User talk:Tannin/030715

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

image:janina.jpg

User_talk:Tannin/030301, User_talk:Tannin/030407, User_talk:Tannin/030430, User_talk:Tannin/030516, User_talk:Tannin/030606

Tannin never sleeps ...

OK, I give up. What's a bivine? -- John Owens 05:05 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A holy cow? Koyaanis Qatsi
So why don't we have an article at bivine or bivines yet? ;) Get back to work! -- John Owens 08:16 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Funny stuff.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi-----

Hi Tannin. A recurring problem has cropped up again. You may remember some months ago a user called Scipius tried to screw up the Republic of Ireland page. He wanted to call it simply Ireland even though the page is only on the RofI, and everyone else told him it should be called the Rep of Irl. He tried to change facts and got into a major row with his pre-occupation with changing things to his own highly inaccurate understanding of Irish history, culture, politics, etc.

Now he is back again and trying to rewrite the agreed template on the RofI page; one of his recurring insistences for example, is in suggesting that the Irish and english languages have equality of status, by removing a simple reference to the Irish language being defined as the national language and english as a (not the) secondary language. On past evidence, he will simply keep reverting the page again and again and again, ignoring any past consensus reached until it people can get it clear to him that he is not getting his way. So it would be a great help if you could keep an eye on the page and tell him that the page as it is (I reverted his changes) is factually accurate and his 'version' is factually inaccurate and simplistic. lol FearÉIREANN 03:02 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

hi Tony

HBW lists Morepork and Southern Boobook as separate species (see typical owl, based on HBW. Any views? Jim

I thought you might have phased, you're more exposed to the flak than me, with mostly birds and a few cetaceans. I don't know if you caught the fascinating email from JT, so I'll put the text below;

In a message dated 11/06/03 18:10:17 GMT Daylight Time, jtdirl@hotmail.com writes:

I had an interesting conversation today with a publisher and an academic on the issue of capitalisation. They made the following observations:

1. Capitalisation rules seem to differ between American English and British English (or rather American English and all forms of english other than AE). Whereas the former seems nowadays to be following a 'minimal use of caps' policy, non-AE english uses caps far more often.

2. This issue has caused considerable problems with American students who come to Europe for summer courses. Europeans see the non-use of caps as 'semi-literate' and regularly dock students marks for it. Americans see non AE use of caps as 'ludicrous' and over the top. (I know from personal experience that the few caps english of AE users has caused bitter anger in my university, where lecturers 'hit the roof' at AE users' insistence of lower-casing names of organisations, electoral processes, governmental offices, etc.)

3. Within many academic areas, a major battle has been waged on this issue. To the resentment of non-AE users, AE capitalisation rules increasingly tend to be followed. The reason is purely economic. Publishers see the US as their biggest market, and so publish books in AE or in non-AE but following some of the characteristics of AE in areas like capitalisation. (This has infuriated many non AE-using authors. Last week, one British English author threatened to sue her publisher for 'rewriting' her textbook in AE when it was aimed at a UK market. She accused them of 'dumbing down english to suit Americans'. Some authors, according to the publisher I was talking to, have insisted in their contracts that their books /not/ be rewritten in AE, even when an edition is launched in the US. (American authors may well equally have insisted that their books not be turned into non-AE. As the publisher I was speaking to is British she has no knowledge of such contracts if they exist in the US).

If this is the case (and both the publisher and academic said so, while both expressing their dislike of AE capitalisation trends and what the latter called the 'wholescale manging of non-AE to suit publishers' profits by trampling over the language use of everyone who isn't American') that does explain the rows over capitalisation on wiki, and how it is AE users like Ec, Mav and Zoe who are so 'anti' capitalisation while it is users of other forms of english other than AE (Tannin, myself, etc) who want it. For if Mav, Ec etc were taught one set of rules on capitalisation usage, we were taught a different one and are infuriated by what, going by what we were taught, seems to be wiki's insistence on wrong use of capitals and non-use of capitals where they should be used.

In the circumstances, we should apply to the same policy as we apply in general to American english versus British english, ie, respect difference and allow users to set the policy in an individual article, based on /their/ usage of capitals in /their/ version of english. As most of the capitals issue involves AE users changing capitalisation applied by non AE users like Tannin in articles the non AE users have written (like on birds), it suggests that that process should stop and the rules on capitalisation should be amended accordingly. The issue is already causing enough rows outside wiki, with the increasing application of AE rules by publishing houses and style books causing major anger (the publisher said one author called it 'American linguistic imperialism', with AE rules being applied even though they conflict with all the grammar books used outside the US.) The best solution is not to enforce AE capitalisation rules but simply to recognise that different english users worldwide use different rules on this issue and to leave it to users, depending on their linguistic culture, to decide on capitalisation just as they decide on spelling in American English, British English or the various subsets of the latter (Hiberno English, Australian English, etc.)

JT

It looks as if there is a genuine cultural aspect, which explains the "US (less KT) v the rest of the World" lineup. I've given up (nearly) wasting time on emails, other than to highlight the above.

If the American style eventually prevails throughout, at least they'll have fun sorting out Wood Warbler/wood warbler and barn owl/Barn Owl, not to mention the interminable lists of doves, hummingbirds and typical owls, some of which of course need to be partially capitalised in the text anyway.

Hope to see you back soon, and good luck with the digiscoping,

Jim

For the third time Jim - will you stop it with the straw man arguments?. Bird capitalization is now the Wikipedia standard. What is at issue is if this makes sense elsewhere. --mav


There was really no article on tapirs? Well, thanks for putting one up! I love tapirs... they're neat. --Dante Alighieri 11:17 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good to see you back. An impressive list of equipment, and I'll look forward to seeing the results. Pity you don't get many European species there, I might have to make the effort to take my own pics. My daughter and her boyfriend are in Oz with a campervan now, heading for some surfers' paradise on the east coast. She said how cold it was after Thailand, only 24C(!), but I can't believe it snows in Oz.

I'm still plugging away at the birds, apart from partly rewriting crocodile and doing species list for that and alligator.

jimfbleak 15:12 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I was in a spin-a-coin position between the Swarovski and the Leica, so I know how good they are. Even at dusk, the light gathering is pretty impressive. I've finally done European Starling. I know this is a favourite of yours, so if you want to put the boot in, be my guest. I'll have to sign off soon to go to Shropshire (work, not birding, unfortunately. jimfbleak 09:57 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi from Adrian. I've added three disambiguations to GoldenEye but haven't been following the big debate on Capital Letters for Bird Names. How should I do the three goldeneye duck names (or should they even be there?)? This question arose from my trip today to The Slimbridge Wildfowl and Wetlands Centre near Bristol (UK) where I live. I took loads of duck pics (including a Barrow's goldeneye (Goldeneye?!) and am now having fun identifying them all. Thanks
Adrian Pingstone 21:34 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I replied to Adrian. For info, Big Iron, a Canadian, is churning out lots of N. Am Duck articles currently. jimfbleak 06:06 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't even realise there was more than one species of lemming, let alone several genera! They must drown before the get to the UK. I've taking to stalking Big Iron as well, since I've actually seen most of his species, except Cinnamon Teal. jimfbleak 13:29 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

mammal definitely a mess, but I don't real know the taxonomy of this class. Btw, in the UK at least Swarovski are increasing their prices by 5% from 1st July (or July 1 or...) jimfbleak 15:07 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, please make downstyle redirects to up-style bird names as per our compromise on this issue. I just made one for Red-rumped parrot. --mav

Hi Tannin,

AAAAGH! I am so fed up with wiki right now! Michael Hardy pissed me off by lowercasing a political science formula that is correctly uppercased and changing the formula. (Only the latest in the long list of political science articlse he has screwed up!) Now there are people who never heard of the thing before I wrote an article on it debating whether it should be in upper case or lower case, whether the formula should have brackets or not have brackets, whether it should be called the Droop Quota (its name) or Droop formula. Jesus, I've taught the fucking thing for eight years but suddenly a group of people who don't know the first thing about it except what they can find on google searches (which as you know more often than not throw up garbage) have set themselves up as experts on the topic. Between that and some anonymous idiot continuously POVing an article on Eamon de Valera, Eloquence trying to rig the election to make sure mm/dd/yy wins, Michael running riot, people allowing Adam and DW to get back on and play their games I am SO UTTERLY FED UP OF WIKIPEDIA. I know exactly how you felt when people who didn't know what they were talking about screwed up your work. It was only the presence of serious people like Deb, John, Mav and yourself that kept me wanting to stay attached to wiki but I am on the brink of quitting for good. I really don't need to put up with this nonsense every day. I am so fed up putting so much time and effort, not to mention all my considerable knowledge, into the thing, only to find your work constantly being screwed up by people who don't have a clue about the topic but still inist on screwing around articles. I really am so fed up of it all. If they muck up the Droop Quota article I will simply walk away. There are a lot better things I could be doing with my life than putting up with this garbage.

OK. Frustration over. I'll crawl off to bed and maybe, just maybe, I might come back to wiki. Bye. FearÉIREANN 01:55 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by. I'm still learning wiki but I noticed that some of my favourite ducks needed attention. Sorry if any North American, pronounced "Canuck", bias slips in. Big Iron

Thanks for your image code in Organ Pipes National Park - it does look better :-) If you're interested in the subject, have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected Areas. D.D. 16:18 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I seem to have lumbered you with the porcupines. I started to update one of the ancient 1911 articles, but found it surprising difficult even to find the names of all but the N Am and European species. At least I found a photo! jimfbleak 16:31 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tony, can you take a look at Finch. I've taken the second pic out once, but it's been put back in. I'm not asking you to join in what might become an edit war, just advice as to whether I'm being unreasonable. Btw, later today, I'll be off-line for a fair while - the builders are coming in at the weekend to replaster my work room - not my idea. jimfbleak 09:07 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Tony, thank you for providing a better explination of your motivation for not wanting my illustration on the finch page than anyone else. I would like some clairification as to why it is "inappropriate in that entry." If you have jumped to the conclusion that it is a "parody" or "cartoon" like User:Jimfbleak then I please ask that you reconsider your stance. I assure you that it is not meant to me either. It is an illustration that I spent considerable amount of time on, and put it in the article, b/c I found it completely appropriate. So please, clairfy your stance. Thanks. MB 14:41 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And for just a second, I thought the bird had its beak pierced.... Koyaanis Qatsi

That is one scary looking duck -- sannse 15:58 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Just gone midday here, Tony. Yes, I was very impressed by the Hardhead. It's just me letting the side dowm with photos now... and it's raining.

Having had a bit of a spree on species accounts, I knocked out basic family articles for barbet, babbler and parrotbill earlier, the motivations being

  • I want to write up Bearded Tit, and
  • We have just booked a fortnight in Sri Lanka for Feb, so I'm inspired to write a couple of tropical accounts.

Please play with Stork, incidently White Stork now has a proper photo, courtesy of Danish wiki.

I've got to go shopping now. Drat.

jimfbleak 11:20 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Re Common Starling. Most links are to Common anyway, so that's fine with me, I'm in the middle of sorting out the quails, partridges and pheasants, so can I leave that to you? jimfbleak 11:35 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I did a lot of work yesterday trying to get some coherence from Galliformes and the families therein. Have a look and play with the layout if you like. I didn't do any thing to megapode because that group is already basically taxonomically sorted, but I wondered if you wanted to say something about the relationships to the other families? I incidentally discovered the taxobox for Plains Wanderer, which I'd obviously started and forgotten, so I'd better finish it sometime. jimfbleak 06:50 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This link makes it clear that Plains Wanderer isn't a Galliforme. On the other hand, its not in my Shorebirds of the World either. Is there any thing salvagable from the stub? If not you might as well delete it. jimfbleak 13:18 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice words about my pics (did you know I do no writing at all?). Yes, that thumbnail of mine was poor although I had no idea until I saw the two side by side. I'll look over my past pics and improve some of them. It's a puzzle because I use the (supposedly) top graphics program of them all, Photoshop Version 6.

Yours pic is certainly better and smaller so I'll download PMView right away. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks.

PS I've just tried my other graphics program, Serif Photoplus 6.0, and get good results like yours. So it looks like I can make decent thumbnails from now on. What a pity I didn't realise Photoshop was useless for thumbnail manufacture (or maybe my copy is corrupt).
Adrian Pingstone 15:19 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

(Several hours later)Yes, the problem is definitely sorted now. I don't need PMView, although thanks for telling me about it, Serif Photoplus is equally good and was already on my computer. I've just uploaded an improved thumbnail to Red-breasted Goose and there's a big difference. What a letdown Photoshop has been, now I have approx 360 pics to correct! I'll do any poor ones over the next months.
Once again, thanks for your comments.
Adrian Pingstone 19:12 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Honestly, Australian Shelduck wasn't a hint!. Since Adrian had pics for that and Common Shelduck, I set up the taxoboxes at the same time, but bookshelf building meant I only had time to write one article. BTW, once the Americans come online, I can't usually access my watchlist without a 504 timeout, so it's better to use my talkpage so that I see the message notice.

(later) I've knocked up a short bit on the above, but if you could just check for inaccuracies, I'd be grateful.
jimfbleak
Comment from Adrian: I'm not one bit happy with the quality of that Australian Shelduck pic, it's not up to my standard. It was a long way away so the pic is a considerable enlargement hence the poor definition. With no telephoto and only a 3 megapixel camera I have limitations! I'm not going back to Slimbridge for several months so I'll get a better one then (bird willing!).
Adrian Pingstone 08:32 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

re buttonquails: This entire group is very marginal in Europe, I've never seen one, and I only wrote it up for completeness, so I'm quite happy for it too be moved (HBW) also makes it an order. I'll do it later unless you get there first.

Btw, your confidence in my being able to identify Adrian's mystery bird was touching. I half expected to find a South American species unidentifible (by me) to family, let alone species!

jimfbleak 12:00 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the Photoshop thing is a mystery. There are only three methods of compression offered .... Baseline Standard, Baseline Optimised and Progressive, and then the degree of compression from 1 to 12. There are no other choices. I've tested the three methods but it makes no difference. Happily, it doesn't matter any more now that I use Serif PhotoPlus. Just for your interest here are all the bird pics I've contributed .....
White-fronted Goose   Black Swan  Bean Goose  
Swan   Snow Goose  Mute Swan  
Dendrocygninae   Tundra Swan   Red-breasted Goose  
Orange-headed Thrush   Canada Goose  
Budgerigar   Birdfeeding   Flamingo  
Common Shelduck
Best Wishes,Adrian Pingstone 12:19 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the confusion in egret: Cattle egret is still Bubulcus ibis in BOU and HBW, and Swinhoe's must be a putative split from something not listed in HBW.

The flying bird isn't a Little Egret as far as I can tell; Little has a narrower bill which is black, not orange, and the feet are bright yellow contrasting with the black legs. It also looks large. My guess would be another Great Egret, which has black feet,

Another nice pic! I'm sure it's Great. The bill is too long for Intermediate, and the neck kink is distinctive. Taxonomy is just a mess at present: HBW does Herons traditionally, and sparrows/finches/buntings as AOU type megafamilies.

There is, as you say no logic to egret names. Why Reddish Egret is an egret and Little Blue Heron (immatures are white) is a heron is beyond me. Jim

I know the feeling. It's like when you spend hours fixing something only to discover you omitted the first step, and have to start again.

An amazing coincidence today. I've been filling in basic articles on some of the families that I know nothing about, like vangas, and I'd just done the species list for motmots when I discovered the link had turned blue. Cordyph had just done an outline article so that he could use a nice image he had. What are the odds?

I'll carry on for the time being with these odd little families. (Not all so little - I was surprised that there were 250+ tanagers, of whish I'd seen exactly one. Jim

You've obviously sorted your problem if the kite is anything to go for. Super picture. You must have been holding a lizard in your teeth to get it that close.

I've boring spent the day performing menial household tasks at the behest of my beloved, but I've cleared a couple more families in between. Jim

It's great to be back!

The Stalin article has been becoming more politicized, meanwhile loosing its focus on social and economic change. I think that you could contribute to a few edits and bring the article up to scholarly standards. It's something, however, that I don't want to touch. After all, there's always a risk that one's contributions could be misconstrued by those familiar only with the most salacious and sensational accounts. Of course, I'm no great admirer of the type of industrialized economy that he forged, well aware of its stagnation in later years, but a focus on industrialization, rising living standards, and urbanization seems to make your contributions a lighting rod for suspicion. You're far less controversial around here than I am (since I have been foolish enough to fall into such controversial topics more often), so other contributors would be more receptive to your additions.

It's only an idea. Feel free to decline. 172

I've just sharpened your Rallidae tall coot pic in Serif PhotoPlus but forgot to compress it as little. So mine is 50K+ but yours is 30K+ (I don't remember the exact numbers). Suggest we leave it at 50K which is not excessive (I think).
I think the sharpening has made a major improvement, every pic of mine on Wikipedia has been sharpened.
Best Wishes, hope you didn't mind me tinkering.
Adrian Pingstone 10:22 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up after me - I didn't recognise Rallidae. I'm not even consistent from one article to the next. Quantity, not quality, is my defining characteristic (marsupial whale - will I ever expunge the shame). I've done at least a basic article for all but two of the outstanding non-passerine families, and I'm knocking out taxobox+ten sentences+species list articles for the Neoptropical endemic passerine families of which I know nothing.

Jim

just seen your message; minimal preference for two bird of prey orders, but no strong feelings; both seem equally common, so whatever you prefer is fine with me. New World Vulture I would prefer as Falconiformes/Accipitriformes rather than Ciconiiformes; Few if any European official lists have followed the AOU on this, and, less logically, it goes against the grain to see vultures lumped with storks.
I like the approach you are taking, and hopefully the passerines might not cause you so many probs.
Lots of Anseriformes article now, User:Big iron is steadily working through the N Am species.

Jim

Just to throw a mini-spanner in the works, Sibley puts the Anseriformes and Galliformes as the basal neognathae, and the BOU has adopted this, so that the these orders will start the list of neognathae orders. I have no problem with the traditional order from penguins etc, but I suppose we ought to consider this: I'll go with whatever you like.

AFAIK the rest is the same. The earlier research struggled to get a sensible basal group (ie, not passerines), so I don't think there are any other changes yet.

Sorry, me again. You reorganisation showed that recurvirostridae and glareolidae lacked family articles, although the stilts and avocets and pratincole and coursers do. We had better agree on who's doing these, or we might get another tinamou clash. I don't mind doing both or either, so it's up to you Jim

Hi! from a summery UK (23 max today, lots of sun, light breeze). I would have looked up www.serif.co.uk because I believe Photo Plus 6 may be available as a free download. However my copy of Bill's ME is very corrupt so I get a freeze if I try to access certain internet sites and Serif is one of them. (I'm having a new "XP Home" PC in four weeks).

Yes, it's easy to use, IMHO.

I find Photoshop easy too, because all I use it for is half a dozen simple operations I apply to every picture.
Here they are (on the pic straight out of the camera) .......

ROTATE if horizon is not level.
CROP very tightly to the subject.
Adjust the brightness using a command called LEVELS.
RESIZE down to 750 pixels wide for a landscape format pic or 600 pixels wide for a portrait format pic.
SHARPEN the 750 or 600 pic (but now I use Serif for this).
RESIZE the (sharpened) pic again, down to the thumbnail size of 300 pixels wide for a landscape format pic or 250 pixels for a portrait format pic. For a taxobox I do 250 pixels wide.
Best Wishes, Adrian Pingstone 16:45 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Interesting experimental comparative taxo layout, looks managable at that width. For info, I'll do the chachalacas, guans etc, broadbills and pitta families next, unless you want do any of them (haven't even looked where they occur yet). Going out for an hour or so first though.... Jim PS Cordyph has some good pics, mainly out of your range though I should think.

Hi Tannin, thanks for your message. I just collected these images from other language wikipedias; the praise should mainly go to Jcwf (Dutch wikipedia) and Franz Xaver (German wikipedia). Cheers -- Cordyph 13:29 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hi, if I posted a picture of a bird, do you think you'd be able to identify it? It's a brown bird living in swampy areas in the southeastern United States. ... Or, given that you're not a local to that area ;-) could you point me to a place that might be able to help me identify it? Thanks. Koyaanis Qatsi 14:03 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I posted it at User talk:Jimfbleak. Thanks for taking a look.  :-) Koyaanis Qatsi 14:44 9 Jul 2003 (UTC) P.S. thanks for the compliment, but I've really got to switch to digital so I can take excessive amounts of pictures without it costing so much.  :-) (there's usually only 2 or 3 out of 24 that I think are worth posting anywhere; one time I got a roll with 6 pictures in it that I thought were good and I was overjoyed.)
Awesome, thanks for your help. I'll upload a cropped version as an alternate image for the cormorant page, or maybe an image for that species specifically, if anyone has enough to say about it to make it a separate page. ... And you must have a digital camera to have taken over 400 shots ... or perhaps you own Eastman Kodak? Koyaanis Qatsi

I thought you might be interested in the opinion poll going on now at Talk:Clitoris. MB 17:57 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Most of the the remaining families with no article are passeriformes. The lists at that article and list of birds don't match up, so I have adopted the following policy:

  • groups I know nothing about, I'm going with HBW, which so far matches passerifomes, except where a family has been lumped, like Sharpbill and plantcutters, I've done an article for that group (both now in Cotingidae)with a redirect from the old family name.
  • there are groups I do know something about, like Old World flycatchers and buntings where the AOU and Europe are radically different. At the moment, they are under the trad. groups, but we might need to have a think about this at some future date.

Jim

most of the species lists for waders, the gulls, terns and auks are complete, done by me. The plovers look complete, but are badly formatted, so I'll redo these. Jim

perching bird -yes: I was thinking the same: Jim

I've done the taxonomy bit and a little tidying on the wader families except Plains Wanderer (ignorance) and Scolopacidae.
Later: I've done a stub for Scolopacidae, species list to follow tomorow
I might have a go at the larids later, time permitting.
I've had a go at the lari, but you had better check. knocking off now, Jim

List of birds now has another red link. I'll do Magellanic Plover unless you are keen to do so.

Looking ahead, with the passerines, my feeling is that we should start the taxonomy for each major group from the family, rather than the order, to avoid a long list of families before what could be a list of up to 300 species, ie

  • Paridae
    • (list)

or maybe

  • Passeriformes (part)
  • Paridae
    • (list)

What do you think? Jim

Hi Tony. You'll probably need to check the Charadriiformes family articles for a start I'm not sure I've always put the correct number of ****s, but that's just search and replace if I've got it wrong. The family lists for most of the recent passerine groups I've done follow a variety of groupings, but all are easily changed. With groups like Ovenbird and Cotinga I wonder about the value of subgroups anyway, when no-one appears to know anything about the family as a whole.

My productivity is likely to drop a bit since I've got some work coming in next week, and, more to the point, my wife Megan, who's a teacher, is now on school hols, and expects me to do all the things I avoid doing around the house and garden.

It's been warm and dry for a week now here -most untypical of a British summer.

Yes, it's a nice layout. I've completed the species list, hope I haven't duplicated. Nice picture - threw me a bit that I know this bird well (v. common in The Gambia, but didn't recognise the name! I'm just finding places for Cordyph's N hemisphere pics to reside pro tem.Jim

I've consolidated Raptor and Bird of prey under the latter title, probably better known. If you want to do it the other way around, make other changes or revert and start again, that's fine with me.

Time to start the barbie now, it's still hot and sunny!.Jim

It appears that I made a mess of trying to fix the User:Tannin page which was redirected to User:Vagina. I tried to put it back, but somehow it got blanked. Major apologies. RickK 06:27 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You've done a lot of work on Grebe!. I've just expanded the flight bit, since up here most grebes migrate, even if it's only to marine waters. The gnatcatcher family doesn't exist in Sibley taxonomy, but I've done it traditionally pro tem until I sort out the problematic groups like finches, thrushes, Old world flycatchers and Emberizidae.

temp is 30 degrees today, 32 predicted tomorrow -- the end of the world is nigh!

jimfbleak 16:10 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

LOL Re: your comment about arrogant British on Phony War. The article was written by someone who, and I quote ".. grew up in Helena, Montana. " :-) Mintguy 04:09 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've changed the adjective; I don't think it could have been commonwealth during WWII, and I suspect that you would prefer allied to empire. jimfbleak 07:06 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Um... I'm sure I've seen the term "British and Commonwealth forces" frequently when reading about WWII. Are you sure that this phrase isn't contemporary to the period. This site [1] says "in 1920s the term "Commonwealth" came into general use to describe Britain and its Dominions". -- copying this to User talk:jimfbleak
Fools rush in... I've reverted to Commonwealth. Jim

Thanks for your kind comments on my contribution to crocodylia, and for the formatting, which looks great. You obviously know a lot more about the classification system than I do, so I'll ask... what should be done about the conflicting material in the crocodile and alligator articles? e.g. Does it really matter if things are called families or subfamilies, if the names and members are the same? There are all sorts of confusions in the alligator article in particular, e.g the variety "Bespectacled caiman" called a species, confusion of the genus caiman with the common name caiman. I guess some of them should be tidied up at least. Andrewa 07:14 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

  1. Caiman
  2. Ibisbill Whilst the "long" form was obviously more comprehensive, the "short" form looks neater for this tiny family, and is less daunting. It also solves the problem of what to do with the passerine families, since they similarly could begin
  • Order: Passeriformes
    • Sittidae
    • 50 other families

or something similar. Jim

I'm getting really confused on passerine taxonomy at the suborder level, an area where my sources are bit weak anyway. I did an article for Tyranni whcih agrees with the DNA study and also your Passerine.

Some sources separate the Broadbills/Pittas/Asites and the NZwrens as suborders, which has some geographical merit, since the S Am, AfroAsian and NZ groups are then distinct, but I'm unsure whether this agrees with the DNA.

In your arrangement, assuming it's complete, I'm not clear where all the S Am families (Cotingas etc) go, since they must be tyrannids. Jim

(later) only ITIS seems to go for four suborders, so I've changed the text and added the S Am groups so that Tyranni and Passeriformes are now consistent.
If you don't agree with this arrangement, it would make sense to keep the two article in sync. Jim

ITIS gives the suborders, perversely after the families.

Lovette's pdf is interesting, and certainly poses some questions. Will you make the NZ wrens a suborder? The tyrannida are nearly all southern hemisphere apart from the some of the pitta-broadbill-asite group, and a few tyrannidae that breed in N.Am, so I'll go with whatever you decide on this.

My problem is with some of the northern groups, where Sibley/AOU is radically out of step with Europe. Part of the problem is that the former rely very heavily on DNA data, whereas Europe is more wary (the first few analyses of Aves gave passeriformes as the basal clade, which has to be a potty result. )

The S.Am orders in Tyranni are, I believe, in line with current thinking, and I've lumped the tradional plantcutters and sharpbill in Cotinga.

The problem groups are likely to be Fringillidae, Emberizidae, Muscicapidae and Turdidae, where there is no sign yet of Europe following Sibley. As indicated previously, I've followed Europe so far, not least because some of Sibley's groups are so large, but some rationalisation will be needed eventually.

I,ve read talk page now; I've moved Dendrocolaptidae (missp); I'll carry on with the mainly northern groups,
Nectarinidae: sunbirds
Dicaeidae: flowerpeckers
Passeridae: sparrows and Australian finches
Fringillidae: true finches

The Estrildidae and Ploceidae deserve articles even if not at family level. There are a lot of Estrildid finches.

two final comments, then I've got to do some paid work!

  • handbook of birds of the World has been my source for species lists. As far as families go, it seems to take a modern but realistic view, except for the four groups I've mentioned.
  • You might need to archive - you're up to 35K