Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 60

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rock Martin

I've added { { cn } } tags to a couple of statements in Rock Martin which are lacking sources. As this is an FA, I thought I'd mention that here, in case anyone wants to find supporting references. SP-KP (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The statement about the genus often being subsumed into Hirundo if obviously true (even the books I own differ on the genus) but since it's been challenged I've removed the statement since it would require a list of books to verify, not worth the effort. The second statement was, I think supported by the source a little further on, so I've repeated that. That claim could also be lost with no great damage if still queried Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Status update

Some activity then - we have two articles at FAC (Common Tern and Noisy Miner), and Stresemann's Bushcrow at GAN, and I have some enthusiasm for giving Jackdaw a shove across the GA line (still quite a few articles to trawl through on the talk page). Once Jackdaw is GA, it might be time to think about a collaboration...funny, we'll have 3 tern FAs and no gulls....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Jackdaw. Before I read this, I was thinking that Tern might be a good collaboration... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Gawd, what is it with you and terns.. (clears throat) ...sure! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not gull? I few months ago I dragged it up to a C or low B class from a start, and it's a good article to recieve a concerted push to the big leagues, as well as being an important and well read article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing common names

During the current capitalizationathon, Curtis Clark suggested that all common names of taxa should be sourced. This makes sense to me—we're supposed to source everything else—and for birds, we do have a source. What would people think of adding a footnote to every lead sentence so it would look like "The Short-tailed Longtail1 (Macrourus brevicaudatus) is a beyond-rare bird of southern Zembla..."

1Gill, F. and D. Donsker (Eds). 2012. IOC World Bird Names (v 2.11). [Accessed "Date"].

? Maybe this could be tried first with candidates for GA and FA, as our extra-special sourced articles that get feedback, and if it goes over well, maybe a bot could do it for the rest. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Rather than putting it on the first line, perhaps the to of the taxobox would be a better place? I've been doing that for a while. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I was just about to suggest that; many articles put it in the taxobox, eg. Common chimpanzee. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm glad this is already being done, and the taxobox seems like a good place. Do we want this to be a project policy? (I must say "robust chimpanzee" was new to me.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
They would be sourced in the taxonomy and naming section. I generally do this already. All info in lead should be expanded upon in the body where the inline ref can go). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Strongly concur with Casliber. It is important information to cite, but this should be done in prose. People needs to stop putting unique information and sources in infoboxes, since all sorts of sites and applications that re-use WP content drop non-inline template cruft entirely (e.g. any floating <div>...</div>), and infoboxes are nothing but such templates. They're just bullet-point summaries of misc. factoids, not independent mini-articles. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 06:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree, taxonomy section in longer articles, first line in stubs; Should include publisher, International Ornithologists' Union, in cite. This is mine for Common Tern: Gill, F; Donsker D (eds). "IOC World Bird Names (v 2.11)". International Ornithologists' Union. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Retrieved 28 February 2012 (author and date style are my preferred, obviously not binding on others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. A large section of the article discusses Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (138)

I suspect this is also a Sooty, but it's a young bird, so harder to tell. Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Rohan Clarke tells me this is an immature Sooty Albatross, based on "some colour on the sulcus and some patchiness in the plumage", as well as "The bird is too brown-toned for a LMSA especially across the body and wings. LMSA are always much colder grey-toned. In all plumages they should also show a lovely pale steely grey back whereas your bird is quite dark brown. Some LMSA individuals can get paler than a typical adult LMSA with wear, especially juveniles but they never get darker. Your nice flight shots also show that the wings are too broad and good head profiles show that the bill is too robust and not 'pinched' mid-way along its length as you would expect for an LMSA." based on other shots from other individuals too. I'm therefore moving the image. JJ Harrison (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that after moving a file on Commons, it is usually a good idea to delete the redirect from a file name with the wrong name to the new file with the good name. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Sooty Albatross is now at File:Phoebetria fusca immature - SE Tasmania.jpg. Snowman (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that before deleting a redirect on Commons, it is usually a good idea to fix any references to the file. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that a useless redirect is a redirect from a file name of the wrong species going to the correctly named file. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a juvenile. Adults of both sexes have uniform grey upperparts. Other pointers are the rufous fringes to the feathers on the visible part of the wing and the coarse, fringed barring on the underparts. Females have neater and greyer barring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Moved to File:Accipiter nisus -England -juvenile-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Juvenile, for the same reasons listed for 1381. MeegsC | Talk 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Confirm, and it would have to be in Brazil as it is an endemic. That guy has some nice images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. First image of this species on the Wiki. Shown in infobox. I plan to remove the watemark soon. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree, it's either Little or Western Reef Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Egretta garzetta for me.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy with that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Please note that it is helpful if the person, who has listed an image here would do any subsequent work to tidy up and correct the file details including tagging the file for renaming. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Little Egret moved to File:Egretta garzetta -Arignar Anna Zoo, Vandalur, Chennai, India -adult and eggs-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Polyplectron? Such as the Malayan Peacock-Pheasant or Bornean Peacock-Pheasant? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Or maybe the Gray Peacock-Pheasant? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
It is a male bicalcaratum. I won't attempt to race the specimen - slightly foxed.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Gray Peacock-Pheasant moved to File:Polyplectron bicalcaratum -Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany -taxidermy-8a.jpg on Commons.
Immature Buceros h. hydrocorax.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Rufous Hornbill moved to File:Buceros hydrocorax -zoo -immature-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 11:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Ptilinopus o. occipitalis (an adult bird).Steve Pryor (talk) 11:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yellow-breasted Fruit Dove moved to File:Ptilinopus occipitalis -zoo -adult-8a.jpg on Commons. First photograph of this species on en Wiki shown in infobox. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Immature Falco s. severus.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oriental Hobby moved to File:Falco severus -zoo -immature-8a.jpg on Commons and shown in infbox on en Wiki. I do not usually show juveniles in the infobox, but the only other image of this species on Commons is not very good. Should this image be moved out of the infobox and placed with the main text of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Any citreola with a totally yellow head is always an adult male. This particular bird has already almost totally completed the transition to breeding plumage. It is an adult male bird, nominate race citreola citreola.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Subspecies and plumage details added to image description without implying corroboration. This photographs looks slightly overexposed to me, so I have not shown it on the en wiki article. Snowman (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
When I follow the image link, I only get a placemarker, no image (just this file) Any thoughts? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Commons or en Wiki does that sometimes. I did not see the image today until I clicked on the link to the image, which I found where the image is usually seen. If you are viewing from within Commons (ie have the Commons icon in the upper left hand corner instead of the "Wiki globe"), then the image is seen normally. If this does not work, then try again later. Snowman (talk) 11:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, link works, strange that it's just this image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Vancouver

It looks as if I'll be going to Vancouver in the summer for a family event. Sibley should be OK for bird ID, can anyone recommend a site guide to this area (I was rather hoping in would be in the World Cities birding guide, but it isn't...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Try these areas: Iona Island (British Columbia), Wreck Beach, George C. Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary. They are all in the south of Vancouver but not far. Dger (talk) 22:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I've just come back from seeing Common Yellowthroat and Lesser Scaup in South Wales, there was also a Bonaparte's Gull in Cardiff, at this rate I'll have a decent 2012 NAm year list before I get there (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Bird anatomy - circulation

Please see Talk:Bird#Left/Right_and_Pulmonary/Systemic. Shyamal (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replied over there. Snowman (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with redirects:

It doesn't seem to matter that much. There is not even a stub as far as I could determine. In any case, prout IOC = White-breasted Ground Dove. Other english common names that have been in the past commonly used for this bird (Gallicolumba jobiensis), are Purple Ground-Dove, Purple Ground-dove, White-bibbed Ground-Dove, White-bibbed Ground-dove.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I created a stub and fixed the redirects. Dger (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
New stub is at Gallicolumba jobiensis. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry had a typo when I did the move. The page listing is at is White-beasted Ground Dove (I missed the r in breasted). Should be OK once the page is fixed. Was going to let y'all know in the next set of locked page changes,, didn't think anyone would care until then......Pretty quick Snowmaradio!....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not leave articles and redirects in a bad mess like this. It seems that you left one article orphaned with the wrong name and virtually inaccessible. This mess with page names is denying readers access to this page (this dove article got 253 views in February 2012). I have changed the new stub that User Dger kindly made back to a redirect. Look at all the inconvenience this has caused. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
An administrator kindly deleted a page and I moved the dove to the correct page. I have also fixed a number of redirects. Snowman (talk) 21:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Symposiachrus

Resolved

Looks like someone misspelled Symposiachrus and created the redirects below. Ive moved all to the correct spelling. Should we keep the mispells or delete them. Misspells as follows:

and 1 of my bad (missed the r...sorry)

......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Delete the erroneous spelling. This is a mistake in orthography, not an alternative spelling! This is one of the ways in which so much of the mistaken information has crept into the grey literature of ornithology. To keep the mistaken spelling around is to add a certain valence to it. Out, damn'd spot!Steve Pryor (talk) 10:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Fantastic Steve! Then can someone do the honors since I can't.....(also another misspell-my computer acted up- delete Ed Helmetshrike. Thanks....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Urrao Antpitta. Let's settle this.

Discussion at http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Talk:Grallaria_fenwickorum#Move_to_Urrao_Antpitta Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I was just thinking this morning that this needs to be solved. If we don't get a good response, I'd like to ask for comments elsewhere, such as TOL. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Most welcome, Jerry. Move successful. No votes against. I've begun to clean up the article to reflect the change, but I'm sure I've missed something. Might be worth checking out if anyone has a spare moment. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

White-necked Rockfowl

Hello, in White-necked Rockfowl#Reproduction it's written: "The White-necked Rockfowl has two breeding seasons throughout the year" then "Guinean birds breed from July to January, while those in Sierra Leone breed from November to February and from April to October". Does it mean that Guinean Rockfowl have only one breeding season, or that they have two clutches in six months? Totodu74 (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Good question that someone with the cited Fry-African-birds reference needs to answer. I would however imagine that it is not two clutches but two peaks in breeding (before and after the rains) - a pattern that is also found in the Asian Monsoon zone. Shyamal (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, it makes sense indeed. (I still wait for a sure answer from the reference anyway) Totodu74 (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bird dimensions

An IP, who seems to be interested in bird sizes, has been editing articles about large birds; see these edits. I am not certain about these bird sizes, because different sources might say different things. Snowman (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This IP and similar ones beginning with 86.46 (originating in Dublin, Ireland) have been making these sorts of edits before. The edits appear to be constructive but if you try to verify them the references don't exist or are too vague to even find. Usually, several editors waste a lot of time reverting the edits. Here we go again. Dger (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yup. I'm reverting on sight now. I see no evidence that he's editing in good faith. I know that other people on WP:BIRDS have been too... but speaking of reverting, could anyone reverting him please make sure to revert *past* any intervening bot edits to the last non-86.4* edit? They interspace themselves with his edits sometimes. Just something I noticed the last time I reverted him. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Any edit that includes oiseaux-birds.com as a citation should, in most cases at least, be reverted. For this reason. He also has a tendency to use citations that scores low at WP:RS, e.g. blogs. Somewhat related, I just discovered large parts of Ferguson-Lees and Christie's Raptors of the World are available on google books. Just search for its name at books.google.com. The typical measurements (wingspan, total length) are at the plates; other more detailed measurements are the end of the main species text. Use the search on the lower left of the book's page to find the sections fast (in general, specific name is the most effecient, e.g. pelagicus for Steller's Sea Eagle). Handbook of the Birds of the World, quoted in several eagle owls, provides the following total lengths and weights: Great Horned (male 51 cm and 680-1450 g, female 60 cm and 1000-2500 g), Magellanic Horned (c.45 cm), Eurasian (60-75 cm, male 1500-2800 g, female 1750-4200 g), Rock (56 cm, c.1100 g), Pharaoh (46-50 cm, male c.1900 g, female c. 2300 g), Cape (48-58 cm, male 900-1400 g, female 1200-1800 g), Spotted (c.45 cm, male 490-620 g, female 640-850 g), Greyish (c.43 cm, c.500 g), Fraser's (39-45 cm, male c.575 g, female 685-815 g), Usambara (48 cm, 770-875 g), Forest (51-64 cm), Barred (40-46 cm), Shelley's (c.61 cm, one male 1257 g), Verreaux's (60-65 cm, male 1615-1960 g, female 2475-3115 g), Dusky (48-53 cm), Akun (40-46 cm, male 485-535 g, female 525-610 g), Philippine (40 cm), Blackiston's (60-72 cm). We're not exactly innocent in using questionable citations either: In the Eurasian Eagle Owl, we used oiseaux-birds.com, and the upper weight measurements were based on this blog, itself a questionable source, but even more so when the relevant text is "Boo’s [some captive bird] carer told us that she weighs about 10 pounds (4.5 kg). That’s typical for females." She weights "about" and that's "typical". Really!? I removed that citation and changed it to a combination of owlpages.com and Handbook of the Birds of the World. –212.10.93.66 (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It's the same principle as the "diet of frogs", but with the added tweak of pseudo-references; either not RS, or RS (like HBW) but no page numbers, so you could waste a lot of time trying to check, assuming that you had access. I revert on sight too, and I've blocked occasionally, but this appears to be a dynamic ISP (not a proxy, or the bot would block). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if it is worth making a page "List of the one hundred largest birds" (possibly partitioned into family or order sections) with referenced dimensions, and this can help us to decide when to revert. Snowman (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
If you're going to do anything that has the effect of ranking the great eagles in order of size, expect a firestorm (or perhaps a string of gradual passive-aggressive figure-changing from uncommunicative IPs). Ever notice how people seem to like to big up their favourite eagle, whilst diminishing the others? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (139)

It is an alba personata, an adult male. It is still mostly in the winter plumage but it is starting to transition (the only difference between the two personata plumages in the adult male being that it has a whitish moustachial, and a white throat in winter, and the breeding plumaged male loses all of that throat white and the throat becomes totally black.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that it looked like that subspecies, but its location does not correspond to the range on File:MotacillaAlbaDistribution.svg, which is shown on the en Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I would rather trust my references, including "Pipits & Wagtails of Europe, Asia and North America", Per Alstrom and Krister Mild.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Would agree with M. a. personata. That map in any case says nothing about wintering ranges. Shyamal (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I see. It could be informative if the approximate time of year that the illustration is applicable is included in the image description on Commons. I have added to the image description on Commons that the wintering rages are different. Snowman (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Varied Tit. Maias (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a just recently discovered Kingfisher that goes by the "misleading" name of Poecile v. varius, an adult - Varied Tit. Incidentally, the photo on the species page is also a nominate race varius varius, shot in the Japanese Alps on Honshu.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Cyanistes varius varius Korea.jpg Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'll make the call on this one. "In Africa", well, I will take it on faith though it appears strange that he only shot one bird shot in his "safari". It is included in a mixed-bag set obviously captive animals somewhere! Nonetheless, the photo already on the species page is an adult male nominate erythrocephalus erythrocephalus. The bird in object is an adult female nominate.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that I might have been mislead with the set saying; "wild animals". Thank you for commenting on the location. Now at File:Trachyphonus erythrocephalus -adult female-8a.jpg. Shown on en Wiki species page. Is the one in the infobox of the species page a male? Snowman (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I already commented above. To reiterate, the one on the species page infobox is an adult male nominate race erythrocephalus erythrocephalus. The one we just looked at is the adult female of the same race erythrocephalus erythrocephalus (I don't need a location to determine the race).Steve Pryor (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Whoops. Captioning and image descriptions completed. Snowman (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Impossible to say, according to my sources. Adult males lack streaking on the mantle, which this bird has. And females are said to "look more and more like adult males as they age". In my opinion, this bird is not sexable. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Telespiza cantans-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Not likely to be a juvenile in Feb, but a bit dull for a full adult female, also some streaking on throat. I'd go for a female in late first-winter plumage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Chalcophaps indica, adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Common Emerald Dove moved to File:Chalcophaps indica -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -male-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I clicked the link and arrived just to some sort of editing page, without the image.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Whoops. The typo was the missing ":File:". Snowman (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Snow, you need at least a partial view of the breast, so, no, not from this photo.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have added an explanation of that in image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
A Spanish Sparrow. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Passer hispaniolensis -Malta-8.jpg and selected to be shown in the infobox on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: previous image put back in infobox by User Innotata, see this edit and edit summary. Awaiting comments. Snowman (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. A winter adult (and not very common in California, I believe). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, a vagrant there. Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
For me, adult female, winter plumage lugens.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear.....

Crown (anatomy) is ...erm...interesting. Needs an overhaul. Anyone with some bird anatomy books - could be a DYK maybe. Am posting this as am tidying up a couple of other things before hitting the hay....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

<giggles> I'm not sure making the article bird-specific would be justified though. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The current "crown (anatomy)" article seems to be to bias towards bird anatomy. Can a separate article on "Crown (bird anatomy)" be justified? Do all birds have a crown, not just the ones with a crown that stands out because of contrasting feather colours? Do all mammals have a crown too, at least the ones with roundish heads? I am not sure if reptiles and insects have a crown or not, and I think that most of them do not have round heads. A modified "Crown (anatomy)" article, might be along the same lines as the Temple (anatomy) or Occiput article. According the the wiki article on occiput, insects have an occiput. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, all birds have crowns, just as they all have eyes and feet. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I could tell you about this one gull that was part of my local flock years ago that didn't. Have feet, that is. (S)he would be either sitting or flying. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Touché. :-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Heh. But seriously - I've been thinking about this and I've remembered about all the feral pigeons I've seen that have feet and toes in various states of rotting, falling apart and dropping off. Does anyone know what causes this? Don't know if it's something more prevalent amongst feral pigeons than other birds, or if it's just that there are lots of feral pigeons around and some of them come quite close and thus, I notice that some of them seem to be suffering from something like dry gangrene. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Guesses: could be frostbite, could be strangulation due to debris/droppings adherent to toes, could be trauma caused bird traps at various stop-off areas during migrations), could be trauma due to bites from meat-eating animals or territorial fights. I expect any of these could lead to infection including gangrene. Snowman (talk)
Roosting/breeding/loitering amongst the rotting carcasses of their deceased brethren probably isn't helpful either. If that actually really happens. Or is that just anti-street-pigeon propaganda (i.e. "look! they're so stupid/dirty/immoral that they even associate with corpses - how can you say that these things deserve to live?" - well, that would *seem* to be the unspoken subtext)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Agree, unless there is much more than I would expect on the crown of the head, a general animal article should do. I would think that there would need to be some distinction made between the actual crown of the head, presumably present in most terrestrial vertebrates, and the appearance of a crown as in the (unnecessary) listed species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
In insects this or something near it is called the Vertex_(anatomy), maybe a candidate for a merger. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Top of head (biology)? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Added a tighter (bird related) definition with ref. I think when used in common names it often has a somewhat looser meaning, dependent on plumage colouration. Maias (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
If a separate crown article for birds is justified it would be because the term is used so widely in bird identification. I guess an alternative would be to have it in Wiktionary instead. Maias (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that in the study of human anatomy the term "crown" is not used much or it has no strict definition; however, Calvaria (skull), "skullcap", "skull cap", or the "roof of the cranial cavity" are used. I have been looking at a 996 page book on human anatomy, but so far I have only found the term crown with reference to teeth. Perhaps, something will turn up in other books or dictionaries. Snowman (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • From the OED: there are many meanings mainly about roundish things on the top of something. It also says that the crown is the top of the head and alternatively the whole head. One specific anatomical use in the OED is for "The eminence on the head of a whale, in which the blow-holes are situated." It has several meaning in plant anatomy also. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think there is little scope for a general anatomical article on "crown" beyond a brief definition or disambiguation. With regard to the bird crown, there would be scope for a section in a article on "bird topography" (as well as bird anatomy - which is what the phrase redirects to, though it is not properly covered there, despite the excellent illustration). Such a section should focus on the visual aspect - skin or feather texture and colouration, including any crest - and its function in identification, whether by humans or conspecifics. There is really not much to say about "crown" as the top part of the skull; it can easily be covered in the anatomy article. Maias (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
With a heading "Crown (anatomy)" it is not primarily a bird article. Shed is also an article about different structures of sheds, so "Crown" article might be like the article on "Shed". Snowman (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Should the scope of the article be reduced by re-naming it "Crown (vertebrate anatomy)", so that plant anatomy is not included or should plant anatomy be included? Should it be converted into a SIA? Snowman (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I am not sure that it fits a set index easily, though some sort of dab would be useful. I want to emphasise, however, that for birds "crown" is largely an ID term. It is not about the 3D upper part of the skull but about the curved 2D visual surface. In this sense the term is used in a different way to that usually applying to most other animals. Maias (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, a mass of feathers on the top of a bird's head is not a 2D structure. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Aside from crown also being an anatomical designation in plants, the crown of the teeth are also technically anatomical which confuses the scope even more.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Why not just set up a glossary for strictly bird anatomical parts, and then use that as a backstop for cross-linking from bird articles as necessary? Dictionaries of ornithology do exist. I use this one: http://www.amazon.com/Ornithologists-Dictionary-Johannes-Erritzoe/dp/8496553434Steve Pryor (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, let's sort out the confusion. There may or may not be justification for an article on the anatomical feature. I don't think that article exists, whether it should is another matter. The article under discussion is effectively about the plumage feature, and consists mainly of a list of birds with crown in the name. It makes as much sense as having an article toe (bird) with Short-toed Eagle, Short-toed Treecreeper, Long-toed Stint etc. Proposal 1 — convert this article to a redirect to feather, add a sentence there. Separate Proposal 2 consider whether there is a need for an article on the anatomical feature, either for birds or all vertebrates; if so, write a stub Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I like Steve's idea of the glossary — perhaps something along the line of the glossary of entomology terms. That gets rid of a bunch of quasi-related stub articles, while putting things into an easily findable place for both editors and readers. MeegsC | Talk 16:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a glossary might be the answer. Another example is Glossary of botanical terms. Maias (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

White Stork

Hi. Currently on White Stork#Parasites and diseases we can read: "These mites, including Freyana pelargica, Pterolichus ciconiae and Xoloptes didactylus live on fungi growing on the feathers.[1]"

  1. ^ Krivolutsky, Dmitri A. (2004). "Oribatid mites (Oribatei) in bird feathers: Passeriformes" (PDF). Acta Zoologica Lituanica. 14 (2): 19–38. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

A hidden reference is : "Schöne, Richard; Schmäschke, Ronald; Sachse, Margit. "interesting facts". federmilben. Star-Media GmbH.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Retrieved 22 October 2010 – The editors of the feather mite site are two veterinary scientists and a veterinary engineer. Two work at the Institute of Parasitology. still not as reliable as citing journals"
The problem is that the Krivolutsky's paper doesn't speak about White Stork... I have searched for other references:

If someone wants to update names and to put reliable sources ;) Totodu74 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and fix the statement in the article. Someone will look over it for grammar if you are diffident. Shyamal (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hop! I let Pseudogabucinia ciconiae in comment, still searching for a reliable source. The original descritpion of the species (protonym: Pterolichus ciconiae Canestrini & Berlese, 1880) should be found on Atti della Società Veneto-Trentina di Scienze Naturali — Padua, but I can't find it online... :( Totodu74 (talk) 10:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Wow strange - hmmm, not sure how that ended up in the article. Thanks for getting stuck in. I can get some journals via university access. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Bird names and article titles" overhaul

Now that most of the bickering has died down, I've been working on synchronizing all the guidelines and conventions and such to stop wildly disagreeing with one another (my original goal in reapproaching the "animal caps" issue). In the process of working on WP:WikiProject Birds#Bird names and article titles toward this end, I couldn't help but notice that it had a lot of other problems. Being a wikignome, I took a stab at fixing all of them at once.

The result of this overhaul is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/naming sandbox.

I hope it will meet with your approval. I've put a lot of time and thought into it, with an eye to easing tension, de-mystifying the project's convetion, reducing unnecessary conflict with MOS, keeping readers in mind and reducing the palimpsestuous nature of the continually re-re-edited section, which had gotten harder and harder to follow over the years.

I'm not an ornithologist, though I have a lot of non-professional experience in herpetology and felinology. Hopefully I have not inadvertently introduced any errors. The possibility of doing so is one of the reasons I did all the editing in a sandbox (the other being tension reduction). I'm actually fairly good at this sort of thing. See, e.g., my total rewrite of WP:WikiProject Stub sorting/Naming guidelines, before (virtually impenetrable) and after, a lean, clean form that's hardly changed since I overhauled it just short of 5 years ago, after lengthy disputes, and it was accepted with very little tweaking. I hope this will satisfy, too, and stand a similar test of time.

The redraft does not do anything to change basic WP:BIRDS capitalization practice as enunciated here. The most interesting changes that I can recall off the top of my head, in no particular order:

  • Updated to use current IOC naming rules (it was way out of date, esp. on the "Black-headed Cuckooshrike"-type cases)
  • Better logical flow
  • Eliminated redundant wording
  • Uses examples that aren't confusing
  • Cleaned up wikicode (wiki not HTML table, semantic markup, etc.)
  • Normalized to UK spelling (there were some Americanisms)
  • Advised ways to avoid conflict
  • Made it agree with WP policies and guidelines, without saying anything judgmental
  • Numerous wording clarifications
  • More links
  • Reduction of jargon
  • Removal of various forms of vague, uncertain or weakly-phrased wording, and opted for consistent, affirmative advice, not lack of advice, when possible
  • Clearer reliance on IOC as a standard
  • Clarification per WT:BIRDS#Capitalizing the NON-standard common names not to capitalize non-IOC names names recognized by no authorities
  • Clarification on what to do about non-bird species in same article, per MOS
  • Noted clearly, with {{As of}}, where things are in flux.
  • Any time I could link to existing MOS/AT/NC guidance in support of something here, I did so, to reduce the "making stuff up as they go along" perception problem this project has long had
  • Deleted a non sequitur about what other projects should or shouldn't do (out-of-scope and WP:BEANSy, even inflammatory)
  • Note about bird breeds (no consensus)
  • Increased suggestions for redirecting to make things easier on readers and non-expert editors

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 12:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This section is incorrect: Clarification per WT:BIRDS#Capitalizing the NON-standard common names not to capitalize non-IOC names. The convention is that accepted names, regardless from which authority they gain acceptance, are all capitalized. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Not everyone in this project seems to agree with this. E.g. BushRanger said 'IMHO, "non-standard" names shouldn't be capitalised.' This is actually kind of important, because the main reason people are hopefully going to be more prone to leaving your capitalization practice alone is its being tied to a specific, international authority. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
And I agree with Bushranger on this. I suspect you do not interpret "non-standard" the same way the rest of us do. A non-standard name is a name that has never at any point been accepted by any nomenclatural/taxonomic authority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's what s/he actually said: "IMHO, "non-standard" names shouldn't be capitalised. "Rock Pigeon", caps; "Rock Dove", as a former name, caps..." Which is exactly what Jerry and I are trying to convey here. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I grok it now. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it was somebody else, not me, who was trying to convey that. Anyway, I regret to say that I'm not sure we've covered everything yet. Do we think of things like monographs (such as Forshaw's Parrots of the World) and field guides (such as Howell and Webb's Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America) as taxonomic authorities whose non-IOC names should be capitalized? Likewise names in scientific papers, such as "Fenwick's Antpitta" even if it never appears in an international list? I'm inclined to think we do, but maybe others don't. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we should. That's how it's done in all the literature I've ever seen. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like random/open-ended criteria, though. "How it's done in the all the literature" appears to be "capitalize with impunity", which is exactly why people have been chomping on the ankles of this project for seven years. What the literature does for its own internal purposes is a very different angle than "do what IOC does because it's an internationally, near-universally accepted standard", which is a quite strong rationale. "Do what any 'regional authority' does" is a considerably weaker one. "Capitalize with impunity just because [[WP:ILIKEIT|we're used to it in orn. journals" directly leads to strife. There needs to be some kind of clearly defined, defensible rationale, with criteria that aren't confusing or open to wild interpretation, or the fighting will never end. I don't mean from me (I'm not fighting about it any longer), I mean from all of the many completely different people who bring this debate up endlessly, here, at WT:MOS, WT:MOSCAPS, WT:FAUNA, WT:TOL, WP:VPP, an in RMs and RfCs on large numbers of article talk pages. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
What does "regional" mean in the phrase "regional" authorities? Is it sub-national (e.g. the Oregon Ornithological Society) or only supra-national (e.g. North American, European, Asian, etc.)? The word is vague. If supra-national is intended, are you sure this is the intent? I would seem to denigrate the ABA, AOU, BOU, OBC, etc. as possibly authoritative. If sub-national is intended, what are the inclusion criteria? Four people could form an "Albuquerque, New Mexico Ornithology Society" but that wouldn't make them reliable for anything. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 01:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I think what Bushranger may be getting at is that we treat genuine alternative names which may appear in other authorities as equivalent, so Sand Martin (Bank Swallow in North America) is fine, whereas "tarrock" as a non-standard Scottish dialect term for Common Tern appears in no authorities, and wouldn't be bolded or capped. That seems entirely consistent usage to me. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
With all due respect, SMcCandlish, you are looking for a problem where none exists. ABA is not a taxonomic authority at all. AOU covers dozens of countries: all of North America and the Caribbean north of Colombia. There are no sub-national taxonomic authorities. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Jimfbleak is correct in my intent. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Understood. My "regional" question has been answered. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Updated the draft, per the above. Has it gotten anything else wrong? — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 14:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the correct link to the discussion on "The House Sparrow (Passer domesticus)..." I fixed it at the project page without changing the wording.
One thing that jumps out at me is "Someone writing on a sports team called the "Christchurch King Penguins" may properly refer to "their namesake the [[king penguin]]" without worrying about species capitalisation rules of the ornithology context, which many readers find jarring in more general prose (this has frequently lead to editwarring and criticism of the capitalisation convention)." Is all this really necessary? Have people been adding capitals to bird names in non-bird articles in the last few years? Has this been leading to edit warring and criticism of the convention? Does anyone need an official explanation of "jarring"? There could easily have been many such cases that I wouldn't have known about, but if not, I think the previous text is sufficient. If it a revision is necessary, I think we have a great deal more evidence for "some" than for "many", as I've said before. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jerry on all points. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Much of that "Christchurch King Penguins" text, and its general structure and intent, isn't mine; I just tried to clarify what was already there. I'm not wedded to particular wording or to its existence. I thought the link was helpful, since we actually have some "principle of least astonishment" stuff that seems applicable, but if you don't like it, axe it. If the entire passage were cut, the remaining text arguably gets the point across anyway. To answer the actual questions (which are good questions on their own, regardless of the "Christchurch" passage): "Have people been adding capitals to bird names in non-bird articles in the last few years?" Yes, virtually everywhere (and not just birds, but the practice has spread from bird articles). "Has this been leading to edit warring and criticism of the convention?" Emphatically yes. Where do you think the last 2 months of debate came from? And the brouhaha before that, and the one before that, and...? The majority of criticism of the caps convention, I can assure you, is coming from people who encounter its fallout in other articles. I've been trying to make that point really clearly for several years now.  :-) It's not because people are running into the capitalization of "House Sparrow" in the article House Sparrow; orn. articles are not particularly high-visibility. I don't mean that as an insult, like "no one reads your work"; rather, articles on particular species get a lot fewer hits than articles on TV shows and other pop-culture stuff, which sometimes mention birds, which usually get capitalized there because people think "It's an insider Wikipedia thing to capitalize birds" (and, by analogy/imitation, other animals, more and more). Just like a zillion people who had never encountered the news journalism jargon term "lede" in their lives began misusing it here on a daily basis after WP:LEAD started promoting it at the whim of some journo editor. WP is enough of a long-term, in-depth online community that it is demonstrably subject to internal fads, fashions and other memetic "flus", capitalizing animal names all over the place being a major one. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I cut that whole passage from the sandbox draft, and it actually does read perfectly clearly without it. So, good catch! — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 13:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Any other issues with the idea of merging Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/naming sandbox into the the project page? I think the clarifications will be very helpful. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Going twice... — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 22:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

African scrub-robins

Just a heads-up. We have two genus pages covering (almost) the same group of birds - Erythropygia and Scrub-robin (Cercotrichas) - which presumably should be merged. However, both genera seem to be valid for at least some of the species. A look by someone who is better informed about the preferred taxonomy than I am would be appreciated. Thanks. Maias (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

PS: Maybe 'Scrub-robin' (or 'Scrub Robin' per IOC) should be a dab page since an unrelated genus, Drymodes (Australasian scrub-robins), uses the same substantive common name. Maias (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Jackdaw genus...

See Talk:Western_Jackdaw#Scientific_name...Coloeus_vs_Corvus regarding which name to choose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Common Raven vs Northern Raven

IOC lists Corvus corax as Northern Raven, and the rest of the world lists it as Common Raven (as does the current Wikipedia article)......I'm assuming we leave it as Common Raven and not move it to the IOC Northern Raven. What do people think?...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I would leave it. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no preference either way actually, and can see cases for both/either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Leave, I've never seen the IOC used anywhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I would much prefer Northern Raven. The adjective 'Common' is far too commonly used in bird names and, since no bird is common everywhere, does not actually mean anything, whereas 'Northern' at least gives some indication of range. Is the Common Raven commoner than all other ravens? Or more vulgar and lacking nobility? Okay, rant over. Maias (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
That's certainly a good point. I wonder if there is any IOC-related discussion on it anywhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Montanes"

Is anyone else really annoyed by the, I assume, bot-generated use of the non-word "montanes" on many bird pages? Gray-and-gold Tanager is an example. I don't suppose there's some way we can get a bot to change every instance of "montanes" to "montane forests"? Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The term does grate; in English it is usually used adjectivally rather than as a noun. Is 'mountain forest' a synonym? What about montane grasslands and shrublands? I have no problem with the word being replaced by something equally or more accurate. I am sure automated replacement is possible. Maias (talk) 02:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
They are indeed bot-generated, and they're probably all supposed to be "montane forest", as mentioned here. I thought at the time that it would be great to get a bot to fix them, and I believe I asked Quadell, but whether I did or anyone did or not, it didn't happen. There are fewer now than there were the, but I still think it would be great.
Someone has just merged "montane forest" with montane zone, but in the next few days, I'm going to try to put it back with a better version of "montane forest". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Crotophagidae

Crotophagidae has been WP:PRODded, not surprising really as it's an unreffed stub I wrote as a noob in 2006, based on the Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy of birds. Can it be rescued or should it go? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Move to Crotophaginae, maybe. Burmeister (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I just did. There is some nice literature relating to the subfamily as a whole, which seems quite distinctive. If we expand it 5x might be a DYK.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Talking of my old stubs, perhaps if anyone wants to go over Coccyzidae, Lybiidae and Megalaimidae then dig in. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (140)

This is a West Mexican Chachalaca. MeegsC | Talk 15:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Certainly the Howell & Webb plate is very poor. O. leucogastra is possible here (correction: not possible in Huatulco which is too far north), and you have to go into the text to figure out that the glabrous periocular skin is red in poliocephala, and greyish in leucogastra - not evident from the plate.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Ortalis poliocephala -Huatulco, Mexico-8.jpg on Commons and selected for the infobox on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Steve, White-bellied is only found south of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. MeegsC | Talk 13:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Meegs, absolutely right you are! I should have got off my duff enough to nail down exactly where Huatulco is in coastal Oaxaca. They range overlap just slightly only near the coastal Oaxaca-Chiapas border. My bad. Though the Howell & Webb is still "the" book for Mexico, I hope they will someday put their plates, range maps, and text descriptions together in a more user-friendly manner. Steve Pryor (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
While the maps may show an overlap, there is in actuality no place the two species come into contact. There is simply nowhere with adequate habitat for this to occur. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, if you are talking about just the color, yes, it is a blue-colored duck. I have no idea of what might have gone into the genetics of this one, further, the color seems just weird - perhaps selected for. If you want to know whether or not it is Hymenolaimus, no, it is not. My suggestion, just throw it into the "oblivion" file. Not worth anything. By the way, I don't know who tagged the photo, but "canard bleu" in this case means a duck, any duck, that happens to be blue in color. Unfortunately, in french, Hymenolaimus is called Canard bleu (also Hyménolaime bleu).Steve Pryor (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It' s a domestic Mallard. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Domestic duck -Parc de la Pepiniere, Nancy, France-8a.jpg. It seems to have short feet and short legs. It looks unusual. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually interesting to see; of all the many domestic duck hybrids I've seen, I've never seen anything quite like this. It can't be just Anas platyrhynchos, but I've no idea what else could be stirred in to give it that appearance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Methinks it has been dipped in a bucket of green dye. I was once asked to identify a bird in a photo; it was a Silver Gull dyed shocking pink. Maias (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Maias, keeping that thought in mind, here's one for you! New, never before discovered species, or what? http://www.flickr.com/photos/22004717@N00/6969010067/in/photostreamSteve Pryor (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea but, whatever it is, it matches the colours of the flowers around it beautifully. Maias (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I will take the photo down in the next couple of days (not mine). As soon as I originally saw the photo I knew the genus, but none of the rest of the coloration made any sense. I even sent the photo to Sophie Webb. It is a genus Passerina, probably a Painted Bunting. One of my contacts in Mexico, Manuel Grosselet, finally told me, and it was driving me nuts, that it is a common practice to actually paint birds in order to dupe the local authorities, and to sell them as canary. This is one of those that escaped.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Reminiscent of http://www.stupidlaws.com/it-is-illegal-to-paint-sparrows-to-sell-them-as-parakeets/ ? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we shoul ask to Mikalina ;) Totodu74 (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: brightly coloured gulls... what's the deal with those? Do researchers dye them for tracking purposes, or is it just a case that they've been rooting around in the bins or swimming near some outlet or other near a chemical/paint/etc. factory? I once saw a dayglo yellow one. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
With the photo of the pink gull I saw, it was evidently either a prank or an accident. Reserach use of dyes on birds usually involves a splash of colour on the wings or belly - traditionally picric acid - not a full-body dye job. Maias (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The yellow one I saw was covered all over. Looked like the colour of highlighter pens. My immediate assumption, given the uniformity of the coverage was that science was responsible. That said, if there's an idiot out there in this world putting collars made from beer cans onto gulls (look it up - it happened), why not someone painting them for laughs too? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't remember if there are any other green duck breeds like this, but looks like a Cayuga Duck, a not uncommon breed which is probably part American Black Duck. —innotata 22:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't find the English name, but the "Canard Labrador" (in French) can also be greenish black. Some say that it may be the ascendant, others the descendant, of Cayuga. Totodu74 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Well spotted. It looks a lot like Cayuga Duck illustrations. I am minded to use this in the file name or image description to reduce confusion. Comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: I have added "It looks like a Cayuga Duck or a similar domestic duck breed." to the image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Bird 1402. File:Guacamayo - Ara Macao.JPG | Identified as Scarlet Macaw and used in WPs article on that species. Upon first glance, this would appear to be correct - however, an IP has posted on the talk page today to point out the green feathers on its wing, as opposed to the expected yellow. Is this an acceptable plumage variation for this species? Or is it likely that this bird is of hybrid blood? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Ara macao. Rows of feathers in bare part of the face are darker red in greenwing, and pretty prominent. This species has a variable row of green feathers in between the red and the yellow, which varies regionally. 69.244.220.253 (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess that the photograph just misses yellow feathers lower down the wing and I presume the image is consistent with a Scarlet Macaw, a species with variations in the green in the wing feathers. The extent of the green in the wing of this parrot appears to me to be at the extreme upper limit; however, I can not exclude that the parrot has unusual genetics in a captive setting, because I do not know much about the appearance of Ara hybrids. Without showing any yellow feathers, I would say that the image has poor composition and may give the wrong impression and so should not appear in the wiki article, so I have removed the image and replaced it with a less puzzling image. Compare with File:ZOO_Bojnice_-_Ara_arakanga.jpg and File:Ara_macao_-Fort_Worth_Zoo-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The thing about Ara hybrids is that they're (AFAIK) usually fertile - and very variable in appearance, from what I've seen. So it would certainly be possible to have a bird further down the line that was (say) 7/8 Scarlet Macaw and 1/8 something else that closely resembled a Scarlet, aside from the minor details. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, mixed species genetics could be owing to only an auntie or uncle (or great-auntie or great-uncle) of one species despite all the other ancestors being of another species. An explanatory note in the image description on commons could add a note of caution about the identification of this bird without any visible yellow in its wing feathers. Snowman (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Snowman, what the auntie or uncle was would be irrelevant, since the bird in question would not have inherited any genes from an auntie or an uncle— but if one grandparent or great-grandparent was something other than a Scarlet... MeegsC | Talk 13:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Whoops. Accidental error. Of course, I should have mentioned relatives, who are ancestors. Snowman (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Also note that the bird appears to have at least one blue/green feather (or at least it looks that way on my monitor) on the top of its head. Though this may just be a result of the lighting when the photo was taken, it could easily also be indicative that this bird is a hybrid. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a reference that would support one blue feather on a birds head is more likely to make it a hybrid? If this bird is tame, it might have been drinking out of cups or eating out of bowls. If it had its head partially in a food or drink container to do this, then some deposits from the rim of the container might contaminate the parrot's head feathers. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no reference. Just a personal opinion from someone who's looked at a lot of pics and vids of hybrid parrots over the years, as a parrot lover. Hybrid macaws often seem to have unusual patches of colour and odd-coloured feathers sticking out - it's not that the presence of a blue feather is specifically indicative of a hybrid. Your suggestion is also plausible. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Just compare [1] with [2]. No doubt. No hybrid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
The aspect of this parrot that is puzzling us is the colour of the wing feathers. The appearance of its head and face is not puzzling. Snowman (talk) 09:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
That is correct (Wompoo Pigeon/Fruit-Dove). Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Wompoo Fruit Dove moved to File:Ptilinopus magnificus -Florida, USA -captive-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I believe this is correct. The only other species of emerald-dove, Stephan's, should lack the white at the bend of the wing. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
It is female or immature? Snowman (talk) 10:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Definitely copyright violation; as in almost all countries (not Germany), 2D objects do not fall under freedom of panorama in the U.S. —innotata 15:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks like a copyvio to me. I think it needs to be deleted very soon, so I have added a "speedy" deletion template replacing the "possibly unfree" deletion template. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Genus Argusianus. Will look at it later so as to attempt to race, and to age the bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a female Great Argus. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
It might be. It is a nominate race. The problem is that the bird shows signs of immaturity (notably the skin on the side of the head which is totally glabrous in the adult birds of both sexes, but here still finely feathered (evident only in the larger magnification). According to Madge & McGowan the juveniles resemble the females with the young male acquiring male features at first moult. Nonetheless, the dorsal spotting appears to me to be "vermiculate" rather than more discretely spotted - this would depone for the female sex. Were I to guess, I might view this as a subadult female.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Argusianus argus -Florida, USA -captive-8a.jpg on Commons and described as "female (possibly sub-adult female)" Snowman (talk) 21:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Lophura diardi, adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Siamese Fireback moved to File:Lophura diardi -Florida, USA -captive-8a.jpg on Commons and selected to be shown as the infobox image. Snowman (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. The male (foreground) is surely an adult. I'm not sure about the female, the age I mean, because the feathers at the tail base appear worn (adult females should have a couple of white feathers laterally, and some of the other feathers seem to have a small greenish zone near the feather base.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Update: selected for the infobox image on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I confirm the species. However, the bird demonstrates a juvenile plumage, the tail has not grown in yet. Nonetheless, the extent and deeper coloration of the glabrous periocular would certainly depone for this bird being a male. So, juvenile male. Steve Pryor (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Plain tail and remiges, mantle pattern ≠ Catreus. This is Lophura leucomelanos; juvenile. 62.107.214.247 (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Forgive my approximation. Thanks for the correction.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Kalij Pheasant moved to File:Lophura leucomelanos -India -juvenile-8.jpg without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I am pleased that an IP helped out here; nevertheless, I would request that he or she would sign in and use a user name that we could refer to. He or she appears to be knowledgeable on pheasants. Users who are logged in get a better interface for editing and watching your own edits and selected pages. Snowman (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Snowman, there is absolutely no requirement for people to log in via an account, and requesting that someone do so is inappropriate. Suggesting that they do, and mentioning the better interface is certainly acceptable. Anon IP, I second Snowman in offering thanks for your help. MeegsC | Talk 15:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
From the introduction of Help:Logging in: "It is not necessary to log in before viewing or editing pages. It does provide additional features, and is generally recommended. If you do not wish to have your IP address known then you should log in. It is quick and simple to create a personal user account." I think that is is perfectly reasonable to politely request that a user would log-in particularly in areas such as the Birds of identification series where people give opinions. I do not think that it has happened here, but it is possible that a user could artificially boost a particular point of view by using IPs. Please note that some areas of the wiki for expressing an opinion or voting are banned for IPs. Also see Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Snowman (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
From my admittedly restricted viewpoint, since I intervene only for taxonomy and bird identifications, I only ask that whoever contributes is competent, and this user is. I don't often blow an ID, but I do an awful lot of identifications, not only for the wiki, and it happens. I thank him for cleaning up my mess, a mistake that I should have known better about.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems that the IP was correct this time. I think that the spirit of the Wikipedia is that it is for everyone and not only for competent ornithologists. I would welcome anyone, who is interested enough to offer constructive comments or offer Creative Commons licensed bird images for identification from beginners to experts. Many different skills are needed here; some editors like working on text, some on photography, some on images, some on maps, some on identifications, and so on. The guidelines say that it is "it is not necessary to log-in", while also saying that it is "generally recommend" to log-in. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Snow, it is an adult female nominate race Gallicolumba crinigera crinigera (Mindanao Bleeding-heart).
By the way, it was not my intent to be exclusionary with my use of the word competent. However, in this particular forum we are usually finalizing bird identifications with the intent in many cases of uploading vetted and correctly identified photos to the species pages. In my view, there are a lot of other places in which we can give tips to users for their bird identifications. Here, however, I find it useful a certain level of competence because of the finalities of this forum, and so as not to have to spend time in the instruction of bird identification. Steve Pryor (talk) 20:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Few computer science editors would probably want help us identify birds, and few bird editors would be a lot of use on the WP computer science talk page to help out with micro-chip architecture explanations. I expect that contributors here are self-selected and interested in birds. In-the-round, I think that we should continue to be fair to anyone making comments here, partly because they are likely to be interested in birds. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Mindanao Bleeding-heart moved to File:Gallicolumba crinigera -Florida, USA -captive-8a.jpg. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (141)

Well, it's a ground-dove for sure. Female Blue Ground-Dove seems the best fit to me. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Michael, yes, I agree. The number and the color of the barring on the secondaries, and coverts define the bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Claravis pretiosa -Florida, USA -captive-8a (1).jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Immature Purple Heron. Maias (talk) 12:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Moved to File:Ardea purpurea -Saigon Zoo, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam -immature-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Snow, this should be a male (judging from the extent of the dark area of the lower mandible) Tockus (erythrorhynchus) rufirostris. It does not appear to be fully adult (lacks red wattling on lateral malars, lacks red periocular, belly is still sort of brown-white - should be whiter). I would consider it late juvenile/subadult.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Now described as an immature male. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Rather at a loss for this one. I can't figure it for anything normally ranging in Gambia. It most resembles a female nominate race Tockus deckeni deckeni. Initially I had a half an idea that it might be some sort of strange juvenile plumage of Tropicranus, but from descriptions they don't look like this.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I wonder if the flickr photographer has accidentally mixed up the locations. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone on Commons also identified it as a Tockus deckeni. Moved to File:File:Tockus deckeni -Gambia -female-8.jpg -Gambia -female-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Pycnonotus barbatus, whatever the race ranging in Gambia is.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Common Bulbul moved to File:Pycnonotus barbatus -Gambia-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Best guess, subadult Lanius senator (badius?), and I don't feel like guessing on the sex in this case. BTW, I am not guessing on the species (or the age - pale lower mandibular base indicates immaturity), just on the rest of it. More than one race is possible , and the descriptive differences between the males and females are not different enough that I might be able to do a definitive from just this one photo - were there more photos it might be possible.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Woodchat Shrike moved to File:Lanius senator -Gambia-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A Ploceus. The bill is too massive to be anything but cucullatus in the location. However, I am a bit torn between it being a female or an immature male bird (the upper mandible looks rather dark, darker than I am used to for the female).Steve Pryor (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
It has dark irises, so I am going to call it immature. Village Weaver moved to File:Ploceus cucullatus -Gambia -immature-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Laniarius barbarus.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yellow-crowned Gonolek moved to File:Laniarius barbarus -Gambia-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. The nominate race should range in this location.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Species is confirmed. The size of the malar wattles is hormone-dependant. In my judgment, they made the right call on the sex, a male. Further, the species is so colonial that I would imagine they saw this bird in relation to the visibly smaller females.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox image on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing species?

I stumbled on a species of Grass-warbler which was not on the genus page last night. I added it, but I know nothing about birds, so it might be a synonym or subspecies? I was under the impression that most (or all?) birds have an article on wikipedia, so I feel better if someone with more knowledge will have a look at it. Thanks! Ruigeroeland (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is sometimes considered a subspecies of Gray's Grasshopper-warbler but is given species status by IOC and other authorities. As such it probably deserves its own page, even if only as a subspecies... Maias (talk) 12:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages V (2nd req)

More locked pages.....These are mostly cosmetic......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC) and adding these:

......Pvmoutside (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll sort these for you in the next few minutes... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Right... all done, I think. Let me know if I've missed/screwed anything up... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Please note that User:Bidgee has now undone several of these moves, with the rationale "per WP:COMMONNAME, IOC has no say (on common names for AU birds) nor is there a consensus on en Wiki that IOC's naming must be used". --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks Kurt Shaped Box....I've got a note into Bidgee, we'll see what comes back......hopefully it won't turn into a big deal like the capitalization problem......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Received a note back from Bidgee: Looks like Bidgee is only challenging the Australian birds in the latest crop of IOC changes. Not a lot of birds. It only involves the dash in this case, so the Scrubbirds (IOC) remain as the scrub-birds, the Crested Shriketit(IOC) remains as the Crested Shrike-tit, and the Black-faced Cuckooshrike (IOC) remains as Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike. Bidgee is justifying rationale through WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I've tagged each of the birds with the IOC Exception tag. All of the articles are in the beginning stages of development, so it probably isn't a big deal to make this a big issue. The only minor inconsistency is with the Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike. All the other cuckooshrike species pages have Cuckooshrike unhyphenated. Thought you all may want to know.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Not that we need to do this for hyphens (though we might want to), but Bidgee says there's no Wikipedia-wide consensus to use the IOC names. If we want a Wikipedia-wide consensus, what would we have to do? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually, hasn't the project universally used the IOC names pretty much, up until this? That's WP:CONSENSUS - consensus can be achieved through normal editing as well as through outright discussion. If all other bird articles use the IOC names, arguing there's no consensus to do so is a somewhat (pardon the pun) specious argument. That said, presumably a !voting discussion here would be one way to establish "discussed consensus", whereas (if that's not considered "Wikipedia-wide" enough for the objecting editor) a RFC would be another. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger, yes, the project has adopted this, but not all of Wikipedia (even though 99.99% couldn't care less). And heck, you have only to look at the recent caps brouhaha to see how very little credit is given to anything a project decides on its own. The fact that we're even having this discussion is even being used to indicate that our use of the IOC list (including, presumably its use of capitals) is controversial. MeegsC | Talk 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, the project is damned if you do, damned if you don't? Nice. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
No, up until a couple of years ago, quite a few non-IOC bird names were used across the 'pedia. When attempts were made to mostly standardize the names per IOC (which at the time, I was in the minority that argued against it - not that I particularly care about it any more), some heated(ish) debate was generated within the project. Particularly with regards to the Conures and other parrot species which are commonly kept as pets and can have different names within aviculture. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any reason for not using the IOC names here. I suggest that the term "cuckooshrike" is used. If some have a hyphen and some do not, then the lists on genus pages will look odd. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. besides, isn't like non-Australians are imposing this on Australia, both Cas and I are Aussies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you agreeing with? Snowman (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with you, Snowman. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I see. Where has User Casliber commented on this topic? Snowman (talk) 09:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Cas has generally spoken out in favour of the IOC approach, in spite of misgivings. We all have grumbled about the IOC names as applied to where we live (I've blogged about that), but in general we have supported them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Bidgee - could you please write a letter to the IOC folks. I think in the case of Scrubbirds - the two consonants coming together without a hyphen does look ugly and there have been some hyphenation guidelines just to deal with this - the IOC decided that hyphens were bad and they came up with a much criticized idea of mixing up naming and phylogeny. But maybe, just maybe they will listen to your appeal. Shyamal (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yellow-breasted chat

I am the author of the article about Dolichonyx oryzivorus in the Spanish Wikipedia and I found a paper that said that the bobolink, an icterid, is closely related to the yellow-breasted chat. When I wrote that in the article’s taxonomy section, it aroused some controversy due to the fact that the yellow-breasted chat was originally classified as a parulid. Then I resorted to the article in English about this bird to learn more about its taxonomy and it suggested that its classification as a parulid is obsolete. I was wondering if anyone knew anything about its current classification. Has anyone heard or read anything about its phylogenetic links with Icteridae? If you happen to know any free-access paper available in the internet about this matter, I’d appreciate you let mi know in my talk. Thank you! --Pablo.ea.92 (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone in the know still thinks it's a warbler. The most recent evidence I'm aware of points to a relationship with Icteridae (specifically, Bobolink), but I don't think it's particularly strong evidence. The AOU still lists it at the end of Parulidae, but with an asterisk denoting "probably doesn't belong here". Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's one recent paper that partially addresses this: http://www.bio.sdsu.edu/pub/burns/Lovetteetal2010.pdf. It says the chat is "variably placed" with icterids, emberizids and parulids, and has links to articles that discuss those placements. MeegsC | Talk 16:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello... can I join in? I think it's still in Parulidae because it's still listed this family, according to Taxonomy in Flux (scroll down, it's listed with the Zeledonia. Maybe you mistook the Icteriinae (note the two Is) subfamily with Icteridae? (Its placement remains controversial, though. We'll see. Maybe it'll end up in Icteridae after all.) --HoopoeBaijiKite 05:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Paper request

Does someone have - Dickinson EC (2005) The correct authorship of the name Astur kienerii (Rufous-bellied Hawk Eagle). Bull. Br. Ornithol. Club 125:317–320. Shyamal (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

de Sparre. Excerpted from World Bird Info: "Astur kienerii [as Kienerii] "G.S." = G.de Sparre,1835,Magasin de Zoologie,Paris,5,cl.2,text to pl.35. (Himalayas)"Steve Pryor (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil GA review

I've nominated transitional fossil for GA review. Article spends a large section discussing Archeopteryx.--Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not so at ease in English to review it, but happy that one of my ugly pictures can be useful However the article seems really interesting. Totodu74 (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
I note that much of the article is lacking in-line references, and is likely to struggle at GA for that reason, especially as there is a fair amount of opinion expressed in the article. It is a well-written and erudite piece, but does need proper referencing for verification and spotchecks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Mourning Wheatear

The taxonomic approach in the articles on the Mourning Wheatear complex seem to be a little confused / contradictory - there is a separate article for Arabian Wheatear but the article for Schalow's (Abyssinian Black) Wheatear redirects to Mourning Wheatear (and this is the form illustrated there in the taxobox photo), even though that article says it's a separate species. We don't have articles / redirects for Western (Maghreb) or Eastern Mourning Wheatears. I guess that somewhere we should also mention the mooted split of persica. Are there any preferences as to the treatment we should adopt? One, two three, four or five species, and if not one or five, which forms shall we lump? SP-KP (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only express a personal opinion on this. For the moment the most supported treatment (also the closest to the BSC) is associating the races halophila, lugens, and persica in Mourning Wheatear (O. lugens); races vauriei, lugubris, and schalowi in Abyssinian Wheatear (O. lugubris); and races lugentoides, and boscaweni in Arabian Wheatear (O. lugentoides). By the way, the last has not been said on "persica", some still see this as a splittable good species. Also to note that recent information in re the form "basalti", usually considered an ecotype, i.e., a morph of lugens lugens, may be, in view of new evidence, a diagnosably valid subspecific taxon (of lugens, cf. taxon warriae).Steve Pryor (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Any other views, anyone, or shall I implement Steve's suggestion? SP-KP (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Locked pages VI

.................................................................Pvmoutside (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Tit-Tyrant also needs to be moved to Tit-tyrant. The "t" in "tyrant" needs to be lowercased. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, all 8 tit-tyrant articles also need to be moved to ________ Tit-tyrant as well, ala Tufted Tit-Tyrant to Tufted Tit-tyrant. Thank you. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
The IOC lists them all as Tit-Tyrants. I'm not saying the IOC is correct, but we have been following their format with few exceptions. To capitalize Tyrant or not to....hmmmmm.......Pvmoutside (talk) 13:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Well that was an interesting read. Per the IOC, the "tyrant" should be capitalized as the bird is part of the tyrant flycatcher family. I didn't realize that rule existed, but I like it. I'll reinsert the capitals into the articles. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Parrot systematics

Okay, I fixed the parrot systematics based on a very solid proposal by the leading experts. This requires a LOT of taxoboxes to be fixed. It will take a wile before I will have them done. Semi-automated assistance would be appreciated. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Kim, Nelepsittacus looks interesting but I can't access the fulltext :( Be a good DYK Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Drop me an e-mail and I send it to you.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the article (Leo Joseph, Alicia Toon, Erin E. Schirtzinger, Timothy F. Wright & Richard Schodde. (2012) A revised nomenclature and classification for family-group taxa of parrots (Psittaciformes). Zootaxa 3205: 26–40) cites three wikipeida pages:

Category:Cacatuidae
New Zealand parrot
True parrot
Does anyone know the talk header template for adding that to the pages? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Kim, there are templates at Talk:Amanita phalloides and Talk:Schizophrenia - would these be the ones you're thinking of? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
PS: Do you feel the systematics is clear enough to get stuck into parrot, or is it better to wait for the final bit of analysis of some of the neotropical parrots. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I added it already to Parrot. This is real solid, far better than much that I have seen before. They really deal with all the naming shit in one go. The Neotropical parrots remains a bit of a mess, but that is just within one subfamily, and is not going to change anything within the rest of the order. Basically, details within a single well-established clade. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Except shouldn't the names have been Strigopoidea, Cacatuoidea and Psittacoidea if'n they're superfamilies (a la Meliphagoidea, Corvoidea, Malaconotoidea etc.)? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Agree that the superfamily names should end in "-oidea" like in the Joseph et al. paper. The ending "-oidae" is usually used for epifamilies. Tigershrike (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
"-oidea" is the normal ending for superfamilies. So, that is all correct. Joseph et al. paper is an extremely meticulous taxonomic and nomenclaturial work that not quickly is going to be replaced. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

White-chested Emerald

Hello,

there is an upload of a White-chested Emerald on wiki commons.

The file is called

File:Kurzschnabelamazilie (Amazilia brevirostris).jpg

Please load it up to the wikepedia-page for the White-chested Emerald because there is no foto of this species yet.

Thanks DrPhilippLehmann (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

added now. thankyou for alerting us. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Cas, I am not sure I am finding the file. I am not familiar with .jpp files.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
that was a typo for .jpg. I slotted it in the taxobox already. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Valid page ?

Red-knobbed_hornbill ? Shyamal (talk) 10:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Confused, redundant and effectively unreferenced (the link does not seem to work). Amazing how long it has been around. I don't see anything worth keeping. Maias (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I think not, they are in different genera, so there is no obvious taxonomic link, and the Sulawesi Hornbill doesn't have a red knob on its bill. I suspect that the confusion comes from the comes from the fact that the Aceros species is sometimes known as Sulawesi Red-knobbed Hornbill, and this has become confused with the Penelopides bird. Unless anyone thinks different, I'd suggest making this a redirect to Knobbed Hornbill Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
In fact, that's what I've done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (142)

  • Bird 1420 - can you tell me what parrot this is in this YouTube video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6YWo2dCe0o  ? Is it a colour mutation of the Sun Conure/Parakeet? Also, how do you get a parrot to be that cuddly? I have a budgerigar that will let me stroke the top of his head, but anywhere else, even the sides of his head or his face and he gives me a look of absolute disgust, an angry cackle and usually a bite. Thanks. --95.148.105.237 (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The video shows a Golden Parakeet, which is a rare parrot. What licence is this video under? Can it be uploaded to Commons? Snowman (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • It expect that the budgie retains natural instincts and fears. Looking at this from the budgies point of view, it may not think that it is natural to be stroked by a human. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That's not my video, so I don't know whether it can be uploaded to commons or not. I just found it on my related videos. Here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0u1CPkKpWs is a video of a budgie that's as cuddle tame as the parakeet in the first video. My budgie would be outraged if I tried to handle him like that. My fingers would be bleeding too. --95.148.105.119 (talk) 23:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
  • To me your budgie sounds like a sturdy character with his own mind. I expect that he or she would be much more fierce, if it was not a domesticated variety. I think that some parrots that have been hand reared are too tame or silly tame are sometimes not aware of the dangers around them. In contrast, I think that a parent-reared parrot has been taught how to be a parrot and how to avoid dangers by their parents. This is only my point of view. Comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Michael has it. The only Ortalis in the location. One of the few good photos that I have seen. The bird at Rancho Naturalista seems to be more highly colored than in most of the rest of its range. Though several races have been proposed from time to time, the depth of the coloration is usually considered a clinal characteristic.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Selected for the infobox image on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in the "standard" colours. (Some females can have male colours.) Dger (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks more like Great Egret to me. Maias (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The beak opening doesn't extend past the eye like a Great Egret, so I'm skeptical. Furthermore, it was considerably shorter than group of Great Egrets nearby. I'd say it was taller than a Cattle Egret fwiw. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Possible hybrid? Maias (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Difficult to estimate size because of the lack of scale; its bill length and head shape seem more like Great or even Little - there's an illustration of Little in HANZAB that looks similar, though with a bit less yellow on bill and face. Maias (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Calculating using focus distance data we have 65cm from where the legs intersect the water to the top of the head. So I'd say roughly 70cm long overall. JJ Harrison (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Definitely not a Great Egret. MeegsC | Talk 04:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Looks like a Little/Snowy type. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Then I would guess Little Egret. Joondalup is not in the normal range of Intermediate, though of course it might be a vagrant. Maias (talk) 04:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
PS. If it is Little (note unambiguous capitalisation:)) the amount of yellow raises the possibility of ssp. nigripes, though I am getting out of my depth here. Maias (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Why can't it be white morph Western Reef Heron? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Will look better later. For now, not Great Egret (gape line in Great Egret always finishes aboral to the posterior eye canthus), not Cattle Egret, not Reef Egret. Have now looked, I can only make it a non-breeding garzetta. Jim, the Reef-Egrets have a rather distinctive jizz once you get used to it. They look squattier, dumpier, thicker legs, and shorter tibiotarsi respect to the other "white egrets, save the Cattle Egret". They also have a thicker, but blunter bill. One trick that I sometimes use for these when iffy (other than the gape lines)is to key off of the extent that the culottes extend down the tibiotarsi. To see this feature you have to look at quite a few surely identified white egrets.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
JJ, with the caveat that I do not usually vet photos of Albatross, I would agree with you. Chlorohynchos is considered occasionally ranging in Tasmania. In this photo the apparent darkening in front of the eye appears to me to be more a question of shadowing of incident light. The one other supposedly good (though not considered constant) bill indicator would be the shape of the proximal terminus of the upper yellow bill stripe (supposedly rounded in chlororhynchos, tapering to a rather acute point in carteri) - just judging from the amount of the lateral black of this proximal bill I have the sense that there would just not be enough space left near the bill insertion to have the rather wider rounded terminus. Too bad you could not get a shot looking straight down frontally on the bill base. So, conditionally, I agree with you.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I might be able to dig something up in a day or two. JJ Harrison (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a more front on picture of the same bird. It has the acute shape expected for an Indian Yellow-nosed. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Well, this should cinch the ID. My interpretation of when they talked about the feature being inconstant was that carteri sometimes might not have the acute terminus, but when it does that it is surely carteri.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
In my opinion, and these are tough, based on the bill strength and the fine detail of the dorsal plumage - female Lagopus lagopus lagopus.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Steve. Totodu74 (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It would appear that Jurong holds Sicalis columbiana ([3]) Shyamal (talk) 13:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Orange-fronted Yellow-finch moved to File:Sicalis columbiana -Jurong Bird Park, Singapore-8a.jpg. Selected for the infobox image on en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
It'll need a rename. That is a Saffron Finch. The same can be said about the flickr photo linked above and claimed as being a Orange-fronted YF. Another Saffron F. 212.10.90.220 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Saffron Finch moved to File:Sicalis flaveola -Jurong Bird Park, Singapore-8a.jpg on Commons. I also removed this image from two foreign language Wikis that were using this image incorrectly. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Oriolus chinensis - subspecies determination would require better view. Shyamal (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Black-naped Oriole moved to File:Oriolus chinensis -Jurong Bird Park, Singapore-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Tricky, you would expect White-chinned to show at least traces of white at the base of the bill. I can't see any indication of the feet protruding beyond the tail, also expected from W-c. The bill is fairly heavy and yellowish, but looks a bit short for W-c. I'd be tempted to go for a male Westland. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you think the 3 of them are Westland ? Fguerraz (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I didn't look at the other two, but in any case I've changed my mind about the first one, and I actually now think all three are correct. The second and third show the foot projection, I think the angle of the first shot maybe hides a foot projection, and the important diagnostic point I'd forgotten from Kaikoura is that White-chinned has a pale bill tip, but it's dark on Westland (both are common there). Sorry to muddy the issue, you may well want a second opinion! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I've moved this back - the move was incorrect. Westland petrel has a more massive bill without tip droop, plus a big nail terminating at the foot of the nostril. Westland also usually has a sooty colouring on the beak tip (this can occur for White-chinned Petrel very occasionally also). Most of the White-chinned Petrels in Tasmanian waters don't have much of a white chin. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I moved all images back to correct names, descriptions and categories after a premature move, also.
  • Ok, Sorry for the premature move... This is interesting though! Looks like it could be a slightly different variety of white chinned pretrel. I mean, In Kerguelen most if not all w-c definitely and very clearly have a white chin, hence my mistake. Fguerraz (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No worries. This ref, says that the New Zealand populations may only have a very small amount of white - I assume that this applies for Tasmania too (not being very far away). It also suggests that there are two subspecies, but they are not yet named. I'm always looking carefully at the White-chinned Petrels around here in the hopes of spotting a Westland Petrel. I'm quite jealous of your Sub-Antarctic and Antarctic pictures and hope there are more to come. JJ Harrison (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, this is a Platycercus icterotis icterotis. It is an immature male bird. The juveniles lack the malar patch, but the post-juvenile immatures have it, and in the bird of the photo there is just too much red suffusion starting from the frons but extending back onto the crown for this to be an immature female bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reponse, the image descriptions have now been added at Commons.--Melburnian (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that it would be great if you could upload more good photographs of juveniles and adults of this species to Commons. Commons has a few images of this species; however, better quality images would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam

Highbeam, the search engine people, are planning to offer free subscriptions to a certain number (initially 1000) of Wikipedia editors who might find that service useful. (It gives you access to a huge number of journals, newspaper archives, etc. which are usually hidden behind paywalls.) If you're interested, you can apply at Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. MeegsC | Talk 17:12, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this useful for ornithology? Snowman (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Possibly. There are a number of scientific journals which may prove useful. And others which may prove useful for biographies of ornithologists, etc. Plus several publications on endangered species. The complete list of publications available to those who have subscriptions is here. MeegsC | Talk 16:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

File:What are YOU lookin at?.JPG

Can anyone help me identify why what type of bird is in the photo: File:What are YOU lookin at?.JPG? I would like to add a description and appropriately name the file. Thanks -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 12:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's an Osprey. Nice capture! MeegsC | Talk 12:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
File moved to File:Pandion haliaetus -perching on a post-8.jpg on Commons. Are there any location details anywhere? Snowman (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Araçari/Aracari

Hello, Bird Project people. I’m not a member or even a birder (although I love the natural world, birds included), but I am a linguist, and I have a suggestion for you concerning the spelling of Araçari/Aracari.

It is apparently your policy to follow the spelling of the IOC list, Aracari, but in this instance, there is a good case to be made for making an exception and going with the alternative spelling Araçari. This is because the spelling without the cedilla yields the incorrect pronunciation /arakari/, since the cedilla is necessary to indicate that the c has the soft sound, /arasari/, which is how the word should be pronounced.

Some reputable guides use the cedilla and some don’t, but both spellings are clearly in current use. It would therefore seem most productive to opt for the one that gives people the information they need in order to pronounce the word correctly, or at least make that the primary spelling.

One of my motives for making the suggestion is that recently in Costa Rica I felt sorry for the people who came across as less knowledgable than they were because they were mispronouncing araçari, and/or didn't like it when guides corrected their pronunciation.

Thank you for your attention. Awien (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I had a bit of a run-in with Awien, which was entirely my fault. My preference, as with other words which can use diacritics, is to stick with the "English" rather than French/Portuguese form, and to keep IOC unless there is a compelling case to do otherwise. Having said that, I know both forms are used, my field guides for Brazil and Costa Rica don't have the cedilla, Venezuela does. As always, I'll abide by any consensus reached here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Jim, my personal position is probably rather parochial and dictated from the simple constatation that so many that have adopted the IOC do not possess keyboards with the principal diacritics involved (most of which are spanish or portuguese). It is simply a pain in the butt to have to use character map. However, it is not a bad idea that the phonetics are included in the wiki species pages when the pronunciation is so easily misunderstood as in this case. I would hazard the guess that most native tongue english speakers that encounter Aracari would pronounce it with a hard "c", and further even if they did encounter Araçari many would not know intuitively that it renders an "s" sound.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
An honourable but unnecessary admission, Jim. You already apologised in person, and I accepted your apology. And given that you missed my suggestion on the talk pages, your irritability is understandable. Let's forget all about it.
As far as typing accents is concerned, on a Mac it's very easy. With (I believe) any English input source checked in Language and Text, the keystrokes are:
ç = option + c
` = option +`, letter (e.g. à)
´ = option + e, letter (e.g. é)
ˆ = option + i, letter (e.g. î)
˜ = option + n, letter (e.g. ñ)
¨ = option + u, letter (e.g. ë)


My cheatsheet for PC years ago, that I no longer vouch for, says:
` = control +`, letter
´ = control + apostrophe, letter
ˆ = control + shift + circumflex [above 6], letter
¸ = control + comma, letter
¨ = option + u, letter
It's possible you need to select a certain keyboard to enable this, I don't remember. But this didn't interfere with typing English either.
More help is available at
http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/international/accents/
Greetings from the land of the white Easter! Awien (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that this system of adding accents appears to require some specialist knowledge. I would anticipate the more than 99% of Wiki users have never head of this way of adding accents. Snowman (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
We should follow usage; the cedilla won't help much in pronunciation, and there is no technical problem with diacritics. We definitely should use diacritics for most people's names and some places, but I doubt there's anywhere else they have currency for animal names. I've never seen aracari spelled with a cedilla, but I haven't seen much about these toucans at all. Does anyone have a better idea? —innotata 18:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Personally I oppose most of these marks, while some viewers may be familiar with some of them the majority are not, and we should follow the pattern of English on the whole which has for the most part dispensed with them. Yes this means there may be some ambiguity about pronunciation but this isn't really any different from other words in English. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
  • English is not a language where you can always work out how to say something from only how it is spelt, so I think that there is no need to use accents anywhere in English. However, sometimes there is not an English word for a foreign word with accents (ie place names and names of people), so here it may be reasonable to use accents. If any explanation of pronunciation is needed, this this can written in the article. Further, it is not easy to use accents with English keyboards. Snowman (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • We should absolutely include the cedilla. The reasons are threefold. First, that's the name of the bird; without the cedilla, it is spelled incorrectly. Second, it will help alleviate mispronunciation. Look at what's happened with jacana with the elimination of the diacritic. And lastly, the presence of the cedilla is not contra-IOC. The IOC manifesto clearly states that with respect to diacritic marks (and alternate spellings, e.g., gray vs. gray), authors should "feel free to add pronunciation marks that they consider to be appropriate for their intended audience." Natureguy1980 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced that adding a cedilla will alleviate mispronunciations, as most English speakers don't have a clue what the cedilla means. Readers would, on the whole, be much better served with a written phonetic pronunciation (and perhaps even a recorded vocal pronunciation) of the word. However, it also incorrect to say that adding accents requires specialist knowledge. For those who don't know the keyboard shortcuts, Wikipedia makes such additions super easy — just select the "Latin" option from the Wikipedia editing menu below the editing box (i.e. it's available only while editing, and I think it defaults to "Wiki markup") and all the various accents are available for the choosing. No specialist knowledge required! MeegsC | Talk 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The Wikipedia tables are for editing articles and are not much use when entering a search term with accents (as far as I am aware). I think that the use of a standard keyboard to add accents requires specialist knowledge and is cumbersome; however, I would accept that experienced Wikipedians may be aware of the tables that are specifically intended to help editing pages only. Before reading the above, I did not know that the accent that we are discussing is Latin. Snowman (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia's search option requires no entry of (or indeed knowledge of) accents/cedillas/etc. Type in "Antonio", for example, and see the range of articles that come up, some with accents, some without. Those who programmed the search function were wise enough to include any option with the entered spelling, regardless of diacritical marks. MeegsC | Talk 17:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
        • Your reply seems to me to include your view that people are not likely to use accents in the search box. Is this because a lot of people have keyboards that are not particularly useful for adding accents? Snowman (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
          • No, Snowman. I am referring to YOUR comment "The Wikipedia tables are for editing articles and are not much use when entering a search term with accents (as far as I am aware)." Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it sounded like you were concerned about someone not knowing how to add a diacritical mark to a search term. I was merely observing that such marks are not needed for a successful search. Personally, as a Mac user, I have never found accents particularly difficult to add, though I appreciate that that might not be the case for everyone. MeegsC | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
            • I was referring to your comment that seems to acknowledge that not many people tend use accents and that the Wiki software is written by wise people in a way that typing accents is not needed. Please note that Mac users are in a minority. Snowman (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
[Edit conflict . . .try again] I appear to have started something. Sorry about that. I'm going to make a brief general response rather than an attempt to answer individual comments in detail.
Why would anyone want to deny the information provided by the cedilla to those who can make use of it on the grounds that there are many who can’t? On that principle, most of WP would disappear.
Why would anyone remove the diacritics added by those who know how to, on the grounds that not everybody knows how to? Not everybody (ahem!) knows how to add pictures, but they don’t use that fact to justify removing the pictures added by those clever fairies who do know how to.
No fancy keyboard is needed to type diacritics (except on a typewriter, of course). The Apple as you take it out of the box in Canada, the UK, the US and presumably any other English-speaking country will type letters with diacritics in any document (WP, e-mail, whatever) using the keystrokes I gave above.
The ç in question, for example, is hold down the option key while you type c. How much harder is that than holding down the shift key while you type 7 to get an ampersand?
On the Windows computer as you took it out of the box, you need to select the international keyboard as an option (no fancy piece of hardware required). Go to the Start menu, click through (a couple of clicks) to where the international keyboard is an option, click on it. Voilà!
In omitting the cedilla from ç, you are substituting a different phoneme just as much as if you substituted a t for a p in starrow or a d for a p in Daris.
Your other course of action as far as this (type of) problem is concerned would be to adopt a policy of transliterating foreign phonemes with their closest English equivalent. Here that would give you arasari. Correct pronunciation, no diacritics. How perfect is that?
I'll now butt out and leave you to your deliberations. Awien (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Have you lost interest in this discussion? I do not know what option key you were referring to. On my PC I have pressed the "c" simultaneously with lots of possible keys in turn and I did not type an accent. Why should anyone choose an international keyboard when they want to use an English keyboard? Snowman (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Snowman: Windows machines don't have an option key, that instruction is for Mac users. I'm a Mac user, so the following link for Windows users can probably help you better than I can.

http://tlt.its.psu.edu/suggestions/international/accents/codeint.html

Enabling the international keyboard has no effect on typing English the way you always do (or never used to). Hope this helps. Awien (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Snowman, try using the control key (i.e. <Ctrl>, probably on the bottom left side of your keyboard) rather than the <c> key to get the accents. <ctrl> + "`" (pushed together), followed by "e", gives "è", while <ctrl> + "e" (pushed together) followed by "e" gives "é", for example. MeegsC | Talk 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I have a Mac keyboard attached to a PC. I use a Mac keyboard, because it seems to be sturdy. Is an USA English keyboard the same as a UK English keyboard? Snowman (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Since the computer itself is a PC, it's the computer's options you need to use. The physical keyboard itself is irrelevant in all this. [Not brusque, gotta go] Awien (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that a French lecturer's view of accents will be different to a scientist's view on accents. According to User Awien's user page he is a French lecturer, so I suspect that his views on accents are not representative of an average English-speaking reader. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
It's <ctrl> on a proper (UK) PC keyboard. On my (UK) Mac, I use the <option> key. I can't even begin to imagine what keys you should use on your hybrid! My guess is that it may be part of why you're having trouble getting the accented letters you want. By the way, speaking as a scientist, I'd say many scientists share the same views on accents that Awien does; we understand them because we've been educated in their usage. We're not opposed to them, but we are cognizant that many English users of Wikipedia are clueless about a wide variety of things, including diacritical marks. MeegsC | Talk 21:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I would have thought that a scientist would not have the knowledge of accents and their relevance to pronunciation that a linguist can be expected to have. I presume that we should not use a foreign common name for a genus. Is Aracari an English word? If there is not an English word for Aracari, than perhaps the page should be called Pteroglossus. Snowman (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Well Snowman, "aracari" is as much an English word as "toucan" is—both arrived in English from the Tupi people, via Portuguese. It's certainly a common name, and as such, according to WP:COMMONNAME is to be used in place of something like Pteroglossus! MeegsC | Talk 22:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
MeegsC is right, it's hard to know how your hybrid system would work.
Also, languages borrow words from each other all the time: canoe, kebab, envoy, igloo . . . C'est la vie, as the French no longer say. Awien (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Aracari is not in the on-line OED and I doubt that "aracari" is as much an English word as "toucan", which is in the OED. I am not totally convinced that "aracari" is an English word. Where is the evidence that "aracari" is an English word? I am fairly sure that "Araçari" (cut and paste from above to include the accent) is not an English word, it does not look like an English word, and it will never become an English word. Snowman (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • When a word has an origin in one language, its spelling can change when it is used in another language. Examples for toucan: Brazilian (Tupi) = tucana; French = toucan; Spanish = tucan; Portuguese = tucano; Italian = tucano. Snowman (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Snowman, I'm tired of arguing with you on this one, so I'm bowing out. I've heard the term aracari for decades, always in English and always as an English word. Perhaps that's because I've spent far more time in the New World than you have, and it appears to be a well-established word here in this hemisphere. Perhaps this is just something that hasn't made it to England. And that's my very last comment on this discussion. You seem to have a very strong opinion that this name is somehow "wrong". I disagree. End of story. 12:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I see. I was just asking for evidence that aracari is an English word, partly because it is not in the OED. I would take your word for it that "aracari" is used in the New World. However, I am a bit puzzled, because much of the New World are areas where Spanish and Portuguese are the main languages and Pteroglossus birds are not native to parts of the English-speaking New World (or Western Hemisphere), as far I am aware. I have just found "aracari" in Oxford Dictionaries (different to OED), aracari is here. It might be part of a password protected website for some. The form with an accent is also explained in this dictionary under the heading "anacari" without an accent, which is similar to the Wikipedia article format, which I presume is appropriate. Snowman (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
"Aracari" is in Dictionary.com Unabridged (based on the Random House dictionary), pronounced with an /s/, and in Merriam-Webster Unabridged—I didn't access my free trial to find out how they pronounce it. It's not in the American Heritage Dictionary (4th ed.), though. It is on the AOU checklists, in English-language field guides, and so forth.
For a parallel case, I might mention that the American Heritage Dictionary prefers the spelling "façade", whereas Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster prefer "facade". The OED lists only "façade". Both are English words, of course, or rather English spellings of the same word.
As far as I can tell, the spelling without the cedilla is more common in English, and all of our articles that I looked at indicate the pronunciation and the variant with the cedilla, so I think the present situation is all right. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
To me that shows plenty of evidence that "aracari" is an English word and that the preferred spelling in various regions where English is spoken is without the accent. Referring to the parallel case of "façade", it seems odd to me that "façade" is in the OED and "facade" is not. However "facade" is in Oxford Dictionaries; see facade in Oxford Dictionaries. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It is probably easier for a French word to be the stem of an English word than a Brazilian (Tupi) word, so perhaps comparisons between "façade" and "araçari" are limited. Snowman (talk) 07:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
To quote George Orwell out of context, an Englishman considers it effeminate to pronounce a foreign word correctly. Most English-speaking birders I've ever heard say the word have done so with a hard c. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
At the moment the article only explains the pronunciation of aracari as "ahr-uh-SAHR-eez". If you have a reference for the way it is generally spoken by English-speaking birders, then the English way of saying "aracari" can be explained in the article. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Definition for aracari - Oxford Dictionaries Online (World English) gives both hard and soft C pronunciation Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a reliable source for how to say "aracari" in English. Snowman (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, although the really hilarious thing about all this is that it's only pronounced "ar a KAR i" because people who didn't have the benefit of the cedilla (because their dictionary didn't include it) didn't know how to pronounce it! Although the spelling was taken directly from the Portuguese (and the initial pronunciation as well), once the cedilla got dropped, people reasonably assumed the "regular" English rules applied, which says a hard c before an a. And that quickly, the word began to get mispronounced. MeegsC | Talk 18:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I do not see anything hilarious about the natural development of spoken language. Please note that languages are dynamic and are in a continuous state of flux. It seems that the usual English way of saying "aracari" is with a "K" and not an "S" sound. I do not know why anyone expects English people to say or spell "aracari" the same way it is spoken in Brazil. The Esperanto word for for "aracari" is "Arasarioj" and that is not spelt the same way as in Brazil either. If there is a reliable reference indicating that the dropping of the accent by English people lead to changing the way the word "aracari" is spoken to a K sound, then this interesting (not hilarious) information could also be added to the article. Incidentally, I have difficulty in interpreting the edit summary "huh", and I would be grateful for an explanation of what this means. Snowman (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Snowman. Loanwords often get battered around as they are absorbed into a language, either to conform to existing rules or by simple drift. No amount of cedillas will save the old pronunciation if the majority of English readers have no understanding of what they mean. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The Araçaris are birds of the neotropics.
The languages of the neotropics are Spanish and Portuguese (with minuscule exceptions such as Dutch in Surinam).
Where the language is Spanish or Portuguese, the original and correct pronunciation of the bird's name, /arasari/, is retained.
Throughout the birds' range, the pronunciation /arakari/ is perceived as (and is) incorrect.
To show up there claiming that the bird's name is now English and is pronounced /arakari/ is to my way of thinking pretty arrogant.
The Esperanto form quoted, Arasarioj, is an argument for, not against, respecting the original pronunciation. It retains the pronunciation of the root word and alters only the ending to "naturalise" it into Esperanto (compare aria, English plural arias not arie, or dirndl, English plural dirndls not dirndln).
Using the spelling Araçari at least gives those who care the information they need to pronounce the word correctly.
Awien (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
But language isn't static. Paris "should be" pronounced paree, because that's how the the locals say it, so is the anglicised way I pronounce it arrogance? Ther is a town in Canada called Delhi, named for the Indian city, but pronounced DEL-High in a way no Indian would recognise. Is that arrogance? English evolves, and we shouldn't be constrained by foreign dictionaries. Should I get upset when Americans "mispronounce" the herb Basil (or vice versa)? There is no loss of meaning if I say "arakari". Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Snowman, you take Megan too literally when she says that the reason for the initial mispronunciation is hilarious. Here's how it went down: The original spelling in English was araçari, and it was pronunced "ar-uh-SAR-ee". When the cedilla was removed, it began to be mispronounced because a C followed by an A makes a K sound--not only in English, but also in French and Portuguese. That's why the cedilla is there. "ar-uh-KAR-ee" is just as incorrect a pronunciation for araçari as "fuh-KADE" is for façade. If there is to be a true English transliteration, it shoudl be spelled arasari. Note that the English wordcanyon is a phonetic transliteration of the Spanish word cañón; had it been spelled canon, well, it would be mistaken for a huge gun or a piece of music in spoken language. Natureguy1980 (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Dictionaries (see above) indicate that the preferred English spelling is "aracari". Does anyone have a reliable source to say otherwise? If the accent was present in "aracari" in the English language, then the vast majority of people would not know what it is for and "aracari" would still be pronounced with a "K". It is hypothetical to say that "aracari" should be spelt "arasari", because it is not (see dictionaries). I think that accents are mostly pointless in the English language, which is not a language where you can always work out how to say a word from the spelling. If the English language did not change over time, we would be speaking Middle English, Old English, or an earlier archetypal language. Snowman (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you say "see dictionaries" to support the idea that it's pronounced with a /k/. As I noted, Dictionary.com uses an /s/, and Chuunen Baka said the ODO gives both pronunciations.
I think we have to follow the dictionaries and give both pronunciations and both spellings, noting that some dictionaries give only the spelling without the cedilla. This is pretty much what we did with "jacana". If people want to support one pronunciation or spelling, they can do it elsewhere (especially those who are birding guides and editors :-), but I can't see doing it here.
I agree with those who say the original pronunciation is not necessarily the correct pronunciation in English. If I'm choosing between a chocolate and a vanilla dessert, I make no attempt to pronounce "chocolate", "vanilla", and "dessert" with any influence from Nahuatl, Spanish, or French. Of course, if I'm trying to speak Spanish or French, I'll do my best to pronounce the words in those languages. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have had a look at a few of the Wiki species pages for the aracari genus, and it seems that someone has written in the foreign pronunciation (without an inline reference), but omitted the usual English pronunciation (as seen in reliable dictionaries). Snowman (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
If you look at the edit history, you'll see that I added the ç spelling and correct pronunciation twelve days ago, not just now as you imply. And please note that I refrained from moving the articles.
Jerry Friedman has already addressed the dictionary question above.
At this point, I have to agree with Jerry Friedman that the only workable solution appears to be to add an etymology section noting the variant spellings and pronunciations, so as to give people sufficient information to make their own choice.
There are a number of things I am tempted to say to certain participants in this discussion, but collegiality forbids.
Awien (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I hear this word spoken--in English--many hundred times a year. And perhaps one out of a hundred times, I hear the C pronounced as a K. "ar-uh-SAR-ee" is without a doubt the most common pronunciation among birders and ornithologists...practically the only people who would bother saying it in the first place. Natureguy1980 (talk) 08:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Natureguy. The other people who would want to name that bird but would need help with the pronunciation are generalist ecotourists, people newly smitten with the birds of Central America (funny how that happens!), real birders from somewhere else making their first visit, in other words the interested non-specialists.
And to everyone: The present solution looks OK to me, even though I still think araçari should come first. But anyway, the information is adequate now. Thanks Snowmanradio doing the job. I may at some point add the etymology too, presumably not too controversial a move.
Awien (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
(That was me, not Snowman.) I think adding more pronunciations would be good. My assignment of the pronunciations to "British" and "American" may have been too simplistic. And I'm in favor of adding the etymology (which seems to be very simple), too. I like etymology sections at the end, but I've noticed lots of people around here like them at the beginning. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Jerry, (I must have glanced at the history in too much of a hurry), and thanks. Tweaks may in fact be called for, but I'm not likely to be able to do anything for a few days, so do feel free as far as I'm concerned. Btw, cute - and hilarious - birds, aren't they? Awien (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
User JerryFriedman edited the genus page and I edited the species pages. Snowman (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you too, then, Snowman. Awien (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Sorry I hadn't looked at the species pages. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Western Jackdaw

....is hading slowly towards a GA nomination, so I guess folks can think if we want to have another collaboration? Maybe a biggish article that one editor is keen to push alot? Anyway, all input into Western Jackdaw appreciated as it's getting to be quite a big article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should do a family, preferably with a world-wide distribution. Gull and tern have both been suggested, aren't too large and unwieldy, or maybe grebe, flamingo or pelican? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the next collaboration article is, I would endeavour to find images to illustrate it. Snowman (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
pelican would be interesting as (I think) we have photos of all species. gull and tern have interesting systematics.Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll be in the field for much of the next few months, but will contribute where I can. I have HBW, BWP, BNA, etc. and can provide information from any of them for whichever family is chosen. MeegsC | Talk 03:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Have nominated Gull, tern and pelican - I'd be happy with any of them really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I note that the GAR has started for the Western Jackdaw. I could learn something from the way the reviewer has analysed the article especially the language. It looks like User Casliber is doing some good work there. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Western Jackdaw has been a the topic for collaboration for quite a long time. I wonder if having a collaboration until it reaches GA is not as effective as generating project participation as changing the topic for collaboration every month. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes I was wondering about that myself. The converse was cycling through collaborations with varying amounts of input, or no activity at all. I think that pelican will move more quickly though so am thinking one more rotation under this arrangement might be worthwhile. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

White-capped Albatross

Apparently this bird is quite common in Tasmanian waters. Can anyone offer any information in distinguishing it from the Shy Albatross? I usually see at least 100 'Shy-type' Albatross on any given pelagic trip, and one paper I looked at suggested that maybe 30% of those would be White-capped. This paper suggests that I need to look for the complete absence of lack of any yellow at the base of the culmen combined with absolutely no black or dark grey in the unguis (as would indicate a juvenile bird). But I think at best, going on a smallish sample, those two things combined would only be about 80%. I'm off on another pelagic trip on the 22nd. Can anyone find any other features that I ought to be looking for? JJ Harrison (talk) 13:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Grackle disambiguation

Hello, I'm just stopping by from Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links with a minor challenge for you... currently we have 88 (broken) links to the page Grackle... I've thought about changing the links to Quiscalus but don't think it would be fair to the readers as it really should be more specific. This has been growing for a while, so I'm pretty sure it requires the help of an expert. Could someone please take care of it? The fix list is here. Keep flying high, PhnomPencil talk contribs 17:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the problem? It seems to me that if someone wants to know what a grackle is, that's the page they need to see. I'm not sure we need all the links to it from the Icteridae entry on all those lists, but I wouldn't call the links "broken". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, links typically aren't meant to go to disambiguation pages... however, there's more than one way to fix this. If you think "Grackle" should be an article in its own right I can put a template on it, requesting it be expanded into an article. Passerine taxonomy confuses me. PhnomPencil talk contribs 18:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I can't stay up to date on bird taxonomy either, but grackles don't seem to be a taxonomically defined group; they just have the same English word in their names. Accordingly, I don't see expanding it into a regular article. How about the opaquely named set index article? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a fantastic idea, Jerry! Thanks for the help in figuring this out. PhnomPencil talk contribs 17:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, done. Thanks for bringing this up. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Silver Bahama Pintail

Another candidate for redirection? Maias (talk) 04:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Despite the assertion of the IP on the talk page, there is nothing on the page listed as a reference which calls that subspecies "silver". MeegsC | Talk 07:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the second opinion. I'll fix it within a day or so unless someone has an objection. Maias (talk) 10:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The entry is a hoax and should be deleted in its entirety. Period. End of story. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I see it more as confused, ignorant and inept. Anyway, I have it a redirect to White-cheeked Pintail, though I agree that it could just as well be deleted. Maias (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
I understand the confusion, but it is certainly not a hoax. In aviculture, this species (in its entirety) is often called Bahama Pintail. Not an entirely unreasonable name, cf. Anas bahamensis. There is a captive white variant known as the "Silver". Consequently, Silver Bahama Pintail (silver & normal). Should be redirected regardless. No reason to have an entire page for this minor variant where all there is to write can be done in a sentence of two. 212.10.91.125 (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
That's a nice photo for the White-cheeked Pintail article, if available. Maias (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages VII

Here are some that weren't taken care of the last round:

And some new ones:

...........................................................................Thanks! Pvmoutside (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've done all those for you now. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Handbook of the Birds of the World. Volume 14: Bush-shrikes To Old World Sparrows

Does anyone have this - the File:Corvus monedula distribution de.svg needs a page number for the sourcing. I can sort out Cramp soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Cas, it is on P. 617 of the HBW-14.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (143)

Lady Amherst's - adult male.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Lady Amherst's Pheasant moved to File:Chrysolophus amherstiae -Kirkley Hall Zoological Gardens, Northumberland, England-8a.jpg on Commons. If this bird does not show any signs of hybridisation, then I might show it in the infobox on the Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I can detect nothing attesting to un-natural selection. The gold-yellow back and rump are hidden by the position of the wing here. You can safely stick it in the infobox.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I have not shown this one in the infobox, because I have shown one from Commons that looks better to me. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
How about Chestnut-tipped Toucanet (Aulacorhynchus derbianus) based on ther chestnut coloration on the beak? Dger (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
ISIS is membership only now, and I can not check to see which green toucanets are kept by the zoo. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I will look at it after work, when I have my books.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I accessed my home PC database. Pretty straight forward. All of the forms of derbianus have white throats, and they lack the bluish suffusion on the breast. This is an adult (I can't sex it because of the bill angle. I can't race it either - just too similar) Aulacorhynchus haematopygus.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Crimson-rumped Toucanet moved to File:Aulacorhynchus haematopygus -Philadelphia Zoo, Pennsylvania, USA-8a.jpg on Commons. I have uploaded two other versions from the same Flickr photoset of a bird like this one, which might permit identification of gender or subspecies. One of the other images shows red feathers on its back. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. This photo + the bird in the 8a (1).jpg are the same bird. This is most likely the nominate race (sexnotatus is smaller, more red in bill, a different number of reddish tipped rectrices, and less blue on breast). This bird is an adult male bird. The bird in 8a (2).jpg is an adult female. Adults of both sexes have red rumps (orangish in immatures).Steve Pryor (talk) 10:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I have amended the images in "other versions" on Commons, because there are two different birds. How did you identify male and female? Snowman (talk) 10:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, first you have to establish an age reference (germane because the immatures have smaller bills, juvenile male bills can resemble adult female bills). The immatures lack (or barely exists) the circumferential white stripe around the bill base. They also lack tomial teeth. Both of the birds photographed have these features, ergo, they are adult. Then you compare the bill strength. That of the male is longer, more tapered at the terminus.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile adding referenced information to the species page about the beak. The images are at different angles and I do not see a conclusive difference between the beaks, so I would rather not label any of this set of three images as male or female on Commons. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Compare the two side-by-side. I speak of the two that were the additional images. I don't know what happened to the female, but the male is still there. At least to my eye, the difference is evident. Linking them again, male first: http://www.flickr.com/photos/psukid13/6183794720/in/set-72157627629588623, http://www.flickr.com/photos/psukid13/7082446919/in/set-72157627629588623 In any case, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I rechecked about the bill at home consulting Vol. 2 of BoNSA (Restall), and also HBW-7. The sex differences of bill strength are a constant theme in Aulacorhynchus toucanets.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The two images are of slightly different scale and one is slightly oblique. I am not saying that you are wrong, but I can not see any difference with certitude. Perhaps, the Wiki will acquire better images of this species sometime. I guess it would be a lot easier if male and female were in the same photograph. Snowman (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, obviously I might add. I alerted a couple of months ago that this should be changed, but it somehow slipped through the cracks.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Adult male flaviventris.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Adult male Bambusicola f. fytchii.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Mountain Bamboo Partridge moved to File:Bambusicola fytchii -Smithsonian National Zoo, Washington, USA-8a.jpg on Commons. Selected for the infobox on en Wiki species page. Is the subspecies an obvious idenification? Do you have access to ISIS to confirm the subspecies? Snowman (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
An obvious identification? Not obvious, but doable. I did not consult ISIS - saw somebody say it is now only by subscription. However, I have the Madge & McGowan, and I have my extensive photodatabase. I compared the photos with this photo for about ten minutes paying particular attention to the morphological distinguishers between the two races. Possibility that I am mistaken on the race, or the sex in this case is nil.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I can only make it a Rufous Hornero.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added the ID to the description. —innotata 18:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no doubt about the species identity, Macropsalis [Uropsalis] segmentata. However, the tail is deeply bifurcated. The degree of bifurcation coupled with the contrasting information that I have from several sources (I consulted four sources) as to immature plumages, and what should be considered a normal adult female tail have me wondering if this is really an adult female. Because my information is so contrasting I do not know how to answer this question. The question that someone more intimately involved with this species might answer is if this is an adult female bird, or an immature male bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

pelican for is collaboration for May 2012

Right then, as Western Jackdaw has been flagged to be promoted, I've ticked it over to pelican. So we can see how this one goes. If anyone really wants to take the lead on this one they are welcome, otherwise we can just see how it pans out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy to do so when I get home from Greece (mid May), if no one else starts the process before then. MeegsC | Talk 08:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm just back from California, so I'll see what I can do when I'm sorted out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I want to cry

and so will you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheer up. It was not moved, so the system works. I think that WP Birds could have been notified about the move at the outset. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Chiffchaff

Jim, I know you were the pimary person raising Chiffchaff to featured status.....Alas it appears the page needs to be moved to Common Chiffchaff(?) with the recent splits. Since it is a featured article, I can't move it. Can you do the honors? FYI, I created the Iberian and Mountain Chiffchaff pages.Pvmoutside (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Heavily linked disambiguation pages for May 2012

The following bird-related disambiguation pages have a large number of incoming links this month - please help clear these up! Thanks.

  1. Flycatcher: 35 links
  2. Herring Gull: 31 links
  3. Sparrowhawk: 30 links

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

GRIN

If you need to know about raptors here is a website for an organtion that can help. http://www.globalraptors.org/grin/indexAlt.asp Nhog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhog (talk • contribs) 17:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Raptor organizations and other bird organizations

If you need to know about raptors or raptor conservation and other bird organizations here are some organizations that can help. I will be adding more. The Peregrine Fund, Asian Raptors, Australasian Raptor Association, Belize Raptor Research Institute, The Bird Group, The Canadian Peregrine Foundation, CECARA, Coastal Raptors, Eagle Conservation Alliance, Endangered Wildlife Trust Bird of Prey Working Group, Falcon Research Group, Fondo Amigos de Buitre, Fondo Peregrino, Fonds d'intervention pour les rapaces, George Miksch Sutton Avian Research Center, The Golden Eagle Trust Limited, The Hawk Conservancy Trust, Hawk Migration Association of North America, Hawk Mountain Sanctuary, Hawks Aloft, Inc., HawkWatch International, International Birding & Research Centre - Eilat, International Wildlife Consultants, MEDRAPTORS, Middle East Falcon Research Group, Monitoring Greivögel und Eulen Europas, Natural Research, Northeast Hawk Watch, Parque Condor, Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, The Raptor Center, Raptor Association of New Zealand, Raptor Protection of Slovakia, Raptor Research Center, Raptor Research Foundation, Raptor View Research Institute, Raptors Namibia, Scottish Raptor Study Groups, Society for the Wild Animals "Falcon", Sociedad Guatemalteca de Ornitología, S.O.S. Falconiformes, Thai Raptor Group, Veracruz River of Raptors - Pronatura Veracruz, Vulture Study Group, Wildlife Research Institute, Wingspan Birds of Prey Trust, Working Group Birds of Prey Netherlands, World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls, Working Group on Raptors of Northern Eurasia. Nhog (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Bird information and other animal info sites. Also websites were you can get images of the animals.

Raptor Information System, Ornithological Worldwide Literature (OWL), Searchable Ornithological Research Archive (SORA), Raptors of South America, europeanraptors.org, Aves de Rapina do Brasil, The Global Owl Project (GLOW), IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, Globally Threatened Bird Species Database, AOU Check-list of North American Birds, South American Classification Committee, ORNIS, BIRDNET, Partners in Flight Landbird Population Estimates, Visual Resources for Ornithology (VIREO), ARRCN Asian Raptor Migration Web Page, North American Breeding Bird Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Library, Josselyn Van Tyne Memorial Library, Mongolian Birds, Oriental Bird Images, U.S. Listed Vertebrate Animal Species, Canada Species at Risk, Instituto de Ecología, Mexico, All about Birds (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology), National Wildlife Federation, eNature, HawkCount, Scricciolo: Italian Ornithological Website, Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee (CBRO), Kestreling, British Trust for Ornithology, African Bird Image Database, Avionary, KusBank, Chilean Ornithological Literature, Aves Rapaces, Red Data Book Threatened Birds of Asia, AVIBASE, Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Arabia, BERDS, Fauna Paraguay, Birds of Prey Website, IOC World Bird List, Alexander Library, Wildlife References Resources, birdingnet.com -- all about birds, National Science Digital Library, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology Neotropical Birds, Avian collections databases, EURING, European Colour-ring Birding, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Endangered Species Progress, EURAPMON, avesvenezuela.net. Nhog (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Messy parrots

Our higher-level taxonomy of parrots seems to be in a bit of a mess at the moment. We have strange superfamily names ending in "oidae" scattered through various articles, we have the same groupings of species referred to by different names in different articles, sometimes with different taxonomic ranks. I'm sure things weren't like this a few months ago. Anyone know what's caused this? SP-KP (talk) 17:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a seminal work that revised the taxonomy of the parrots: Leo Joseph, Alicia Toon, Erin E. Schirtzinger, Timothy F. Wright & Richard Schodde. (2012) A revised nomenclature and classification for family-group taxa of parrots (Psittaciformes). Zootaxa 3205: 26–40. The mess before was even bigger with a non-consistent taxonomy across the Psittacidae. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, except the changes do not completely tie up with that paper most notably the "-oidae" superfamily names. Is this just a copying error or have I missed something? SP-KP (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I fixed all the taxoboxes and the obvious usages, but I have not gone through by looking what actually links to it and find all the faulty links. That probably explains the deviations. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, species not included in the higher level articles with species list might have been missed.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

And what about the "oidae"s ? SP-KP (talk) 22:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem. Problem is we reflect the literature not correct it. Here's hoping there's a spelling correction in the peer-reviewed literature a-comin' Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 28 Apri 2012 (UTC)
There is NOTHING wrong with "-oidae"s, it is the standard extension for superfamilies. idae is family, iformes is order, oidae is superfamily, inae is subfamily. That the taxonomy is out of sink with the older literature is a general given in the taxonomy once a group has been revised.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! (See above). Also, can't resist: Parrots ARE messy. And loud. And destructive. But SO appealing! Awien (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

From the thread title, I thought that this was going to be someone asking for help because their parrot throws food on the floor, taking a few bites (e.g. of a piece of fruit), tossing the rest and then picking up another. I don't think that this can be corrected. In the wild, it helps the grass to grow. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

GODDAMMIT, really, who the hell expects a dyslect to figure out oidea from oidae. Yes, it should be oidea. Can people be a BIT more explicite next time. PLEASE! -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

And no, I won;t have time in the coming days to fix this. Maybe Snowman can run his semiautomated tool over it, as oidae extensions are always wrong for Strigopoidae, Cacatuoidae and Psittacoidae (should be Strigopoidea, Cacatuoidea and Psittacoidea). -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Wow, Kim, do you need a time out? Seriously, such a juvenile explosion is not needed here. Chill out, please. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
This could be a task for semi-automated software. I would like to know exactly what changes are needed and I would have a think about it when I have a bit more time. Please make a list of the changes needed and also include exceptions and caveats. Incidentally, I have run into a busy spell in real life and unfortunately I will not be able to attend to this swiftly. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
It has been resolved already. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Kim, good work fixing the "oidae" error. There's still a little bit of work to do before the new parrot systematics are completely reflected (take a look, for example, at Parrot#Phylogeny, Cockatoo#Taxonomy and New_Zealand_parrot#Systematics) but I think you're almost done. SP-KP (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Cockatoo mainpage

Funny, seeing this - i.e. Cockatoo got 5k hits when Red-tailed Black Cockatoo was mainpaged on 4th of May....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And parrot got a bit of a blip when cockatoo was mainpaged on 16th of May. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_60&oldid=1146680537"