Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 11

message: This was nominated for AfD here  when in very bad shape.  Any help organising it on the lines of the excellent List of Oklahoma birds would be greatly appreciated. 203.108.239.12 05:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: This has now been taken care of (for the most part). -- Basar (talk · contribs) 08:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of South Carolina birds]] 

message: In Archive 10, I mentioned that I was thinking about creating a template to store all of the heading text that we use for bird lists. Well, I have now created it . I believe I have incorporated all of the suggestions given in Archive 10 successfully. Let me know what changes need to be made etc. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I think I have a fairly stabilized version of it now and it has been completely implemented in List of South Carolina birds. I am wondering if you feel that this is a worthwhile template and if I should continue to deploy/develop it. I also have a specific issue which has two solutions, and I am not sure which is best. Transcluding section headers causes the section edit button to not work properly, so I have disabled the edit section links. All that means is that you have to edit the whole page, not that big of a deal, but odd. The alternative would be to not transclude the header itself and just transclude the text directly below the header. This means the headers would have to be included in each list which would be a little more work (not much) and the header text would become unstandardized—not that big of a deal since it is small and unlikely to be updated too often. I was wondering what your opinions are. Right now I am leaning towards not including the headers because there may be in issue with the way automated programs create the advanced TOCs some of the lists use. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird list header 

message: Does anyone know how to make a range map? I've noticed that some of the bird articles have them, and the California Condor article I'm working on could benefit from one. I'd make it myself, but have no idea how. Could someone inform me or make one? BirdLife International has a map that could be used as an example, but I don't know image copyright laws. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I discovered that one can have editable spot maps and made a trial at White-tailed Iora. Shyamal 06:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WOW! Now this is cool! Dysmorodrepanis 20:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The White-tailed Iora map needs to be moved into the taxobox with the usual "| range_map =" formatting - not sure how to do it with all that fancy coding. As a temporary measure I've left-aligned it so it doesn't leave that huge gap in the text - MPF 09:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Thanks for the condor map. The images look fine as you put them. I've got to switch the measurements, one final copyedit, and it should be ready for FAC. Unless someone thinks I should wait until the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo FAC is wrapped up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range Maps 

message: 'nuff said. Please come and look and offer suggestions on how to improve if poss. I laid it out like Common Raven...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of random, but California Condor will be ready in the next 12 hours for a FAC. Do you think I should wait to nominate until after Red-tailed Black Cockatoo passes (or fails, I guess), or does it really matter?Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, no point in waiting...FACs a big place..cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Red-tailed Black Cockatoo]] at FAC now 

message: Some bird articles describe the bird's range from a very biased perspective (presumably that of the author) - for instance, the Common Teal article, although describing a bird whose range stretches from Iceland to Japan via Africa, describes its range starting from a British perspective, where it is a winter visitor. Perhaps it would be a good idea to gently warn against this in the Project guidelines.
ArzelaAscoli 21:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it breeds pretty widely across Britain. However one describes a range, one has to start somewhere; my tendency is to start at the northwest corner of a range and work south and east from there (so for Common Teal, I'd say something like "Iceland south through the British Isles [I agree Jerry has a point below re English-speaking readers] to northern France, and east to Kamchatka and northern Japan, with the southernmost breeding birds in the Caucasus". - MPF 01:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a problem for American birds, too—I've added information about Mexican ranges to several articles on North American birds.  Presumably a lot of the bias comes from the sources.  However, it is reasonable that more English-speaking readers will be interested in the parts of birds' ranges in English-speaking countries.  —JerryFriedman 22:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird ranges and systematic bias 

message: I'm interested in starting a Bird Clock on Wikiversity, following the model of the v:Bloom Clock, which has been running for about a year now. The goal is to collect data from contributors about where and when particular species of birds are seen, and then use this data to create local dichotomous keys (see this bloom clock page for an example), track migration times, and so on. 
I don't know all that much about birds, to be honest, but I've learned a lot about plants I wasn't familiar with on the bloom clock, and a few people I know (who are not "wiki people") have been using the clock to identify wildflowers, and suggested doing it for birds as well. --SB_Johnny | PA! 12:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone up for starting a bird clock? 

message: Hi folks, I'm not a member of this project, but my brother volunteers at Bird Studies Canada and he has hundreds of great pictures of birds and I thought I might upload a couple where they are needed. However, 99% of the birds in those pictures are being held in people's hands, even after you trim most of the pictures, you can still see that they are being held. So, I was wondering if that type of picture was acceptable or if you prefer pictures of birds in more natural settings. Thanks for the time, Scorpion0422 15:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Upload any you like, but please remember by doing so, you are agreeing to release the photos under licenses that allow e.g. modification, and commercial use by others to make money from them without anything coming back to yourself. Check whether that is something you and your brother are willing to accept! You would also need to check whether Bird Studies Canada have any say in the matter, if the photos were taken under their juristiction; they might need to agree to it too. Hope this helps! - MPF 16:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the pictures are taken by us and they're all just people holding birds outside of a banding station, so I don't think we would need any sort of permission. Instead of uploading a few of them, tomorrow I'll post all of them on myspace or something so people can take whatever they want. Just so everyone is clear, this is what most of them look like - just an image of a bird being held and in most cases, you can't see their feet. If that kind of image is acceptable, then I have dozens that could be of use. I also have a few images from around a banding station - tools, nets, birds in the nets - and they could also be useful. -- Scorpion0422 17:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice would be to create an account on Wikimedia Commons (if you don't already have one) and upload the photos there. If you add the photos to the correct WikiCommons category and/or page (Dendroica petechia, for example) then future editors of the relevant Wikipedia articles (Yellow Warbler, for example) will find them and use them if they're appropriate. Generally speaking, I've found that editors prefer to use the most natural-looking photos they can find to illustrate a specific bird article (assuming decent resolution, lighting, etc.) but feeder or handheld bird photos are often used when natural-looking shots aren't available or aren't good quality images. Handheld shots are also sometimes used in the body of the article because they may show a specific characteristic of the bird that other, more prominently placed, photos don't. 'Card 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't have the time and every single image would need cropping and resizing. I'll just put them on flickr or something and then people can choose. -- Scorpion0422 17:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Commons really any harder than Flickr?  But anyway, pictures of handheld birds are often really useful, so just let us know where you put them.  I see you're an experienced Wikipedian, so no point in talking about licenses.  —JerryFriedman 20:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the note (on my talk page); I guess I mistook "not a member of this project" to be "not a member of wikipedia as a whole" in error. On whether in-the-hand bird pics are helpful; definitely yes where it is a species where wikipedia doesn't have any pic at all or just one of those archaic PD 19th century paintings. If there are already good in-the-field pics, then less important. Take a look through Commons and see what's missing or deficient. - MPF 20:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo question 

message: Okay, here is a small sampling of what I've got. I'll admit that part of the reason why I just didn't upload them here is because I'm not sure exactly what type of birds some them are, so I figured I'd throw them on flickr and let others decide. Please note that this is just to show you most of the birds that I have images of. If you don't like a particular image, there are likely other pictures of that species. For example, I have a dozen pictures of that hawk. I hope they are of use and if you want any others, simply ask and I'll upload them. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of those are valuable pics because some small song birds can be difficult to get a good photo of, or at least we don't have any on Wikipedia. However, the license you gave them isn't compatible with Wikipedia. The share alike attribution license would work. – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Like I said, I have more that I can upload. I just didn't add them all because they are 2 megs a piece and I have a SLOW internet connection and I don't have enough time to resize them all. -- Scorpion0422 17:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I should have been more specific; it is the noncommercial part of the tag that Wikipedia can't accept. They look good though, I think I'll transfer over some of the vireos. And I'm glad they weren't resized, I like all of the resolution:) – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed again. -- Scorpion0422 17:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again. I uploaded two pictures to Commons:Category:Vireonidae, and ya, each one takes awhile. They are in the articles Philadelphia vireo and Blue-headed vireo. – Basar (talk · contribs) 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problems, happy to help. Like I said, I have other images, and there are probably a couple of birds I forgot to post, so if anyone wants different pictures of a certain bird, don't hesitate to ask. -- Scorpion0422 17:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have one of the Great Black-headed Gull by any chance, do you? (Awww, it was worth a shot - I've been trying to find one for ages)... --Kurt Shaped Box 06:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on getting you one this weekend... MeegsC | Talk 08:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic! Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 11:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: If there is any request for bird illustrations where none are forthcoming, please do let me know and I can try to produce some passable illustrations. Birds with flat colours are easy, those with striations and complex patterning are hard. If there is some group of species that can all be done using one template with only colour variations, it would be particularly easy to produce. Feel free to drop requests on my talk page. Shyamal 09:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps some extinct species such as the adzebills? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. Would help if there are some reference illustrations that you find are particularly accurate. Shyamal 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is th best one I've seen.  Sabine's Sunbird  talk 06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I see many illustrations avoiding the profile view. None seem to show a pervious nostril that one would expect from most Gruiformes. Any detailed images showing the skull (also the carpometacarpus) ? Ichnotaxa must be fun for illustrators with so much room to innovate for colouration :) Shyamal 07:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration offer 

message: Anybody have any idea what's happened to the display of the conservation status in the taxoboxes?  All those little circles (with the different levels of status) have disappeared, leaving a big white gap in the display. MeegsC | Talk 12:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's currently a technical problem that is interfering with the rendering of small images and thumbnails. Hopefully it won't be too long before they find the bug. (See the sitenotice on commons for updates.) --SB_Johnny | PA! 15:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxoboxes 

message: I've nominated several articles on birds for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pluvialas.  Those familiar with the subject may wish to participate in the discussion. NeilN 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you found, these are fictional birds invented as a teaching example.  I left a vote to make an article that explains that.  —JerryFriedman 00:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles on Birds on AfD 

message: There seem to be an alarming number of Coenocorypha snipe without articles, with only three other Charadriiformes being without articles. Are these all real, extant species? If not can someone who knows trim the list? Jimfbleak 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shorebirds only accepts the two species with blue links; the others are all either extinct, or recent results of a splitting spree. I'll see if I can work out which is which and tag the extinct ones with a dagger - MPF 20:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the New Zealand snipes are an ongoing project of mine, I can unlink the extinct ones that won't get articles. The splitting spree is the result of pretty good but ongoing research (Colin Miskelley anticipates a paper by early next year on the subject). Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I might have dropped some refs in the source code as annotations, IIRC it's basically species vs subspecies status and the question has been pondered by Miskelly, Worthy et al for some time. Dysmorodrepanis 14:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[list of bird species without articles]] 

message: California Condor is now a featured article candidate. Please come over and help review the article. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 14:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! It passed! Thanks to everyone who helped or supported the article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[California Condor]] at FAC 

message: Puerto Rican Spindalis has been nominated for good article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 22:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As someone who has done a couple reviews and worked with a couple of the GAC people, I'd say that they would want to see those references in "cite web" format before passing it.  Just a side note. Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 01:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Scales badly and cannot handle 20% of what I've come across reference-wise in any meaningful way. Sometimes, you simply need to cite sources in Finnish... and notify the reader that s/he need not despair, for an English abstract or summary is provided. Technically possible w/template, but you may in that case scrap the template altogether and even save some bytes. Access/version date format handling also is BAD. Breaks easy and/or is not unequivocally recognizable as YYYYMMDD. Dysmorodrepanis 22:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puerto Rican Spindalis GAC 

message: Does anyone remember why we have the drongos, fantails and monarch flycatchers all lumped in Dicruridae? Anyone know which modern treatment does this? We ususally stick with HBW unless there is a good reason not to, so I'm wondering what the reason is. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like Sibley-Monroe. Shyamal 08:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kay, so if I were to do all the work, would anyone mind if I changed the articles and the respective species articles to reflect the more widespread view that they are three related but separate familes?  Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DNA sequence data strongly supports that they are distinct families, and that the 3-family Dicruridae assemblage is paraphyletic gets relatively decent support (Pachycephalidae stand a bit apart methinks). Dysmorodrepanis 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dicruridae]] 

message: G'day Birdies - could someone please look at the above article and tell me if it is a hoax please?  If so, please speedy delete. Gillyweed 11:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: seems to suggest existence. Shyamal 11:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: There are a number of reputable sites (google "Sparred Owl" to see, for example US and Canadian government sites, the Owl Foundation, etc.) which report these hybrids, which are indeed known as Sparred Owls. MeegsC | Talk 15:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was wrong and have amended the article based on the research I found.  Thanks for your help. Gillyweed 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest redirecting to Spotted Owl. Hybridisation between spotted and barred owls is a threat to Spotted Owls and the material (one line of it) is best covered there. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sparred owl]] 

message: Can somebody with more knowledge than me please modify our Bird template to include the new Bird nest article?  I've moved it over to article space, even though it's not done yet, because I'm off on yet another trip and didn't want somebody else to duplicate all this work!  There's still a lot to do—including the bits listed on the discussion page. MeegsC | Talk 18:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. – Basar (talk · contribs) 19:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  That was quick! MeegsC | Talk 19:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template modification requested 

message: The more I look around, the more resources I find ;-/  Can someone check the talk page at American Pipit and comment on my remarks?  I wish not to make an even larger fool of myself...  mdf 12:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're asking about this picture?  I think you're right that it's a pipit.  As far as I can tell, all the thrushes in its range have light feathers below the eye but not so much above and behind it, all have white bellies rather than buff, and none have dark marks on the back.  Then particular thrushes have features that rule them out, such as spectacles or streaked throats.  But we'll see what the experts say.  —JerryFriedman 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Pipit, no question about it.  SP-KP 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not an expert or even American, but it looks like first-year Swainson's Thrush in  Clement and Hathaway, Thrushes to me, head pattern looks wrong for pipit, but young Swainson's has some pale above the eye, and shows the weak wing bar. Doesn't American Pipit have dark legs? Jimfbleak 15:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The bird here is an American Pipit. It has no primary-projection, it has head:body proportions of a pipit not a thrush, typical pipit bill shape, median-coverts pattern and shape, greater-coverts pattern and shape, and ... well, it just looks like a pipit, and not at all like a thrush. Leg colour is fine for an American pipit, as is head pattern. Young Swainson's would show a "thrush-type" wingbar formed from narrow pale tips to the median-coverts, and spot-bars rather than streaks below. I can only conclude that I can't be looking at the same photo as other people! SP-KP 16:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with the pipit assessment; it's sure not a Catharus thrush! Young thrushes of that genus have spots or bars (rather than streaks) on the underparts, a pale loral area, an unmarked back and a primarily dark bill. As to the bird in the picture having pink legs, HBW says that non-breeding Buff-bellieds of the nominate subspecies "occasionally show pinkish-tinged legs". MeegsC | Talk 16:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry for causing all this confusion.  I was mostly concerned about the pinkish legs.  Dark legs are usually listed as identifying marks of the bird but I've also [read since] that paler legs can be found occasionally, so I guess I feel corrected here... Wwcsig 20:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buff-bellied "American" Pipit 

message: This is a sad little stub that has been tagged unreferenced since June 2006.  I am thinking it would be best to just redirect this to parrot, but I thought I should see if the wikiproject has any objections before being bold.--BirgitteSB 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it should be a disambiguation page between the current avicultural term and Lanaʻi Hookbill. Don't know how many other species are there in that genus. Perhaps User:Dysmorodrepanis knows !? Shyamal 01:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hookbill]] 

message: Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the  template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.
* 26 September 2007 - expires 1 October
:
::--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let it go, it's just a foreign dicdef. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 03:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a Peruvian word for caciques and oropendolas, maybe especially the Yellow-rumped Cacique (or maybe not).  —JerryFriedman 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Now marked as a speedy delete for copyvio. Circeus 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the copyvio and made it a dab page, but maybe it should be a redirect to Bird#Breeding. We'll see what people do.  Do we have any separate article on young birds?  —JerryFriedman 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed deletions ([[WP:PROD]]) 

message: *
:It's a Peruvian word for caciques and oropendolas, maybe especially the Yellow-rumped Cacique (or maybe not).  —JerryFriedman 05:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now marked as a speedy delete for copyvio. Circeus 22:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the copyvio and made it a dab page, but maybe it should be a redirect to Bird#Breeding. We'll see what people do.  Do we have any separate article on young birds?  —JerryFriedman 00:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolved

message: Two queries
#Campbell Island Snipe AFAIK this has not been described formally - should it be in the list when it hasn't even got a binomial name?
#Vietnam Partridge. I know the species exists, because it's in my book, but I can't find a red link for it under anywhere outside this list. Where is the Wikipedia article it came from?
Jimfbleak 17:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Vietnam Partridge is listed at Partridge as Annam Hill-partridge.  I didn't look anywhere else.  —JerryFriedman 03:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Jerry, added it to Arborophila too now, Jimfbleak 16:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Birds/List of bird species without articles|List of bird species without articles]] 

message: There are probably still  less than 100 to do so far. Is there anyone with specialist knowledge who could clear up some of these groups, like the one parrot and the handful of Procellaridae? I'll do the pheasant family, but still checking other families for missing species. Jimfbleak 07:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can probably take care of the parrot. For what it's worth, I believe that the ringneck species listed is generally viewed as a naturally-occurring hybrid. Voodlecat 02:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After going through the family articles, there are just 99 species to do, including a fair number of dubious snipes. Jimfbleak 06:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it worth moving the list to the main project page, since it's shorter than the list of red-linked genera previously there? Jimfbleak 10:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do the few remaining Pyrrhura's. I've already dealt with some of the members of the P. picta/leucotis complexes, but for the last few where the available data is less certain, I'll wait till SACC have decided (a proposal on the last few species is currently up for voting). Rabo3 12:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject Birds\List of bird species without articles|List of bird species without articles]] 

message: Anyone care to tackle this one? A Visual Pathway Links Brain Structures Active during Magnetic Compass Orientation in Migratory Birds. What it's saying, as far as I can tell, is that birds have magnetic field detectors in their eyes, i.e., that they can (literally) see the Earth's magnetic field. Astounding information, but I don't feel too confident on comprehending the concepts. But maybe none of us can, it must be like describing sight to the blind. - MPF 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot for pointing out this interesting work. Added a statement with ref to this on Bird migration. Shyamal 04:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I already mentioned it in the main bird article. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Had not seen these bits carefully enough. The reference you have added in bird is an excellent review and the new paper makes more sense in the light of that one. The new paper however has a new line of evidence with brain-eye connections being shown. Shyamal 04:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migrating birds can see magnetic fields 

message: Polbot wrote an article for Hottentot Buttonquail Turnix hottentottus, which treats the forms nana (much of sub-Saharan Africa) and nominate hottentottus (restricted range in coastal South Africa) as a single species.
 
Madge and McGowan, Pheasants, Partridges and Grouse, which tends to split, nevertheless treats this buttonquail as a single species, but named Black-rumped Buttonquail Turnix hottentottus. 
Authorties which split always have the restricted range endemic as Hottentot Buttonquail Turnix hottentottus and the widespread form as Black-rumped Buttonquail Turnix nana.
It seems to make sense to follow Madge and McGowan, and use the English name of the widespread form for the unsplit species, with a mention of the split of the (impossible to see) fynbos form, so this is what I’ve done. Any views? Jimfbleak 15:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HBW (or at least the IBC) lumps them as Black-rumped Buttonquail, and Hottentot is a silly name (not to mention un-PC) for anything widespread in Africa, so I think you were right to overrule the IUCN.  —JerryFriedman 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Black-rumped Buttonquail]] 

message: Comments on the proposed merger of Nidification and Bird nest would be welcome here. Shyamal 09:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Is there currently any article on this topic? It would be nice to have one so as to clear up any confusion with mimicry. I can't see anything under vocal mimicry or song mimicry. Richard001 06:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vocal mimicry 

message: If someone has access to Ginn, H.B. & Melville, D.S. (1983) Moult in Birds. BTO Guide or other works which cover moulting in birds extensively, they could help by fixing the moult notes and references in the bird article. Shyamal 11:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moult 

message: Peregrine Falcon has been nominated as a featured article candidate, so come on out and review! Also, the King Vulture article will most likely be nominated for FA status in the near future, so please come and give it a look-over before I nominate it. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 23:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Peregrine Falcon]] FAC