Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Bird Portal DYK Question

At Portal:Birds, everything rotates except for the DYK section. I don’t have the technical know-how myself, but how can it be set up to choose three random DYKs from a nice long list? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very technical myself, but I think it's something like this {{Random portal component|max=12|header=''Did you know?''|subpage=DYK}}. You'd have to set up a subpage for it though and I have no idea how to do that. Corvus coronoides talk 21:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I set up the other ones, so I can do it if you tell me which DYKs you want to rotate. --heyjude. 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I set five DYK pages to rotate through. I don't know if it can be set to pick three from a list, but the way I did involves setting up subpages which rotate at random. It can rotate something like one hundred different pages through, but I only made five for now. I'll add more this afternoon. --heyjude. 13:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC

On the crest of a wave after Spurs' magnificent 5-1 Carling Cup second leg victory over local rivals Arsenal, I've decided to go for broke and send House Martin to fac. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that American Robin is about ready for a shot at GA. Anyone want to nominate it? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. (PS: Agree about Spurs too, 'bout time something good happened...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll review it later Jim, but I would have waited before adding multiple citations of the same reference in consecutive lines, I too was unaware that anything had changed in that respect, and it is easy to get people opposing due to overcitation. I wish people would talk about it rather than sprinkle cite tags like so much icing sugar. Oh, and BTW, down with those manager-stealing Spurs! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
It's damned if you do and damned if you don't. I agree that sprinkling cn tags at random is pretty negative editing, unless you are really challenging whether House Martins are blue above with a white rump, but 20 cn tags will shoot down a FA whatever the motives of the tagger. At least if I'm accused of over-referencing, it's clear why I've had to respond to supposed challenges to the veracity of what I've said. If it was someone else's article I'd probably have reverted most of the cn tags, but it's an obvious non-runner with a CoI, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes in nomenclature

What is WP policy on changing nomenclature? For example, the BOU has recently made a number of changes to the generic names of several groups (esp. tits, gulls and terns)—should I go ahead and make these changes in the English Wikipedia, or not? Thanks—GRM (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I see the section on the Project page, but how do we reconcile the differences; e.g. if British Birds adopts the changes already adopted by the BOU (that said, BB used to pre-empt BOU!), should Wikipedia follow suit, or stick with HBW?
Similarly, some time ago, I developed the stub for Yellow-billed Kite when the entry under Black Kite suggested that they should be considered separate, but (of course) HBW still has Black Kite only.
Grateful for advice. Thanks—GRM (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, people, please help me here :-)
I now see that HBW has an online "Internet Bird Collection" (referenced from the HBW page). Can I assume that any taxonomic changes adopted there are "de facto" appropriate for Wikipedia? Thanks—GRM (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The online HBW list is not generally updated and is out of step with even the books. It has been suggested above that we switch to Gill and Wright ([1])but we tend to use changes suggested by scientific literature rather than following any particular ornithological union. For a better idea of the ad hoc taxonomic system we use check out the edits of User:Dysmorodrepanis. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Lacking Dysmorodrepanis's knowledge, what I do is follow HBW unless I can find a real consensus of more recent sources. Or at least a reasonable majority. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to deviate from HBW it pays to know your stuff. Whenever I take on a project I tend to do a lot of reading around so I feel I can confidently move away from HBW and defend the changes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
The time to tell me that was before we finished off the species and genera at fairly high speed. But as I don't have the resources to follow your excellent practice (if you mean figuring out which authorities are reliable and which aren't), or not in the time I plan to spend on Wikipedia bird articles, I won't be disagreeing with HBW from now on. (And I only did it maybe two times.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
HBW is a good basis, but grossly out-of-date in the families dealt with in the first volumes some 10-15 years ago. Just check the broad use of Larus - I've just added a brief sentense to that article, mentioning that the genus as defined in the list isn't monophyletic (or even close). I might actually update the list at some point (and also similar problematic comments in related articles, e.g. that Leucophaeus is monophyletic, and that there still are serious disagreements over the use of Xema). So if you know of good evidence for using a different taxonomy than that used in HBW, I can only recommend making the change. For this the various lists (e.g. BOU) can be of help for pointing out cases where the HBW taxonomy needs an update, but I wouldn't recommend making any taxonomic changes unless knowing they are based on solid published evidence, which unfortunately can be a bit difficult to judge for non-biologists and alike. Rabo3 (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking stuff up - HBW this time

On a related note, does anyone have HBW vol 10? If so, and you could do me a small favour by looking something up, that would be appreciated. Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I do own it but not in this country. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry not to respond sooner, SP-KP, but I've been down in Mexico. I've got HBW 10 and would be happy to help you out. Whaddaya need?! MeegsC | Talk 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
See anything good? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was a good trip. Some 30 endemics, including super Dwarf Jays, Ocellated Thrasher, Oaxaca Sparrow, Red Warbler, Citreoline Trogon, Slaty and Golden vireos, Aztec Thrush, Lesser Roadrunner, Orange-breasted Bunting, stupendous Bumblebee Hummingbird (a little male on a song perch right near the road), Beautiful Hummer, etc., etc. Unfortunately, other than a couple of sparrows (Black-chested & Bridled) and a great Tufted Flycatcher, I didn't get much in the way of useable photos. Lots of ruins shots!  : ) I'll try to upload some stuff over the next few weeks. I'm off to Trinidad and Tobago in a couple of days (no rest for the weary!) and have a massive pile of "real life" paperwork to get sorted first. MeegsC | Talk 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Review

I've been working on Song Thrush, and would welcome any comments or improvements before going to GA/FA. No rush, might not submit for some time yet (holiday in Feb) and if I go straight for FA, House Martin is still stranded at FAC anyway. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated Storm-petrel for GA. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

American Robin

I am reviewing American Robin as a "Good Article" candidate. Can the folk of your project answer a couple questions here, please? Axl (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For info, I've fixed the first batch of queries, and written a stub for covert which is probably long overdue. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
...and it's through. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Overlap

How does Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans overlap with this one, as stated on the main page? Funkynusayri (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Probably intended to suggest similarity in content and structure rather than overlap. Have changed the text a bit. Shyamal (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tittifers

can anyone identify the small, blue-and-white birds in the top left of this screengrab? They're in a children's programme called In the Night Garden. Thanks. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture's so small, it's hard to see details. The blue birds appear to have zygodactylic feet (i.e. only two toes pointing forward)—is that correct? Also, can you describe the bill, or provide a larger image (so we can see it ourselves), which can be deleted once we've identified the birds? MeegsC | Talk 18:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make the image - I just came across it while trying to find out what the birds were. i spotted the zygodacylous toes as well, and I've been doing google image searches on all sorts of things. My guess is some kind of kingfisher. Will I have to write to the BBC? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
They're probably Blue Lorikeets where the colours have been messed with (as has also been done for the White-cheeked Turaco, Channel-billed Toucan and Hoopoe). On a worldwide basis, I cannot think of anything else that looks even remotely similar. Rabo3 (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rabo, Blue Lorikeets (or some weird rendering of a Vini lorikeet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I had a much better look (they were on this morning) and they're parakeets of some sort. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Lorikeets are small parrots, so it sounds like you and Rabo and S. S. agree. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

FA/GA proposals

Is there any support for any of the following:

  1. Listing current bird FAs on the project page or subpage thereof for ease of reference.
  2. Ditto with current GAs.
  3. Listing any current FAC candidates (always surprises me how few project members vote/comment).
  4. On the FAC talk page there is a scheme to provide support to editors aspiring to FA. Would it be an idea to set up an in-project group to advise and assist other project members in getting articles through FA/GA, not only through passing on experience, but also indicating members who can supply specialist services such as maps, diagrams and drawings, or data from hard-copy sources not accessible on line?

Just a thought, Jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Congrats, btw way, on getting House Martin featured. Storm-petrel is GA now as well. That brings us up to 30 FAs and 23 GAs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah - congrats - 30 FAs now....
Feel free to move all FAs, GAs and FFAs to main project page for increased visibility. Also a section on who can help with creating a range map would be good. I am a bit tied up for a while so feel free to get stuck into the wikiproject housekeeping.
PS: Another article that may not be far off GA but I haven't any more European bird books to add info from is Hooded Crow..if any European based people could help it'd be great. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll do the project page, also look at hoodie - just did my standard linn-thing so far. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
FAs done, but I only get 30 after claiming Georg Forster for the project. What have I missed? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Found Kakapo, please check any way Jimfbleak (talk) 07:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Only 18 GA, please check Jimfbleak (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Started help desk list. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Procellariidae was missed. But Charles Darwin? How do we claim that? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, Darwin gone. One problem we have is that although FA is updated by bot, GA isn't, so it depends on reviewers remembering to update the GA list. Jimfbleak (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Project page

After polbot's rampages, "Structure" and "criteria for inclusion" seem redundant, or at best over-long. Can they be chopped/slimmed? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like they could be chopped. BTW, is there any particular reason we're not including Featured Lists with the FAs and GAs on the project page? MeegsC | Talk 09:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Both done Jimfbleak (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

whatbird.com spam

This link has been added several times by regular, established editors over the last several years. Now, in just the last 2 months, we've gotten several dozen of these spammed by several sockpuppets. See:

The spammers have ignored repeated warnings to stop. Normally we would then add these links to our spam blacklist and it would be impossible add them or even edit articles containing them. User blocks seldom work with spammers since they just switch IPs and add new sockpuppet accounts.

For now, we have a bot watching for them and reverting further additions. XLinkBot is intended to deal with domains which may have a legit use on-wiki, but are frequently misused by new and anonymous users (or have a history of being misused). The bot allows established (autoconfirmed) users to add links, while reverting links added by others. IP's and new users can still edit a page that contains links on the bot's revert list, they won't be reverted unless they add or change a link themselves.

If anyone has any comments on this situation, please feel free to chime in at the link above. Also, bots are not infallible, so if XLinkBot misses any inappropriate spam additions, feel free to let us know.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: Anytime you encounter a spammer who won't stop after a warning or who's using multiple IPs/user names, feel free to report them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. We're here to support our regular editors so they don't have waste time removing the same stuff over and over again. If necessary, we'll also take care of adding any links to XLinkBot, our spam removal bot, or for more persistent cases, either our local blacklist or Meta-Wiki's Wikimedia-wide global blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Another FAC candidate

I've put Flight feather up for consideration. Please comment here! MeegsC | Talk 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Pyromaniac

I've tweaked that old fire-raiser, the Chough, a bit, and would welcome suggestions and improvements before going to GA/FA. No rush, since on holiday from middle of next week (Thailand, since you ask). One specific problems is that the Defoe ref was published by a conger of six publishers, bound to be picked up at review that no publisher given, should I reference a modern edition instead of the original? Jimfbleak (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

ID request

Hate to make more work for y'all, but anyone care to try to ID these? Image:Weird duck.jpg, Image:Black ducks 001.jpg, Image:Black ducks 002.jpg Murderbike (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The first one is a Double-crested Cormorant and the others are American Coots. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a Willet?

what am I?
what am I?

This image was loaded as a Willet but some editor has suggested that it isn't. Any thought? The wing looks right but the rest of it seems slightly off. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not sure where this was taken, but in North America at least the legs are gray while these look pretty black. Also, it seems that there is a white stripe behind the eye, not before. No suggestions for what it could be and I could just be overanalyzing though. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a Willet's wing linings should be black and its bill should be a good bit longer, in addition to the leg color you mention and other things. I'm voting for Calidris, but my opinion isn't worth much—we don't get a lot of sandpipers in New Mexico. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Hardly matches with a Willet - based on my browsing of Hayman & Marchant's Shorebirds ! Little indicator of size beyond the impression given by the eye. Could pretty well be as small as a Sanderling.. Shyamal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The habitat certainly suggests a Sanderling. But someone here will know. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to have a rear toe, if that's right, must be Sanderling. General appearance like that species, and habitat. Is there a suggestion of white outer tail? Wing pattern, bill length and structure are all wrong for Willet Jimfbleak (talk) 09:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wing pattern and head also like Grey Phalarope, but that has four toes. Jimfbleak (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't we be able to see the lobes on the phalarope's toes in this picture? Also, I'd think that a Red/Grey Phalarope on the beach would be heading straight out to sea. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Are these pink-sided juncos?

Dark-eyed Junco doesn't have a picture of the "pink-sided" subspecies. For all you junco fans, are these pictures pink-sided? If so, is any of them, such as the first, good enough to upload? (I'd try enhancing it a bit, but if anyone wants to do it themselves, please let me know and I'll send you or upload the original. Same goes for all my photos.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll check my sibley this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the third one is (it has the dark black lores on greyer head), the second one seems to dark though. Are they all the same bird? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no idea whether they're all the same bird, unfortunately. They looked lighter on my computer at home than they do on this one—a real problem with this photography-on-the-computer thing. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with the second one is not that it is dark but that there is no contrast between the lores and rest of the head. A juvenile Oregon Junco will be as pale as a Pink-sided, so you have to look at the lores. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I meant that on my computer (where I am now), the gray is lighter but the black is still black, so there's definite contrast between the lores and the rest of the head in the first picture and maybe the second one too. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Transferring images to commons

If I've uploaded images to this project how do I go about adding them to Commons? Aviceda 10:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The answers are here at Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. But there is no need to worry about it too much. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Though it is nice for the projects in other languages. I hope that you've got more of those beautiful pictures and you'll upload them straight to Commons—it's no harder than uploading them here.
I'm about to edit your captions at Collared Kingfisher. In my view (only mine), an article on a species doesn't need to repeat the species name in captions. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate your amendments Jerry, I'm a wikipedia 'noob' so still learning the ropes, is there anything we can do about the positioning of the imagethumbs, though? Don't like the way the text 'wraps' around them. -Tom (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Change "center" to "left" or "right", and put the image before the text that's supposed to wrap around it. I did one of them. Since you want to learn this stuff (which I think is great), I thought you might want to practice on the others. :-) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Calidrids

You guys, I just checked out an ooold paper (hence I am adding several near-forgotten synonyms). The whole issue with the sandpiper/stint genus names seems to resolve easily... Semipalmated and Western Sandpipers were placed in Ereunetes, which was established in 1811 - that is, before Erolia. So the question is not whether the "stint group" would be Erolia, but rather, whether the Curlew Sandpiper belongs there or in a (monotypic) Erolia. Happiness ensues. Now, if anyone knows which one of the two "traditional" Ereunetes is the type species? If not, I'll find out soon. (And I'll also check whether there is not another name preceding Ereunetes but I think not (Calidris' was established in 1800, and in 1811 Illiger split apart the calidrids, re-describing Calidris in that process. Something similar might already have happened in 1804).

For the time being, be aware that the "traditional" Erolia have that name in the introduction, as if that name would apply to them. But as it seems, it would in no case be so. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Malaysian Plover

Could someone with the time and the knowledge-base take a stab at cleaning up Malaysian Plover? Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Jude's edits, this is now reasonable, and I've removed the wikify tag, Jimfbleak (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

GA news

I've put Chough to join Song Thrush at GAN, no rush since I'll be away from 14-26 February. However, Chough needs a range map, so I'd be eternally grateful....

Also FA king Casliber has a mushroom at GA that someone might fancy reviewing - can't do myself because of forthcoming hols. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Against my better judgement, I decided to start working on a South Asian species, the Orange-headed Thrush before my hols. It could benefit from a range map, and input from someone with a good source for the area, (like Birds of South Asia. The Ripley Guide by Pamela C Rasmussen and John C Anderton) would be a real boost for getting this to GA/FA. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a bit and removed the gallery. There are several pictures of a dead bird on commons which I have categorized now. Good luck for your Thailand trip - look out for Acrocephalus orinus ! Shyamal (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem - poor view of a distant bird and it'll be on my list (: Jimfbleak (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate articles

Pukeko (Porphyrio melanotus) is basically a duplicate article for Purple Swamphen. I'm going to make it a redirect; should a merge happen first? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything subspecies specific (apart from distribution) ? Cannot see anything at the moment in the Pukeko article (strange article title as well). Shyamal (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The Pukeko is a relatively recent arrival in NZ (post human contact), so it is just another name for the Australian race. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

Appreciate efforts other members are doing to help with my 'learning-curve', especially with categories. Uploaded a lot of Ugandan bird images to Commons and had a crack at starting a page on Phylloscopus laetus, placed an image and taxobox.....could someone have a look-over and guide me in the right-direction? Another quick ask, is there an category where you can get 'mystery' species ID'd? Tom (talk) 09:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops, appears that I created Phylloscopus laetus in error....thinking that it didn't exist.

How do I delete it? Tom (talk) 09:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No worry. It was needed as a redirect and User:Smallweed did the needful. Shyamal (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably all the bird species have at least stub articles, thanks to User:Quadell and his bot, Polbot. That means there are thousands of stubs that need expansion, if you want to do that kind of thing. P. laetus, for instance. (I find myself most tempted to expand the stubs that have pictures—especially my pictures.)

Commons has a category for Unidentified birds, with some taxonomic subcategories. (It just occurred to me that the subcategories should be changed to geographic, if they're useful at all.) I go by there one in a while and pick low-hanging fruit (I just identified a Scarlet Ibis), and others do too. You should put any unidentified pictures in that category, and you can also link to them here and ask for help id-ing them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somebody who knows the birds of India will id and and . There are others that ought to be easy for somebody. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
White-cheeked Barbet Black-hooded Oriole Common Myna Jimfbleak (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I think is a Long-tailed Glossy Starling, but haven't checked. Jimfbleak (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It is Jimfbleak (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

is a Northern Red Bishop I think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sold. I've fixed all of these at Commons. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Unknown Gull Digon3.JPG is a second winter Herring Gull - Iceland doesn't have dark wing/tail feathers. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Extra nutritional eggs - Outdated?

Was browsing through W. R. Ogilvie-Grant (1921) Guide to the gallery of birds. Pat 1. British Museum. (2nd Edn) (available on www.archive.org) and found this titbit on Ostriches.

"The hens belonging to one male lay their eggs in the same nest, which is a shallow excavation dug in the sand. As many as thirty eggs are sometimes deposited in the pit, and many more are dropped around which are said to serve as food for the newly-hatched young. The contents of an egg are equal to about two dozen hen's eggs."

The italicized bit would have seemed far-fetched had I not seen some footage of a Bromeliad breeding frog that does something like this. Is there any better support for this bit. Shyamal (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No mention of it in the HBW entry on the species/family. The large number of eggs confers an advantage on the dominant female as it means her eggs are less likely to be taken by predators though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Woodshrike redux, categorizing

I gave this and the other Prionopidae the quick taxobox fix. Also, I have started a number of passerine common-name categories. I found these to be very helpful (to be honest, at first I tried to weed out all these "swan" and "eagle" categories before realizing that it's impossible; non-experts will always restore them...).

As we can't get rid of them... let's make the most of them. Here's how I found them to work best:

  • Use taxonomic categories for the true classification of articles as per SOP.
  • In addition, give articles one and (almost always) only one common-name category (Stenostiris is an exception for example). These are not sorted specifically. So all Tyrannidae articles, regardless whether genus, species, fmaily, go into Category:Tyrant flycatchers (note use of plural - this was the way it came to be and it is good because conflicts with non-bird categories are avoided and it is accurate). Common-name categories can/should get an intro statement like I did in Category:Flycatchers.

The result will categorizations that appear to be conflicting. But they are not; "tanagers" are not the same as "Thraupidae" (the Scarlet Tanager for example is only called a tanager). I fiddled around a bit with Category:Tanagers vs. Category:Thraupidae; check it out to see the difference (I only just started so there is not much content in the former. But the point, I think, is all the clearer.)

So we can have a scientific category tree that is clean and accurate; uncertainties can of course still be expressed like for example the very basal position of the Paridae clade with regards to the "core" Sylvioidea is expressed in Category:Paridae. And Category:Habia would not need to be placed into Category:Thraupidae anymore - in other words, the taxonomic tree will allow to recognize uncertainty of placement because opbsolete placement is not being handled in the same way anymore!

And we can have a category tree that anyone can understand, and that will at the same time not mislead people but inform them of the problems associated with a phenetic taxonomy.

AND there is a way to distinguish, for example, the "traditional" tanagers from the "true" tanagers, OW warblers, etc. I expect obsolete classifications to linger on for years to come, and therefore it is probably rather helpful to have a reference to obsolete group delimitations that otherwise would not exist anymore on Wikipedia, at least not in a concise form (and for good reason too!)

(In fact, assigning common-name categories to "OW warblers", "OW babblers", "OW flycatchers" etc could be handled by Polbot - simply check for Aves where the "this page was created..." tag is present, and put supposed Sylviidae into "Old World warblers" category, and so on.)

For one thing, most Polbot work that would need to be updated hasn't been updated yet; for another, we could afterwards give the categories a quick look-see, and many birds that need taxobox updates can be more easily spotted than by sifting though the scientific categories.

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another ID request

Anyone want to put a name to this one? Here's a back view. Apparently it's a tame bird used to keep the gulls away in a resort in California. Also apparently, the naturalist told the photographer it was an African Hawk Eagle, but I don't believe it. —JerryFriedman

Ignore this dummy response to force archival. Shyamal (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Pardalotidae

If anyone wants to tackle these - I have added info at Meliphagoidea that will be helpful.

I had to cover all bases there, but personally I think it is nonsense to merge them in the honeyeaters. Keeping them separate seems the most informative of the 3 possible arrangements discussed; a monotypic minifamily seems a small price to pay for the insight on when, where and how the honeyeaters became nectarivores. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A few hours to vote on a bird collaboration

There's currently a deadlock on voting on collaboration..(someone please break it...). I'll hold off the housekeeping until there's a tiebreaker. Ironically I just got a good book on the Emperor Penguin just now...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the nominated articles, I can see no other which obviously needs as good a gang-banging (non-sexual!) as Cockatiel does at present... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance formatting

Have just uploaded some images and media of Rufous Whistler, Pallid Cuckoo, Painted Buttonquail and Rainbow Bee-eater, would appreciate if someone could format them, I've had a go but am not quite there yet! Aviceda talk 06:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice videos Aviceda—thanks for donating them! What kind of format help are you looking for? MeegsC | Talk 11:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
basically just trying to get the images/media to look OK on the page, I'm not very proficient with Wiki Markup language yet so would like to see it used more 'professionally'.(I can always check it out on other pages I suppose..) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviceda (talk • contribs)

Lorikeet

Lorikeet got moved to Lories and lorikeets, doesn't this violate the WP:MOS? Singular only surely. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is being sought on the talk page as to the correct place to move the article to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Family doubt

We need to clarify this. The genus belong to Prionopidae or to Campephagidae?--Nicolás10 (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bushshrike; but Polbot used a slightly different taxonomy to ours, so when the genus article was created it got dumped in the wrong family. It isn't like it is even remotely the only inconsistency we have between the family articles and genus/species articles. The whole fantail/drongo/monarch flycatcher assemblege is a mess from start to finish. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Polbot used IUCN which in turn uses HBW with BirdLife updates. It does not inclorporate the last 2 years' worth of research, but that's still better than most. The errors are being worked out by and by.
In any case - Prionopidae; as per Fuchs et al.: "An ancient radiation of corvid birds detected by mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data." Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
According to the more recent work by Fuchs et al. 2007 (Complex biogeographic history of the cuckoo-shrikes and allies (Passeriformes: Campephagidae) revealed by mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44 (2007) 138–153) Tephrodornis (and Hemipus) is nested within the Malaconotidae clade. Shyamal (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Collaborative work update

Rock Pigeon has passed GA and I've left some tips on how it could get to FAC, I've been adding steadily to Emperor Penguin and Moa ended up as the collaboration. European Robin is also fairly substantial as it stands too but needs some work to get to GA. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

European Robin is close for a tilt at GA...anyone see anything to add to it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Latin checks

While updating the List of birds of India I noticed a number of gender related spelling fixes in Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) and was somewhat surprised that these errors had not been noticed for as long as perhaps 50 years with nearly two centuries of British-Indian ornithology. One would think that that there more Latin scholars on the European side of the pond.

Having seen collection based taxonomists and their style of working I presume that Rasmussen's emendations are correct. But would be nice if someone who knows Latin/Greek can check the gender of the species epithets in the following selected examples:

  • Saxicola maura or S. maurus
  • Rhyacornis fuliginosa or R. fuliginosus
  • Saxicoloides fulicata or S. fulicatus

Shyamal (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First one should definitely be maura, the second should be Rhyacornis fuliginosa. Third would be -a too I think, might need to double check on that one Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The three names on the right are suggested by Rasmussen and I have the following piece from a 1974 newsletter for Indian birdwatchers that refers to Monticola cinclorhynchus that goes:

At the top of page 3 occur words which show the authors to have relied on the basic rule of Latin that "nouns ending in –a are feminine." Actually, there are exceptions to this rule" eg: 'nauta' (or 'navita') meaning a sailor, 'poeta' meaning a (male or female) poet, and 'agricola' meaning a farmer (always in Roman days, a male). 'Monticola' is evidently analogous with 'agricola' and simply means 'a chap who lives on a mountain', NOT a 'mountain maid'. There is no form 'agricolus' or 'monticolus'.

– Gay, T (1974) Newsletter For Birdwatchers. 14 (7):10

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamal (talk • contribs) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but I don't think it was the -cola ending as such which made it masculine, only that that word (meaning farmer) was masculine. Need to get this paper by David and Gosselin from 2002 - The grammatical gender of avian genera...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Saxicola is most likely masculine, for the reasons given, but I don't have a reference at hand to substantiate that. It would appear from this that ορνις can be either masculine or feminine, although the latter seems to be rarer. According to the ICBN, names ending in -oides are treated as feminine regardless of the gender of the root word, but the ICZN may differ in that respect.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatbird

Quick question- does anyone know why whatbird.com has been blacklisted? Is the information there fraudulent or something? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Blacklisted how? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the WP:SPAM project talk page, it looks like all the whatbird.com links are being removed because investigation by the WP:SPAM team found that the owner was paying coders to add the links to Wikipedia articles. See the notice here. Too bad he did that, because it could have been a useful site! MeegsC | Talk 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, though I don't see how Wikipedia can block referencing information... Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Presumably because, while it's certainly a reference site, it's also a commercial reference site, geared towards getting people to buy things. And Wikipedia's founders don't really like Wikipedia articles pointing towards "reference" sites that are really shops in disguise. It probably wouldn't have been a problem if the site owner hadn't paid for "rent-a-coders" to add links to his site. That's SPAM. No real worries though; there are lots of other legit sites—various universities and NGOs—which can plug the information gaps. MeegsC | Talk 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Genuses

There appears to be some genuses with out pages on the wiki, or at least there are genus red links on the "Laughingthrush" page. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It occurs anywhere were we have accepted splits that create new genera. Many of the laughingthrush genera currently without articles used to be listed under Garrulax, and in fact the species articles currently still give that genus as the correct one. BTW, the plural is genera. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
So somebody needs to write those articles? Not to mention the redlinked species. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CS

I need the conservation status of the Golden-headed Manakin. It doesn't appear on the BirdLife Data Zone, or maybe i'm wrong. :S--Nicolás10 (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Found it, added it too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ID query

Could I have an opinion, from anyone here who is familiar with the species, whether all of the birds depicted at Crested Tern are in fact that species? Some of them appear to have remarkably bright orange-yellow bills. My reading of the literature, and my limited experience in India and Australia is that Crested Tern has a greenish-yellow bill. Is this a seasonal thing, or are some of these birds misidentified? Thanks SP-KP (talk) 23:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All look good for Crested Tern to me with the exception of the "In flight" shot [[2]] I would still be hesitant in calling this Lesser Crested Tern without more study. Aviceda talk 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen both species together recently in Thailand, and I'd be inclined to agree with Aviceda. The taxobox image seems a bit warmer than the Crested Terns I saw, but I would expect that with a full summer plumage bird, and it's still less orange than Feb LCTs. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was this one ->

which worried me most. SP-KP (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding an External Link

What is the protocol for adding an external link to species articles? I run an image database for wild birds of the Australasian Region ABID [[3]] with photographic contributions from registered members and would like to link pages but don't really want to do this if they are going to be deleted by an irate wikipedian, would appreciate some guidance, please. Aviceda talk 23:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it a commercial site? Are you trying to sell things? Will people have to be registered to view the pictures? Are you thinking of someday maybe paying coders to add links to your site from various articles? If the answer to any of these is yes, you should probably think twice. Otherwise, you should be OK! MeegsC | Talk 00:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Meegs, certainly not commercial....I can't find anyone to 'renovate' my 'labor-of-love' (...for free, anyway) Anyone can 'view' the images and all that I'm trying to 'sell' is an awareness of 'bird-conservation'...hopefully that qualifies? Aviceda talk 00:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Given the non-commercial nature of your site and the fact that you've contributed so many of your own images to Wikipedia I see little reason to worry; it would probably be good if you don't overdo it, which will attract attention. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree, Jimfbleak (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thought it might be useful to add a couple of external links at the same time as I'm adding images, have put some on a few cuckoos, trillers etc...hope this seems OK, please let me know if you feel I'm going over the top. Aviceda talk 06:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Columbidae splits and merges

Columbiformes and Columbidae should be merged as there is now only one family in Columbiformes, but which article should be the destination article? Also, I've begun expanding the Columbidae article to include more about the biology of the family, is it about time to split out the taxonomy section (a la Procellariidae), since it kinds of overwhelms the article at present? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice about links to videos

Hi, I'm new at Wikipedia and would like advice from the Bird editors about adding links. I am creating an online library of bird videos from an extensive collection of high quality, high definition footage and sound that my husband and I have collected over the last 3 decades. This library and its index are on our website where we also try, with limited success, to sell the DVDs we make from the footage, so we're trying to sell something and I don't want to break that rule. Plus it is a website that I own so linking to it myself would break that rule too. Perhaps one of the seasoned editors could take a look at what I'm doing? Tell me if it could be linked to Wikipedia at all? Suggest changes that might make it appropriate? I only have four species up so far, but I'm going to start moving quickly. We have over 400 North American species with more being added every day, plus different bahaviors and plumages for the ones we have already. Each species will have sound, and if it's a songbird, I intend to use a scene with a good section of song. I appreciate any advice or even a warning that I should stay clear of the Wikipedia. Here's a link to what I'm doing. [4] Thank you. BirdViewer (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi BirdViewer. Welcome to Wikipedia! Please read the section just above this for some suggestions we made to another user asking a similar question (though about stills rather than video). Unfortunately, linking to a commercial site (as opposed to a university or museum site, for example) is likely to get your website blacklisted if it's overdone—and you definitely don't want to be adding links yourself, as the WikiSpam folks would likely consider it to be a conflict of interest. And you'd certainly draw attention if you weren't making a considerable number of other non-external links edits as well! MeegsC | Talk 19:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps the best thing for me to do is to somehow make it known to the bird editors that these videos and our library of footage exist. If an editor is working on a bird and thinks that footage or sound we have would be a useful edition to their page, then they could link. I'll stay clear because the rules about not selling stuff or linking to your own site are good ones. Too bad we need money to feed our bird-filming habit, because I think we have some really good footage of birds that is nowhere else on the internet. Take a look. [5] . And thanks for the quick advice BirdViewer (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The video fo the warbler is quite nice, but unfortunately it has a watermark across it. I'd be reluctant to link to anything like that unless it was flat out the only image available of the species on the web. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sabine's Sunbird, thanks for looking at the warbler. What if it was the only thing on the web AND I removed the watermark? I know that much of our footage is the only stuff on the web or anywhere else for that matter. And I really like Wikipedia and wish we could have our hard-won bird movies represented. BirdViewer (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Without the watermark? Yeah, I might indeed link to it, especially if as you say there is interesting behaviour on display. Links need to add something to the article. Links to photos or videos are useful if we have nothing ourselves (and we do lack media for many many species). In the event that we already have some media the link has to have some merit beyond what we have. There are plenty of sites out there that have video footage of birds, so we're going to look for the best one we can. Your videos seem well made, take away the watermark and they will be a useful link for us. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've uploaded a black-capped vireo with no watermark. I noticed it is a species on the photo request list and only has a couple of links. What do you think of this? [6] Would it pass conflict-of-interest muster on wikipedia if an editor linked to it? Also, I could pull a still from a video frame if anyone thinks it would improve the article. Do I then load it to wikimedia? and let someone else put it in the article? Thanks for taking the time to advise me about this. 72.84.65.221 (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that's one I'd happily link to. And downloading a still from the video would be a huge addition! You could add that to the article without it being a conflict of interest, because you're donating it—for any use, including unrecompensed commercial use. Be sure you agree to that first, of course! : ) MeegsC | Talk 23:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a head's up

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#misapplication of WP:BIRD - is a dispute over in our mammal sister-project about caps for species names, with our project being named as a source (or trouble?). The application to take the dispute on was denied, but the comments made by the committee were interesting, particularly WikiProjects such as WP:BIRD are suggested approaches, and style guides such as WP:MOS are guidelines; neither is set in stone and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy -- users can often look at such things flexibly and with more wide views on the matter. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested photos

Hey all, I notice there are quite a few bird species ending up in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of animals. I've moved a couple to a more specific category, but I haven't got time to move them all right now (supposed to be studying invertebrates). Richard001 (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I got 'em all... MeegsC | Talk 09:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Looks like there's quite a few mammals there too... *heads off to mammals project* Richard001 (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Parakeet or conure again

Some here might be interested in a proposal to move Red-masked Parakeet to Cherry-headed Conure. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Audio

I've suggested at Template talk:BirdTalk that audio requests be added to the template. The audio requests aren't as well known or widely used as picture requests, but it's important to have audio files of birds as well as pictures of them to be an excellent encyclopedia. The audio requests category could certainly do with splitting up, though I don't know if a birds category would be appropriate quite yet - perhaps one of living things—besides human created sounds—would be a good start. The good thing with the template is that we can modify all requests by modifying the template - e.g. if a bird requests category is made. Richard001 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Richard, I've just uploaded an example [[7]]
I try and film species using a Handycam but frequently get poor-quality visuals with reasonable sound, hopefully I can put some of these to good use! Let me know what you think. Aviceda talk 08:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That's great, but I can't actually listen to it. I do have headphones, but the computers I use don't play OGG files. Despite trying to get the administrators to install the simple vorbis codec, they haven't done anything. I'd have to download it and copy it to a disk or drive and then take it to my home PC, which doesn't have internet access. And that's not easy right now either...
Anyway, I basically just want to know whether everyone is okay with this modification of the template. It's the first template I know of that will have this field, though it will be very easy to adapt from the |needs-photo model. If all goes well I'll look at adding it to other templates as well, like the animals one. Richard001 (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The template has now been modified. You can see it in use at tui. Richard001 (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on cleaning up some recordings I've recently made, and would like to put them in the most-accessible format—does anybody have any idea which that would be? Is there an advantage to making files .ogg rather than one of the other acceptable file types? All our bird song media currently look to be .ogg, but if some computers don't play that file type, perhaps we should think about converting them to something else! MeegsC | Talk 12:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Song of the White-throated Sparrow plays in browser via Java applet
Song of the White-throated Sparrow plays in browser via Java applet
Ogg - actually the vorbis part for sound is open source (unlike MP3 which uses a patented algorithm). The inbuilt Java player is supposed to be able to play ogg files within the browser. Shyamal (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Birds names

There is also discussion on the names of Red-masked Parakeet, Black-hooded Parakeet, Blue-crowned Parakeet, and Green-cheeked Parakeet‎ on talk pages. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Snowman, I just linked the articles you mentioned for ease of navigation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Snowman raises an interesting comment to justify the movement of all these parakeets/conures from their IUCN approved names to those more commonly used in aviculture circles. He says that since recent GA/FA articles, including Blackbird and House Martin, use "common" names rather than their IUCN equivalents, those of various parrots should be allowed to do the same. Is there a reason (other than the fact that those who first edited the articles used the common UK names rather than the more widely-used IUCN names) that we've kept those articles titled as we have? Otherwise, I can see this quickly descending into a "Well I get XXX hits for this name" across many, many articles. MeegsC | Talk 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I initially opposed these changes, but I've decided to modify my position. I think that wherever possible we should use the IUCN/Gill and Wright/HBW (which are usually all in agreement). As MeegsC observes there is too much poytential for fighting , inconsistency and even forks (like the one out of Purple Swamphen). However there are instances when it may be better to deviate. For example it annoys the Kiwis no end that some of their species (and it isn't like they have many) get renamed by the international bodies and have articles in names that none of them know or use (I'm looking at you, South Island Wren and Malherbe's Parakeet. These should be decided on a case by case basis. As for the British species it is a balancing act of what is most commonly used versus consistency, in the case of the conures it is a case of balancing the needs of ornithology with aviculture. There may be a case for deviating in some of the most commonly encountered pet species (but not all of them).
This is still only a small number of species we are talking about, perhaps we should discuss it here rather than across four or five talk pages. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
In the case of the "House Martin" page, the name was discussed on its talk page when the FAC was in process. It was an active decision to keep the common name. You can not say that it is currently called by the common name just because it was the name of the page when it was created; it was an active decision to keep the common name, and it is even noted on the talk page that is not in line with WP:Birds at the time of the FAC. WP:Birds, having ignored their own rules for their FA pages, can not insist on name rules everywhere. If you are suggesting considering bird names on a case by case bases, then there is no point talking about the conure species collectively here. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. We can decide here whether to change all the conures, just a few of the of them, or just leave it up to the individual pages to decide. Essentially the conure versus parakeet can be a case. Also, we need to have a general discussion about our naming guidelines in the light of the points you raise. Personally I think a certain degree of flexibility is as important as some consistency. I don't like conure myself, but I am willing to move with the consensus if one emerges. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that all the interested parties will see this discussion or take part in it here. When WP:Birds have completed their discussion here, additions can be made to the talk pages, the correct place that the administrators will look at when reviewing the discussion on page names, and where there are special sections I made for these discussions. I have already mentioned in these discussion areas the fact that WP:Birds do not always keep to their own name rules even for their FA articles. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)