Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 9

message: User:John.Conway has suggested that WP:DINO editors not neglect concept articles like origin of birds for FA-factory genus articles. While I don't plan to stop writing genus articles, I do see his point and I've been thinking about redoing this article for awhile. As the article obviously falls under the purview of both of our Projects, I thought I'd put the word out here too. Anyone who can help spiff this article up would be tremendously appreciated! Sheep81 09:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to help, but I need at least 2-3 weeks lead in to acquaint myself with the lit. I have some books, but I need to read them first before I can contribute in a meaningful sense. Same with any big project. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 10:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd love to help, but I warn you I'm not much use in this area - so I'll add bits and pieces, maybe help copyedit, and the like, but I very little about the origin of birds. Cheers, Corvus coronoides 21:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a bit on the "Trees-down" or "ground-up"? debate from a copy of The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds that I found in a bookshelf in my house. It's from 1980, so hopefully the information in it isn't outdated. (Hmm, expiration dates on books? Just like tomato sauce!) --Jude 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone want to collaborate on [[Origin of birds]]? 

message: Hello there. I originally posted this question on the talk page of Kakapo, but it seems to be a bit quiet around there. My question concerns the taxonomy of the Kakapo. Currently, in the article, it is said to be in the family Psittacidae, and the subfamily Psittacinae. I'm currently reading through "A parrot apart: the natural history of the kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), and the context of its conservation management", and its chapter on taxonomy states that it is in the subfamily Strigopinae. Verbatim, "[...] but Smith (1975) used anatomical, morphological and ethological characters to place it in the endemic New Zealand subfamily Strigopinae, which has usually been followed since (Turbott 1990)." It then goes to explain the similarities between the Kea and the Kaka, and does not actually state the Psittacinae subfamily. I'm wondering about this: the resource I linked to is very reputable and informative, but there seems to be a bit of a conflict with the article. It seems that, at the very least, a bit more explanation on the taxonomic groups this bird belongs to would be well-placed (the article is featured, after all). Or maybe I'm just not reading this right, since birds are not my field of expertise (but I find them very interesting). —msikma (user, talk) 19:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kakapo]] taxonomy 

message: Having read most of this exchange above, I am increasingly convinced that all species level articles should follow their Latin names, with redirects for common names. I find DJLayton4's argument for plant articles convincing, and I believe we should keep the MOS as simple as possible. Going with Latin names is the only way to achieve this. Parentheses are ugly, cause layout and rendering difficulties, and break up prose visually. I think we should abandon them entirely for Latin names, not just the first line. However, my strongest belief is that we should not create yet another exception for the first line, so what I am "voting" for here is consistency between the first line and every other instance of a binomial, and I believe this is most achievable with the comma. I hold this opinion in spite of parentheses being standard in abstracts of peer-reviewed publications. I think Wikipedia can do better, and we may just wish to drop the apologetic parentheses entirely. Latin names are nothing to be ashamed of. Spamsara 11:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I have to disagree with Spamsara -- I think changing all references to the scientific name is a HORRIBLE idea.  And that's despite the fact that I'm a scientist.  Most people who use Wikipedia as a reference are probably not going to be scientists.  They may not know much about scientific names.  (If you want an example of that, just have a look at the picture files in Wikimedia Commons, where scientific names are SUPPOSED to be used, and see what a mess it is.)  If they're going to type in something like Robin and get something that NEVER refers to Robin but only to Erithacus rubecula or Turdus migratorius, they're going to quickly give up.  This is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal!!  As for the comment that parentheses are "apologetic", that seems a bit silly.  It's just a way of separating out information that may or may not be of particular use to the reader.  For those who are interested in and knowledgable about scientific names, it gives more information.  For those who haven't a clue -- and have no interest in learning more about them -- that's ok too.  Why FORCE people to deal with scientific names just because some think parenthese are "ugly"!  As a for-instance, I'm NOT a botanist.  However, I am interested in learning more about plants -- and I find the botany section of Wikipedia very difficult to use.  I can seldom find the articles I'm really looking for, because I don't know enough about the taxonomy of plants to know even which genera of plants I should be looking in!  Just an alternative viewpoint...  MeegsC | Talk 13:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not what I'm saying at all. Please read it again, and carefully. Thanks. Spamsara 22:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah!  I thought your comment "I think we should abandon them entirely for Latin names, not just the first line." referred to the COMMON NAME, not the parentheses!  Sorry about that... :)  However, I DO think it's okay to start the article with the common name(s), followed by the scientific names.  MeegsC | Talk 22:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course all the above assumes that there is a single agreed scientific name for all species - definitely not the case for birds. Jimfbleak 06:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First line: think big! 

message: I'm about to start a massive expansion of the woefully inadequate Nest article.  Any comments on whether we should have a separate article on BIRD nests or whether we should incorporate all animal nests (including birds, great apes, wasps, turtles, alligators, snakes, dinosaurs, etc.) into the same article?  MeegsC | Talk 22:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is, the article can probably act as a general article with subsection etting into separate article for Insect nest (? The difference between beehive, wasp nest and ant colony is more semantic than anything...), Bird nest, Reptile nest, mammal nest. Either that or a full-scale disambiguation page. Note also that Aerie will have to be merged. Circeus 23:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the idea of a disamb, otherwise you end up with the lunacy of egg, where a simple word is disambed beyond all logic - is my chicken egg egg (biology) or egg (food)? Jimfbleak 06:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nest 

message: How bout we start trying to get pictures of the species eggs on bird articles? 84.9.35.112 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ) Getting pictures of the birds is hard enough ! Shyamal 04:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eggs 

message: * news story about Argentavis magnificens which for some reason hasn't been added to this proj. See Talk: Argentavis. Ling.Nut 23:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentavis magnificens 

message: Somebody has added a "Japanese Turkey, Meleagris japonicus" to Late Quaternary prehistoric birds. Google is unable to find a source, no ref I have ever come across mentions such a taxon, and altogether I find the idea of turkeys in Japan biogeographically as absurd as post-Paleogene hummingbirds in Europe. Apparently some lapsus or misunderstanding, but what is it based upon? People don't just so invent taxa that are taxonomically possible but not systematically... usually, they'd make mistakes like capitalizing the species name or ending everyting with "-us"... the user in question has spent an inordinate amount of time to create redlinks (which I will prune away as is probably SOP for such lists. At least the sp indet's. We have these taxa as redlinks on the genus pages, so the list should not be a sea of red but only linked when the pages become available) Dysmorodrepanis 04:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds hoaxy to me, I'd remove it pending a source. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 05:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Patent nonsense. I've removed it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Japanese turkey"? 

message: Hi folks, I have started to discuss the new penguin paper from PNAS at Talk:Penguin. It's a motherlode of information, but some cannot be taken at face value. Get it, read it, fire away! It needs discussion, because it has far-ranging implications, being the first study of fossil penguins in 60 years(!) that gives sufficient resolution to actually translate it into taxonomy. Dysmorodrepanis 16:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Penguins 

message: Congratulations, all! What a beautiful article! Keep up the great work. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 11:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mourning Dove]] on the main page! 

message: Can some ornithologist who sprichts German check the article. 
This behaviour was first described by Erwin Stresemann in German as einemsen in Ornithologische Monatsberichte XLIII. 138 in 1935.
Is it einemsen or something like einameisen ? Shyamal 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second look, it is perhaps ok. Added a de interwiki. Shyamal 07:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Einemsen is correct, from the Middle High German (IIRC) term for "ant" whence also "emsig" for "working tirelessly" (cf. for example "Grasshopper and Ant" fable) which is a bit old-fashioned but still widely understood in Standard German today. Dysmorodrepanis 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, sounds like a nice bit that could go into ant. Shyamal 14:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Anting (bird activity)]] 

message: Wonder if there is support for bot archival for this page. Seems to have become one of the most active WP:TOL talk pages ! Shyamal 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. This page needs archiving badly. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 07:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot archival 

message: I was thinking about starting a few categories for birds that are endemic to specific countries, islands, etc., starting with :Category:Endemic birds of South Africa.  Does anyone have any comments?
Also, some people may want to consider listifying the "bird by country" categories and merging them into "bird by continent" or "bird by ecoregion" categories.  The categories in some articles, such as Ortolan Bunting and Lesser Flamingo, almost look like spam.  (Pick out the category for the birds of Egypt in either article.)  Dr. Submillimeter 20:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that once we have a valid "List of the birds of country x" (taking into account the comments made in the previous discussion section) that we could eliminate the "Birds of country x" category as being redundant.  The list, after all, would give far more information. MeegsC | Talk 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favor of that and Dr. Submillimeter at least has been.  Thanks to Yomangani for taking a big step toward it.  The discussion of similar ideas at Category_talk:Biota_by_country and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_8#Category:Fauna_of_Europe_subcategories got a little acrimonious, though.  —JerryFriedman 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endemic bird categories and overall category suggestion 

message: === Bird stubs by order ===
The size of  has grown hugely recently, necessitating further splitting.  Sub-types by order seem to be the established pattern, and I've made a detailed proposal here.  I have to say that a lot of these articles look on the long side to be stubs at all, though;  it might be worth the the WPJ having a discussion about localised stub criteria, especially if you're also doing 1.0-style article assessements.  Alai 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might want to compare non-stub articles of the same level (order, family...) to draw up a list of minimum topics, like the evolving consensus what makes a species article a nonstub. Then the articles can be worked over rather routinely. Dysmorodrepanis 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of drive-by stubbing. Length of article is only one criterion. For example, genus articles are often short because additions would tend to be more relevant to the family or species level. If I feel that an article has been stubbed purely on length, invariably by an editor unfamiliar to me, I just destub. jimfbleak 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Try this link New Jersey Records CommitteePmeleski 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but that doesn't include whether a bird is accidental or not. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Download the NJ State List PDF from the site.  Unasterisked Review birds are accidental. Extinct birds are also indicated........Pmeleski 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see that it says that? I found another source, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. There is, however, a large bibliography that goes with the site. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Review list Does the first section explain review species adequately for you?????? Let me know if you have additional questions or if I can help further.Pmeleski 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: They've recently done one over at Dino which made me think we could do one too. I was waiting until bird was featured though (should be happening by June). I think we have a decent number of featured and good articles and lots of interesting did you knows, as well as plenty of featured images here and in the commons, so it wouldn't be too hatrd to do. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, there is a lot of repetition on bird from Bird evolution, and that section seems like a copy or mirror of an old version of Bird evolution. When it says "main article", shouldn't it just be a summary? I agree with the tag there: it's too long and should be summarized more briefly, with more info moved to sub pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredwerner (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is derived from the section in bird. However the main intention is to expand the new article, as well as reduce the section in bird a bit. The current section in bird is pretty much a summary, though. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought of a bird portal a while back too......but I discounted the idea because I thought time would be spent updating the portal instead of updating articles. But a bird portal would be nice and I'd be glad to help, especially if we can new people involved through it....Pmeleski 02:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best thing, then, is to get Bird to FAC as by necessity it needs to be on the main page. I've had a bit of a look thus far....There is enough other material to go on a portal page already cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm busting my gut on it. The wretched article is already 54k long and has 60 refs (it will probably have twice as many refs when I've finished) and is maybe two weeks off being peer-reviewable. Concievably it could be featured by the begining of June. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help out when I can. It is starting to look alot more polished so I dips me lid off to ya....cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 06:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Portal:Birds has been initiated! Please come help me get it started. (Do not announce or link to the portal until it is complete, please.) --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Portal until it's ready for public consumption. Andy Mabbett 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please move it back immediately! The subpages have been completed messed up! Don't worry - it's understood that it's under construction - it's in the under construction category! --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved it back. I know you meant well, but please be careful! --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. Andy Mabbett 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added content to the portal. I also left a ref to it at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, this isn't publicity, just what they ask of even unfinished portals apparently. Nice job Birdman, btw. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I added another 16 quotes, there's 20 total there now.  The portal seems ready for prime-time.  Will there be a big announcement when it goes public?  Fredwerner 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so, so much for adding the quotes. I was procrastinating like there would be no tomorrow. (One thing - please use the quote template next time you put up quotes.) I think we're ready - let's let everyone look it over and then I'll make an announcement. Any help with the announcement would be welcome. Yay! --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good to me, only thing is perhaps we need a bit of variety for the pic? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The portal is officially up and running. I have it set to update automatically for next week and the week after that. Any help, as always, is welcome, as are comments. Maybe we can have a portal peer review in the near future, once it has been up for a little while. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's beautiful.  Nice work, and thanks to everyone involved! Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it is nice. Don't we close this page and move to the new home ? Shyamal 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The more I think about it the more I think we need to get bird to FA status for portal etc. It was the winner so it comes off the list. Sometimes collabs don't make it to be FAC ready and thats OK (like Common Raven) we'll do it later. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bird is the current winner of the colab of the month. Please check out the talk page to see what needs doing. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might do an image of the emerging consensus on phylogeny so that we can replace the S/A image. Can anyone convert PNG into SVG? Dysmorodrepanis 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Very cool. The birding in Kenya is fantastic, but that could be said of most of Africa. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I had fun.  I think this is everything.  Next: id requests.  —JerryFriedman 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of those still left I'll do the dove, kingfisher, boubou, weaver and lapwing. Jimfbleak 07:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed that when I wrote Tropical Boubou.  —JerryFriedman 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Projects, review announcements, etc 

message: The size of  has grown hugely recently, necessitating further splitting.  Sub-types by order seem to be the established pattern, and I've made a detailed proposal here.  I have to say that a lot of these articles look on the long side to be stubs at all, though;  it might be worth the the WPJ having a discussion about localised stub criteria, especially if you're also doing 1.0-style article assessements.  Alai 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We might want to compare non-stub articles of the same level (order, family...) to draw up a list of minimum topics, like the evolving consensus what makes a species article a nonstub. Then the articles can be worked over rather routinely. Dysmorodrepanis 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of drive-by stubbing. Length of article is only one criterion. For example, genus articles are often short because additions would tend to be more relevant to the family or species level. If I feel that an article has been stubbed purely on length, invariably by an editor unfamiliar to me, I just destub. jimfbleak 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird stubs by order 

message: This list is almost complete. I need help, though, finding out which birds are accidental, hypothetical, extirpated, etc. I have a number of them marked, but I'm aware that there are still some unmarked accidentals in there (e.g., Atlantic Puffin). Please help. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this link New Jersey Records CommitteePmeleski 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but that doesn't include whether a bird is accidental or not. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Download the NJ State List PDF from the site.  Unasterisked Review birds are accidental. Extinct birds are also indicated........Pmeleski 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see that it says that? I found another source, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. There is, however, a large bibliography that goes with the site. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Review list Does the first section explain review species adequately for you?????? Let me know if you have additional questions or if I can help further.Pmeleski 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of New Jersey birds]] 

message: There's a cats portal, a dogs portal - but no birds portal! We need one. Please comment. I'm willing to learn the code necessary to make pretty tables. I'll need backup, though. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They've recently done one over at Dino which made me think we could do one too. I was waiting until bird was featured though (should be happening by June). I think we have a decent number of featured and good articles and lots of interesting did you knows, as well as plenty of featured images here and in the commons, so it wouldn't be too hatrd to do. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, there is a lot of repetition on bird from Bird evolution, and that section seems like a copy or mirror of an old version of Bird evolution. When it says "main article", shouldn't it just be a summary? I agree with the tag there: it's too long and should be summarized more briefly, with more info moved to sub pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredwerner (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is derived from the section in bird. However the main intention is to expand the new article, as well as reduce the section in bird a bit. The current section in bird is pretty much a summary, though. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I thought of a bird portal a while back too......but I discounted the idea because I thought time would be spent updating the portal instead of updating articles. But a bird portal would be nice and I'd be glad to help, especially if we can new people involved through it....Pmeleski 02:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best thing, then, is to get Bird to FAC as by necessity it needs to be on the main page. I've had a bit of a look thus far....There is enough other material to go on a portal page already cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm busting my gut on it. The wretched article is already 54k long and has 60 refs (it will probably have twice as many refs when I've finished) and is maybe two weeks off being peer-reviewable. Concievably it could be featured by the begining of June. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help out when I can. It is starting to look alot more polished so I dips me lid off to ya....cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 06:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Portal:Birds has been initiated! Please come help me get it started. (Do not announce or link to the portal until it is complete, please.) --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Portal until it's ready for public consumption. Andy Mabbett 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please move it back immediately! The subpages have been completed messed up! Don't worry - it's understood that it's under construction - it's in the under construction category! --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved it back. I know you meant well, but please be careful! --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that. Andy Mabbett 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added content to the portal. I also left a ref to it at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, this isn't publicity, just what they ask of even unfinished portals apparently. Nice job Birdman, btw. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, I added another 16 quotes, there's 20 total there now.  The portal seems ready for prime-time.  Will there be a big announcement when it goes public?  Fredwerner 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you so, so much for adding the quotes. I was procrastinating like there would be no tomorrow. (One thing - please use the quote template next time you put up quotes.) I think we're ready - let's let everyone look it over and then I'll make an announcement. Any help with the announcement would be welcome. Yay! --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: looks good to me, only thing is perhaps we need a bit of variety for the pic? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The portal is officially up and running. I have it set to update automatically for next week and the week after that. Any help, as always, is welcome, as are comments. Maybe we can have a portal peer review in the near future, once it has been up for a little while. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's beautiful.  Nice work, and thanks to everyone involved! Cheers, Corvus coronoides 00:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it is nice. Don't we close this page and move to the new home ? Shyamal 03:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds Portal 

message: I've been a bit vague and the time for choosing next months collaboration has past. Still there is a clear winner for May, and its bird. I've been working like crazy on it and its actually close to finished though. It'll be peer reviewable in a week or less. Do we want to collaborate on it through this stage or do we want to pick something else? Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think about it the more I think we need to get bird to FA status for portal etc. It was the winner so it comes off the list. Sometimes collabs don't make it to be FAC ready and thats OK (like Common Raven) we'll do it later. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bird is the current winner of the colab of the month. Please check out the talk page to see what needs doing. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might do an image of the emerging consensus on phylogeny so that we can replace the S/A image. Can anyone convert PNG into SVG? Dysmorodrepanis 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collaboration of the Month

message: I have just rewritten this article. I would appreciate any assistance in improving it in the hope of getting it somewhere near feature article status! --Abbott75 11:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pigeon racing

message: I highly recommend Kenya for birding!  Here are some pictures of birds that have no articles… just in  case anyone has a source and feels like writing something.  If no one does, I'll make stubs for them eventually, but stubs are all I can do with Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson.  Although Shrikes and Bush-shrikes by Tony Harris is searchable at Amazon.
I made a page for each one at Commons under the scientific name.  Those pages include the author, so you can look it up there.
I'm going to upload a couple more pictures, but this will do for a start:
*Black-bellied Bustard (picture)
*White-bellied Bustard (picture)
*Northern Anteater-Chat (picture)
*Black Crake (picture, picture of chick)
*Greater Blue-eared Glossy Starling (picture)
*Brubru (picture)
*Grey-headed Social-weaver (picture)
*Eastern Double-collared Sunbird (picture)
*Bar-tailed Trogon (picture)
*Yellow-throated Longclaw (picture)
*Northern White-crowned Shrike (picture (not mine) and one of mine showing gregariousness)
*Wattled Starling (picture).  Sorry, I misidentified it.  Jim's got a starling book, so he might be the first to get to this one.  If anyone wants to check my other identifications, that would be fine!
*Emerald-spotted Wood Dove (picture with emerald spots and a sharper picture)
*Taita Fiscal (picture)
*Long-toed Lapwing (blurry picture)
*Tropical Boubou (picture)
*Striped Kingfisher (picture)
*Black-lored Babbler (picture).  Many authorities consider the East African population a separate species, Turdoides sharpei rather than T. melanops.
—JerryFriedman 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very cool. The birding in Kenya is fantastic, but that could be said of most of Africa. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I had fun.  I think this is everything.  Next: id requests.  —JerryFriedman 16:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of those still left I'll do the dove, kingfisher, boubou, weaver and lapwing. Jimfbleak 07:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed that when I wrote Tropical Boubou.  —JerryFriedman 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Want to write an article about a Kenyan bird?

message: Under the task list (at the bottom of the project page), I've added a list of the bird genera for which articles do not yet exist. I've used the Clements list as my source - and the good news is that we only have about 10% of the c.2100 genera left to do (Polbot is currently working through those which begin with the letter T so by the time it's finished, I imagine there will be fewer than 200 articles left outstanding. Given the high number of active contributors of bird-related material, we ought to be able to complete this task easily - how about we set ourselves a little target of having them all done by the end of the year? SP-KP 21:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While picking low-hanging fruit, I noticed that we submerge Nyctanassa in Nycticorax (defying not only Clements but the AOU).  Should you delete Nyctanassa from your list, or is it time for those who know what they're doing to re-examine the lump?  The AOU's South American check-list committee says, "Nyctanassa has been included in Nycticorax in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) retained Nyctanassa on the basis of skeletal differences <check Adams 1955>. Genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) also indicate substantial divergence between these taxa, consistent with treatment as separate genera; furthermore, it is not yet certain that the two are sister genera." (Tentative S. Am. check-list)
Jerry, the SACC guys are usually very on their toes about these things; I suspect it's AOU and Clements that are lagging behind. I suggest we split Nyctanassa out - or if we don't, create a redirect and explain the synonymy in the Nycticorax article. SP-KP 22:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I meant that Clements, the AOU, and the AOU's SACC all split Nyctanassa.  We and HBW don't.  But I agree with your suggestion.  —JerryFriedman 23:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird genera to do 

message: User:Sabine's Sunbird, above, asked me if I could get Polbot to change all references to family Acanthizidae in the articles Polbot created to Pardalotidae. I've done this now, no problem. (If anyone has similar requests, let me know.) But lots of other articles still link to Acanthizidae, many in lists of birds in various regions. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Acanthizidae for a list. Should there be a redirect? – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acanthizidae 

message: I noticed (while taking a look at the work-in-progress List of birds of The Gambia page) that White-backed Night-Heron was still showing as a red-link.  However, I've discovered that Polbot has created an article called White-backed Night-heron.  Since the other night-herons are all listed as Night-Heron, should I redirect that one to make the capitalization standard? MeegsC | Talk 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, this guideline says "The word immediately following a hyphen in a species name is not capitalised; Red-winged Blackbird, Black-faced Butcherbird, Splendid Fairy-wren." – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Night-Heron or Night-heron 

message: Looking at the list of genera to do made me notice the caption at the example taxobox in the project page.  I'd like to suggest that in captions, people think about what information readers need and what  they don't need.
*They don't need "Image" or "Picture"—that's obvious.
*In a species article, they don't need the species—that's obvious too.  Especially, in a species taxobox, the species is identified right above the picture, so it doesn't need to be below it.
*They might want information about why the picture looks the way it does.  For birds, this can include age, sex, plumage, subspecies, and morph.  However, if this information gets unwieldy, it can be left for the picture's description page.
What do you think?  —JerryFriedman 15:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I think I've been guilty of putting the name in the past. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption suggestions 

message: Anyone have any strong opinions on whether the eight species in the aptly named Plocepasserinae (Histurgops, Philetairus, Plocepasser, Pseudonigrita) belong with the Ploceidae (HBW) or the Passeridae (IUCN, ITIS)?  If no one does, I'm going to put them back into Ploceidae, contrary to Polbot.  And since people seem to classify these four genera together, do we need a stub on them?
While I'm at it, I'd like to propose a change in the common name we have for a species, Philetairus socius, from "Social Weaver" to "Sociable Weaver".  The latter name is much more common.  Google results (including Scholar) available on request.  Anyway, we have to do something about the fact that Social Weaver redirects to Weaver, an article where "Social Weaver" occurs.  —JerryFriedman 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your statements here and above about following HBW unless there is a good reason not to (in which case whoever has that reason can go ahead, be bold, and explain his changes). Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  I was going to be bold, but 1) Polbot anticipated me by created Sociable Weaver, and 2) Weaver has a comment at that species, "".  Does anyone know what that reference supports?  The unpopular choice of English name?  There's an identical comment at Scaly Weaver, which also has another English name (the misleading "Scaly-feathered Finch"). —JerryFriedman 02:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest taking that up with Dysmorodrepanis, that is his style. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I just realized I could see who added those notes, and it was indeed him.  —JerryFriedman 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plocepasserinae