Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 5

Archived from 24-July-2007 start here

General discussion & project-related stuff

Core topics

While blundering around Wikipedia trying to avoid work I came across Wikipedia:Featured topics. It occured to me that while we have huge amounts of great stuff regarding birds, our coverage of what might be the core subjects regarding birds is perhaps a little weak. Bird itself, while listed as a GA, is pretty poor (though improving for the efforts of Pmeleski and others), and while there are some reasonable other important articles there is a lot of scope for improvement.

Consider this a suggestion, or perhaps a request, that we devote some time towards core subjects. This includes dragging bird up to FA, turning bird evolution into an article rather than a redirect, and so on and suchlike. A lot of the family pages are barely more than stubs, and the same goes for orders. It isn't as much fun or as easy as doing species but it needs doing.

I know that we're all volunteers and we all pretty much do what we want to (or at least I do) and we all try and do way to much. But perhaps a little bit of time can be devoted to this? By way of a start I'll be concentrating on Bird, parrot and the newly started Bird conservation over the next month and I've nominated bird migration as a possible collaboration for next month. Anyway, let me know what you think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do support the idea to improve the core topics (I voted for bird in the previous nomination). But since the common raven is the current WikiProject Birds collaboration article, we should get it done first rather than divert the attention onto other matter. Luffy487 06:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'll be doing that too, but most of do multiple things, so just bear it in mind, ya? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I will see what I can find to improve the core topics. I am aware that you have did a pretty good job in a day's time to create an article, Bird conservation. Currently, I am quite busy with my work. I will be free in weekends, most probably... Luffy487 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies?

What is the story with Wikispecies? It seems like a a bizarre parallel universe wikipedia, requiring separate userid. It has a LOT of overlap with wikipedia with a MUCH more thorough coverage of taxonomy. But its usefulness is extremely limited without any of wikipedia's natural history / life history / ecology info. Add the total absence of cross-referencing between the two and it seems like (a) major duplication of work, and (b) major loss of functionality/info.

What's going on? What will Wikispecies have that taxoboxes/taxonomic categories in Wikipedia couldn't? What's the point of a complete separate program/database/wikiset JUST for taxonomic info and absolutely nothing else? Why are SO many wikipedia pages either non-existent or lacking taxonomic data that already exists on Wikispecies? Why not import all of Wikispecies' taxo data into wikipedia? Why not at least cross-reference or link every single page? And doesn't that sound incredibly inefficient?

Integrating Wikispecies' taxonomic data into Wikipedia pages following Tree_Of_Life project protocols would be far more useful, efficient, and accessible than the current split/duplication between Wikipedia and Wikispecies. I'm a bit new here, so please point me to the discussion if it's already happened.Fredwerner 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikispecies is a Wikipedia sister project. It is "an open, wiki-based species directory and central database of taxonomy. It is aimed at the needs of scientific users rather than general users." This page ought to answer any questions. Hey jude, don't let me down 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read that faq BEFORE I wrote my note here. It doesn't answer my questions at all. Is it MERELY a taxonomic inventory? Why bother? A) that is extremely limited; and B) having it separate from Wikipedia, with very little of that taxonomic info available to the relevant Wikipedia pages greatly decreases the utility and appeal of all Wikipedia species pages. Why can't the database be folded into Wikipedia, and fill all of those un-started redlink species pages with at least a taxobox? As though to prove the absurd redundancy of this, my comment there posted as from an anonymous IP address, because my login here isn't recognized there, and I am not going to bother to create another separate userid etc. over there. I would like to ACCESS that taxonomic data, but I would CONTRIBUTE more here. The frustrating split functionality is a significant disincentive for me to do either.Fredwerner 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

>shrug< I don't understand what Wikispecies is for, so I don't contribute to it. I understand what Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are for, so I participate in and contribute to those two. Whether or not I comprehend the purpose behind other Wiki projects seems less than relevant, quite frankly. 'Card 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I must admit I pretty much ignore Wikispecies, but that bit from the FAQ is a good reminder to people like me that we're writing for a general audience, not a scientific audience. —JerryFriedman 04:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, but wouldn't you want some of Wikispecies' taxonomic info to be available here? For example, Emberizidae. Most species and genera are redlinked; there is no info on those. And despite the best effort of people here, there are still inconsistencies in the taxoboxes, categorization, etc. on pages that DO exist.

Now look at Wikispecies' emberizid page. You can navigate through live links to pages for every genus and species, each with the full taxonomy, source name/date, some common names, etc. It's very thorough, and neatly standardized; hundreds of pages, none of it available here. And that's just one bird family. Wikipedia's taxonomy categories are a messy, insufficient shadow of Wikispecies; highly inconsistent, with thousands of missing pages, missing links, missing names, etc.

Why create pages here when they already exist at Wikispecies? Why wait for someone to create flawed, non-standard pages here? Why make everyon do a separate search there for taxonomic info? If Wikispecies is a universal, scientific, language-neutral directory, why can't they at least import its data into Wikipedia, for example as categories, taxoboxes, etc.?Fredwerner 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Because some 60-75% of Wikispecies' bird taxo data sucks. See eg "Sylvioidea". I treat WS as a source among others, but actually only very rarely. If you import WS data without triple-checking, you're in for some annoying rvs. But species-level data has a reasonable chance to be good. Dysmorodrepanis 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Fred, I don't really see a conflict here. Personally, I feel that Wikipedia is a worthwhile initiative, and Wikispecies a waste of effort, but as at least a proportion of its editors live in western liberal democracies, Wikispecies editors are free to waste their time. I'm interested in making Wikipedia as useful as possible, so any content from Wikispecies that would add value here is welcome in my opinion. Your ideas about creating stub pages for unrepresented taxa are good ideas. While I agree that Wikipedia articles need to be written in a way that is understandable to the "general" reader, that's not to say at all that the scientic community will not find Wikipedia articles of considerable use - the comment about how Wikispecies is intended to "meet the needs" of the latter, whereas Wikipedia is not, is something I've always found a bit patronising to be honest. If information is of value to any significant subset of our audience, let's include it here. SP-KP 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SP-KP; I don't see the conflict. If it bothers you, then feel free to put that information on Wikipedia, it's anyone's right. Hey jude, don't let me down 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree. You might want to work from the genus level down; I think we have something on most nonpasserine families which are in any case being reevaluated - so for every living bird genus there should be at least a redlink already. I found [[1]] which is a butterfly genus, but a well-rounded article and at least Start-class already; I think it would give a good template/checklist. Dysmorodrepanis 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

My only question: Is wikispecies now obsolete because of Catalog of Life??? It essentially does the same thing, and they have a collaboration of many scientists who have entered now over 1 million species???????

Maybe. The catalogue of life certainly is more comprehensive. Hey jude, don't let me down 00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Missing Pictures

• I think a category should be created, "Bird species without pictures". It would make the task of hunting down pics for articles that have none a lot easier. Abbott75 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm actually fairly sure one exists. Or, rather, a list does. I remember following one down from a 'what links here' from a species. Don't recal where it was hiding though. I don't know how much it helps, finding images of neotropical, asian, african and pacific phots is hard, and if I find a free one I tend to check to see if it is needed and add it straight away. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• Yes but editors have to manually place the article in the list. Maybe if there is no pic in the taxobox it should be automatically added to the list as a quick reference to anyone who wishes to find/add pics. Abbott75 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You probably want this missing images. Shyamal 06:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Standardised Opening Line

It has become apparent to me that WikiProject Birds needs a standardised opening line to our species articles. If one already exists, please let me know!

The following is the one I have been using in any article I create:
"The Common name, (Binomial name), is...."
Just to make sure you understand what I mean, it goes : <Common name in bold> <comma> <binomial in italics and brackets> <comma> ect...
What do you all think of my system? Any suggestions/improvements? Abbott75 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I use something very similar (probably copying from Jim), but you need to get rid of either the commas or the brackets (which we Americans call parentheses). Both punctuation marks indicate that what's between them is parenthetical, so both together are too much. I suggest keeping the brackets. —JerryFriedman 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite what Jerry has said, I prefer commas, but when I write a new species I start from an existing article and go with what was used in that. I can live with parentheses (it's the proper name for them here too, but only old fogies like me use it). I agree that you shouldn't have both parentheses and commas. jimfbleak 05:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how is this for a standard line:

• "The Common name (Binomial name) is..."? -Abbott75 07:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can live with that - is there any standard start in other species groups? jimfbleak 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any. I was hoping someone else might know. Abbott75 10:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The parens/brackets shouldn't be in italics. (Sorry, I missed that before.) I could live with commas, by the way. That choice is really up to you. —JerryFriedman 14:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I know the choice is really up to each individual editor, but a standardised line would help prevent silly edit wars and such. Do we all agree on:

• "The Common name (Binomial name) is..."? Abbott75 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do. The one thing left to argue about is whether to use "the" before species names that start with people's names. "The Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya) is…" or "Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya) is…"? I have a mild preference for leaving out the "the".

Have you seen silly edit wars over these things? That would be disappointing. The way to avoid those is for people to be reasonable and for them to know typographical and Wikipedia conventions. I'd hate to have a standard so inflexible that anyone gets corrected over matters of taste such as commas or parentheses around the scientific name. —JerryFriedman 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the genera and family intros that are tricker to my mind. Do you start, for example...

• The flufftails are a genus, Sarothrura, of small birds in the rail family.

or

• The flufftails, Sarothrura, are a genus of small birds in the rail family?

I don't mind either way but I'm never sure which looks and reads better. Many of the older family and genus entries would read better if they even mentioned the family name at all outside the taxobox (examples sunbird, broadbill, antbird). Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

General page content, layout, style...

Bird song

Does anyone know of any media files anywhere that are free to use that have bird song or bird calls on them? I want to use some examples in the bird#Communication section. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, found one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Further reading?

Has anyone else noticed the Addition of further reading contributions that User:CephasE has been making to many bird articles? For examples, see Brown Thrasher, Northern Mockingbird, or Cedar Waxwing (among many others). I hate to say anything negative about these contributions - because it's clear that a ton of research has gone into them, but when the Further reading section is larger than the article itself (often by a significant margin) I have to wonder if maybe that isn't a bit excessive? 'Card 01:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't bother me. I've seen people who don't like Wikipedia say that the best thing about it is when it has good references. It would be great if someone would link to those articles when they appear on line, as at SORA. —JerryFriedman 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest to leave them standing as they are (the italicization is unconventional, no offsite links for reprints, abstracts... are given - this formatting makes them easy to recognize) and only change them one by one as the sources are read and evaluated - they are not presently being used in the articles (or inlined; speaking of which, we NEED a good citation code that leaves articles editable instead of destroying the coherence of the actual output text by drowning it in "<ref" tags). For the time being, to have a list of references (even if the article does not use them) is a Good Thing. Dysmorodrepanis 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

At the very least the CAPITALISATION needs to be removed. Someone (with the necessary resources) should also check a random sample, to see that that they actually exist. Andy Mabbett 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've Googled many of the listed titles, and while I wasn't able to get hits on all of them, I did get hits on enough to convince me that they're legitimate. Besides, if they were fabricated, the sheer number of them would constitute a veritable masterpiece of creative (not to mention labor-intensive) vandalism. 'Card 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

At a glance, the articles are legit, and most are even available for free (on SORA). The theses (is "theses" the correct plural or is this an hypercorrection?), thus, should also be good, but these might be more hard to come by. Dysmorodrepanis 10:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm the one at the origin of this discussion. The lists of articles are the results of research in Biosis Preview, a database in biology, and the lists of theses are from ProQuest dissertations and theses, both of wich you can find in any good university library. However, as I wrote on my talk page, I learned that this kind of listing is not in the scope of Wikipedia so I stopped adding it to the species. CephasE 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. These "further readings" should be merged with the "references" section in articles that have both (such as Cedar Waxwings). Footnotes can remain in a separate "references cited" section, but an uncited bibliography should not be called "references".Fredwerner 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact - would it not be better to <!-- out-comment --> the entire block of refs initially? In some cases where the article itself is not a stub anymore, it now gives the impression that the article is based on peer-reviewed research and thus "encyclopedia standard" reliable. If the refs are removed from the displayed page but kept in the source code, they can be worked into the article at leisue. CephasE, I think you collected an outstanding amount of data there and I for one am quite happy about it. None of these refs should be deleted, but it might be better to remove the uncited ones from view when "further reading" is deleted so as not to confuse readers. Dysmorodrepanis 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations and bibliographies

In citations and bibliographies, please use {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}} and other Citation templates where possible. They add COinS metadata. Andy Mabbett 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not actually required though, right? Because quite frankly from the editors point of view they are cumbersome and hideous and I have no desire to touch them with a stick. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Me neither, for exactly the same reasons.

But we need to do something. The Harvard reference code would be ideal... if it had a good template. As articles grow longer, using < ref > tags will make them more and more painful to edit: you can't edit single sections anymore when adding a ref, as you need to know ALL the short-hand ref names; and odds are that newcomers will break the tags again and again because some sections's code cannot be read for lack of a single continuous sentence.

Do you think it would be worthwhile to push (I mean PUSH!) for a working Harvard referencing template? It would unite the advantages of a manual system (easy editing even in long, reference-rich articles; no need to edit whole article just to add one ref) and the < ref > tag (the most comfortable system for readers, even in long articles).

I had put down some ideas at Template_talk:Harvard_reference#Revamped_template. This was basically brainstorming for what fields are needed. I think it should be possible to make a citation template that:

• is concise (code-wise)
• is flexible (ONE template for books, journal articles, news articles, maybe even Web articles...)
• gives output linking inline citations to the ref section and back
• does not clog up the output text code with ref text, only uses a short inline tag and puts the main ref code in the reference section where it should go (if one uses and copies refs a lot, it makes things WAY quicker ;-D ) Dysmorodrepanis 13:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

See if Zotero might help. Shyamal 08:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy

I've recently been noticing that several of the articles about Cathartidae species refer to the supposed relationship with storks. Now that many authorities are denying the relationship, all that has to be changed. This is leading me to make some suggestions:

• Try not to refer to higher-level taxonomy in lower-level articles. That is, in Andean Condor just say that it's in the Cathartidae, not what this has to do with other birds. New World vulture is the place to discuss the vultures' relationships. That way fewer articles have to be changed when the taxonomy changes.

• Try to keep in mind how stable a particular taxon is likely to be. The AOU's draft South American check-list has notes such as "1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes has never been seriously questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of evidence (see summary in Cabot 1992, and more recently, García-Moreno and Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Paton et al. 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004, Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the Tinamiformes is the sister group to the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that these two groups, the Paleognathae, are the sister to all other living birds, the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988, Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002, Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007)." So if you're comparing a Crypturellus species to a Tinamus species, don't hesitate to say they're related. If you want to bring in a comparison to a ratite, only hesitate a little. But don't be too precise about how two tinamous are related. If you say they're probably in the same subfamily, someone will come along and put them at opposite ends of the list or say they're in two families in the same suborder. When it comes to species in taxa that are obviously in a state of flux—Timaliidae, Cotingidae, Cardinalidae, water birds—try not to mention relationships at all. Taxonomists like to make it appear they're writing the new gospel, but it's all provisional.

• Try to avoid mentioning any controversial or potentially controversial taxonomy till the end of the article.

What do you think of these suggestions? —JerryFriedman 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The first point is very valid, but perhaps metioning it is unavoidable for certain oddballs. While the relationship between nw vultures and storks doesn't need to be addressed in every single article for each species, taxonomy questions do need to be touched apon for the oddballs like the Stitchbird or the Wrentit. But as a general rule there is no need to discuss any higher level stuff in a species article if its already covered somewhere else. I'm not sure about the last point though, my inclination is against splitting the taxonomy stuff and for keeping taxonomy near the front of the article. Its like the first step to knowing something is knowing what it is, and what it isn't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that mentioning higher-level taxonomy is sometimes unavoidable. In fact, it probably does belong in the lead sentence of the aptly named Sapayoa aenigmata.

As for where to put the taxonomy, you and I have had this discussion before about Albatrosses (which I think handles it much better now than when I was commenting on it). To me, what the bird "is" is given by its description. Wagtails are slender insect-eating songbirds with unstreaked plumage, very long tertials (whether I'd notice that or not), etc. The article can define them that way and eventually get to the controversial taxonomy.

The exceptions are the problematic taxa that I mentioned above. I guess there's no way to talk about the Pardalotidae (maybe someday I'll see one) without saying what's in and what's out this year.

Now to reorganize Stitchbird in keeping with what I'm saying. —JerryFriedman 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I fell into the habit of putting taxonomy first because I based my layout on the HBW. Perhaps taxonomy should go at the front of higher level groups, familes and orders, maybe even genera, but at the bottom in species accounts? (or at least above the human and x section, but near the bottom) Taxonomy in a family account gives you the chance to introduced several possibly different groups of birds (for example the Artamidae) and explain why they are together; in a species account it is less important - you can mention it in the intro and then discuss it later for those interested. I'm still inclined to keep the taxonomy first though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to have the relationships mentioned in the into briefly - that is, name the family, note any recent changes in genus or whatnot, and name inter-generic relationships if known. (By the way, this discussion is about systematics mainly, not taxonomy which is basically how stuff is named scientifically, not where it belongs). This I follow by a brief mention of where the critter lives, or if there's not much available on distribution, everything that's available. See for example Blackcap.

Then, I usually put the descriptive section, I place this as the second part of the intro if it's brief, or as a dedicated section when longer. This is useful IMHO because by that point - which is still at the start of the article - the reader will know a) what sort of bird the article deals with, b) where that bird's from, and c) how that bird looks like, without going into too much detail except maybe in the last point which is the most useful for non-specialists.

The systematics discussion I place after the intro in higher-level taxa, as that's the main content of the article usually. In species, I only do this when it's really, crucially important, such as in the Sapayoa. But even then, I tend to structure it more like I did at Hoatzin (which doubles as a higher-level article in any case). In other cases, I put it whereever it's most appropriate: if there's already a discussion of subspecies, I tend to do this after or as a subsection of the Description part, before "Ecology" (i.e. detailed distribution, habitat, feeding, reproduction). If not, systematics are liable to go last. See for example Palila for an article where systematics come fairly early, Song Sparrow for one where they go last and with good reasons for that.

Taxonomy proper I usually limit to a footnote about the scientific name's etymology. I find footnotes (< ref >) ideally suited for this.

As regards NW vultures - having seen the latest studies, I tend to go with the AOU in placing them incertae sedis or indeed as Cathartiformes. The "evidence" consists mainly of data which suggests against a relationship with this or that group, nothing new that supports anything. Indeed, the more data we get, the more muddy their relationships have become.

The alternative would be to use [[Ciconiiformes]] <small>(disputed)</small> (the least awkward position if they have to go into some other order). Simply put, there are slightly more synapomorphies that seem not to be due to convergence and unite them with the Ciconiiformes. They are almost certainly not that close to the falcons, and the accipitrids are genomically aberrant and thus molecular comparisons may be affected (this is the reason why S/A could not place them with the accipitrids. But still, NWV are voiceless, clapper their bills, lack phaeomelanins, and crap on their legs). Fossil record also suggests, slightly, against a close relationship with Falconiformes. If my life depended on placing a bet, I'd consider them a basalmost divergence of the "para-Ciconiiformes" (i.e. storks and herons - which are less close than it seems maybe - and whatnot). This would provide ample time from an early K-PG/early Paleogene "higher waterbird" radiation to arrive at the morphology, whereas that's rather tricky if you consider Masillaraptor. Also, there are the teratorns to be considered. But if my life didn#t depend on it, I'd give them their own order for the time being. Dysmorodrepanis 11:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

"Systematics" and "taxonomy": the definitions you give don't entirely agree with general-use dictionaries. For instance, the NSOED says taxonomy is "classification, esp. in relation to its general laws or principles; the branch of science, or of a particular science or subject, that deals with classification; esp. the systematic classification of living organisms." Systematics is "the branch of biology that deals with the interrelationships of different species and their classification; systematic zoology, botany, etc.; taxonomy." Merriam-Webster and American Heritage say that systematics is primarily the science of classification or secondarily what goes where, taxonomy. Your "taxonomy" is their (and my) "nomenclature". I assume the definitions you gave are used by the people in the field, which in an encyclopedia entitles them to equal respect with the definitions in general use (dodging the debate).

I'm perfectly happy with mentioning systematics (your definition) at the beginning, as in saying something is a bird in the swallow family. That gives a lot of readers a good picture in only a few words. I'm just suggesting that where there's controversy or technical discussion, it goes later. You and I seem to agree on that.

I don't entirely agree with you on higher-level taxa. Listing what the taxon contains is not quite the definition of the topic; it's also about common characters, which I think could get higher priority in a lot of articles. Of course, sometimes the common characters are so technical ("Tertials?" says the reader. "Coracoid? Outgroup?" [I know what tertials are, but not the others]) or the taxon is so heterogeneous that you can't do much more that talk about what's in it.

Palila looks to me like an example of an article where the systematics is less interesting that "Distribution and status" and "Ecology and behavior" and would go better after them.

New World vultures: Don't I recall that they also resemble storks in having perforate nostrils and courtship displays on the ground? It would be great to have all that in the article, with a reference.

Only the southern half of the AOU called them "Incertae sedis". The North American check-list still has them in Ciconiiformes. I don't know enough to judge, but I'm quite comfortable with "Incertae sedis", as you say, and I wish the ornithologists would admit that more often, instead of acting as if their lives really did depend on having everything in some place.

Another suggestion for all: except for membership in the taxa that have "never been seriously questioned", use phrases such as "is currently placed in" or "Systematists consider it to belong to" instead of more definite phrases. —JerryFriedman 21:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)