Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 14

Cinclosomatidae & Psophodidae

Any views on whether we should lump or split? Note that the HBW position of splitting but then lumping Psophodidae with Eupetidae isn't really a sensible option, as explained at Eupetidae. SP-KP (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The Zoologica Scripta sueprtree says Ptilorrhoa is closer to Falcunculus than that is to Colluricincla and Pachycephala. So if Colluricinclidae is maintained as distinct (which is feasible), Falcunculus would have to be moved out of Pachycephalidae. And that is all that is available apart from what's in the Eupetes paper in Biology Letters and in HBW. So I would say if a consistent scenario can be built out of the info in these 3 sources that's it for the time being.

I will take a look at the Bio.Lett. paper in the next days. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, working through the supertree once again, in brief the other way around which may offer a quick and dirty interim colution:

If Falcunculinae is maintained as a subfamily of Pachycephalidae, at least the group containing Ptilorrhoa (Psophodidae?) would need to be included in Pachycephalidae too. About the other, no firm suggestion can be made. If a source exists suggesting such a lumping (and no matter if it was in the 19th century - if it was proposed, it was proposed), this could be an easy way out: just dump them all into Pachycephalidae as any number of subfamilies as is justifiable and sourceable - make essentially Pachycephalidae equal to the Zool. Scripta "Crown Corvida clade 5". If this can be done it is probably at the very edge of OR, but if it can be sourced... the latest studies I have seen would certainly allow such a treatment and we presently have Falcunculinae as pachycephaline subfamily anyway. If we're unlucky and nobody has formally discussed this, the only solution seems to be rampant splitting. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To make matters worse, Oreoica and the pitohuis probably do not belong into Pachycephalida but might be included in Oriolidae. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, it's even more complicated than I thought! Can the supertree be accessed online? SP-KP (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Some emerging results (all birds) can be seen here http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/birdsupertree/ or directly here http://linnaeus.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/birdsupertree/results.php Shyamal (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with disambiguation

I just started expanding Wedge-tailed Sabrewing and I found that "Simon" was listed as the authority for one of the subspecies. I've tried to find the right Simon to link to (currently the link is a disambiguation page) but I didn't want to check everyone listed under Simon (surname). Does anyone here know of a naturalist that might be the one I'm looking for? Corvus coronoides _talk 22:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is Eugene Simon. For future reference, the best place to hunt down first names of authors (at least the older ones) is Zoonomen Avtax. Tricky to navigate sometimes, in which case Wikispecies is useful too, but Zoonomen is the best for obscure subspecies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the help and link. Corvus coronoides _talk 23:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Passerine

I have finally reworked the "Corvida" into something that makes sense. Behold what is probably the best fail-safe passerine systematics and phylogeny available in a single source, anywhere. There seems little in the foreseeable future that would shake up this layout seriously. What could be considered a superfamily has been duly noted (there is some movement suggesting the kinglets at least will be considered one eventually), and what needs to be cleared up is discussed (basically every family- or higher weakly supported branch in the supertree). I have perused 8 sources (excluding HBW) none of which is earlier than 2000.
I have also detailed (via footnotes mainly) the fossil record and sourced it extensively, and added a lineup of photos that IMHO give a good impression of the varying evolutionary trends throughout passerine evolution.
As you may note, the "Cinclosomatidae & Psophodidae" issue is in fact one of the very very few really serious systematic/taxonomic problems remaining. The rest will mainly consist of moving some lesser-known or minor taxa about; almost all large families have by now reached a really nice and stable position. Where to draw the limit of the Sylvioidea for example will need some time to stabilize though. But as said above, this can be updated with a single cut'n'paste and changing a few words in almost all instances, as it is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" but simply of "more" or "less informative", or of "what the scientific community by and large finds most suitable".
Enjoy! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(It is just as good that I did it now. I noted that the next bunch of papers are lining up en masse in Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. This summer will see several of the lesser-known and enigmatic genera resolved, and many more families delimited to monophyly nice and clean.)

I mercilessly butchered the "Corvida", couldn't stand them any longer ;D Now I think I'll do the remaining major redlinks in the passerines in the next weeks or so. The pachycephalid assemblage for example would benefit from some deeper discussion, for which Corvoidea is the most appropriate place etc.

Amazingly, the Meliphagoidea sailed through the whole mess with their content and delimitation almost completely unchanged (though the internal structure has changed a bit). Can you say "w00t!" Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! I'm not capable of appreciating the quality of your revision, but just having a consistent overview of the whole order that is flexible enough to respond to upcoming revisions is a great achievement. In fact, I'm so impressed that I think I'm going to copyedit it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, where do Petroicidae (Australian Robins) fit in? Still in Meliphagoidea?Sorry just seen it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not capable of appreciating the quality of your revision" - oh, soon come as they say on Jah-make-'ere. 3 years ago I had little understanding of avian systemarics beyond Clements and S/A myself. Simply keep an eye open for the superorders and use them in taxoboxes; the pattern will pop up soon enough.

(Maybe start with taking a look at Muscicapoidea, they're the most homogenous superfamily. You'll note similarities now that escaped one's attention when the petroicas, monarchs, thick-heads etc were still included. Also, a good atlas is ever helpful - the diversity of Passeroidea is stunning for such a late-comer, until you realize that the "tiny songster" niche in North America was very much vacant when they arrived there). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

interesting thread on Australian bird names

I subscribe to an Australian birdwatcher's list from here: [1]

the archives of which are here: [2]

note the latest thread on Clements names, there appear to be some issues with AOU etc. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The archive link did not work for me but I was able to see it via http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/Birding-Aus Shyamal (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, and at least partially correct, although unfounded in the terms of AOU, considering that they never have interfered in any way with names nor taxonomy of any African, European, Asian or Australian species, them only dealing with species of the Americas. The comment on SACC is also peculiar, and evidently made by someone not aware of the fact that a large percentage of Neotropical ornithologists, whether one likes it or not, are of US origin (as clearly evident when checking the authors of field guides published to the countries in this region). So if wanting the best you pretty much have to include a number of Americans. This is in the process of changing as more locals are gaining an interest and knowledge about this subject, and for example Brazil already has a relatively large base of very knowledgeable local ornithologists, though I suspect most of them couldn't care less what English names are applied to "their" birds, as Brazil is one of the few Neotropical countries that already has a widely used "semi-official" list of names of all local birds in their language, Portuguese, which is maintained by CBRO (incidentally also represented on SACC in the form of Jose Fernando Pacheco). Of note also the AOU and its subdivision SACC generally both are very conservative (sometimes too conservative IMO) in the English names they use, with few species (mostly the result of taxonomic changes) with common names that differ from those proposed by one of the absolute main sources of English names, the 50+ years old Peters check-list (which was published at a time where a large percentage of non-European and non-US birds still didn't have any English names). A related question is that if, say, AOU didn't maintain a list of English names for birds throughout the Americas, who should? Nobody? In contrast, in countries where the local birds have widely used English names, I have noticed a few peculiar examples in Clements, Sibley and Monroe, Howard and Moore, and Handbook of the Birds of the World. On that point some of the comments made in the link are at least partially correct. When making a list that includes e.g. Australian species, all of which have English names that are widely used among local birders and ornithologists, you'd expect them to at least check the literature on local birds. On the other hand, however, it is easy to critisize, even more so when not having attempted of making a better alternative. We could rely entirely on single country lists, but that doesn't work for the many countries where English isn't widely used (in which case we'd all have to learn fun names like Griseotyrannus aurantioatrocristatus), and IMO the benefits of having a single list with all the species of the world easily outweighs the problems. Rabo3 (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to join that list so I can clear up several inaccuracies from different posters. But of course I can't argue with the main point, which is that North American birders' adherence to Clements causes problems with Australian guides who naturally prefer the long-standing Australian vernacular names. The blame for this is shared between the late Jim Clements and the ABA, which uses Clements as its official world list. As Rabo3 says, I don't think the AOU has anything to do with it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating though. One thing always fascinated me about most biology books I have in that they rarely go into detail on who named what and why and controversies that erupt as a result. I have tried on WP to have as much info in taxonomy and naming sections on all the bio-species I do to discuss this. Hence my trying to embellish this on various species liek the whole Conure/Parakeet debate and others. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, The international French-Language list (ca. 1997 IIRC) was generally well-accepted (although for some reason it's not used consistently at all on fr:). Although there were some original criticism, people did realise it was not possible to satisfy everyone on diverging names. I can look up the details if anybody's interested. Circeus (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

new wikiproject

I propose that we make a wiki project for birds of prey. There are so many of them, that there is more than enough to cover with a wikiproject. just a suggestion, but i think it would be a wonderful idea. Plese tell me what you think. -Tobi4242 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a separate Wikiproject. The advantages of a Wikiproject are the opportunities for collaboration and somewhere to ask questions and seek help, and anyone interested in working more on birds of prey can find all of that here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sabine's Sunbird. I'm not sure what a birds of prey wikiproject could provide that birds cannot, other than a bird of prey specific collaboration. If you want help with collaborating on an article, I think you would have the same level of support mentioning it here as at its own specific project. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the birds of prey is such a vast collection(if you will) and a wiki project for it could be very useful. -Tobi4242 (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Tobi, good luck if you want to set one up, but it might be thin on the ground for active editors. I found this at Wikiproject fungi. No biggie really, just that this is made up of volunteers and so good editing is at a premium. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree - I tend to wander across the class (sounds like a naughty student) from thrushes to (proper) warblers to Osprey, and I wouldn't want to concentrate on just raptors, Jimfbleak (talk) 11:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

sup

I think that having thousands of unsourced stubs on various birds is a bit untidy. Why don't you folks merge all of them into "list of" articles? Jtrainor (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

erm, several reasons. One, takes too long, and will require work reverting back out when individual species become bigger articles, which most have the propensity to do. Also more space for pictures if individual articles. Also WP ain't paper and I am wondering how this is 'untidy'. I have seen comments on articles 'cluttering up' Wikipedia but the truth of it is that they are invisible unless looked for. Lists make for difficulties crosslinking too. So ultimately I guess it is not conducive for 'pedia building, which is what we're here to do. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the stubs are sourced. And if I understand your proposal correctly, Jtrainor, it would involve deleting all those taxoboxes without any easy way to recover them. I see no reason to waste all that hard work from Polbot.

Just to show you, I think I'll destub Striped Kingfisher tomorrow. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that I think nature articles should be given special treatment over alot of fiction. I am pretty miffed at the mutilation of vast tracts of popular culture, TV and RPG articles going on too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I am working here and not on the German WP (my native country). There, the Polbot work wouldn't have lasted a week until someone would have pushed through the proposal to delete it all. Here, one can get through with pages full of redlinked butterfly genera or thousands of bird stubs, beause eventually someone will expand them. And a good thing too I think, for everything that evolution has brought about and that has weathered the eons is in my book inherently notable. And if a named taxon withstands scientific scrutinity, it is also unique enough to be significant in its own right. In a way, the Golden-breasted Lioparus has achieved more than the whole of humankind has, simply by existing (though its taxobox needed fixing). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Topics

As a follow on from the bird of prey discussion, what about one or more Featured topics? I imagine that a featured topic for new world vultures could be constructed immediately. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty soon, just have to get Cathartidae and Andean Condor to GA or FA status and you're there. I'm not sure about the Cathartes article though... Sheep81 (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen it, but if you haven't we have got a page outlying some potential featured topics here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Cathartidae species" is a good enough scope, but Cathartes should be reasonably high on priorities, as it is the obvious expansion step (I'm not sure how likely it is to get the various extinct species to GA status). Circeus (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on finishing Storm-petrel soon, which leaves us two down for a featured topic on Procellariiformes. The Procellariiformes article is easily featurable, but I think GA is the best we can hope for with the rather understudied Diving petrels. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

In cathartids as well as in Procellariiformes, there are a few prehistoric taxa in List of fossil birds and the order/family pages that have accumulated enough references (see article source codes) to start own articles. Though I wouldn't really recommend it in the first case; the evolutionary history of these is very confusing and the primary literature not too well-available. But I have quite some stuff about early tubenoses around, especially about the Paleogene taxa. Though I did not do this consistently, I usually remember to place an asterisk at the annotated sources that describe the taxon in question. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Things to do

Speaking of all those Polbot stubs, I've been (slowly) working on those. (Anyone want to re-rate Striped Kingfisher?) I've also been working on family and order articles, trying to add information on common characteristics (some of which might be synapomorphies), which I consider just as important for those articles as classification discussions and lists of genera and species. I've done what I can on Pelican, Mimid, Cuckoo, Phylloscopidae, and Cotinga, but there's probably more to do on all of them, and there are plenty more articles that need lots of work, such as Falconidae. Lots at the genus level too.

So if anyone out there is looking for a task other than bringing articles to GA or FA status (not that there's anything wrong with that), all kinds of tasks are available. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On the comparison between the importance of shared characteristics and classification, my main problem with Cotinga was that it's a moving target. So I have to admit that the classification is necessary before we can know what the shared characteristics are (although the scientists do the classification on the basis of shared characteristics). But there are stable taxa that need lots of work. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cotingidae isn't too bad following numerous recent studies, and is likely to remain relatively stable as is. The only genera where some serious doubts still exist are the three placed in incertae sedis, of which one, Oxyruncus, is likely to belong in Tityridae. Thus, we're essentially down to two "moving targets", which in any case are morphologically somewhat aberrant if they turn out to be cotingas (especially Calyptura is an oddball). Rabo3 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's good to know. I only had one source, which was from way back in 2004 and included the Tityridae genera in Cotingidae, but in the expectation that the target has stopped moving, maybe I (or someone) can find some other sources. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Project newsletter?

I've recently been coming across newsletters that some of our fellow projects at Wikipedia are generating each month. Does anybody else think it might be worth starting one for WP:BIRD? Maybe we could get some of those occasional editors fired up about contributing again! I'd be willing to work on them, if it sounds like something that's worth doing... MeegsC | Talk 21:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice idea. Wonder if it may be possible to make it so that it can be forwarded on non-WP bird fora. At the least there are lots of people out there who could be tempted to search for errors. Shyamal (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it a great idea. -Tobi4242 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Emu megafauna?

Someone just put the Emu article under the megafauna category. This doesn't seem right to me, but before reverting I thought I'd double-check. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be just big fauna or big animals, and includes crocodiles too. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the modern-day stuff in the category seems to have been all added by the same user today. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll get serious. See here, here, and here for examples of applying "megafauna" to the Emu or extinct Australian flightless birds. But maybe I should have asked: Does it seem wrong because the Emu is a bird, too small, or extant? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Though those refs do refer to giant extinct birds as megafauna, none specifically call today's Emu a megafauna. The third one comes close, but it says only that the Emu would be called megafauna if it were extinct. The title seems wrong to be because it is both extant and a bit on the smallish side. Also, the word megafauna is not used with the species anywhere in the article. This combo just didn't make it sound right to me. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, then I was barking up the wrong gum tree. The idea that "megafauna" means "extinct" is new to me as of today—I just saw it in those books. That's certainly not always what it means, as a search for "charismatic megafauna" will show you. I see your point about the size, though, as the smallest Emus are lighter than the lightest minimum (40 kg) quoted at megafauna. They seem like a borderline case. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

One might simply change it to "most ratites" and then give examples. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tufted Puffin

Hi. I just made some substantial additions to the Tufted Puffin article. I wanted to upgrade it from "start-class" to "B-class", but it occurred to me that that might be inappropriate. After all, I might be gravely deluded about the quality of my own work. Is it right that this is something someone else should do? Best, Eliezg (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely non controversial. Nice work. btw, does anyone know what this is Image:WhiskeredPuffinLyd.jpg. It could do with categorization. thanks Shyamal (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a Tufted Puffin. Very nice image, I categorized it appropriately. Thanks for the feedback. Eliezg (talk) 09:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Great work. Sorry, I just rearranged it like other bird articles aiming for FA or GA. which reminds me....(see below)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's much better this way. The existence of standards and responsiveness make the Bird community really enviable/effective, especially coming from the lonely chaos of marine mammals . Thanks to both of you. Eliezg (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha - pity I am a slob in real life though...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop some ideas to head toward GA status on the talk page. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

conformity in article headings and subheadings

Range and habitat vs Distribution and habitat

OK all, these I take it are synonymous. I have used the latter since starting on bird and other bio articles last year. I figured as they are synonymous we may as well stick to one (?) If so are we havvy with the latter or shall we switch them all over to range? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I too would favour distribution - but I would favour the usage when it comes to "altitudinal range". Given that a lot of ornithology involves statistics, I imagine that "geographic distribution" would be the most precise usage. Interestingly Rasmussen and Anderton in their Birds of South Asia (2005) use the rather peculiar heading of occurs under which matters of distribution and seasonality are discussed ! Shyamal (talk) 10:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid Chen goose?

I was sure the small goose in was a Ross's Goose because of its size, but [3] and Sibley's field guide are making me wonder whether it's a hybrid with the Snow Goose. Note the bill especially. Am I just making the straightforward difficult? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Size-wise, I'd say it's unlikely to be a hybrid, as they're typically intermediate in size, and this one looks pretty tiny! What, in particular, has you thinking it might be a hybrid? (I'm seeing what looks like a black line on the cutting edge of the mandible, which isn't a characteristic of Ross's Goose, but I can't tell if it's really there, or if it's an artifact of the picture, lighting, etc. Is that what was bothering you?) Do you have any other pictures of the same bird? MeegsC | Talk 06:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree about the size. The apparent black mark on the bill bothers me, as do the straight edge of the bill where it joins the cheek (more curved in the Snow Goose, with a projection toward the eye) and the not-quite-round head with a less abrupt angle between bill and forehead than in other Ross's. In the only other picture I have of this bird, it's facing away, but here's a bigger section of the original picture with other Ross's for comparison. They too seem to have black on the edges of the mandible, but fainter, I'd say. But there seems to be some variation in the black mark in the Snow Geese, as well as in head shape.

The good folks at Cornell say that "blue" Ross's Geese are the result of hybridization with Snow Geese [4]. Does that mean they're first-generation hybrids as small as Ross's (doubtful) or that some Ross's have a little Snow in them that occasionally shows up in the form of a blue morph? I could believe that the bird I'm worried about is a Ross's with a little Snow in it. (Or maybe just within the range of variability of pure Ross's, if they exist.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Kererū on hold for GA Sweeps

I've placed this article on hold as part of the GA Sweeps. Issues needing to be addressed can be found on the talk page. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 02:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Imperial Measurements in Bird Articles

At the Chiffchaff FAC page, a discussion broke out about whether imperial measurements should be included in bird articles. Since the discussion is now lengthy and taking up a lot of space on the FAC page and is more of a policy issue, I've copied the discussion to this page for continuation. The first line below was an objection to the article raised by MPF, and I think that the rest of the discussion includes signatures. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Cut imperial conversions, they're not necessary for a science topic and only clutter up the page and make it hard to read the measurements.

I'm a bit wary about this, since I've had other bird GA/FA reviewers insisting they are in. Can you point me to the relevant MoS guidance to take them out? Also see R-c Sparrow's comment above

WP:Mosnum#Conversions - "Conversions to and from metric and US units are generally provided. There are exceptions, including: articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". Metric units are the international global standard, and as such it is reasonable to assume that everyone is familiar with them, including people in the USA where the it is taught in all schools and extensively (almost universally) used in US science publications. Anyone who isn't familiar with them must clearly have made a conscious effort to reject them. Sorry, but I really don't think the comment above is enough! I don't see the relevance of imperial units to this article at all; nor do I see why the vast majority should be inconvenienced to satisfy the pov of a small minority who reject global standards which are very easily learnt. We don't carry creationist pov in science topics; I don't see why we should carry imperialist pov, either. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst, as a Brit, I sympathise with this view, I'm not sure that there is a consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units even within the Bird Porject as required by the MoS guidance above Jimfbleak (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'd hope to achieve by raising the matter; I find the bracketed conversions very significantly affect readability. Is there a way they could be added less obtrusively, such as footnotes at the bottom of the page? - MPF (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Erm, they don't bother me at all. This is the first time I can recall the argument to remove them on bio pages. Maybe nice to get some other input here. I'm happy to go with consensus, whatever that is.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Wikiproject birds is a more appropriate forum for this debate than FAC; I'm just following the guidelines as I perceive they currently stand, and I don't see consensus at the project at present. If you intend to oppose the FA on this issue, that's unfortunate, but there is little I can do about it. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jimfbleak that another page would be more appropriate to debate this than a FAC, but let me just say first that in American schools we are taught metric units and the basics of conversion, but we never really use them outside of school. Our scales are in pounds, our height is measured in feet, and we judge miles per hour and per gallon, not kilometers. Wikipedia's goal is to communicate encyclopedic information clearly to as many people as possible, and I think that myself and the majority of the 301 million Americans would relate to imperial units much better than metric, which some, particularly older ones who were not taught it in school, may not even recognize. As for the vast majority being inconvenienced by the inclusion of imperial, I believe that, going by the top 5 English speaking nations, there are 301 million Americans to a combined 115 million Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, and Canadians. And to mimic Casliber, I just don't see how the conversions affect readability. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"301 million Americans" - none of them within the range of the species under discussion. That is an awful imposition to demand of a topic of no relevance to them. And you're forgetting 1,000 million Indians, 300 million Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, 300 million Africans, and something like 500-1,000 million other eastern Asian people who use English as a second language, all of them exclusively metric users, and most of them within the range of the species at hand. - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

So are you suggesting that because this bird is not normally found in America, Americans do not need to be able to understand the article? And how are a few parentheses an "awful imposition"? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all! You're doing down the intelligence and comprehension of your countrymen there. As already mentioned, U.S. scientific publications all use metric measures exclusively; you won't find imperial measures in e.g. The Auk. And also as mentioned, it is reasonable to expect everyone to be familiar with global standards; if anyone isn't, then learn them, they're an essential part of common knowledge (and were specifically designed to be very easy to learn and use, so no excuses there!). What you are saying is more comparable to e.g. if I insisted that all U.S.-related topics on wikipedia must carry British English spellings in parenthesis after the U.S. spellings, just because a few British people may not understand (or, more accurately, may not wish to understand) U.S. spellings. And we don't do that.

As to the location of this discussion, yes, it would be better on the project page. Shall I copy or move it all across there? Or anyone else, feel free to do so. - MPF (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• While I generally agree with anything that nudges the Americans towards the metric system (thus far seemingly confined only to the measurements they use for gun calibres and drug doses!) it seems there is little to be gained from excluding imperial measurements until such a point as WP moves en masse to metric. It'll just result in a lot of unnecessary whining (particularly from newer drive by editors); I mean even the Sibley Guide only uses imperial! May as well be consistent with WP in general and use both. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to contribute a few cents (or pennies (or pence (or whatever)))) to this discussion. I should preface the following by stating that I could personally care less whether or not Imperial units are purged from the Chiffchaff article. However, some of the tone and the assumptions that appear in the discussion above compel a response:

1) The notion that learning about a bird that lives outside of the North American range is "of no relevance" to the "301 million" casual users of Imperial measurements is cringe-inducing. By that measure, I suppose all Europeans should purge all ostriches and emus and birds of paradise and wild turkeys and penguins and lions and tigers and (non-eurasian) bears from their watchlists.

2) Even if the ALL of Wikipedia unanimously agreed to follow some pattern, that would not give the community at large, much less any individual, the presumption to impose the expectation that "everyone be familiar with global standards; if anyone isn't, then learn them..." I would humbly submit that "everyone" has the right to decide for themselves what "standard" they should or shouldn't familiarize themselves with.

3) I would second Rufous-crowned Sparrow in the reminder (or at least personal feeling) that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a surrogate for The Auk or any other scientific publication. Its purpose is to provide reliable and useful information on as many subjects as possible, and to make them widely understandable and accessible to users of Wikipedia. No scientific professional will (or should) use Wikipedia as a source, all will be comfortable with metric units in appropriate publications, and most (at least that I know and work with) will not be "awfully imposed" upon by seeing "in" and "lbs" flit before their eyes when skimming through a Wikipedia article.

4) To compare "imperialist pov" to "creationist pov" would border on the offensive if it weren't so laughable. Units of measurement, like language, are an innocuous component of culture, not a "point of view".

5) While I basically dismiss the relevance of global head-counts for guiding article edits, it should be noted that it is a widespread and utterly false myth that "1,000,000,000 Indians" speak English. Believe you me, if you actually want to get around among the people of that country, you are far better off spending a week or two brushing up on Hindi or Tamil than relying on a lifetime of English knowledge.

6) No one has actually stepped up to the plate to defend the Imperial system (which we ironically call the "English system"). It seems most educated Americans seem almost embarrassed by it's use. But I will note for the record that when practicing applied geometry (to wit: construction) there are certain benefits to relying on a unit (the foot) which can readily be divided by 2,3,4,6 and 12. The meter, which factors into 2's 5's and 10's, is somewhat less flexible in that regard.

All that said, if the community of editors on the Chiffchaff article really feel that imperial units get in the way of readability, it is my view that the decision is theirs to make. Sometimes it seems that Wikipedia gets carried away with attempts to impose strict and consistent standards on all articles, considering that the English language Wikipedia serves an extremely diverse, heterogeneous linguistic and geographic community. It is reminiscent of the way the Linnean system gets gummed up around the edges in imposing it's hierarchy on the complicated, dynamic and often fuzzy reality of phylogenies. I really think that having local standards can be OK. After all the Pacific seabird community and literature is marked by certain features and concerns which aren't shared by the strictly European passerine community (for example, the use of standard American English spelling). All these debates just take time and effort away from contributing content (just think what progress I could have made on Tufted Puffin if I hadn't spent all this time writing here :)). I don't know if there is a named Wikipedia philosophy for this attitude. I might suggest: "Chill-ism". Regards, Eliezg (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

reply to MPF's last comment I don't really think I'm dumbing down the intelligence of Americans. It is simply that over here we use a completely seperate system of measurement in our lives. When (for me, at least) we are raised, our parents comment upon how many pounds or inches we have gained. We begin to think and comprehend the world around us in the imperial system and many do not even realize that there is another until we are taught it in school. By that point, we already know the imperial system and have to learn how to convert to the metric. While we may learn to some degree how to work the conversion, the metric system remains unfamiliar to most of us, and outside of school we largely use the imperial system for measurement. It is not like British spelling v. American spelling, where if you notice it you can still understand the word or think that it is misspelled, but the only system of measurement we understand without going through conversion factors. Also, may I point out that Joe American does not read the Auk or other scientific publications in his everyday life. I do not think that Wikipedia should force its readers to do that. Right or wrong, Wikipedia is supposed to communicate as effectively as possible information to as many English-speakers as possible. It is not supposed to be POV and force a person to convert measurements themselves to a system they can understand, particularly if it takes something as little as a small parentheses at the end of another measurement to make it understandable to all. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

First, a declaration of interest: I took Chiffchaff to fac, and was rather surprised that it became a battleground for this debate rather than being assessed on its merits or otherwise.

In an ideal world, we would all use metric as a system of units, which as a Brit and therefore dual metric/imperial user, I would support in the longer term. Three points: firstly, many of our bird articles are not purely scientific - we have "etymology" and "in culture" subheadings in many articles; secondly, unless there is a clear consensus to do otherwise, I'd rather keep information in than take it out; finally, it's pretty clear that, whatever the merits of metric-only, that consensus doesn't exist at present Jimfbleak (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

:) I would think that the use of unit conversion templates should be emphasised and ultimately allow for single point control/conversion for these matters and perhaps we will have a day when we can change our preferences and have the spellings and measures show up according to our tastes while suppressing others. Shyamal (talk) 07:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I never got the hang of that zany Imperial system and I wish it would just roll over and die ;-) no seriously, it's around and a lot of people use it in everyday life and that's that for me. So I actually took up giving Imp. measurements first ("...measures [imp] ([metric])...") when dealing with Western Hemisphere endemics or near-endemics. Because the average reader of these articles will more often than not be more familiar with the Imperial system I guess.

In any case, except in casess where there are extensive measurement lists which would become very ungainly and hard to read, I don't think it's a bad idea to include them from some point onwards, maybe Class B articles upwards, but I wouldn't strive to. So if anyone bothers to put it in, where's the need to take it out? By the same logic, one could make SI units mandatory, because it's the only REALLY universal system.

Of course - metric goes first. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd put my two cents in, and support the use of imperial measurements in bird articles. I agree with R-c Sparrow that Wikipedia's purpose is to inform as many people as possible, and think that the fact that using imperial conversions aids this goal makes it worth it to have a few parenthesis "cluttering" the articles. I also am bothered by the implication that the purpose of imperial conversions is to enable Americans who can't be bothered to learn metrics. --heyjude. 00:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Scramble for Articles

I'm sure I'm not the only bird editor that is in turns amused and bemused by the various country projects that claim various bird articles as their own. While some of these make a ertain amount of sense, no one would begrudge Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand the Kiwi article for example, I am sometimes left wondering how Wikipedia:WikiProject Faroe Islands feels justified in claiming the House Martin or Wikipedia:WikiProject Florida the Monk Parakeet (it's feral for Christ's sake). At least the hummingbird family is no longer claimed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Caribbean. So come on and share the most ridiculous article snatching you've seen! Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to happen with FAs; for instance, after King Vulture was promoted, WP: Central America and its Costa Rican taskforce claimed it as a FA, though they didn't bother to rate the importance of the article while they were there. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We're going to take bird any day now. :) Sheep81 (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind - have a look at the diverse wikiprojecyt templates I stuck on vampire and sirius..to me all they mean is cropping up on Assessment graphs and alert folks later. I take it as a compliment. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Dogs huh? Haha... Sheep81 (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No no, wooof cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior AfD

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern Pintail

Just a heads up that I've worked this up a bit and sent to GA - all comments welcome (except re imperial conversion - I did this one specifically because it's not just Old World). Re scramble for articles, it's already claimed by Indonesia and Laos! Jimfbleak (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Indonesia? What the hell? According to the species map it doesn't even occur there. My fiirst thought looking at the article is that all the images are in a line down one side, wouldn't they look better spaced more evenly? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, on my screen it creates a lot of white space between the paragraphs. I'll give it a quick little copyedit sometime tonight. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC Heads-up

Andean Condor has been nominated by Jude at FAC, joining Chiffchaff. Also, List of North Carolina birds has been nominated at FLC. Just a heads-up. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Heron id

Just to check, is this the rare dark morph of the Little Egret? If so, it's a nice picture to have (though I'd have preferred Dimorphic Egret, which was my first thought). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Dark morph Western Reef Heron? They are common in Senegal and The Gambia, white morph much less so. Dark morph Little Egret unrecorded in those two countries (Barlow, Clive (1997). A Field Guide to birds of The Gambia and Senegal. Pica Press. ISBN 1-873403-32-1. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)) (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Jimfbleak (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jim; this is a classic Western Reef Heron... MeegsC | Talk 23:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it sure looks like a lot of our other pictures of that bird. I blame Zimmerman, Turner, and Pearson's Kenya guide. I can identify this one, though! —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bird Taxobox image

I need some thoughst on the best image to use in the bird taxobox please... Talk:Bird#taxobox_image. ta Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Something with more than one species? I can contribute a less cropped version of this that has three species, but they'll look pretty small. There's probably something around that's better.

If we want a single-species portrait, the Yellow Warbler there now is quite nice (as the Featured Picture voters noticed). Passerines are sort of the "most typical". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Bird Problem

No-one's answered this at Talk:Bird. Trying here instead...

Just checked the source given for: "All modern birds lie within the subclass Neornithes, which is divided into two superorders: the Paleognathae, containing mostly flightless birds like ostriches, and the wildly diverse Neognathae, containing all other birds." and it gives "cohort" rank to these two taxa, not superorder rank. Do we have another source which treats these as superorders, or shall I change this (I'm wary of any non-trivial edits to the article, given the endless review & revision it has already gone through!)

SP-KP (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like you should change it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

OK thanks, that's two out of three of WP's bird taxonomy anoraks agreeing then :-) Dysmorodrepanis, any views? SP-KP (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

See the note I left at Neognathae. Basically we need new taxobox code. Either we're able to place 2 unrankeds between say order- and family-ranks, or we're gonna need a lot of Superorders among Neornithes. There has been suspicion since the "Steganopodes" and "Gaviomorphae" that there are groups of orders in Neornithes. But though many wwere proposed, they seem to have settled on treating all Neornithes as equidistant and used superorders for paleo/neognaths.

Mayr has done a critique of Livezey & Zusi's morph phylogeny (J Zool Syst Evol Res 46(1): 63–72) which gives a consensus phylogeny which I don't totally agree with (Piciformes ought to be closer to Passeriformes, no?) but which according to what I have seen is a good approximation of what it seems to settle down for. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Going back to my original question - do you have a source which treats these as orders? SP-KP (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Treats which ones as orders? As Superorders? I think most everyone does. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

English names

Have we had a discussion about whether we should move to the Gill & Wright (IOC) English names yet? SP-KP (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather wait and see what the officials say. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Who do you mean by "the officials"? SP-KP (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I can't guarantee these are the people Dysmorodrepanis is thinking of, it should be added that numerous authorties already have commented (click). While the Gill and Wright list does have a number of "problem-species" it is IMO overall far superior to any other world-list, incl. HBW. The one general issues I have, and that can be related back to some of my ealier comments, is that, just like I strongly dislike the "Old World" rules on lower-case letters after hypernation being forced upon birds of the Americas, I equally dislike the Amercan rules being forces upon "Old World" species. Rabo3 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely go with the locality standardization according to them (either "Puerto Rican" or "Puerto Rico" consistently). It is a major pain at present and would benefit from some hard-and-fast rule.

Re "officials" - AOU, BOC, OSME, OBC, the Aussies & Kiwis, BirdLife and so on and so on. We have their ref works as SOP sources/authorities, so if they say go or no go, it will affect our default sources. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ostrich referencing

I did a bit of work on Ostrich when we had it as a collaboration, however I don't have any african bird books that I can use for referencing. If anyone does, it would be great if it could be reffed and the habitat section exapnded and probably not too far off GA anyway. Always nice to get worked-on articles to a staging point :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I might have left some annots 4 refs in the Fossils section. Some may be ichnotaxa (eggshells only). There was severe unrecognized vandalism which I tried to rv but I may have missed bits. The Asian Ostrich might get a bit of work too. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern Pintail

Anas acuta has shot through GA (thanks for edits R-c S!) I'd like to sent it to FA, but can't while Chiffchaff lingers there, so plenty of time for improvements folks, Jimfbleak (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: American Robin is quite meaty as well. We may as well have a discussion on galleries vs images too as we have a few appearing. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

What do galleries add exactly that a link to the commons doesn't? I thought that was what the commons was for; Wikipedia not being collections of images and all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you SS, just throwing it up (figuratively) to see what consensus was. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I imagine galleries show the pictures to people who don't bother to click on the Commons tag or don't know what it is. During that argument about which pictures should be in Hummingbird, nobody said that it didn't matter since all the pictures were in Commons, so I think Commons often goes unnoticed. Personally, I don't care much either way, except if there is a gallery I don't think it should have a lot of similar pictures, like Little Egret. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

PS: Chiffchaff is pretty clearly in the home stretch. I've had 2 at FAC in this sort of situation (i.e. one is on the cusp of passing). I wouldn't have a problem with pintail being nommed and a bunch of us here to comment and polish it too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not have a gallery, so that's fine with me. I'll see later if Clements has anything useful on Canadian Robin which my brother in-law tells me is its real name - now where does he live (: Jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Fools rush in, part 94. I've now put up Northern Pintail as an fac here Jimfbleak (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I know! Let's have open season on robins! American Robin, European Robin (which is quite substantial already, just needs someone with a good UK bird book, I've got a symbolism book to ref all the folklore stuff) and there's a whole bunch of Oz and NZ robins for us antipodeans to choose from......cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me, I've added taxonomy and status sections to Amrob, obviously quite a bit on the real Robin, including even more on cultural stuff. I'll concentrate on the Am bird for the present though, since it's nearest to GA standard. Jimfbleak (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Petrels petrels petrels.

We have something of an inconsistency in the naming of our petrel articles; we have Storm-petrel and Diving petrel. Regardless of whether we should use the dash or not, the two should at least be consistent, no? HBW and the Gill and Wright take different tracks but at least keep the two consistent with each other. PWe should change one of them, I suggest Diving petrel to Diving-petrel. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of comments or opinions I boldly moved Diving petrel to diving-petrel, along with the four species articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration production line

Wow, never had a collaboration promoted before the month was up! Congrats to Jude, RcS and eveyone who chipped in. I am making Emperor Penguin next collab as of today, with next one chosen on Feb 21. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

....of course we then have birds which have the names of editors Australian Raven = User:Corvus coronoides, Hooded Crow= User:Corvus cornix, Rufous-crowned Sparrow, Black Falcon, Black Kite....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Lambrecht (1933)

I have a copy of Lambrecht's Handbuch der Palaeornithologie at hand. If there's anything I can look up for you, shoot away! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool...ummm, I have no idea what that is but sounds fascinating. what sort of stuff does it cover? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the first major write-up of the fossil record of birds. Very detailed in taxonomy, specimen data and descriptions, location and stratum data, etc. If anyone's working on some fossil bird or has some issue with these pending, and it's a taxon described before say 1932, it's probably in there.

Like Brodkorb (1964), but with all the details and bells'n'whistles. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FA update

1. Andean Condor and Chiffchaff passed FA, well done everyone.
2. Once Northern Pintail has met its fate one way or another, I'd like to try to get Aerodramus to FA, but I'm not sure if that's realistic, esp given the shortage of images; any views? If it's not a runner, I'll do House Martin instead, no rush Pintail still at FA.
3. American Robin has had lot of work put into it recently, but could really do with more US input on the cultural section, which is obviously a problem for Brits and Ozzies.

Thanks Jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC) ....Emperor Penguin is the current collab too, and Cathartidae would round up a FT nom. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is never going to win any prizes, but we do have one photograph of an Aerodramus, I just uploaded one I took of the White-rumped Swiftlet that I took in Tonga. There are also some images on Flickr that we could ask permission to use. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Flickr, is anyone here knowledgeable about the various copyright rules and regulations over there? I'm trying to get some pictures for the Rufous-crowned Sparrow article, so if anyone can either retrieve some that match Wikipedia's requirements or point me to an essay explaining it, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are none at present that you can use without asking permission. In order to find images that you can use you need to go to search everyone's photos [5], then click on advanced search and scroll down to the bottom [6] and tick Only search within Creative Commons-licensed photos and the two other options Find content to use commercially and Find content to modify, adapt, or build upon. This will then produce photos that can be uploaded onto the Commons with either a general attribution or sharealike attribution licence. Unfortunately not everyone selects these wiki friendly licences but some people can be asked to change their licences. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Northern Pintail is through FA now, any views which, if any, of the two GAs Aerodramus (thanks for image, SS) and House Martin I should try to get to FA next (realistically I don't have sources to enable me to do much on Emperor Penguin or Cathartidae), and R-c S has suggested that White-eyed River Martin might struggle. Also, how near do we think the unofficial collab at American Robin is to a GA nom? Jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is line-ball between Aerodramus and House Martin, with the latter probably a nose (beak) in front. Toss a coin and if you decide yourself willing for the opposite of the side tossed then do the other one instead. Amrob is big enough, but could do with a bit of a polish. I'll have a look later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with House Martin too, though I do not believe that any non-monotypic non-dinosauric genus has passed a FAC. Be interesting to see what would happen with it. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

House Martin it is then, as always comments and additions are welcome. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)