Talk:List of extinct bird species since 1500

message: I'm beginning to wonder how to structure this page. The original idea was to list the species by date of extinction, but they are often not sure. Would a geographical sorting be better? PàğaĿ.
*Sort them by family, that's what the books do. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of page 

message: Also, is it a good idea to put brief texts about the species on the listing page, or should I drop them and keep all the information on the separate bird pages? I'm beginning to lean towards the later approach. --Pinkunicorn
::I'd favor the following approach: a brief statement of area of occurrence and date of extinction for every taxon, followed by an indent for subspecies. Additional explanations could go here initially (but briefly, a few lines at max - see Bay Thrush and Rodrigues Starling for taxa which demand longer explanations), but with actual species/subspecies pages becoming available, they should be merged into these ASAP (see Labrador Duck for a species where only the Location and Date info needs to be here really). Trivial information should not be put on this page either way; explanatory notes should be reserved for remarks on taxonomy
::A problem is that the verification of an extinction usually takes decades (the 50-year-caveat), so many of the taxa I listed today are not officially extinct, but the only reason for that is that nobody has gone looking yet. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of entries 

message: Since the ivory bills have been spotted in the wild, shouldn't they be removed from this article?
Record ist still controversial, but I changed the Ivorybill bit to reflect upon this. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ivory-billed Woodpecker]] 

message: I've found there is an article for Prehistoric bird. While it needs some work, I'm going to add a link to it on this page for ease of use (as it stands, I don't see any way to access a list of fossil birds from here). Dinoguy2 18:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prehistoric Birds 

message: Are birds that became extinct before AD 1600 not included? The IUCN Red List and the Committee on Recently Extinct Organisms (CREO) use both AD 1500 as starting date. What is the reason for using AD 1600? Pmaas 18:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct since 1600, earlier extinctions not included? 

message: Extinction dates are a matter of contention. Rarely one can say when exactly a taxon has gone extinct. For many 18th century Polynesian extinctions, visits by scientists were so irregular and Norway rats probably jumped ship on every one of them that there is a 100-year-plus uncertainty period. I suggest reading this, especially Criterion 3; there should be a unified way what extinction date to give and how precise or vague it should be. I tend towards a more vague approach that could be refined using the "Dodo algorithm" published in Nature 426:245; even without that, narrowing it down to about 30 years or so is generally possible. See the entry on the Virgin Islands Screech Owl for a taxon that was shown to be extinct in 1995, but which may actually have disappeared as soon as 1865 (simply because nobody cared to look for a badly documented, unappealing and obscure taxon). Similarly, the Thick-billed Ground Pigeon (the latest officially confirmed extinction) has probably been gone since the 1940s at least. -- Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction Dates 

message: Hi, not to mean any offense, but I an unable to find any taxonomic reference confirming that these subspecies:
*Korean Falcon, Falco peregrinus pelax (Korea, 1967)
*Little Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus pygmeaus (England, 1866)
*Mexican Californian Condor, Gymnogyps californianus californianus, ([[Mexico, 1909)
*Nevada'sCalifornian Condor Gymnogyps californianus barberus
*Mongolian Golden Eagle, Aquila chrysaetos mongoliae (Mongolia,1944)
are still considered valid. The HBW does not list them, neither does the AOU, Birds of North America/of the Westenr Palaearctic etc. See also here for what reference works are considered the default basis for bird taxonomy on Wikipedia. I am not aware of any new paper reestablishing these populations as valid subspecies; if there is one, please let me know. Thanks. Dysmorodrepanis 01:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birds of prey subspecies

message: Noone will take notice of such articles (e.g. Amsterdam Island Duck) if you don't enter these stubs into the lists of the WikiProject Extinction or the Portal Extinction. Thanks. --Melly42 13:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: One Sentence-Stubs

message: It is possible to make a consensus for which taxa should list here and which not. Many species are not listed in the IUCN Redlist but where not seen for decades (should we left out this taxa?) and others seems to be doubtful though there is no official treatment (e.g. SACC, Clements Checklist) which shows how to deal with them. --Melly42 (talk) 10:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which taxa should list here 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of recently extinct bird species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://metropolis229.webcrossing.com/WebX/.2cba657e
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615003304/http://www.uog.edu/up/micronesica/dynamicdata/assetmanager/images/vol38/spennemann.pdf to http://www.uog.edu/up/micronesica/dynamicdata/assetmanager/images/vol38/spennemann.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041018052716/http://www.kcc.org.nz/birds/extinct/list.asp to http://www.kcc.org.nz/birds/extinct/list.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At what point does the page List of Late Quaternary prehistoric bird species overlap with this? Several birds that have gone extinct before Western documentation, such as upland moa and Tyto pollens, are included despite the fact that specimens were never officially collected by European taxonomists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenD (talk • contribs) 01:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Quaternary Page Vs. This Page 

message: Both lists can be accommodated on a single page by making a table that has (at least) two sortable columns, for year and taxon. -- Beland (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel like yes, we should merge both pages considering both are about extinct birds and because List of bird extinctions by year is lacking references. Also, it would add more detail to this page, so it says what year that type of bird went extinct. ValeAliz 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose, given that each page serves a different function, and merging without an enormous amount of work would make the combined page very long. Klbrain (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection with stale discussion. Klbrain (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[List of bird extinctions by year]]