Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 12

message: Back with another request for consistency.  Parisoma redirects to typical warbler.  All four of the species sometimes placed in this genus have articles created by Polbot as Sylvia species.  (We have no article called Sylvia—we use typical warbler.)  Typical warbler and Sylviidae list them as Parisoma species but typical warbler places them within Sylvia following Sylvia warblers by Shirihai.  The IBC calls all four Parisoma.  I know nothing about these birds and have never seen any of them, but I think it would be great to be consistent.  If we want a Parisoma article, I have a  modest example, which I cobbled together before realizing that it would disagree with other pages as noted above.  —JerryFriedman 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Parisoma'' 

message: Hello. I've made in June 2007 in the Algonquin Provincial Park this recording of a unknown bird. Can anybody tell me, what's bird this is. Liesel 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. The recording is in the article. Liesel 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unkown bird 

message: I wondered if there were any views on the merits of the old illustrations that accompany many bird articles. Take a look at Blyth's Reed Warbler, for example - this is accompanied by a painting of a bird which could be any species of unstreaked Acro, Hippolais etc. whereas there are now some reasonably good photos of the species accompanying the article. Should we aim to replace paintings like this with photos at the earliest opportunity, or is there some merit in keeping the painting? SP-KP 10:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd replace the painting, especially one like that that doesn't look much like the photographs.  On the other hand, I'm in no hurry to replace a painting like the one by Fuertes at Black-headed Heron.  —JerryFriedman 14:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done the Blyth's Reed, got rid of that awful old painting. I'd agree that where photos are available, paintings should only be used if they are exceptionally good. - MPF 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bird article illustrations 

message: I have created a Peer review page for Weka. I would like to get it to Good Article, but I'm unsure what to improve or add. Thanks for any comments. --Teggles 04:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Weka/archive1]] 

message: Superb Fairy-wren at FAC here...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Superb Fairy-wren]] at FAC 

message: Is there or is there not such a bird? Tell us. thank you. --Victor falk 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasudha parrot]] 

message: WikiProject Agriculture is looking for assistance developing breed boxes for domestic mammals and birds.  The only current examples we're aware of are  and .  If anyone can assist please join us on our talk page.  Thanks.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help with domestic birds 

message: And then there were three. King Vulture has joined Peregrine Falcon and Superb Fairy-wren at FAC here. Please come out and review. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, three at once, though my tiny wittle birdy looks a bit vulnerable to the two big waptors...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, look on the bright side. Your dainty Fairy-wren only has to worry about the Peregrine. My King Vulture just gets to pick over its remains :) Rufous-crowned Sparrow 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[King Vulture]] FAC 

message: A user has created a content fork from the Rock pigeon article by cutting and pasting the "Feral Pigeon" section. Content forks are acceptable in many cases, of course, but I'm uncertain if the same rules pertain to biology articles- it would seem extremely important that all the relevant information of a particular species be detailed on one page. As it is now, we have two separate articles concerning the same species, both with sections concerning feeding, breeding, nesting, etc. I'm fairly certain that this is a slight problem. The user has (since) stated simply that the article was getting "too long", but I'd disagree- the article, including all elements, was only 21k, which seems to be a reasonable size for a common and popularly-known animal.
I'm checking everything here, because the user made the change with zero prior discussion and zero explanation, thus haphazardly creating and editing a new Feral pigeon article. Does anyone have any information which could help me?--C.Logan 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm quite happy with the fork - we've regularly separated wild and domesticated  species (eg chicken from Red Junglefowl, and domesticated and wild turkeys). I'd also hive off the cultural stuff if there was enough. Jimfbleak 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The split seems sensible to me (in fact coincidentally I'd just that minute suggested it myself).  As long as there are suitable summaries and links on the Rock Pigeon page, I don't see that there's any danger of the different branches of the species getting lost.  My own feeling was not so much in the article getting too long, but that the wild Rock Pigeon was getting lost in the much fuller domestic and feral stuff.  I wonder if this discussion is better conducted on the relevant page(s)? --Richard New Forest 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rock pigeon]] 

message: Merge discussion at Talk:Anseriformes might be of interest. Jimfbleak 06:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ducks etc 

message: Splendid Fairy-wren at FAC here...when I worked up its chum, some really nice birdos donated some cool images of this western species an' I was so impressed I worked it up as well. PS: A distribution map is in the works. :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Splendid Fairy-wren]] at FAC 

message: FYI, bird folks: Wikipedia:Most wanted articles indicates that for Wikipedia as a whole a surprising number (to me, at least) of said articles are those for specific species of birds. Anybody interested in creating "most wanted" stubs should be able to stay busy with this for a while. -- 201.19.75.173 12:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are nearly all links that just need redirects to existing articles. I've done most of them Jimfbleak 06:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most wanted articles: Birds 

message: All four of the bird FAC (Peregrine Falcon, Superb Fairy-wren, King Vulture, and Splendid Fairy-wren) just passed FAC and are now featured.
With the passing of the King Vulture article, the New World Vulture featured topic drive now has 2 FAs, 5 Bs, and a start article. Anyways, I off to do the Andean Condor! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done everyone! Nice to see a good-running collab gain momentum. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 4 bird FAs.....in one fell swoop. (sorry, couldn't help myself) ROFL...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've also got Greater Yellow-headed Vulture at GAC... We're just on a roll here. Splendid. (or should I say Superb?) Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROFL - will have a look at the FT later. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Greater Yellow-headed Vulture has already passed its GAC, bring the New World Vulture Featured Topic up to 2 FAs, 1 GA, 4 Bs, and a Start. Thanks to all who have contributed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four New Bird FAs! 

message: This looks like a great idea highlight all articles and may make it really easy to improve/enlarge important stubs or find big articles for FA making, not sure how to go about making one for WP:Birds though. I'm leaving a note with Firsfron who may know more. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another good idea at WP dino - [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size]] aka WP:DABS 

message: Hey. I've noticed that the monthly collaboration for this project hasn't been updated recently. Ostrich, a clear and deserving winner, has not yet replaced Parrot. Is this a bi-monthly thing or has it just been forgotten? I'd change it myself but I'm not sure how.
Oh, and please come by and comment at the Featured Topics page. Jude and myself (with some good help from Casliber and others) have been working on the New World Vulture topic, but we need pictures for the two yellow-headed vultures and the family article could use some help. Thanks. A rushed Rufous-crowned Sparrow 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I think SS has been pretty busy. Will do teh housekeeping. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, got swamped prior to going on holiday, then was on holiday.... Still, I'll be back in full soon, and I have some great bird photos from the South Pacific! Sabine's Sunbird  talk 04:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (big sigh of relief) good to see you back. can't wait to see photos. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Month- Dead or Alive? 

message: Anyone care to identify this little fellow from Kenya?   Pale Flycatcher, African Grey Flycatcher, or not identifiable enough to use?  —JerryFriedman 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: African Grey (which Polbot has called Large Flycatcher, contra HBW or at least the IBC), thanks to JMK and Brian Finch of [www.mathewssafaris.com].  —JerryFriedman 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ID request: ''Bradornis'' 

message: I was about to do a category defaultsort on some bird articles, but i thought I'd better ask here first. would it be OK to do this? it would mean entering (for example)
 
Making the Arctic Skua appear under S rather than A, so that all the skuas are easier to find on the category page. This is of course the way it should be done for biographical articles - but why not for biology articles? Opinions please. Totnesmartin 11:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Go for it. Obviously un-necessary for pages with sci name titles. - MPF 12:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a basic version of it here and it works. Now all the gulls, plovers and gobies are together instead of scattered about the page. Totnesmartin 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, sounds like a good idea to me.  —JerryFriedman 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too Jimfbleak 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good!  It will certainly be easier for people to find what they're looking for... MeegsC | Talk 07:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the  Tree of Life project the idea came up that it would be pointless doing it for taxonomic categories, which is fair enough (why defaultsort :Category:Geese? The'y all just get piled onto G...) but it's a good one for (eg0 habitat and regional categories. In the end, we'll have to hand-sort categories as appropriate, using good old common sense. or should that be "sense, common"? Totnesmartin 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, is there any way to make the species WITHIN a group sort alphabetically?  In other words, it would be good if "Black-headed Gull" sorted before "Lesser Black-backed Gull", which sorted before "Mediterranean Gull".  Right now, in this list, they're all over the place -- making a particular species harder to find than it should be...  MeegsC | Talk 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, you can type it as: gull, lesser blackback instead of just gull which I only did out of laziness, not realising that it would bugger up the list. Sorry about that. Totnesmartin 16:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  category defaultsort 

message: I have left a note at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board#List of New Zealand birds requesting a comment about how I should use Māori names in my project on the list of birds of New Zealand, if you're interested please have a look and comment. Ta. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 05:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul of [[List of New Zealand birds]], input sought 

message: A misinformed user has added a category called "Endemic birds of Alaska" and has put all sorts of inappropriate birds into the category.  (See Hammond's Flycatcher, for example.  Or Rock Ptarmigan.  Or any of a number of other species.)  As far as I know, only one species—McKay's Bunting—potentially falls into this category.  It seems a bit pointless to have a category for a single article— is there any reason for keeping it? MeegsC | Talk 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's get rid of it. Will you put it up at CfD and let us know here? SP-KP 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I'll go through first and remove all the species currently in the category, so we don't get lots of red-links in the species articles; anybody with a bit of time who'd like to help is most welcome to do so! :P MeegsC | Talk 12:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done, and listed for deletion.  Please leave any comments here. MeegsC | Talk 14:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endemic birds of Alaska 

message: Unfortunately, I've found a whole host of other bad "endemic" categories.  There are at least four endemic categories for Canada (which has no endemics): Endemic birds of Western Canada, Endemic birds of southeastern Canada, Endemic birds of southwestern Canada and Endemic birds of Canadian prairies Canada.  I notice they've already been copied elsewhere across the web (as "licensed with GFLD from Wikipedia") which means the misinformation is spreading as we speak.  ARG!  Anybody with some free time to help clear these out, your assistance would be much appreciated.  Clearing out the Alaska one—as well as several bad Mexico cats—took me quite a while yesterday!  MeegsC | Talk 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those four Canadian ones are empty (not all done by me) and I've nominated them for deletion here.  —JerryFriedman 05:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More bad endemic cats 

message: Have nominated Bird collections for Good article. Shyamal 07:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nom 

message: I've been doing some work recently on British Birds Rarities Committee, and it's reached the stage where I feel comfortable nominating it as a Good article. Please feel free to review. SP-KP 19:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA self-nomination 

message: Organisms Wiki was recently started as a wikia to educate on all types of organisms and their biological counterparts. This wiki will aim to provide free, excellence-quality and concise articles dealing with organisms and habitats. Organisms Wiki is a wikia, and is also very small and new, which is why I would like to leave a note here that we appreciate any helpful contributions.
I have had people criticizing the sense of making a wiki on this topic when indeed Wikipedia covers just about anything related to organisms. Sure, this may be true - but a major advantage of having Organisms Wiki hosted at wikia is to cover the topics in broader depth. Thank you. Organisms Wiki
Paul Davey 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisms Wiki - a wikia on Organisms 

message: Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture just passed it GAC. Congrats to Jude, Shyamal, and all who contributed. Also, though I'm sure you all are tired of updates, the New World Vulture Featured Topic now has 2 FAs, 2 GAs, and 1 FAC that should pass. The remaining articles are Andean Condor, a B which I'm working on on paper, American Black Vulture, a Start, and New World Vulture iself, which is a B. Please feel free to contribute as we near the end of the process. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 13:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture]] GA and New World Vulture Update 

message: Jude has put Turkey Vulture up as a featured article candidate. Please come out and review.
Also, the New World Vulture Featured Topic now has 2 FAs, 1 GA, 1 FAC, 1 GAC, 2 Bs, and 1 Start. Please contribute to it as we near the home stretch. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Turkey Vulture has just passed its FAC. Congrats, Jude!
By the way, the New World Vulture Featured Topic now has 3 FAs, 2 GAs, and 3 Bs. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 04:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey Vulture FAC 

message: Well done Jude and Rufous-crowned Sparrow! You're really rocketing through that first WP:BIRD Featured Topic. I feel guilty about not doing more to help yet. :) Nice picture on the Greater Yellow-headed Vulture page too, Shyamal—it adds greatly to the article. MeegsC | Talk 11:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - congrats  - ok, I hate leaving stuff 3/4 finished, so polished up Variegated Fairy-wren for FAC. Less is known about it than with Superb Fairy-wren or Splendid Fairy-wren so it is shorter. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...  Are you working on a fairy-wren Featured Topic on the sly? :)  MeegsC | Talk 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, there are alot of the little critters..and they are a $#&*## to photograph. Thank god for digital photography as I got so many out-of focus blue smudges you wouldn't believe....cute though. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats 

message: Bonxies eating Leach's Storm-petrels—at night... The BBC story is here. MeegsC | Talk 14:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At least it is still a bit of a predator in a day unlike the deer and sheep ! Shyamal 14:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Western Gulls are regular nocturnal predators of Ashy Storm-petrels, though it is usually only a few gulls that fuigure that trick out. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting new report of seabird behaviour 

message: Congrats to MeegsC, who just got the Flight feather article through its FAC. With that, WikiProject Birds has 20 FAs and another FAC (Variegated Fairy-wren). Yay.
Also, is anyone working on bird? Is there an updated list somewhere about what is needed before it goes to FAC? It would be cool if that could be the 25th article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, I'll start again on bird this week. There wasn't much left to do, just a few refs and some expaning of bird flight perhaps. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  20th Bird FA 

message: I've just nominated American Black Vulture for FA (as part of our wonderful New World vulture Featured Topic-in-progress). Cheers, heyjude. 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Northern Cardinal at GA now Jimfbleak 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just passed. Cheers, heyjude. 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet another FAC 

message: I've been working on List of birds of Thailand, fixing headings in accordance with MoS capitalisation, fixing links, adding images, and adding comments for rarity and migratory status. IMHO opinion, it compares favourably with the featured lists for North America and Nicaragua. However, since me and Avibase have done virtually all the work, I'm reluctant to upgrade its status (currently start) myself. I'd welcome any input or comments. Thanks, Jimfbleak 16:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading 

message: Could someone please create an article on grit (birds) regarding the pebbles they eat to aid in digestion. I was copyediting the Bird feeding article and was stumped on the "grit" term used in the article. --12 Noon 19:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested article 

message: #update - I've now also dered-linked and roughly cleansed Vietnam, Cambodia, South Africa, Namibia and Lesotho - is there any point keeping a list of done countries or templating them or hidden tagging?
#For the old world lists at least, "Darter" goes to the genus article, and in Africa the binomial is given as Anhinga melanogaster, which is Oriental Darter, rather than A. rufa Jimfbleak 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: might be worth making a sortable list - see list of parrots for quite straightforward format. Jimfbleak 12:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Jim, from what I can see, that list only sorts the first column alphabetically either first to last, or last to first. Clicking on the other column headers still only sorts the first column. Or am I doing something wrong? MeegsC | Talk 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problems - at least two styles for headers  - see list of birds of Cambodia, list of birds of Norway. List of New Zealand birds includes extinct. On talk pages, some have start class, some have list class. Any views? Jimfbleak 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the List of birds of Cambodia style is preferable—otherwise you have a huge long TOC before you ever reach the birds. And I think having section headers and TOCs with scientific names is a bad idea, as it makes it much less "accessible" to the average reader. One issue I've found in some of the lists I've looked at: if someone has changed a section header (e.g. Lories, Parrots, Parakeets and Lovebirds --> Parrots) without changing the TOC too, the link between the TOC and the section is broken and the TOC no longer works. Also I'll raise again the issue that some lists have titles like "List of birds of Foo" while others have "List of Fooian birds" (and even one "List of birds in Foo", which was page-moved by a non WP:BIRD editor).  Should we make the page names consistent, or isn't that important? MeegsC | Talk 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with Cambodia style. Sorry about the TOCs, didn't think of that. List of birds of Foo is more logical, I'm happy with that too. Jimfbleak 18:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There were loads of errors, false inclusions and false exclusions in the Indian bird lists. There are still some splits and lumps that need to be examined. The original avibase data is obviously un-reliable for non-US domains. Shyamal 23:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: i'm still wroking through Thailand, but there are a few unsourcable additions or wrong statuses there too. Jimfbleak 06:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country lists 2 

message: I've nominated List of birds of Thailand as a featured list. Please edit as appropriate or comment here Jimfbleak 16:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FL candidate 

message: Yippee, I got Betacommand to get a bot to do this to give the instant ability to get all bird articles there - easy to see stubs to enlarge for DYK...big articles for FAC etc. Forgot about the lists though -shall I ask to get them excluded? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huzzah! (You should also explain the BABS acronym, Cas.) I say the lists should be left in; that way, you know which ones still need further development. But that's just my opinion. There sure are a lot of bird articles... Firsfron of Ronchester 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Bird Articles By Size - although this side of the pond it means something else as well, unfortunately. Totnesmartin 10:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O-kay - made it obvious above, now I asked him for WP:FABS...(esoteric/erudite an' straightforward) ...an' WP:MABS (hmmmmm, maybe a little involved...) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: depressing that the biggest article other than the country lists is that for extinct birds! Jimfbleak 11:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still a list though (I've renamed it). Likewise Fossil birds. I think the biggest non-list is Procellaridae, just beating chicken. SP-KP 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It was done by selecting any article which is in category:birds and all subarticles, as betacommand went down levels of subcats I suggested ones which could be removed. Still odd that on the Article Assessment page there are ~12000 WP bird articles and only 7000 on this list....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a bad idea at all....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Weird - it is in :Category:Birds so I have no idea...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:DABS had the same problem at the begiining. Not all the articles were being caught on the bot's first pass. It may work itself out. If it doesn't you can contact the bot's creator for reasons why it isn't catching all the articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps it was because it was based on what-links-to bird. Shyamal 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. WP:DABS is compiled from a list consisting of all articles in :Category:Dinosaurs, and all sub-categories within it, but excluding :Category:Fictional dinosaurs (because we didn't want that rubbish mixed in with the taxa articles). If the bot compiled every article that linked to Bird, you'd have tons of non-bird articles in there, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BABS]]!!! - aka [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size]] 

message: passed GA, no real prospect of getting to FA realistically, Jimfbleak 05:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Aerodramus]] 

message: The map in the condor article incorrectly shows condors living in San Diego County. Unfortunately the only ones here are in the San Diego Wild Animal Park. One of the Mexican releases flew across the border into Anza-Borrego, but she flew back into Mexico a short while later (Mexican immigration didn't seem to care, they never do).
Also the current condor population is 305, with 147 in the wild (See here). The information in the article is 2 years old. Condors are now found in the collections of the Oregon Zoo (link) and more recently, the Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City (link).
I can fix the population info myself, but somebody else needs to update the map. Thanks! Sheep81 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, and the chick that hatched in Mexico disappeared, probably deceased. (link). Sheep81 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - but I made the Condor range map and I'm not going to be changing it - although if someone else wants to create a new one it certainly wouldn't bother me. See, the problem is that range maps are an approximation. I look at several different sources, all of which have (often significant) differences, and I combine that information to make the range maps I post here. Anyone and everyone can find discrepancies, problems, or things they simply don't agree with in the maps, and I quickly learned that trying to change them to suit everyone's perceptions ends up being a never-ending process. 'Card 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, unfortunately in this case it's not just a discrepancy, problem, or something I simply don't agree with, it's just flat-out wrong information presented as fact in one of the flagship featured articles of this WikiProject. This may not be true of other birds, but Condor range maps aren't an approximation. There's only 147 of them, most radio tagged, so FWS knows where pretty much every single condor goes. Hopefully someone else with map skills can fix it or I'll have to figure it out myself. Also, I just noticed the big "U" in California is too far north, it should be moved down so that the northwest tip is next to Monterey Bay (it's currently next to San Francisco Bay), and the bottom should be in Ventura County, whereas it's now somewhere north of Bakersfield. Thanks! Sheep81 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do it tomorrow, if no one else has by then. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[California Condor]] map inaccuracy and outdated info 

message: I'm trying to get Barn Swallow up to a decent standard for GA nomination. Since everyone knows this bird, comments/additions/amendments would be helpful. A range map would be good, but I lack the skills to do it. I don't want the culture bit to get out of control, but is there anything significant that is really needed? Jimfbleak (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good source of interesting and relevant cultural information on bird species is Birds Britannica . I'd suggest that important aspects of their impact on culture would be Biblical references, references in classical writings and in poetry and literature (did Shakespeare mention them?).Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually used Birds Britannica for the superstitions - Bible and Shakespeare good idea though, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks also to Jerry - I've nominated it for GA now, so wait and see! Jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swallow 

message: User:Hmains has tagged dozens of country bird lists as orphans - any views? Jimfbleak (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't spectacularly helpful, particularly as a few of them aren't. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's sorted now, he's detagging Jimfbleak (talk) 06:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  All orphans now 

message: Delhey, Kaspar,Anne Peters,and Bart Kempenaers 2007 Cosmetic Coloration in Birds: Occurrence, Function, and Evolution. Am. Nat. 169:145–158.  may make for some content that could go into Bird and Feather. Shyamal (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting paper on cosmetic colouration 

message: Wonder if someone can take a look at the birds mentioned in this article. Is there any hope of finding a WP:RS for this?! Shyamal (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're asking—for someone to identify the birds heard in the song?  I don't think we need a source for that, though one would be nice.  We routinely identify photographs and occasionally recordings from our own knowledge.  (Modesty forbids me to speak of the misidentifications.)  Is that a tape loop on the song, by the way, or is the songbird really that repetitive?  —JerryFriedman (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am assuming the "loop" is a skylark song and the other "goose" of the article is a coot, but like you I am unable to "correct" the article with any confidence! Shyamal (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grantchester Meadows (song)]] 

message: Hi everyone,
I recently borrowed a coffee table book on Indian wildlife from my library, loaded to the gills with paintings by John Gould and many old sketches by naturalists, travellers and hunters of the 18th and 19th centuries. These are all public domain images as they are more than 75 years old - more than a hundred images with about 50 or so of the lithographs by Gould and others! Im busy scanning them whenever I get the chance at a whopping 600 dpi. Except for a couple of plates torn out by a vandal, I intend to upload each and every image meeting the criteria of public domain. Once done, these will be written on a DVD and sent to User:Shyamal for polishing and uploading. Finally Blue Pitta and Mangrove Pitta, amongst many others, will have images! Here is a teaser! The Heart-spotted woodpecker!
And this part of India's heritage will forever be free! AshLin (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice one. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice source. The Heart-spotted Woodpecker Hemicircus canente has all the white parts looking yellow... Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the photos on orientalbirdimages.org they often look rather yellow 212.10.75.107 (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A treasure trove 

message: I've listed this for peer review with a view to FAC next. Since GA, MPF has added a map, and there are some more tweaks. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Barn Swallow]] (2) 

message: Can someone look at Mialoa? Shyamal (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax, and have said as much. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not so sure. If this is a hoax, then ALL the contributions of this user must be examined as well Special:Contributions/Barati11. Shyamal (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a lot more Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Drepandrikidae and Sczoloa - and there are images added by this user of Hawaiian finches that need to be checked as well. Shyamal (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Is there a Giant ʻAmakihi (Hemignathus vorpalis) ? This makes no clear mention  Shyamal (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - this one does seem to exist google:Hemignathus+vorpalis ! Now this makes it tougher to tell if the editor is a hoaxter... Shyamal (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shyamal is entirely right on the photos/illustrations uploaded by Barati11. Check for example the Lesser Koa Finch and the Greater Koa Finch - both are clearly identical to the illustrations on plate 37 in Pratt, Bruner and Berrett's A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. The only reason I haven't marked them for deletion is that I haven't had the time to look into the procedure. The remaining photos/illustration of finches/honeycreepers uploaded by the previously mentioned user look rather suspect too. Rabo3 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  - And a bit of searching also turns up the photos of the ʻAkiapolaʻau and the Common ʻAmakihi uploaded by Barati11 - both are actually copyrighted to the relatively famous Hawaiian bird photographer Jack Jeffrey  Rabo3 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This really is messy. I just took a look at a random page Barati11 been playing around with. It appears you can't even trust photos/illustrations added to articles by Barati11, even if the photo(s) weren't taken Barati11. On the page for the Oʻahu ʻAmakihi, Barati11 first added an illustration of a warbler taken from commons (clearly identified as a warbler and in any case pretty distinctive) calling it a "male Oʻahu ʻAmakihi", only to later change it to an equally different warbler, and then finally to a photo of an unidentified bird from Spain. I've now removed the photo, but checking earlier edits to that specific article is a bit of an experiance. I'll add a second *sigh*. Rabo3 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: messy it is. I just moved Pila's Palila to Kaua'i Palila ; he created an article for a recently discovered but hard to verify extinct species. The article was filled with half truths and mistakes, but also some factual (if speculative stuff). Unlike the Mialoa it actually seems to be real. This is going to take a while to sort out.  I'm at a loss as to what has been going on here, and why. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: may be simplest to revert everything edited by this user to the latest previous version.Maias (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are entirely right. However, it appears that (s)he added at least some genuine information to some articles. In other cases it appears most of the edits simply involved moving things around a bit and little - if anything - would be lost by reverting these. So, while some articles may be the simple case of reverting all the edits, I think it would be sensible to check them first - just in case something of value was added. In any case I've requested that 7 photos uploaded by this user are deleted (reasons given here). As far as I can see, this only leave a photo of a dog, which looks pretty "self-made" to me. Rabo3 (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies for yet another comment, but it is worth noting that user "120740a" appears to have taken over where Barati11 left. Here are the contributions, with the single uploaded photo already requested for deletion (wiki link in my last comment). Rabo3 (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Need a look at Special:Contributions/Istavan .... Shyamal (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check needed for Kaua'i Palila and Xestospiza. Shyamal (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: His edits do cause some problems. Lots of good material, but also: I) A lot of highly speculative material. For example, I've been deleting a number of descriptions of behavior, e.g. nesting behavior, and morphology, e.g. colours of plumage, that he added to species which essentially only are known from a few bones! II) He seems to insist on changing taxobox colours. III) Never any references. Especially problematic when combined with issue I. He's just so busy that it's hard to keep up! Rabo3 (talk) 09:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I might add that, for the vast majority of species described by Olson & James (as is the case with many of the long-extinct species added by Istavan and his earlier alias), people can safely delete all info which in detail describe plumage patterns/colours, behavior (other than the very basic info one can get from looking at the bill-shape), and exact reasons for extinction (although, considering the history of Hawaiian extinction, a few likely culprits can be mentioned, as long as it is obvious they only are the likely and/or possible reasons). When it comes to these things there's just no way of knowing when a few random bones constitute all the available material. Rabo3 (talk) 10:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD