Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Nepal House Martin: New template for Passer genus
Line 272: Line 272:


::::[[:Template:Passer]] for comment prior to roll out. [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
::::[[:Template:Passer]] for comment prior to roll out. [[User:Snowmanradio|Snowman]] ([[User talk:Snowmanradio|talk]]) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Nothing wrong, but it is worth noting that few of the alt names are common, and that the order from Clement is not at all taxonomic: contrary to what [[Sparrow]] says. I think it might be better to make a Passeridae nav template instead. What do you think of that idea?

Revision as of 23:09, 11 December 2009

Template:WPBird Navigation

Shortcut

Birds for identification (47)

This is certainly not a pure Red-crown. It likely has some Yellow-headed Parrot in it. I strongly suggest not using this photo. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will probably rename it soon as a hybrid and place in the Amazon hybrids category on commons pending further comments, where it will not be used as an example of a pure Red-crowned Amazon. It does look unusual and the unusual ones are often interesting. I wonder if there is some other explanation for the yellow feathers: Could plucked feathers have grown back a different colour? Could it be a little known variant? Snowman (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is nearly impossible that the feathers would regrow yellow as green feathers are actually black with structural elements that make them appear green. This is well-known, range-restricted species, so it is not a little know variant. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename under way to File:Amazona hybrid -Hogle Zoo-8a.jpg and now in category for Amazona hybrids. Bad name file listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 10:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is in a cloud forest in the mountains of Andes in Ecuador, so it is a Scaly-naped Amazon. Re-uploaded to File:Amazona mercenaria -Ecuador -Andes-8.jpg and first upload listed for deletion. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Snowman — this is a Tawny Eagle. The pale birds (like this one) are easier to identify! MeegsC | Talk 02:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can I take it that that little eagle didn't kill the animal, but found it dead, maybe killed by a car? And is that a Black-backed Jackal? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The large eagle is 62 to 72 cm in length, so this size can help to gauge the size of the fox, dog, or jackal. I would think that the "fox" was an unlucky road traffic victim, partly because the wiki species article says; "The Tawny Eagle's diet is largely fresh carrion of all kinds, but it will kill small mammals up to the size of a rabbit". I do not know much about eagles. Uploaded to File:Aquila rapax -Ethiopia -with roadkill-8.jpg and shown on species page without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Jerry, it is sitting on a Black-backed Jackal, and the jackal was likely roadkill. The eagle will eat just about any small vertebrate it can catch (as Snowman said, up to the size of a hare or guineafowl), as well as lots of carrion — and large numbers of invertebrates in the non-breeding season. MeegsC | Talk 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Black-backed Jackal canine species added to image description on commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both. My "little" was in comparison to say, the Martial Eagle, 76 to 96 cm in length, which I could almost imagine killing a jackal. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
White-bellied Go-away-bird, male (black bill). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Corythaixoides leucogaster -Ethiopia -male-8.jpg on commons and shown in gallery on species page. Snowman (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a Red Wattlebird — and a very nice photo! MeegsC | Talk 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Anthochaera carunculata -Australia-8.jpg on commons and cropped version shown in gallery on species article. Snowman (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
adult male Masked Trogon. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you: "adult male" added to file description on commons. Snowman (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carduelinae

We have a problem here - this is currently redirecting to Rosefinch. Does anyone know if there is a Carduelinae page out there under another name? If not, I'll create a stub. SP-KP (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! (I'd be the one to know if there was one). But please read Carduelis and Rosefinch first, to get the taxonomy. (Though these pages need updating). innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect had been erroneously changed to Carpodacus; fixed it back til we have the article. As regards literature, see also under the old-new redirect target. The Arnaiz-Villena, Ruiz-del-Valle et al. sources are key, and are all available again now (fixed 2 broken links). Unfortunately, the supertree is still not freely available (grrr!), and neither the Ryan paper which is crucial for Serinus (q.v.) and the Groth papers which are also important (and none of the 3 "big" ones of the 4 are in the supertree either). Otherwise, Marten & Johnson (1986) is rather old but still it's good, I'd look at it first, it is primitive by today's standards but it gets the basic idea right. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The basic idea? What basic idea? This is the part of bird taxonomy–besides waterfowl, perhaps–that's most muddled. What is this "supertree" you referred to, and are all the other papers you mentioned cited at Wikipedia? I can probably get a hold of them, indirectly, and add info from them to the articles fairly soon. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (48)

definitely the blue-cheeked subspecies adscitus - not good on sexing them though...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is not far north enough to be in the range of the adscitus subspecies. I have looks at maps and I can not quite decide what side of the mountain range it is - the town is at quite a high altitude - but I think it is on the southern side, where the palliceps lives (or perhaps some intermediates). Looking at the illustrations in Forshaw 2006 the adscutus has a yellow front and yellow rump. I think it is the other subspecies, the palliceps, which has a white and pale yellow head, blue lower cheeks, blue front, and a blue rump. Actually, I think the wiki does not have a picture of the adscutus, if it did it would be easier to compare the two. Apparently there is variability in the appearance and there are intermediate types, but I think this is a fairly obvious palliceps and the easiest to identify out of all the commons images of this species, but I am not sure what the intermediate types look like. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed an adult Western Grebe; Clark's Grebe would have a yellower bill, and the white on the face would extend above the eye. MeegsC | Talk 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Aechmophorus occidentalis -California-8.jpg on commons. Good colours and well framed, but probably too much noise for a featured picture. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Dendrocygna viduata -two on land-8.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Interestingly, my copy of Kingfishers, Bee-eaters & Rollers (Fry, Fry & Harris, 1992) mentions that a few yellow-throated individuals had been found in a population in Kenya, but nothing about them appearing elsewhere. However, the lack of a black gorget (among other things) distinguishes it from all other yellow-throated possibilities. MeegsC | Talk 18:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Northern Goshawk, possibly of an East Asian subspecies. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one has got yellow irises and transverse strips on chest. From commons I see that a variety of forms some with orange irises and longitudinal flecks on chest. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am puzzled by the variety of the images on commons for this species. Awaiting further comments. Snowman (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Goshawk is variable species, especially in Asia. The bird in question is identical to this one save eye color: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Héja A. gentilis ranges from nearly white to nearly black. Eye color is related to age. Young birds have yellow eyes. I'd be VERY careful using images from falconers, though, as they hybridize birds frequently. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Accipiter gentilis -upper body-8a.jpg without implying corroboration. Is the image description that I have added reasonable? Snowman (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good; the only thing I'd change is irises to irides. ;-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
May be it looks odd to ornithologists, but I assure you I known about general anatomical jargon. We have had a discussion about this word, which is now in the BirdTalk archives. I changed irises to irides on a few articles and got a number of complaints about it from readers. Some smaller dictionaries use irises as meaning the flower or the part of the eye. So irises and irides are both correct in some books, but irises seems to be in common use. Snowman (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite obviously, an American Kestrel. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded to File:Falco sparverius -Vermont Institute for Natural Science-8a.jpg on commons. Snowman (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Male" (blue-gray wings) added to description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to identify falconer's birds, when not perfect adult examples of their species, isn't the best idea. There are many hybrids, and there is no grographic clue to go on. (This bird is not an adult.) Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that about hybrid hawks. Not uploaded. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime you have birds in captivity (other than a zoo), hybrids abound. Parrots, finches, hawks, falcons...if it's a private citizen keeping them, hybrids are a real concern. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why so negative on captive breeders? Anyhow, there is a bit of a clue: the photographer's Georgian. Tomorrow I'll see if I can find out what it is, if you'd like that. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 20:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who was being negative about captive breeders? I guess I missed someone else's post. But more to the point, they can get birds from anywhere, making where they live irrelevant. I'd not waste your time. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only listed it here in case it helped the editors on the "Eurasian Sparrowhawk" page for an illustration for of Sparrowhawks in falconry. Thank you for the interest in its identification, but do not worry about it too much. I expect there will be more. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed as male Pink-throated Twinspot. Only possible confusion species is Red-throated Twinspot; males of the latter species have a bright red face, throat and breast, and a grey crown. It's sure a better picture than the one currently in the article! MeegsC | Talk 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought is looked right, but I did not know what similar species there are. Image shown in the infobox on species page. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Goshawk

The IOC name for Accipiter gentilis is Northern Goshawk, yet the wiki entry says Goshawk.See http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-raptors.html I'd change this if I knew how, but I'd also want to bring it up here anyway. Can anyone help? Thanks! Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-raptors.html

Yeah, I can do this. Question for you all before I do - should Goshawk itself be a dab page, a redirect to this species or a redirect to Accipter? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is that it shouldn't be a redirect to Accipiter. I'd be happy with either of the other two. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was an existing dab page, I simply moved that to Goshawk. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sunbird. Since there are a dozen species of goshawk, yes, "goshawk" should redirect to Accipiter. What happens if an Australian types in "goshawk" and get send directly to the Northern Goshawk page with no link to the species s/he may be looking for? Or, perhaps even better, "goshawk" could get its own page that simply says, "Originally used for the species Accipiter gentilis, goshawk now refers to a number of large hawks of the genus Accipiter." Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there are hawks in other genera, and some non-bird things, with "goshawk" in the name. I think the present solution for goshawk, thanks to Sabine's Sunbird and SP-KP, is the best. It expands on your second suggestion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked at the current goshawk page and think it's perfect. Thanks, everyone. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like it too. It mirrors sparrowhawk, as it ought to. The division is widespread in folk taxonomy. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the "Goshawk dab" (the new dab page) was left in a bit of a mess, and I have done some tidy up work and listing to the dab page, which is not perfect. After a page move its talk page was incorrectly left as a redirect, but I have fixed it now with this edit. I have added the Birdtalk banner with a NA class to the talk page, which I think is appropriate if this dab page it is to be part of the WP Birds. I have added the DAB WP project banner to the talk page as I do for all dab pages. I have also listed some more non-bird pages to the dab page. Snowman (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeopteryx lithographica

Any ideas on whether the above new stub article should be merged (to Archaeopteryx, which is an FA), deleted, redirected, or tidied and expanded? Maias (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Or handballed to the Dinosaur project to deal with? Maias (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dinosaur wikiproject as such is only semi-active. A note and a query on proposed merging wouldn't hurt. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected: pretty much deleted. There's nothing to it, and nobody's sure there are multiple Archaeopteryx species. Genus articles are the more common practice at prehistoric animal articles. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody does it before me or raises objections I'll do it myself. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 23:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FA article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accipitriformes

"Taxomony

Order Accipitriformes
[...]
Cathartidae"

Reeeeeally? ;-)

As you know, that's what Hackett et al. in the Science paper came up with. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I'm still heavily in merging out of convenience. See doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.11.019 and doi:10.1186/1471-2148-8-20 for why the Science paper doesn't compute. Then we have doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007999 and doi:10.1002/jmor.10577+doi:10.1002/jmor.10739 which are blissfully ignorant on the matter... and never notice. Which should really not happen if the similarity is due to convergence of so distantly related lineages and not due to adaptive radiation within an order of Neoaves.

That means those detailed morphological studies should have noticed bigger differences between falcons and hawks? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd merge the stubs again under Falconiformes;

Which stubs? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in any case the situation viz. Cathartidae, Cariamidae and Phororhacidae (and probably some more extinct families) needs to be fixed. They are not altogether unlikely to be proto-falcons that took the secretarybird theme one step further. Might be long-branch attraction though. The issue cannot be answered until the molecular data is correlated with a cladistic analysis of the fossil record, including traditional Ciconiiformes and an "weird" seriema-like "gruiform" one can find. Throwing in a few owls, nightjars and the Oilbird and see if that confuses it is also recommended...

But until then, the traditional monophyly (plusminus NWV & seriemas etc) is supported by more diverse data. And while it is only supported by perhaps 25% of all data, the competing hypotheses are not supported by more. Non-creationist hypotheses, that is - meaning they all have to have some sister lineage; the DNA does not agree as to which.

As regards the Science paper - all radical conclusions from it have to be disregarded until it is computed anew without the weirdly-evolving sequences.

I'm bringing this up again because the things quoted from the article need sources... but I doubt one'd find any good modern source. Save for the flawed Science paper, falcons-out-NWV-in was maybe a fringe opinion some decades ago... meaning it begs a countercite. And this is the trouble here. As soon as we add sources, we'll be adding a lot. It's better to do and maintain it once, than to do it twice (at Accipitriformes and Falconiformes)...

(Also, at Falconiformes: "However, in Europe, it has become common to split the order into two..." If I'm not mistaken that was always more of an AOU thing, no?) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. The SACC recognized three orders—Falconiformes, Accipitriformes, and Cathartiformes—about a year ago [1]. The NACC has Falconiformes and Cathartiformes, and there's no recent or pending proposal to split further. If the AOU had any kind of split before that, I'm sure it was decades ago.
Christidis and Boles separated Falconiformes and Accipitriformes not long before the Hackett et al. paper. It's easy to find other pre-Hackett examples of Accipitriformes at Amazon, for example, especially in popular books such as general dictionaries and encyclopedias. (I don't know what authority they're following.) I haven't noticed any particular geographical pattern. Somebody named C. Mourer-Chauviré, who's probably European, believed in Accipitriformes in the '90s. Cramp's Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa: The Birds of the Western Paleartic - Hawks to Bustards splits Falconiformes and Accipitriformes. The upcoming edition of Birds of Europe by Svensson and Zetterström has "Accipitriformes" in it. (Unfortunately I can't tell at Amazon whether that's split from Falconiformes or another name for it.)
My feeling, which isn't very strong, is that we should have an Accipitriformes article because there are enough sources that refer to it, but it should be stubbier than it is now until there's more solid evidence. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jerry. I really did not know what to say. I would like to put some work and add some refs for support into Accipitriformes, but it'll take some time. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution map How-to page

FYI, I've created a little tutorial for how to make those nifty species distribution maps that people sometimes add to taxoboxes: Wikipedia:Distribution maps. Enjoy. Kaldari (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, Kaldari! Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's a thought

What about a condor FT? Both the species are at FA already, so just needs condor at GA. I would have thought that the condor grouping could be justified, since they are so different to the other NW vultures, but I'm no expert on cathartidae taxonomy. Any views? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, although getting the family leads to a more ambitious FT...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but nothing seems to be happening with the family. Is there a sound basis for condor FT though? Although the condors are much bigger than the other NWVs they are not in the same genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same genus as each other either. Not sure how they go cladistically. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An old morphology-based source says they are unrelated, viz that California Condors are related to one vulture, and Andean Condors to another. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinaloa Crow

For some reason, Sinaloa Crow (the correct name) redirects to Sinaloan Crow, a name I've never heard of being used. Can anyone tackle this? Thanks. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sinaloa Crow" is both the IOC and the AOU name, if anyone's wondering. Of course it's inconsistent with Cuban Crow, but what do you want? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to IOC/AOU name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gunnison and Greater Sage-Grouse

I was quite surprised in going to the Gunnison Sage-Grouse page, to see it named "Gunnison Grouse". I checked, that that is indeed the IOC name: a name used by no other authority I'm aware of and which goes against the name used by a local authority for a localized, endemic species treated by that authority only. IOC also uses Sage Grouse rather than Greater Sage-Grouse. I've been away for a few months, so 'm not sure where the IOC/naming discussion ended, but it seems that if there was ever a case for abandoning the IOC usage, this is a very clear-cut one. It's a local use issue, so it should offend no one the way a "Grey Plover" or "Red Phalarope" debate would. The first name, in particular, appears only in the IOC book. I really think these need to change. Natureguy1980 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring you—I'm just not sure what I think. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I think the AOU uses the new names, though. — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this before, but have you written to them? I went through my university libraries and the library of the Museum of New Zealand hunting down evidence with regards to the one bad name, and not only were they grateful but it looks like they are going to change it. They do listen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? — innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AOU uses Greater Sage-Grouse and Gunnison Sage-Grouse. There is no motion, nor has there even been that I'm aware of, in the AOU's North American checklist committee to rename the sage-grouse. See http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/pending.php Sabine's Sunbird, who are "they"? And what is the "it" they're going to change? Some antecedents would help alleviate my confusion. :-) Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "they" are the peeps at the IOC list and the "it" is Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae. I found (and showed) that the name they use, Red-fronted Parakeet, is no longer used at all in New Zealand, and they agreed that the name Red-crowned Parakeet would be better. Apparently there were some crossed wires with regards to many Kiwi names (and not just Kiwi names - see the massive recent changes to New Guinea names) and they are working to make endemic species fit what the people who live there use. If Sage-Grouse is what people in its range use they will listen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call ID

Can someone put a possible ID on this Phylloscopus from call File:OsloPhylloscopus.ogg. It was recorded in August 2008 from the hills near Oslo and all I can note is that it was quite "nondescript" and no wing bar. Shyamal (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Willow Warbler to me. Chiffchaff is less disyllabic, and the emphasis is on the second part of the call. Willow is "huitt", Chiffchaff "huitt"; both lack crown stripe and wingbars, but have a supercilium, usually clearer in Willow Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim, I am quite convinced. http://www.xeno-canto.org/sounds/uploaded/VXZDHTKCBO/Willow%20Warbler%20call.mp3 Shyamal (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant to post http://ibc.lynxeds.com/sound/willow-warbler-phylloscopus-trochilus/calls-adult and http://ibc.lynxeds.com/sound/common-chiffchaff-phylloscopus-collybita/calls-autumn-variant but I lost my connection. Incidentally, I've been helping out with Horton Plains National Park, now at GAN. I know it's not exactly around the corner from you, but I wondered if there was anything you would expect in a South Asian article that's not there? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (49)

Confirmed—there's only one pink spoonbill. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shown on Roseate Spoonbill species page. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Should this Eurasian Eagle-owl photograph replace the existing infobox image that is a Featured Image on the German wikipedia? Snowman (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Swings and roundabouts really. Both look pretty good to me, both are of obvious captive birds, so your call unless anyone objects Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would not like to replace featured content without a very good reason, such as a consensus. Snowman (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens again...

Those clever ravens (though Brown-necked this time), sure do continue to impress with their intelligence! We should probably work this info into the generic raven article, as well as the species account. MeegsC | Talk 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the species article. I think the best thing'd be to beef up intelligence section on genus corvus page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cockatoo

...has now passed GA and Sasata really put it through the ringer. I reckon it is just about ready to go to FAC...if anyone has some comments that would be great before taking the plunge....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, FAC time. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New template for swallows

Template:Hirundinidae - for comment and improvements prior to roll-out. Currently uncollapsed to make it easier to view and edit. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether it's worth adding the subfamilies
  • Pseudochelidoninae genus Pseudochelidon (river martins)
  • Hirundininae -all the other swallows & martins genera
Personally, I'm happy with the current structure, but just a point to consider Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to include subfamilies. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be inclined to remove "sawwings" from the genus column. Several other groups have common names (Pseudochelidon river martins, Riparia sand martins, Delichon house martins etc) and I think for consistency it's best to leave them all out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the commons names go in; see Template:Ramphastidae. I think it is easier to scan with the common names. It does look a bit untidy with commons name, and it might be best t remove them. Snowman (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It needs a tidy up. These link to the same page Sand Martin and Pale Martin. These are redirects: Cuban Martin, Grey-breasted Martin, Galapagos Martin, Angolan Swallow, Montane Blue Swallow, and Rufous-bellied Swallow. I got the list from the family page, but it is probably out of date. Can you clarify what the IOC (or commonly used) names are? I expect some of the pages need moving. The link in the template will not become emboldened on a species page, if it is a redirect. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now rolled out - some of the pages or the template need IOC name fixes or name updates. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal House Martin

Thanks to help from Snowman and Shyamal coupled with a general lack of information about this species, this article has been written in record time, and I'm shortly going to send it to GAN as the second article in a planned Delichon Featured topic. Any copyediting, additions or other improvements gratefully received. Asian House Martin and Delichon still to do.

Incidentally, I noticed that some WP:FTs have up to 25 topics, so a largish genus or small family could be done, assuming a team effort. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A largish genus? Passer? I'm trying to get at least a little bit of improvement at each species right now, and I think I could get all but a few (e. g. Saxaul Sparrow) up to GA status over the very long run. —innotata
There's no minimum length for GA, and I've got Clements Finches and Sparrows, so that's perfectly feasible. Once I've finished with the house martins, I'll do what I can Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Saxaul Sparrows, though, are really badly known. I believe there is no original research on them published in English, only brief descriptions in standard references. Until some time between 1988 and 1993 (the publishment dates of my two main refs, Clement et al. (which I currently only borrow from libraries) and Summers-Smith) the only records of its voice were Ernst Hartert's description "sparrow-like" and a description in a book in Russian as "pleasingly melodious"! Others, such as the Socotra Sparrow are as badly known. Right now I'm working on House Sparrow and Chestnut Sparrow (the latter in my userspace) and adding bits to Tree Sparrow (see the new ref style there: that's what I'll be using for all the others) and I plan tackle Italian Sparrow, Spanish Sparrow, Cinnamon Sparrow, and Iago Sparrow soon, for your information. —innotata (Talk • Contribs • s:) 19:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Passer for comment prior to roll out. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong, but it is worth noting that few of the alt names are common, and that the order from Clement is not at all taxonomic: contrary to what Sparrow says. I think it might be better to make a Passeridae nav template instead. What do you think of that idea?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=331170338"