Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Birds (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconWikiProject Birds is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

WikiProject Birds
General information
Main project page talk
Naming and capitalization
 → Article requests
 → Spoken Article requests talk
 → Photo requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project portal talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Featured topics talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Country lists talk
Bird articles by size talk
Hot articles talk
Popular pages talk
Task forces
Domestic pigeon task force talk
Poultry task force talk
edit · changes

Toco toucan beakEdit

A student editor created an article on the toco toucan beak. Normally I'd tell them to upmerge it to the toco toucan article, but at 22k it's longer than the 13k parent article. And while it could use some cleanup, it seems decently referenced. I'm not quite sure what to suggest in this case. Any ideas? Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

This seems to largely be about toucan beaks in general, so merge to toucan. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Just came here to ask about the same article. I am amazed by how much material there is on this topic, but standalone status seems rather debatable. It's too detailed, containing extensive summaries of individual papers (e.g. this materials/mechanics section). I agree this should be condensed and merged to toucan, where it will make a fine section. Nice work there! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd leave it as is. It's an interesting, well-referenced article. It's not doing any harm by being there. If someone had written all that in the main article then there would maybe be an argument for condensing it, but I can definitely see "mechanics of toucan beaks" being something that someone (maybe not many someones, but a few) would be looking for information about. Iloveparrots (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a "vote" on its talk page. But I'd strongly support a merge, I don't think "it's not doing any harm by being there" is a valid argument in this context. Little info would have to be removed by a merge, but I think some detail is excessive and number of subheaders. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Resplendent quetzal/GA1Edit

only If interested to take over and fix the remaining issues. BloatedBun (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Demarcation line between "parrots" and "parakeets"?Edit

I was thinking of adding something about this to the parakeet article. How is it decided by taxonomists which species is a "parrot" and which is a "parakeet"? It currently implies (unreferenced) that the Alexandrine parakeet is the dividing line - a fairly large bird, also very commonly called the "Alexandrine parrot". Yet the burrowing parrot is of a similar size and is called "parrot", not "parakeet" so IDK (I always called it a Patagonian conure).

Also weirdness. The barred parakeet. It has a short tail, yet is called a parakeet because it's a tiny bird. Is this stuff just completely arbitrary? --Iloveparrots (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You have to recheck the question " How is it decided by taxonomists" - in fact, the distinction is NEVER made by taxonomists who would deal only in binomials. It is much like dove and pigeon, hawk / eagle etc. largely arbitrary. Shyamal (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I misspoke then.
Who are the people that decide the English names of bird species then? How do *they* decide on the appropriate nomenclature? There is a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense to me. Take for example the sun conure, Congo African grey parrot, umbrella cockatoo and peach faced lovebird. Three of the most famous and iconic parrot species. Yet their "official names" are "sun parakeet", "grey parrot", "white cockatoo" and "rosy faced lovebird" (Google around and see who's actually using those names - it's not the "official" names in common usage). I'd complain if I knew who to complain to and if I thought it would make any difference.
But I digress. How to the people who decide the official English names demarcate between "parrot" and "parakeet"? Or "conure" and "parakeet", for that matter. Iloveparrots (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
It is decided largely by traditions, and communities can differ, hunters can use one name, bird fanciers another, and bird-watchers still another. Things can change over time as well due to changes in taxonomic knowledge, and influences include books, particularly field guides. For the primary names used in English on Wikipedia we largely go with the consensus produced by the IOC committee on - and yes, there are a slew of problems with achieving consistency especially for names that become more commonplace (so the IOC will not insist on "black thrush" for blackbird even if it clearly is a thrush, for instance). Shyamal (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Phasianidae phylogeny changesEdit

Hey everyone, last year I performed some major changes to the phylogeny of Phasianidae based on Kimball et al 2021, whose study had been used by the International Ornithological Congress to reorder its galliform phylogeny. However, while I am able to access many studies, this one was never made available to me, and thus I had to use a secondary source that reported on Kimball et al 2021: , which is accordingly cited in most of these pages. This source used names for all the subfamily and tribe-level divisions, such as Rollulinae or Polyplectronini. Recently, Kimball et al. 2021 was finally made accessible on some sites like Semantic Scholar, and reading through the paper, none of these names were ever used in the paper, and the classification of one taxon (Tropicoperdix) differs between BirdPhylogeny and the original study. In addition, returning to the original BirdPhylogeny page, the phylogeny image must have changed sometime between when last summer and now, because the tribe names have completely vanished off of it, and using the Internet Archive doesn't turn up any previous versions of this image. Some of these names (such as Rhizotherini) were never used in any scientific literature, so my use of them on these articles derives from this one source. So now I am left with many entries that cite info that was never mentioned in the original paper and was removed from this secondary source. I'm not sure what to do now. Geekgecko (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There's an archive page with tribes at You made the changes in good faith based on a secondary source, so I suppose you could cite the archived page. However, as they no longer use it and the taxonomic names are questionable, it's probably better not to, except perhaps as a temporary measure.
How much do the tribes diverge from the H&M4 listing overall? As you say Rhizotherini is problematic (its part of Rollulinae in H&M). I note the Wikipedia taxonomy has been picked up by GBIF. Pucrasiini and Meleagridini are other new tribes in Neither are necessary as the genera could be rolled into Tetraonini (H&M already places Meleagris there). A taxonomic revision could similarly put Rhizotherainto Phasianini rather than create a new tribe. It's a shame that these new phylogenetic papers often don't bother with potential revisions of the taxonomy and that the IOC doeesn't list the subfamilies and tribes even though they follow the sequence.
One solution might be to use the tribal listing in H&M and put notes on the genera found elsewhere in Kimball et al 2021. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
That H&M4 listing lines up pretty well! The differences are that:
There is no Pavoninae, all members are classified in Phasianinae or Rollulinae
Lerwa, classified as the most basal member of Phasianinae by Kimball, and given its own tribe by birdphylogeny, is classified in the Coturnicini by H&M4
Tropicoperdix is given an outdated classification, being synonymized with Arborophila, despite Kimball finding them to fall between the Pavonini and Polyplectronini and birdphylogeny placing them within Pavonini. The same is for Rhizothera, which is classified in the Rollulinae rather than the Phasianinae
Haematortyx and Galloperdix are placed in the Polyplectronini by birdphylogeny, which lines up with Kimball's placement, but H&M4 lists them as incertae sedis
Perdix was placed in Phasianini by birdphylogeny, somewhat lining up with Kimball's placement (though a distinct tribe would work better, given its heavy morphological differences from the pheasants), but is listed as incertae sedis by H&M4
Pucrasia and Ithaginis, both of were placed in distinct tribes by birdphylogeny, are classified as incertae sedis by H&M4
And of course, Meleagris is classified as a grouse
Geekgecko (talk) 05:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Did you ever try to get the original source at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request? awkwafaba (📥) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Hm, the original source I used for my edits last year was the link above, which previously compiled names from multiple different papers and applied them to Kimball's study. If by "original source" you mean the Kimball et al study, I wasn't able to access the paper until earlier this month when it was made available to the public for the first time, which was where I found that none of the names used on the birdphylogeny site were used in the paper, and the site itself had also since removed the tribe names (which I had accordingly created pages for) that it had applied to the paper's work. Geekgecko (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
So are there any solutions? It seems that H&M4 itself was not based on Kimball's 2021 paper and was rather based on several previous papers, hence some of the erroneous classification such as Tropicoperdix within Arborophila and Rhizothera within Rollulinae. Geekgecko (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
H&M4 was published in 2013 (non-passerines) and 2014 (passerines) (see cover page). The online version just makes this available with errata and corrections. Its pros are it uses subfamilies and tribes, which the other major checklists don't, and it has a comprehensive list of footnotes (also available in the online edition) The downside is that it hasn't been updated for new information. For the non-passerines the cut-off for publications must be approaching a decade.
The solution, unfortunately, is that we need to wait for someone to make the taxonomic revisions at subfamily and tribal level. Your list of differences above seems fairly clear and it just needs someone to assign tribal names and make decisions on lumping or creating new tribes. The study of Chen et al (2021) agrees with those differences, apart from the position of Rhizothera, which they find sister to Teraonini + Phasianini rather than sister to Perdix + Phasianini sensu H&M4. This probably means it should get its own tribe. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to find any alternative source and have drawn a blank.
As for your new pages, I suppose they should be changed to redirects. The text can be recovered when a new taxonomic study is published. I can't think of a better solution. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)