Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 14

message: I just started expanding Wedge-tailed Sabrewing and I found that "Simon" was listed as the authority for one of the subspecies.  I've tried to find the right Simon to link to (currently the link is a disambiguation page) but I didn't want to check everyone listed under Simon (surname).  Does anyone here know of a naturalist that might be the one I'm looking for? Corvus coronoides talk 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is Eugene Simon. For future reference, the best place to hunt down first names of authors (at least the older ones) is Zoonomen Avtax. Tricky to navigate sometimes, in which case Wikispecies is useful too, but Zoonomen is the best for obscure subspecies. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, thanks for the help and link. Corvus coronoides talk 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with disambiguation 

message: I subscribe to an Australian birdwatcher's list from here:
the archives of which are here:
note the latest thread on Clements names, there appear to be some issues with AOU etc.
cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The archive link did not work for me but I was able to see it via http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/Birding-Aus Shyamal (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Interesting, and at least partially correct, although unfounded in the terms of AOU, considering that they never have interfered in any way with names nor taxonomy of any African, European, Asian or Australian species, them only dealing with species of the Americas. The comment on SACC is also peculiar, and evidently made by someone not aware of the fact that a large percentage of Neotropical ornithologists, whether one likes it or not, are of US origin (as clearly evident when checking the authors of field guides published to the countries in this region). So if wanting the best you pretty much have to include a number of Americans. This is in the process of changing as more locals are gaining an interest and knowledge about this subject, and for example Brazil already has a relatively large base of very knowledgeable local ornithologists, though I suspect most of them couldn't care less what English names are applied to "their" birds, as Brazil is one of the few Neotropical countries that already has a widely used "semi-official" list of names of all local birds in their language, Portuguese, which is maintained by CBRO (incidentally also represented on SACC in the form of Jose Fernando Pacheco). Of note also the AOU and its subdivision SACC generally both are very conservative (sometimes too conservative IMO) in the English names they use, with few species (mostly the result of taxonomic changes) with common names that differ from those proposed by one of the absolute main sources of English names, the 50+ years old Peters check-list (which was published at a time where a large percentage of non-European and non-US birds still didn't have any English names). A related question is that if, say, AOU didn't maintain a list of English names for birds throughout the Americas, who should? Nobody? In contrast, in countries where the local birds have widely used English names, I have noticed a few peculiar examples in Clements, Sibley and Monroe, Howard and Moore, and Handbook of the Birds of the World. On that point some of the comments made in the link are at least partially correct. When making a list that includes e.g. Australian species, all of which have English names that are widely used among local birders and ornithologists, you'd expect them to at least check the literature on local birds. On the other hand, however, it is easy to critisize, even more so when not having attempted of making a better alternative. We could rely entirely on single country lists, but that doesn't work for the many countries where English isn't widely used (in which case we'd all have to learn fun names like Griseotyrannus aurantioatrocristatus), and IMO the benefits of having a single list with all the species of the world easily outweighs the problems. Rabo3 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm almost tempted to join that list so I can clear up several inaccuracies from different posters.  But of course I can't argue with the main point, which is that North American birders' adherence to Clements causes problems with Australian guides who naturally prefer the long-standing Australian vernacular names.  The blame for this is shared between the late Jim Clements and the ABA, which uses Clements as its official world list.  As Rabo3 says, I don't think the AOU has anything to do with it.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fascinating though. One thing always fascinated me about most biology books I have in that they rarely go into detail on who named what and why and controversies that erupt as a result. I have tried on WP to have as much info in taxonomy and naming sections on all the bio-species I do to discuss this. Hence my trying to embellish this on various species liek the whole Conure/Parakeet debate and others. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  interesting thread on Australian bird names 

message: I propose that we make a wiki project for birds of prey. There are so many of them, that there is more than enough to cover with a wikiproject. just a suggestion, but i think it would be a wonderful idea. Plese tell me what you think. -Tobi4242 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the need for a separate Wikiproject. The advantages of a Wikiproject are the opportunities for collaboration and somewhere to ask questions and seek help, and anyone interested in working more on birds of prey can find all of that here. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sabine's Sunbird. I'm not sure what a birds of prey wikiproject could provide that birds cannot, other than a bird of prey specific collaboration. If you want help with collaborating on an article, I think you would have the same level of support mentioning it here as at its own specific project. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the birds of prey is such a vast collection(if you will) and a wiki project for it could be very useful. -Tobi4242 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tobi, good luck if you want to set one up, but it might be thin on the ground for active editors. I found this at Wikiproject fungi. No biggie really, just that this is made up of volunteers and so good editing is at a premium. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new wikiproject 

message: As a follow on from the bird of prey discussion, what about one or more Featured topics? I imagine that a featured topic for new world vultures could be constructed immediately. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty soon, just have to get Cathartidae and Andean Condor to GA or FA status and you're there. I'm not sure about the Cathartes article though... Sheep81 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you've seen it, but if you haven't we have got a page outlying some potential featured topics here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Cathartidae species" is a good enough scope, but Cathartes should be reasonably high on priorities, as it is the obvious expansion step (I'm not sure how likely it is to get the various extinct species to GA status). Circeus (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm planning on finishing Storm-petrel soon, which leaves us two down for a featured topic on Procellariiformes. The Procellariiformes article is easily featurable, but I think GA is the best we can hope for with the rather understudied Diving petrels. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In cathartids as well as in Procellariiformes, there are a few prehistoric taxa in List of fossil birds and the order/family pages that have accumulated enough references (see article source codes) to start own articles. Though I wouldn't really recommend it in the first case; the evolutionary history of these is very confusing and the primary literature not too well-available. But I have quite some stuff about early tubenoses around, especially about the Paleogene taxa. Though I did not do this consistently, I usually remember to place an asterisk at the annotated sources that describe the taxon in question. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Topics 

message: Speaking of all those Polbot stubs, I've been (slowly) working on those. (Anyone want to re-rate Striped Kingfisher?)  I've also been working on family and order articles, trying to add information on common characteristics (some of which might be synapomorphies), which I consider just as important for those articles as classification discussions and lists of genera and species.  I've done what I can on Pelican, Mimid, Cuckoo, Phylloscopidae, and Cotinga, but there's probably more to do on all of them, and there are plenty more articles that need lots of work, such as Falconidae.  Lots at the genus level too.
So if anyone out there is looking for a task other than bringing articles to GA or FA status (not that there's anything wrong with that), all kinds of tasks are available.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On the comparison between the importance of shared characteristics and classification, my main problem with Cotinga was that it's a moving target.  So I have to admit that the classification is necessary before we can know what the shared characteristics are (although the scientists do the classification on the basis of shared characteristics).  But there are stable taxa that need lots of work. —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cotingidae isn't too bad following numerous recent studies, and is likely to remain relatively stable as is. The only genera where some serious doubts still exist are the three placed in incertae sedis, of which one, Oxyruncus, is likely to belong in Tityridae. Thus, we're essentially down to two "moving targets", which in any case are morphologically somewhat aberrant if they turn out to be cotingas (especially Calyptura is an oddball). Rabo3 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good to know.  I only had one source, which was from way back in 2004 and included the Tityridae genera in Cotingidae, but in the expectation that the target has stopped moving, maybe I (or someone) can find some other sources.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things to do 

message: I've recently been coming across newsletters that some of our fellow projects at Wikipedia are generating each month.  Does anybody else think it might be worth starting one for WP:BIRD?  Maybe we could get some of those occasional editors fired up about contributing again!  I'd be willing to work on them, if it sounds like something that's worth doing... MeegsC | Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a nice idea. Wonder if it may be possible to make it so that it can be forwarded on non-WP bird fora. At the least there are lots of people out there who could be tempted to search for errors. Shyamal (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it a great idea. -Tobi4242 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project newsletter? 

message: Someone just put the Emu article under the megafauna category. This doesn't seem right to me, but before reverting I thought I'd double-check. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it seems to be just big fauna or big animals, and includes crocodiles too.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the modern-day stuff in the category seems to have been all added by the same user today. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll get serious.  See here, here, and here for examples of applying "megafauna" to the Emu or extinct Australian flightless birds.  But maybe I should have asked: Does it seem wrong because the Emu is a bird, too small, or extant?  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Though those refs do refer to giant extinct birds as megafauna, none specifically call today's Emu a megafauna. The third one comes close, but it says only that the Emu would be called megafauna if it were extinct. The title seems wrong to be because it is both extant and a bit on the smallish side. Also, the word megafauna is not used with the species anywhere in the article. This combo just didn't make it sound right to me. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, then I was barking up the wrong gum tree.  The idea that "megafauna" means "extinct" is new to me as of today—I just saw it in those books.  That's certainly not always what it means, as a search for "charismatic megafauna" will show you.  I see your point about the size, though, as the smallest Emus are lighter than the lightest minimum (40 kg) quoted at megafauna.  They seem like a borderline case.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One might simply change it to "most ratites" and then give examples. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emu megafauna? 

message: Hi.  I just made some substantial additions to the Tufted Puffin article.  I wanted to upgrade it from "start-class" to "B-class", but it occurred to me that that might be inappropriate.  After all, I might be gravely deluded about the quality of my own work.  Is it right that this is something someone else should do? Best, Eliezg (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely non controversial. Nice work. btw, does anyone know what this is :Image:WhiskeredPuffinLyd.jpg. It could do with categorization. thanks Shyamal (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely a Tufted Puffin.  Very nice image, I categorized it appropriately.  Thanks for the feedback.  Eliezg (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work. Sorry, I just rearranged it like other bird articles aiming for FA or GA. which reminds me....(see below)cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, it's much better this way.  The existence of standards and responsiveness make the Bird community really enviable/effective, especially coming from the lonely chaos of marine mammals .  Thanks to both of you.  Eliezg (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha - pity I am a slob in real life though...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'll drop some ideas to head toward GA status on the talk page. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tufted Puffin 

message: Range and habitat vs Distribution and habitat
OK all, these I take it are synonymous. I have used the latter since starting on bird and other bio articles last year. I figured as they are synonymous we may as well stick to one (?) If so are we havvy with the latter or shall we switch them all over to range? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I too would favour distribution - but I would favour the usage when it comes to "altitudinal range". Given that a lot of ornithology involves statistics, I imagine that "geographic distribution" would be the most precise usage. Interestingly Rasmussen and Anderton in their Birds of South Asia (2005) use the rather peculiar heading of occurs under which matters of distribution and seasonality are discussed ! Shyamal (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  conformity in article headings and subheadings 

message: I've placed this article on hold as part of the GA Sweeps.  Issues needing to be addressed can be found on the talk page.  Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Kererū]] on hold for GA Sweeps 

message: I'm sure I'm not the only bird editor that is in turns amused and bemused by the various country projects that claim various bird articles as their own. While some of these make a ertain amount of sense, no one would begrudge Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand the Kiwi article for example, I am sometimes left wondering how Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands feels justified in claiming the House Martin or Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida the Monk Parakeet (it's feral for Christ's sake). At least the hummingbird family is no longer claimed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean. So come on and share the most ridiculous article snatching you've seen! Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to happen with FAs; for instance, after King Vulture was promoted, WP: Central America and its Costa Rican taskforce claimed it as a FA, though they didn't bother to rate the importance of the article while they were there. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to take bird any day now. :) Sheep81 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind - have a  look at the diverse wikiprojecyt templates I stuck on vampire and sirius..to me all they mean is cropping up on Assessment graphs and alert folks later. I take it as a compliment. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WikiProject Dogs huh? Haha... Sheep81 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, wooof cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scramble for Articles 

message: List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of animals displaying homosexual behavior]] AfD 

message: Just a heads up that I've worked this up a bit and sent to GA - all comments welcome (except re imperial conversion - I did this one specifically because it's not just Old World). Re scramble for articles, it's already  claimed by Indonesia and Laos!  Jimfbleak (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikiproject Indonesia? What the hell? According to the species map it doesn't even occur there. My fiirst thought looking at the article is that all the images are in a line down one side, wouldn't they look better spaced more evenly? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, on my screen it creates a lot of white space between the paragraphs. I'll give it a quick little copyedit sometime tonight. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Northern Pintail]] 

message: Andean Condor has been nominated by Jude at FAC, joining Chiffchaff. Also, List of North Carolina birds has been nominated at FLC. Just a heads-up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC Heads-up 

message: Just to check, is this  the rare dark morph of the Little Egret?  If so, it's a nice picture to have (though I'd have preferred Dimorphic Egret, which was my first thought). —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dark morph Western Reef Heron? They are  common in Senegal and The Gambia, white morph much less so. Dark morph Little Egret unrecorded in those two countries () (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jim; this is a classic Western Reef Heron... MeegsC | Talk 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it sure looks like a lot of our other pictures of that bird.  I blame Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson's Kenya guide.  I can identify this one, though!  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heron id 

message: I did a bit of work on Ostrich when we had it as a collaboration, however I don't have any african bird books that I can use for referencing. If anyone does, it would be great if it could be reffed and the habitat section exapnded and probably not too far off GA anyway. Always nice to get worked-on articles to a staging point :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have left some annots 4 refs in the Fossils section. Some may be ichnotaxa (eggshells only). There was severe unrecognized vandalism which I tried to rv but I may have missed bits. The Asian Ostrich might get a bit of work too. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ostrich]] referencing 

message: Anas acuta has shot through GA (thanks for edits R-c S!) I'd like to sent it to FA, but can't while Chiffchaff lingers there, so plenty of time for improvements folks, Jimfbleak (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do galleries add exactly that a link to the commons doesn't? I thought that was what the commons was for; Wikipedia not being collections of images and all. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you SS, just throwing it up (figuratively) to see what consensus was. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine galleries show the pictures to people who don't bother to click on the Commons tag or don't know what it is.  During that argument about which pictures should be in Hummingbird, nobody said that it didn't matter since all the pictures were in Commons, so I think Commons often goes unnoticed.  Personally, I don't care much either way, except if there is a gallery I don't think it should have a lot of similar pictures, like Little Egret.  —JerryFriedman  (Talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd rather not have a gallery, so that's fine with me. I'll see later if Clements has anything useful on Canadian Robin which my brother in-law tells me is its real name - now where does he live (: Jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fools rush in, part 94. I've now put up Northern Pintail as an fac here Jimfbleak (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: sounds good to me, I've added taxonomy and status sections to Amrob, obviously quite a bit on the real Robin, including even more on cultural stuff. I'll concentrate on the Am bird for the present though, since it's nearest to GA standard. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Northern Pintail]] 

message: We have something of an inconsistency in the naming of our petrel articles; we have Storm-petrel and Diving petrel. Regardless of whether we should use the dash or not, the two should at least be consistent, no? HBW and the Gill and Wright take different tracks but at least keep the two consistent with each other. PWe should change one of them, I suggest Diving petrel to Diving-petrel.  Sabine's Sunbird  talk 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the absence of comments or opinions I boldly moved Diving petrel to diving-petrel, along with the four species articles. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Petrels petrels petrels. 

message: Wow, never had a collaboration promoted before the month was up! Congrats to Jude, RcS and eveyone who chipped in. I am making Emperor Penguin next collab as of today, with next one chosen on Feb 21. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration production line 

message: #Andean Condor and Chiffchaff passed FA, well done everyone. 
#Once Northern Pintail has met its fate one way or another, I'd like to try to get Aerodramus to FA, but I'm not sure if that's realistic, esp given the shortage of images; any views? If it's not a runner, I'll do House Martin instead, no rush Pintail still at FA.
#American Robin has had lot of work put into it recently, but could really do with more US input on the cultural section, which is obviously a problem for Brits and Ozzies. 
Thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is never going to win any prizes, but we do have one photograph of an Aerodramus, I just uploaded one I took of the White-rumped Swiftlet that I took in Tonga. There are also some images on Flickr that we could ask permission to use. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Flickr, is anyone here knowledgeable about the various copyright rules and regulations over there? I'm trying to get some pictures for the Rufous-crowned Sparrow article, so if anyone can either retrieve some that match Wikipedia's requirements or point me to an essay explaining it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are none at present that you can use without asking permission. In order to find images that you can use you need to go to search everyone's photos , then click on advanced search and scroll down to the bottom  and tick Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos  and the two other options Find content to use commercially and  Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon. This will then produce photos that can be uploaded onto the Commons with either a general attribution or sharealike attribution licence. Unfortunately not everyone selects these wiki friendly licences but some people can be asked to change their licences. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

text: It is line-ball between Aerodramus and  House Martin, with the latter probably a nose (beak) in front. Toss a coin and if you decide yourself willing for the opposite of the side tossed then do the other one instead. Amrob is big enough, but could do with a bit of a polish. I'll have a look later. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with House Martin too, though I do not believe that any non-monotypic non-dinosauric genus has passed a FAC. Be interesting to see what would happen with it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: House Martin it is then, as always comments and additions are welcome. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA update