Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 12

Parisoma

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

Unkown bird

voice of Zonotrichia albicollis

Hello. I've made in June 2007 in the Algonquin Provincial Park this recording of a unknown bird. Can anybody tell me, what's bird this is. Liesel 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Liesel: This sounds like a classic White-throated Sparrow, which is regular in the park there. The song is often transcribed as "Old Sam Peabody Peabody Peabody" in the field guides... MeegsC | Talk 08:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's most definitely a white-throat. In French, we say that its song resembles Je suis Fréderic, Fréderic, Fréderic. Would that recording be an appropriate addition to the species article? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• • It would be a superb addition to the article, imho. I wish we had as many recordings as we have photographs. Thanks for contributing this one, Liesel! —JerryFriedman 14:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The recording is in the article. Liesel 17:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Bird article illustrations

I wondered if there were any views on the merits of the old illustrations that accompany many bird articles. Take a look at Blyth's Reed Warbler, for example - this is accompanied by a painting of a bird which could be any species of unstreaked Acro, Hippolais etc. whereas there are now some reasonably good photos of the species accompanying the article. Should we aim to replace paintings like this with photos at the earliest opportunity, or is there some merit in keeping the painting? SP-KP 10:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd replace the painting, especially one like that that doesn't look much like the photographs. On the other hand, I'm in no hurry to replace a painting like the one by Fuertes at Black-headed Heron. —JerryFriedman 14:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Done the Blyth's Reed, got rid of that awful old painting. I'd agree that where photos are available, paintings should only be used if they are exceptionally good. - MPF 22:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Weka/archive1

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

Superb Fairy-wren at FAC

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasudha parrot

Is there or is there not such a bird? Tell us. thank you. --Victor falk 17:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking for help with domestic birds

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

King Vulture FAC

And then there were three. King Vulture has joined Peregrine Falcon and Superb Fairy-wren at FAC here. Please come out and review. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, three at once, though my tiny wittle birdy looks a bit vulnerable to the two big waptors...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, look on the bright side. Your dainty Fairy-wren only has to worry about the Peregrine. My King Vulture just gets to pick over its remains :) Rufous-crowned Sparrow 20:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Rock pigeon

A user has created a content fork from the Rock pigeon article by cutting and pasting the "Feral Pigeon" section. Content forks are acceptable in many cases, of course, but I'm uncertain if the same rules pertain to biology articles- it would seem extremely important that all the relevant information of a particular species be detailed on one page. As it is now, we have two separate articles concerning the same species, both with sections concerning feeding, breeding, nesting, etc. I'm fairly certain that this is a slight problem. The user has (since) stated simply that the article was getting "too long", but I'd disagree- the article, including all elements, was only 21k, which seems to be a reasonable size for a common and popularly-known animal.

I'm checking everything here, because the user made the change with zero prior discussion and zero explanation, thus haphazardly creating and editing a new Feral pigeon article. Does anyone have any information which could help me?--C.Logan 13:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with the fork - we've regularly separated wild and domesticated species (eg chicken from Red Junglefowl, and domesticated and wild turkeys). I'd also hive off the cultural stuff if there was enough. Jimfbleak 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The split seems sensible to me (in fact coincidentally I'd just that minute suggested it myself). As long as there are suitable summaries and links on the Rock Pigeon page, I don't see that there's any danger of the different branches of the species getting lost. My own feeling was not so much in the article getting too long, but that the wild Rock Pigeon was getting lost in the much fuller domestic and feral stuff. I wonder if this discussion is better conducted on the relevant page(s)? --Richard New Forest 15:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I've copied the two comments above to Talk:Rock Pigeon, which seems like the best place, though I'm glad C.Logan brought it up here. —JerryFriedman 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Barbary Falcon?

Since the Handbook of Birds of the World lists the Barbary Falcon as a subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon, I've changed the Peregrine article to say that it is a subspecies. Should the Barbary Falcon article be deleted? --Jude. 19:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some discussion here. Short answer: my impression is that we shouldn't delete the Barbary article and the Peregrine article should say that some consider the Barbary a subspecies and others consider it a full species.

I'm not sure why you took out all that material. It may have been misplaced, but I think we should have it. It's the kind of thing that's fascinating to a few and uninteresting or incomprehensible to many others (I certainly read it with difficulty), which I always want to put at the ends of articles. Maybe in this case it should go at the end of Barbary Falcon, with a reference from the Peregrine article. —JerryFriedman 20:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the rest of the material in the Barbary Falcon article. I'll go change the Peregrine Falcon article to say that some consider it subspecies and others consider it a distinct species right now. Cheers, Jude. 20:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that.

This is really Dysmodrepanis's thing, so I'll wait till he weighs in, but I wouldn't mind having all the taxonomic stuff at Barbary Falcon and a note at Peregrine that says something like, "For the taxonomic complexities of the relationship between these two forms, see Barbary Falcon." —JerryFriedman 21:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Species to do

I've removed the following from the list for the time being:

• Campbell Island Snipe Coenocorypha sp. Not possible to write the species article until there is a formal description.
• Intermediate Parakeet, Psittacula intermedia (Supposed to be a hybrid between Psittacula himalayana & Psittacula cyanocephala, but see this). Not possible to write a species article unless we know it's a species.

Jimfbleak 06:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is possible—"The Intermediate Parakeet is a kind of parrot found in India. Some consider it a hybrid between Psittacula himalayana and Psittacula cyanocephala, while others argue that it is a separate species. It has a purple head" etc. But it would be nice to get things straightened out first.

By the way, I hope all of us writing these last species articles are remembering that these species are splits and the articles about the "parent" species should be consistent with the new articles. For instance, a Polbot stub will give the range of the lumped species recognized by the IUCN. But countries where only the "new" species occurs should be deleted from the Polbot article. Also the "parent" article should mention the new one. Et cetera. —JerryFriedman 17:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Done intermediate parakeet. I do not have access to the references cited there, picked from Rasmussen and Anderton 2005. Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide. If someone does find the original material it would be great if more can be added (would also be grateful if I could obtain a copy of the papers). Shyamal 08:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

ducks etc

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

Splendid Fairy-wren at FAC

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

Most wanted articles: Birds

FYI, bird folks: Wikipedia:Most wanted articles indicates that for Wikipedia as a whole a surprising number (to me, at least) of said articles are those for specific species of birds. Anybody interested in creating "most wanted" stubs should be able to stay busy with this for a while. -- 201.19.75.173 12:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

They are nearly all links that just need redirects to existing articles. I've done most of them Jimfbleak 06:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Four New Bird FAs!

All four of the bird FAC (Peregrine Falcon, Superb Fairy-wren, King Vulture, and Splendid Fairy-wren) just passed FAC and are now featured.

With the passing of the King Vulture article, the New World Vulture featured topic drive now has 2 FAs, 5 Bs, and a start article. Anyways, I off to do the Andean Condor! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well done everyone! Nice to see a good-running collab gain momentum. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

4 bird FAs.....in one fell swoop. (sorry, couldn't help myself) ROFL...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We've also got Greater Yellow-headed Vulture at GAC... We're just on a roll here. Splendid. (or should I say Superb?) Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ROFL - will have a look at the FT later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Another good idea at WP dino - Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size aka WP:DABS

This looks like a great idea highlight all articles and may make it really easy to improve/enlarge important stubs or find big articles for FA making, not sure how to go about making one for WP:Birds though. I'm leaving a note with Firsfron who may know more. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Month- Dead or Alive?

Hey. I've noticed that the monthly collaboration for this project hasn't been updated recently. Ostrich, a clear and deserving winner, has not yet replaced Parrot. Is this a bi-monthly thing or has it just been forgotten? I'd change it myself but I'm not sure how.

Oh, and please come by and comment at the Featured Topics page. Jude and myself (with some good help from Casliber and others) have been working on the New World Vulture topic, but we need pictures for the two yellow-headed vultures and the family article could use some help. Thanks. A rushed Rufous-crowned Sparrow 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think SS has been pretty busy. Will do teh housekeeping. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, got swamped prior to going on holiday, then was on holiday.... Still, I'll be back in full soon, and I have some great bird photos from the South Pacific! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

(big sigh of relief) good to see you back. can't wait to see photos. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

ID request: Bradornis

Anyone care to identify this little fellow from Kenya? Pale Flycatcher, African Grey Flycatcher, or not identifiable enough to use? —JerryFriedman 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

African Grey (which Polbot has called Large Flycatcher, contra HBW or at least the IBC), thanks to JMK and Brian Finch of [www.mathewssafaris.com]. —JerryFriedman 17:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

category defaultsort

I was about to do a category defaultsort on some bird articles, but i thought I'd better ask here first. would it be OK to do this? it would mean entering (for example)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Skua, Arctic}}

Making the Arctic Skua appear under S rather than A, so that all the skuas are easier to find on the category page. This is of course the way it should be done for biographical articles - but why not for biology articles? Opinions please. Totnesmartin 11:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Go for it. Obviously un-necessary for pages with sci name titles. - MPF 12:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've done a basic version of it here and it works. Now all the gulls, plovers and gobies are together instead of scattered about the page. Totnesmartin 23:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a good idea to me. —JerryFriedman 01:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too Jimfbleak 06:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! It will certainly be easier for people to find what they're looking for... MeegsC | Talk 07:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At the Tree of Life project the idea came up that it would be pointless doing it for taxonomic categories, which is fair enough (why defaultsort Category:Geese? The'y all just get piled onto G...) but it's a good one for (eg0 habitat and regional categories. In the end, we'll have to hand-sort categories as appropriate, using good old common sense. or should that be "sense, common"? Totnesmartin 14:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, is there any way to make the species WITHIN a group sort alphabetically? In other words, it would be good if "Black-headed Gull" sorted before "Lesser Black-backed Gull", which sorted before "Mediterranean Gull". Right now, in this list, they're all over the place -- making a particular species harder to find than it should be... MeegsC | Talk 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, you can type it as: [[:Category:British Isles coastal fauna|gull, lesser blackback]] instead of just [[:Category:British Isles coastal fauna|gull]] which I only did out of laziness, not realising that it would bugger up the list. Sorry about that. Totnesmartin 16:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul of List of New Zealand birds, input sought

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

Endemic birds of Alaska

A misinformed user has added a category called "Endemic birds of Alaska" and has put all sorts of inappropriate birds into the category. (See Hammond's Flycatcher, for example. Or Rock Ptarmigan. Or any of a number of other species.) As far as I know, only one species—McKay's Bunting—potentially falls into this category. It seems a bit pointless to have a category for a single article— is there any reason for keeping it? MeegsC | Talk 07:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's get rid of it. Will you put it up at CfD and let us know here? SP-KP 09:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'll go through first and remove all the species currently in the category, so we don't get lots of red-links in the species articles; anybody with a bit of time who'd like to help is most welcome to do so! :P MeegsC | Talk 12:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's done, and listed for deletion. Please leave any comments here. MeegsC | Talk 14:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

More bad endemic cats

Unfortunately, I've found a whole host of other bad "endemic" categories. There are at least four endemic categories for Canada (which has no endemics): Endemic birds of Western Canada, Endemic birds of southeastern Canada, Endemic birds of southwestern Canada and Endemic birds of Canadian prairies Canada. I notice they've already been copied elsewhere across the web (as "licensed with GFLD from Wikipedia") which means the misinformation is spreading as we speak. ARG! Anybody with some free time to help clear these out, your assistance would be much appreciated. Clearing out the Alaska one—as well as several bad Mexico cats—took me quite a while yesterday! MeegsC | Talk 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Those four Canadian ones are empty (not all done by me) and I've nominated them for deletion here. —JerryFriedman 05:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bird names in article titles and article text

How can it be decided that rules of the English language do not apply to Wikipedia? Bird names are not proper nouns, and unless they begin a sentence, should not be capitalized? On what basis is this being disputed? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Read this from the last time we had this discussion! ;) MeegsC | Talk 08:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been the policy since at least 2003, some 10,000 plus bird articles some with up to three hundred links to other pages have been written in accordance with this agreed convention. I know that in the US in particular there is a trend to use lower case more, but it's not a requirement that styles are absolutely rigidly applied - that's why US and British spellings are both allowed. If you want another example where a "rule" has been adapted, WikiProject Plants has scientific names as the default for article titles (except for the most common), with the English name as a redirect -Not exactly in accordance with MOS. I think Lepidoptera also follow that style. Jimfbleak 11:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, even in the States, the convention of capitalizing common bird names is used in many birding publications, both scientific and general interest. MeegsC | Talk 13:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While style guides surely vary, the American Ornithological Union's instructions for writers state:

English names of bird species that occur in North America and Middle America should follow the 7th edition of the AOU Check-list of North American Birds and its supplements. English names of birds should be capitalized. Names for other species should follow an appropriate standard. English names of other organisms should not be capitalized.

so it's not as if we invented the rule ourselves. -- Coneslayer 16:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

BOU fully caps too. Jimfbleak 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

GA nom

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

GA self-nomination

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

Organisms Wiki - a wikia on Organisms

Organisms Wiki was recently started as a wikia to educate on all types of organisms and their biological counterparts. This wiki will aim to provide free, excellence-quality and concise articles dealing with organisms and habitats. Organisms Wiki is a wikia, and is also very small and new, which is why I would like to leave a note here that we appreciate any helpful contributions.

I have had people criticizing the sense of making a wiki on this topic when indeed Wikipedia covers just about anything related to organisms. Sure, this may be true - but a major advantage of having Organisms Wiki hosted at wikia is to cover the topics in broader depth. Thank you. Organisms Wiki

Paul Davey 08:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture GA and New World Vulture Update

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

Turkey Vulture FAC

Jude has put Turkey Vulture up as a featured article candidate. Please come out and review.

Also, the New World Vulture Featured Topic now has 2 FAs, 1 GA, 1 FAC, 1 GAC, 2 Bs, and 1 Start. Please contribute to it as we near the home stretch. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Turkey Vulture has just passed its FAC. Congrats, Jude!

By the way, the New World Vulture Featured Topic now has 3 FAs, 2 GAs, and 3 Bs. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 04:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Country lists

1. I've been fixing redlinks in List of birds of Thailand, and I know that other Avibase-generated lists have similar gaps. These are mainly due to Avibase's exclusively American spelling and/or caps after hyphens (Gray Wagtail, Many-colored Bushshrike, Indian Scimitar-Babbler)], and can be easily fixed by a redirect, preferably followed by an edit to correct the name. Only a few, such as Temminck's Sunbird are taxonomic differences between Avibase and HBW that we haven't already found. If anyone has few minutes to check a list or two, we can gradually make all the country list 100% blue.
2. The "standard" headings also need fixing for many countries - they are over-capitalised, and are not adjusted for particular continents. For Thailand, the heading Trogons makes sense, Trogons and Quetzals just seems bizarre!
3. Most country lists have no images at all

Why not adopt a country, and fix it? Jimfbleak 07:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Have taken up List of birds of India. Shyamal 07:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm doing Thailand. Jimfbleak 07:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Costa Rica and Gambia are done. I'll take Mexico. Also, has anybody else noticed that some of our bird list titles read "List of birds of Foo" while others read "List of Fooian birds"? We should probably change them all to one style or the other. MeegsC | Talk 07:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I got started on Kenya yesterday and noticed that we probably do need a new species or too—Tsavo Sunbird at least.

If people are going to add pictures to these list articles, I have a few suggestions. I apologize for those that are obvious.

• These pictures are mostly decoration, so we should choose pictures that look decent as thumbnails.
• Given a choice, we should choose birds that typical of the country, that is, regular and either widespread or endemic or nearly endemic. We should also avoid subspecies and plumages that are recognizably not regularly seen in the country.
• It's nice if the picture is taken in the country, or at least not obviously in a zoo.
• If the country has a national bird, it should be included if possible and the lead picture if possible.
• There's no reason not to add captions with information on the significance of the bird to the country—local name, basis of a folk dance, subject of a famous poem, emblem of a province. In countries where birding is popular, we could even include a rarity, e.g., "The Rock Thrush is a rare visitor to Britain, much sought after by the country's many birdwatchers" (if that's a good example). —JerryFriedman 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great suggestions, Jerry! In the same vein, it's also nice to choose a picture with a plumage that's likely to be seen in the country in question. For instance, it drives me crazy to see a photo of a breeding-plumaged loon or Little Auk (Dovekie) in a list for Central America or the Caribbean! Presumably, a person or two might use the lists to try to identify something they've seen on vacation somewhere (or—who knows—maybe even in their back yard) and it would be good to give them some chance of finding it! MeegsC | Talk 18:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been pretty much doing a lot of the suggestions that are above already (particularly the Trogons and Quetzals thing with regard to parrots and Macaws)- I've been working on Namibia, Seychelles, Madagascar, New Caledonia and Fiji; I have recently started New Zealand and intend to get to Uganda, Tonga, Samoa, the Cook Islands and French Polynesia. If anyone has good information and time to waste you could use the tables I used in List of birds of Fiji. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've de-redlinked, changed headings and changed names from US usage for List of birds of Cambodia Jimfbleak 08:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's a can of worms, opened by Jim's post! :) Do we change bird names from "US usage" for all lists? My Birds of Venezuela (the relatively new Hilty guide), presumably the book many will use while birding in that country, has American spellings and names. Do I use those monikers to un-redlink the bird names, or do I use their British counterparts? In other words, where do we draw the line? MeegsC | Talk 09:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point! I think that the problem only arises in Central and South America, since North America (NAm usage) and Old World (Brit English) are clear cut - the main field guides are in the appropriate version, and for the Old World the US names refer to a different subspecies (eg Northern Harrier), or even species (Black Scoter). The English-speaking Caribbean islands and Belize should obviously be Brit English spelling, but for the others, I'd be happy to go with the field guides, which, like Hilty for Venezuela and Stiles and Skutch for Costa Rica tend to be written in American. Jimfbleak 11:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"Horaltic"

Congratulations to all involved with the "featuring" of Turkey Vulture! (Hey, I think I worked on that article a long time ago.)

I'm worried about "horaltic", though. Lots of Web hits, but no hits on Google Scholar, Google Books, Amazon, onelook.com, or dictionary.com, and not in the NSOED. Has it just not arrived in those databases and dictionaries? Or… is it somebody's mistake for "heraldic", which would make perfect sense for that "spread-eagle" pose? A meme that infected the Web? —JerryFriedman 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. I did a search and the following use "heraldic pose" [1] [2] [3][4]. I think this might indeed be correct. One source on the web [5] thinks it may be derived from Horus. Might be a good idea to raise it on Ornith-L or similar group to try and settle the matter rather than to futher the spread of a possibly incorrect spelling. Shyamal 14:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the article history, and the phrase "horaltic pose" was added in September 2006. A number of other sites to copy information from Wikipedia, which would explain why it only appears on the web. Anyway, I've removed the phrase from the Turkey Vulture article, as there isn't any proof that it is an actual term. If the intended term was "heraldic", it can be added later. Until then I think it's better to remove it to stop the perpetuation of a possibly nonexistent term. Cheers, heyjude. 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think removing the term was a wise choice.

This blog post has "horaltic" from Jan. 13, 2006, and cites the Turkey Vulture Society, so we apparently didn't make it up and aren't entirely responsible for the spread.

Thanks, Shyamal. I'm very amused that someone derived the word from "Horus". (Unless I'll have to be very amused that I thought it was a mistake for "heraldic".)

Any members of ORNITH-L here who want to ask about this word? If not, I can join for long enough to ask. —JerryFriedman 15:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Congrats

Well done Jude and Rufous-crowned Sparrow! You're really rocketing through that first WP:BIRD Featured Topic. I feel guilty about not doing more to help yet. :) Nice picture on the Greater Yellow-headed Vulture page too, Shyamal—it adds greatly to the article. MeegsC | Talk 11:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - congrats - ok, I hate leaving stuff 3/4 finished, so polished up Variegated Fairy-wren for FAC. Less is known about it than with Superb Fairy-wren or Splendid Fairy-wren so it is shorter. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Are you working on a fairy-wren Featured Topic on the sly? :) MeegsC | Talk 12:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Heck, there are alot of the little critters..and they are a $#&*## to photograph. Thank god for digital photography as I got so many out-of focus blue smudges you wouldn't believe....cute though. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting new report of seabird behaviour

Bonxies eating Leach's Storm-petrels—at night... The BBC story is here. MeegsC | Talk 14:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

At least it is still a bit of a predator in a day unlike the deer and sheep ! Shyamal 14:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Western Gulls are regular nocturnal predators of Ashy Storm-petrels, though it is usually only a few gulls that fuigure that trick out. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

20th Bird FA

Congrats to MeegsC, who just got the Flight feather article through its FAC. With that, WikiProject Birds has 20 FAs and another FAC (Variegated Fairy-wren). Yay.

Also, is anyone working on bird? Is there an updated list somewhere about what is needed before it goes to FAC? It would be cool if that could be the 25th article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 21:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I'll start again on bird this week. There wasn't much left to do, just a few refs and some expaning of bird flight perhaps. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another FAC

I've just nominated American Black Vulture for FA (as part of our wonderful New World vulture Featured Topic-in-progress). Cheers, heyjude. 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Northern Cardinal at GA now Jimfbleak 07:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It just passed. Cheers, heyjude. 15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Upgrading

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

Requested article

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

Country lists 2

1. update - I've now also dered-linked and roughly cleansed Vietnam, Cambodia, South Africa, Namibia and Lesotho - is there any point keeping a list of done countries or templating them or hidden tagging?
2. For the old world lists at least, "Darter" goes to the genus article, and in Africa the binomial is given as Anhinga melanogaster, which is Oriental Darter, rather than A. rufa Jimfbleak 08:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think there's definitely a point in keeping at least a list of "Completed countries" or—preferably—maybe even a table where we can indicate whether lists are a) de-redlisted b) roughly cleaned (i.e. TOC box rather than list, and appropriate headers c) thoroughly cleaned (i.e. checking list against acknowledged authority, since there are loads of problems with the Avibase data) d) "imaged" (for lack of a better term—something that indicates photos have been included and e) current status. I'll have a go at setting up the latter, though since I know absolutely nothing about tables, it might end in a spectacular failure! MeegsC | Talk 11:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

might be worth making a sortable list - see list of parrots for quite straightforward format. Jimfbleak 12:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK! That was easier than I anticipated. The list is now up, and I've added it to the template at "Country lists". Please populate it as you progress! I'm off to learn about sortable lists, per Jim's suggestion... MeegsC | Talk 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Jim, from what I can see, that list only sorts the first column alphabetically either first to last, or last to first. Clicking on the other column headers still only sorts the first column. Or am I doing something wrong? MeegsC | Talk 12:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems - at least two styles for headers - see list of birds of Cambodia, list of birds of Norway. List of New Zealand birds includes extinct. On talk pages, some have start class, some have list class. Any views? Jimfbleak 16:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the List of birds of Cambodia style is preferable—otherwise you have a huge long TOC before you ever reach the birds. And I think having section headers and TOCs with scientific names is a bad idea, as it makes it much less "accessible" to the average reader. One issue I've found in some of the lists I've looked at: if someone has changed a section header (e.g. Lories, Parrots, Parakeets and Lovebirds --> Parrots) without changing the TOC too, the link between the TOC and the section is broken and the TOC no longer works. Also I'll raise again the issue that some lists have titles like "List of birds of Foo" while others have "List of Fooian birds" (and even one "List of birds in Foo", which was page-moved by a non WP:BIRD editor). Should we make the page names consistent, or isn't that important? MeegsC | Talk 17:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy with Cambodia style. Sorry about the TOCs, didn't think of that. List of birds of Foo is more logical, I'm happy with that too. Jimfbleak 18:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone else been finding mistakes in the content as well as the formatting? An early edit of the List of birds of New Caledonia shows [6] the flightless Auckland Teal as a resident, and I need to check but there are at least three whistlers in New Caledonia also (as opposed to teh two listed). List of birds of Vanuatu has the endemic New Caledonian Whistler as being found in Vanuatu... And these are just the obvious mistakes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• Another question should List of birds of the Solomon Islands include the list of the birds in the country or the island chain? Bougainville Island is biogeographically part of the Solomons but is administered by Papua New Guinea. The list, as it stands, has birds from the whole chain including several Bougainville endemics. I've made it clear that the whole chain is currently covered, but should it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

FL candidate

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

WP:BABS!!! - aka Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/bird articles by size

Yippee, I got Betacommand to get a bot to do this to give the instant ability to get all bird articles there - easy to see stubs to enlarge for DYK...big articles for FAC etc. Forgot about the lists though -shall I ask to get them excluded? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Huzzah! (You should also explain the BABS acronym, Cas.) I say the lists should be left in; that way, you know which ones still need further development. But that's just my opinion. There sure are a lot of bird articles... Firsfron of Ronchester 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Bird Articles By Size - although this side of the pond it means something else as well, unfortunately. Totnesmartin 10:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

O-kay - made it obvious above, now I asked him for WP:FABS...(esoteric/erudite an' straightforward) ...an' WP:MABS (hmmmmm, maybe a little involved...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

.............and the biggest single taxon page is....(drumroll...).....Chicken (?!)...makes sense I guess, who'd a thunk it? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

depressing that the biggest article other than the country lists is that for extinct birds! Jimfbleak 11:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still a list though (I've renamed it). Likewise Fossil birds. I think the biggest non-list is Procellaridae, just beating chicken. SP-KP 19:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be that we sort the list into two parts - lists and non-lists (the bot could presumably do it, based on the presence or not of the word "list" in the title)? Casliber, what were your selection criteria? SP-KP 18:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

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

OK, that would explain why some of the articles that we support (i.e. those with the { { BirdTalk } } template) aren't in the list. Judging from the numbers you quote, I think we have a major mismatch between these two - any thoughts, anyone, on if we need to / how we should tackle that?

Just another thought - would Category:Ornithology make a better root for the search tree?

Not a bad idea at all....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Bird is over 100k. How come it isn't on the list? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Weird - it is in Category:Birds so I have no idea...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:DABS had the same problem at the begiining. Not all the articles were being caught on the bot's first pass. It may work itself out. If it doesn't you can contact the bot's creator for reasons why it isn't catching all the articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was because it was based on what-links-to bird. Shyamal 04:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. WP:DABS is compiled from a list consisting of all articles in Category:Dinosaurs, and all sub-categories within it, but excluding Category:Fictional dinosaurs (because we didn't want that rubbish mixed in with the taxa articles). If the bot compiled every article that linked to Bird, you'd have tons of non-bird articles in there, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Aerodramus

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

California Condor map inaccuracy and outdated info

The map in the condor article incorrectly shows condors living in San Diego County. Unfortunately the only ones here are in the San Diego Wild Animal Park. One of the Mexican releases flew across the border into Anza-Borrego, but she flew back into Mexico a short while later (Mexican immigration didn't seem to care, they never do).

Also the current condor population is 305, with 147 in the wild (See here). The information in the article is 2 years old. Condors are now found in the collections of the Oregon Zoo (link) and more recently, the Chapultepec Zoo in Mexico City (link).

I can fix the population info myself, but somebody else needs to update the map. Thanks! Sheep81 04:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, and the chick that hatched in Mexico disappeared, probably deceased. (link). Sheep81 04:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but I made the Condor range map and I'm not going to be changing it - although if someone else wants to create a new one it certainly wouldn't bother me. See, the problem is that range maps are an approximation. I look at several different sources, all of which have (often significant) differences, and I combine that information to make the range maps I post here. Anyone and everyone can find discrepancies, problems, or things they simply don't agree with in the maps, and I quickly learned that trying to change them to suit everyone's perceptions ends up being a never-ending process. 'Card 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately in this case it's not just a discrepancy, problem, or something I simply don't agree with, it's just flat-out wrong information presented as fact in one of the flagship featured articles of this WikiProject. This may not be true of other birds, but Condor range maps aren't an approximation. There's only 147 of them, most radio tagged, so FWS knows where pretty much every single condor goes. Hopefully someone else with map skills can fix it or I'll have to figure it out myself. Also, I just noticed the big "U" in California is too far north, it should be moved down so that the northwest tip is next to Monterey Bay (it's currently next to San Francisco Bay), and the bottom should be in Ventura County, whereas it's now somewhere north of Bakersfield. Thanks! Sheep81 02:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it tomorrow, if no one else has by then. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Swallow

I'm trying to get Barn Swallow up to a decent standard for GA nomination. Since everyone knows this bird, comments/additions/amendments would be helpful. A range map would be good, but I lack the skills to do it. I don't want the culture bit to get out of control, but is there anything significant that is really needed? Jimfbleak (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

A good source of interesting and relevant cultural information on bird species is Birds Britannica [7]. I'd suggest that important aspects of their impact on culture would be Biblical references, references in classical writings and in poetry and literature (did Shakespeare mention them?).Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I've actually used Birds Britannica for the superstitions - Bible and Shakespeare good idea though, thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks also to Jerry - I've nominated it for GA now, so wait and see! Jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

All orphans now

User:Hmains has tagged dozens of country bird lists as orphans - any views? Jimfbleak (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't spectacularly helpful, particularly as a few of them aren't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Interesting paper on cosmetic colouration

Delhey, Kaspar,Anne Peters,and Bart Kempenaers 2007 Cosmetic Coloration in Birds: Occurrence, Function, and Evolution. Am. Nat. 169:145–158. [8] may make for some content that could go into Bird and Feather. Shyamal (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Barn Swallow

Passed GA, thanks to those who helped, esp Jerry, I was impressed by the reviewer VanTucky, who went to the trouble of finding better images. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I can make a map for it - MPF (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Great work guys. This is a great candidate for a future feature article, by the way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Map added - MPF (talk) 23:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That was fast!

Since you were so kind as to say "guys", S. S., maybe I should mention that my contribution was minor. —JerryFriedman (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Any mileage in trying to get Barn Swallow to FA status? (incidentally, List of birds of Thailand now featured list grade) Jimfbleak (talk) 07:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Grantchester Meadows (song)

Wonder if someone can take a look at the birds mentioned in this article. Is there any hope of finding a WP:RS for this?! Shyamal (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking—for someone to identify the birds heard in the song? I don't think we need a source for that, though one would be nice. We routinely identify photographs and occasionally recordings from our own knowledge. (Modesty forbids me to speak of the misidentifications.) Is that a tape loop on the song, by the way, or is the songbird really that repetitive? —JerryFriedman (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am assuming the "loop" is a skylark song and the other "goose" of the article is a coot, but like you I am unable to "correct" the article with any confidence! Shyamal (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A treasure trove

Heart-spotted Woodpecker,Hemicircus canente (Lesson).
A painting by John Gould and William Hart in Birds of Asia, Vol. V, Parts XXV,-XXX,by John Gould, 1873-77.

Hi everyone,

I recently borrowed a coffee table book on Indian wildlife from my library, loaded to the gills with paintings by John Gould and many old sketches by naturalists, travellers and hunters of the 18th and 19th centuries. These are all public domain images as they are more than 75 years old - more than a hundred images with about 50 or so of the lithographs by Gould and others! Im busy scanning them whenever I get the chance at a whopping 600 dpi. Except for a couple of plates torn out by a vandal, I intend to upload each and every image meeting the criteria of public domain. Once done, these will be written on a DVD and sent to User:Shyamal for polishing and uploading. Finally Blue Pitta and Mangrove Pitta, amongst many others, will have images! Here is a teaser! The Heart-spotted woodpecker!

And this part of India's heritage will forever be free! AshLin (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice source. The Heart-spotted Woodpecker Hemicircus canente has all the white parts looking yellow... Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on the photos on orientalbirdimages.org they often look rather yellow 212.10.75.107 (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Barn Swallow (2)

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

AfD

Can someone look at Mialoa? Shyamal (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoax, and have said as much. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not so sure. If this is a hoax, then ALL the contributions of this user must be examined as well Special:Contributions/Barati11. Shyamal (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Is there a Giant ʻAmakihi (Hemignathus vorpalis) ? This makes no clear mention Shyamal (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops - this one does seem to exist google:Hemignathus+vorpalis ! Now this makes it tougher to tell if the editor is a hoaxter... Shyamal (talk) 04:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Shyamal is entirely right on the photos/illustrations uploaded by Barati11. Check for example the Lesser Koa Finch and the Greater Koa Finch - both are clearly identical to the illustrations on plate 37 in Pratt, Bruner and Berrett's A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. The only reason I haven't marked them for deletion is that I haven't had the time to look into the procedure. The remaining photos/illustration of finches/honeycreepers uploaded by the previously mentioned user look rather suspect too. Rabo3 (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

- And a bit of searching also turns up the photos of the ʻAkiapolaʻau and the Common ʻAmakihi uploaded by Barati11 - both are actually copyrighted to the relatively famous Hawaiian bird photographer Jack Jeffrey [9] Rabo3 (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• The editor is a hoaxer. The problem is now we have to check all his edits, some of which may be valid, to genuine species. *sigh*. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This really is messy. I just took a look at a random page Barati11 been playing around with. It appears you can't even trust photos/illustrations added to articles by Barati11, even if the photo(s) weren't taken Barati11. On the page for the Oʻahu ʻAmakihi, Barati11 first added an illustration of a warbler taken from commons (clearly identified as a warbler and in any case pretty distinctive) calling it a "male Oʻahu ʻAmakihi", only to later change it to an equally different warbler, and then finally to a photo of an unidentified bird from Spain. I've now removed the photo, but checking earlier edits to that specific article is a bit of an experiance. I'll add a second *sigh*. Rabo3 (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

messy it is. I just moved Pila's Palila to Kaua'i Palila ; he created an article for a recently discovered but hard to verify extinct species. The article was filled with half truths and mistakes, but also some factual (if speculative stuff). Unlike the Mialoa it actually seems to be real. This is going to take a while to sort out. I'm at a loss as to what has been going on here, and why. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

may be simplest to revert everything edited by this user to the latest previous version.Maias (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely right. However, it appears that (s)he added at least some genuine information to some articles. In other cases it appears most of the edits simply involved moving things around a bit and little - if anything - would be lost by reverting these. So, while some articles may be the simple case of reverting all the edits, I think it would be sensible to check them first - just in case something of value was added. In any case I've requested that 7 photos uploaded by this user are deleted (reasons given here). As far as I can see, this only leave a photo of a dog, which looks pretty "self-made" to me. Rabo3 (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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

I blocked both User:Barati11 and User:120740a permanently. Thue | talk 10:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Need a look at Special:Contributions/Istavan .... Shyamal (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Check needed for Kaua'i Palila and Xestospiza. Shyamal (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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