Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Birds
WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
 → Article requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Peer review talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Categories

[edit] "Endemic" birds categories

Apparently there was a misunderstanding about recategorization—"Avifauna of" categories got renamed to "Endemic birds of", so that, for example, the Eurasian Collared-Dove is now in Category:Endemic birds of Southeastern United States! I asked User:Cyde to stop his bot from making the conversions (though I may not have been in time) and brought it up at WP:CFD, so you don't have to do that, dear reader. But maybe somebody from this project needs to keep an eye on this recategorization. And I'm not all that interested in categories :-) —JerryFriedman 05:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to delete "Fauna of [country]" categories

There's a proposal at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_8#Category:Fauna_of_Europe_subcategories to merge all 35 categories like "Fauna of Estonia", "Fauna of Spain", etc., to just "Fauna of Europe". This is a pilot to get rid of all geographical fauna and flora categories for countries and other regions smaller than continents, including "Birds of the Southeastern United States", "Birds of Kenya", etc., replacing them with lists. If you have an opinion on this, you might want to vote. —JerryFriedman 20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed

I was wondering if it would be better to create a sub Category:Birds of South-east Asia to categorize birds that are native to South-east Asia only, instead of lumping them into Category:Birds of Asia? Luffy487 07:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go for it. My only question would be whether you include the Philippines and Wallacea in this cat, given their biogeographical distinctness from SE Asia. I'd be inclined to keep them separate. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't Philippines a country in Southeast Asia? Luffy487 09:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely! But its something of a biogeographical special case with a decent number of endemics (including it's on family, the Rhabdornithidae), that would justify its own category in my opinion. I realise that there is something of a crusade on against category:Bird of country] going on, but at least islands with good numbers of endemic species justify a cat. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As a "crusader", I have nothing against an Endemic birds of the Philippines category, and of course nothing against a List of birds of the Philippines article, which might include some remarks on the country's unique avifauna. —JerryFriedman 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice shield! Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing of Category:Fauna of country to Category:Birds of country

The amount of bird articles been created daily are increasing. Thus I was wondering if it would be a better idea to change the Category:Fauna of country to Category:Birds of country? For example: Category:Fauna of Indonesia into Category:Birds of Indonesia. By specifying the category as birds instead of fauna will help to avoid mixing up with Mammalia or Reptilia articles in the same category. And of course this only implies to Aves articles. Luffy487 14:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page layout & formatting

[edit] Bulbul

Someone has moved Bulbul to Bulbul (bird) because apparently there was singer by the same name from Azerbaijan. Given that almost every usage of Bulbul on Wikipedia is going to be for the bird, anyone want to move it back? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I perfer as it is now. Right now Bulbul is a dab page, and we should not remove it. Luffy487 07:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Dab pages work when there are several well known meanings for a word. When there is one well known usage and one obscure one, the well known use occupies the main namespace and links are provided to other uses (example albatross or fulmar).Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy, systematics & specific taxa

[edit] Struthioniformes

I find the present setup (ratites = Strithioniformes) fairly untenable; it is not supported by current molecular and morphological phylogenies. Altogether, the page should be split, but there is need to collect many references first. These can be collected e.g. in my sandbox, either under "General" or "Ratites". Dysmorodrepanis 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Streak-headed Mannikin

I have created a stub for Streak-headed Mannikin Lonchura tristissima, lumping White-spotted Mannikin L. t. leucosticta in with it because of info in Coates (see ref). If anyone has better or more recent info that suggests the latter needs needs full species treatment, please let me know. Thanks. Maias 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New pictures

Two new pictures that might inspire someone to write an article: Commons:Image:Syrigma sibilatrix.jpg and Commons:Image:Scarlet-headed Blackbird.jpg. I'm mentioning this at the request of the photographer, Ken Erickson. Anyone have a South American book? —JerryFriedman 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can do the heron one as I have the HBW that covers them. Give me a day or two. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Who would have thought? The page on this species from Ridgely and Tudor is one of the few pages of that book visible at Google Book search. So Scarlet-headed Blackbird is started. —JerryFriedman 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bird taxonomy in the news

Yikes. I assume you've seen the bit about news species of birds in North America based on barcoding. Here's the pdf oof the paper in Molecular Ecology Notes [1] I wonder where the appropriate place to stick this is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the pdf! I don't know what to make of this really. Low sample sizes (n=1; this is sometimes OK in paleontology, but only if there is no alternative), no specimen data (subspecies/provenance - where do all those Canada Geese come from? Captives? Is the parentage known?), failure to incorporate 2 years of methodological criticism, discussion, and improvement (see also Cladistics 20: 47–55 and DOI:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.12.005); I think I see a major debate about this one in the journals. By mid-2007, it might be possible to estimate this study's merits. As if Astraptes fulgerator, Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Gobius lagocephalus and the wrongly-calibrated molecular clocks we've been using in ornithology for nearly 10 years weren't enough.
This is all frustrating and a bit annoying. I wonder what the Cladistics and MPE crowd will make of this.
People will have read about it in the news and want to put it up on Wikipedia - and admitted, it would be better than no reference at all - but I'd advise against it. I've been following the barcoding debate for the last 15 months or so very closely and my impression is that this here paper is a prime candidate for being ripped to pieces. Whoever wants to do some mol-taxo referencing better check out Google Scholar and choose from the work of Jon Fjeldså. These are generally tried-and-true. Or maybe Michael Wink's papers - there is one rotten egg among them, but we already have it on WP (together with the rebuttal. Of course). Dysmorodrepanis 09:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We don't have a article on genetic barcoding at all, so perhaps we should at least have that, outside the auspices of this project. Then if people want we can have a line that mentions this study in the appropriate articles if people want it without altering our taxonomy in a big way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction, we do. So, yeah, I agree that for the momement we need to keep this out of the taxonomy until at least some other scientists have commented. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another cracid ID request

See my comments under Image:Piping guan.jpg. I shall whip up a quick stub for Aburria, because the cracids are all messed up regarding redirects etc. Dysmorodrepanis 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other bird-related pages

[edit] New Members

How do I join WikiProjectBirds? Teak the Kiwi 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing formal - add your username to the Participants section on the main project page, have a read through and you're in! Richard Barlow 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kakapo FAR

Kakapo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Userbox

A modest proposal:

 This user is a member of
WikiProject Birds

{{User:Aerobird/WP Birds Userbox}}



- Aerobird 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Gladly thunbs-up. Dysmorodrepanis 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Have changed icon width so that it fits with the other ToL userboxes. Rv if you disagree. Also, everyone - would it be OK if this were listed on Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects#Animals? Dysmorodrepanis 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I' ll list it now. Hey jude, don't let me down 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aviculture WikiProject proposal

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture. The purpose of this project is to help increase the amount and quality of content related to aviculture on wikipedia, and to maintain and organise articles relating to the subject, eventually bringing as many as possible up to good- or featured-article status. I feel that is sufficiently different to WikiProject Birds (aspects of ornithology and biology) to need a separate project. Snowman 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with this. It could also be argued that WP Birds could be split three ways into ornithology, birding and aviculture. Maias 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Naming conventions for shared names?

I'm working on a page for the Rock Wren of New Zealand, which has exactly the same name as the Rock Wren of North America (even on the HBW website). I'm wary of using the name suggested on the New Zealand wren article (New Zealand Rock Wren) as I've never seen that name anywhere else. So, do we go for the clunky New Zealand Rock Wren or do we have Rock Wren (New Zealand)? (p.s. yes, I might finally be back) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We could use "South Island Wren". It's the name used in the Clements and Sibley & Monroe checklists and also used in the Birdlife species factsheet Tigershrike 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
That would work... Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
HANZAB gives Fiordland Rock Wren as an alternative. Maias 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I went with South Island Wren and created redirects for the other names (as well as changing any links into Rock Wren that were refering to this species). A bit annoying for Kiwi birders though, since they all seem to refer to this species as the Rock Wren. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi! I am a new member of WikiProject Birds. Recently i am trying to categorize African estrildidae according to countries which they are native in. However, it was proposed to merge all of the subcategories into Category:Birds of Africa. I was wondering if any of the experts here have any idea to organize the category/ subcategories? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Birds of Africa, for discussion. Luffy487 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subspecies taxobox example?

I was wondering if there is any subspecies taxobox example available? See Green-backed Twinspot, Solitary Tinamou and Star Finch, for examples. Luffy487 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Luffy. There is a subspecies taxobox at Bonin Nankeen Night Heron‎. Is this what you are looking for? Maias 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I was away for quite sometime. Well I am looking for taxobox which can provide more than one example of subspecies. Thanks by the way. Luffy487 08:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeopteryx

Hi all,

Recently, the WikiProject Dinosaurs team has been working to improve Archaeopteryx. Since this article is partially under the purview of the Bird folks, I thought I'd stop by and drop an invite to you all to come help improve or refine the article in any way you can. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okarito Brown Kiwi

Do you think this article (Okarito Brown Kiwi) should be moved to Rowi, seeing as many sites refer to it that way? Teak the Kiwi 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Teak - if you want to be consistent with other current articles on NZ birds in Wikipedia you should stick with Okarito Brown, with a redirect from Rowi of course. Maias 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Corvid-Obscessed Member

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I just joined this WikiProject. I am obviously corvid-obscessed, and one of my long term goals on Wikipedia is to bring some of the corvid articles to featured article status. However, since I figure that'll take a long time, I think I'd better start small. What can I do to help out with this project?Corvus coronoides 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, mostly people do what they feel like, but you know, Mariana Crow is a redlink (meaning we don't have an article yet. Click the link to start the page). Why not start with it? There's info on the species here[2], [3], and a search on Google scholar might turn up some journal articles. Use an existing article like Jungle Crow to help you format and start...Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
How's this? Corvus coronoides 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and it would be helpful if someone could find a range map and photo of the bird as well. Australian Raven 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice one. I'll leave some comments on the talk page.Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome Crow-man! I'm looking forward to being in the field soon til April, but if you do Banggai Crow, I'll have some of the more recent references lying around and would be honored to add them! Dysmorodrepanis 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the warm welcome, and the Banggai suggestion. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble getting enough information on them to write a full article. Can you recommend any good sources, specifically for things such as behaviour, pictures without breaking copyrights, and a range map without breaking copyrights? Australian Raven 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration Page?

Well, since this is a WikiProject, I thought a collaboration page would be useful in expanding pages and bringing articles to featured status. Any thoughts? Australian Raven 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful, and would be glad to help in any collaboration efforts. Hey jude, don't let me down 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's been suggested before (by me I think!) but we all tend to do our own thing round here. Like herding cats it is! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a bird person, but I can tell you the WikiProject Dinosaurs team have found our project collaboration page very useful. Most of our Featured Articles would never have reached that status without these group collaborations. I think a collaboration page could be very useful for WikiProject Birds, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's give it a go. I went and did something rash (I mean bold!) and created the page...Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration. Lets try nominating something! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Very cool. I've nominated an article myself, to help the ball get rolling. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
One of the criteria in the procedure of nominating an article is: Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection. To my knowledge, there are different types of protection which you may be referring to. I would like to know which one are you guys referring to. See: Wikipedia:Protection policy. Well, I would like to nominate an article, but it is under Semi-protection. Luffy487 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The text was all copied from Dinosaur's collaboration page (with most references to dinosaurs changed to bird). The whole thing is negotiable really I think. I think it would be preferable to exclude pages that have any kind of protection so that anyone can participate, but I guess it would mostly be registered types doing it. (It may be that the clause is specific to the Dinosaur wikiproject - I recall one unregistered user that was a major contributor to dinosaur articles back when I started). Which article did you want to nominate? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The protection clause may have been added to the dinosaur collaboration page because the impetus behind many (or most) collaborations is preparing the article for Featured Article submission. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1(e). states that the material must not be the subject of edit wars or disputes. Admins often protect an article to prevent edit wars from continuing; semi-protection will only keep out IP edits. As Sabine says, I'm sure it's negotiable, since the page was only created a few hours ago. You would just want to make sure any page you submitted for Featured status wasn't protected due to edit wars or instability.
As an aside, there was indeed at one time a very prolific IP editor on WikiProject Dinosaurs; there is a different one now, but s/he only posts to the talk pages. Now the only IP edits we get are vandals, Christian POV pushers, and those folks adding interwiki links. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the article I would like to nominate is Bald Eagle. Bald Eagle was on the brink of extinction in the US late in the 20th century but now it has a stable population. So I would like to nominate this article and bring it as one of the featured articles. By doing so, the article may bring attention to the world that so long as we human put in effort in conserving the animals, and stop the activities that would destroy their habitats, they may still have a chance to survive. It is such a pity to see that many different species have gone extinct. And our next generation would never have a chance to see them. Luffy487 08:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, a species with such a limited range as Bald Eagle is less suitable for a collaboration than cosmopolitan birds such as the Osprey or Peregrine Falcon. Also sources for northern hemisphere species are much more readily available. What about southern hemisphere species? I have some good resources, but I'm not likely to write/improve articles for birds I've not seen without some prompting. jimfbleak 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Osprey and Peregrine Falcon are good aussie birds....but seriously, there are no rules. It can be hit and miss with collabs, dino collabs went well for a while and then went very quiet for a few months, before some great work recently. I coordinate Fungi colabs and it has been an uphill battle to generate sustained interest. Given it is a volunteer project, interest is paramount. Blad Eagle may be a great choice and it does have some very interesting environmental issues...I put all the current bird FAs down the bottom so poeple could get an idea. They may be good as a template. Kakapo was an early FA which recently had a prety decnt overhaul and I reckon looks pretty good now.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question here... since it seems we have several articles nominated for collaboration, and coding for voting, when/how would we agree on a collaboration and start? By the way, thanks for starting it!Australian Raven 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The other thing is to look at the current articles listed as GA which seem to vary widely in quality. I think Dodo or Bird are the best bets there. Australian Ringneck needs alot of work, Ivory-billed Woodpecker I can foresee some controversy and edit wars but then again maybe not...The Atlas of Australian Birds doesn't really grab me but then again...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Need to announce a deadline to select a bird. I'd give it 7 dayscheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bird is actually a trainwreck that probably needs months of work. I think there are enough noms for now. 7 days seems fine to choose what they want to work on.Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... how do I vote? Where do I add the code? Or do I just change the title? Australian Raven 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my impression is that voting is the same thing as adding your support, just signing your name with a number and four tildes, which you've done already. It's fine to vote for more than one article, as well. Hey jude, don't let me down 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White-browed Sparrow-weaver

I have created a page for the White-browed Sparrow-weaver. Please edit - it has most of the info it needs, but there are a few minor details missing. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job! :) Luffy487 07:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI Images

This user on Flickr has some stunning free to use images of Asian birds. I've added a few to the Commons and then linked some articles to here, quite a few are for species we don't have articles on yet. Enjoy, but be warned, not every one of them has a free licence, so check carefully (to check look in the bottom right hand corner.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories by country are being systematically deleted right now -- is this the way to go?

There is a heated discussion at Category_talk:Biota_by_country regarding the matter to recategorize the species. Please feel free to voice out your opinion. :) Luffy487 08:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project members' category

I've added a category, Members of WikiProject Birds, to the user box, so anyone using it on their user page is automatically added to the category. Andy Mabbett 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deadline for collaborations is 23rd of March!

Currently Raven is ahead by a whisker (or is that a bill?) if you hate crows go vote! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! J'adore les corbeaux. I love ravens, and all members of their families! That includes crows :) Australian Raven 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Articles

There is a long list of requested articles for birds, and the article request page for this project is a red link. Should I create a page for it? -- Hey jude, don't let me down 00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if there are lots of requested articles. I didn't relaize there were any. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay... so its every bird in Australia and Brazil that doesn't have an article. No pressure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hah, well, I created the page. --Hey jude, don't let me down 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] standardising headings and subheadings

Hi all, there has been quite a bit of variety over what headings and subheadings are used in various biology article over wikipedia and I have tried streamlining those often while dividing up large chunks of text.

How do people feel about (on a bird species page):

(lead)

[edit] Description

(I have removed "Physical" from some sections called Physical Description as it is redundant.) (this includes call at the end of the section)

[edit] Distribution and habitat

(conservation can be included as a subsection here)

[edit] Behaviour

[edit] Diet

[edit] Breeding

(or nesting? or reproduction?)

Taxonomy and Classification can be separate section or under description somewhere

cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Casliber, I agree with you on the desirability of standardising the format of species (and other levels of taxa). I have fiddled with the layout of Australian Painted Snipe along the lines you suggest, but more could be done. With little-known species the headings may seem a bit clunky with not a lot of descriptive text, but it would improve the articles with more material. With something like 10,000 species of bird in the world, and each maybe eventually having a separate article, it should make it a lot easier to move from one to another and to make quick comparisons. Maias 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally opposed to this. In articles without a great deal of content it doesn't make any sense in my mind to have numerous subheadings. Sooty albatross to my mind looks fine without it. In articles with enough content the exact layout of the sections depends greatly on what's available info-wise. Some articles might have a lot of info on breeding but none on taxonomy. If two particular sections are small then merge them, if a usually small section has agreat deal of info (like one species is famous for something unusual) give it its own subheading. Most subheadings are pretty logical and many times are the same as what you suggest, and most people already use an unoffical layout (I try and use the same, or similar, layouts on the family pages, for example), but I can see no need to formally standardise them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is good idea to standardize the format. However, research on different species of birds are done differently. Some species may have more information on its breeding while some don't. And some species may have more information availablee on its habitats while some don't. I am sure you don't wish to see 2 sentences of words just under one heading. Luffy487 05:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


I agree about smaller articles (do you mean opposed to the whole lot or juist for smaller ones?); having an article with one line per section looks silly to say the least. Question is how big should an article be before subheadings are used? Size aside, the reson I like the approach above is that there is a hierarchy of headings too, which many articles lack. I've been involved in a few animal FAs now and reviewers there, while appreciating some pregmatism when using subheadings, generally seem to like more of a standard format than what is used about the place. e.g. I've ben substituting Distribution for the synonymous range as that is what is used in many more articles (including FAs) so makes no sense to leave. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
PS: A thought - do you want to show me an article size which would be the natural size below which you wouldn't split into subheadings? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
PPS: For mine, Sooty Albatross is just big enough to split (in fact I've probably been guilty of splitting smaller ones cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Its not a case of an article being a certain size before its okay to split up, its a case of how it looks once you've split it. If there are a couple of subheadings with one line underneath it then it just looks ugly. And overall I am more objecting to it being mandatory - I don't want good articles being hobbled because they don't conform to rigid guidelines set out here. If we do establish some guidelines it needs to be explicit that they are to be applied flexibly depending on the species involved, the info around and suchlike.
And while we're at it...
  • Evolution, taxonomy and systematics
  • Morphology and flight
  • Range and habitat
  • (Migration?)
  • Behaviour
  • Diet
  • (Migration?)
  • Breeding
  • Other as appropriate
  • Relationship with humans
  • Exploitation
  • Conservation and threats
  • Role in culture
  • Species or subspecies list (as appropriate)
is what I use. more or less. It depends. In Procellariidae I broke breeding up into three extra subheadings, called description Morphology (something I also did in Great Frigatebird, I think its more precise). I used different hierarchies as well, looking at them again. Still, it's featured and no one complained. Anyway, if you're going to insist on this that's what I'd suggest. I'd just sooner you didn't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Having headings for one or two sentence sections not only looks ugly, but to my mind is an insult to the reader. I'm aware that my own new articles sometimes might benefit from one or two heading, but Sabine's Sunbird's contributions are pretty well spot on, imho, when it comes to organising material in a comprehensive, readable, but adult layout. jimfbleak 06:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
My intention was not to lay down laws as such, just to throw up some ideas on streamlining pages. I'm not insisting as such and apologize if my posts are comnig across as forceful. All those subheadings listed above are good, and I did note the Albatross FA with different headings. I have been concentrating on some of the more straightforward ones (eg: range and distribution, ensuring there is a hierarchy of headings, inline reffing etc.)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I think a simple, flexible and non-prescriptive guide to layout would be useful for the process (where it applies) of a stub being created and then gradually expanded by different editors with different areas of expertise and as new information comes along. With something like 10,000 species of birds in the world, and many more terminal taxa, if each is eventually going to get its own article, I think it will be easier for new editors to compare articles to identify where extra material is needed. In other words I see it as an aid to article improvement for those articles that currently only exist as stubs or not at all. Where an elegant, accurate and comprehensive article already exists, it obviously will not be necessary. Neither should anyone feel bound by such a guide if they feel thay can do it better some other way. Maias 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on image of Kookaburra.

I was wondering if anyone here knows which of the four species does this Kookaburra belongs to? Just curious. Luffy487 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure its a laughing kookaburra. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks. Luffy487 13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Whoa, cool weird photo! Agree on species. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] County Recorders

Anyone fancy starting an article on what we in the UK know as county recorders, (for all taxa, not just birds)? Andy Mabbett 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Any examples? Well... I am not from UK haha... Luffy487 10:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Extremely rare species of owl

Take at look at this: Tiny rare owl spotted in Peru reserve. Abstracted from the article: The owl is so distinct that it has been named in its own genus, "Xenoglaux", meaning "strange owl", due to the long wispy feathers around its reddish-orange eyes. Luffy487 10:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the month is....Common Raven

A good one to get your teeth stuck into. Lots of laundry lists to be cleaned out and rationalised. Also should be possible to find good online information as it is a North American species, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Online resources for access to free journals to help. I'll post a to do list/plan on the article's talk page later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

should be possible to find good online information as it is a North American species Oddly, enough, we Europeans occasionally write about our birds, too. Andy Mabbett 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I was refering to the fact that all the Auk, Condor and Wilson Bulletin journal issues up to 2000 are available online for gratis, and the USFWS images are public domain. Have you ever tried to get hold of an issue of the Ibis, Emu or Ardea online? Like blood from a stone. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair point! I had a long, and eventually fruitless, correspondence with the editor of BB (for whom have nothing but the greatest respect, I must add) recently, tying to get them to put their back issues on line, like Auk's, instead of on a DVD for sale, as they are currently doing. I'm sure lottery funding would have paid for it, with a partner in the academic or library sector. Andy Mabbett 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article request page sub-divided

I've sub-divided Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Article requests. Andy Mabbett 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attention needed tags on template

I've been using the 'attention' needed tag in a few template boxes:

Main issue are a bunch of Agapornis spp. pages which have loads of aviculture but much less natural history on them. Actually there is the basis for an FA or two in there...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aratinga species

I'd always called all these 'Conures' yet someone has listed them all as parakeets. There is a tendency for common names to become more exacting as the years go on yet this has gone the other way. I have Parrots of the World by Forshaw which called them Conures....

Anyone heard anything about this? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Its likely that pesky Handbook of the Birds of the World again. That said, I've only ever heard of them being conures in the pet trade....Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I just looked on a couple of websites and the AOU likes "Parakeet" for Aratinga, and "Parrot" (instead of Amazon) for Amazona, which is amazing. Leads to amibguity, thence Orange-fronted parakeet refers to an NZ and a south american species. Everywhere else we have things like Painted Button-quail for Painted Quail etc. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I sometimes think that rival ornithological unions name species after other species in other OU areas out of spite. Then change it back because they're bored. Its pretty much for that reason that we adopted (before I even got here, BTW) the HBW for common names, even if we seem to deviate from the taxonomy more and more. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm nosing around the web and seeing if I can get any insight into it. I am very tempted to change all the pages to "x-conure" amd "x-amazon" but obviously consensus and debate is a much better way to look at the issue.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Use google scholar and see what common names turn up. I'll check the latest checklist of the birds of the world thats in the library and see what it says. As Treebeard says , don't be hasty! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well in my humble opinion, I think we should keep both names. It is to allow the minority to search for what they want. Luffy487 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the more I was playing around with it the more I figured with loads of redirects etc. it isnt too much of a problem, except do we have, for instance, both sets of common names on the genus page Aratinga, or would that be too cluttered?cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some examples on google search

  • about 9,530 google hits for "Blue-crowned Parakeet"
  • about 14,200 google hits for "Blue-crowned Conure" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
  • A whopping 119,000 google hits for "Sun Conure" vs. 648 for "Sun Parakeet"....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 575 google hits for "White-eyed Conure" vs. 13,800 for "White-eyed Parakeet". cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 7 for "Sulphur-breasted Conure" vs. 539 for "Sulphur-breasted Parakeet" cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • 19 for "Pacific Conure" vs. 604 for "Pacific Parakeet" cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Which reflects the adoption of the term in the pet trade. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup, true. I guess the other thing to consider is that common names aren't really bound by any rules like scientific names are for nomenclature. As an Australian we don't see many of these critters in cages here nor have I done much birdwatching in the Americas....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum - Amazon vs. Parrot

  • "Yellow-headed Parrot"=20,200 hits, "Yellow-headed Amazon" = 29,300 hits on google
And probably plenty more for "Double yellow headed amazon" and all the others. I tried to make all the redirects to that article I could think of, but I'm sure I missed some.
  • "Black-billed Parrot"= 511 hits, "Black-billed Amazon" = 380 hits on google

hmmm. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As an American, I can't conceive of disagreeing with the AOU on nomenclature.[1] If I could, I'd say there's a better case for "amazon", which is a nice well-defined genus, than for "conure", which according to the article is paraphyletic (or whatever the word is).
Let's try Google Scholar as suggested:
  • Sun parakeet: 9
  • Sun conure: 24
A lot of the latter are veterinary, but still I'm amazed.
  • Nanday parakeet: 3
  • Nanday conure: 31
Here's one that's not in the pet trade:
  • Golden-plumed parakeet: 8
  • Golden-plumed conure: 3
I still think we should be using the ornithological names with redirects from the avicultural names. However, there seems to be more ornithological use of "conure" than I thought—not only Forshaw, who you mentioned, but Juniper and Parr, Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World (clever title). So I don't know. —JerryFriedman 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ This is an exaggeration.

[edit] Bird FA section?

Your project needs a FA section for bird articles which have become featured. With the inclusion of the soon to be featured Archaeopteryx (Well hopefully...), and any others you guys have, I'd say it would be wise to have one & to keep the team morale up with the addition of their achievements. It works at Wikiproject dinosaurs, & it never hurts to be proud. I think it's a good idea, thoguhts? Spawn Man 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Core topics

While blundering around Wikipedia trying to avoid work I came across Wikipedia:Featured topics. It occured to me that while we have huge amounts of great stuff regarding birds, our coverage of what might be the core subjects regarding birds is perhaps a little weak. Bird itself, while listed as a GA, is pretty poor (though improving for the efforts of Pmeleski and others), and while there are some reasonable other important articles there is a lot of scope for improvement.

Consider this a suggestion, or perhaps a request, that we devote some time towards core subjects. This includes dragging bird up to FA, turning bird evolution into an article rather than a redirect, and so on and suchlike. A lot of the family pages are barely more than stubs, and the same goes for orders. It isn't as much fun or as easy as doing species but it needs doing.

I know that we're all volunteers and we all pretty much do what we want to (or at least I do) and we all try and do way to much. But perhaps a little bit of time can be devoted to this? By way of a start I'll be concentrating on Bird, parrot and the newly started Bird conservation over the next month and I've nominated bird migration as a possible collaboration for next month. Anyway, let me know what you think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do support the idea to improve the core topics (I voted for bird in the previous nomination). But since the common raven is the current WikiProject Birds collaboration article, we should get it done first rather than divert the attention onto other matter. Luffy487 06:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and I'll be doing that too, but most of do multiple things, so just bear it in mind, ya? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I will see what I can find to improve the core topics. I am aware that you have did a pretty good job in a day's time to create an article, Bird conservation. Currently, I am quite busy with my work. I will be free in weekends, most probably... Luffy487 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Birds_74c6.html"