Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 15

message: At Portal:Birds, everything rotates except for the DYK section. I don’t have the technical know-how myself, but how can it be set up to choose three random DYKs from a nice long list? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not very technical myself, but I think it's something like this .  You'd have to set up a subpage for it though and I have no idea how to do that. Corvus coronoides talk 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I set up the other ones, so I can do it if you tell me which DYKs you want to rotate. --heyjude. 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I set five DYK pages to rotate through. I don't know if it can be set to pick three from a list, but the way I did involves setting up subpages which rotate at random. It can rotate something like one hundred different pages through, but I only made five for now. I'll add more this afternoon. --heyjude. 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird Portal DYK Question 

message: On the crest of a wave after Spurs' magnificent 5-1 Carling Cup second leg victory over local rivals Arsenal, I've decided to go for broke and send House Martin to fac. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that American Robin is about ready for a shot at GA. Anyone want to  nominate it? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (PS: Agree about Spurs too, 'bout time something good happened...) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: *I'll review it later Jim, but I would have waited before adding multiple citations of the same reference in consecutive lines, I too was unaware that anything had changed in that respect, and it is easy to get people opposing due to overcitation. I wish people would talk about it rather than sprinkle cite tags like so much icing sugar. Oh, and BTW, down with those manager-stealing Spurs! Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's damned if you do and damned if you don't. I agree that sprinkling cn tags at random is pretty negative editing, unless you are really challenging whether House Martins are blue above with a white rump, but 20 cn tags will shoot down a FA whatever the motives of the tagger. At least if I'm accused of over-referencing, it's clear why I've had to respond to supposed challenges to the veracity of what I've said. If it was someone else's article I'd probably have reverted most of the cn tags, but it's an obvious non-runner with a CoI, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC 

message: Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects. 
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project 

message: On a related note, does anyone have HBW vol 10? If so, and you could do me a small favour by looking something up, that would be appreciated. Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I do own it but not in this country. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry not to respond sooner, SP-KP, but I've been down in Mexico.  I've got HBW 10 and would be happy to help you out.  Whaddaya need?! MeegsC | Talk 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See anything good? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was a good trip.  Some 30 endemics, including super Dwarf Jays, Ocellated Thrasher, Oaxaca Sparrow, Red Warbler, Citreoline Trogon, Slaty and Golden vireos, Aztec Thrush, Lesser Roadrunner, Orange-breasted Bunting, stupendous Bumblebee Hummingbird (a little male on a song perch right near the road), Beautiful Hummer, etc., etc.  Unfortunately, other than a couple of sparrows (Black-chested & Bridled) and a great Tufted Flycatcher, I didn't get much in the way of useable photos.  Lots of ruins shots!  : )  I'll try to upload some stuff over the next few weeks.  I'm off to Trinidad and Tobago in a couple of days (no rest for the weary!) and have a massive pile of "real life" paperwork to get sorted first. MeegsC | Talk 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking stuff up - HBW this time 

message: I've been working on Song Thrush, and would welcome any comments or improvements before going to GA/FA. No rush, might not submit for some time yet (holiday in Feb) and if I go straight for FA, House Martin is still stranded at FAC anyway. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated Storm-petrel for GA. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: I am reviewing American Robin as a "Good Article" candidate. Can the folk of your project answer a couple questions here, please? Axl (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For info, I've fixed the first batch of queries, and written a stub for covert which is probably long overdue. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  ...and it's through. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Robin 

message: How does  Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans overlap with this one, as stated on the main page? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably intended to suggest similarity in content and structure rather than overlap. Have changed the text a bit. Shyamal (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlap 

message: can anyone identify the small, blue-and-white birds in the top left of this screengrab? They're in a children's programme called In the Night Garden. Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The picture's so small, it's hard to see details.  The blue birds appear to have zygodactylic feet (i.e. only two toes pointing forward)—is that correct?  Also, can you describe the bill, or provide a larger image (so we can see it ourselves), which can be deleted once we've identified the birds? MeegsC | Talk 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't make the image - I just came across it while trying to find out what the birds were. i spotted the zygodacylous toes as well, and I've been doing google image searches on all sorts of things. My guess is some kind of kingfisher. Will I have to write to the BBC? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  They're probably Blue Lorikeets where the colours have been messed with (as has also been done for the White-cheeked Turaco, Channel-billed Toucan and Hoopoe). On a worldwide basis, I cannot think of anything else that looks even remotely similar. Rabo3 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Rabo, Blue Lorikeets (or some weird rendering of a Vini lorikeet. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a much better look (they were on this morning) and they're parakeets of some sort. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lorikeets are small parrots, so it sounds like you and Rabo and S. S. agree.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tittifers 

message: After polbot's rampages, "Structure" and "criteria for inclusion" seem redundant, or at best over-long. Can they be chopped/slimmed? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks to me like they could be chopped.  BTW, is there any particular reason we're not including Featured Lists with the FAs and GAs on the project page? MeegsC | Talk 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both done Jimfbleak (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project page 

message: This link has been added several times by regular, established editors over the last several years. Now, in just the last 2 months, we've gotten several dozen of these spammed by several sockpuppets. See:
*Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#whatbird.com (permanent link)
The spammers have ignored repeated warnings to stop. Normally we would then add these links to our spam blacklist and it would be impossible add them or even edit articles containing them. User blocks seldom work with spammers since they just switch IPs and add new sockpuppet accounts. 
For now, we have a bot watching for them and reverting further additions. XLinkBot is intended to deal with domains which may have a legit use on-wiki, but are frequently misused by new and anonymous users (or have a history of being misused). The bot allows established (autoconfirmed) users to add links, while reverting links added by others. IP's and new users can still edit a page that contains links on the bot's revert list, they won't be reverted unless they add or change a link themselves. 
If anyone has any comments on this situation, please feel free to chime in at the link above. Also, bots are not infallible, so if XLinkBot misses any inappropriate spam additions, feel free to let us know.
Thanks, --A. B. (talk)  14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Anytime you encounter a spammer who won't stop after a warning or who's using multiple IPs/user names, feel free to report them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. We're here to support our regular editors so they don't have waste time removing the same stuff over and over again. If necessary, we'll also take care of adding any links to XLinkBot, our spam removal bot, or for more persistent cases, either our local blacklist or Meta-Wiki's Wikimedia-wide global blacklist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  whatbird.com spam 

message: I've put Flight feather up for consideration.  Please comment here! MeegsC | Talk 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another FAC candidate 

message: I've tweaked that old fire-raiser, the Chough, a bit, and would welcome suggestions and improvements before going to GA/FA. No rush, since on holiday from middle of next week (Thailand, since you ask). One specific problems is that the Defoe ref was published by a conger of six publishers, bound to be picked up at review that no publisher given, should I reference a modern edition instead of the original? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyromaniac 

message: Hate to make more work for y'all, but anyone care to try to ID these? :Image:Weird duck.jpg, :Image:Black ducks 001.jpg, :Image:Black ducks 002.jpg
Murderbike (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first one is a Double-crested Cormorant and the others are American Coots. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID request 

message: This image was loaded as a Willet but some editor has suggested that it isn't. Any thought? The wing looks right but the rest of it seems slightly off. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I'm not sure where this was taken, but in North America at least the legs are gray while these look pretty black. Also, it seems that there is a white stripe behind the eye, not before. No suggestions for what it could be and I could just be overanalyzing though. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a Willet's wing linings should be black and its bill should be a good bit longer, in addition to the leg color you mention and other things.  I'm voting for Calidris, but my opinion isn't worth much—we don't get a lot of sandpipers in New Mexico.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly matches with a Willet - based on my browsing of Hayman & Marchant's Shorebirds ! Little indicator of size beyond the impression given by the eye. Could pretty well be as small as a Sanderling..  Shyamal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The habitat certainly suggests a Sanderling. But someone here will know. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't seem to have a rear toe, if that's right, must be Sanderling. General appearance like that species, and habitat. Is there a suggestion of white outer tail? Wing pattern, bill length and structure are all wrong for Willet Jimfbleak (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Wing pattern and head also like Grey Phalarope, but that has four toes. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't we be able to see the lobes on the phalarope's toes in this picture?  Also, I'd think that a Red/Grey Phalarope on the beach would be heading straight out to sea.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a [[Willet]]? 

message: Dark-eyed Junco doesn't have a picture of the "pink-sided" subspecies.  For all you junco fans, are these pictures pink-sided?  If so, is any of them, such as the first, good enough to upload?  (I'd try enhancing it a bit, but if anyone wants to do it themselves, please let me know and I'll send you or upload the original.  Same goes for all my photos.) —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check my sibley this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the third one is (it has the dark black lores on greyer head), the second one seems to dark though. Are they all the same bird? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I have no idea whether they're all the same bird, unfortunately.  They looked lighter on my computer at home than they do on this one—a real problem with this photography-on-the-computer thing. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the second one is not that it is dark but that there is no contrast between the lores and rest of the head. A juvenile Oregon Junco will be as pale as a Pink-sided, so you have to look at the lores. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that on my computer (where I am now), the gray is lighter but the black is still black, so there's definite contrast between the lores and the rest of the head in the first picture and maybe the second one too.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are these pink-sided juncos? 

message: You guys, I just checked out an ooold paper (hence I am adding several near-forgotten synonyms). The whole issue with the sandpiper/stint genus names seems to resolve easily... Semipalmated and Western Sandpipers were placed in Ereunetes, which was established in 1811 - that is, before Erolia. So the question is not whether the "stint group" would be Erolia, but rather, whether the Curlew Sandpiper belongs there or in a (monotypic) Erolia. Happiness ensues. Now, if anyone knows which one of the two "traditional" Ereunetes is the type species? If not, I'll find out soon. (And I'll also check whether there is not another name preceding Ereunetes but I think not (Calidris' was established in 1800, and in 1811 Illiger split apart the calidrids, re-describing Calidris in that process. Something similar might already have happened in 1804).
For the time being, be aware that the "traditional" Erolia have that name in the introduction, as if that name would apply to them. But as it seems, it would in no case be so. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Calidrid]]s 

message: Could someone with the time and the knowledge-base take a stab at cleaning up Malaysian Plover? Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to Jude's edits,  this is now reasonable, and I've removed the wikify tag, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malaysian Plover 

message: I've put Chough to join Song Thrush at GAN, no rush since I'll be away from 14-26 February. However, Chough needs a range map, so I'd be eternally grateful....
Also FA king Casliber has a mushroom at GA that someone might fancy reviewing - can't do myself because of forthcoming hols. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Against my better judgement, I decided to start working on a South Asian species,  the Orange-headed Thrush before my hols. It could benefit from a range map,  and input from someone with a good source for the area, (like Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide by Pamela C Rasmussen and John C Anderton) would be a real boost for getting this to GA/FA. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bit and removed the gallery. There are several pictures of a dead bird on commons which I have categorized now. Good luck for your Thailand trip - look out for Acrocephalus orinus ! Shyamal (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem - poor view of a distant bird and it'll be on my list (: Jimfbleak (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA news 

message: Pukeko (Porphyrio melanotus) is basically a duplicate article for Purple Swamphen. I'm going to make it a redirect; should a merge happen first? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there anything subspecies specific (apart from distribution) ? Cannot see anything at the moment in the Pukeko article (strange article title as well). Shyamal (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Pukeko is a relatively recent arrival in NZ (post human contact), so it is just another name for the Australian race. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate articles 

message: Appreciate efforts other members are doing to help with my 'learning-curve', especially with categories. Uploaded a lot of Ugandan bird images to Commons and had a crack at starting a page on Phylloscopus laetus, placed an image and taxobox.....could someone have a look-over and guide me in the right-direction? Another quick ask, is there an category where you can get 'mystery' species ID'd?
Tom (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, appears that I created Phylloscopus laetus in error....thinking that it didn't exist.
How do I delete it?
Tom (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No worry. It was needed as a redirect and User:Smallweed did the needful. Shyamal (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Maybe somebody who knows the birds of India will id  and  and .  There are others that ought to be easy for somebody. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: White-cheeked Barbet  Black-hooded Oriole Common Myna Jimfbleak (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think is a Long-tailed Glossy Starling, but haven't checked. Jimfbleak (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Jimfbleak (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm sold.  I've fixed all of these at Commons.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 05:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines 

message: Was browsing through W. R. Ogilvie-Grant (1921) Guide to the gallery of birds. Pat 1. British Museum. (2nd Edn) (available on www.archive.org) and found this titbit on Ostriches.
"The hens belonging to one male lay their eggs in the same nest, which is a shallow excavation dug in the sand. As many as thirty eggs are sometimes deposited in the pit, and many more are dropped around which are said to serve as food for the newly-hatched young. The contents of an egg are equal to 
about two dozen hen's eggs."
The italicized bit would have seemed far-fetched had I not seen some footage of a Bromeliad breeding frog that does something like this. Is there any better support for this bit. Shyamal (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No mention of it in the HBW entry on the species/family. The large number of eggs confers an advantage on the dominant female as it means her eggs are less likely to be taken by predators though. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra nutritional eggs - Outdated? 

message: I gave this and the other Prionopidae the quick taxobox fix. Also, I have started a number of passerine common-name categories. I found these to be very helpful (to be honest, at first I tried to weed out all these "swan" and "eagle" categories before realizing that it's impossible; non-experts will always restore them...).
As we can't get rid of them... let's make the most of them. Here's how I found them to work best:
* Use taxonomic categories for the true classification of articles as per SOP.
* In addition, give articles one and (almost always) only one common-name category (Stenostiris is an exception for example). These are not sorted specifically. So all Tyrannidae articles, regardless whether genus, species, fmaily, go into :Category:Tyrant flycatchers (note use of plural - this was the way it came to be and it is good because conflicts with non-bird categories are avoided and it is accurate). Common-name categories can/should get an intro statement like I did in :Category:Flycatchers.
The result will categorizations that appear to be conflicting. But they are not; "tanagers" are not the same as "Thraupidae" (the Scarlet Tanager for example is only called a tanager). I fiddled around a bit with :Category:Tanagers vs. :Category:Thraupidae; check it out to see the difference (I only just started so there is not much content in the former. But the point, I think, is all the clearer.)
So we can have a scientific category tree that is clean and accurate; uncertainties can of course still be expressed like for example the very basal position of the Paridae clade with regards to the "core" Sylvioidea is expressed in :Category:Paridae. And :Category:Habia would not need to be placed into :Category:Thraupidae anymore - in other words, the taxonomic tree will allow to recognize uncertainty of placement because opbsolete placement is not being handled in the same way anymore!
And we can have a category tree that anyone can understand, and that will at the same time not mislead people but inform them of the problems associated with a phenetic taxonomy.
AND there is a way to distinguish, for example, the "traditional" tanagers from the "true" tanagers, OW warblers, etc. I expect obsolete classifications to linger on for years to come, and therefore it is probably rather helpful to have a reference to obsolete group delimitations that otherwise would not exist anymore on Wikipedia, at least not in a concise form (and for good reason too!)
(In fact, assigning common-name categories to  "OW warblers", "OW babblers", "OW flycatchers" etc could be handled by Polbot - simply check for Aves where the "this page was created..." tag is present, and put supposed Sylviidae into "Old World warblers" category, and so on.)
For one thing, most Polbot work that would need to be updated hasn't been updated yet; for another, we could afterwards give the categories a quick look-see, and many birds that need taxobox updates can be more easily spotted than by sifting though the scientific categories.
Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Woodshrike redux, categorizing 

message: Anyone want to put a name to this one?  Here's a back view.  Apparently it's a tame bird used to keep the gulls away in a resort in California.  Also apparently, the naturalist told the photographer it was an African Hawk Eagle, but I don't believe it.  —JerryFriedman
:Ignore this dummy response to force archival. Shyamal (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another ID request 

message: If anyone wants to tackle these - I have added info at Meliphagoidea that will be helpful.
I had to cover all bases there, but personally I think it is nonsense to merge them in the honeyeaters. Keeping them separate seems the most informative of the 3 possible arrangements discussed; a monotypic minifamily seems a small price to pay for the insight on when, where and how the honeyeaters became nectarivores. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pardalotidae]] 

message: There's currently a deadlock on voting on collaboration..(someone please break it...). I'll hold off the housekeeping until there's a tiebreaker. Ironically I just got a good book on the Emperor Penguin just now...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the nominated articles, I can see no other which obviously needs as good a gang-banging (non-sexual!) as Cockatiel does at present... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few hours to vote on a bird collaboration 

message: Have just uploaded some images and media of Rufous Whistler, Pallid Cuckoo, Painted Buttonquail and Rainbow Bee-eater, would appreciate if someone could format them, I've had a go but am not quite there yet! Aviceda  talk 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice videos Aviceda—thanks for donating them!  What kind of format help are you looking for? MeegsC | Talk 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: basically just trying to get the images/media to look OK on the page, I'm not very proficient with Wiki Markup language yet so would like to see it used more 'professionally'.(I can always check it out on other pages I suppose..) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assistance formatting 

message: Lorikeet got moved to Lories and lorikeets, doesn't this violate the WP:MOS? Singular only surely. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Consensus is being sought on the talk page as to the correct place to move the article to. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lorikeet]] 

message: Rock Pigeon has passed GA and I've left some tips on how it could get to FAC, I've been adding steadily to Emperor Penguin and Moa ended up as the collaboration. European Robin is also fairly substantial as it stands too but needs some work to get to GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: European Robin is close for a tilt at GA...anyone see anything to add to it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaborative work update 

message: While updating the List of birds of India I noticed a number of gender related spelling fixes in Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) and was somewhat surprised that these errors had not been noticed for as long as perhaps 50 years with nearly two centuries of British-Indian ornithology. One would think that that there more Latin scholars on the European side of the pond. 
Having seen collection based taxonomists and their style of working I presume that Rasmussen's emendations are correct. But would be nice if someone who knows Latin/Greek can check the gender of the species epithets in the following selected examples:
* Saxicola maura or S. maurus
* Rhyacornis fuliginosa or R. fuliginosus
* Saxicoloides fulicata or S. fulicatus
Shyamal (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First one should definitely be maura, the second should be Rhyacornis fuliginosa. Third would be -a too I think, might need to double check on that one Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The three names on the right are suggested by Rasmussen and I have the following piece from a 1974 newsletter for Indian birdwatchers that refers to Monticola cinclorhynchus that goes:
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin checks 

message: Quick question- does anyone know why whatbird.com has been blacklisted? Is the information there fraudulent or something? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Blacklisted how?  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the WP:SPAM project talk page, it looks like all the whatbird.com links are being removed because investigation by the WP:SPAM team found that the owner was paying coders to add the links to Wikipedia articles.  See the notice here.  Too bad he did that, because it could have been a useful site! MeegsC | Talk 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, though I don't see how Wikipedia can block referencing information... Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably because, while it's certainly a reference site, it's also a commercial reference site, geared towards getting people to buy things.  And Wikipedia's founders don't really like Wikipedia articles pointing towards "reference" sites that are really shops in disguise. It probably wouldn't have been a problem if the site owner hadn't paid for "rent-a-coders" to add links to his site. That's SPAM. No real worries though; there are lots of other legit sites—various universities and NGOs—which can plug the information gaps. MeegsC | Talk 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whatbird 

message: There appears to be some genuses with out pages on the wiki, or at least there are genus red links on the "Laughingthrush" page. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It occurs anywhere were we have accepted splits that create new genera. Many of the laughingthrush genera currently without articles used to be listed under Garrulax, and in fact the species articles currently still give that genus as the correct one. BTW, the plural is genera. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So somebody needs to write those articles?  Not to mention the redlinked species.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genuses 

message: I need the conservation status of the Golden-headed Manakin. It doesn't appear on the BirdLife Data Zone, or maybe i'm wrong. :S--Nicolás10 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it, added it too. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CS 

message: Could I have an opinion, from anyone here who is familiar with the species, whether all of the birds depicted at Crested Tern are in fact that species? Some of them appear to have remarkably bright orange-yellow bills. My reading of the literature, and my limited experience in India and Australia is that Crested Tern has a greenish-yellow bill. Is this a seasonal thing, or are some of these birds misidentified? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All look good for Crested Tern to me with the exception of the "In flight" shot [] I would still be hesitant in calling this Lesser Crested Tern without more study. Aviceda  talk 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen both species together recently in Thailand, and I'd be inclined to agree with Aviceda. The taxobox image seems a bit warmer than the Crested Terns I saw, but I would expect that with a full summer plumage bird, and it's still less orange than Feb LCTs. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID query 

message: What is the protocol for adding an external link to species articles? I run an image database for wild birds of the Australasian Region ABID [] with photographic contributions from registered members and would like to link pages but don't really want to do this if they are going to be deleted by an irate wikipedian, would appreciate some guidance, please. Aviceda  talk 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a commercial site?  Are you trying to sell things?  Will people have to be registered to view the pictures?  Are you thinking of someday maybe paying coders to add links to your site from various articles?  If the answer to any of these is yes, you should probably think twice.  Otherwise, you should be OK!  MeegsC | Talk 00:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hi Meegs, certainly not commercial....I can't find anyone to 'renovate' my 'labor-of-love' (...for free, anyway) Anyone can 'view' the images and all that I'm trying to 'sell' is an awareness of 'bird-conservation'...hopefully that qualifies? Aviceda  talk 00:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the non-commercial nature of your site and the fact that you've contributed so many of your own images to Wikipedia I see little reason to worry; it would probably be good if you don't overdo it, which will attract attention. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thought it might be useful to add a couple of external links at the same time as I'm adding images, have put some on a few cuckoos, trillers etc...hope this seems OK, please let me know if you feel I'm going over the top. Aviceda  talk 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding an External Link 

message: Columbiformes and Columbidae should be merged as there is now only one family in Columbiformes, but which article should be the destination article? Also, I've begun expanding the Columbidae article to include more about the biology of the family, is it about time to split out the taxonomy section (a la Procellariidae), since it kinds of overwhelms the article at present? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Columbidae]] splits and merges 

message: Hi, I'm new at Wikipedia and would like advice from the Bird editors about adding links.   I am creating an online library of bird videos from an extensive collection of high quality, high definition footage and sound that my husband and I have collected over the last 3 decades.  This library and its index are on our website where we also try, with limited success, to sell the DVDs we make from the footage, so we're trying to sell something and I don't want to break that rule.  Plus it is a website that I own so linking to it myself would break that rule too.  Perhaps one of the seasoned editors could take a look at what I'm doing?  Tell me if it could be linked to Wikipedia at all?  Suggest changes that might make it appropriate?  I only have four species up so far, but I'm going to start moving quickly.  We have over 400 North American species with more being added every day, plus different bahaviors and plumages for the ones we have already.   Each species will have sound, and if it's a songbird, I intend to use a scene with a good section of song.   I appreciate any advice or even a warning that I should stay clear of the Wikipedia.  Here's a link to what I'm doing.   Thank you.  BirdViewer (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi BirdViewer.  Welcome to Wikipedia!  Please read the section just above this for some suggestions we made to another user asking a similar question (though about stills rather than video).  Unfortunately, linking to a commercial site (as opposed to a university or museum site, for example) is likely to get your website blacklisted if it's overdone—and you definitely don't want to be adding links yourself, as the WikiSpam folks would likely consider it to be a conflict of interest.  And you'd certainly draw attention if you weren't making a considerable number of other non-external links edits as well! MeegsC | Talk 19:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to somehow make it known to the bird editors that these videos and our library of footage exist.  If an editor is working on a bird and thinks that footage or sound we have would be a useful edition to their page, then they could link.   I'll stay clear because the rules about not selling stuff or linking to your own site are good ones.  Too bad we need money to feed our bird-filming habit, because I think we have some really good footage of birds that is nowhere else on the internet.  Take a look.     .  And thanks for the quick advice   BirdViewer (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The video fo the warbler is quite nice, but unfortunately it has a watermark across it. I'd be reluctant to link to anything like that unless it was flat out the only image available of the species on the web. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sabine's Sunbird, thanks for looking at the warbler.  What if it was the only thing on the web AND I removed the watermark?  I know that much of our footage is the only stuff on the web or anywhere else for that matter.  And I really like Wikipedia and wish we could have our hard-won bird movies represented.   BirdViewer (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the watermark? Yeah, I might indeed link to it, especially if as you say there is interesting behaviour on display. Links need to add something to the article. Links to photos or videos are useful if we have nothing ourselves (and we do lack media for many many species). In the event that we already have some media the link has to have some merit beyond what we have. There are plenty of sites out there that have video footage of birds, so we're going to look for the best one we can. Your videos seem well made, take away the watermark and they will be a useful link for us. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yup, that's one I'd happily link to.  And downloading a still from the video would be a huge addition!  You could add that to the article without it being a conflict of interest, because you're donating it—for any use, including unrecompensed commercial use.  Be sure you agree to that first, of course! : ) MeegsC | Talk 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice about links to videos 

message: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#misapplication of WP:BIRD - is a dispute over in our mammal sister-project about caps for species names, with our project being named as a source (or trouble?). The application to take the dispute on was denied, but the comments made by the committee were interesting, particularly WikiProjects such as WP:BIRD are suggested approaches, and style guides such as WP:MOS are guidelines; neither is set in stone and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- users can often look at such things flexibly and with more wide views on the matter. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a head's up 

message: Hey all, I notice there are quite a few bird species ending up in :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of animals. I've moved a couple to a more specific category, but I haven't got time to move them all right now (supposed to be studying invertebrates). Richard001 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I got 'em all... MeegsC | Talk 09:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Looks like there's quite a few mammals there too... *heads off to mammals project* Richard001 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested photos 

message: Some here might be interested in a proposal to move Red-masked Parakeet to Cherry-headed Conure.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parakeet or conure again