Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

The 100 FL FA GA challenge - Good Article Push

Well, its the first of December here in New Zealand, and we are still 11 articles short of our target for the challenge that Casliber set for the end of the year. At this point the easiest route is Good Articles, which don't have to be too long. Perhaps people could nominate potential good articles they want to work on and get done by January 1st? That way we can kep an eye on each other's articles and help with the minor touches. Just to kick things off, I think I can get Golden White-eye and swallow to GA status this month. Both are mostly complete and just need additional details and citations and a clean up. Anyone else want to push an article or articles? I think Northern Bald Ibis is already GA quality from my brief glance, but I suspect Jim has FA status in mind. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy on the run in, to Christmas, and I'm not sure that I'll get NBI even to GA by then, but I might give it a go. I'll see if anything else appeals as near GA too. jimfbleak (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will sneak a look at NBI and be as critical as I can, also there is Huia..sorry I was all at sea with Ara (genus), and what about Red-throated Diver - that needed a bit. I also re-borrowed Crows and Ravens of the World as I saw Jackdaw was looking not too bad. If we can all list some obvious pre-GA to-dos on the talk pages, that might help in getting them all over the line. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some of these. The referencing for RTD is a nightmare, but article quite good. swallow probably needs more work than the others, but refs OK. Jackdaw, nice article, refs a mess but easily sortable (eg many multiple refs instead of using ref name, I've fixed some already) Please do savage NBI, pretend you're Tony1, but with better social skills (; jimfbleak (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, Northern Bald Ibis now at GAN jimfbleak (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have had a look at Golden White-eye too, so someone else can come and lay some comments on the talk page there, Huia looked ok last time I looked, and I will look again; good luck with the ibis...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to do some work after I get off for Christmas break. Rufous-crowned Sparrow isn't that far off from GA, and hopefully I can knock out one or two minor Critically Endangered birds without much info, ala Crested Shelduck. Oh, I've got some information definately for Northern Bald Ibis and maybe (haven't read it yet) for Golden White-eye, so I should be able to add some Tuesdayish. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally managed to find you a photo of that species! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoo! Thank you for finding this. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm finally back from a month-plus in Madagascar, and will try to get RTD done before year-end. I got lots of video of Mad endemics, plus some recordings and a few useable photos. Most of those will be next year's projects though! MeegsC | Talk 14:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent/update) anyone feel like cirtically appraising Huia for a pre-GA workout? i thought it looked pretty good...also Cockatoo is shaping up nicely...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to give it a looksie again, once I'm done fiddling with some southeast Asian millipedes and do what I said above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Golden White-eye is at GAN. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

....as is Huia. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And it has just been joined by Rufous-crowned Sparrow (finally). So, to summarize, out of the eleven articles needed to get to the hundred benchmark, four are currently at GAN: Northern Bald Ibis, Golden White-eye, Huia, and Rufous-crowned Sparrow. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We-ell, to be fair I guess we should review a few other non-bird GAs I suppose...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

European Starling is a good B, and might be improved to GA. Snowman (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Gosh yes, I had seen that one many months ago and it had gone off my radar - highly important species environemtally to cover and do well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Northern Bald Ibis now through GA, congrats. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Djibouti Francolin is now a GAN. Happy New Year! Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What will it take to get List of Amazon parrots to a featured list? Snowman (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A few quick comments: The lead would need to be redone, per the FL requirements (i.e don't have so many short paragraphs, never start list "this is a list of", more references probably required, etc.) Also, the sub-heading "list of ..." shouldn't be there; it's basically a repeat of the list title. We'd probably also have to get photos for the remaining species. MeegsC | Talk 15:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Huia is now GA, Macaroni Penguin failed but I have some sources...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (6)

• 60. Aracari to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 14:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indicated identification is correct, but it is all rights reserved. • Rabo³ • 09:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I did not see the wrong licence. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• 61. Toucan for identification. Snowman (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ramphastos v. vitellinus. • Rabo³ • 08:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos vitellinus -Lagos Zoo -Portugal-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 62. Hornbill for identification. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

female Aceros cassidix. • Rabo³ • 08:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Aceros cassidix (female) San Diego Zoo-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 63. Toucan in Panama. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Chestnut-mandibled Toucan. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and a juvenile. • Rabo³ • 08:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos swainsonii (juvenile) -Panama-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 64. Owl in zoo. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Spectacled Owl Pulsatrix perspicillata jimfbleak (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Was it the wrong licence previously? Snowman (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 65. Hornbill in zoo. Snowman (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Male (facing away) and female (checking out the photographer) Bycanistes brevis. • Rabo³ • 08:09, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Bycanistes brevis (pair) Lagos Zoo -Portugal-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• 66. Bird 1 and bird 2 - with large beak at San Diego Zoo. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Adult Double-toothed Barbet. • Rabo³ • 09:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Bird 1 uploaded to File:Lybius bidentatus -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg. (Bird 2 has the wrong licence for commons, so not uploaded). Snowman (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 67. Hornbill for identification. Is this this male of the species of bird 62 above? Both are in same photo-stream. Snowman (talk) 14:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is. • Rabo³ • 09:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Aceros cassidix -San Diego Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 68. Goldfinch to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed a male American Goldfinch. MeegsC | Talk 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to commons at File:Carduelis tristis -eating thistle seeds-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• 69: Trogan in a display in Vienna, Austria for identification. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Male Resplendent Quetzal. • Rabo³ • 09:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to commons at Image:Pharomachrus_mocinno_-Naturhistorisches_Museum_Wien-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Parrots for identification (8)

• 80. Small green parrot for identification. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Juvenile (beak color, dark edges of feathers m) Loriculus species . Most likely galgulus because of the breaking blue at the crown. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It does look like a "Blue-crowned Hanging-parrot" juvenile, although I find any "breaking blue at the crown" minimal or absent as viewed on my monitor. I am not sure what else could look like this with a bit of red in tail feathers. Any more opinions or rethinks. Snowman (talk) 15:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• 81. File:Trichoglossus haematodus capistratus -Lion Country Safari-6-3c.jpg Rainbow Lorikeet in zoo to confirm identity. Snowman (talk) 11:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Same as the individual discussed further up this page. 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• 82. File:Ara macao -Fort Worth Zoo-8.jpg. Is this a variant with yellow, green and blue in wing feathers. Snowman (talk) 21:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid between macao and chloroptera. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename file under-way to Ara hybrid -Fort Worth Zoo-8.jpg and file description amended. Snowman (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree here. This looks like a very normal Scarlet Macaw. That's how the wing typically looks, even if some individuals lack the green (and in the northern cyanopterus the tips to the wing-coverts are bluer). • Rabo³ • 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Admittedly, after a second look I'm less sure. In the wild, this species has green tips to the wing-coverts, but perhaps this is too much? It's certainly marginal, but based on what I have just read about "Ruby's" they're quite variable in the amount of yellow/green to the wing, too. Based on that I do wonder if they're always separable. Compare e.g. these wild Scarlet's: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. While I've heard of hybrids between these two species in the wild, they're exceptionally rare, so suggesting that all of these are hybrids would be problematic. • Rabo³ • 14:47, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. I had seem some ruby macaws, and this one looks a lot like it, but the images that you provided make a strong case that it might be a pure macao also. As it is a zoo animal, I would not dare to make a choice either way, in light of the pictures you provided. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

As a quick fix I have cancelled the name change and wrote a cautious image description for commons. Two subspecies are listed here and there is no mention of this in the wiki article. I have found this contradiction confusing for some months, and I brought this image here to try to establish images of the two subspecies, if the two subspecies classification is widely accepted. Any comments on the back of its neck being orange/yellow (at least in the photograph)? The orange on the back of the neck is present on a few I have just seen with green in their wings. I have seen quite a lot of photographs with green in the wings, and I wondered if it was the subspecies or not. I wonder what colours the juveniles are? I do not think that there are any male female plumage differences. Snowman (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Ruby Macaws have feather lines on the bare skin on the face, which are not present in this one, so I would go with a Scarlet Macaw at the present time provisionally. Snowman (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Any more opinions or rethinks? Snowman (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, after comparing some more images, the ruby should have some clear lines of feathers in the face, and this one does not have that. So, I go alonmg with rabo and go for the subspecies of thye macao. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• 83. Lorikeet 1, and 2 for identification. Snowman (talk) 15:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Same as the individual discussed further up this page. 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Trichoglossus haematodus - lorikeet on a branch.jpg and File:Trichoglossus haematodus - lorikeet on a branch-8a.jpg. Subspecies mentioned in image descriptions. Snowman (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• 84. File:Ara hybrid on roller skates -Paphos Bird Park-8.jpg for identification. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

chloroptera x millitaris/ambiguus -- Kim van der Linde ^{[[User talk:KiSnowman (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)mvdLinde|at venus]]} 19:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a "Catalina Macaw" (which is a hybrid between A. macao and A. ararauna). • Rabo³ • 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Identification goes as far as ara hybrid genus so far. Any more opinions or rethinks? Snowman (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No, and honestly not really interested to figure out either. Compare all hybrids here: http://animal-world.com/encyclo/birds/macaws/macaws.htm -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

... and it doesn't exactly help that the F2 hybrids of the Catalina can look different than F1 (and they themself are apparently rather variable based on a google search). Anyhow, regardless of the identification of this bird, it involves one of the red macaws (per underpart colour), and the Blue-and-yellow (black throat). I still suspect the red is a Scarlet, as I haven't found a photo of a Green-winged X Blue-and-yellow with a large red front shown by this bird. Other than that, I think I'll have to agree with the last comment by Kim, and further add (POV warning) that I find it most unfortunate than anyone intentionally would produce these hybrids. What a mess. • Rabo³ • 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• 85. File:Calyptorhynchus lathami -flying -Australia Zoo-8a.jpg and File:Calyptorhynchus lathami -flying -Australia Zoo-8.jpg. Black cockatoo to confirm identification as provided by flickr photographer. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Red-tailed. • Rabo³ • 14:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is a male or female? Snowman (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

New correctly named versions uploaded at File:Calyptorhynchus banksii -flying -Australia Zoo-8a.jpg and File:Calyptorhynchus banksii -flying -Australia Zoo-8.jpg. Bad name versions listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If adult, female, but I can't say I have much experiance in separate immatures and females of this species. • Rabo³ • 04:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• 86. Red ara macaw at Singapore Zoo. Yellow and green in wings. Snowman (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

yellow very marginal, I would say chloroptera, but rabo might have more details on that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming it is pure, definitely Scarlet (Green-winged never shows any yellow to the wing, has more distinct facial lines, and is proportionally larger- and heavier-headed). • Rabo³ • 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 87. Arini. ? hybrid ? feral. for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Red-masked Parakeet. • Rabo³ • 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Aratinga erythrogenys -city -San Francisco-8a.jpg with some others from the same flickr photo-stream. Snowman (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 88. Amazon parrot for identification. A less common one to find photographs of. Snowman (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Lilac-crowned Amazon. • Rabo³ • 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

uploaded to File:Amazona finschi -pet on shoulder-6a.jpg on commons. I was puzzled by the red on its head being so bright. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 89. Aratinga for identification. Which subspecies? or is it a species now? Snowman (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Indicated identification is correct. Nominate. • Rabo³ • 09:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Image:Green_Parakeet_-in_tree_-South_Texas-8.jpg on commons. Species and subspecies details added to commons description and to Green Parakeet article infobox caption. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change de facto standard for Common names

The main page indicates that the de facto standard for bird names is Handbook of Birds of the World (HBW). I am sure it was the most up to date reference at the time of publication, but in the end, it is static snapshot of birdnames from before the time of publication. Unfortunately, the world is dynamic, and that has been recognized by the International Ornithological Congress (IOC), who for that reason maintains a up to date list of both scientific and common names. This list is updated regularly based on the newest insights, and therefore much more up to date than HBW. I therefore propose that this WikiProject changes its de facto standard to the IOC World Bird List for both common and latin names. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It is the understood convention to use "Handbook of Birds of the World", and many editors have got access to it or their own copies. There are many other classification systems and anyone could suggest any alternative one at any time, but it is better to keep to one system. See WP:Recentism, which is a caution about using newly introduced ideas. Changing to IOC could have some unexpected unwelcome name changes to many pages. Some of the changes that you are proposing could be user unfriendly, and add to difficulty using the wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

To equate the slow changes adopted by the IOC to recentism, who generally only change when there is either clear consensus within the workgroup of the region covering that species, or obvious taxonomic reasons, is a misnomer. The IOC list (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/index.html) is general available to all editors, and not only to those who can afford the expensive HBW series. When something changes, that can be explained on the page and redirects from old names are cheap. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If this was a vote, I'd certainly vote for IOC. With very few exceptions, they've been very sensible in their choice of names. If anything, in most cases it would also be the opposite of recentism, as they've been more willing to accept local names (or tried to adapt them to fit into a worldwide level), whereas HBW and the various other worldwide lists I know all have several cases where they use a name that essentially never is used by people actually dealing with the birds. IOC's list certainly isn't perfect (and they have made their blunders), but it's a lot closer than the rest. • Rabo³ • 17:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm, now to check which list of names I like better...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW (and I know that this one is probably not going to fly - to pardon the pun), I'd personally be in favour of using the 'avicultural names' for birds which are most commonly kept as pets/aviary birds. I have no hard data to back this one up but I *think* that most people coming to the site looking for information about these species will be coming at it from that angle, considering that the majority of readers of enwiki are from the US and UK (AFAIK) - countries not particularly well-known for their free-flying native psittacines. I have personally been thrown by redirects to alternative names - Double Yellow-headed Amazon being a recent case in point for me. Just my $0.02. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on reflection, I have another proposal for guidelines for future situations like this.

1. No unilateral pagemoves for bird species articles (I'm not suggesting that this is what Kim did in the case of Cacatua goffiniana - she posted on the talk page about her intention to move the page but no-one saw it, presumably due to Christmas)
2. Any proposed bird species pagemove should be considered potentially controversial and listed at WP:RM - as well as being mentioned here, as a courtesy
3. Each individual case is to be discussed on its own merits, regardless of precedent
4. Take it slow - don't try to move lots of pages at once

I think that these are quite common sense-y for something knocked out in five minutes. Thoughts? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There are aready wiki guidelines that suggest that contraversial (or likely to be controversial) page moves should be discussed with a formal request for page move discussion, so part of this is already covered elsewhere. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Still, a pointer to editors somewhere that there may be 'issues' with pagemoves in this particular area of the 'pedia and a suggestion to tread carefully might be useful. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that this proposal is probably suggesting 100s of page moves including FAs, and some of these moves may be unexpectedly odd or problematic. I think each page move should be considered individually. I agree that special consideration should be given to those birds widely known by well established other names in aviculture.Snowman (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that each page move should be considered individually. Not all page moves are controversial, these are generally limited to common aviculture species. My proposal has to do with the de facto standard that is prescribed for this wikiproject. If I would modify my proposal, it would become:

The de facto standard for common bird names is the World Birdnames List of the IOC(http://www.worldbirdnames.org). Changing a name to reflect the new de facto standard need to be discussed individually (or in small groups when appropriate). Controversial moves need to be listed here and at WP:RM

The latter in parenthesses is added for name changes such as xxxxx Fig-parrot to xxxxx Fig Parrot. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversial name page moves are not mainly limited to aviculture birds, but to any popular bird with a widely used common name. For example is it "House Martin" or "Common House Martin"? Snowman (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there are more than just aviculture related names that are controversial. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps something a bit more watertight for the last sentence: "Moves that are controversial or may be controversial need to be discussed on the WP:BirdTalk page and at WP:RM". According to the consensus reached the page name is either kept or moved. This proposal does not supersede general wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand what "de facto" means. This is the en:wikipedia and there is no need for expression in Latin or another language. English throughout would be clearer. I can not agree to anything written partly in one language and partly in another. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

de facto is currently used in the sentence dictating HBW. I think if we would change it to preferred, becoming The preferred standard..... it would actually better as it is slightly weaker. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"De facto" is in English-language dictionaries, and I don't see it as inferior to any other borrowings from Latin, such as "motor" or "remiges" or, for that matter, "inferior". It's the perfect phrase for the kind of guideline that we had for HBW: what people were doing in fact, not the result or debate or consensus. If we do reach a consensus here, "de facto" will no longer be the right description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, the wiki should be easy to understand, and it seems to me that using words that people have to lookup on the projects main page is not a good practice, especially when an alternative phrase can easily be used. Snowman (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps something a bit more watertight for the last sentence: "Moves that are controversial or may be controversial need to be signposted on the WP:BirdTalk page and WP:RM and discussed at a dedicated area, on the relevant article talk page or under a heading at WP:RM. According to the consensus reached the page name is either kept or moved. This proposal does not supersede general wiki guidelines." Snowman (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

IOC does not provide nomenclature for genera, but it would be sensible for the wiki to use a system that does both genera and species. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No such system with genera names exists. HBW doesn't provide it, IOC doesn't provided it, and the various other lists don't provide it. It might exist on a local level (e.g. lists for South Africa or alike), but not on anything that even remotely approaches a worldwide level. Of course there are numerous cases that are obvious even without that, but there are also cases where genus name is the only possibility unless violating WP:NOR. On a somewhat related issue: While I know this is secondary, it has been mentioned briefly above, and therefore I think this would be a sensible place to get a discussion over aviculture names. First, the above assumption that "majority of readers of enwiki are from the US and UK" and most of these will be looking for the aviculture names when it comes to parrots is just plain wrong. Birding has many followers, and has become a major business with thousands travelling abroad each year simply to look at birds. Based on the discussions I've seen in this group, I'm also fairly sure you'll find more members of this group that are in it from a birding rather than a avicultural perspective, and that alone is a hint. Nevertheless, while I dislike the aviculture names as they are guaranteed to result in a lack of consistency over genera (different "group-name" applied to members of a single genus, e.g. Pyrrhura and Aratinga. I've mentioned this several times elsewhere), I do understand that there is a case to be made for them in a number of species. So, in the cases where it can be shown that one is far more popular than another, e.g. via google (yes, I know google at best is questionable for this usage, but it's been used before as a significant argument for moving a page; Sun Conure). Here I'm speaking about a significant difference (e.g. one name only gets 2/3 the results of the other name). In the cases where it is closer or if there only are a few hundred results it loses its value as an argument (even if one has, say, 600 results while the second only 300 - that difference may appear significant, but it's a far too small sample for judging anything; we'll need to get well into the 1000s). Examples of pages that would be changed following this basic "popular" rule, are White-eyed Conure that should be moved to White-eyed Parakeet (aviculture name --> name used elsewhere), while Pearly Parakeet should be moved to Pearly Conure (name used elsewhere --> aviculture name). Before suggesting a move, it is of course important to check that the "new" name actually matches the taxonomy used on wiki. I know all this may seem rather trivial to most members of this group, but the aviculture names are already used some places on wiki. If they are to be used, at least I'd suggest there are some rough guidelines (even if not "official") on where and when, as the current version seems rather random and depends more on a user that prefers "a" over "b" has stumpled upon the page at some point. • Rabo³ • 12:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This suggestion is quite favourable to starting a discussion on aviculture page names, whatever the final outcome, I think. It may be that using ornithology names for some and aviculture names for others is likely to cause inconsistency. Sometimes the aviculture name is the same as other common names; for example, the Senegal Parrot; however, a committee may be getting ready to create a wave and suggest a new name for Senegal Parrot, perhaps the "Grey-headed Yellow-and-green African Parrot", on the grounds that is is more descriptive and the parrot is from a wider range than just Senegal. To overview the topic and for reference, it might be interesting to make giant sortable table (or several sortable tables) of parrot names according to different systems, one being for the aviculture names. It could be like the list of parrots page. I am not suggesting that anyone in particular should make a table, unless they were very interested, because it could take a long time. Snowman (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think a genus box might help placed at the bottom of parrot pages - several names could be included in the genus box across the genus, so the name at the top of the page becomes less important because navigation is partly with the genus box. As far as I am aware the largest parrot genus box would be about 32 species and that would be for the Amazon parrots (I think that is capitalised). I might start a simple one soon, perhaps for the poicephalus parrots. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What actually is the "taxonomy used on wiki" at the present time? Snowman (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabo, each name should have redirects from each possible name anyway, which will facilitate the finding of species also. Combined with your genus box idea I think it is far more consistent to use a single unified naming scheme such as IOC list that actually gets updated. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Kim, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, for names I would rather follow a single list, preferably IOC, too, and yes, all names should always redirect anyway. However, there are members of this group that strongly prefer the aviculture names, and there are already several places where they are in use as the "primary" article name (Sun Conure, White-eyed Conure, Jenday Conure, Green-cheeked Conure, Golden Conure, etc. - even more messy, what approximates individual accounts for some of the species have been started in Conure, something that at best approches WP:POV fork considering that they have their own individual articles, too). My previous comment was therefore an attempt of finding a compromise with the people prefering the aviculture names. • Rabo³ • 22:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Rabo, I know, and it was one of the reasons I left wikipedia for a long time. I am very much in favour of splitting the aviculture aspect from the remaining articles, and let them have their names. Mind you, I come from the aviculture myself originally, but I get fed up with the conservatism at one hand and the frivolous making new names at the other. My approach would be to use one list as a basis, and have individual discussions for the problem cases. I think it will work. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IOC says that is it "Common House Martin" not "House Martin". I am not sure what HBW says. What is the choice of the ornithologists and birders? This project can not maintain names for FA articles that are not in line with this projects guidelines, and also insist that aviculture pages follow the guidelines. If bird FA articles do not follow the guidelines, then all name rules are optional. Snowman (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

House martin is a group name and should address the existence of three species of House martin, but now a redirect to House Martin. Just like most people in the world will call it a Crow, not the Carrion Crow or American Crow or whatever local variant is there. But this naming dispute is the result of ruling by majority, both on the project as well in how to decide names. In fact, by dictating that [[XXXX]] is used to indicate the [[Common XXXX]], it actually skews the encyclopaedia towards European species, and hence to a disproportional weighting of regions, something not wanted at Wikipedia as well. It becomes even more interesting when we deal with Robin and region.... ;-)-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If I have followed that correctly (it is not very clear), you a putting an case for using "House Martin" (not in IOC name system) and so all your ideas about using IOC have just gone out of the window. I do not see which part you are suggesting is impossible? "House martin" could be a dab page that includes the species, the bird group, and a pop group. This would be in line with the naming rules. Snowman (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I just raised some points, not expressed a preference. In general, I am in favour of using Latin names for article titles. If not, at least a single common style, by for example using the IOC list as a general rule (because it is dynamic and follows changes rather than HBW that is frozen in time with the prevailing opinion from the late 90's.

So, I would be VERY much in favour of Common House Martin over House Martin, which I think should be a redirect to House martin that addresses the existence of three different species of House martin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I see now, that is a consistent approach and that is easy to understand. "House martin" being a dab page? Snowman (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, something similar as Crow or Parakeet that are common vernacular names used for non-specific taxonomic groups. Broad-tailed parrot is heading that way as it is not a single taxonomic unit. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

IOC says is it "Common Blackbird" not "Blackbird". Snowman (talk) 18:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

To raise a separate issue, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) guidelines are menioned in context with FA's etc, but as there is a more specific guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)) that states:

If the article is about an animal belonging to a group where Wikipedia editors have agreed on a standard for choosing among two or more common names, follow that standard:

• Editors involved with Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds have agreed to use the official recommendations of ornithological societies, for example Peregrine Falcon (not duck hawk, Falco peregrinus, etc.)

With this in mind, if we would settle to deal with this in a better way, it automatically trickels down to the wikipedia guidelines oin this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Other wikiprojects have the same rules and some choose the scientific names, so that there is no misunderstanding. This is usually ok, except when people want to use a common name "Shingles" or "Herpes zoser", but the WP project prefered nomenclature prevailed here. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The WP:Bird wikiproject is currently a project that does not follow its own name rules for a few of its FAs. If the project is serious about official names then why not tackle the FA class pages first, rather than a Start class parrot page. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets first see if we can agree on what names to use, and whether or not to let google counts rule common usage of names, like in Sun Parakeet. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If all the bird FAs had names that followed the WP:Bird's own prefered system, then there would be less scope for negotiation on the name of bird articles, and names could be changed without the impression that someone stumbled on a bird article and decided to change the name because they did not like it. In the case of the "House Martin" and the "Blackbird" pages there was discussion on each article's talk page at the time when the FAC was in progress, and so the FA went through in full knowledge that the pages did not use WP:Bird's own preferred names. FA are the best of the wiki, and so it implies that it is perfectly acceptable for any bird article to use a popular name in preference to an official common name. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A few observations -

• not only to those who can afford the expensive HBW series The HBW list is not the same thing as the HBW series, it is a list found on the HBW's website, which was, before the IOC list's publication, the only universal easy to access list.
• The Birds of the World: Recommended English names is not without its critics ([http://www.notornis.org.nz/contents.php?volume_issue=n53_3 subscription needed).
• If bird FA articles do not follow the guidelines, then all name rules are optional. No, no, no NO! That is fatuous reasoning. What it means that there is leeway in the guidelines to ignore them if there is a good reason. As opposed to policy, which doesn't have that leeway. But if a consensus emerges to ignore the guidelines for Blackbird that does not give an automatic pass to ignore the guidlines on the Mitred Parakeet, what it means is that consensus can then decide if it too should be changed. Consistency is a good argument for keeping both of them at Common Blackbird and Mitred Parakeet - whereas there are other arguments in favour of their being at Blackbird and Mitred Conure (simplicity and common usage in one case, aviculture in the other). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think I had the wrong emphasis with "optional", so I have put a strike through my comment above. I find your own version entirely logical and well written. Snowman (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For those interested, HBW has since the IOC lists exists, used that list to name the species in their book. http://worldbirdnames.org/reactions.html -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I advocated a move to the IOC list before, and I probably would support a move again (though the Notornis article was pretty damning in places). Perhaps we should take the time to list the pros and cons of each approach. It is also important to note that we will never fully agree with one list or another as we pretty much have our own taxonomy now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

There is some mileage in keeping what we have got, it is the work of dozens or hundreds of editors, and perhaps it would be disrespectful to upset a traditional apple-cart with new pages names. Page names are a well ploughed field here and evolved over a several years. Implementing IOC names is going to take a lot of work and I guess it will involve 100s of pages, with potential for many unexpected name changes, and much discussion. The current names work ok, so why change them. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there would be work, a point in favour of sticking to what we have. But there are numerous problems with that approach. Firstly, what we have is a mishmash of HBW and Red-list names. For example Goffin's Cockatoo is called the Tanimbar Cockatoo by the HBW - a name that isn't even on that species' page (though possibly because of the confused taxonomy of the species). The megapodes of the genus Megapodius are called scrubfowl on the Megapode family page but mostly megapodes on the species pages. The reasosn for this are the creation of so many articles by PolBot - which used the slightly different IUCN species name list, the creation of family and genus articles using other sources (in some instances before the standard was introduced), and the fact that the HBW list online no longer matches the one used in the books. Throw in the fact that the taxonomies sometimes don't match between taxonomic levels (Greater Striped Swallow is Hirundo on its species page and Cecropis on the family page) and we need to do an overhaul anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowman, I do not think anybody (at least not me) is advocating to use this adoption of IOC names to immediately force change all names without regard of anything.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Sunbird, see http://worldbirdnames.org/reactions.html for many who do accept the standards:

• Tree of Life - Aves, Neornithes
• Avibase
• BirdStack (from David Ringer)
• BirdJournal (from Justin Caldicott)
• Global Raptor Information Network (GRIN) (from Lloyd Kiff)
• British Ornithologists' Union (from Chris Perrins)
• Wilson Journal of Ornithology
• Handbook of the Birds of the World (from Josep del Hoyo and Andy Elliott, editors)
• Adopts IOC names guidelines (including capitalized bird names) as master list for Birds: The Definitive Photographic Guide (2007).
• African Bird Club (Forwarded by D. B. Donsker)
• AOU Checklist of North American Birds
• Birds of Africa: South of the Sahara (From Sinclair and Ryan's introduction, see also Kaestner review in Birding, 39 [3], page 86)
• BirdLife International
• Checklist of the birds of Switzerland (Der Ornithologische Beobachter 103: 271-294 (2006)
• Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World , Sixth Edition 2007 (from Preface by Fitzpatrick)
• Danish Ornithological Society/BirdLife Denmark
• German bird list (from Peter Barthel)
• Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World (from E.C. Dickinson, Ed.)
• Passerine Birds of South America (UTexas Press, in press) (from R Ridgely)

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a list of organizations that have accepted the IOC list; it's a list of those that have reacted to it, as you can see at the site. Some have accepted it willingly, some grudgingly or with exceptions. Avibase has put adopted it as one of the lists it recognizes, on the same level as many others. The BOU has accepted it but continues to also use traditional British names, such as "Blackbird", in British contexts. ("The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.") The AOU has rejected it but will consider individual changes case by case. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, my bad for not reading each and every entry in full detail..... :-( -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already said I like the IOC list... Even if New Zealand got short thrift. I just say we need to have a full discussion. Like, how much work are we going to have to do? We should take a few taxa and see how many changes it will entail. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

IOC names at FA/GA articles

I think FAs and GAs would be a good place to start, being a sample of a mixture of birds types. Snowman (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, shall we start with Blackbird? Given above, should it be at Common Blackbird, given the Raven is at Common Raven, and the archetypal Robin at European Robin? Unsigned commonet made by Casliber (talk . contribs) 12:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lets do FAs and GAs alphabetically and then none will be missed out. It starts with "American Black Vulture", which I think is IOC "Black Vulture", I think "Blackbird" is the next one that is different with IOC, but do not take my word for it. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have started a list here: User:KimvdLinde/FAGANames. Feel free to add to this. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, shall we place a proposed move template on the talk page of Blackbird and discuss there? Now to check what its name is in HBW..certianly a disambig page for all the species known as blackbird would be a good thing (?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Blackbird is a particular good example, as there are at least a 20+ species that are all called blackbirds, covering two or three not so related groups. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

HBW uses Common Blackbird, but unlike the wikipedia article they also consider Tibetan (T. maximus) and Indian (T. simillimus) as separate species. As do IOC, but of course taxonomy is not their primary objective, even if it is pretty hard to avoid when wanting to name something... after all, you need to know what you name. • Rabo³ • 23:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Should wiki article content be checked to see it is in line with its new IOC name, and amended if needed? How does one know what IOC has named? Snowman (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC).

In this particular case, it isn't too important. In cases where it is, it unfortunately isn't straight forward in all cases, as it requires a level of familiarity with the taxa of a specific group, i.e. knowing beforehand if a species commonly is split/merged, and then specifically check the list. This potential problem, however, is not limited to IOC, and is the same for other lists, though some, e.g. HBW, do include a brief taxonomic note, but considering that most here probably don't have direct access to HBW anyway, that doesn't help. In any case HBW is a static list, and taxonomy is anything but static (to take an example, HBW doesn't mention the possibility of rather fundamental changes in the Pyrrhura picta and P. leucotis complexes, as these really weren't anticipated when the HBW volume dealing with parrots was published in 1997). In any case there are few cases where this presents a problem. Where it does, there have usually been significant changes proposed recently, and (for the most part) wiki articles dealing with such species get a brief note on the recent taxonomic change rather fast, meaning that it should be apparent from the text. • Rabo³ • 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, well Blackbird is a good start, as both HBW and IOC have Common Blackbird as name, and a good disambig article with all birds termed blackbirds and their relationships to each other can be made. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So, as we are starting with GA and FA articles, then the rename for Goffin's Cockatoo (Start class) is called off. What is the point of making an agreement to start with the FAs and GAs beginning with Blackbird and then voting at the same time on an IOC name change for Goffin's Cockatoo? Snowman (talk) 09:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is agreed to start on FAs and GAs, so can everyone who has voted in the rename of Goffin's Cockatoo (Start class) act on what has been decided appropriately. Snowman (talk) 10:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No reason to stop already running discussions. This are two seperate discussions, and one drove the other, but that does not mean that the other can inhibit the one. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the spirit of the agreement in this discussion is to start on FA and GA articles before changing any other articles. Snowman (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood the idea, and I withdraw my support. In that case, I am in favour of staring those discussions anyone feel is appropriate looking at the evidence. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

My understanding from this discussion is that it is appropriate to look at evidence for changing the names of FA and GAs to IOC names. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. The point is to look at whichever articles need title changes, and while FAs and Gas area good place to start, there is indeed no reason to stop ongoing discussions. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A few personal preferences on this discussion—with no links, which I won't have time till I'm back from a short trip.

1. If we adopt the IOC list, I hope we'll consider revising their decision to mostly eliminate the word "island". For instance, I think "Christmas Frigatebird" is nowhere near as good as "Christmas Island Frigatebird.
2. Likewise I think we should consider revising their elimination of hyphens. I greatly prefer "Wilson's Storm-Petrel" to "Wilson's Storm Petrel", as the former reminds the beginner that storm-petrels aren't the same thing as Procellariidae petrels. This, by the way, was the main issue mentioned in the AOU vote against a proposal to adopt the IOC names in toto. Even the IOC, so far from reaching a consensus on this point, never agreed on it.
3. I too don't think "Blackbird", "House Martin", etc., are not good names for an international encyclopedia.
4. The compromise of going by Google counts (when there are clear and significant majorities) for birds in aviculture is a good one, but I'd still rather not compromise. My suggestion is not to have "conure" in the primary name of any species article, as it seems to be unusual in ornithology (though it certainly exists there). Even if far more people know certain species as conures, probably far more people call say "buzzard" than "Turkey Vulture" and "crow" than "Chihuahuan Raven", but we use the names used in science.
5. On a related subject, I would prefer not to have splits between ornithology/birding articles and aviculture articles about the same species. Some have said that the two don't go together well, but I simply don't see the problem.

See you in a few days. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to the Island an hyphen issues, as I think we should not wade in that discussion, it is not to wikipedia to resolve those issues. The BOU uses the IOC names for international oriented publications, and the British names for Britain. I personally do not like google counts either, and conure is a major misnomer. As for the aviculture sections, does anyone knows a aviculture section that actually is good? Sure, we can leave them in, but in general, the quality is dropping coinsiderable in those sections. And to be honest, if the aviculturists are not willing to actually put the effort in it to actually make an encyclopedic section about aviculture for that species, I think they should shut up about the name as well. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And another thing. :-) I'd prefer not to change FA and GA names till active 'pedians who were heavily involved in the articles get a chance to comment. In the case of Blackbird and House Martin, Jimfbleak comes to mind, though I think he'll say something I disagree with. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe a note on some other pages to alert for discussing Balckbird, and leaving it open a good, long time will be helpful. TIme for some canvassing more input :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To island or not to island? Christmas Island Frigatebird but Christmas Shearwater. (To add an extra layer of confusion, different Christmas Islands!) Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, aviculture page name changes should also be given more time to enable more input. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Spheniscus

I suggest that the genus page "Spheniscus" of Banded Penguins be changed to "Banded Penguin". It is a WP:BirdTalk guideline that common names be used where there is a common name. Depending on comments here I might follow this up with a page name request on the articles talk page to enable the page move formally. Snowman (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

agree. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Me too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Are genus names capitalised? Is the page about banded penguins or Banded Penguins? I think it should be lower case. Snowman (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, no, as it is not a proper noun. Easy rule, when it is a single species, it is capatilized, when it is a group, it is not. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised no one noticed my typo sooner. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Does IOC do genus names as well? Snowman (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It does not do common names for genera. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of uncontroversial move. Moved. Snowman (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (7)

• 70. File:Striated Heron (Butorides striata) -Santa Cruz -Galapagos.jpg File with recent rewrite of description on commons for identification. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a plain old B. striata striata. sundevalli is unmistakeable. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

That link to an unmistakable example is on a subscription only website. Having searched for lots of images elsewhere, I remain unconvinced either way. Snowman (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

... and this is one of the problem individuals. Most clearly match standard B. s. striata, but what's going on with those dark cheeks? Compare the individual discussed further down in the subsection "Birds for identification (8)" (link to photo itself here). I have *never* seen dark cheeks like that anywhere among the mainland populations (supposedly the same ssp. as on Galápagos), where no B. sundevalli exists. On the contrary, such dark-cheeked B. s. striata occur with some frequency on the Galápagos. Does this indicate that we're dealing with a hybrid B. s. striata X B. sundevalli? I suspect yes, but I'm not sure anyone knowns for certain at present, and as stated in my comment further down, the situation in the Galápagos is not entirely resolved. • Rabo³ • 20:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 71. File:Audobon's Shearwater.jpg I am not sure about this; HBW indicates that P. l. lherminieri is the most probable choice, but the undertail is really light compared to the photos of stray lherminieri (or boydi???) here. That there is no location info does not help; the other birds in the Flickr photoset do not suggest it is a Pacific location. An Atlantic location, if I'm not mistaken, would mean that it can only by lherminieri simply by excluding any other species. (NB: we had another photo supposedly of Audubon's, but that was actually subalaris and thus I moved it from the Commons page) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• 72. File:Ara macao & Ramphastos tucanus GFDL.jpg It is probably possible to identify the subspecies of the toucan. Snowman (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Intergrade ("inca") of tucanus and cuvieri, leaning towards cuvieri. See also File:Ramphastos tucanus (intergrade) -Brazil-8a.jpg. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks typical of pure tucanus. If it had been an intergrade, we'd see black extending more into the brown sections, especially on the lower mandible. • Rabo³ • 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons image description updated. Snowman (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No... the light the photo was taken in is bright enough (breast looks pure white), so a pure tucanus would appear like this or this. The variation in bill coloration involves 2 traits, not one; there are almost certainly at least 2 non-linked loci involved. One controlling the pattern - extent of the hypomelanic (red) zone from a center about halfway along the length of the bill. And the other(s) determining the color - overall amount of melanin in the hypomelanic zone; this might also be diet-related, but I don't think so. The animal here has the pattern of purebred tucanus but very much overall melanin, closer to cuvieri. You'll find pictures of all sorts of intermediates on Google. The "opposite" kind of intermediate would be something like this: a rather light red, but very limited in extent. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I am ready to update image name when there is a consensus hopefully giving the correct answer. In the interests of accuracy, this will not be labeled as identified if there is a serious doubter. Sometimes, I add the difficulty with identification in the image description, so at least the genus or species can be given, if not the subspecies. Awaiting further comments and opinions. Snowman (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

We can simply note that the bill pattern is of tucanus but the "red" part is very dark, making ID uncertain. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Dysmorodrepanis, a misunderstanding here. I have worked within the range of this group for years and therefore am very familiar with the variation, it having had a special interest for me (though I find the variation in the vitellinus group even more interesting, as even Haffer failed to grasp the full variation there, in part because some relates to colours of bare parts, which obviously are problematic when working from specimens). The intergradation doesn't involve darkness of the red/brown (which depends more on the light available than actual variations, though it is worth noting that juvenile tucanus are significantly darker-billed than adults, and the various mophotypes that have been described over time - e.g. "aurantius" with no black at base or tip of bill; a morphotype that has been documented on rare occasions in a wide range of localities within "typical" tucanus, and has been described under several other names than "aurantius", too). You can compare the typical tucanus here and here - most are from Suriname and French Guiana, i.e. well east of where you see intergrades (nearest intergrades are found around Rio Negro and Rio Branco in Brazil, and in regions south of Rio Amazon where individuals showing a level of intergradation can be seen virtually throughout, though most west of Rio Madeira resemble typical cuvieri and most east of Rio Xingu resemble typical tucanus). The intergrades solely involve variations in the pattern of black versus the reddish-brown, not variations between black, reddish-brown and various intermediate colours (cf. Haffer, 1974, and his numerous later publications on this group). So, in short, the bird featured on this photo is an 100% typical tucanus. Nevertheless, I fully understand that one easily can be mislead in this group, as even the authors of HBW vol. 7 managed to include two photos of mistakenly identified toucans in their Ramphastidae chapter (on a related issue, the photo currently featured in the taxobox for the Channel-billed Toucan was listed as a Cuvier's Toucan until I corrected it), and thinking that the intergradation also involves darkness of brown/red would be very easy, as it rarely is described in any detail how this intergradation actually manifests itself (and I'll admit that the forthcomming Brazilian field guide doesn't deal with this in as much detail as I perhaps would have preferred; that's certainly something to consider for possible later editions). • Rabo³ • 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As a brief addition: One should also be careful with using inca for the intergrades. If valid, this taxon, while quite possibly the result of an semi-stabilized hybrid population, is restricted to a relatively small region, and is not that variable in how it looks. In other words, inca far from covers the extensive bill variation shown in the intergrades, but it has a tendency to show more orange uppertail coverts (often not as deep as shown in HBW, though), and using it as a generalized name for them is therefore questionable. • Rabo³ • 21:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

File on commons updated with movement of the swingometer. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the primer, Rabo! I was not aware of the confusion, had thought that anything between the extremes would be dumped in inca (HBW in some respects is not a valid replacement for Peter's "Check-List"... ;-) ). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• 73. Yellow bird - might be a dove. Snowman (talk) 23:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Pied Imperial-pigeon. Speaking of which, the article of that species not not reflect the split of the Torresian Imperial-pigeon, and it is that species that is in the taxobox. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ducula bicolor -perching on a branch-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• 74. File:Pteroglossus torquatus -on branch-8.jpg to confirm identification. Which subspecies. Snowman (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd lean towards erythrozonus on account of the faint black breast spot. All other ssp have a large one like this. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what juveniles look like. Snowman (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

According to HBW, more melanins (in concentration and extent, i.e. the breast spot is larger than in adults), less carotenoids (in concentration), and the "teeth" are not developed yet. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• 75. Colourful bird in London Zoo. Snowman (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Superb Starling. • Rabo³ • 20:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Lamprotornis superbus -London Zoo-6.jpg on commons, and also uploaded the next image on flickr photo-stream which was a close up. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• 76. Spotted bird for identification. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Dusky Thrush. • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Turdus naumanni in tree-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• 77. Toucan for identification. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Very odd looking bird. Probably an immature Chestnut-mandibled X White-throated. I've never heard of this happening as their ranges are greatly separate in the wild, but they're closely related, and considering the history of this genus, it would not be surprising if they can hybridize if given the chance in captivity... and I can't think of any other way of achieving a bird with a bill like a Chestnut-mandibled, an eye-ring like a White-throated, and a throat in between the two (when also taking into account that it's an imm.). Nevertheless, I don't know if you could mess up the captive food to an extend where a juv. Chestnut-mandibled would end up looking like this, so unless getting a more definitive answer I probably wouldn't recommend uploading it. • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad I asked. It looks healthy. Atypical zoo bird, so not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As it is so unusual, I have opted to upload it with a cautious image description mentioning hybrid. Some other species have hybrids uploaded. Now at File:Ramphastos (hybrid) -Bird Kingdom-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• 78. Toucan in zoo. Snowman (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominate Channel-billed. • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos vitellinus (nominate) -Wilhelma Zoo-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• 79. Toucan 1 and Toucan 2. Snowman (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

2X Keel-billed. From the same set you might consider the Germain's Peacock-pheasant and male Papuan Hornbill • Rabo³ • 17:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos sulfuratus -Diergaarde Blijdorp-8.jpg and File:Ramphastos sulfuratus -Wilhelma Zoo-8.jpg. That is interesting, they have the same bill but the chest of one is yellow and the other white. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Extras uploaded:

• File:Rhyticeros plicatus -Diergaarde Blijdorp-4.jpg
• File:Polyplectron germaini -Diergaarde Blijdorp-8.jpg - (Germain's Peacock-pheasant) now in infobox on species page - first photograph of the species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nestoridae at DYK

Ok, Nestoridae is currently the lead entry of WP:DYK-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the phylogeny is based on very suspect data. As usual, they didn't take the fossil record into account; the new Danish parrot fossils don't really fit in there, and to work, the Pseudasturidae and Quercypsittidae would either have to be something else entirely, or Psittaciformes would have to be older than Galloanseres, shorebirds, procellariiforms... (at least they don't claim the Cretaceous ovoraptorosaur mandible to be from a parrot, as far as I can tell).

In brief, any mol-phyl study on parrots that does not extensively discuss doi:10.1080/08912960600641224 is probably not worth the paper it's printed on... see also doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03451.x for why the basalmost position of Nestoridae might simply be an artefact of genetic drift must be treated with caution, and doi:10.1017/S1477201906001957 for the actual prehistory of NZ parrots as far as it is known fact and not a statistical assumption. This is one possible case of "Popperian" OR conflicts: how do you appropriately reference the absence of evidence? None of the sources pertain to the case of the Nestoridae, but taken together, they make it reek like a month-old red herring.

It did not affect the DYK though. 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

See this is where WP can excel by presenting both sides for the popular reader, so the above is ideal material to add. I have always fealt WP is an ideal place to start educating the public about seeing two sides of every story, and the jigsaw of fossil evidence is frustrating but fascinating. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the first article is not around on the Web. It's a shame, because this is one of the very best fossil-record reviews I have seen, with reconstruction drawings and everything. If anyone should ever happen to come across Mr. Waterhouse, he might want to put his work online. The scientific community has thus far ignored it, and it deserves to be cited very often. Waterhouse has co-described the Danish parrots with Dyke though, and thus the information is in good hands.

There was this Indonesian guy(?), Dwi Astuti, who is into parrot mol-phyl. Might pay to keep an eye open for any new works from there; what I saw to date looked very nice (they figured out much of the non-Nestorini phylogeny). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(BTW this is why I put the ref annotations on the main page: I tried using the Talk page, but it tends to be overlooked and eventually dumped in some archive. Putting them on the main page virtually ensures someone will come across them eventually, usually during a major overhaul, and in such cases it's often people with above-average access to ref material) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Casliber, I agree, see my response to Dysmorodrepanis below. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dysmorodrepanis, it is easy to conflate several issues. The molecular phylogeny shows the relative position of the various clades with regard to each other. In the parrots, it is clear that the Nestoridae are a basal clade, relative to all other parrots, which include the Psittacidae and Cacatuidae. Unless one wants to downgrade the Cacatuidae to a subfamily (Cacatuinae), the two main other subfamilies are the Nestorinae and Psittacinae. The question of rank is effectively indepedent of the topology, and to a large degree subjective, although the age of a clade can be instumental in determining what rank to asign.

The available fossils for parrots are few and far between, and all early fossils are from the Northern hemisphere is I am correct. From all the articles about parrot fossils that I have read, including the one that you provided, but also others, (Mayr 2002, Dyke and Cooper 2000, etc.), early Eocene species are considered to belong to separate families (Pseudasturidae, Quercypsittidae), all sister clades of the Psittacidae. As far as I have seen, none of those has actually included Nestoridae or Cacatuidae species in their analysis, except for Mayr who inlcuded the Cockatiel. No-one is claiming that those fossils are actually the ancestral species of the current day Psittacidae. All fossils assigned to the Psittacidae are in concordance with the age of the family.

Or, as Waterhouse concludes:

The recent phylogenetic placement of parrots deep within modern birds, along with the latest fossil discoveries of parrot remains, implies a divergence time for order Psittaciformes of at least the Lower Eocene (possibly the Upper Cretaceous). However, as with so many of the problems in modern palaeontology and evolutionary biology, the only way to truly resolve the problem of the timing of parrot divergences is with the discovery of additional fossil material.

The problem is dating, not the phylogeny. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if anybody wants a copy of the Waterhouse reprint, I have it, please contact me by e-mail. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue of genetic drift as an explaining for the, implied by you, odd basal placement of the Nestoridae would pretty much put the world of phylogenetics up side down. The whole mechanism is based on genetic drift, which is is the accumulation of random events that change the makeup of a gene pool slightly, but often compound over time. Selection of any type makes phylogenetic reconstruction more difficult. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

For the record, for Dysmorodrepanis and others, I think setting upa to-do box on the talk page, and placing removed but useful material which may be introduced later is a good idea, that way it doesn't end up in talk page archives - see top of talk:major depressive disorder. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, relevant discussion can be copied to the talk page, so it is archived with the articles talk page discussions. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Found 3 more papers possibly (but obliquely) relevant to this issue. (FWIW, assume the "Cretaceous Psittaciformes" hypothesis and the large phylogeny we discussed above are both correct.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Some more Hawk photos for identification

Here are some more photos of Hawks, again taken in Southwestern Ontario. Identification is needed.

The best ones: Red-tailed Hawk? (another one), Rough legged Hawk? (another one?), no idea, but it was much bigger than the others, and some flying pictures

So if anyone can identify them and would like me to upload some, I would be happy to do it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at them all. It is a shame you could not get closer to them or zoomed in a bit more. Nice photographs of birds in the wild; I am sure others will be interested. Snowman (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't dealt with NA raptors for eternities and my Sibley's is currently lend out to a friend, but if you make a post in the Bird Identification section of the forum on birdforum.net there's a good chance most will be identified. • Rabo³ • 10:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Featured article review needed or not?

In case anyone did not notice, or was distracted, the FA on Kakapo seems to be a problematic FA, and it might lose its FA status if it is not tided up. See here. If anyone has any suggestions to improve the article, I suggest starting a discussion on the articles talk page? Snowman (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't worked on the article beyond providing a few refs. But I can review it next week (I'm gone for a week). It might also be worth having a look at all of our older FAs, like Albatross and Emu. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the featured lists might be a higher priority. The older ones have major problems like lack of references, not MoS etc. jimfbleak (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Broken IUCN (Birdlife) Links

Is there an automated 'bot' that can fix broken-links in references? I've tried to access several recently and guess that the websites URL's have changed totally. Check out Birdlife 'References' on Orange-breasted Myzomela Aviceda talk 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the link on that page with this edit, but 1000s more need fixing. I expect that a bot could fix all the links, but I guess that the main difficulty will be getting a trusted programmer an an expert to write the program. The programme should be relatively easy given the standard lay out of the BirdLife webpages and the standard format of most links on the wiki, but mistakes could be disastrous. Snowman (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking about building a bot for this. Using binomial names should result in prefect matches and mismatches can be dealt with manually. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Same for gender fixes for the many species that have been updated. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking how to do it. I would probably go through it in the numerical order of the pages on Birdlife, and pick out the bird name there to edit the appropriate wikipage. It has been a while since it did any perl or regex, and I would very much prefer is the script was written by someone who does programming for their living. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I do programming as part of my living (science programming) and there is a basic java class available (wiki.java). I would like to find someone who has already a java based bot for the code so I can modify it. Then, indeed, just fetch a BLI page on number, extract scientific name, obtain page based on Latin name following redirect to species page, check name in taxobox under binomial, if correct, replace template, success.log. If incorrect log to error.log and check manually. Many issues will be based on gender changes as BLI has incorporated those quite nicely and we not. Gives us also a list of species that have been changed gender wise that we then can run for changes at all pages using the search function. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sure there are many ways of doing it, but I only know a smattering of perl. Snowman (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"If incorrect log to error.log and check manually" - Tagging them with some temporary category ("Category:Birdlife status update" or such), as subcategory of Category:Tree of Life cleanup, will make things easier; the tag would be removed in one sweep with the corrections, and when the category is empty it gets flagged for deletion.

Also, the "Database entry includes justification..." bit after the IUCN link probably should be removed with the update, as it's often not correct anymore since they changed to the new layout. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A new "Birds cleanup" subcategory seems appropriate, and might save sorting through a lot of other stuff. There is one for Category:Animals cleanup. I agree about reducing verbosity of the citation. Snowman (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

O yeah, once the bot is there, we can use it for more jobs that need systematic browsing of pages. Let me first get arround making a bot, which will take at least several weeks more, because I do have a few more urgent real life thingies going on..... ;-)-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Important bio that needs some WikiLove

I just tagged the bio of George Ord as being within this project. The guy was a pretty important American ornithologist and biologist, and the article is currently unreferenced. Steven Walling (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (8)

• 80. Toucan in Belize. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a Keel-billed Toucan, which is the national bird of Belize. MeegsC | Talk 20:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos sulfuratus -Belize Zoo-6a.jpg on commons. Cropped version used at the new image on the article page, partly because of the cage wires in the background of the other photographs. Snowman (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• 81. Bird with white head and black body on openphoto.net. Snowman (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like it might be a partial albino; without further information (including where the photo was taken), I'm not sure it can be identified. MeegsC | Talk 20:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looked a bit like a West-Pacific race of Island Thrush when I checked earlier but can't access page now. Aviceda talk 08:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

May be, the wiki page on "Island Thrush" says there are 49 subspecies and some have a white head. Snowman (talk) 10:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Black Bulbul (Hypsipetes leucocephalus) of the nominate group, which increasingly is treated as a separate species, Himalayan Black Bulbul (per HBW) or retained as Black Bulbul (per IOC). • Rabo³ • 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, despite the file name, this is also a white-headed Hypsipetes leucocephalus. True H. thompsoni have a grey body (like this). • Rabo³ • 18:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad I asked. Uploaded to File:Black Bulbul (Hypsipetes leucocephalus)-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Extras: for the bad named file File:Hypsipetes_thompsoni.jpg a rename underway to Image:Hypsipetes leucocephalus -perching-8.jpg. Links will change colour indicating renaming progress on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

New image now in the infobox on the White-headed Bulbul article. Snowman (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 82. Hornbills in zoo. Snowman (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Palawan Hornbill? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the pic was taken in the walk-through aviary at the Eagle Point Resort at Batangas, southern Luzon, in the Philippines. It, according to one Philippines tourism website [9], contains "numerous rare tropical birds that are indigenous and those from other parts of the Philippines". So Palawan Hornbill seems very likely. Maias (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely Palawan. • Rabo³ • 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Anthracoceros marchei -Eagle Point Resort-8a.jpg on commons. There is also a video, if anyone wants to convert it to the ogg format for commons. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 83. Heron to confirm identity. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends: a) All Butoroides on Galápagos are part of a dimorphic Lava Heron. b) All Butoroides on Galápagos are part of a dimorphic Striated Heron. c) There are both Striated and Lava Herons on the Galápagos. At present, most prefer "c", in which case this would be a Striated. • Rabo³ • 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

According to a library book on the Galapagos I had last summer, there are both types of heron there. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but as stated before, the situation is far less clean-cut than often presented. There is assortative breeding between the dark ("Lava") and pale ("Striated") types, but preliminary genetic work suggests it is a bit more complex. So, at present, no-one knows for certain exactly what's going on there, and a definite answer to this taxonomic situation (as well as other within the Striated/Green complex) is unlikely to be there until the results of additional work has been published. It is worth noting that dimorphism is known from the Striated elsewhere (South America, Australia). • Rabo³ • 19:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Butorides striata -Punta Espinosa -Galapagos Islands-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 84. Heron to identify. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Green Heron. MeegsC | Talk 20:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Butorides virescens -Florida-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk)

• 85. Curasso in Belize Zoo for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a female Great Curassow. MeegsC | Talk 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Crax rubra (female) -Belize Zoo-4a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 86. Shore bird in Belize. Snowman (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sanderling? Maias (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the half collar seems to rule out the other winter plumage American calidrids jimfbleak (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Sanderling -Belize-8a.jpg ib commons. Snowman (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 87. File:Harpia harpyja -Belize Zoo-8-3c.jpg to confirm identification. Is it a juvenile? Snowman (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Sub-adult. • Rabo³ • 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File description amended to indicate it as a sub-adult, and linked in wiki article on American Harpy Eagle. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 88. File:Ptilonorhynchus violaceus -Bunya Mountains-8.jpg. (Satin Bowerbird) - female or juvenile? Snowman (talk) 13:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Female. • Rabo³ • 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File description confirmed, so no change needed. Image added to wiki article. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 89. Rail in Brazil to confirm identification. The wiki has not got many of these, I think. ?male ?subspecies. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Indicated identification is correct. No chance for gender and in this case you could only assign subspecies via locality, which at best is questionable. • Rabo³ • 18:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Pardirallus sanguinolentus -Rio Grande do Sul-8.jpg on commons Snowman (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

FA/GA update

Northern Bald Ibis now at FAC jimfbleak (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested moves

Eurasian Black Vulture → Cinereous Vulture

I have made a move request for Eurasian Black Vulture to Cinereous Vulture. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

American Harpy Eagle → Harpy Eagle

While we're at the Accipitridae, a move request of above here. • Rabo³ • 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (9)

(Birds for identification and Parrots for identification now unified)

• 90. File:Amazonas san vicente.JPG. Is it the brown morph? Snowman (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No changes. Snowman (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 91. File:Amazona aestiva -San Francisco Zoo-8a.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No changes. Snowman (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 92. Amazon parrot for identification. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

#90&91 confirmed, though I'll refrain from commenting on morph for the first. #92 is a Yellow-naped. • Rabo³ • 18:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Parrot 92 Uploaded to File:Amazona auropalliata -Leeds Castle -Kent-6a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• 93. File:Crax globulosa -National Aviary -Pittsburgh-8.jpg - Wattled Curassow to confirm identification. Red parts more prominent here than on other commons images. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult male. The orange-billed individual from commons is unusually pale (probably light combined with the standard fading that seems to commonly occur in captives), and females have a smaller wattle. The individual on above photo has a less "smooth" wattle than what I remember seeing, but in the few places where they remain they're often quite shy (very popular for hunting, and has therefore disappeared from all but rather well-protected areas and/or very remote regions) and good views are therefore infrequent, so it could be I just never had the chance of noticing the small details of the wattle texture. Regardless, nothing else looks similar, so the ID is certain. • Rabo³ • 09:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Description on commons amended to indicate it is an adult male. Used on article page. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 94. Gull in New Zealand. Snowman (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelp Gull, the only regularly-occurring gull species in New Zealand. MeegsC | Talk 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Red and Black-billed Gulls would disagree with that! Aviceda talk 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Kelp Gull (Larus dominicanus) -Hot Water Beach -NZ-8.jpg on commons. Plan to put it in the infobox, because of high resolution and it faces into the page. Snowman (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have said the only regularly-occurring large species of gull! :P MeegsC | Talk 13:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 95. Parrot mostly green with orange head. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Brown-throated Parakeet of the subspecies xanthogenia. No wonder some think the Brown-throated Parakeet should be split into several species. • Rabo³ • 09:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Aratinga pertinax -Bonaire-8.jpg on commons. New image linked on article page in newly started "subspecies" section listing 14 variants. At the present time, the subspecies of the infobox image is not been identified. I am not sure what amount of genetic variation there is between "subspecies", and I have not seen enough photographs to gauge the morphological variability, but I guess this island variant would not be able to interbreed with other populations elsewhere. I expect it is a bit of a species problem. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The genus aratinga will be split in at least three major genera in the coming years, and I expect that after that, I suspect that most subspecies of those species will become species. I have seen the results of a study covering all Arini already, which included about halve the Aratinga species, and it is very obviously paraphyletic. Unfortunately, those results are unpublished for now. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What species or species groups are excluded and prevent Aratinga being from monophyletic? Snowman (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Snowman (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I should have said, polyphyletic, as the thyree major complexes (red-green, pertinax etc and solitaris) are at different places. And then there are a few individual species that are placed at random places. That also explains why studies using a random species have very different results. 20 years ago, most macaws were Ara, now, they are various genera. Same is going to happen with Aratinga. Just a matter of time. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• 96. Quail at zoo for identification. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gambel's Quail Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Callipepla gambelii -Indianapolis Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Now the infobox image, mainly because it shows a pair. Snowman (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 97. File:Vanellus miles -San Diego Wild Animal Park-8a.jpg. To confirm identification and identify subspecies. Snowman (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that does not look anything like either of the two Australian subspecies. Not sure if there are others outside Oz. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An African species White-headed Lapwing (Vanellus albiceps) Aviceda talk 02:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

File re-uploaded to File:Vanellus albiceps -San Diego Wild Animal Park-8a.jpg and old bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a croped version and caption to the article. The article does not otherwise mention the claws. Snowman (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 98. Cormorant in tree. Snowman (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Indian Cormorant unless Shyamal says otherwise jimfbleak (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree ! Date stamp for other photos in Mysore suggests that this was taken in Ranganthittu. Shyamal (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Phalacrocorax fuscicollis -Ranganthittu-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• 99. Toucan for identification. Snowman (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Green-billed Toucan. • Rabo³ • 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos dicolorus -Brazil-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

monotypic redirects

As some may have notice, someone moved what previously had been placed on monotypic to Monotype (biology) based on the naming conventions. I really don't know if what this person stated is correct, but it resulted in almost 2000 pages linking to the monotypic disambiguation page, of which the vast majority (a fast check suggests something in the order of 99%) refer to the biological version. Is there a fast way of dealing with all these pages suddenly linking to a disambg. page, or is it a matter of slowly changing it whenever we come accross a page where it is used? • Rabo³ • 10:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the page move created nearly 2000 bad links, was not discussed, and was also not justified (a disambiguation page should have more than two articles linked - see last example in the guidance section), I've made monotypic a redirect to Monotype (biology) (an adjective shouldn't be an article title) and put hatnotes at the start of the two relevant articles. I've deleted the redundant disambiguation page. jimfbleak (talk) 10:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My changes create many redirects, but at least they point to the correct page, and can be fixed when necessary, such as for GA/FA. The bot will deal with any double redirects jimfbleak (talk) 11:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was considering changing it to a redirect too, but haven't spend any amount of time familiarizing myself with the more general naming conventions on wiki and therefore refrained from doing it. • Rabo³ • 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for information, the monotype (disambiguation) page has now been recreated by User:Neelix, with a third item. This causes no problems for the project jimfbleak (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation was much worse on November 5 when monotypic redirected to monotyping, with no disambiguation. I made the disambiguation page on November 9, and the current situation, monotypic redirecting to Monotype (biology) is the best. Doloco (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Amaurospiza

How can this genus category be placed in two different families? Richard001 (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Should have checked the article first. Is it common to place taxa in multiple parent taxa if the relationship is uncertain? Richard001 (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There's not much doubt over the family they belong in anymore (even if it is possible some of the "mega-families" ["mega" both in terms of morphology and biochemistry] the shuffling between Emberizidae, Cardinalidae, Thraupidae and Parulidae has resulted in, may mean that some of them will be split up into "new" families eventually), but this info is still faily new and it is unlikely it will start to show in the various books published until a few years into the future (and there are still genera where the exact placements haven't been solved yet, and other species/species groups that currently are placed in a genus where they don't belong). Consequently, most "ordinary" birders familiar with these species are unlikely to know about the major changes (or at least know little more than "changes are there"), and would therefore possibly be a bit at loss over why e.g. this genus wasn't among the Emberizidae category they checked. "Double-parking" them temporarily is a possible solution to that. • Rabo³ • 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, I should have checked the cat. first, instead of just assuming you were dealing with the old versus new family issue. In this case, I think there is little else to do until the issues of add. families/shuffling between families are resolved. Further papers on this and related issues in progress, too. • Rabo³ • 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Long-billed Corella

The Long-billed Corella article is due to appear on the main page via picture of the day (see Template:POTD/2009-01-15) and could do with some further expansion and tidying before that date. I have done some myself. I tried replacing it myself (but failed) but the distribution map is wrong due to the introductions in a number of states, this is more accurate. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of copyediting, but as a Brit I have no sources for expansion jimfbleak (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the range map from the infobox, while awaiting an corrected version. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have some refs at home I can add later. The spread of these things is amazing. A bunch were let out about 60 km southwest of the centre of Sydney in the 1970s and they started appearing in my neighbourhood a few years ago and we see more and more. Cute birds but a bit depressing how they spread....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen some huge flocks down here in Tasmania, my bird book from 10 years ago doesn't list them at all here. I'd expect they will eventually become as widespread as the Galah is here (which was also introduced once upon a time) Noodle snacks (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (10)

• 100. Toucan for identification. Snowman (talk) 23:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Channel-billed Toucan ssp. ariel (here staying out of the issue of the unnamed pop.). Other photos from the same stream that are worth checking are:

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos vitellinus -Parque das Aves-6.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Black-fronted Piping-guan: [10]
• Scale-throated Hermit: [11]
• Red-winged Tinamou: [12] and [13]
• Red-rumped Cacique (the 2nd and 3d at nest colony): [14], [15] and [16]

• Rabo³ • 00:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Extras uploaded. Snowman (talk) 01:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• 101. File:Meleagris ocellata -Guatemala-8a.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, its a Ocellated Turkey alright. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the first one on the wiki that shows its spurs well, so I have linked in the article infobox. Snowman (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• 102. File:Crax globulosa -Brazil-8.jpg to confirm identification. Pale red on head. Snowman (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that's a male C. fasciolata. • Rabo³ • 01:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am glad I asked. Re-uploaded at File:Crax fasciolata -Parque das Aves-8.jpg and old bad named file listed for deletion. Linked in Bare-faced Curassow article infobox as an example of the male. Snowman (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• 103. side, back, front - Toucans in zoos to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

3x Chestnut-mandibled Toucan. • Rabo³ • 23:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On commons at:

• Image:Ramphastos_swainsonii_-upper_body_-Buffalo_Zoo_-8a.jpg
• Image:Ramphastos_swainsonii_-back_-Buffalo_Zoo-8a.jpg (used on article page)
• Image:Ramphastos_swainsonii_-La_Paz_Waterfalls_Gardens-6a.jpg - Snowman (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 104. Eagle for identification. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

looks like Northern Caracara to me, but second opinion please since may be Southern Caracara jimfbleak (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the location of the photo (the wonderful La Paz Waterfall Garden in Costa Rica, which was wiped off the map in last week's earthquake), I'd agree with Jim. Northern is the species found in Costa Rica. MeegsC | Talk 10:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Caracara -Vara Blanca -Costa Rica -upper body-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• 105. Red macaw for identification. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Green-winged Macaw? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Green winged indeed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• 106. File:Dendroica dominica -side -Cuba-8.jpg - A small bird on Cuba to confirm identification. Is it male or female? Snowman (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. Going by Sibley, though, I can't tell the sex—the bird has white background color on the flanks like Sibley's males, but only a short black upper border to the supercilium like his females. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume that it is a bird wintering in Cuba, and I wonder if they have a different appearance in summer. Snowman (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sibley and All About Birds don't show any seasonal differences. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• 107. small brown bird on Cuba. Snowman (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll confirm that's a Palm Warbler, but somebody else will have to tell you the subspecies. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Dendroica palmarum -Cuba-6.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 108. Bird in Brazil. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

White-winged or Pale-winged Trumpeter. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but would point out that it was taken near Puerto Maldonado (i.e. Peru, not Brazil). • Rabo³ • 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Psophia leucopterar -Puerto Maldonado-8.jpg, and used in infobox, as it was slightly better than the previous one. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 109. Toucan in Brazil. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

White-throated Toucan ssp. tucanus • Rabo³ • 23:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Ramphastos tucanus -Brazil-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Gallery Cleanup usage

Recently I've noticed that the "Gallery Cleanup" stub has been used on certain pages and while I totally agree with the reasoning behind it's requirement, could we please exercise some restraint in it's use as often these Galleries can be very useful in depicting racial and sexual differences in species. I'm sure that I probably speak for other users who frequently visit these species pages for information and these images can be very useful. It is fully justifiable if there are multiple images showing the same species coloration and 'stance' but behavoural pics such as birds in flight might also be a valuable asset. Hope you can see my reasoning behind this post and look forward to your views! Aviceda talk 03:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am for leaving these galleries alone in articles with insufficient text as they are an incentive for expansion but completely for removal from reasonably developed articles where useful pictures can be woven within text and then it seems that excess photos can be justifiably removed and replaced with a link to commons. Shyamal (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Great Shyamal, I recently posted an image of the 'northern' race of Masked Lapwing in the gallery, this is very different from the more widespread southern-race but would be a good inclusion when the article is edited. Thanks for your understanding, I hope more see the wisdom in your thoughts. Aviceda talk 06:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just had a look at Little Green Bee-eater there is certainly a need for a 'Gallery Cleanup' stub there, although the images are very good, some appear to be duplicated! Aviceda talk 08:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added a cleanup tag on the "Little Green Bee-eater" article. Snowman (talk) 12:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

species or subspecies -Macaroni and Royal Penguins

There is no doubt these two are closely related, and I have set up a discussion here at Talk:Macaroni_Penguin#Status_of_Macaroni_Penguin_and_Royal_Penguin..I guess to start thinking over whether to merge the pages, have separate pages as subspecies, or separate pages as species. Can anyone access other lists overnight, as I need to sleep...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition of "Superspecies"

Having used the term "superspecies" in three Accipiter articles, I discovered that it redirects to Cryptic species complex. Is this really the recognized definition for "superspecies", or should we be looking at a separate page for "superspecies"? Thanks—GRM (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has a separate definition for "superspecies", and it seems to me they should be split. I don't know whether the definition it has is the (only) accepted one. I'd have thought a superspecies had to be monophyletic. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Amazon parrots

I've cleaned up the lead and referenced where necessary. I don't agree that we need images of all the species to go to FL (it's not a requirement), and I would remove the unsightly and unnecessary image requests. Any comments? jimfbleak (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice improvements, Jim! I'm assuming these are listed in taxonomic order. If so, we should probably explain that, so some enterprising soul doesn't come along and put them into alphabetical order. Or should we organize it alphabetically instead? Also, if we're going to link some countries, we should probably link them all... MeegsC | Talk 17:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

They are in the sequence as on BirdLife website, which I assume is taxonomic order. I think that it would be best to have a list in taxonomic order, so that patterns of morphology are clearer. Would any books older than 100 years and out of copyright have an illustration of the Imperial Amazon? Some discussion also on the article talk page started. Snowman (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The listing is more based on tradition than phylogeny. For example, Kawall's is sister to Mealy, Red-tailed is most closely related to Orange-winged, and White-fronted is associated with the Lesser Antillean species. • Rabo³ • 23:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Category of lists

The category system for lists probably needs more sub-categories for groupings of birds. I am wondering what they might be called. Perhaps "Lists of birds by zoological grouping", where zoological grouping could be species, tribe, family, or even subspecies or order. When there are enough in the category this could be subdivided into "Lists of birds by genus", "Lists of birds by family", and so on. The category, "Lists of birds by genus", could probably be started now. Snowman (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Birds for identification (11)

• 110. File:Cacatua alba -Monkey Park -Tenerife.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pinkish -> Moluccan Cockatoo. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re-uploaded at File:Cacatua moluccensis -Monkey Zoo Park -Tenerife-6a.jpg and old bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• 111. Large bird for identification. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Southern Cassowary. • Rabo³ • 23:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Casuarius casuarius - Dusit Zoo-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 11:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 112. File:Rupicola peruvianus (female) -Ueno Zoo-8a.jpg to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct. • Rabo³ • 08:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 113. Heron in water. Snowman (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult Yellow-crowned Night Heron jimfbleak (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Nycticorax violaceus -water -Belize-8.jpg on commons. Slightly cropped version used in the article infobox. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 114. File:YCNH1.jpg Heron flying. Snowman (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed as Yellow-crowned Night-Heron —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Transferred from en wiki to commons with new name File:Nycticorax violaceus -flying-8.jpg. Old en wiki file taged for deletion now that there is a copy on commons. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• 115. Caracara at Antwerp Zoo. Snowman (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Northern Caracara jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• 116. Colourful bird in zoo. Snowman (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a calculated guess but I would say White-crowned Robin-chat (Cossypha albicapilla) from West Africa. Aviceda talk 06:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree jimfbleak (talk) 06:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded to File:Cossypha albicapilla -Parc Paradisio -Belgium-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• 117. File:Paradisio toucan.JPG in zoo. Unidentified Hornbill on commons. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• 118 Small arini for identification. Snowman (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

GA/FA update

• Northern Bald Ibis — still at FAC
• Djibouti Francolin — through GA, any comments before FAC?
• List of Amazon parrots — Snowman is the main editor (72/85 edits), and really the only person who could take it to FLC, if he is willing. Any further comments/improvements to this list?
• Golden White-eye - struggling because I'm a stubborn and whiney bastard. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Topical

As can be expected http://stats.grok.se/en/200901/Bird_strike - Bird strike - Shyamal (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

NHM resources

Wonder if anyone here has contacts (mine seem to be too busy) at the NHM, London who can help add some biographical info to Margaret Bushby Lascelles Cockburn. They apparently published a 2002 diary commemorating her http://openlibrary.org/b/OL11242062M. Shyamal (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Brown thrush"

Brown Thrush is listed as a missing article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/B3. I guess this is an alternative or archaic name for some species or other of thrush (or maybe even a non-thrush). Anybody care to investigate? SP-KP (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Toxostoma rufum is called that. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds like we just need a redirect then, would you agree? SP-KP (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

already done. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also added a note to the article text. I've marked it with a { { fact } } - if you've got a source you could add that would be great. SP-KP (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Brown Thrush is apparently also used for Brown-headed Thrush. At least it is used in List of Japanese birds: passerines for Turdus chrysolaus. Maias (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Source added, redirect made a dab page. Maias (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

ID

This image is currently used at bird strike with a caption indicating that the bird is a "type of crane" - I think we can go further and state that it's a Common Crane - what do others think? SP-KP (talk) 16:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch.

According to List of birds of Israel, the alternative is the Demoiselle Crane. I think I can see the narrow extension of the white on the neck that seems to be typical of Common—is that what you were thinking? My opinion might be worth more if I'd ever seen either of these species. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Another missing article request

Grass finch this time. Again, presumably we need a redirect to somewhere. SP-KP (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just clarifying...

Now we have spheniscus at Banded penguin, so I was about to move Eudyptes to Crested penguin, ok (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about suggesting that too. Some of the other penguin genuses have common names too. Snowman (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, done....which others have common names? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Aptenodytes are called "great penguins", and Pygoscelis are known as "the brush-tailed penguins". Snowman (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured the big ones would have some sort of name like that, I must admit I have heard these less than the other two generic common names thus far. Any third opinion out there? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

stop capitalizing names of birds

You all are being new fangled. This is the Enlgish language, not German. TCO (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)