Talk:Bird

message: So, in this protected article, we find the statement "the longest annual migration being those of sooty shearwaters, which nest in New Zealand and Chile and spend the northern summer feeding in the North Pacific off Japan, Alaska and California, an annual round trip of 64,000 km (39,800 mi).[173]" 
Meanwhile, in the article for the Arctic tern, we find: "Recent studies have shown average annual round-trip lengths of about 70,900 km (44,100 mi) for birds nesting in Iceland and Greenland and about 48,700 km (30,300 mi) for birds nesting in the Netherlands." 
I'm pretty sure that 70,900 > 64,000. If this article is protected, it must be because of disputes. So let's see the dispute get fought out here. Otherwise, I suggest the article be amended. Surprised to find in a search of the Talk archive this hasn't ever come up before; the remarkable migration of the Arctic tern has been a standard item in elementary school science introduction to birds for at least 60 years 2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:5176:B2B8:95AE:60 (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: When written the sooty shearwaters did have the longest recorded migrations, as recording devices were too heavy for smaller birds. It's a shame no one updated the article for the newer recorded distances for the Arctic terns, but the important point is the large distances covered by some birds, when migrating between the polar regions, not which are the record holders. I've updated the article to include the terns. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:55, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration, the Arctic Tern 

message: The beginning of the article reads "There are over 11,000 living species" without any reference. This is true according to BirdLife taxonomy, but not according to BirdTree, which recognize only about 10,000 species. 
A more accurate description is given later in the text: 
"The number of known living bird species is around 11,000 [56][57] although sources may differ in their precise numbers". The numbers in the references are slightly above or below 11,000. I suggest changing the sentence in the beginning to "There are around 11,000 living species", with the two references given later in the text, also adding a reference to the BirdTree taxonomy: https://birdtree.org/ or https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11631 Yuvalr (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: All three regularly updated checklists are now over 11,000 species. HBW/Birdlife (11,195 species) has been for several years and eBird/Clements (11,017) and the IOC (11,032 extant and 162 extinct) have recently passed 11,000. Refs 56 and 57 can be updated for the new ones. The Howard & Moore checklist recognises less species, but hadn't been updated in ten years (although an update is in progress). The Birdtree number is based on a combination BirdLife v3 (2010) and IOC v2.7 (~2010). So "around 11,000 living species" is a safe statement. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:05, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of bird species

message: I'm hesistant to make any big bold changes to an FA but is it possible that this source may be of use somewhere? It states that the North America bird population "is down by 2.9 billion breeding adults". Seems like the sort of thing that may be worth noting. Europe is also missing some birds.  If it were to be added, this section seems like it would make the most sense. I'm sure if one went digging they could find information about other continents as well. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of sentences seem appropriate. In addition to your sentence on North America, a sentence saying a similar fall has been observed in Europe (25% in 40 years) and that these falls have been attributed to intensive farming and habitat loss. It may be hard to find similar surveys for other continents, although you'd expect similar declines in other intensively farmed regions. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing birds