Talk:List of North American birds
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of North American birds is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
 |
List of North American birds is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
Contents |
[edit] Taxonomy
The consensus for group and species bird accounts is to use Handbook of Birds of the World for the northern hemisphere and HANZAB for the southern. This because different regions use different classification systems (at least four English language ones for North America, Britain and Ireland, South Africa and Australia and New Zealand).
Whilst it is reasonable for a regional list to use its local system, as in this major article, obviously we want to avoid say Peregrine Falcon being constantly moved between Accipitiformes, Falconiformes and Ciconiiformes.
The use of the term unfortunately is blatently POV regardless of the goodness or badness of extinction. To address you concern however, extinction is a naturally occuring event that can open new niches in the ecosystem allowing increased diversity in the ecosphere. While I personaly hold the view that extiction is in geenral harmful in the short term, and that man made extictions may be harmful in the long term, such topics are mroe rightly addressed under the article Views of Extinction. AQBachler 07:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
As currently constituted, the List of North American birds is not really a list of North American birds at all, but is more properly a list of the birds of the continental United States and Canada. As ecognized by geographers, the North American continent also includes Central America from Mexico through Panama, plus the Caribbean Islands. A comprehensive list of the birds of North America is readily available in the AOU’s Check-list of North American birds; one only has to delete those species recorded only in the Hawaiian Islands. Instead, the current list is arbitrarily confined to that portion of North America covered by the ABA Checklist (i.e., the continental United States and Canada), thereby creating an incomplete and anglo-centric view of the continents birdlife. The reasons given for doing so--(1) a comprehensive list would be too long, and (2) most North American bird field guides restrict themselves to the U.S. and Canada--ring hollow. I see two possible solutions: (1) use the AOU Check-list of North American birds to create a truly comprehensive List of the birds of North America, or (2) rename this list the List of birds of the continental United States and Canada. John Trapp 14:08, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
[edit] owls
HBW lists Northern Pygmy Owl as Glaucidium californicum and Mountain Pygmy Owl as G. gnoma. Is this a new split? jimfbleak 07:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] failed FAC
Along with companion pages List of North American birds: non-passerines and List of North American birds: passerines. OK, like it or not, Wikipedia has LOTS of lists. I guess I want to see if a well formulated, well explained, comprehensive list can be Featured Article. Self-nomination. Dsmdgold 14:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Never supported a list before, but this seems pretty good! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Object for now. We need consensus as to if lists can be FAs. Also, the toc is overwhelming and there is no References section. Filiocht 08:00, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
It isn't even a list of North American birds, for Darwin's sake! I think this should become Birds of North America with the links to the lists as a See also section. Then it could be rewritten as a regular article with a lead, toc, references, etc. That could make a really good article. Filiocht 15:15, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)- I don't see an actionable objection here. You can look in the article histories to see how we arrived at this division. A list of 900+ birds was too long for a single page, and this what we came up with. An article on the Birds of North America would be a very different beast. The text of this page only discusses the list and its rationale, i.e what area is covered by the term, and why the list is in this particular order. None of this would be particularly relevant to a Birds of North America article. I am willing to listen to alternative structures for this list, but I do not see suggestions to write a completely different article instead as actionable. Dsmdgold 16:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- That may be, but then I don't think this is a feature worthy item, even if you take them as a set. The birds of North America, if written very well and comprehensive could be. But as this is, as you have noted, is not comprehensive--an article that "only discusses the list and it's rationale" is not feature worthy. And yes that is entirely actionable. We are faced with an article that is not comprehensive and feature worthy and saying that to get to featured worthy, you would need to write featured worthy material and be comprehensive. In addition the writing in this article is simply not compelling, and of course that in the lists is not by definition. In summation, there is nothing wrong with lists like this, they can be valuable metadata, but are not worthy of featuring in their own right (even with a cover article explaining the list). Object. - Taxman 20:14, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Filiocht is right. It's not a list - it just links to two lists which are therefore different articles. The name is therefore incorrect and, while relevant and a good part of wikipedia, this article isn't feature-worthy imo. Count my objection if someone else can come up with a well-worded reason. violet/riga (t) 21:18, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't see an actionable objection here. You can look in the article histories to see how we arrived at this division. A list of 900+ birds was too long for a single page, and this what we came up with. An article on the Birds of North America would be a very different beast. The text of this page only discusses the list and its rationale, i.e what area is covered by the term, and why the list is in this particular order. None of this would be particularly relevant to a Birds of North America article. I am willing to listen to alternative structures for this list, but I do not see suggestions to write a completely different article instead as actionable. Dsmdgold 16:36, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- agree with Filiocht. This is featured articles, not featured lists. Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:48, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No its not, its Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. Erm, what, we changed the name? Yep, and we can do it again. I really think it should be Wikipedia:Features in order to allow us showcase examples of our good work that do not fit into the arbitrary framework of a single article. Pcb21| Pete 19:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Lists ARE articles because they are not pictures, the other featured category. Lists make up a sizeable portion of the articles on Wikipedia. (I attempted to count them, but the database gave up after 6000 hits for articles with "List of" in the title.) Lists vary in quality; some are poorly concieved in that they have too many or too few potential members, some are poorly defined, some are incomplete. This list is none of those things. Dsmdgold 21:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
- The lists are close to brilliant. Not quite there yet, however, Object for now:
- The article nominated is the one which should eventually be featured, not the individual lists; though the truly brilliant content would be the lists themselves. I agree with this aspect of the nomination.
- The text on the nominated page needs work. It's not detailed enough; only lists a one natively diverging species (wrens) and a few imports; doesn't clarify why the AOU's list is used in one place but not in another; not enough reference links, or links to the books mentioned in the article (I started clarifying the article a little to explain what I mean).
- One note, the Wrens are a family, not a species. However there are a few other families that are limited to the New World. I willl add these. The ABA follows the AOU in taxonomical matters, which is why we are using two different authorities. I have indicated this in the article. I listed the most common introduced species, there are too many to list all of them. Many are established in a very limited area (eg Himalayan Snowcock and Skylark). However I will see what I can do about making this section somewhat more complete.Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- The text on the list pages is too sparse. Each section needs an introduction, be it a sentence or a paragraph. Don't just list links to other articles; highlight which subarticles are more important and which less, which contested, which of special interest to birders or biologists or farmers, etc. Imagine opening a reference book on birds to the section on Vireos -- there would be a list of specific species, but also an overview.
- Actually if I turned to a checklist of birds that is actually what I would expect, just a list, perhaps with some indication of frequency, but that would be it, no overview. Since each order and family links to an article discussing that taxon and the article are all at least good (some are very good) I don't see the point in short summary of info that is just a click away.Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Images are not well-chosen. We have many fantastic images of birds; only one of them makes it to any of these pages. The image on the nominated page should be a crisper one; perhaps a symbolic one like the bald eagle, perhaps one of our features. The list pages themselves should have a few thumbnails on them; perhaps one representative image for each of the largest sections. +sj+ 07:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You have a point here. I will work on it. Dsmdgold 15:15, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Object - I don't feel list should be featured, however as a general article on North American birds, linking to the lists, this can vbe "saved".Grinner 10:54, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
Filiocht and violet/riga seem to be concerned that the nominated page is not actually a list. It now is. When working on this list I split the list since it would be over 32KB. However Wikipedia:Page size says that "(pages) >32KB - should be divided unless it is a list". Since this is a list, I have unsplit (if that is a word) it.
Filiocht, Grinner and Taxman seem to think that I have nominated the Birds of North America and have claimed that the article is incomplete on that basis. I have not nominated that article. I have nominated List of North American birds. I have not noted that the article is not comprehensive. It is comprehensive. The introductory text is just that, a text that introduces the list. It is not a general discussion of the birds of North America. I believe that when someone encounters a list like this, they might ask a couple of questions, such as "What birds are included in this list?" and "Why is it organized in this manner?" This text answers those questions. It would be inappropriate to go off on a discussion of migratory patterns or the role in of the Rocky Mountains in dividing bird species, topics that should be covered in the hypothetical Birds of North America article.
- I know exactly what you nominated, and I am objecting to it. I quoted you directly, and a consequence of what you wrote is that the article is not comprehensive about the subject. It is mostly just a list. It has few of the qualities of a great article. In addition the title is wrong/misleading since almost half of North America by species count is not covered in the list. - Taxman 03:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- I thought no such thing. I suggested that such an article, if well-written, would make a much better candidate. May I respectfully suggest a less aggressive engagement with objections? Filiocht 11:21, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
Taxman, Dunc_Harris, andGrinner have raised objections based on the fact that this is list. These objections are so fundamental that they cannot be addressed. Dsmdgold 02:36, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- Sure they can be addressed, it just means the article as just a list and no well written, comprehensive coverage (the hallmarks of a featured article) cannot be a featured article. By definition of what it lacks. Don't rail against that, either write a featured quality article or don't worry about it being featured. Why the fuss to get a list featured? Its just metadata. - Taxman 03:04, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
- (Speaking as featured article director) - I believe Taxman makes a valid point here. Lists are lacking the basic quality of a featured article - that is, prose. →Raul654 22:19, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Why (apart from the obvious) this particular list of birds? If you look at list of regional bird lists, there are other places in the world.I wrote, or was a major contributor, to most of these lists, and I don't much care whether they are FAs or not, but the NAm one has many red links, unlike the Spanish, British, French or Cyprus lists, and is less interesting than, say Trinidad and Tobago. jimfbleak 05:27, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Pictures
Anyone besides me dislike the pictures on the left-hand side of the page? It messes up the left margin of the list, making the list look disorderly and the pictures look misplaced. I say keep the list on the left and the pictures on the right. What does everyone else think? EDIT: In short, I like the format of List of Oklahoma birds. Take a look at that list and compare. EdGl 22:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC) EDIT at 22:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
- As the guy who put most of the pictures in this list, and all of the pictures in List of Oklahoma birds, I think this would be a good idea. I did North America first, and since doing the Oklahoma list "fixing the images on the NA list has been a project on the "need to do some day list" in the back of my mind. Dsmdgold 00:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- I just went ahead and right-aligned all the pictures (by the way, Dsmdgold, awesome work with all those pictures!) EdGl 02:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ABA versus AOU
Can someone please explain to me why “This list is based on a checklist used by the ABA” rather than the AOU check-list (see last paragraph in Scope of this list)? I question the assertion that the ABA list “is the list used by most field guides for North American birds.” I have no doubt that any North American ornithologist you asked would name the AOU check-list as the more authoritative of the two sources, and the ABA already defers to the AOU on matters of taxonomy.
That being the case, why are we deleting species simply because they don’t appear on the ABA checklist? Recent examples include Crested Myna, Black Catbird, Light-mantled Albatross, and the Weavers (Orange Bishop and Java Sparrow). All of these species continue be listed on the AOU check-list. The recent extirpation of the introduced Common Myna doesn’t mean that this species should be deleted from this list; rather, it should be retained (with parenthetical notations indicating that it was formerly introduced and established [for 100 years!] but is now extirpated).
My proposed solution to this problem is to include on this list any species recorded from North America (as defined by this list) and listed by either the ABA or the AOU. This would produce a more comprehensive and stable list of North American birds. John Trapp 17:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- This list is based on the ABA list because when I started to fill it in, that's the list I used. I used it because the ABA area corresponds to the area used by most Field Guides sold in North America. (for example, Sibley, Peterson's, and Kaufmann, just to name the ones I own.) The AOU list available on the web does not give areas for birds, so it is impossible to tell from the AOU list if a bird is in found in the smaller ABA area or not.
- The Crested Myna is no longer on the ABA or AOU list, which is why I dropped it. I guess the AOU drop any introduced species if it becomes extirpated. (It was dropped on the 46th suplement to the list, see here). I would have no problem with it being on this list noted as you suggest. Dsmdgold 18:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
