorted, then the species in a genus will all be sorted to the same letter, except where there are different names in the genus; for example. parakeet and conure in some genuses.
• User:Hesperian, who has been updating the "species at-risk status" which is probably correct, but he has also been changing a lot of the image_width in infoboxes to autosize as well (without including this in the edit summary). Snowman (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[splitting this to enable separately threaded discussions]

BetaCommand

DEFAULTSORT is only a default sort - it can be over-ruled for individual categories, such as genus categories. For example:

 {{DEFAULTSORT:Acacia saligna}}
 [[Category:Acacia|Saligna]]
 [[Category:Fabales of Australia]]
 [[Category:Flora of Western Australia]]

Hesperian 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that would work, and I hope that BetaCommand can make numerous amendments on all the species articles where the genus category indexing have not been over-ruled by the pipe syntax. As far as I am aware, all of BetaCommand's changes used DEFAULTSORT unselectivly without any pipe over-rules, which messedup the original indexing of the genus categories. Snowman (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hesperian

I have been working through Category:Taxoboxes needing a status system parameter. In the case of birds, nearly all my edits will be adding "status_system=IUCN3.1" to the taxobox. Adding a status system causes the article to be removed from the maintenance category.

While passing through these articles, I have also routinely removed the "image_width" parameter. It is, in general, good manners to honour users' default thumb size settings, rather than over-ruling them. People have various reasons for setting their default thumb sizes, such as bandwidth issues mandating smaller images, or eyesight problems mandating larger images. Presumably there are also good reasons behind the setting of the default default. I have no objection to the default thumb size being occasionally over-ruled, on a case-by-case basis, given some thought has gone into the matter. However the vast majority of the time no thought whatsoever has gone into it. And there is also the problem of users (e.g. Snowmanradio) who insist on tailoring the image size of virtually every image they come across.

That's all I have to say on the matter. This is a trivial matter, and already too much drama has been generated over it.

Hesperian 00:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just checked the infobox parameters of the first eight Featured Articles on the WP:Bird's list, and all of these have the image width set larger than the default size. I think that you are underestimating users who set the image width size of infoboxes. To follow wiki recommendatins perhaps we should all be changing the image in the lead (the infobox image) to 300px; "It is recommended that lead images not be smaller than 300px, as this will make the image smaller for users who have set 300px in their user preferences." See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images, subheading "Image size". Snowman (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not over-ruling the thumb size will also not make the image smaller for users who have set 300px for their user preferences. To be precise, not over-ruling the thumb size will make the image 300px for users who have set 300px for their user preferences. So that sentence would make its point better if it were phrased as "If you absolutely must overrule the default thumb size for the lead image, don't make it smaller than 300px". Hesperian 10:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking for the last year, I have been autosizing images that do not have a special prominence in the lead or infobox. Snowman (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Better late than never, but I want to wade in and point out that the vast majority of people who read Wikipedia probably do not adjust the size of their images in preferences (since they aren't logged in), so I fail to see the benefit of over ruling all the decisions made by dozens of editors about image size (and placement). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Audio requests - should we get a bot to add them?

I've been flagging a few articles of birds that live around Auckland with audio requests. Not surprisingly, most of them have no audio. You may have noticed the |needs-audio=yes parameter added to the birds template (and other animals projects). I'm guessing all birds make some sort of sound, and the most excellent encyclopedia imaginable (which we all want Wikipedia to be, right?) would surely have audio for each species displayed somewhere in their article, so I can't see any reason why we would not want to add audio requests to the species articles without any audio. Non-species articles may not need any audio files, in fact probably won't except for a few like birdsong.

With this in mind, I propose we get a bot to add audio requests to the birds banner of all bird species articles without audio files. It might be a little tricky but I'm sure it's doable (and much easier than doing it manually). Do people agree that this is desirable? Richard001 (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to have audio files for birds that vocalise (or make other distinctive sounds, like snipe). Keep in mind the fact that some bird articles are of extinct or fossil species; no point in adding tags to the latter. Maias (talk) 03:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag from Blackbird which was among the few articles that did have an audio in it. I am not sure about the utility of adding this tag since, there is rarely positive action resulting from the tags of needs image or even stub it in any case. The only advantage perhaps is that it puts up a category of bird articles lacking audio, but then unless that category is readily visible to potential audio contributors, it may not really help. One resource that needs to be searched by those who know calls is http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/whatIsFreesound.php. The freely licensed samples here often require trimming and modification and if there is any help needed with sound manipulation and format conversions, do post here. Shyamal (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Shyamal, I don't see the value of the tag. Anyone can expand an article, but getting a sound clip is difficult and the tag really isn't going to change that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It can certainly give some publicity to the fact that we need more audio, e.g. for featured articles that aren't really as complete as they seem. Recording a sound isn't that hard; I just don't think there are many people out there making much of an effort. I've made a list of local birds that I could record and with a bit of work I think I could get 10+ recordings done without going more than a few kilometers from where I live.

Basically it's a question of whether the requested audio thing is any use or not. If we are to use it, we may as well get a bot to do it rather than waste our (my?) time adding them manually. If we're not going to use it, we had better delete the parameter from the template and get rid of the category. It's either useful or useless. Richard001 (talk) 06:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it is a big deal. Even the largest bird song library in the world only has 67% of the world's species and bird song is their raison d'etre [3]. Most people have a camera, most people do not have a small recorder and the know how to transfer that audio onto computer and then convert to a Wikipedia compatible format. And that is before we've even gotten to the bird, and while it may be easy for editors to find common local bird songs, we tend to write articles on all birds. I'm expanding antbird at the moment and with all the will in the world I'm not going to get a bird call from one of them unless someone in South America feels like giving me one. While I like the idea of more audio for our articles (and I plan to take a recorder to Kapiti soon to record kiwis) I'm bothered by the feature creep in the statement for featured articles that aren't really as complete as they seem - I'll fight tooth and nail if that is every suggested as anything other than a "nice extra" for FA status. So I'd argue that it is useless, and I'd save yourself the trouble. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not chuck this out just yet. Some of us (myself included) are recordists; I have been making cuts in a variety places this year, with goal of adding them to Wikipedia. It's lack of time rather than anything else that's kept me from doing it so far! (FYI, Sabine's Sunbird, I have some Black-faced Antthrush and Barred Antshrike recordings—made in Trinidad in February—which I'm happy to do first!) As we populate this category, it will be useful for me (and others who record) if we can quickly and easily go to a "hit list", rather than having to individually access each article which might need a cut to check. And while this category will be massive to start with, hopefully, that will eventually change! : ) MeegsC | Talk 09:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe most non-species articles don't need a recording, but one for mixed-species feeding flock would be great! (I just tagged it.) Preferably one where you can hear the birds getting closer or farther away together, but I'm not picky. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was necessary for FA status, I was saying a bird article can never be considered complete unless it has audio as well (FAs don't have to be perfect; that would be asking a bit much). I agree that it is a lot more difficult to get audio than a picture, especially good audio (and also seasonal audio/rare/geographically challenging audio, e.g. chicks at the nest etc). But there are a lot of Wikipedians out there, and if we really started making more of an effort to get audio recordings (some can record, others can transform it into the right format and edit it...) we could make good progress on this. There will also certainly be non-species specific articles that need audio; I thought there could be no animal articles that needed audio until I remembered alarm call, which isn't covered by any specific animal project. But we can't really get a bot to tag these, unless you can think of some criteria for picking them out.

We could perhaps start by choosing a smaller group of articles to focus on - e.g. all the top and high importance articles that could benefit from audio being added. Things could be expanded from there if it goes well. Richard001 (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox graphics for status

The nice people over at the taxobox have played around with the code. So now instead of pretty graphics we get just text. Apparently we only have to add another parameter to get it back. Oh, an apparently we can't use a bot. But don't worry, they confidently predict it will only take six months or so to do. So get cracking! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate why this annoys you, SS, but the fact is that it is just plain wrong to feed an IUCN graphic for something that is "Endangered" under some other system. I have fixed up all the Australian taxoboxes, and I found numerous IUCN graphics being fed for animals ranked as endangered under the EPBC Act, and not yet assessed by the IUCN. For example (sticking to birds here), the Macquarie Island Rail, about which the IUCN has nothing to say, but which is ranked extinct under the EPBC Act, was showing an IUCN Extinct graphic.[4]; and the Alaotra Grebe was listed under a non-existent IUCN category.[5]

This project is in a unique position because birds are extremely well assessed under the IUCN, so from your perspective this looks like a solution looking for a problem. But from the perspective of plants and other animal taxa, this fix was necessary. Once you've had time to get used to the idea, I hope you'll agree that the tradeoff between temporarily losing some pretty pictures, and fixing a large number of factual errors, is a no-brainer. Hesperian 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm annoyed because a) a six month task was dumped in our laps with... b) no consultation with us (or as far as I can see any other of the wikiprojects, as the mammal people seemed as surprised), c) no notification once the deed was done (so we had to figure out what happened and ask what to do to fix it). Communication and consultation makes the wiki go round, you know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion at Template talk:Taxobox. I confess it didn't occur to me to consult more widely, as I didn't anticipate that this would cause any angst. Seemed like a pretty straightforward case to me: taxobox is misrepresenting the facts when a status_system parameter is not provided; that is a bug that needs to be fixed. I had no idea that the omission of a status_system parameter was so widespread on bird articles in particular. Seeing now that this has had such an impact on your work, I do most humbly apologise for not consulting you over it.

I am able to reinstate the graphics for taxoboxes lacking a status_system, pending wider discussion. This will solve your problem, but it will also introduce errors for taxa that are given a status under some other system, and will eliminate any inducement to add the missing parameter. Do you want me to do that?

Hesperian 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't accept this six month figure.

GA update

Pamela C. Rasmussen. I've done all I can think of on this, including sound and video. I'm away until Tuesday, and my intention is to send it to GA then, so any comments or amendments, speak now please Jimfbleak (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that someone has included my media-clip of Hill Blue-flycatcher in the bio, I'm a bit bothered that it is annotated as "Large Blue Flycatcher"....is there such a species? Aviceda talk 05:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I labelled it thus because PCR refers to it by the old name in the referenced article; if you're not happy, caption it as "H-b F, formerly L B F" or something similar Jimfbleak (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

...and I've sent it to GAN now, Jimfbleak (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Overlapping articles with Wikiproject Agriculture

In terms of poultry articles that this project shares with Wikiproject Agriculture, what is your position on naming for chickens and such? VanTucky 05:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean? The species is Red Junglefowl, and there is a separate article for the animal as a domesticated bird, chicken (similar to dog and grey wolf). Both the wild and domesticated forms are significantly notable enough to warrant separate articles (with summarised information on the other subject) .In the case of the wild forms they already follow our naming conventions, but the domesticated forms have well established names, and there isn't any compelling reason to mess with that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, you're not asking for chicken to be capitalized in every instance like Red Jungefowl would be? That's what I was asking, and it makes sense to me. VanTucky 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not, chicken isn't a species name. Besides, we only really insist on capitalisation on ornithological articles, we don't for example suggest that Nightingale should be capitalised in the article The Nightingale. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Bird ID

Anyones have a book of Neotropical forest hawks? I found this image of a Brazilian Accipiter which isn't ID'd. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yes, it would help if I linked, I know. Here! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The pattern of the underparts sure looks like that of a Roadside Hawk. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a category for unidentified birds on the commons? I can find a similar one for unknown butterflies. I have a few video-clips of species that I'm unsure about...would there be any interest in setting this up? Aviceda talk 09:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It's Category:Unidentified birds, and definitely worth browsing once in a while, as well a good place for your own pictures you're not sure of. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, looks like immature Roadside Hawk Jimfbleak (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

And what is this one in Kruger National Park, South Africa? Caption says it is a Forrest Buzzard. Snowman (talk) 11:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable that it could be an immature Forest Buzzard, given the face pattern and the teardrop-shaped spots on the underparts, according to The Larger Illustrated Guide to the Birds of Southern Africa, but I don't know whether there's anything else that looks like that. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't think this is a buteo far too 'ferocious-looking', I would be more inclined to go for a Hieraaetus Hawk-Eagle, possibly African H-E? (were fairly common in Kruger Park, 20-odd years ago!) Aviceda talk 06:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression Hieraaetus species (to the extent that that genus exists) all have their tarsi feathered down to the toes, so it's not one of them. The white tail bands seem wider than the ones in the illustration of the Forest Buzzard I linked to, but the ferocity doesn't bother me—that depends a lot on posture, camera angle, etc. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted a video-clip of a pipit species [6] that I filmed in November 1997 at Baga in Goa, India, would welcome any comments. Aviceda talk 07:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Asexual Turkeys???

In the trivia section of the Wild Turkey page, it says that female turkeys can reproduce asexually without a tom. The source is cited ligitimately and now loads for me, but it is a bit dense for me to understand. It doesn't seem right to me, but before I remove it, can anyone confirm that turkeys can be asexual? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

They can indeed, as can a number of birds, but it is rare (and rarer that the eggs survive and hatch). A good article on avian parthenogenesis is E. SCHUT, N. HEMMINGS, T. R. BIRKHEAD (2008) Parthenogenesis in a passerine bird, the Zebra Finch Taeniopygia guttata Ibis 150 (1) , 197–199 doi:10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00755.x - the intro summaraises the knowledge over the order. It could be made clear that it is unusual overall but almost common in turkeys, although perhaps more common in domesticated turkeys. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow- you do learn something new every day. Thanks for the new link and explanation. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

And that's why the Turkey should've been the U.S. national bird instead of that Bald Eagle, having to reproduce sexually like a common animal ;) VanTucky 03:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested a move of Cockscomb to either Comb (anatomy) or Bird comb here. Please feel free to chime in, VanTucky 00:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Dicruridae

Our lackadaisical approach to taxonomy has left us with something approaching a cluster***k with regards to the drongos, fantails, Magpie-lark and monarch flycatchers. At present our higher order articles have them arranged as subfamilies of the Dicruridae, but the majority of articles for genera and species, which were created by Polbot, assign them to three families, not one. I asked Dysmorodrepanis about splitting per most authorities but as far as I can tell from his reply the issue is rather clouded. Obviously the issue isn't settled, but I still think we should settle on one solution, for the interim, so that the family and species articles at least agree with each other. We can go three ways...

• Lump alter all the fantail and monarch-flycatcher species and genus articles created by Polbot to reflect our existing taxonomy. I'm not sure there is dramatic support for the continued lumping, but it is the conservative approach.

• Split the three subfamilies into full families (and decide where to put the magpie-lark). This would at least achieve consistency with HBW, which doesn't lump them and is supposedly our default taxonomy.

• Nothing leave it as is and wait for the issue to go away.

There isn't, as far as I can tell, a right taxanomic approach at present, but I still think we need to at least do one of the first tow things, if for no other reason than I have plans for fantail and would like a modicum of consistency. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest splitting. I note that Christidis & Boles (2008) have Monarchidae and Rhipiduridae as full families. Maias (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that splitting is more generally accepted at this point. They can be combiend later if consensus changes. C & B seems to be held in high regard by aussie birders. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll make the changes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Various staging points - FA/GA etc.

OK, I have nominated European Robin for GA as I figure it is looking pretty good, so feel free to improve, comment etc. I reckon getting the book on it would be necessary for FAC though. Still waiting for Ravedave to review Cattle Egret but looks like there's heaps to go on with currently...such as Cockatiel...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

an interesting and very fast edit analysis tool Jimfbleak (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ravedave has looked over Cattle Egret and given it the thumbs up. Who wants to do the honours? Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Cattle Egret at FAC, Pamela C. Rasmussen, European Robin at GAN Jimfbleak (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Cattle Egret now FA, Pamela C. Rasmussen being reviewed at GAN 19:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

and so was Pamela C. Rasmussen at GA! Jimfbleak (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Pamela C. Rasmussen

I'd like to go to FA, but would welcome any comment/editing, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory suggestion

The Project newsletter reminded me of my concern about our featured lists. The attempted delisting of birds of Canada and the US failed because they actually picked one of the best lists. Of the existing featured lists, most, imho, do not come close to FL grade. Only three or four have full in-line citations, including family summaries, and some lack any in-line references. Many have heavily capitalised headings, clearly against MoS guidelines. North Am/Gambia/Thailand are probably OK, what do we do about the others?

1. Nothing - wait for the delisters to find easier meat
2. Review and delist within project if necessary
3. Upgrade with corrected headings and in-line citations (looking at the FL list, most of the latter could be nicked from North Am/Gambia/Thailand)

I realise that this is throwing the cat amongst the pigeons, but we need to at least think about this. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't my idea, as I saw it elsewhere on this page a while back and Jimfbleak alludes to it above, but someone mentioned possibly forming a basic list of family summaries with cites so that when creating a list, a person just has to copy and paste the "official" family description and tweak the last line for number present. I think that this would be an interesting project to try and do after the family stubs are destubified. We could even create a FL for bird families as well as reffing the current ones. Also, on a personal note, I won't be around much for May becase of APs and SAT IIs. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to create templates for these rather than "cutting and pasting"—because then we can update ALL the lists by just updating the template. (Otherwise, we run the risk of having to update hundreds of individual lists if we decide on better wording, decide to include new information, etc.) Several weeks ago, I added the family names to the Country lists talk page, but I don't think anybody has actually starting adding info for any of them yet (other than the handful I'd already done... Perhaps we could start there? I'm happy to build the templates as we get agreement on wording, etc. for them. MeegsC | Talk 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've done referenced headers for list of birds of Thailand I'm also changing the layout to a more attractive table format

White-winged Fairy-wren at GAN

I nommed it after someone rapidly expanded it and I have polished it up. And yes, I am getting a range map...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is on hold but readily doable. I am having some trouble with online reffing for European Robin, which is also on hold - all help appreciated. I am going to the UNSW library tomorrow which may help with some offline sourcing. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Potential task force

I would like to create a task force within WP:BIRDS to address articles related to domesticated pigeons. Is there a voting process for creating a task force? Is there somewhere I'm supposed to post up the suggestion and see who's interested? I don't see any other task forces for WP:BIRDS so I wasn't sure exactly where to put the subpage assuming I can simply create the task force without further need of input.

Any ideas, suggestions, comments etc. are most welcome.

I know a proposal exists right now to create a WP:PIGEONS project--I think that's probably more administrative overhead than we'll ever be able to support and I also think it's probably never going to get five people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OnorioCatenacci (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

In the May 2008 WikiProject Birds newsletter there was reference to an Aviculture task force. Is there a task force page for them somewhere?--Onorio (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody's more than welcome to start up a task force; so far, we've had a few people try to get one or another (raptors and aviculture spring to mind) off the ground. Basically, it just takes somebody willing to head things up and be the driving force—and it sounds like you're willing to do that! Personally, I think task forces are a great idea, as they can help to focus the work of those interested in a particular area. You might take a look at task force pages on several other projects (WP:NOVELS and WP:MILHIST are two projects with multiple task forces) to see how they've set things up and to get ideas about what sorts of things you might consider including on your task force pages... MeegsC | Talk 14:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Snowmanradio, maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I was saying that I was expecting to see a task force page somewhere for an aviculture task force. Is there a task force page somewhere?

MeegsC I decided to boldly edit and add a task force page for the task force I created for Domesticated Pigeons. I hope I haven't just committed a major faux pas. I added the task force page to the navigation template for the WP:BIRDS page. I'm going to go back and add to the task force page (or perhaps others interested in improving the Domesticated Pigeons articles will do so) as my time permits. Thanks for the encouragement if nothing else.--Onorio (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"Boldly editing" was exactly what I was suggesting! I'm happy to help with copy-editing, etc., but I confess I know next to nothing about domesticated pigeons. If you need help with page setup, etc., feel free to drop me a note... MeegsC | Talk 09:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

A former discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/archive_16#Aviculture. I am not sure how to interpret all the comments, but it did not inspire me to start a taskforce. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds (family taxobox example)

This page still uses the old-school multi-template taxobox, which was deprecated in 2005! Can someone in this project please update it or, if it no longer serves any purposes, delete it? Hesperian 23:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What to do about Pardalotidae?

As with Dicruridae, the question arises about Pardalotidae - whether to go with splitting off Dasyornithidae (Bristlebird) and Acanthizidae (per Christidis & Boles 2008) or leaving them lumped. I would go for splitting, and am currently working on Bristlebird. Reducing Pardalotidae to just Pardalote would make it another stub to work on to bring it up to at least Start class. Any comments? Maias (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Photovolcanica.com: potential external link for images of some penguins

This domain originally got flagged as spam and blacklisted because the domain owner added them to multiple articles on multiple Wikipedias triggering our spam monitoring system:

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Request removal of Photovolcanica.com from global blacklist(permanent link)
• meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#photovolcanica.com (permanent link)

I was the admin who reviewed the site-owner's request to have them reviewed and I was impressed by the quality of these photos. I also determined this was a good faith mistake on the site-owner's part. He's agreed not to add anymore himself.

As one of Wikipedia's most notoriously fascistic, anti-spam admins, I never thought I would go promoting previously blacklisted links, but you may wish to take a look at some of these for individual penguin articles:

• http://www.photovolcanica.com/PhotovolcanicaFullIndex.html#Penguins

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the website has some good penguin photographs that may fill in some gaps on the wiki, but it is not immediately obvious what copyright license to put the website's images under. Snowman (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For now, it would just be external links. I have suggested that the owner consider uploading some under GFDL to Commons:

• User talk:145.64.134.234

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• An update on these negotiations will be appreciated with regards to any permission to use these images on the wiki. Out of interest; what is the official process whereby a website owner gives their permission to use their copyrighted work on the wiki? Snowman (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article's talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at the talk page with a link to where we can find that note.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article talk page.
• Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at the article talk page with a link to the web page details.

Jimfbleak (talk) 14:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if you could check out the permission give by User:RRvolcanica. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The website has several conditions incompatible with GFDL eg (ii) to use up to 3 pictures on non-commercial websites as long as a clickable link to www.photovolcanica.com is provided next to each picture and (iii) to use photos in school projects as long as these are not published outside of school too. and If you wish to use any photo for a commercial website or other publication purposes of any kind, please contact me.

Either the website heeds changing or an email from the website giving GFDL permission is needed. The statement on the user page is not sufficient. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That is useful to known, and I certainly do not plan to upload any images from this website until the copyright position is clarified and appropriate for the wiki. On the other hand, I do not see what is wrong with adding links to the external site, but the external link I added to the "Penguin" page has been reverted. I do not want to get into an edit war over this, however, I would be grateful if, one or more people from WP birds would confirm (or not) that the website is suitable for external links, and also check the reverted link on the Penguin page. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

You really need to take that up with the reverter, since otherwise we're just guessing what the reason for reversion was. It's possible that it's because the site offers prints for sale, and is deemed commercial, but I don't know. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Luckily it isn't a huge issue as we have quite a wide range of penguin photos lying around commons..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many penguin photographs on the wiki, but photos of the Erect-crested Penguin and White-flippered Penguin are missing. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed complicated. I have modified the contact & sales section on the website so that under "Photos" it now explicitly states that wikipedia authors may make free use of the images for encyclopedia pages. The same is stated on my personal wikipedia page. The GFDL license does not seem acceptable as it appears to release the images for use by ANY website (or have i misunderstood something). Clearly i only want to make them available to wikipedia. Regarding the reverted link i actually think that my site is not yet complete enough for the "general" penguin page - guess that could be why it was removed. Maybe OK for specific species but there are already lots of links already (some of which are actually rather poor). RRvolcanica (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Had a further read around and it seems wikipedia cannot accept anything which is not fully available to downstream commercial users. Bit surprised by that !!! Maybe way around that would be to keep size and image quality relatively low (i assume the license under GFDL only applies to the image in the size and quality provided ???) - that would be a shame though. If some specific images are required please tell me and I will consider what to do. May take a few weeks then though since I haven't got time right now for extra picture processing  :-((... RRvolcanica (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment above is spot on, commercial sites can use images as long as they follow GFDL too. You can of course release individual images at any quality you choose under the GFDL, as long as it is clear on your website which images are so designated Jimfbleak (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that i could release all images on the website at 200x300 resolution under GFDL which should be more than enough for the wikipedia encyclopedia pages. If users click on the image info they could be informed at which exact url the larger image version is, with the note that the larger image is not licensed under GFDL. Does that seem useful for editors ? (please comment). Could put statement releasing images in small size on website and on my wikipedia page, which appears to satisfy all wikipedia formal requirements. RRvolcanica (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If that were possible (I have not checked the legal aspects of copyright and the wiki rules), the wiki could use a few of your 200x300 images as placeholders. Smaller images tend to be replaced with better resolution images as they become available, and I may trawl flickr again after a few months to see what penguin photos have been uploaded. I am sure many people click on images to see them in larger detail. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The solution of releasing the smaller images is excellent, and a note on the website to that effect, and you user page, should be fine. Anyone uploading the images to WP needs to ensure that the record the source and the website notice. Jimfbleak (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Has the new infobox image on the "White-flippered Penguin" been tagged correctly? Snowman (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

For me the tag is fine (removed small spelling error from references section). Cannot say if someone will have formal objections, yet if someone knows more than we do i am sure we can make minor modifications accordingly. A notice of the GFDL license arrangement has now been included on the website under URL: http://www.photovolcanica.com/Contact.html under the header "Photos". I am sorry i cannot release larger images but hope you understand that the problem is not wikipedia but the downstream potential use (/abuse). Maybe for specific images we can talk about this again when i have a little more time. Probably a full link to my webpage in an external link section could even be OK for the white-flippered penguin as there are no links so far with background info on the penguin, but i will stay out of that due to COI. Alternatively authors could summarize info i have provided. RRvolcanica (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think, it might be good to see some references on the volcano website, as verifiability is important for all wiki sources. Snowman (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to references on Penguin pages (not volcano pages) on the volcano website. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

In reply to RRvolcanica's surprise, I think Jimmy Wales has said that the licensing requirements were a mistake. (Sorry, I can't find the source.) Certainly there would be many better images on the 'pedia if we could use those with a free non-commercial license. But it's too late to change now. Wikipedia has gotten lots of donations and volunteer contributions from people on the understanding that everything would be available under the GFDL. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)