This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would you check Missing topics about Avians? - Skysmith ( talk) 09:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, I'm a mere amateur/hack at editing Wikipedia, but I am very much interested in information and in following related paths to and from that information. I noticed two different families listed for the Australian magpie and would like help resolving the issue, thus referencing the correct family. In this entry /info/en/?search=Australian_Magpie, the family is Cracticidae. Yet in the "Magpies--Other" at this entry /info/en/?search=Magpie lists the family for the Australian Magpie is Artamidae. Anyone have a definitive answer to which family the Australian magpie belongs? Thanks. Fiona Marissa 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionaussie ( talk • contribs)
Traite de fauconnerie (1844) is now available thanks to the Biodiversity Heritage Library. These incidentally are the earliest plates by Joseph Wolf. If there are any identifiable falcon illustrations (needs a knowledge of French) here please let me know and I will extract them. Need help with a couple of unidentified falcons at commons:Category:Traité_de_fauconnerie. Shyamal ( talk) 03:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to draw your attention to this, folks...
Over the past few days, Cherane ( talk · contribs) and Laurella Desborough ( talk · contribs) have made some major and apparently good-faith attempts to expand and improve the Aviculture article. However, in the process, the article formatting got terribly buggered-up and the whole lot has been reverted by Frze today.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Aviculture&oldid=572046295 for the last version before it was revered.
I'd looked it over myself quickly last night, but I thought that I'd give them time to fix their formatting errors instead of rolling it back.
Is there anything there that we could add back to the article, do you think? -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The description of this bird's habitat as described closely follows that of the common snipe. However, in Ecuador at least, this bird can be found feeding and nesting on fairly steep slopes far from any mud. Often its presence can be detected where cattle graze by cow pies that are scratched and scattered, apparently as the snipe seeks fly larvae.
In flight the Andean snipe could learn a lot from its smaller cousin the common snipe. In the Ecuadorian Andes once flushed this snipe will fly down hill in a straight path, not deviating an inch, as opposed to the twisting, rapid flight of the common snipe. Peter Arnold arnoldp@sbbmail.com
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). As to reference these comments are drawn from personal observations in the field.
I hope this is of interest to at least some people here: Wikimedia UK and Jisc are running an editathon at the Royal Veterinary College on November 20th. We will focus on common diseases that vets see in everyday practice, but contributions with any relevance to veterinary science are welcome. This is a free event, and in-person and online participation is encouraged. See the event page for more details. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 15:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (link changed MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
Mind having a look at this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The " Bird" Wiki article has the Z and W sex chromosomes included, but nothing about autosomal chromosomes. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just begun a stub for the above as it is in your to-do list, but I'm unsure how notable I can make it. Can an expert on the subject evidence her notability? As it stands, it will probably be deleted.... -- S.G.(GH) ping! 18:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just expanded a stub article on the Mottled Owl. It is classified in Wikipedia as Ciccaba virgata but the accepted view now seems to be that it should be Strix virgata. I hesitate to make the necessary changes to update the scientific name without agreement from others, as it necessitates changes to several other pages - Ciccaba, Strix, True owl and possibly others. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the Caracara lutosa article is illustrated with the Caracara plancus image? -- Melly42 ( talk) 15:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
A small design company in South Africa has complained that Woolworths copied her design. At the same time, she has provided proof that Woolworths is using a verbatim wiki entry on the cover of cushions in their Homeware section.
http://toucheefeelee.net/2013/10/18/how-woolworths-really-operates/
105.237.28.111 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been noticing that many of the birds missing pictures on wikipedia have pictures on the IBC. Unfortunately although many of the IBC are released on a CC license, it is usually not a sufficiently free license for use on Wikipedia. I'm guessing there's probably a decent overlap between people on the IBC and people on Wikiproject: Birds, so I'm wondering if anyone over there actively participates in the forums or something if we might make a concerted effort to see if people at IBC (who tend to take excellent bird photos) or xeno-canto for recordings would want to donate media to Wikipedia. I imagine a forum thread or something would garner at least some interest and help us make progress on getting photos and recordings for bird species that don't have them.
Is anyone here an active participant over at IBC who might have a bit more clout than me in starting a request thread over there? Is this a horribly misguided thing to do for some reason? 0x0077BE ( talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I found duplicate categories, so I populated Category:Catharus since it was more true to form. Category:Catharus thrushes is now a page with no content and can be speedy deleted...... Pvmoutside ( talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
HBW are offering on-line access to all their content plus videos and sound recordings for an annual €29.95. There's a €20 registration, but if you haven't got a code to waive this, they help you find one. Seems like a snip to me — I've signed up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Today 15th November 2013 i found a great snipe sitting on the pavement it seemed to be suffering from exhaustion as it was motionless and did not attempt to fly away when approached, as this was in a town center for the birds safety i took it to a local vets who identified it as a great snipe this was in Eastbourne East sussex England cant say i have seen one before. 80.47.15.191 ( talk) 23:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Ian Burgess
The Cockatiel article currently states that the maximum recorded age for a Cockatiel is 36 years - sourced from "Brouwer, K.; Jones, M.L., King, C.E. and Schifter, H. (2000). "Longevity records for Psittaciformes in captivity". International Zoo Yearbook 37 (1): 299–316.". Does anyone have access to that (paywalled) article to confirm? The AnAge entry for the species states a figure of 35 years, sourced from the same article. Just wanted to clear up that small discrepancy... -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 22:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I am processing some old illustrations from Francois Levaillant's works and these are typically in French without binomials. Would be great if folks can add the identifications and categories to all the images in commons:Category:Histoire_naturelle_des_perroquets. Shyamal ( talk) 10:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Another set of images at commons:Category:Histoire_naturelle_des_oiseaux_de_paradis_et_des_rolliers,_suivie_de_celles_des_toucans_et_des_barbus by Barraband for Levaillant which need species identification and categorization. Shyamal ( talk) 08:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Common Raven has been chosen as a Today's Featured Article for 10 December. We recently had a student project working on it which added masses of physiology. Although Good Faith, this created problems
I have taken these actions
I picked up a couple of other things in passing, but it's some time since this passed FA and it could do with more eyes looking in the next few days. Please copy edit if you can.
Please review my action on the physiology. Do we need to keep even the bit I've left? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Two recent papers, fulltexts online are here and here make for fascinating reading - and some taxonomic changes are required. Essentially the genus Psephotus is now polyphyletic, with the Red-rumped Parrot (which happens to be the type species) divergent from the other psephotus species. The 2012 paper recommends some genus changes so we don't get left with a bunch of monotypic small genera, but haven't seen anything published yet - simplest is what jboyd has on his website which is other Psephotus species all converted to Psephotellus. Also Barnardius barnardi has four taxa which have all been lumped as one species for decades might end up being split again. Anyway IOC has yet to recognise any of this. Anyway, interesting times - anyone think we should do anything at this point? Trying to find if Psephotellus has been validly published.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
NB: I just emailed Leo Joseph who authored one of the papers and has been really friendly in the past...and is also on the IOC committee. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Egg renaming discussion here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Have the IUCN made any changes since about 2012? It seems that the IUCN website is called "2013.1" now, but I can not find if they have changed any data for birds. I found a bug in my script (for script assisted semi-automated editing) which had the effect of not finding the IUCN conservation status for the first 1000 bird species and hence not writing to the corresponding Wiki species pages. No errors were made on Wiki pages, but it did not do hundreds of updates which it could have done. I fixed the bug yesterday and I have started running the script for the remaining 1000 species. Actually, it is not as many as 1000, because I accidentally introduced the bug when I amended an earlier version of my script to speed it up, by making data look-up easier in batches of 1000 from the IUCN website of 10064 recognised bird species. I think that I could write in "2013.1" in the IUCN template. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Some recent events have led to some rather poor expansion to Amur Falcon - Last years they were trapped in the thousands and eaten in some part of India and this year they have seen a lot of activism and excitement due to real-time satellite tracking. Unfortunately I do not have enough sources for this species. Shyamal ( talk) 06:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like more and more people are accepting the Orphean Warbler split. Orphean Warbler becomes Western Orphean Warbler and Eastern Orphean Warbler changes from subspecies to species. Orphean Warbler page is locked, so if someone can do the honors...Thanks..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Strix omanensis should be moved to Omani Owl (common name) -- Melly42 ( talk) 22:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hi, WikiProject Birds,
I was looking at some Wikipedia maintenance categories and came across
Category:Type locality needed. I wasn't sure exactly what this referred to so I checked it out and all of the articles involve birds.
Maybe some WikiProject member who knows something about classifying birds can check it out and supply the missing information that would remove these pages from the Clean-up categories. Thanks!
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Evidently the IOC has moved some Ibons back to White-eyes:
..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 13:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Is gathering some avian physiology bits that again are not suitable for the species entry although the studies are possibly based on that species as a model. Does anyone know if this is part of an "education program"? Shyamal ( talk) 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The IOC accept the Réunion Pink Pigeon only as subspecies of the Mauritius Pink Pigeon http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-sandgrouse.html. So what do you think? -- Melly42 ( talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Re Khướu đuôi vằn Vân Nam. I presume that this is a foreign language name that should not be on the en Wiki and that it should be deleted. It is a redirect to Spectacled Barwing. Snowman ( talk) 15:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The link to the source for the eagle image on the bird portal template is dead, so its copyright status cannot be verified. Since this template may be on thousands of article, it needs a new image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been completing the IUCN template with the actual title (binomial name) of the IUCN page. Sometimes the IUCN and the Wiki use different synonyms of the binomial name, so the binomial in the infobox of the Wiki species page and the binomial in the template are sometimes different. The recently completed Major Mitchell's Cockatoo IUCN template is an example of this, however, confusion is reduced on this page, because the synonym is in the infobox also. I estimate that this will occur on about 1 in 50-100 wiki articles. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 14:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Birdsaregood has been adding a second WP banner to bird pages. See this edit. After a quick inspection, I think that this has happened multiple times. I have informed the user on his or her talk page and left an invitation to participate in the discussion here. Snowman ( talk) 17:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please move Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike to Black-faced Cuckooshrike per the IOC standard? Maias ( talk) 05:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
These categories are being added to the bird pages. This results in a category like this one; Category:Animals described in 1859. Would these be better as a list, such as in page called "List of birds described in 1859"? Snowman ( talk) 21:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
According to this BBC News article the Lilacine Amazon (or Ecuador Amazon as the article calls it) is expected to be given full species status in the Spring 2014 update of the IUCN Redlist. Any thoughts on whether the article should be updated now, based on the above - or is it best to wait for the official announcement? -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 23:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The following need the target page deleted so that the files can be moved: Snowman ( talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Re Ceyx lepidus margarethae. This is the title of a Wiki page about a bird. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 15:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There are 468 English IOC names that are redirects on the Wiki. Some of these are due to the accents and USA/UK spelling differences and so on. I might attempt to remove redirects due to these sort of differences to reduce the length of the list and present the relevant ones here. The accents make it a more difficult to compare the IOC and Wiki Englsih names and I have not found a semi-automatic way of separating them yet. By looking at the list and following about 60 of the links, I would think that about 60-70% of these redirects are not due to accents and simple spelling differences. A lot of the redirects seem to be due to the IOC having split species that the Wiki lumps together. For example, IOC have two ostriches while the Wiki and the IUCN have one. Actually, this list is much shorter than I expected, which is of course due to the drive towards IOC names and improved nomenclature. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have now got a shortened list of IOC English common bird names that are redirects on the Wiki. Accents and USA/UK language differences caused a lot of these redirects, and I have filtered these off the list. There is a list of about 200 lines remaining and also about an additional 50 lines for Hawaiian birds names. I do not want to bulk this talk page unnecessary, but I am willing to show the list here, if anyone would be interested in analysing it. I think that most of the remaining redirects are due to taxonomy differences between the Wiki and IOC, new classification, or controversial classifications, and I would think that almost all of the affected redirects are probably best kept unchanged at present until research leads to clarification. Snowman ( talk) 14:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: Page watchers may have noticed my amendments to the IUCN citation template made in November and December 2013 and early January 2014 done with semi-automatic script-assisted AWB edits. I kept my edits on the safe side and only updated IUCN templates when bird names matched satisfactorily. The new version of my script edited some species pages that it had not edited previously, but it also rejected some pages that it had edited last year, because my script did bird name matching slightly differently. The new script included some shaky quick-fix work-arounds for accents in Hawaiian bird names without doing it with a binary input; however, the edits seem to have worked. In-the-round, I think the run went well. I made a few mistakes, but I think that I have fixed all the edits that went wrong and found out why my enhanced script behaved unexpectedly. Nevertheless, if anyone sees any problems with any of the edits, please let me know, because I would like to analyse any mistakes. AWB and my script are not set up as a bot; every edit has been visualised and checked by me before it is saved. Snowman ( talk) 14:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know much about the split of the Andean Tyrant. However, the IOC and IUCN have not listed the split at this juncture. Is the evidence convincing or is the idea still at a proposal stage? Snowman ( talk) 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that a whole lot of articles are getting tagged as 'Birds of Ukraine'. I see other articles have long had '... of Europe', '... of America'; is there any policy on 'Birds of <country>'? It could easily snowball into a hundred tags per article, which seems absurd. See e.g. Red Crossbill. What is the right thing to do here? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 23:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the next step is a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion page; I am currently travelling for the holidays and can't set one up today, but if anyone is so inclined, I think it would be appropriate. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 12:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 22#Category:Birds_of_Ukraine_and_others closed as no consensus. See my closing statement there. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
A list of 69 IOC species English names that are redlinks on the Wiki. Extinct and extant species as indicated on IOC website. These are listed with the IOC binomial, which is sometimes also a redlink on the Wiki. The IOC use a different taxonomy to the wiki, so some of the relevant Wiki species pages may need a lot of thought before making any amendments to the Wiki. Nevertheless, moving some of the Wiki pages may be uncontroversial. Any Comments? Snowman ( talk) 14:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It's now considered as subspecies of the Great Rosefinch http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/species-updates/
see also Tietze, D.T., M. Päckert, J. MArtens, H. Lehmann, and Y.-H. Sun (2013), Complete phylogeny and historical biogeography of true rosefinches (Aves: Carpodacus), Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 169, 215-234.
-- Melly42 ( talk) 16:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Guadalcanal Thicketbird appears to have been changed to the Melanesian Thicketbird by the IOC. The previous disambig content for Melanesian Thicketbird has been cleared and moved to the appropriate listings. If someone can do the honors and delete the Melanesian Thicketbird file and move the Guadalcanal Thicketbird page to it, that will be good....... Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I need help. I live in Port Elizabeth, South Africa and I think I found a little Spiderhunter. But it's injured or something. Need guidance please 105.248.189.0 ( talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Re Melamprosops phaeosoma. The Wiki has the name of this bird as Poʻouli as the title and Black-faced Honeycreeper as an alternative, the IOC has Poo-uli, and the IUCN have Poo-uli, Po'o-uli, and Black-faced Honeycreeper. Which would be the appropriate title for the wiki? Snowman ( talk) 11:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the Tristan Moorhen and Gough Moorhen are subspecies of the same species, and this is detailed on both articles. However, the Wiki articles are set up as species pages. One of the subspecies is extinct. As it is set up at the moment, the IUCN template external link on the extinct subspecies Wiki article goes to the IUCN species webpage where is is classified as a vulnerable species, so I have made a quick fix to this wiki page. Would it be right to merge these two articles into one species page? Snowman ( talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
On the basis of DNA sequencing of both recently collected and historical material, we conclude that G. nesiotis and G. comeri are different taxa, that G. nesiotis indeed became extinct, and that G. comeri now inhabits both islands. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001835 and IOC treatment -- Melly42 ( talk) 12:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
Most of our FAs are little visited, but some, like Peregrine Falcon and Pelican receive regular edits from casual and often ill-informed visitors. Is it worth adding an edit notice, such as this to such FAs?. The point of an edit notice is that it displays when the page is in edit mode, and might discourage unsourced or unreliable additions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I came across this site today: [8]
It looks like contributors are adding all sorts of bird songs to the site's species pages. Other web sites (Neotropical birds, Avibase, Encylcopedia of Life)are adding links to their respective species pages. It looks like most of the pages are Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Is this something we may want to add to Wikipedia's species pages?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
My list of red links prompted a few changes, so I am following this up with a longer list of redirects that are IOC names and their targets for consideration. What is good about the list is that it is surprisingly short and no doubt it reflects a lot of work done in the synchronisation of bird names on the Wiki with the IOC bird names. The redirects are on the left of the arrow and the target Wiki article is on the right of the article. Sometimes there are more than one redirect on the left side of the article presumably reflecting a species that is split by IOC but not commonly by other authorities. I would think that most of the pages listed do not require moving. I would think that it requires a great deal of knowledge on birds names and advances in taxonomy to do updates on the vast majority of birds listed here. Note that the list may not reflect some recent page moves or new Wiki articles, which may be controversial. Snowman ( talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The list was generated in phases with more than one script, which seemed to me to be the simplest way of doing the task. It needed an organised approach, but it was not very difficult. My scripts "looked at" all the IOC common bird names (over 10,500) in order to generate the list below and found out if each IOC bird name is a redirect, does not have a Wiki article, or is the actual article name on the Wiki, and after that a "sorting" script combined the redirects that targeted the same Wiki article. I manually shortened the list by making some uncontroversial page moves (after a lot of double checking and cross referencing) and I also manually removed redirects caused by common accents, which are used according to a consensus formed here some time ago; hence, redirects due to accents in birds named after place names or people are not included in the list. Also, I manually removed redirects due to regional English spelling differences. Several weeks ago, I copied the list of IOC names that did not have articles on the Wiki (a list of red-links) to this talk page and it has recently been archived. Snowman ( talk) 18:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have kept the Hawaiian birds in the list, which are difficult for my scripts to deal with without doing at binary input. The red links for the Hawaiian birds are listed by my script, which did not use a binary input and could not handle unusual characters. I also hope to prompt consideration on the use of Hawaiian accents for titles of articles on the Wiki, because the accents do not appear on most keyboards. Snowman ( talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Archer's Lark and Sidamo Lark have been lumped by the IOC though it is still uncertain whether the Sidamo Lark is a subspecies or just a population of the Archer's Lark. The name Archer's Lark has priority as it was described earlier. http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/update-diary/ -- Melly42 ( talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone move Pale Sand Martin to the IOC preferred Pale Martin.........Thank-you! Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone speedy delete the Category:Pseudochelidoninae......I created Category:Pseudochelidon and moved the articles there as it appears genus is the more consistent and preferable category over subfamily........ Pvmoutside ( talk) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
For those wishing to comment, following a very recently made page move in line with the project's naming policy, an attempt is being made to reverse it at Talk:Black-faced Cuckooshrike. Maias ( talk) 13:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Others:
Could it be that there is special name hopping at the IOC? I mean it is not the first time that crakes became rails or vice versa -- Melly42 ( talk) 11:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Snowman ( talk) 20:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The AfD for List of birds by flight heights may be of interest to this project. -- 101.119.15.210 ( talk) 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A heads up: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cuban_flightless_crane&diff=597819540&oldid=592416627 I reverted, but I sense the same old debate coming up. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
See here. Just for your information. -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 15:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Checking the status of the pages mentioned in the discussion above, some had not had their talk pages moved when the article was moved - Talk:Thick-billed Murre still redirected to Talk:Brünnich's Guillemot, for instance. I have fixed these and urge others to please check these IOC-compliance moves to be sure that the talk page is at the correct location. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Pymoutside is threatening to leave Wikipedia following the discussion here, in which dogma overrules project policy and common sense. I hope Pymoutside reconsiders, and I wonder if anyone wishes to comment further on that talk page? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
...Likewise:
That is.....if we are using the stability argument as the sole criteria........... Pvmoutside ( talk) 04:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you any good with chickens, or do you know anyone into chicken breeds? The Polish chicken is a most weird article. Mostly opinions, I think. Hafspajen ( talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crowned Crane which would alter the title of several articles. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thanks. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that
Rare breed (agriculture), which is within your project's scope, is
This week's article for improvement (until Sunday the 16th inclusively). A few Wikipedians are collaborating on the article, but we could use more detailed content on rare breeds of poultry! Anyone who sees this message is welcome to join our efforts. No need to be an expert. Any edit that helps improve the article is welcome!
Thank you,
Madalibi (
talk) 05:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC), on behalf of the TAFI team
Just noticed this interesting "old" source which has some things that are not present in more recent works like Jobling's. Shyamal ( talk) 05:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) (WP:NCCAPS) has a new RFC proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Removed false promotion of a wikiproject essay as a "guideline" related to bird name capitalization. The wording is convoluted, but I think approval would mean that NCCAPS would no longer mention WikiProject Birds naming conventions. It's less clear if species articles would be renamed/edited to lower case. So far consensus favors lower case bird names by 3 to 1. Agyle ( talk) 03:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Are there any distinct formal breeds of birds – named, selectively bred varieties, covered by conformance standards for shows, managed in studbooks, trademarked/patented for agricultural proposes, or otherwise reliably identifiable as breeds? I do not mean wild populations, landraces or subspecies. I was surprised not to find anything like at at Parrot given how popular the birds are and how many breeders there are. I'm not sure I've encountered formal breed of cockatiels, budgies, etc., either. In case it's not clear what I'm talking about I mean the difference between Labrador Retriever (formal breed), St. John's water dog (landrace/population from which that breed and others was formalized), dog (species). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
See the subcategories of Category:Domesticated birds. Plantdrew ( talk) 00:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This has probably been asked many times, but WP:BIRDS doesn't cover it and I don't want to dig through the archives. Is there a general consensus within the bird project for how to capitalize alternative common names, as opposed to the single official IOC common name for a species? And within alternative common names, should a distinction be made between those the IOC mentions as unofficial, and those that it doesn't? Agyle ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that that present advice at MOS seems to be to capitalize all common names (i.e., including "Cougar" or whatever) in any article that capitalizes the common name of its subject, but this probably needs to be revisited for clarification at WT:MOS, as it raises a number of problems. E.g., it's ungrammatical and original research to capitalize many foreign words, which many vernacular names are, in languages with less lax proper noun rules as English, just as one example. I also suspect that the consistency-within-the-article idea was backed by people who detest the capitalization even more than I do, specifically because it would lead to people capitalizing animals like "Cougar" in bird articles, which would irritate random readers even more and generate an increase in anti- WP:BIRDS#Naming controversy. In the interim, we always want redirects to exist from common names, both lower and upper case, to whatever the real article name is.
I don't think anyone could fault you for lower- or upper-casing non-IOC common names in and only in ornithology articles, at this particular point in time. It's "correct" to do it for the within-an-article consistency reason and it's "correct" to not do it because we don't capitalize common names of species other than one project has a local consensus to do so for IOC names in articles within their scope.
I would lean toward not capitalizing them, because the advocates of the consistency language obviously did not think through the secondary effects of imposing that consistency restriction (or did and WP:POINTedly don't care). Even if I supported capitalization, I would probably stick to advocating only capitalizing the IOC names, because demanding caps all over the place looks unreasonable and badly undermines the [already not entirely solid] argument that there's something special about the IOC list, that we should treat it as somehow reliable as to style itself not just the reliability of the names, style aside, that it lists. I don't really buy that "IOC is special" argument, but I would like to see it rise or fall on its own merits, not because some people confuse the difference between a formally IOC-advanced name and one that isn't, or between such a formal name and capitalization-for-emphasis in a field guide. I care about that on-it-own-merits issue more than some of you would give me credit for, because it has implications for a lot of other stuff, not just bird capitalization (and because I'm a logician, not a politician, and I believe that process is important here, though far short of bureaucracy). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Remove "Use a consistent style for common names within an article". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Any French ornithologists in the house? (version of
02:49, 9 April 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Would you check Missing topics about Avians? - Skysmith ( talk) 09:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, I'm a mere amateur/hack at editing Wikipedia, but I am very much interested in information and in following related paths to and from that information. I noticed two different families listed for the Australian magpie and would like help resolving the issue, thus referencing the correct family. In this entry /info/en/?search=Australian_Magpie, the family is Cracticidae. Yet in the "Magpies--Other" at this entry /info/en/?search=Magpie lists the family for the Australian Magpie is Artamidae. Anyone have a definitive answer to which family the Australian magpie belongs? Thanks. Fiona Marissa 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionaussie ( talk • contribs)
Traite de fauconnerie (1844) is now available thanks to the Biodiversity Heritage Library. These incidentally are the earliest plates by Joseph Wolf. If there are any identifiable falcon illustrations (needs a knowledge of French) here please let me know and I will extract them. Need help with a couple of unidentified falcons at commons:Category:Traité_de_fauconnerie. Shyamal ( talk) 03:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to draw your attention to this, folks...
Over the past few days, Cherane ( talk · contribs) and Laurella Desborough ( talk · contribs) have made some major and apparently good-faith attempts to expand and improve the Aviculture article. However, in the process, the article formatting got terribly buggered-up and the whole lot has been reverted by Frze today.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Aviculture&oldid=572046295 for the last version before it was revered.
I'd looked it over myself quickly last night, but I thought that I'd give them time to fix their formatting errors instead of rolling it back.
Is there anything there that we could add back to the article, do you think? -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The description of this bird's habitat as described closely follows that of the common snipe. However, in Ecuador at least, this bird can be found feeding and nesting on fairly steep slopes far from any mud. Often its presence can be detected where cattle graze by cow pies that are scratched and scattered, apparently as the snipe seeks fly larvae.
In flight the Andean snipe could learn a lot from its smaller cousin the common snipe. In the Ecuadorian Andes once flushed this snipe will fly down hill in a straight path, not deviating an inch, as opposed to the twisting, rapid flight of the common snipe. Peter Arnold arnoldp@sbbmail.com
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). As to reference these comments are drawn from personal observations in the field.
I hope this is of interest to at least some people here: Wikimedia UK and Jisc are running an editathon at the Royal Veterinary College on November 20th. We will focus on common diseases that vets see in everyday practice, but contributions with any relevance to veterinary science are welcome. This is a free event, and in-person and online participation is encouraged. See the event page for more details. Cheers, MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 15:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) (link changed MartinPoulter Jisc ( talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC))
Mind having a look at this submission? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The " Bird" Wiki article has the Z and W sex chromosomes included, but nothing about autosomal chromosomes. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 21:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just begun a stub for the above as it is in your to-do list, but I'm unsure how notable I can make it. Can an expert on the subject evidence her notability? As it stands, it will probably be deleted.... -- S.G.(GH) ping! 18:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just expanded a stub article on the Mottled Owl. It is classified in Wikipedia as Ciccaba virgata but the accepted view now seems to be that it should be Strix virgata. I hesitate to make the necessary changes to update the scientific name without agreement from others, as it necessitates changes to several other pages - Ciccaba, Strix, True owl and possibly others. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the Caracara lutosa article is illustrated with the Caracara plancus image? -- Melly42 ( talk) 15:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
A small design company in South Africa has complained that Woolworths copied her design. At the same time, she has provided proof that Woolworths is using a verbatim wiki entry on the cover of cushions in their Homeware section.
http://toucheefeelee.net/2013/10/18/how-woolworths-really-operates/
105.237.28.111 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been noticing that many of the birds missing pictures on wikipedia have pictures on the IBC. Unfortunately although many of the IBC are released on a CC license, it is usually not a sufficiently free license for use on Wikipedia. I'm guessing there's probably a decent overlap between people on the IBC and people on Wikiproject: Birds, so I'm wondering if anyone over there actively participates in the forums or something if we might make a concerted effort to see if people at IBC (who tend to take excellent bird photos) or xeno-canto for recordings would want to donate media to Wikipedia. I imagine a forum thread or something would garner at least some interest and help us make progress on getting photos and recordings for bird species that don't have them.
Is anyone here an active participant over at IBC who might have a bit more clout than me in starting a request thread over there? Is this a horribly misguided thing to do for some reason? 0x0077BE ( talk) 16:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I found duplicate categories, so I populated Category:Catharus since it was more true to form. Category:Catharus thrushes is now a page with no content and can be speedy deleted...... Pvmoutside ( talk) 12:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
HBW are offering on-line access to all their content plus videos and sound recordings for an annual €29.95. There's a €20 registration, but if you haven't got a code to waive this, they help you find one. Seems like a snip to me — I've signed up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Today 15th November 2013 i found a great snipe sitting on the pavement it seemed to be suffering from exhaustion as it was motionless and did not attempt to fly away when approached, as this was in a town center for the birds safety i took it to a local vets who identified it as a great snipe this was in Eastbourne East sussex England cant say i have seen one before. 80.47.15.191 ( talk) 23:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Ian Burgess
The Cockatiel article currently states that the maximum recorded age for a Cockatiel is 36 years - sourced from "Brouwer, K.; Jones, M.L., King, C.E. and Schifter, H. (2000). "Longevity records for Psittaciformes in captivity". International Zoo Yearbook 37 (1): 299–316.". Does anyone have access to that (paywalled) article to confirm? The AnAge entry for the species states a figure of 35 years, sourced from the same article. Just wanted to clear up that small discrepancy... -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 22:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I am processing some old illustrations from Francois Levaillant's works and these are typically in French without binomials. Would be great if folks can add the identifications and categories to all the images in commons:Category:Histoire_naturelle_des_perroquets. Shyamal ( talk) 10:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Another set of images at commons:Category:Histoire_naturelle_des_oiseaux_de_paradis_et_des_rolliers,_suivie_de_celles_des_toucans_et_des_barbus by Barraband for Levaillant which need species identification and categorization. Shyamal ( talk) 08:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Common Raven has been chosen as a Today's Featured Article for 10 December. We recently had a student project working on it which added masses of physiology. Although Good Faith, this created problems
I have taken these actions
I picked up a couple of other things in passing, but it's some time since this passed FA and it could do with more eyes looking in the next few days. Please copy edit if you can.
Please review my action on the physiology. Do we need to keep even the bit I've left? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Two recent papers, fulltexts online are here and here make for fascinating reading - and some taxonomic changes are required. Essentially the genus Psephotus is now polyphyletic, with the Red-rumped Parrot (which happens to be the type species) divergent from the other psephotus species. The 2012 paper recommends some genus changes so we don't get left with a bunch of monotypic small genera, but haven't seen anything published yet - simplest is what jboyd has on his website which is other Psephotus species all converted to Psephotellus. Also Barnardius barnardi has four taxa which have all been lumped as one species for decades might end up being split again. Anyway IOC has yet to recognise any of this. Anyway, interesting times - anyone think we should do anything at this point? Trying to find if Psephotellus has been validly published.... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
NB: I just emailed Leo Joseph who authored one of the papers and has been really friendly in the past...and is also on the IOC committee. Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Egg renaming discussion here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Have the IUCN made any changes since about 2012? It seems that the IUCN website is called "2013.1" now, but I can not find if they have changed any data for birds. I found a bug in my script (for script assisted semi-automated editing) which had the effect of not finding the IUCN conservation status for the first 1000 bird species and hence not writing to the corresponding Wiki species pages. No errors were made on Wiki pages, but it did not do hundreds of updates which it could have done. I fixed the bug yesterday and I have started running the script for the remaining 1000 species. Actually, it is not as many as 1000, because I accidentally introduced the bug when I amended an earlier version of my script to speed it up, by making data look-up easier in batches of 1000 from the IUCN website of 10064 recognised bird species. I think that I could write in "2013.1" in the IUCN template. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 20:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Some recent events have led to some rather poor expansion to Amur Falcon - Last years they were trapped in the thousands and eaten in some part of India and this year they have seen a lot of activism and excitement due to real-time satellite tracking. Unfortunately I do not have enough sources for this species. Shyamal ( talk) 06:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks like more and more people are accepting the Orphean Warbler split. Orphean Warbler becomes Western Orphean Warbler and Eastern Orphean Warbler changes from subspecies to species. Orphean Warbler page is locked, so if someone can do the honors...Thanks..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:31, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Strix omanensis should be moved to Omani Owl (common name) -- Melly42 ( talk) 22:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hi, WikiProject Birds,
I was looking at some Wikipedia maintenance categories and came across
Category:Type locality needed. I wasn't sure exactly what this referred to so I checked it out and all of the articles involve birds.
Maybe some WikiProject member who knows something about classifying birds can check it out and supply the missing information that would remove these pages from the Clean-up categories. Thanks!
Liz
Read!
Talk! 20:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Evidently the IOC has moved some Ibons back to White-eyes:
..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 13:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Is gathering some avian physiology bits that again are not suitable for the species entry although the studies are possibly based on that species as a model. Does anyone know if this is part of an "education program"? Shyamal ( talk) 02:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The IOC accept the Réunion Pink Pigeon only as subspecies of the Mauritius Pink Pigeon http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-sandgrouse.html. So what do you think? -- Melly42 ( talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Re Khướu đuôi vằn Vân Nam. I presume that this is a foreign language name that should not be on the en Wiki and that it should be deleted. It is a redirect to Spectacled Barwing. Snowman ( talk) 15:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The link to the source for the eagle image on the bird portal template is dead, so its copyright status cannot be verified. Since this template may be on thousands of article, it needs a new image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I have been completing the IUCN template with the actual title (binomial name) of the IUCN page. Sometimes the IUCN and the Wiki use different synonyms of the binomial name, so the binomial in the infobox of the Wiki species page and the binomial in the template are sometimes different. The recently completed Major Mitchell's Cockatoo IUCN template is an example of this, however, confusion is reduced on this page, because the synonym is in the infobox also. I estimate that this will occur on about 1 in 50-100 wiki articles. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 14:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Birdsaregood has been adding a second WP banner to bird pages. See this edit. After a quick inspection, I think that this has happened multiple times. I have informed the user on his or her talk page and left an invitation to participate in the discussion here. Snowman ( talk) 17:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please move Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike to Black-faced Cuckooshrike per the IOC standard? Maias ( talk) 05:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
These categories are being added to the bird pages. This results in a category like this one; Category:Animals described in 1859. Would these be better as a list, such as in page called "List of birds described in 1859"? Snowman ( talk) 21:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
According to this BBC News article the Lilacine Amazon (or Ecuador Amazon as the article calls it) is expected to be given full species status in the Spring 2014 update of the IUCN Redlist. Any thoughts on whether the article should be updated now, based on the above - or is it best to wait for the official announcement? -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 23:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The following need the target page deleted so that the files can be moved: Snowman ( talk) 10:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Re Ceyx lepidus margarethae. This is the title of a Wiki page about a bird. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 15:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
There are 468 English IOC names that are redirects on the Wiki. Some of these are due to the accents and USA/UK spelling differences and so on. I might attempt to remove redirects due to these sort of differences to reduce the length of the list and present the relevant ones here. The accents make it a more difficult to compare the IOC and Wiki Englsih names and I have not found a semi-automatic way of separating them yet. By looking at the list and following about 60 of the links, I would think that about 60-70% of these redirects are not due to accents and simple spelling differences. A lot of the redirects seem to be due to the IOC having split species that the Wiki lumps together. For example, IOC have two ostriches while the Wiki and the IUCN have one. Actually, this list is much shorter than I expected, which is of course due to the drive towards IOC names and improved nomenclature. Any comments? Snowman ( talk) 17:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
I have now got a shortened list of IOC English common bird names that are redirects on the Wiki. Accents and USA/UK language differences caused a lot of these redirects, and I have filtered these off the list. There is a list of about 200 lines remaining and also about an additional 50 lines for Hawaiian birds names. I do not want to bulk this talk page unnecessary, but I am willing to show the list here, if anyone would be interested in analysing it. I think that most of the remaining redirects are due to taxonomy differences between the Wiki and IOC, new classification, or controversial classifications, and I would think that almost all of the affected redirects are probably best kept unchanged at present until research leads to clarification. Snowman ( talk) 14:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: Page watchers may have noticed my amendments to the IUCN citation template made in November and December 2013 and early January 2014 done with semi-automatic script-assisted AWB edits. I kept my edits on the safe side and only updated IUCN templates when bird names matched satisfactorily. The new version of my script edited some species pages that it had not edited previously, but it also rejected some pages that it had edited last year, because my script did bird name matching slightly differently. The new script included some shaky quick-fix work-arounds for accents in Hawaiian bird names without doing it with a binary input; however, the edits seem to have worked. In-the-round, I think the run went well. I made a few mistakes, but I think that I have fixed all the edits that went wrong and found out why my enhanced script behaved unexpectedly. Nevertheless, if anyone sees any problems with any of the edits, please let me know, because I would like to analyse any mistakes. AWB and my script are not set up as a bot; every edit has been visualised and checked by me before it is saved. Snowman ( talk) 14:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I do not know much about the split of the Andean Tyrant. However, the IOC and IUCN have not listed the split at this juncture. Is the evidence convincing or is the idea still at a proposal stage? Snowman ( talk) 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed that a whole lot of articles are getting tagged as 'Birds of Ukraine'. I see other articles have long had '... of Europe', '... of America'; is there any policy on 'Birds of <country>'? It could easily snowball into a hundred tags per article, which seems absurd. See e.g. Red Crossbill. What is the right thing to do here? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 23:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the next step is a Wikipedia:Categories for discussion page; I am currently travelling for the holidays and can't set one up today, but if anyone is so inclined, I think it would be appropriate. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 12:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 22#Category:Birds_of_Ukraine_and_others closed as no consensus. See my closing statement there. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
A list of 69 IOC species English names that are redlinks on the Wiki. Extinct and extant species as indicated on IOC website. These are listed with the IOC binomial, which is sometimes also a redlink on the Wiki. The IOC use a different taxonomy to the wiki, so some of the relevant Wiki species pages may need a lot of thought before making any amendments to the Wiki. Nevertheless, moving some of the Wiki pages may be uncontroversial. Any Comments? Snowman ( talk) 14:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
It's now considered as subspecies of the Great Rosefinch http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/species-updates/
see also Tietze, D.T., M. Päckert, J. MArtens, H. Lehmann, and Y.-H. Sun (2013), Complete phylogeny and historical biogeography of true rosefinches (Aves: Carpodacus), Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 169, 215-234.
-- Melly42 ( talk) 16:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Guadalcanal Thicketbird appears to have been changed to the Melanesian Thicketbird by the IOC. The previous disambig content for Melanesian Thicketbird has been cleared and moved to the appropriate listings. If someone can do the honors and delete the Melanesian Thicketbird file and move the Guadalcanal Thicketbird page to it, that will be good....... Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I need help. I live in Port Elizabeth, South Africa and I think I found a little Spiderhunter. But it's injured or something. Need guidance please 105.248.189.0 ( talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Re Melamprosops phaeosoma. The Wiki has the name of this bird as Poʻouli as the title and Black-faced Honeycreeper as an alternative, the IOC has Poo-uli, and the IUCN have Poo-uli, Po'o-uli, and Black-faced Honeycreeper. Which would be the appropriate title for the wiki? Snowman ( talk) 11:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the Tristan Moorhen and Gough Moorhen are subspecies of the same species, and this is detailed on both articles. However, the Wiki articles are set up as species pages. One of the subspecies is extinct. As it is set up at the moment, the IUCN template external link on the extinct subspecies Wiki article goes to the IUCN species webpage where is is classified as a vulnerable species, so I have made a quick fix to this wiki page. Would it be right to merge these two articles into one species page? Snowman ( talk) 13:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
On the basis of DNA sequencing of both recently collected and historical material, we conclude that G. nesiotis and G. comeri are different taxa, that G. nesiotis indeed became extinct, and that G. comeri now inhabits both islands. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001835 and IOC treatment -- Melly42 ( talk) 12:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster ( talk) 18:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC).
Most of our FAs are little visited, but some, like Peregrine Falcon and Pelican receive regular edits from casual and often ill-informed visitors. Is it worth adding an edit notice, such as this to such FAs?. The point of an edit notice is that it displays when the page is in edit mode, and might discourage unsourced or unreliable additions. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I came across this site today: [8]
It looks like contributors are adding all sorts of bird songs to the site's species pages. Other web sites (Neotropical birds, Avibase, Encylcopedia of Life)are adding links to their respective species pages. It looks like most of the pages are Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported. Is this something we may want to add to Wikipedia's species pages?.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 22:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
My list of red links prompted a few changes, so I am following this up with a longer list of redirects that are IOC names and their targets for consideration. What is good about the list is that it is surprisingly short and no doubt it reflects a lot of work done in the synchronisation of bird names on the Wiki with the IOC bird names. The redirects are on the left of the arrow and the target Wiki article is on the right of the article. Sometimes there are more than one redirect on the left side of the article presumably reflecting a species that is split by IOC but not commonly by other authorities. I would think that most of the pages listed do not require moving. I would think that it requires a great deal of knowledge on birds names and advances in taxonomy to do updates on the vast majority of birds listed here. Note that the list may not reflect some recent page moves or new Wiki articles, which may be controversial. Snowman ( talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
The list was generated in phases with more than one script, which seemed to me to be the simplest way of doing the task. It needed an organised approach, but it was not very difficult. My scripts "looked at" all the IOC common bird names (over 10,500) in order to generate the list below and found out if each IOC bird name is a redirect, does not have a Wiki article, or is the actual article name on the Wiki, and after that a "sorting" script combined the redirects that targeted the same Wiki article. I manually shortened the list by making some uncontroversial page moves (after a lot of double checking and cross referencing) and I also manually removed redirects caused by common accents, which are used according to a consensus formed here some time ago; hence, redirects due to accents in birds named after place names or people are not included in the list. Also, I manually removed redirects due to regional English spelling differences. Several weeks ago, I copied the list of IOC names that did not have articles on the Wiki (a list of red-links) to this talk page and it has recently been archived. Snowman ( talk) 18:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I have kept the Hawaiian birds in the list, which are difficult for my scripts to deal with without doing at binary input. The red links for the Hawaiian birds are listed by my script, which did not use a binary input and could not handle unusual characters. I also hope to prompt consideration on the use of Hawaiian accents for titles of articles on the Wiki, because the accents do not appear on most keyboards. Snowman ( talk) 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Archer's Lark and Sidamo Lark have been lumped by the IOC though it is still uncertain whether the Sidamo Lark is a subspecies or just a population of the Archer's Lark. The name Archer's Lark has priority as it was described earlier. http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/update-diary/ -- Melly42 ( talk) 20:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone move Pale Sand Martin to the IOC preferred Pale Martin.........Thank-you! Pvmoutside ( talk) 18:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Can someone speedy delete the Category:Pseudochelidoninae......I created Category:Pseudochelidon and moved the articles there as it appears genus is the more consistent and preferable category over subfamily........ Pvmoutside ( talk) 17:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
For those wishing to comment, following a very recently made page move in line with the project's naming policy, an attempt is being made to reverse it at Talk:Black-faced Cuckooshrike. Maias ( talk) 13:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Others:
Could it be that there is special name hopping at the IOC? I mean it is not the first time that crakes became rails or vice versa -- Melly42 ( talk) 11:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Snowman ( talk) 20:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
The AfD for List of birds by flight heights may be of interest to this project. -- 101.119.15.210 ( talk) 07:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
A heads up: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Cuban_flightless_crane&diff=597819540&oldid=592416627 I reverted, but I sense the same old debate coming up. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
See here. Just for your information. -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 15:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Checking the status of the pages mentioned in the discussion above, some had not had their talk pages moved when the article was moved - Talk:Thick-billed Murre still redirected to Talk:Brünnich's Guillemot, for instance. I have fixed these and urge others to please check these IOC-compliance moves to be sure that the talk page is at the correct location. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Pymoutside is threatening to leave Wikipedia following the discussion here, in which dogma overrules project policy and common sense. I hope Pymoutside reconsiders, and I wonder if anyone wishes to comment further on that talk page? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or has been unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.
...Likewise:
That is.....if we are using the stability argument as the sole criteria........... Pvmoutside ( talk) 04:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you any good with chickens, or do you know anyone into chicken breeds? The Polish chicken is a most weird article. Mostly opinions, I think. Hafspajen ( talk) 22:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Crowned Crane which would alter the title of several articles. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thanks. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 02:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that
Rare breed (agriculture), which is within your project's scope, is
This week's article for improvement (until Sunday the 16th inclusively). A few Wikipedians are collaborating on the article, but we could use more detailed content on rare breeds of poultry! Anyone who sees this message is welcome to join our efforts. No need to be an expert. Any edit that helps improve the article is welcome!
Thank you,
Madalibi (
talk) 05:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC), on behalf of the TAFI team
Just noticed this interesting "old" source which has some things that are not present in more recent works like Jobling's. Shyamal ( talk) 05:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) (WP:NCCAPS) has a new RFC proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization)#Removed false promotion of a wikiproject essay as a "guideline" related to bird name capitalization. The wording is convoluted, but I think approval would mean that NCCAPS would no longer mention WikiProject Birds naming conventions. It's less clear if species articles would be renamed/edited to lower case. So far consensus favors lower case bird names by 3 to 1. Agyle ( talk) 03:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Are there any distinct formal breeds of birds – named, selectively bred varieties, covered by conformance standards for shows, managed in studbooks, trademarked/patented for agricultural proposes, or otherwise reliably identifiable as breeds? I do not mean wild populations, landraces or subspecies. I was surprised not to find anything like at at Parrot given how popular the birds are and how many breeders there are. I'm not sure I've encountered formal breed of cockatiels, budgies, etc., either. In case it's not clear what I'm talking about I mean the difference between Labrador Retriever (formal breed), St. John's water dog (landrace/population from which that breed and others was formalized), dog (species). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 00:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
See the subcategories of Category:Domesticated birds. Plantdrew ( talk) 00:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This has probably been asked many times, but WP:BIRDS doesn't cover it and I don't want to dig through the archives. Is there a general consensus within the bird project for how to capitalize alternative common names, as opposed to the single official IOC common name for a species? And within alternative common names, should a distinction be made between those the IOC mentions as unofficial, and those that it doesn't? Agyle ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that that present advice at MOS seems to be to capitalize all common names (i.e., including "Cougar" or whatever) in any article that capitalizes the common name of its subject, but this probably needs to be revisited for clarification at WT:MOS, as it raises a number of problems. E.g., it's ungrammatical and original research to capitalize many foreign words, which many vernacular names are, in languages with less lax proper noun rules as English, just as one example. I also suspect that the consistency-within-the-article idea was backed by people who detest the capitalization even more than I do, specifically because it would lead to people capitalizing animals like "Cougar" in bird articles, which would irritate random readers even more and generate an increase in anti- WP:BIRDS#Naming controversy. In the interim, we always want redirects to exist from common names, both lower and upper case, to whatever the real article name is.
I don't think anyone could fault you for lower- or upper-casing non-IOC common names in and only in ornithology articles, at this particular point in time. It's "correct" to do it for the within-an-article consistency reason and it's "correct" to not do it because we don't capitalize common names of species other than one project has a local consensus to do so for IOC names in articles within their scope.
I would lean toward not capitalizing them, because the advocates of the consistency language obviously did not think through the secondary effects of imposing that consistency restriction (or did and WP:POINTedly don't care). Even if I supported capitalization, I would probably stick to advocating only capitalizing the IOC names, because demanding caps all over the place looks unreasonable and badly undermines the [already not entirely solid] argument that there's something special about the IOC list, that we should treat it as somehow reliable as to style itself not just the reliability of the names, style aside, that it lists. I don't really buy that "IOC is special" argument, but I would like to see it rise or fall on its own merits, not because some people confuse the difference between a formally IOC-advanced name and one that isn't, or between such a formal name and capitalization-for-emphasis in a field guide. I care about that on-it-own-merits issue more than some of you would give me credit for, because it has implications for a lot of other stuff, not just bird capitalization (and because I'm a logician, not a politician, and I believe that process is important here, though far short of bureaucracy). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Remove "Use a consistent style for common names within an article". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Any French ornithologists in the house? (version of
02:49, 9 April 2014).
—
Wavelength (
talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)