Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Birds WikiProject
General information Main project page talk  → Article requests talk  → Attention needed talk  → New articles talk Project portal talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk Bird Articles By Size talk Collaboration talk Country lists talk Featured topics talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Task forces Domestic pigeon task force talk edit · changes

Shortcut: WT:BIRD

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Contents 1 Suggestion to rename page List of British birds: introduced or feral species 2 More images to plunder (arrrr) 3 GA/FA update 4 Identification query 5 Infobox image size 6 Australian parrot id 6.1 ? another Red-rumped Parrot? 6.2 ? lorikeet? 7 Lorikeet id 8 FAC and PR 9 Distribution maps 10 Glossy Black Cockatoo 11 WHOAMI 12 IUCN 13 Colours 14 mainpage - next 6 hours only... 15 Depressed 16 Standing list of articles with quality pictorial content 17 Bolding Monotypic Genera? 18 birds of prey taskforce 19 White Wagtail races and distribution 20 FAC and PR news 21 Bird Height 22 Birders Biogs (HELP!!) 23 E.Cavendish Taylor 24 Reference nightmare 25 Cool tool 26 GA/FA 26.1 To GAN? 26.2 To FAC? 27 Aleutian Canada Goose or Aleutian Cackling Goose? 28 Confirm Identification of Crescent Honeyeater

[edit] Suggestion to rename page List of British birds: introduced or feral species

Many of the species listed on this page are neither introduced per se or feral, but rather escapees from (some sort of) captivity. I propose, therefore, that the index be changed to reflect this fact, e.g. List of British birds: introduced, escaped and feral species—GRM (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No need to change it as feral basically means escaped, gone back to the wild etc. Just leave it as it is.--Sting Buzz Me... 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sting, I'd have to disagree with that definition as used in zoology. An animal is considered feral if its ancestors were once domesticated (not just captive), escaped and turned "wild". Technically, there are very few truly feral bird species in the UK, e.g. domestic variants of Mallard and Feral Pigeon. (Muscovy Duck would also fit in that category, if the BOU upgraded it to category C.) Most others are simply escapees from captivity. Some of these breed and are on the official list (e.g. Ruddy Duck), while others have either not bred or not established "self-supporting" populations (e.g. Budgerigar). Thus, I deduce that "escaped" is the only valid status for many of the species in that list... Does anyone concur?—GRM (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Should escapees even be listed? Most lists don't include them, although guide books mention them if they are regular escapees. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a whole other question! (Somehow that doesn't read right, but you know what I mean.) The fact is that various bodies do keep records of escapees, as they do affect the local ecology and can lead to naturalization. Right now, I think the point is that "most" escaped species are listed, so the name needs changing (IMHO)—GRM (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure there's a consensus about that usage? I found that some people use "feral" that way, as in "stoats, feral ferrets, and feral house cats" in New Zealand [1], but I also found "feral house mice" [2], [3] and "feral H. auropunctatus" [4] (apparently the Small Asian Mongoose). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about domesticated as opposed to captive terminology? If you have a herd of cattle out in a paddock and leave them alone for years are they domesticated or captive? They'd be pretty wild if you went to do anything with them (drenching etc). Apart from breeding pigeons I also keep bees. Are my bees domesticated or captive? Is there a source for, "An animal is considered feral if its ancestors were once domesticated (not just captive)"?--Sting Buzz Me... 05:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Sting--for whatever it's worth I recall seeing at some point a definition of domestication (presumably from zoology). Wish I could remember where I saw it but I believe there were some criteria for domesticated vs simply captive. One that I recall very vividly was a smaller brain--a domesticated descendant had a smaller brain than the wild ancestor. I think another criterion was the ability to breed easily in captive conditions. If I can find this discussion, I'll post a link for you. There were definite specific criteria for an animal to be considered domesticated--it wasn't just simply keeping them in captivity.--Onorio (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm working on finding the definition, but this is a page about British birds, so British usage would be appropriate here... Back soon :-) —GRM (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Lever, Christopher, 1996. Naturalised birds: feral, exotic, introduced or alien? British Birds 89(8):367–368.

Now, I admit that this is only a letter and not the source I was looking for; however, Lever defines "feral" as "An animal that has reverted to the wild from domestication. 'Feral' should never be used to describe the naturalisation of a wild (i.e. non-domesticated) species." He goes on to say "I agree that mere keeping in captivity does not constitute domestication, and that the 'Feral Pigeon' [Rock Dove] Columba livia and perhaps the Muscovy Duck Cairina moschata are the only British feral birds." Note also this Christopher Lever is the author of at least four books on "Naturalized" animals! Is this sufficient evidence (or precedent) to use the narrower definition of the word, especially in the context of British birds?—GRM (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I overlooked your comment for quite a while.

Your example certainly shows that one expert uses "feral" as you define it, as well as whoever Lever was agreeing with. It also shows that others use the broader definition: "belonging to or forming a wild population ultimately descended from individuals which escaped from captivity or domestication" (New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). Otherwise he'd have no one to argue with!

The difference tempts me to avoid the question. Maybe the article could be titled "List of British birds: established introduced and escaped species" or "... species established by introduction or escape".

In the article body, I don't think you're justified in assuming a definition that disagrees with the most prominent British dictionary. If you want to restrict "feral", maybe the best way is to say something explicit like "in accordance with Christopher Lever, an authority on naturalized animals, and other zoologists, 'feral' is used to mean..." Or if most or all British zoologists use "feral" to mean "descended from domestic animals", you could say something like "'Feral' is used in the zoological sense: ..." but I think that needs more justification than you've mentioned so far. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More images to plunder (arrrr)

This guy has a bunch of Caribbean species including Cuban and Jamaican endemics [5] all on Wikipedia-friendly licences. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching Flickr for images I can use also. I found one of my pictures I took of one of my own pigeons. It is a picture I originally uploaded to Wikimedia for use on a Wikipedia article. Now I see it on Flickr but it's marked as copyright? How can that be when I originally uploaded it with a GNU Free license? the picture is of an Australian Performing Tumbler by the way.--Sting Buzz Me... 04:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer, they can't. You should ask Flickr to take it down/change. It is always worth checking the profile of a user who is giving free images away on Flickr to see how legit they look. It is usually fairly obvious if someone has uploaded images that are not theirs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm happily plundering Flickr, there are some African species which now got their first photo on Commons. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA/FA update

• Common Treecreeper, the archetypical LBJ, is now at GA
• White Wagtail is collaboration of the month

Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have described the Treecreeper as an atypical LBJ, as it is fairly easy to identify in most of its range. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

At least easily identified as a treecreeper. Telling Common and Short-toed apart when they don't sing and you don't hold them in the hand is impossible. The old Brehm had his contemporaries going nearly crazy over his insistence that there were 2 species of treecreepers in Germany... probably the first case of scientific study of cryptic species (not a cryptic species complex however, as they are not close relatives) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Identification query

I'm not sure Image:Oenanthe finschii.jpg is actually a Finsch's Wheatear as captioned - any other views? SP-KP (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

White-crowned Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucopyga) IMHO Aviceda talk 08:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll update the Commons entry and remove it from the Finsch's article. SP-KP (talk) 11:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this 100% confirmed yet? because the image would need a new name too. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, the only other black-breasted wheatear, Black Wheatear, has a plain black head. jimfbleak (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re-uploaded from flickr as Image:Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucopyga)2.jpg. Old bad named file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it's still incorrectly labeled. The bird is a White-crowned Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucopyga), not a Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucura). Right now, the picture title is a mix of the two, with the scientific name of one species and the common name of the other. MeegsC | Talk 09:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, Image:White-crowned Black Wheatear (Oenanthe leucopyga)2.jpg is the new name. Old badname file will be deleted after a day or two. Snowman (talk) 09:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Snowman! MeegsC | Talk 10:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image size

In the English wiki the default size of the taxobox bird images seems too small, and some of the other language wikis have a bigger default size. See Sulphur-crested Cockatoo and the German wiki page Gelbhaubenkakadu. Do the English wiki taxoboxes need to have a larger default size? Snowman (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

On the main page to this discussion page there is an example of a taxobox where the image_width is set to 250px. It this a infobox image size to be copied throughout the WP:Birds project? Snowman (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually use 240px, 220px and 200px depending on image format. Rarely it is necessary to use 260px. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure; so do I, but is it correct? Did you know that there is a wiki recommendation (although rarely used) to size images in the introduction (I guess that includes the infobox) to 300px if enlargement is needed to show small detail, so that people who use a fixed default setting (the max in 300px) do not see the image any smaller. Snowman (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Crikey moses; we're not still going on about this are we?!

Wikipedia:Taxobox usage#Images states: [Disclaimer: I wrote this.]

"By default, the image width is determined by users' default thumb size preferences. In general, it is recommended that these preferences be honoured. In some cases, however, it may be desirable to overrule the default size; this can be achieved by use of the image_width parameter. Note that the Manual of Style recommends that if the default thumb size of a lead image is to be overruled, it should be made at least 300px wide, so that users whose default thumb size is 300px do not end up with a lead image smaller than the other images in the article."

Unless someone wishes to challenge this principle, then there should be no such thing as a "default size of the taxobox bird images".

Hesperian 12:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I very much wish to challenge than, because a) it is still SOP IIRC to give lead images a fixed width because the standard thumb size is 180px which is very small, and this lead image exception to the "thumbs only" rule is partly because b) as I said below, most readers do not have user accounts and are stuck with the default settings.

en.wikipedia has probably around 50,000-60,000 active editors, of which about one tenth are regular editors (There are also many 10,000s of zombies, bots and sock puppets). That makes a few thousand people who probabaly use the thumb size parameter, and a few 10,000s who possibly use it.

Meanwhile, according to Alexa, ~5% of global internet usership visits en.wikipedia daily. That's about 66 million people. So following your proposal would negatively affect some tens of millions of people (all those of the 66 million that use display settings of 1152 and up, which is probably about half) and benefit a few 10,000 people. I therefore reject it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that refers to the default size of videos in the text of a page? Snowman (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What is to be done with the taxobox example on the main page to this talk page? Snowman (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite Hesperian's opinion and the quoted bit from Taxobox usage, the custom that is by far the most common in use is to fix infobox at 250px. Quite a few taxoboxes have this built in to them automatically, or use it manually to keep it 250. Not only is it beneficial for the template, but it is customary that the first image in an article be a large size. VanTucky 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

VanTucky, you forgot to read the thread before commenting. If my default thumb size is set to 300px, then your 250px setting means I get served a lead image that is smaller than the other images. Is that what you want? Hesperian 06:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is the default size of the infobox image so small? Can it be changed? It would solve a lot of problems if it was larger like on other language wikis; it could be automatically set to about 240px (or another agreed size). It seems to me that if the infobox image is set to 300px, there is a good chance that someone will change it to about 240px. Snowman (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This project should not be defining a "default" size. Best practice is to omit the size parameter altogether, thereby honouring user thumb size preferences. Hesperian 13:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not for the article's lead image (which for ToL is the taxobox image), because with the current default settings it gets awfully small. If you have images that are very low and wide, it makes little sense to use images at all in the taxobox as their purpose is to illustrate the article subject. If you can't identify the taxon from the taxobox image, then the image is simply too small at any resolution higher than 1024 horizontal. And "honouring user thumb size preferences" - of the overall number of readers, only a fraction is able to use thumb size preferences because the others don't have user accounts. Altogether I'd guess the amount of Wikipedia readership that actually uses thumb size prefs is not higher than 5%. I don't use them because I want to know how the article looks on the average readers's screen (I have 1152 px horizontal presently, which is roughly average I'd guess - few people use 800px and lower these days, and few use higher than 1600px horizontal). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I meant the size that the infobox software displays the image size without any user settings. Snowman (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK this is a MediaWiki server setting and the language wikis decide on these configurations. One also sees for instance that some language wikis require a preview before a save on edit. I have edited some of the example of taxobox usage on the Bird projects to skip explicit setting of the width parameter and also move from the ancient multi-template box. There are still several trivial examples - without picture and with picture for every taxon level is too trivial to really include. Shyamal (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Australian parrot id

Photo taken in Melbourne of a parrot on flickr. Identification problem. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that is a Budgerigar. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have my bird book with me but genus Neophema for sure. Not a Budgie. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is a Red-rumped Parrot, genus Psephotus. Tricky one though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Male or female or juvenile? Snowman (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I have uploaded it to wiki commons and described it as a male Red-rumped Parrot. The wiki page has already got a good photo of a male from a slightly different angle that shows its red rump, so I did not link it to the English wiki page. Snowman (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ? another Red-rumped Parrot?

I would like another opinion on this Image:Mallee Ringneck Bowra1.jpg on commons. It looks a bit like the Red-rumped Parrot. ?male, female, juvenile or hybrid? Snowman (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not a Red-rumped, with that yellow collar! MeegsC | Talk 19:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, it is a Ringneck. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Quite difficult to sex some Aus Parrots such as Ringnecks, Rosellas, male usually brighter (my bird probably a female or juv) Aviceda talk 05:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Southern Mallee Ringneck (B. b. barnardi), northern birds are lighter with much more yellow on the belly. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The wiki page called it Barnardius zonarius barnardi. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In that case it's just Mallee Ringneck - when 2 species of Barnardius are accepted (e.g. in Juniper & Parr), "Mallee Ringneck" becomes the name for the whole of B. barnardi.

The entire ringneck-rosella group is notoriously unstable taxonomically - Joseph & Wilke titled their 2006 paper very nicely, and aptly. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ? lorikeet?

This parrot is tagged Lorikeet and Australia on flicker, but what is it? It is a juvenile? Which subspecies? Snowman (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suspect hybrid Rainbow Lorikeet, certainly not a wild Australian one! Aviceda talk 05:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a hybrid. Following this, the obvious possibilities are:

Trichoglossus haematodus red-scaly-breasted x Glossopsitta concinna

T. haematodus yellow-breasted x Eos squamata

T. haematodus yellow-breasted x Trichoglossus ornatus

T. haematodus either breast color x Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus

T. haematodus either breast color x Pseudeos fuscata

T. haematodus red-scaly-breasted x T. haematodus yellow-breasted

(the red-breasted T. haematodus races may or may not have a dark blue scale pattern on the breast, the yellow-breasted ones always lack it IIRC)

In a pinch I'd go for the first, as it conveniently explains the red forehead. How the red of the breast was lost and how come the wings are so blue is hard to explain though. The possibility that some color mutant of T. haematodus was involved needs to be considered, but I don't think these are frequently found. If you'd cross an anerythric (blue-and-white) T. haematodus of a red-scaly-breast race with G. concinna, the result would probably look exactly like the bird in the photo. But it seems that such color variants don't exist, at least not on a regular basis. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lorikeet id

Can anyone identify this lorikeet. It is a flickr photograph taken at Woburn Safari Park, England. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

definitely not an Australian species (sound of rummaging around on bookshelf)......

I think it will be one of the many subspecies of Trichoglossus haematodus, Rainbow Lorikeet, some of which look very different from those in Australia. However which one I have no idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Or a hybrid with the above species and the Pohnpei Lorikeet or something. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

They have got a lot of lorikeets at Woburn Safari Park, so it might be a hybrid; perhaps, between two subspecies of Rainbow Lorikeet. Snowman (talk) 11:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Could always email 'em and ask I s'pose....curious now. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Their education department is closed until Friday afternoon. It looks too good for a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

But the color pattern is strikingly different from any good species - no yellow, green wings, red crown? If it were not for the red crown, it couls be an erythristic (yellow -> red) T. haematodus.

Bird Hybrid Database gives a list of possibilities. Trichoglossus haematodus x Lorius garrulus or Eos bornea or Eos squamata seem the best matches. T. haematodus x Eos reticulata is not a known combination but it would probably produce an even better match.

As a rule-of-thumb: if one parent has blue or yellow where the other has green, the offspring has green. If one parent has yellow where the other has red, the offspring has red. Not always, but usually.

Dummy response to help auto-archival. Shyamal (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and PR

OK folks, couldn't leave Common Treecreeper alone at FAC, so now White-winged Fairy-wren is there too. Also, Puerto Rican Amazon has passed GA and is at PR before going to FAC soon I think...and White Wagtail is our collaboration after Cockatiel failed to take off...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I just nominated Flammulated Flycatcher for a Good Article. A bit on the short side, but it is complete, so lets see how it goes. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And it just passed. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Distribution maps

Is there a "standard" or easy-to-use program available for generating distribution maps?—GRM (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually take a good hardcopy source or (for threatened species) the BirdLife datazone and pick a blank map from Commons and paint away. YMMV but given it's a pixel job I use Paint Shop Pro. If you're a Linux geek, you'll probably want to use The Gimp. I find Photoshop too cumbersome for fine pixel work. I have not yet grokked SVG art; if there is anything bettern than Inkscape (which is a hell to use for complex patterns) I'd be interested to know. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are doing an Australian range-map might be worth checking-out [6], type in species-name. Aviceda talk 02:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gimp is also available on Linux, Windows, Mac OS X, and SkyOS. Snowman (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks—GRM (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Glossy Black Cockatoo

I've just added a couple of recent images on to this page Glossy_Black_Cockatoo and added a note but have messed up the formatting a bit, would appreciate someone having a crack at tidying it up (Yes Snowman, will try and fix-up the video-clip but will be away for a fortnight from this weekend...Silktail, Orange Dove, Collared Petrel shots on the way, I hope!) Aviceda talk 06:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is too little text text for the images probably, but I have tried to improve the page presentation and page organisation. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tried to beef up the text a bit. Am working my way through some of the picture-laden stubs. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WHOAMI

Image:DSC 1390 2320925529.jpg Uploaded this guy from Flickr to Commons. Taken in Kruger National Park.

How about a juvenile European Roller? They're pretty common down there in the winter. When was it taken (which month)? MeegsC | Talk 23:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here and all this time I thought the rolling trait only occurred in pigeons and lilac breasted rollers. Learn something new every day.--Onorio (talk) 00:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Writing silly comments does not advance the discussion. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I for one don't mind an occasional comment that doesn't advance the discussion. In fact, I've made some. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Talk page and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Snowman (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You may want to take a look at this page Snowman WP:CIVIL. You may want to reread this part: "Behaviors that can contribute to an uncivil environment: Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")." Now, having said that, I posted something a bit off-topic and I'm sorry. Can we let it go now please? --Onorio (talk) 09:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that you said that your comment was a bit off-topic. What if two dozen editors arrived here and wrote comments that were a bit off-topic? In retrospect I could have rephrased my general comment, and I am sorry that you found it a bit abrasive. See WP:AGF.

The camera meta data indicates photo was taken on 27 January. Snowman (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IUCN

Back on the block again... final exams & thesis work's gonna take its time the next months, but after that and gratuitous BBQ'n'loafing Wikipedia's gonna take third place. Now, I only hope I get a good a good thesis... the studies reform sucks, let me tell you. What glory is there in Cooking with Crème de Caenorhabditis elegans? I could try and get to describe another hummingbird, but I'd have to apply 6 months in advance for that. Ah well.

Anyways, I have gone over the 2008 Red List updates which BirdLife released about a week ago - some anonymous user had already statted with some and deserves to be duly mentioned - and incorporated them, as well as the new splits recognized by BirdLife. Mainly OW babblers, to which I'm developing a kind of love-hate relationship.

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colours

Now I know how to do tables, I've been creating them everywhere. At Oystercatcher I added a header too, which ideally should match the taxobox colour, but the template only seems to take colour names, not #D3D3A4 (would have been fine with pink taxoboxes - grrrr). Any thoughts? jimfbleak (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have made the heading light blue, but it colour could be changed now that I have put in the correct format. There are now some genuses which have a complete or near complete set of photographs of the living species. Your project might discuss how to organise species photographs on a genus page now that more and more photographs are being added. Some have a gallery (Ara (genus)) and some use a table (Oystercatcher). I have suggested that the "Ara (genus)" page is a collaboration topic. Snowman (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How's this? MeegsC | Talk 14:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks guys jimfbleak (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mainpage - next 6 hours only...

The Forest Kingfisher looks nice on the main page..(he he he). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Nests in Termite mounds in trees" - is that correct ? It must be inside arboreal termite nests - mounds implicitly suggests being on the ground. Shyamal (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good pick up. Nests is more apt. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct word is termitaria. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Depressed

Hey all, anyone wanna notch up an easy GA, Great Auk would not be a tall order. I started doing it but I find extinct critters really depressing....:( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone wanting to do so is well advised to get access to the Springer or Blackwell journals archive first. J. Ornithol. and Ibis carry a lot of the original studies than were published in the first few decades after the bird's extinction - or rather, from that time's perspective, the results of the expeditions that actually ascertained the bird's extinction. Actually, the summary of Wolley's study is only in J. Ornithol in German, as the Ibis issue of October 1861 has for whatever reason not been digitized. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standing list of articles with quality pictorial content

I've started working on Tawny Owl - as Casliber indicated, there are lots of images at commons, it's got a map, and I've got some decent, if elderly, book resources plus Mabey for the legends. I think that this has great potential as a future GA/FA, so please feel free to chip in. On the subspecies, is the World Owl Trust a reliable source at that level?

Jim, I've got HBW here, so can put that info in if you want me to... MeegsC | Talk 13:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be great, The Owl Trust ref might get through GA, but I think it might struggle at FA, thanks. jimfbleak (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The subspecies listed are the same as those found in Clements Birds of the World: A Checklist, though they're in a different order... MeegsC | Talk 15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto HBW. MeegsC | Talk 16:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, great picture in the taxobox. Tough call on using the website as an RS. My gut feeling says try to use books or journals if at all possible, but the website is ok at a pinch...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding Monotypic Genera?

If a bird, like the Flammulated Flycatcher, is in a monotypic genus, should the genus name in the lead be bolded? I thought it was, but someone debolded it while it was a DYK. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I bold it, as per the SOP "the article's subject should be bolded". Since the article's subject is the genus as well as the species in these cases... (Perhaps it was debolded by someone who doesn't know what a monotypic genus is) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] birds of prey taskforce

for those who are still interested, i am still trying to headline a birds of prey task force. please leave me a message on my talk page if you are interested. Raptors cover such a large `space, they need a task force. i mean, the domestic pigeon has a task force! come on! -Tobi4242 (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

What would a potential raptor task force accomplish that this project as a whole could not? Could you outline some specifics? Also, while I am no expert on the Domestic Pigeon task force, I think that it is seperate because there are around 100 different breeds that are not species or subspecies but rather domesticated forms, similar to what happened with the dog. Additionally, domestic pigeons make up a pretty sizable hobby. I think this project focuses on wild birds and related fields more than on domesticated. Feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting here.

Oh, and while I'm talking on raptors, there is a potential problem that an IP caught in the American Kestrel article that I moved to the talk page. If Tobi4242 or someone else wants to take a looksee, go right on ahead; I won't have time until tomorrow or Wendsday (exams). Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rufous. Thanks for championing our cause :-)

Actually Tobi, I was just looking at a document from the EE (which is the major organization in Europe for pigeon breeders). They have 405 different registered breeds of pigeons. So that's 405 breeds that we ultimately want to at least review and maybe even make articles for them. There's a bit of work that we need to get done to polish our little corner of wikipedia. Mind you that's potentially 405 breed articles; that's not even considering the genetics of the domesticated pigeon (which includes 40 or 50 mutations not found in the wild stock and currently only documented by scattered webpages) and a bit of other stuff regarding domestic pigeons.--Onorio (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That gives me an idea for a collaboration...getting the current taxonomy right for Bird of prey....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

ok. ok, ok... i get it. there are a lot of breeds of pigeons, but there are more breeds of birds of prey. and i want to stay on subject. we need a birds of prey task force that i proposed in FEBUARY. i still need a co-header to help work with me, for i cant do it myself. so please people, no more pigeons on this subject, lets debate the taskforce idea. i say it is a good idea. we could use one. -Tobi4242 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this hawk on flickr what is says it is? Snowman (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

My first impression was to say it was a light morph Harlan's Hawk Buteo j. harlani but the photo says it was taken in California which while not impossible would put it a bit out of normal range. If you scroll down and look at the second photo you can see it looks a lot more red. I'm assuming that is the same bird. They are both banded. I think the reason it looks a little off is that the camera is trying to auto-white balance with noting for reference but a blue sky so there are some color issues with the camera making it look more brown than it really is but yes, it looks like a red-tailed hawk. Kirkmona (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was wondering if is was suitable to upload to commons. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White Wagtail races and distribution

While attempting an illustration to add to the current collaboration article, I found that there are few (none accessible to me in any case) sources that indicate the global distribution of the more well marked races and their colour patterns. One illustration with Japanese captions comes close http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~XC9T-TKN/ph_htm/ph_wtail.htm but does not seem to indicate the sources. If someone has access to sources material, I could attempt incorporating the information into an illustration. Shyamal (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FAC and PR news

Common Treecreeper and White-winged Fairy-wren both through FA, Flammulated Flycatcher through GA. Well done folks jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hehehe, 50 FAs and 50 GAs by the end of December 31? The challenge is on....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, unlikely at GA, since they get pushed upstairs. At least half the GAs are potential FAs, White Wagtail is current collab, but appears to be losing momentum, there's bound to be another fairy-wren at some stage, and I'm working up Europe's most dangerous bird jimfbleak (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Aargh! Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe a total of 100 between GA and FA by year's end? I'm working on Rufous-crowned Sparrow (again) right now, with New World vulture and a couple of extinct birds on the horizon. Also, I've noticed that Sabine's Sunbird has done wonders to the antbird article.

I'd say there are a quite a few articles not too far off GA anyway...Ostrich and Great Auk are two which need referencing. I haven't seen Antbird...Huia is another being worked on at the moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Antbird is in my rest period at the moment (I work an article up to nearly GA standard, then rest it for a few weeks, so that I can approach it with fresh eyes for the final push.) but I could have it GA in a week. Trogon and Procellariiformes are also approaching that quality too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bird Height

I just noticed that most bird articles have no indication of their height, and I'm working on an user sub-page that is a list of birds taller than 6ft. I need all of the birds taller than 6ft. It would also probably raise them to featured or good article status. --PrehistoricManiac08 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Among living species, I believe the list is: Ostrich, Emu, Southern Cassowary. See cassowary for heights of that last—apparently most are under 6 feet, but some individuals are well over. As that example shows, it depends on your definitions. The Firefly Encyclopedia of Birds says that cranes "are the tallest flying birds; some species stand up to 1.8m (6ft) high." Are you accepting species for which 6 feet is the upper limit or near it?

Anyway, birds' height is somewhat problematic, as unlike people, most bird species seldom stand anywhere near straight. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Height is not a standard measurement for birds, look at the picture of the wagtails above this post, they just don't stand straight. In fact length and wingspan, while often quoted, are not standard measurements either, and often measured badly with few replicates. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the top of a Southern Cassowary head is about 4 ft from the ground when it is standing up (or walking with its normal gait). Perhaps, only the Ostrich's head and some cranes are more than six ft from the ground when standing up or walking. Snowman (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It would be featured list, not FA, but it would need a substantial list to justify that jimfbleak (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elephant Bird, an extinct species. Snowman (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends what in meant by tall? It is when they are stretching up "on tiptoe" or walking with their normal gait. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Birders Biogs (HELP!!)

Hi guys, I'm a newby on wiki project birds, thanks for your welcome, I've been working on two big naturalists biogs Mark Cocker and David Tipling, Mark Cockers biog is doing great but I'm having a little trouble with David Tipling's page.....someone has just tagged it for speedy deletion. Tipling is the photographer in loads of birdwatching books, and I'd hate to see the article deleted.....can you guys help at all??Pamela Gardiner (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your help, its looking a lot more wikified now! Pamela Gardiner (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E.Cavendish Taylor

Does anyone know his first name? this man was an ornithologist that wrote a book titled Five months in the West Indies part 2, Martinique, Dominica, and Puerto Rico all the way back in 1864. We need to find his name to complete the last issues presented in Puerto Rican Amazon's peer review before finally taking a shot at WP:FAC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, his name was Edward, Guettarda found it. That's what we get for quoting people that died over a century ago, cheers. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference nightmare

Zoonomen helpfully lists all the authors for subspecies of Tawny Owl. Less helpfully, no paper titles are given, so, for example, you get

S. a. nivicolum Blyth, Edward (1845). "". The Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 14: 185.

I cannot find any of the paper titles anywhere. I can obviously get rid of the "" by using untemplated refs instead of citejournal, but that doesn't change the fact that the refs lack a title, bound to be picked up at GA/FA. Options:

1. Leave out ssp full refs, not required anyway, since eg (Blyth,1845) will normally do. However, that means there is no ref for the ranges either
2. Put in, explain when challenged that the refs are unambiguous, but the titles cannot be found

Advice or any other suggestions please jimfbleak (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have found that old papers seem to lack titles from time to time. It is insanely frustrating and I have had the same problem. Especially when there may not be consensus on the number of subspecies or which are recognised (one of the reasons I gave up on European Robin once it got to GA until someone gets the Lack book to clear up a few things). Consensus on australian birds is online but I have no idea on european birds. Given that GA technically needs refs for material likely to be challenged, you could leave with Zoonomen or nothing and then leave a note on the talkpage saying it iwll be rectified by the time it gets to FAC. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to answer the question, I would put the ref and as much info as possible. Some older refs seem to use the name as a title. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Here are some Blyth papers from the year 1845 - page number match suggests the first one.

• Blyth,E (1845) Notices and descriptions of various new or little known species of birds. Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 14, 173-212; 546-602.
• Blyth,E (1845) "On the Leiotrichane birds of the Subhemalayas" by B.H.Hodgson, Esq. with some additions and annotations, - a synopsis of the Indian Pari. Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 13, 933-944.
• Blyth,E (1845) Drafts for a Fauna Indica. No 1. the Columbidae, or Pigeons and Doves. Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 14(2), 845-878.

Shyamal (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions and Blyth link. I'll see if I can get a few more, and think again jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cool tool

Hey all, I asked Franamax to make a tool here, and this is what s/he came up with. Good for keeping track of which articles one may have contributed alot to on the trek to GA or FA eh? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA/FA

I'm going to start Tawny Owl flying down the perilous route to GA/FA soon. I'd welcome any improvements or comments before doing so. On the ssp range issue, I've decided to rely on the Owl Trust ref for now and see what happens. Also note that Shyamal has Ant at FAC, although that's not strictly speaking a bird. jimfbleak (talk) 07:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it should be ok for GA anyway. I was musing on a push and here are my thoughts on some potential GAs, or current GAs heading (maybe) to FAC. Feel free to add any ideas here or on the talk pages.

[edit] To GAN?

• Ostrich desperately needs some book sourcing, but otherwise may not be too far off GA.
• Huia shouldn't be too far off GAN, but I was leaving that to the principal contributor(s) who wanted to work on it a bit more.
• White Wagtail and Tawny Owl both being worked on.
• Great Auk a moderate tidy-up.

[edit] To FAC?

• American Robin looks within striking distance of FAC but we really need an expert to adjudicate on the molecular material in the taxonomy section. :(
• Crested Shelduck may be not too far off (??)
• Puerto Rican Amazon is being worked on.
• Osprey needs some tidying. Also a headache as the australian subspecies has been recognised as a species by some (universal?)
• Northern Cardinal ??

Antbird is at peer review. I mostly need copy editing and info on what still needs fleshing out/is unclear. FA is on the way. Thanks. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

May give her a looksie after doing ant, hopefully tommorrow. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aleutian Canada Goose or Aleutian Cackling Goose?

Um ... it appears that the same bird appears in Wikipedia's pages in separate contexts as the Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) and as the Aleutian Cackling Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia). Maybe someone who is up-to-date and knows what taxonomic standards are used here could clear up the confusion? Best, Eliezg (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confirm Identification of Crescent Honeyeater

I added to an image to Crescent Honeyeater, could someone with more expertise than me confirm my identification. Not shown from that photo but the wings do have the appropriate yellow. Noodle snacks (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks right to me. Nice image! Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)