|
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. |
The Bufflehead article says, "Buffleheads are monogamous...". There is no reference supporting this statement. I have seen many non-Wikipedia articles about the monogamy of other bird species, which later became corrected by DNA research. I would very much like the article to show a reference of such research if there has been any regarding the Buffleheads. If there are none, then the article should be appropriately edited. Such an edit might say that it is generally believed that the Buffleheads are monogamous, but there is no current DNA data available about this. BuzzBloom ( talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at Bird-safe. Just noticed this now. With this edit, it was redirected to Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity (which doesn't seem related to the topic) with the summary Can someone burn the prev. essay/OR rubbish with fire??. User who did it doesn't seem to have been active on Wikipedia for years. Should this be put back? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I just saw this was added recently to the black-headed gull article when I came to edit something else. This is a different species, isn't it? I don't know what it is, but I've never seen a BHG with eyes like that. Just wanted to check before I removed it. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with a mid-December 2020 decision by the South American Classification Committee of the AOS, IOC taxonomists have lumped the southern and northern crested caracaras. SACC called the result "crested caracara" (Caracara plancus), so IOC probably will as well. [1] [2] When the next full IOC list including this change comes out, the articles Caracara (genus), southern crested caracara, and northern crested caracara and the redirect crested caracara will need to be merged into one article. The article Caracara (subfamily), the disambiguation page caracara, and probably others will need to be updated. Someone familiar with both the species and the mechanics of the merging will need to do this. (I have the first but not the second.) Thanks in advance! Craigthebirder ( talk) 14:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
BioRef|IOC}}
to use the new system and I think it will be possible to link to the specific rows in the googlesheets list, which hasn't been possible until the switch to google sheets.|version=
and the |access-date=
. With a template there is potential to correct broken links or make a best possible replacement, possibly even using archive.org, to help people find the information. Perhaps with google sheets they will keep the old versions available on the web (e.g. like Catalogue of Life). —
Jts1882 |
talk 11:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI, the IOC has released 11.1 on their update pages, but have yet to finish the family genus pages. As soon as they do, I'll start the update. Feel free to make any changes if you know them.....pvmoutside...
A number of bird pages rated as stubs include artwork (drawings or plates from historical bird books) rather than photographs in the taxobox. If a good photograph of the bird can be found, is it desirable to replace the artwork with the photograph? Or is it better to simply add the photograph to the article and leave the original artwork in place?
I'm guessing the photograph takes priority, but I'm wondering if this is the consensus view. Adaptivity77 ( talk) 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick responses. - Adaptivity77 ( talk) Adaptivity77 ( talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Look at this one too. Beak the wrong colour, eyes the wrong colour, other colours off. I know this because it's an ubiquitous pet parrot and there's loads of photos of the species. I wonder how many more aren't noticed. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Seabird for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Because my primary interest is birds, I am posting this here, but have also posted a short notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals because the issue probably applies at a minimum to other animals.
I think most editors would agree that IUCN is a reliable source for the population status of a species (e.g. vulnerable or endangered). However, I have found them less reliable for ranges. (Range information is provided to IUCN by BirdLife International.) Three examples are:
The first two examples point to the problem I have witnessed of replacing more recent and/or more local-knowledge information with IUCN range data, when I believe the recent/local should take precedence. In my opinion, IUCN (or anyone else's) outdated information should not even be cited as a counterpoint to the recent information. The third example points to the folly of blindly accepting data from IUCN, or anywhere else for that matter, that conflicts with an article's primary source. It this particular case, familiarity with the species should be enough to ignore the erroneous data, but cross-checking with other sources would also determine which data are correct.
Comments, please. Craigthebirder ( talk) 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I have removed the IUCN-sourced range entries from List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago; see its Talk page for details and rationale. Craigthebirder ( talk) 15:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just restored an old version (9 Feb 2018) of the Montserrat oriole article. A large amount of text had been copied verbatim from the Cornell BOW website. The edit summaries included the text "in the process of editing the page for a conservation biology class for loyola university chicago". - Aa77zz ( talk) 13:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Is the one here the currently accepted version?
https://www.worldbirdnames.org/bow/parrots/
Something that came up in discussion here. Currently the Amazon parrot article has the species list alphabetized by Latin name. Previously, it was in a different order, but I don't know what that was based on. It was different to the current order on the IOC page anyway. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
IOC sequence | BOW sequence |
---|---|
Amazona Lesson, R, 1830 [33 species]
|
Amazona [32 children]
|
I just follow the IOC. From time to time the IOC "resequence" the species in a family based on a published phylogeny (and the NW - SE convention). - Aa77zz ( talk) 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've created or revised a lot of "List of xxx species" (for example list of ovenbird species) and have used IOC for them. I think that's most appropriate for a non-geographic list given that IOC is the standard for individual species/family/order etc. articles. But as long as a major taxonomy is used and properly cited, I'm not wedded to it. Note that Clements calls these birds parrot, not amazon, so it wouldn't be right for this list. Craigthebirder ( talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
So, should the Lilacine amazon be demoted to a subspecies in our article again, if we're using the IOC taxonomy? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 10:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've done Amazon_parrot#List_of_species now, as we discussed here. I don't really feel confident tackling the table markup at List of amazon parrots though. I'm sure I'll completely break it. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 18:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Just something I found while reading - Category:Non-larid gulls.
I assume this was created before Larus was split years ago to demarcate the non-Larus species. Now like half of the gulls are 'non-larid', by that definition.
Is this still a useful category? Or should it be renamed to 'non-Larus'? Because they're all Laridae anyway? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 14:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've got a couple of articles up for featured status. Comments, questions or suggestions for improvement for List of endemic birds of Borneo and/or Preening would be much appreciated! MeegsC ( talk) 15:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at File:Verde no Verde.jpg.
I was looking on Commons for a better image to illustrate Scaly-headed parrot than the current flash-burned one (spoiler - there isn't one, really). But I did see the above image, categorized as a scaly-headed parrot. Those are clearly not scaly-headed parrots. Anyone know what they are? They look like Psittacara conures to me, but I'm not up on them enough to identify the species. Any thoughts, so I can categorize this correctly? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 15:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding another one I found - File:Pionus maximiliani.jpg. These are white-eyed parekeets/conures too, aren't they? Why do people think these species look anything alike? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know? Just saw on Softbill when editing. I'll export it to Commons when I know what it is... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 14:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this has been studied at all? I've seen lots of videos over the years that would seem to suggest that parrots also copy human behavior (such as petting a dog with a foot, eating with a spoon, using a nail file, kissing another parrot while making human kissy noises and telling the other bird in English how cute it is, etc.). Thought it might be an interesting addition somewhere, if there are actually reliable sources about it. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 22:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have the information of Chestnut-capped piha (the only problem on GA that hasn't been solved) why the species may be superspecies or unconfirmed? 180.194.141.59 ( talk) 05:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
This article may have many views on its page, but the whole article is confusing. Lots of people on talk page were complaining.
Is anybody here a member of the BOU? I'm trying to read an article in the July 2020 issue of The Ibis, but it's behind a paywall. MeegsC ( talk) 14:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I've boldly reverted this featured article to the version of 14 January 2020. This reduced its size from 251kB to 30kB. I've started a discussion on the talk page. - Aa77zz ( talk) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Chickadee 24,190 806 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Bekisar (hybrid of Gallus varius and Gallus gallus bankiva) has no cites.
Article has been tagged since Nov 2010.
Anybody?
- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:9443:1D79:7950:A0FB ( talk) 20:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Incoming links to superspecies are almost entirely from bird articles. Would it be useful to add support for superspecies as a rank in taxoboxes? Plantdrew ( talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've just been reading about parrots. Seems like all the conures are named "parakeet" on here. I always thought parakeet was for old world species and conure denoted new world birds with that body shape.
Please could someone with the necessary privileges move Canastero to the genus name Asthenes (now a redirect).
After updates to the genera the use of the common name here has become confusing. As well as "canasteros" the genus Asthenes includes 9 "thistletails". In addition Asthenes is not the only genus with "canesteros" as 4 have been moved to the genus Pseudasthenes. Many thanks - Aa77zz ( talk) 10:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know what this user was trying to do here? Question marks added next to species names and taxonomic order changed around. Not sure if it needs reverting... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 14:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Soooo.....@ LittleJerry, Aa77zz, Shyamal, BhagyaMani, and Jimfbleak:...anyone have any enthusiasm for another collaboration to go on the FA train? My enthusiasm and availability has been a bit too patchy for solo efforts the last few months but I felt really good getting some bird not from Australia or UK Featured. Happy to put some heavy lifting into another avian collaboration to keep the FAs ticking over. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking for some advice. New York City is along the Atlantic Flyway and home to a very active birding community. There's a lot of information out there about birds here. But what is the standard for having a list along the lines of List of birds of New York City? It would, of course, be a subset of List of birds of New York (state). What are the assumptions about source coverage? Are there central authorities that only cover at the level of states in the US? Any advice welcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The North American Classification Committee of the American Ornithological Society (NACC/AOS) has published the 2021 update to the Checklist of North American Birds. The "List of birds of ___" articles for the US and its states, Canada and its provinces, Central America, much of the Caribbean, and more than a dozen US National Parks use that taxonomy. Over the next couple of weeks I will be updating all of those lists to match the revised taxonomy. The IOC has also released Version 11.2 of its taxonomy and I will be updating various lists of species by family (e.g. List of Cisticolidae species) as well. And the newest Clements taxonomy should be published soon after a two year hiatus. Craigthebirder ( talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Could someone who knows where the birds are buried sort out whether the genus Haliaeetus is currently considered to be within a subfamily Haliaeetinae (as implemented in the templates, but not in the text of that article), or in Buteoninae (as implied by the text of Accipitridae#Taxonomy, but not the text of Buteoninae itself)? Cheers -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
|
Hello, I created a brief draft for Kleptorichy, the recently defined word for the stealing of mammal hair by birds. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 21:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Merge proposal discussion under Crex talk page due to IOC taxonomy change.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 8:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently, Phedina was turned into a redirect as it became a monotypic genus after one species was reclassified. This seems a shame to me, as it was a decent quality article. In situations like these, has there been any previous discussion on instead moving the article to some higher taxonomic rank, or perhaps even setting it up as an unranked clade article? It seems useful to have an article discussing a group of species somewhere between the very focused individual species article and the broad Family article ( Swallow, which covers 90ish species). It would also provide a location where the various changes to taxonomic classification could be discussed. (Pinging Pvmoutside who updated the pages regarding the reclassification.) CMD ( talk) 01:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone help me find a source saying that at one time, years ago most/all parrots were placed in the genus Psittacus? I'm pretty sure that's true, but I can't find proof online. Thanks. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 11:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The new Clements/ebird has now been published. At present, it is only available at ebird, but should be published on the Clements site very soon. This will affect most of the country checklists. User craigthebirder has taken care of the North and South American lists because he uses a different source for those lists. Craig and I will slowly begin updating the remaining lists. Feel free if you want to have some fun.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
When a family contains a single genus should the combined article be at the genus name or at the family name? Thanks
- Aa77zz ( talk) 16:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Re the above question - can somebody with the necessary privileges move Psophiidae to Psophia. Many thanks - Aa77zz ( talk) 18:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding the article about the Mauritius shelduck, which has also been called the Mauritius sheldgoose. So I naturally wanted to know what the difference is between the two terms, and the Wikipedia articles seem to be pretty neatly delineated: a shelduck is apparently mainly a member of the genus Tadorna and a sheldgoose is supposedly a member of the genus Chloephaga. But wait, the Mauritius shelduck was never classified in either genus, and Britannica instead says "Sheldgoose, any of the larger members of the duck tribe Tadornini, family Anatidae (order Anseriformes). The smaller members of the tribe are called shelducks" [4], which seems a lot more arbitrary than Wikipedia's definitions. So are our definitions too neat? Should we instead have articles for Tadorna and Chloephaga under their scientific names, and keep shelduck/ sheldgoose as a single article about an informal, unnatural group, like parakeet? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"I'll just leave this here", as they say. :)
Nominator isn't active anymore, if anyone can help for it on its basic GA process. 114.134.189.25 ( talk) 04:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to kick up a ruckus about an obvious good faith contributor, but I'm rather alarmed at what I'm seeing here. Chetatata has been expanding Philippine bird stubs over the past month, usually employing three main sources: Birds of the Philippines, EBird, and the respective IUCN page. The trouble is with the usage of the IUCN source. In every example that I have checked so far, there are direct copy & paste copyvios - ranging from individual sentences (as at Negros scops owl) to full or multiple paragraphs (as in Hombron's kingfisher) ( IUCN page). Usually it's the "Conservation Actions Proposed" section from the page, complete with ungrammatical bullet phrasing, plus bits and bobs from the rest of the page. All material from the IUCN pages is copyrighted, and we straight up cannot do that. (Note that the copyvio detector is pretty bad at picking these up, I assume due to its text spot check/subsampling mechanics.)
I'm noting this here because I have a strong suspicion that the entire batch of contributions will have to be revdeleted to remedy this, and I'd rather not instigate that entirely on my own penny. @ Diannaa: could you verify?
(As a distant second, they also directly quote (in quotation marks) the entire EBird description, which I guess is okay as far as re-use and attribution goes, but I think it's bad practice to not rephrase this for WP use. More YMMV, maybe others could comment on that.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Diannaa: @ Elmidae: My bad, I thought if it could pass thru the copyvio detector then it would've been okay. Can I just remove the parts where I source IUCN? Like you said it's just in the conservation actions proposed parts? - Chetatata ( talk
... but the IUCN has not - and predictably everyone and their grandmother is bombing into the article with hamfisted updates and and rewrites. We need to establish a clear decision as to which source to follow. Please hop over onto the talk page and comment. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It's currently a redirect. Recent taxonomic changes mean that it should now contain Calyptorhynchus and Zanda (bird), I think. Is that correct (checking before I do it)? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at these edits? I have no knowledge of this subject, but given the edit history of the user who made them, I can't tell if they are correct or simply more crap. Thanks. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Please see move request here which has yet to receive any comments. Somatochlora ( talk) 14:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
That's what the article is currently claiming. I checked the source and it indeed does say that there are 1.2 billion ring-billed gulls.
Does that seem like a lot to you? Too high? I know the RBG is the ubiquitous North American seagull and North America is big, but yeah, that still seems like a lot. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 17:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
This paper got quite a lot of discussion online when it was first published and it is very clear that many of the numbers are absolute garbage, IIRC there were a number of cases of rarer species that have very precisely estimated populations from other sources, which are outside the CI of this paper. The inclusion of Ring-billed Gull, Glaucous Gull and Alder Flycatcher among the 10 most abundant birds in the world is totally bonkers. Other sources suggest Ring-billed Gull populations in the range of 2-10 million, this paper should just be ignored. Somatochlora ( talk) 19:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone know of any birds that reside in central California that need photos? I'm not a bird person but I've got a camera and I'd like to contribute! I don't feel like searching through all 4,000 pages tagged with image requests to find the ones in california. 9yz ( talk) 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
While trying to save American crow, which is a GA in a sorry state, one of my sources describes a contested subspecies thusly: "C. b. caurinus (Baird, SF, 1858)". I have no idea what the "SF" means, and google was unhelpful. Do any of you know? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
NB: If anyone has access on Cornell birds website, adding some refs to American crow would be extremely appreciated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Unrelated to what I wrote above. Yesterday I edited Amazon parrot to say that the birds are "stocky". I nearly wrote "plump", but I think that implies "fat" where "stocky" just means "wide", which they are. But someone reverted me. Is it wrong to include that do you think? -- 146.200.107.70 ( talk) 03:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
See the discussion here. The IOC still lists this species in Psittacula, but the IUCN recently moved it to Palaeornis. Wikipedia generally uses the IOC taxonomy, correct? There are a few examples like this. The IUCN considers the eclectus parrot and red-shouldered macaw to be split into multiple species, for example... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 23:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in this? It seems that there's a species of pterodactyl, "Palaeornis" cliftii too? What a mess. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 02:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
See the recent edit to crop (anatomy) here. The anon rightly points out in his/her edit summary that the article states that ducks and geese don't have crops, but the article is illustrated with an image and a video showing a duck and a goose, apparently with a bulging crop. I have found some websites (e.g. this) that say that ducks and geese don't have crops too. So I have no idea. Anyone able to help? I only really know about parrots to any great extent. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 20:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
(I asked this on the reference desk too, but I think there are some parrot lovers here, so will ask it here too.)
This is about my friend's mealy amazon parrot. The vet says he's overweight, so in addition to putting him on a low calorie diet she's been trying to get him to fly so he can work out. But he doesn't want to. The parrot is at least 25 years old and mostly flies like a spruce goose on the few occasions that something scares him and he takes off (other than that, he walks and climbs everywhere). We tried picking him up like a chicken and throwing him up into the air (bean bag underneath), but all he did was flutter his wings on the way down. This was making him really angry so we stopped doing that.
Does anyone have any tips for how to do it properly, or good links? Thanks. -- 146.200.107.70 ( talk) 02:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
If you've got a moment, consider hopping over to the Bee hummingbird talk page and commenting on the dinosaur angle of the lede. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
FA Albatross needs to be submitted to FAR unless someone can update. Hopefully, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
When I try to download the H & M Checklist from the hotlink I get a "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" page that says the website uses an invalid security certificate. Does anyone have any insight? Craigthebirder ( talk) 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
http
rather than https
. Can you give an example link for the problem? —
Jts1882 |
talk 20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hello all. A recently banned user, Somed00d1997, has made a prolific number of edits to animal pages. Many of these were disputed and reversed (and the user made clear that they were too smart to need consensus, which provoked multiple edit wars), but a number remain, ranging from less-trafficked species to high-profile pages like Duck. I imagine a number of them are totally fine, but I have no real expertise here, and thought it might be worthwhile to flag in case those who are more knowledgable on the subject wanted to have a look through their changes. The user also seems to have used a few sockpuppets once they were banned, including Reusensio.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 16:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The extinct NZ bird Manu antiquus has a page, but since it's the only currently known member of its genus Manu (bird). This title is extremely confusing for disambiguation purposes (Manu is the word for bird in Māori and many other Polynesian languages). Is there a better title for this article? -- Prosperosity ( talk) 03:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
... for a monotypic genus (one that contains a single species), the genus name should be used, as it is included in the binomial nomenclature, and the genus title is more concise than the binomial. For instance, the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides. If the name of a monotypic genus is shared with another topic, it is usually more appropriate to use a binomial as a natural disambiguation, rather than using a parenthetical disambiguating term for the genus. E.g., Alberta magna is a more natural search term than Alberta (plant genus). — Jts1882 | talk 07:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Procellariidae for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 05:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I expanded everything at Chestnut-vented nuthatch from a GA French article, but I'm not sure how to properly cite anything, especially the books. Any help would be appreciated! 2001:4455:1A9:E100:5023:99FB:2ED1:17B6 ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'm going to simplify the Vieques list to have it conform better to the other lists. It looks like it hasn't been updated in a while, so I plan to get rid of breeding status, as well as seasonal occurrence and habitat. It looks like around 50 species should be added from the Avibase list and I have no idea regarding the status of each of those categories for the new species plus it will be easier to update moving forward..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
this page has listed old featured articles needing review, to either be kept, sent to TFAR or delisted. Bird articles are relatively stable, but still need a look. Common raven is a case in point; it's basically OK, but some of the book refs, mainly in the mythology and folklore sections, don't have page numbers. The more eyes that look at the the articles, the more chance our hard-won FAs have of surviving. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Gracupica and all species and subspecies beneath it are a mess. According to the Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) on-line database, Avibase - The World Bird Database, and several other sources, Gracupica only consists of two species: Gracupica nigricollis and Gracupica contra. However, the Wikipedia page for Gracupica lists four species.
While the scientific names for two species are correct (Gracupica nigricollis and Gracupica contra), the information for Gracupica contra is incorrect and the other two are subspecies of Gracupica contra which, in actuality, consists of a total of five subspecies. The information beneath the incorrect table, stating that "the International Ornithological Congress has accepted these results" is incorrect. The IOC acknowledges the hierarchy shown with ITIS.
The information shown for Gracupica contra - calling it an Indian pied myna with distribution throughout the Indian subcontinent - actually belongs to the subspecies Gracupica contra contra (yes, "contra" is repeated). Additionally Gracupica floweri should be Gracupica contra floweri, and Gracupica jalla should be Gracupica contra jalla.
The pages for the Indian pied myna, the Siamese pied myna, and the Javan pied myna all use a speciesbox to display taxonomic information. This restricts the page editors from being able to show an accurate taxonomy. In order that a correct taxonomy can be shown down to the subspecies, there is a subspeciesbox template better suited for the task.
The page for the Siamese pied myna makes no sense, stating that the Siamese pied myna (Gracupica contra floweri) "previously was considered a subspecies of the pied myna" and citing an IOC list dated 28 May 2021. At the bottom of pg. 678, of "Handbook of the Birds of the World," published in 1992, there is a photo of an Asian Pied Starling (aka, Siamese Pied Myna). The credit caption on the photo reads "Gracupica contra floweri, Bangkok, Thailand." So, back in 1992 the floweri was a subspecies of Gracupica contra then, according to whoever wrote that Wikipedia page, it was "considered a subspecies of the pied myna" until 2021, and now it is a species (not a subspecies), but ITIS, IOC, many other reliable sources still maintain that it is a subspecies of Gracupica contra.
On the Siamese pied myna page, it says that the pied myna "has now been split into three species" and references the IOC list dated 28 May 2021. I'm assuming, from the Gracupica page, that the statement on the Siamese pied myna page is in reference to what is written beneath the Species table. Go look at "Handbook of the Birds of the World," pg. 819. In 1992, Gracupica contra jalla already existed so how was it one of the three pieces that "split" from the pied myna in 2021?
I am going to take it upon myself, over the next week, to edit the pages for Gracupica, its species, and its subspecies so as to reflect accurate and wholly verifiable information. I will be certain to cite reliable sources throughout.
AdmPope ( talk) 20:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Gracupica contra and G. jalla (del Hoyo and Collar 2016) were previously lumped as Sturnus contra following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993).. So it looks like those two species were lumped following Sibley and now due to newer work have been split again. I also take that to mean that del Hoyo and Collar 2016 recognised the split in HBW illustrated checklist. — Jts1882 | talk 07:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A paper describing fossils birds of Cuba in 2020 indicates the Cuban crane ( Grus cubensis) belongs to Antigone. I think the Bermuda crane ( Grus latipes) known from fossil remains from Bermuda should also be transferred to Antigone because the paper describing the taxa says that the Bermuda crane's closest relative is the Sandhill crane ( Antigone canadensis). It's more reasonable to say so.
Also the taxonomic updates of the fossil Pacific rails of Gallirallus and Porzana should be transferred to Hypotaenidia and Zapornia too. As the pages of the fossil Pacific doves of Gallicolumba was updated to Pampusana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
If the page was created it seems more reasonable to transfer the genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4780.1.1
This is the reference, similar to IOC transferred the Amsterdam wigeon to Mareca without a study, it's more reasonable to name the Bermuda crane as Antigone latipes if the page was created.
Why Nandayus vorohuensis is named Aratinga vorohuensis on Wikipedia I think is more likely to follow IOC taxonomy because Nandayus is found to be a synonym of Aratinga. Huinculsaurus ( talk) 03:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
IOC transferred Anas marecula to Mareca without studies, and we always follows IOC taxonomic updates. Huinculsaurus ( talk) 00:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI, looks like the January update, 12.1 is going to be published very soon.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 23:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
What makes Great eared nightjar so popular right now? 2001:4455:1A9:E100:7973:6486:FACD:919F ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Articles about birds of the United States are typically fairly well illustrated, but I figured I'd post this anyway: if anyone has been working on an article about a bird species that resides in (or passes through) the northeastern USA/ Atlantic Flyway and wishes there were a better picture, I'm up for a challenge.
The main goal I've set for myself for 2022 is an FP of a tufted titmouse (last year it was blue jay and northern cardinal). We'll see. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The article for Eclectus roratus (eclectus parrot, the species, not eclectus, the genus article) currently provides a smorgasbord as an arrangement as subspecies, apparent acceptance of four species, and some 'dubious species' as a salad option. Comments? Split? ~ cygnis insignis 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Anyone know how to fix this one? I have no idea. Someone added references and broke something, then someone else tried to fix it and made it worse... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 11:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
|range_map=
parameter must contain the file name and the references are not part of a valid file name (hence the error). I've added a caption citing the latest IUCN assessment which the map is based on. I've moved the Fauna Paraguay reference, but haven't checked if this is still a valid reference for the point being made. Perhaps you can check this. —
Jts1882 |
talk 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Take a look at this one. Seems like the sort of paper that would be a good fit for a lot of parrot articles. I've already referenced it in a couple (contains the astounding fact that 50% of all living parrots are now living in captivity, mostly as pets! - though I suppose that makes sense when you factor in all the budgies, cockatiels, ringnecks and lovebirds). Some of you guys might be able use it in the articles you're keeping an eye on. Just a thought... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Would someone please check Special:Contributions/14.201.98.90. I could revert as unexplained changes but is there any reason for the edits? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, feel free to drop by at the GTC nom for mountain pigeon. AryKun ( talk) 08:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Procellariidae/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Birdlife International now consider the citron-crested cockatoo to be a unique species (see my recent edits to the page). Mentioning it here because this is a fairly well-known parrot (which has a surprisingly short article). I've just noted the split in the text so far, because I know Wikipedia likes to use the IOC's taxonomy... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 23:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
A very old GA that has some tags. Will do what I can. Any help appreciated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:53, 14 March 2022 (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. |
The Bufflehead article says, "Buffleheads are monogamous...". There is no reference supporting this statement. I have seen many non-Wikipedia articles about the monogamy of other bird species, which later became corrected by DNA research. I would very much like the article to show a reference of such research if there has been any regarding the Buffleheads. If there are none, then the article should be appropriately edited. Such an edit might say that it is generally believed that the Buffleheads are monogamous, but there is no current DNA data available about this. BuzzBloom ( talk) 20:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at Bird-safe. Just noticed this now. With this edit, it was redirected to Abnormal behaviour of birds in captivity (which doesn't seem related to the topic) with the summary Can someone burn the prev. essay/OR rubbish with fire??. User who did it doesn't seem to have been active on Wikipedia for years. Should this be put back? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 21:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I just saw this was added recently to the black-headed gull article when I came to edit something else. This is a different species, isn't it? I don't know what it is, but I've never seen a BHG with eyes like that. Just wanted to check before I removed it. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 21:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
In accordance with a mid-December 2020 decision by the South American Classification Committee of the AOS, IOC taxonomists have lumped the southern and northern crested caracaras. SACC called the result "crested caracara" (Caracara plancus), so IOC probably will as well. [1] [2] When the next full IOC list including this change comes out, the articles Caracara (genus), southern crested caracara, and northern crested caracara and the redirect crested caracara will need to be merged into one article. The article Caracara (subfamily), the disambiguation page caracara, and probably others will need to be updated. Someone familiar with both the species and the mechanics of the merging will need to do this. (I have the first but not the second.) Thanks in advance! Craigthebirder ( talk) 14:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
BioRef|IOC}}
to use the new system and I think it will be possible to link to the specific rows in the googlesheets list, which hasn't been possible until the switch to google sheets.|version=
and the |access-date=
. With a template there is potential to correct broken links or make a best possible replacement, possibly even using archive.org, to help people find the information. Perhaps with google sheets they will keep the old versions available on the web (e.g. like Catalogue of Life). —
Jts1882 |
talk 11:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Just an FYI, the IOC has released 11.1 on their update pages, but have yet to finish the family genus pages. As soon as they do, I'll start the update. Feel free to make any changes if you know them.....pvmoutside...
A number of bird pages rated as stubs include artwork (drawings or plates from historical bird books) rather than photographs in the taxobox. If a good photograph of the bird can be found, is it desirable to replace the artwork with the photograph? Or is it better to simply add the photograph to the article and leave the original artwork in place?
I'm guessing the photograph takes priority, but I'm wondering if this is the consensus view. Adaptivity77 ( talk) 16:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick responses. - Adaptivity77 ( talk) Adaptivity77 ( talk) 17:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Look at this one too. Beak the wrong colour, eyes the wrong colour, other colours off. I know this because it's an ubiquitous pet parrot and there's loads of photos of the species. I wonder how many more aren't noticed. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings ( talk) 11:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Seabird for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. ( t · c) buidhe 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Because my primary interest is birds, I am posting this here, but have also posted a short notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals because the issue probably applies at a minimum to other animals.
I think most editors would agree that IUCN is a reliable source for the population status of a species (e.g. vulnerable or endangered). However, I have found them less reliable for ranges. (Range information is provided to IUCN by BirdLife International.) Three examples are:
The first two examples point to the problem I have witnessed of replacing more recent and/or more local-knowledge information with IUCN range data, when I believe the recent/local should take precedence. In my opinion, IUCN (or anyone else's) outdated information should not even be cited as a counterpoint to the recent information. The third example points to the folly of blindly accepting data from IUCN, or anywhere else for that matter, that conflicts with an article's primary source. It this particular case, familiarity with the species should be enough to ignore the erroneous data, but cross-checking with other sources would also determine which data are correct.
Comments, please. Craigthebirder ( talk) 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
References
I have removed the IUCN-sourced range entries from List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago; see its Talk page for details and rationale. Craigthebirder ( talk) 15:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just restored an old version (9 Feb 2018) of the Montserrat oriole article. A large amount of text had been copied verbatim from the Cornell BOW website. The edit summaries included the text "in the process of editing the page for a conservation biology class for loyola university chicago". - Aa77zz ( talk) 13:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Is the one here the currently accepted version?
https://www.worldbirdnames.org/bow/parrots/
Something that came up in discussion here. Currently the Amazon parrot article has the species list alphabetized by Latin name. Previously, it was in a different order, but I don't know what that was based on. It was different to the current order on the IOC page anyway. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 17:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
IOC sequence | BOW sequence |
---|---|
Amazona Lesson, R, 1830 [33 species]
|
Amazona [32 children]
|
I just follow the IOC. From time to time the IOC "resequence" the species in a family based on a published phylogeny (and the NW - SE convention). - Aa77zz ( talk) 18:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've created or revised a lot of "List of xxx species" (for example list of ovenbird species) and have used IOC for them. I think that's most appropriate for a non-geographic list given that IOC is the standard for individual species/family/order etc. articles. But as long as a major taxonomy is used and properly cited, I'm not wedded to it. Note that Clements calls these birds parrot, not amazon, so it wouldn't be right for this list. Craigthebirder ( talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
So, should the Lilacine amazon be demoted to a subspecies in our article again, if we're using the IOC taxonomy? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 10:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've done Amazon_parrot#List_of_species now, as we discussed here. I don't really feel confident tackling the table markup at List of amazon parrots though. I'm sure I'll completely break it. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 18:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Just something I found while reading - Category:Non-larid gulls.
I assume this was created before Larus was split years ago to demarcate the non-Larus species. Now like half of the gulls are 'non-larid', by that definition.
Is this still a useful category? Or should it be renamed to 'non-Larus'? Because they're all Laridae anyway? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 14:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've got a couple of articles up for featured status. Comments, questions or suggestions for improvement for List of endemic birds of Borneo and/or Preening would be much appreciated! MeegsC ( talk) 15:50, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at File:Verde no Verde.jpg.
I was looking on Commons for a better image to illustrate Scaly-headed parrot than the current flash-burned one (spoiler - there isn't one, really). But I did see the above image, categorized as a scaly-headed parrot. Those are clearly not scaly-headed parrots. Anyone know what they are? They look like Psittacara conures to me, but I'm not up on them enough to identify the species. Any thoughts, so I can categorize this correctly? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 15:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Adding another one I found - File:Pionus maximiliani.jpg. These are white-eyed parekeets/conures too, aren't they? Why do people think these species look anything alike? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 16:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know? Just saw on Softbill when editing. I'll export it to Commons when I know what it is... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 14:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone know if this has been studied at all? I've seen lots of videos over the years that would seem to suggest that parrots also copy human behavior (such as petting a dog with a foot, eating with a spoon, using a nail file, kissing another parrot while making human kissy noises and telling the other bird in English how cute it is, etc.). Thought it might be an interesting addition somewhere, if there are actually reliable sources about it. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 22:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have the information of Chestnut-capped piha (the only problem on GA that hasn't been solved) why the species may be superspecies or unconfirmed? 180.194.141.59 ( talk) 05:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
This article may have many views on its page, but the whole article is confusing. Lots of people on talk page were complaining.
Is anybody here a member of the BOU? I'm trying to read an article in the July 2020 issue of The Ibis, but it's behind a paywall. MeegsC ( talk) 14:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I've boldly reverted this featured article to the version of 14 January 2020. This reduced its size from 251kB to 30kB. I've started a discussion on the talk page. - Aa77zz ( talk) 08:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Chickadee 24,190 806 Stub-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
The article Bekisar (hybrid of Gallus varius and Gallus gallus bankiva) has no cites.
Article has been tagged since Nov 2010.
Anybody?
- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:9443:1D79:7950:A0FB ( talk) 20:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Incoming links to superspecies are almost entirely from bird articles. Would it be useful to add support for superspecies as a rank in taxoboxes? Plantdrew ( talk) 20:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I've just been reading about parrots. Seems like all the conures are named "parakeet" on here. I always thought parakeet was for old world species and conure denoted new world birds with that body shape.
Please could someone with the necessary privileges move Canastero to the genus name Asthenes (now a redirect).
After updates to the genera the use of the common name here has become confusing. As well as "canasteros" the genus Asthenes includes 9 "thistletails". In addition Asthenes is not the only genus with "canesteros" as 4 have been moved to the genus Pseudasthenes. Many thanks - Aa77zz ( talk) 10:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know what this user was trying to do here? Question marks added next to species names and taxonomic order changed around. Not sure if it needs reverting... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 14:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Soooo.....@ LittleJerry, Aa77zz, Shyamal, BhagyaMani, and Jimfbleak:...anyone have any enthusiasm for another collaboration to go on the FA train? My enthusiasm and availability has been a bit too patchy for solo efforts the last few months but I felt really good getting some bird not from Australia or UK Featured. Happy to put some heavy lifting into another avian collaboration to keep the FAs ticking over. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking for some advice. New York City is along the Atlantic Flyway and home to a very active birding community. There's a lot of information out there about birds here. But what is the standard for having a list along the lines of List of birds of New York City? It would, of course, be a subset of List of birds of New York (state). What are the assumptions about source coverage? Are there central authorities that only cover at the level of states in the US? Any advice welcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The North American Classification Committee of the American Ornithological Society (NACC/AOS) has published the 2021 update to the Checklist of North American Birds. The "List of birds of ___" articles for the US and its states, Canada and its provinces, Central America, much of the Caribbean, and more than a dozen US National Parks use that taxonomy. Over the next couple of weeks I will be updating all of those lists to match the revised taxonomy. The IOC has also released Version 11.2 of its taxonomy and I will be updating various lists of species by family (e.g. List of Cisticolidae species) as well. And the newest Clements taxonomy should be published soon after a two year hiatus. Craigthebirder ( talk) 15:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Could someone who knows where the birds are buried sort out whether the genus Haliaeetus is currently considered to be within a subfamily Haliaeetinae (as implemented in the templates, but not in the text of that article), or in Buteoninae (as implied by the text of Accipitridae#Taxonomy, but not the text of Buteoninae itself)? Cheers -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
|
Hello, I created a brief draft for Kleptorichy, the recently defined word for the stealing of mammal hair by birds. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 21:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Merge proposal discussion under Crex talk page due to IOC taxonomy change.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 8:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Recently, Phedina was turned into a redirect as it became a monotypic genus after one species was reclassified. This seems a shame to me, as it was a decent quality article. In situations like these, has there been any previous discussion on instead moving the article to some higher taxonomic rank, or perhaps even setting it up as an unranked clade article? It seems useful to have an article discussing a group of species somewhere between the very focused individual species article and the broad Family article ( Swallow, which covers 90ish species). It would also provide a location where the various changes to taxonomic classification could be discussed. (Pinging Pvmoutside who updated the pages regarding the reclassification.) CMD ( talk) 01:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Can anyone help me find a source saying that at one time, years ago most/all parrots were placed in the genus Psittacus? I'm pretty sure that's true, but I can't find proof online. Thanks. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 11:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The new Clements/ebird has now been published. At present, it is only available at ebird, but should be published on the Clements site very soon. This will affect most of the country checklists. User craigthebirder has taken care of the North and South American lists because he uses a different source for those lists. Craig and I will slowly begin updating the remaining lists. Feel free if you want to have some fun.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
When a family contains a single genus should the combined article be at the genus name or at the family name? Thanks
- Aa77zz ( talk) 16:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Re the above question - can somebody with the necessary privileges move Psophiidae to Psophia. Many thanks - Aa77zz ( talk) 18:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding the article about the Mauritius shelduck, which has also been called the Mauritius sheldgoose. So I naturally wanted to know what the difference is between the two terms, and the Wikipedia articles seem to be pretty neatly delineated: a shelduck is apparently mainly a member of the genus Tadorna and a sheldgoose is supposedly a member of the genus Chloephaga. But wait, the Mauritius shelduck was never classified in either genus, and Britannica instead says "Sheldgoose, any of the larger members of the duck tribe Tadornini, family Anatidae (order Anseriformes). The smaller members of the tribe are called shelducks" [4], which seems a lot more arbitrary than Wikipedia's definitions. So are our definitions too neat? Should we instead have articles for Tadorna and Chloephaga under their scientific names, and keep shelduck/ sheldgoose as a single article about an informal, unnatural group, like parakeet? FunkMonk ( talk) 22:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"I'll just leave this here", as they say. :)
Nominator isn't active anymore, if anyone can help for it on its basic GA process. 114.134.189.25 ( talk) 04:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry to kick up a ruckus about an obvious good faith contributor, but I'm rather alarmed at what I'm seeing here. Chetatata has been expanding Philippine bird stubs over the past month, usually employing three main sources: Birds of the Philippines, EBird, and the respective IUCN page. The trouble is with the usage of the IUCN source. In every example that I have checked so far, there are direct copy & paste copyvios - ranging from individual sentences (as at Negros scops owl) to full or multiple paragraphs (as in Hombron's kingfisher) ( IUCN page). Usually it's the "Conservation Actions Proposed" section from the page, complete with ungrammatical bullet phrasing, plus bits and bobs from the rest of the page. All material from the IUCN pages is copyrighted, and we straight up cannot do that. (Note that the copyvio detector is pretty bad at picking these up, I assume due to its text spot check/subsampling mechanics.)
I'm noting this here because I have a strong suspicion that the entire batch of contributions will have to be revdeleted to remedy this, and I'd rather not instigate that entirely on my own penny. @ Diannaa: could you verify?
(As a distant second, they also directly quote (in quotation marks) the entire EBird description, which I guess is okay as far as re-use and attribution goes, but I think it's bad practice to not rephrase this for WP use. More YMMV, maybe others could comment on that.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Diannaa: @ Elmidae: My bad, I thought if it could pass thru the copyvio detector then it would've been okay. Can I just remove the parts where I source IUCN? Like you said it's just in the conservation actions proposed parts? - Chetatata ( talk
... but the IUCN has not - and predictably everyone and their grandmother is bombing into the article with hamfisted updates and and rewrites. We need to establish a clear decision as to which source to follow. Please hop over onto the talk page and comment. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 17:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
It's currently a redirect. Recent taxonomic changes mean that it should now contain Calyptorhynchus and Zanda (bird), I think. Is that correct (checking before I do it)? -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 11:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at these edits? I have no knowledge of this subject, but given the edit history of the user who made them, I can't tell if they are correct or simply more crap. Thanks. Jauerback dude?/ dude. 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
References
Please see move request here which has yet to receive any comments. Somatochlora ( talk) 14:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
That's what the article is currently claiming. I checked the source and it indeed does say that there are 1.2 billion ring-billed gulls.
Does that seem like a lot to you? Too high? I know the RBG is the ubiquitous North American seagull and North America is big, but yeah, that still seems like a lot. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 17:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
This paper got quite a lot of discussion online when it was first published and it is very clear that many of the numbers are absolute garbage, IIRC there were a number of cases of rarer species that have very precisely estimated populations from other sources, which are outside the CI of this paper. The inclusion of Ring-billed Gull, Glaucous Gull and Alder Flycatcher among the 10 most abundant birds in the world is totally bonkers. Other sources suggest Ring-billed Gull populations in the range of 2-10 million, this paper should just be ignored. Somatochlora ( talk) 19:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey, does anyone know of any birds that reside in central California that need photos? I'm not a bird person but I've got a camera and I'd like to contribute! I don't feel like searching through all 4,000 pages tagged with image requests to find the ones in california. 9yz ( talk) 05:33, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
While trying to save American crow, which is a GA in a sorry state, one of my sources describes a contested subspecies thusly: "C. b. caurinus (Baird, SF, 1858)". I have no idea what the "SF" means, and google was unhelpful. Do any of you know? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 18:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
NB: If anyone has access on Cornell birds website, adding some refs to American crow would be extremely appreciated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Unrelated to what I wrote above. Yesterday I edited Amazon parrot to say that the birds are "stocky". I nearly wrote "plump", but I think that implies "fat" where "stocky" just means "wide", which they are. But someone reverted me. Is it wrong to include that do you think? -- 146.200.107.70 ( talk) 03:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
See the discussion here. The IOC still lists this species in Psittacula, but the IUCN recently moved it to Palaeornis. Wikipedia generally uses the IOC taxonomy, correct? There are a few examples like this. The IUCN considers the eclectus parrot and red-shouldered macaw to be split into multiple species, for example... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 23:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Is anyone interested in this? It seems that there's a species of pterodactyl, "Palaeornis" cliftii too? What a mess. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 02:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
See the recent edit to crop (anatomy) here. The anon rightly points out in his/her edit summary that the article states that ducks and geese don't have crops, but the article is illustrated with an image and a video showing a duck and a goose, apparently with a bulging crop. I have found some websites (e.g. this) that say that ducks and geese don't have crops too. So I have no idea. Anyone able to help? I only really know about parrots to any great extent. -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 20:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
(I asked this on the reference desk too, but I think there are some parrot lovers here, so will ask it here too.)
This is about my friend's mealy amazon parrot. The vet says he's overweight, so in addition to putting him on a low calorie diet she's been trying to get him to fly so he can work out. But he doesn't want to. The parrot is at least 25 years old and mostly flies like a spruce goose on the few occasions that something scares him and he takes off (other than that, he walks and climbs everywhere). We tried picking him up like a chicken and throwing him up into the air (bean bag underneath), but all he did was flutter his wings on the way down. This was making him really angry so we stopped doing that.
Does anyone have any tips for how to do it properly, or good links? Thanks. -- 146.200.107.70 ( talk) 02:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
If you've got a moment, consider hopping over to the Bee hummingbird talk page and commenting on the dinosaur angle of the lede. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 18:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi all
I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.
Thanks very much
John Cummings ( talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
FA Albatross needs to be submitted to FAR unless someone can update. Hopefully, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
When I try to download the H & M Checklist from the hotlink I get a "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead" page that says the website uses an invalid security certificate. Does anyone have any insight? Craigthebirder ( talk) 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
http
rather than https
. Can you give an example link for the problem? —
Jts1882 |
talk 20:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hello all. A recently banned user, Somed00d1997, has made a prolific number of edits to animal pages. Many of these were disputed and reversed (and the user made clear that they were too smart to need consensus, which provoked multiple edit wars), but a number remain, ranging from less-trafficked species to high-profile pages like Duck. I imagine a number of them are totally fine, but I have no real expertise here, and thought it might be worthwhile to flag in case those who are more knowledgable on the subject wanted to have a look through their changes. The user also seems to have used a few sockpuppets once they were banned, including Reusensio.-- Yaksar (let's chat) 16:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The extinct NZ bird Manu antiquus has a page, but since it's the only currently known member of its genus Manu (bird). This title is extremely confusing for disambiguation purposes (Manu is the word for bird in Māori and many other Polynesian languages). Is there a better title for this article? -- Prosperosity ( talk) 03:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
... for a monotypic genus (one that contains a single species), the genus name should be used, as it is included in the binomial nomenclature, and the genus title is more concise than the binomial. For instance, the order Amphionidacea, which has the single species Amphionides reynaudii, is discussed at Amphionides. If the name of a monotypic genus is shared with another topic, it is usually more appropriate to use a binomial as a natural disambiguation, rather than using a parenthetical disambiguating term for the genus. E.g., Alberta magna is a more natural search term than Alberta (plant genus). — Jts1882 | talk 07:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Procellariidae for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 05:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I expanded everything at Chestnut-vented nuthatch from a GA French article, but I'm not sure how to properly cite anything, especially the books. Any help would be appreciated! 2001:4455:1A9:E100:5023:99FB:2ED1:17B6 ( talk) 01:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I'm going to simplify the Vieques list to have it conform better to the other lists. It looks like it hasn't been updated in a while, so I plan to get rid of breeding status, as well as seasonal occurrence and habitat. It looks like around 50 species should be added from the Avibase list and I have no idea regarding the status of each of those categories for the new species plus it will be easier to update moving forward..... Pvmoutside ( talk) 16:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
this page has listed old featured articles needing review, to either be kept, sent to TFAR or delisted. Bird articles are relatively stable, but still need a look. Common raven is a case in point; it's basically OK, but some of the book refs, mainly in the mythology and folklore sections, don't have page numbers. The more eyes that look at the the articles, the more chance our hard-won FAs have of surviving. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Gracupica and all species and subspecies beneath it are a mess. According to the Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) on-line database, Avibase - The World Bird Database, and several other sources, Gracupica only consists of two species: Gracupica nigricollis and Gracupica contra. However, the Wikipedia page for Gracupica lists four species.
While the scientific names for two species are correct (Gracupica nigricollis and Gracupica contra), the information for Gracupica contra is incorrect and the other two are subspecies of Gracupica contra which, in actuality, consists of a total of five subspecies. The information beneath the incorrect table, stating that "the International Ornithological Congress has accepted these results" is incorrect. The IOC acknowledges the hierarchy shown with ITIS.
The information shown for Gracupica contra - calling it an Indian pied myna with distribution throughout the Indian subcontinent - actually belongs to the subspecies Gracupica contra contra (yes, "contra" is repeated). Additionally Gracupica floweri should be Gracupica contra floweri, and Gracupica jalla should be Gracupica contra jalla.
The pages for the Indian pied myna, the Siamese pied myna, and the Javan pied myna all use a speciesbox to display taxonomic information. This restricts the page editors from being able to show an accurate taxonomy. In order that a correct taxonomy can be shown down to the subspecies, there is a subspeciesbox template better suited for the task.
The page for the Siamese pied myna makes no sense, stating that the Siamese pied myna (Gracupica contra floweri) "previously was considered a subspecies of the pied myna" and citing an IOC list dated 28 May 2021. At the bottom of pg. 678, of "Handbook of the Birds of the World," published in 1992, there is a photo of an Asian Pied Starling (aka, Siamese Pied Myna). The credit caption on the photo reads "Gracupica contra floweri, Bangkok, Thailand." So, back in 1992 the floweri was a subspecies of Gracupica contra then, according to whoever wrote that Wikipedia page, it was "considered a subspecies of the pied myna" until 2021, and now it is a species (not a subspecies), but ITIS, IOC, many other reliable sources still maintain that it is a subspecies of Gracupica contra.
On the Siamese pied myna page, it says that the pied myna "has now been split into three species" and references the IOC list dated 28 May 2021. I'm assuming, from the Gracupica page, that the statement on the Siamese pied myna page is in reference to what is written beneath the Species table. Go look at "Handbook of the Birds of the World," pg. 819. In 1992, Gracupica contra jalla already existed so how was it one of the three pieces that "split" from the pied myna in 2021?
I am going to take it upon myself, over the next week, to edit the pages for Gracupica, its species, and its subspecies so as to reflect accurate and wholly verifiable information. I will be certain to cite reliable sources throughout.
AdmPope ( talk) 20:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Gracupica contra and G. jalla (del Hoyo and Collar 2016) were previously lumped as Sturnus contra following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993).. So it looks like those two species were lumped following Sibley and now due to newer work have been split again. I also take that to mean that del Hoyo and Collar 2016 recognised the split in HBW illustrated checklist. — Jts1882 | talk 07:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A paper describing fossils birds of Cuba in 2020 indicates the Cuban crane ( Grus cubensis) belongs to Antigone. I think the Bermuda crane ( Grus latipes) known from fossil remains from Bermuda should also be transferred to Antigone because the paper describing the taxa says that the Bermuda crane's closest relative is the Sandhill crane ( Antigone canadensis). It's more reasonable to say so.
Also the taxonomic updates of the fossil Pacific rails of Gallirallus and Porzana should be transferred to Hypotaenidia and Zapornia too. As the pages of the fossil Pacific doves of Gallicolumba was updated to Pampusana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 11:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
If the page was created it seems more reasonable to transfer the genus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huinculsaurus ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
https://www.biotaxa.org/Zootaxa/article/view/zootaxa.4780.1.1
This is the reference, similar to IOC transferred the Amsterdam wigeon to Mareca without a study, it's more reasonable to name the Bermuda crane as Antigone latipes if the page was created.
Why Nandayus vorohuensis is named Aratinga vorohuensis on Wikipedia I think is more likely to follow IOC taxonomy because Nandayus is found to be a synonym of Aratinga. Huinculsaurus ( talk) 03:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
IOC transferred Anas marecula to Mareca without studies, and we always follows IOC taxonomic updates. Huinculsaurus ( talk) 00:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI, looks like the January update, 12.1 is going to be published very soon.... Pvmoutside ( talk) 23:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
What makes Great eared nightjar so popular right now? 2001:4455:1A9:E100:7973:6486:FACD:919F ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Articles about birds of the United States are typically fairly well illustrated, but I figured I'd post this anyway: if anyone has been working on an article about a bird species that resides in (or passes through) the northeastern USA/ Atlantic Flyway and wishes there were a better picture, I'm up for a challenge.
The main goal I've set for myself for 2022 is an FP of a tufted titmouse (last year it was blue jay and northern cardinal). We'll see. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The article for Eclectus roratus (eclectus parrot, the species, not eclectus, the genus article) currently provides a smorgasbord as an arrangement as subspecies, apparent acceptance of four species, and some 'dubious species' as a salad option. Comments? Split? ~ cygnis insignis 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Anyone know how to fix this one? I have no idea. Someone added references and broke something, then someone else tried to fix it and made it worse... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 11:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
|range_map=
parameter must contain the file name and the references are not part of a valid file name (hence the error). I've added a caption citing the latest IUCN assessment which the map is based on. I've moved the Fauna Paraguay reference, but haven't checked if this is still a valid reference for the point being made. Perhaps you can check this. —
Jts1882 |
talk 13:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Take a look at this one. Seems like the sort of paper that would be a good fit for a lot of parrot articles. I've already referenced it in a couple (contains the astounding fact that 50% of all living parrots are now living in captivity, mostly as pets! - though I suppose that makes sense when you factor in all the budgies, cockatiels, ringnecks and lovebirds). Some of you guys might be able use it in the articles you're keeping an eye on. Just a thought... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Would someone please check Special:Contributions/14.201.98.90. I could revert as unexplained changes but is there any reason for the edits? Johnuniq ( talk) 01:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Hey, feel free to drop by at the GTC nom for mountain pigeon. AryKun ( talk) 08:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Procellariidae/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Birdlife International now consider the citron-crested cockatoo to be a unique species (see my recent edits to the page). Mentioning it here because this is a fairly well-known parrot (which has a surprisingly short article). I've just noted the split in the text so far, because I know Wikipedia likes to use the IOC's taxonomy... -- Iloveparrots ( talk) 23:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
A very old GA that has some tags. Will do what I can. Any help appreciated. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)