Sabine's Sunbird (talk | contribs) m →[[Red-tailed Hawk]]: reply |
Sabine's Sunbird (talk | contribs) m →Capitalisation: comment |
||
Line 547: | Line 547: | ||
::Done. I editted the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] to accurately reflect that standard from [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)]]. [[User:Fredwerner|Fredwerner]] 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
::Done. I editted the [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]] to accurately reflect that standard from [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)]]. [[User:Fredwerner|Fredwerner]] 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
:::Well, I thought I was being [[Wikipedia:Be bold|bold]], and doing everyone here a favor by replying to Pgan002, and editing the MoS on Capitalization of bird names as he suggested. But I may have just opened a small can of worms. Check out the current [[WP:MoS#Animals,_plants,_and_other_organisms|MoS]], and tweak it as needed. Also check the talk page for a bit of the back and forth on this, and clarify or add links to places where this has already been discussed at length. [[User:Fredwerner|Fredwerner]] 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
:::Well, I thought I was being [[Wikipedia:Be bold|bold]], and doing everyone here a favor by replying to Pgan002, and editing the MoS on Capitalization of bird names as he suggested. But I may have just opened a small can of worms. Check out the current [[WP:MoS#Animals,_plants,_and_other_organisms|MoS]], and tweak it as needed. Also check the talk page for a bit of the back and forth on this, and clarify or add links to places where this has already been discussed at length. [[User:Fredwerner|Fredwerner]] 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::I've been talking on the page and have suggested reverting your change Fred. We don't need to change the MOS so long as we can quote [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)]], it was upsetting too many peeps. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]] [[User talk:Sabine's Sunbird|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]] 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC) |
|||
== The Collaboration of the Month is... == |
== The Collaboration of the Month is... == |
Revision as of 21:56, 12 June 2007
- /archive 1 discussion prior to November 2004
- /archive 2 discussion prior to February 2007
- /archive 3 discussion prior to April 2007
- /archive 4 discussion prior to April 2007
Core topics
While blundering around Wikipedia trying to avoid work I came across Wikipedia:Featured topics. It occured to me that while we have huge amounts of great stuff regarding birds, our coverage of what might be the core subjects regarding birds is perhaps a little weak. Bird itself, while listed as a GA, is pretty poor (though improving for the efforts of Pmeleski and others), and while there are some reasonable other important articles there is a lot of scope for improvement.
Consider this a suggestion, or perhaps a request, that we devote some time towards core subjects. This includes dragging bird up to FA, turning bird evolution into an article rather than a redirect, and so on and suchlike. A lot of the family pages are barely more than stubs, and the same goes for orders. It isn't as much fun or as easy as doing species but it needs doing.
I know that we're all volunteers and we all pretty much do what we want to (or at least I do) and we all try and do way to much. But perhaps a little bit of time can be devoted to this? By way of a start I'll be concentrating on Bird, parrot and the newly started Bird conservation over the next month and I've nominated bird migration as a possible collaboration for next month. Anyway, let me know what you think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I do support the idea to improve the core topics (I voted for bird in the previous nomination). But since the common raven is the current WikiProject Birds collaboration article, we should get it done first rather than divert the attention onto other matter. Luffy487 06:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I'll be doing that too, but most of do multiple things, so just bear it in mind, ya? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I will see what I can find to improve the core topics. I am aware that you have did a pretty good job in a day's time to create an article, Bird conservation. Currently, I am quite busy with my work. I will be free in weekends, most probably... Luffy487 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, and I'll be doing that too, but most of do multiple things, so just bear it in mind, ya? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikispecies?
What is the story with Wikispecies? It seems like a a bizarre parallel universe wikipedia, requiring separate userid. It has a LOT of overlap with wikipedia with a MUCH more thorough coverage of taxonomy. But its usefulness is extremely limited without any of wikipedia's natural history / life history / ecology info. Add the total absence of cross-referencing between the two and it seems like (a) major duplication of work, and (b) major loss of functionality/info.
What's going on? What will Wikispecies have that taxoboxes/taxonomic categories in Wikipedia couldn't? What's the point of a complete separate program/database/wikiset JUST for taxonomic info and absolutely nothing else? Why are SO many wikipedia pages either non-existent or lacking taxonomic data that already exists on Wikispecies? Why not import all of Wikispecies' taxo data into wikipedia? Why not at least cross-reference or link every single page? And doesn't that sound incredibly inefficient?
Integrating Wikispecies' taxonomic data into Wikipedia pages following Tree_Of_Life project protocols would be far more useful, efficient, and accessible than the current split/duplication between Wikipedia and Wikispecies. I'm a bit new here, so please point me to the discussion if it's already happened.Fredwerner 00:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wikispecies is a Wikipedia sister project. It is "an open, wiki-based species directory and central database of taxonomy. It is aimed at the needs of scientific users rather than general users." This page ought to answer any questions. Hey jude, don't let me down 01:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I read that faq BEFORE I wrote my note here. It doesn't answer my questions at all. Is it MERELY a taxonomic inventory? Why bother? A) that is extremely limited; and B) having it separate from Wikipedia, with very little of that taxonomic info available to the relevant Wikipedia pages greatly decreases the utility and appeal of all Wikipedia species pages. Why can't the database be folded into Wikipedia, and fill all of those un-started redlink species pages with at least a taxobox? As though to prove the absurd redundancy of this, my comment there posted as from an anonymous IP address, because my login here isn't recognized there, and I am not going to bother to create another separate userid etc. over there. I would like to ACCESS that taxonomic data, but I would CONTRIBUTE more here. The frustrating split functionality is a significant disincentive for me to do either.Fredwerner 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- >shrug< I don't understand what Wikispecies is for, so I don't contribute to it. I understand what Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia are for, so I participate in and contribute to those two. Whether or not I comprehend the purpose behind other Wiki projects seems less than relevant, quite frankly. 'Card 02:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I must admit I pretty much ignore Wikispecies, but that bit from the FAQ is a good reminder to people like me that we're writing for a general audience, not a scientific audience. —JerryFriedman 04:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but wouldn't you want some of Wikispecies' taxonomic info to be available here? For example, Emberizidae. Most species and genera are redlinked; there is no info on those. And despite the best effort of people here, there are still inconsistencies in the taxoboxes, categorization, etc. on pages that DO exist.
- Now look at Wikispecies' emberizid page. You can navigate through live links to pages for every genus and species, each with the full taxonomy, source name/date, some common names, etc. It's very thorough, and neatly standardized; hundreds of pages, none of it available here. And that's just one bird family. Wikipedia's taxonomy categories are a messy, insufficient shadow of Wikispecies; highly inconsistent, with thousands of missing pages, missing links, missing names, etc.
- Why create pages here when they already exist at Wikispecies? Why wait for someone to create flawed, non-standard pages here? Why make everyon do a separate search there for taxonomic info? If Wikispecies is a universal, scientific, language-neutral directory, why can't they at least import its data into Wikipedia, for example as categories, taxoboxes, etc.?Fredwerner 17:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because some 60-75% of Wikispecies' bird taxo data sucks. See eg "Sylvioidea". I treat WS as a source among others, but actually only very rarely. If you import WS data without triple-checking, you're in for some annoying rvs. But species-level data has a reasonable chance to be good. Dysmorodrepanis 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but wouldn't you want some of Wikispecies' taxonomic info to be available here? For example, Emberizidae. Most species and genera are redlinked; there is no info on those. And despite the best effort of people here, there are still inconsistencies in the taxoboxes, categorization, etc. on pages that DO exist.
- Yes, I read that faq BEFORE I wrote my note here. It doesn't answer my questions at all. Is it MERELY a taxonomic inventory? Why bother? A) that is extremely limited; and B) having it separate from Wikipedia, with very little of that taxonomic info available to the relevant Wikipedia pages greatly decreases the utility and appeal of all Wikipedia species pages. Why can't the database be folded into Wikipedia, and fill all of those un-started redlink species pages with at least a taxobox? As though to prove the absurd redundancy of this, my comment there posted as from an anonymous IP address, because my login here isn't recognized there, and I am not going to bother to create another separate userid etc. over there. I would like to ACCESS that taxonomic data, but I would CONTRIBUTE more here. The frustrating split functionality is a significant disincentive for me to do either.Fredwerner 02:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Fred, I don't really see a conflict here. Personally, I feel that Wikipedia is a worthwhile initiative, and Wikispecies a waste of effort, but as at least a proportion of its editors live in western liberal democracies, Wikispecies editors are free to waste their time. I'm interested in making Wikipedia as useful as possible, so any content from Wikispecies that would add value here is welcome in my opinion. Your ideas about creating stub pages for unrepresented taxa are good ideas. While I agree that Wikipedia articles need to be written in a way that is understandable to the "general" reader, that's not to say at all that the scientic community will not find Wikipedia articles of considerable use - the comment about how Wikispecies is intended to "meet the needs" of the latter, whereas Wikipedia is not, is something I've always found a bit patronising to be honest. If information is of value to any significant subset of our audience, let's include it here. SP-KP 17:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with SP-KP; I don't see the conflict. If it bothers you, then feel free to put that information on Wikipedia, it's anyone's right. Hey jude, don't let me down 18:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely agree. You might want to work from the genus level down; I think we have something on most nonpasserine families which are in any case being reevaluated - so for every living bird genus there should be at least a redlink already. I found [[1]] which is a butterfly genus, but a well-rounded article and at least Start-class already; I think it would give a good template/checklist. Dysmorodrepanis 21:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
My only question: Is wikispecies now obsolete because of Catalog of Life??? It essentially does the same thing, and they have a collaboration of many scientists who have entered now over 1 million species???????
- Maybe. The catalogue of life certainly is more comprehensive. Hey jude, don't let me down 00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Missing Pictures
- I think a category should be created, "Bird species without pictures". It would make the task of hunting down pics for articles that have none a lot easier. Abbott75 21:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm actually fairly sure one exists. Or, rather, a list does. I remember following one down from a 'what links here' from a species. Don't recal where it was hiding though. I don't know how much it helps, finding images of neotropical, asian, african and pacific phots is hard, and if I find a free one I tend to check to see if it is needed and add it straight away. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes but editors have to manually place the article in the list. Maybe if there is no pic in the taxobox it should be automatically added to the list as a quick reference to anyone who wishes to find/add pics. Abbott75 05:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- You probably want this missing images. Shyamal 06:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Standardised Opening Line
It has become apparent to me that WikiProject Birds needs a standardised opening line to our species articles. If one already exists, please let me know!
The following is the one I have been using in any article I create:
"The Common name, (Binomial name), is...."
Just to make sure you understand what I mean, it goes : <Common name in bold> <comma> <binomial in italics and brackets> <comma> ect...
What do you all think of my system? Any suggestions/improvements? Abbott75 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I use something very similar (probably copying from Jim), but you need to get rid of either the commas or the brackets (which we Americans call parentheses). Both punctuation marks indicate that what's between them is parenthetical, so both together are too much. I suggest keeping the brackets. —JerryFriedman 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Despite what Jerry has said, I prefer commas, but when I write a new species I start from an existing article and go with what was used in that. I can live with parentheses (it's the proper name for them here too, but only old fogies like me use it). I agree that you shouldn't have both parentheses and commas. jimfbleak 05:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, how is this for a standard line:
- "The Common name (Binomial name) is..."? -Abbott75 07:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can live with that - is there any standard start in other species groups? jimfbleak 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know if there is any. I was hoping someone else might know. Abbott75 10:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- The parens/brackets shouldn't be in italics. (Sorry, I missed that before.) I could live with commas, by the way. That choice is really up to you. —JerryFriedman 14:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I know the choice is really up to each individual editor, but a standardised line would help prevent silly edit wars and such. Do we all agree on:
- I can live with that - is there any standard start in other species groups? jimfbleak 10:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- "The Common name (Binomial name) is..."? Abbott75 02:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I do. The one thing left to argue about is whether to use "the" before species names that start with people's names. "The Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya) is…" or "Say's Phoebe (Sayornis saya) is…"? I have a mild preference for leaving out the "the".
- Have you seen silly edit wars over these things? That would be disappointing. The way to avoid those is for people to be reasonable and for them to know typographical and Wikipedia conventions. I'd hate to have a standard so inflexible that anyone gets corrected over matters of taste such as commas or parentheses around the scientific name. —JerryFriedman 00:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the genera and family intros that are tricker to my mind. Do you start, for example...
- or
I don't mind either way but I'm never sure which looks and reads better. Many of the older family and genus entries would read better if they even mentioned the family name at all outside the taxobox (examples sunbird, broadbill, antbird). Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Projects, review announcements, etc
Bird stubs by order
The size of Category:bird stubs has grown hugely recently, necessitating further splitting. Sub-types by order seem to be the established pattern, and I've made a detailed proposal here. I have to say that a lot of these articles look on the long side to be stubs at all, though; it might be worth the the WPJ having a discussion about localised stub criteria, especially if you're also doing 1.0-style article assessements. Alai 18:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- We might want to compare non-stub articles of the same level (order, family...) to draw up a list of minimum topics, like the evolving consensus what makes a species article a nonstub. Then the articles can be worked over rather routinely. Dysmorodrepanis 20:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- There is a lot of drive-by stubbing. Length of article is only one criterion. For example, genus articles are often short because additions would tend to be more relevant to the family or species level. If I feel that an article has been stubbed purely on length, invariably by an editor unfamiliar to me, I just destub. jimfbleak 10:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
List of New Jersey birds
This list is almost complete. I need help, though, finding out which birds are accidental, hypothetical, extirpated, etc. I have a number of them marked, but I'm aware that there are still some unmarked accidentals in there (e.g., Atlantic Puffin). Please help. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 20:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Try this link New Jersey Records CommitteePmeleski 14:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, but that doesn't include whether a bird is accidental or not. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 15:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Download the NJ State List PDF from the site. Unasterisked Review birds are accidental. Extinct birds are also indicated........Pmeleski 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you see that it says that? I found another source, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. There is, however, a large bibliography that goes with the site. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Review list Does the first section explain review species adequately for you?????? Let me know if you have additional questions or if I can help further.Pmeleski 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Where do you see that it says that? I found another source, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. There is, however, a large bibliography that goes with the site. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 18:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- Download the NJ State List PDF from the site. Unasterisked Review birds are accidental. Extinct birds are also indicated........Pmeleski 17:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Birds Portal
There's a cats portal, a dogs portal - but no birds portal! We need one. Please comment. I'm willing to learn the code necessary to make pretty tables. I'll need backup, though. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 23:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- They've recently done one over at Dino which made me think we could do one too. I was waiting until bird was featured though (should be happening by June). I think we have a decent number of featured and good articles and lots of interesting did you knows, as well as plenty of featured images here and in the commons, so it wouldn't be too hatrd to do. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, there is a lot of repetition on bird from Bird evolution, and that section seems like a copy or mirror of an old version of Bird evolution. When it says "main article", shouldn't it just be a summary? I agree with the tag there: it's too long and should be summarized more briefly, with more info moved to sub pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredwerner (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
- The article is derived from the section in bird. However the main intention is to expand the new article, as well as reduce the section in bird a bit. The current section in bird is pretty much a summary, though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of which, there is a lot of repetition on bird from Bird evolution, and that section seems like a copy or mirror of an old version of Bird evolution. When it says "main article", shouldn't it just be a summary? I agree with the tag there: it's too long and should be summarized more briefly, with more info moved to sub pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredwerner (talk • contribs) 23:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
- I thought of a bird portal a while back too......but I discounted the idea because I thought time would be spent updating the portal instead of updating articles. But a bird portal would be nice and I'd be glad to help, especially if we can new people involved through it....Pmeleski 02:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the best thing, then, is to get Bird to FAC as by necessity it needs to be on the main page. I've had a bit of a look thus far....There is enough other material to go on a portal page already cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm busting my gut on it. The wretched article is already 54k long and has 60 refs (it will probably have twice as many refs when I've finished) and is maybe two weeks off being peer-reviewable. Concievably it could be featured by the begining of June. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think the best thing, then, is to get Bird to FAC as by necessity it needs to be on the main page. I've had a bit of a look thus far....There is enough other material to go on a portal page already cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- Portal:Birds has been initiated! Please come help me get it started. (Do not announce or link to the portal until it is complete, please.) --Birdman1 talk/contribs 22:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Portal until it's ready for public consumption. Andy Mabbett 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Andy Mabbett 11:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've added content to the portal. I also left a ref to it at Wikipedia:Portal/Directory, this isn't publicity, just what they ask of even unfinished portals apparently. Nice job Birdman, btw. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The portal is pretty much complete. All that needs to be done is adding quotes. I will automate it a week after it has been put up. Please find bird quotes and add them. Notify me when you think it's done, and I will announce it. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 14:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I added another 16 quotes, there's 20 total there now. The portal seems ready for prime-time. Will there be a big announcement when it goes public? Fredwerner 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration of the Month
I've been a bit vague and the time for choosing next months collaboration has past. Still there is a clear winner for May, and its bird. I've been working like crazy on it and its actually close to finished though. It'll be peer reviewable in a week or less. Do we want to collaborate on it through this stage or do we want to pick something else? Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- The more I think about it the more I think we need to get bird to FA status for portal etc. It was the winner so it comes off the list. Sometimes collabs don't make it to be FAC ready and thats OK (like Common Raven) we'll do it later. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 07:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bird is the current winner of the colab of the month. Please check out the talk page to see what needs doing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I might do an image of the emerging consensus on phylogeny so that we can replace the S/A image. Can anyone convert PNG into SVG? Dysmorodrepanis 09:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Bird is the current winner of the colab of the month. Please check out the talk page to see what needs doing. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Pigeon racing
I have just rewritten this article. I would appreciate any assistance in improving it in the hope of getting it somewhere near feature article status! --Abbott75 11:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
General page content, layout, style...
Bird song
Does anyone know of any media files anywhere that are free to use that have bird song or bird calls on them? I want to use some examples in the bird#Communication section. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, found one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Further reading?
Has anyone else noticed the Addition of further reading contributions that User:CephasE has been making to many bird articles? For examples, see Brown Thrasher, Northern Mockingbird, or Cedar Waxwing (among many others). I hate to say anything negative about these contributions - because it's clear that a ton of research has gone into them, but when the Further reading section is larger than the article itself (often by a significant margin) I have to wonder if maybe that isn't a bit excessive? 'Card 01:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It doesn't bother me. I've seen people who don't like Wikipedia say that the best thing about it is when it has good references. It would be great if someone would link to those articles when they appear on line, as at SORA. —JerryFriedman 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'd suggest to leave them standing as they are (the italicization is unconventional, no offsite links for reprints, abstracts... are given - this formatting makes them easy to recognize) and only change them one by one as the sources are read and evaluated - they are not presently being used in the articles (or inlined; speaking of which, we NEED a good citation code that leaves articles editable instead of destroying the coherence of the actual output text by drowning it in "<ref" tags). For the time being, to have a list of references (even if the article does not use them) is a Good Thing. Dysmorodrepanis 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- At the very least the CAPITALISATION needs to be removed. Someone (with the necessary resources) should also check a random sample, to see that that they actually exist. Andy Mabbett 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've Googled many of the listed titles, and while I wasn't able to get hits on all of them, I did get hits on enough to convince me that they're legitimate. Besides, if they were fabricated, the sheer number of them would constitute a veritable masterpiece of creative (not to mention labor-intensive) vandalism. 'Card 00:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- At a glance, the articles are legit, and most are even available for free (on SORA). The theses (is "theses" the correct plural or is this an hypercorrection?), thus, should also be good, but these might be more hard to come by. Dysmorodrepanis 10:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I'm the one at the origin of this discussion. The lists of articles are the results of research in Biosis Preview, a database in biology, and the lists of theses are from ProQuest dissertations and theses, both of wich you can find in any good university library. However, as I wrote on my talk page, I learned that this kind of listing is not in the scope of Wikipedia so I stopped adding it to the species. CephasE 00:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks great. These "further readings" should be merged with the "references" section in articles that have both (such as Cedar Waxwings). Footnotes can remain in a separate "references cited" section, but an uncited bibliography should not be called "references".Fredwerner 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- In fact - would it not be better to <!-- out-comment --> the entire block of refs initially? In some cases where the article itself is not a stub anymore, it now gives the impression that the article is based on peer-reviewed research and thus "encyclopedia standard" reliable. If the refs are removed from the displayed page but kept in the source code, they can be worked into the article at leisue. CephasE, I think you collected an outstanding amount of data there and I for one am quite happy about it. None of these refs should be deleted, but it might be better to remove the uncited ones from view when "further reading" is deleted so as not to confuse readers. Dysmorodrepanis 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Citations and bibliographies
In citations and bibliographies, please use {{Cite book}}, {{Cite journal}} and other Citation templates where possible. They add COinS metadata. Andy Mabbett 11:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not actually required though, right? Because quite frankly from the editors point of view they are cumbersome and hideous and I have no desire to touch them with a stick. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Me neither, for exactly the same reasons.
- But we need to do something. The Harvard reference code would be ideal... if it had a good template. As articles grow longer, using < ref > tags will make them more and more painful to edit: you can't edit single sections anymore when adding a ref, as you need to know ALL the short-hand ref names; and odds are that newcomers will break the tags again and again because some sections's code cannot be read for lack of a single continuous sentence.
- Do you think it would be worthwhile to push (I mean PUSH!) for a working Harvard referencing template? It would unite the advantages of a manual system (easy editing even in long, reference-rich articles; no need to edit whole article just to add one ref) and the < ref > tag (the most comfortable system for readers, even in long articles).
- I had put down some ideas at Template_talk:Harvard_reference#Revamped_template. This was basically brainstorming for what fields are needed. I think it should be possible to make a citation template that:
- is concise (code-wise)
- is flexible (ONE template for books, journal articles, news articles, maybe even Web articles...)
- gives output linking inline citations to the ref section and back
- does not clog up the output text code with ref text, only uses a short inline tag and puts the main ref code in the reference section where it should go (if one uses and copies refs a lot, it makes things WAY quicker ;-D ) Dysmorodrepanis 13:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Taxonomy
I've recently been noticing that several of the articles about Cathartidae species refer to the supposed relationship with storks. Now that many authorities are denying the relationship, all that has to be changed. This is leading me to make some suggestions:
- Try not to refer to higher-level taxonomy in lower-level articles. That is, in Andean Condor just say that it's in the Cathartidae, not what this has to do with other birds. New World vulture is the place to discuss the vultures' relationships. That way fewer articles have to be changed when the taxonomy changes.
- Try to keep in mind how stable a particular taxon is likely to be. The AOU's draft South American check-list has notes such as "1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes has never been seriously questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of evidence (see summary in Cabot 1992, and more recently, García-Moreno and Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Paton et al. 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004, Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the Tinamiformes is the sister group to the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that these two groups, the Paleognathae, are the sister to all other living birds, the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988, Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002, Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007)." So if you're comparing a Crypturellus species to a Tinamus species, don't hesitate to say they're related. If you want to bring in a comparison to a ratite, only hesitate a little. But don't be too precise about how two tinamous are related. If you say they're probably in the same subfamily, someone will come along and put them at opposite ends of the list or say they're in two families in the same suborder. When it comes to species in taxa that are obviously in a state of flux—Timaliidae, Cotingidae, Cardinalidae, water birds—try not to mention relationships at all. Taxonomists like to make it appear they're writing the new gospel, but it's all provisional.
- Try to avoid mentioning any controversial or potentially controversial taxonomy till the end of the article.
What do you think of these suggestions? —JerryFriedman 22:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- The first point is very valid, but perhaps metioning it is unavoidable for certain oddballs. While the relationship between nw vultures and storks doesn't need to be addressed in every single article for each species, taxonomy questions do need to be touched apon for the oddballs like the Stitchbird or the Wrentit. But as a general rule there is no need to discuss any higher level stuff in a species article if its already covered somewhere else. I'm not sure about the last point though, my inclination is against splitting the taxonomy stuff and for keeping taxonomy near the front of the article. Its like the first step to knowing something is knowing what it is, and what it isn't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're right that mentioning higher-level taxonomy is sometimes unavoidable. In fact, it probably does belong in the lead sentence of the aptly named Sapayoa aenigmata.
- As for where to put the taxonomy, you and I have had this discussion before about Albatrosses (which I think handles it much better now than when I was commenting on it). To me, what the bird "is" is given by its description. Wagtails are slender insect-eating songbirds with unstreaked plumage, very long tertials (whether I'd notice that or not), etc. The article can define them that way and eventually get to the controversial taxonomy.
- The exceptions are the problematic taxa that I mentioned above. I guess there's no way to talk about the Pardalotidae (maybe someday I'll see one) without saying what's in and what's out this year.
- Now to reorganize Stitchbird in keeping with what I'm saying. —JerryFriedman 04:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I fell into the habit of putting taxonomy first because I based my layout on the HBW. Perhaps taxonomy should go at the front of higher level groups, familes and orders, maybe even genera, but at the bottom in species accounts? (or at least above the human and x section, but near the bottom) Taxonomy in a family account gives you the chance to introduced several possibly different groups of birds (for example the Artamidae) and explain why they are together; in a species account it is less important - you can mention it in the intro and then discuss it later for those interested. I'm still inclined to keep the taxonomy first though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to have the relationships mentioned in the into briefly - that is, name the family, note any recent changes in genus or whatnot, and name inter-generic relationships if known. (By the way, this discussion is about systematics mainly, not taxonomy which is basically how stuff is named scientifically, not where it belongs). This I follow by a brief mention of where the critter lives, or if there's not much available on distribution, everything that's available. See for example Blackcap.
- Then, I usually put the descriptive section, I place this as the second part of the intro if it's brief, or as a dedicated section when longer. This is useful IMHO because by that point - which is still at the start of the article - the reader will know a) what sort of bird the article deals with, b) where that bird's from, and c) how that bird looks like, without going into too much detail except maybe in the last point which is the most useful for non-specialists.
- The systematics discussion I place after the intro in higher-level taxa, as that's the main content of the article usually. In species, I only do this when it's really, crucially important, such as in the Sapayoa. But even then, I tend to structure it more like I did at Hoatzin (which doubles as a higher-level article in any case). In other cases, I put it whereever it's most appropriate: if there's already a discussion of subspecies, I tend to do this after or as a subsection of the Description part, before "Ecology" (i.e. detailed distribution, habitat, feeding, reproduction). If not, systematics are liable to go last. See for example Palila for an article where systematics come fairly early, Song Sparrow for one where they go last and with good reasons for that.
- Taxonomy proper I usually limit to a footnote about the scientific name's etymology. I find footnotes (< ref >) ideally suited for this.
- As regards NW vultures - having seen the latest studies, I tend to go with the AOU in placing them incertae sedis or indeed as Cathartiformes. The "evidence" consists mainly of data which suggests against a relationship with this or that group, nothing new that supports anything. Indeed, the more data we get, the more muddy their relationships have become.
- The alternative would be to use [[Ciconiiformes]] <small>(disputed)</small> (the least awkward position if they have to go into some other order). Simply put, there are slightly more synapomorphies that seem not to be due to convergence and unite them with the Ciconiiformes. They are almost certainly not that close to the falcons, and the accipitrids are genomically aberrant and thus molecular comparisons may be affected (this is the reason why S/A could not place them with the accipitrids. But still, NWV are voiceless, clapper their bills, lack phaeomelanins, and crap on their legs). Fossil record also suggests, slightly, against a close relationship with Falconiformes. If my life depended on placing a bet, I'd consider them a basalmost divergence of the "para-Ciconiiformes" (i.e. storks and herons - which are less close than it seems maybe - and whatnot). This would provide ample time from an early K-PG/early Paleogene "higher waterbird" radiation to arrive at the morphology, whereas that's rather tricky if you consider Masillaraptor. Also, there are the teratorns to be considered. But if my life didn#t depend on it, I'd give them their own order for the time being. Dysmorodrepanis 11:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- "Systematics" and "taxonomy": the definitions you give don't entirely agree with general-use dictionaries. For instance, the NSOED says taxonomy is "classification, esp. in relation to its general laws or principles; the branch of science, or of a particular science or subject, that deals with classification; esp. the systematic classification of living organisms." Systematics is "the branch of biology that deals with the interrelationships of different species and their classification; systematic zoology, botany, etc.; taxonomy." Merriam-Webster and American Heritage say that systematics is primarily the science of classification or secondarily what goes where, taxonomy. Your "taxonomy" is their (and my) "nomenclature". I assume the definitions you gave are used by the people in the field, which in an encyclopedia entitles them to equal respect with the definitions in general use (dodging the debate).
- I'm perfectly happy with mentioning systematics (your definition) at the beginning, as in saying something is a bird in the swallow family. That gives a lot of readers a good picture in only a few words. I'm just suggesting that where there's controversy or technical discussion, it goes later. You and I seem to agree on that.
- I don't entirely agree with you on higher-level taxa. Listing what the taxon contains is not quite the definition of the topic; it's also about common characters, which I think could get higher priority in a lot of articles. Of course, sometimes the common characters are so technical ("Tertials?" says the reader. "Coracoid? Outgroup?" [I know what tertials are, but not the others]) or the taxon is so heterogeneous that you can't do much more that talk about what's in it.
- Palila looks to me like an example of an article where the systematics is less interesting that "Distribution and status" and "Ecology and behavior" and would go better after them.
- New World vultures: Don't I recall that they also resemble storks in having perforate nostrils and courtship displays on the ground? It would be great to have all that in the article, with a reference.
- Only the southern half of the AOU called them "Incertae sedis". The North American check-list still has them in Ciconiiformes. I don't know enough to judge, but I'm quite comfortable with "Incertae sedis", as you say, and I wish the ornithologists would admit that more often, instead of acting as if their lives really did depend on having everything in some place.
- Another suggestion for all: except for membership in the taxa that have "never been seriously questioned", use phrases such as "is currently placed in" or "Systematists consider it to belong to" instead of more definite phrases. —JerryFriedman 21:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- I fell into the habit of putting taxonomy first because I based my layout on the HBW. Perhaps taxonomy should go at the front of higher level groups, familes and orders, maybe even genera, but at the bottom in species accounts? (or at least above the human and x section, but near the bottom) Taxonomy in a family account gives you the chance to introduced several possibly different groups of birds (for example the Artamidae) and explain why they are together; in a species account it is less important - you can mention it in the intro and then discuss it later for those interested. I'm still inclined to keep the taxonomy first though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Data requests (sources, media, ...)
You may have noticed that I have started to add references I have heard of but not yet reviewed as <!-- annotations --> in source code. If someone does a project/major contribution, this should be helpful. But in the latter cases, this can also be collaboratively. So here I made a section for us to ask for data needed to do some edit. Or maybe if people will have the opportunity to go someplace where they can take nice pictures for articles, they could here offer it.
Songbird phylogeny papers
If anyone comes across phylogenetic studies regarding the following birds,
- Dulidae - Palmchat
- Ptilogonatidae - silky "flycatchers"
- Hypocoliidae - Hypocolius
let me know on my talk page, Dysmorodrepanis 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, can someone who has the HBW volume with them check out the bibliography for phylogenetic studies of:
- Tichodromadidae - Wallcreeper
- Salpornithidae - Spotted Creeper
- Rhabdornithidae - Philippine creepers
Thanks in advance! Dysmorodrepanis 21:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm fairly sure that those familes haven't been covered yet, but I'll have a look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- Those families/subfamilies are due to be covered in Volume 13, which is scheduled for release in 2008 (according to the HBW website). MeegsC 09:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Megascops sources
I am looking for sources about the split of Megascops from Otus scops owls. The AOU split justification only gived the Owls book by König/Weick/Becking of 1999, but there should be some peer-reviewed paper I guess. It's not unheard of for OR to be published in such a monograph, but it's very rare. Dysmorodrepanis 06:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- I sent an email to the Global Owl project re: the above, and got the following email back in response...
- "The 2nd edition of the American Ornithologists' Union (AOU) Check-list (1895) recognized Megascops for the Screech Owl and Flammulated Screech Owl, the only 2 species of Otus covered by the CL at the time. These species were placed in Otus in the 3rd edition (1910). All subsequent treatments by the AOU and other authorities have continued to recognize Otus for New World + Old World species, with Megascops as a synonym.
- On the basis of vocal differences, Marshall and King (1988) divided Otus into two main subgenera: Otus for Old World (Old World) scops owls with slow notes; and Megascops for New World (New World) screech owls with fast trills. They also recognized several other subgenera, including: Ptilopsis for O. leucotis (Old World); Pyrroglaux for O. podarginus (Old World); Macabra for O. albogularis (New World); and Gymnasio for O. nudipes and O. lawrencii (New World), the latter also placed in the genus Gymnoglaux. Species in Pyrroglaux, Macabra, and Gymnasio all lack erectile ear tufts, unlike other members of the group. Of these New World subgenera, only Megascops and Gymnasio occur in the Check-list Area.
- In addition to temporal aspects of the song, New World and Old World Otus also differ in having one vs. two fundamental song types (König et al. 1999). With the exception of O. flammeolus, New World species have two song types, including a primary song ("A-song") used for territoriality, and a secondary song ("B-song") used in courtship and male-female duetting; the "A-song" typically consists of a long trill orsequence of single notes in fairly rapid succession, while the "B-song" is relatively short and often given in a characteristic rhythm. Old World species have only one song type, which is never a long trill like that of New World species; this song is used in both aggressive situations and in courtship during duets with females. The Flammulated Owl (O. flammeolus) also utters a single song type (not a trill) and thus is more similar bioaccoustically to Old World Otus than to Megascops.
- Wink and Heidrich (1999) showed with cytochrome b sequences (17 species) that New World and Old World Otus are strongly divergent genetically, and suggested elevating Megascops to full genus (although in their book, they maintain Otus with Megascops as a synonym). In their analyses, members of Otus appear in at least three different clades, making the genus polyphyletic: Ptilopsis forms a clade with Asio otus, whereas Old World and New World Otus form divergent monophyletic clades; all of these have strong bootstrap support. Old World and New World Otus are separated by uncorrected genetic distances of 12-16%, which is comparable to values between other genera of owls that they examined.
- Additional aspects on the materials submitted to the AOU CLC (which voted to accept the proposal) can be seen at this link, with comments by ornithologists and the like: http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCProp58.html
- Amadon, D. & J. Bull. 1988. Hawks and Owls of the World: A Distributional and Taxonomic List. (with the Genus Otus by J.T. Marshall & B.F. King). Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Color plate of island endemic scops owls by A.E. Gilbert. 64 pp.
- König, C., F. Weick, & J.H. Becking. 1999. Owls of the world. Pica Press.
- Wink, M. and P. Heidrich. 1999. Molecular evolution and systematics of owls (Strigiformes). In: Owls of the world (C. König, F. Weick, & J.H. Becking, eds.), Pica Press, pp. 39-57."
- By the way, he also sent a PDF of the Wink & Heidrich paper, if you can't find that locally... Let me know if you need it. MeegsC | Talk 08:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Totally cool! I had the Wink/Heidrich around already, but with only the main work (König et al) being cited in my sources, of course I couldn't find it, or even thought to look it up... Thanks so much! Dysmorodrepanis 19:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Specific bird taxa (species, families etc) + ID requests
Bird ID
Image:Oropendola costa rica.jpg I found this great image of an Oropendola on Flickr on a free lisence. Anyone have a guidebook to Central America, its from Costa Rica. It will be a better example for the taxobox once we know which one it is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- That's quite a picture. It's a Montezuma Oropendola, Psarocolius montezuma. At least it's identical to the plate in Howell & Webb, and that species is found in CR. —JerryFriedman 02:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thought it would be, its the same one I saw in Belize. Thanks! Man, it would be awesome to get a recording of the calls of these guys, they sounded so cool. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The song linked to at the article is pretty amazing. I saw and heard these birds in Mexico, and though they weren't as good as the one in the recording, I still enjoyed it. I agree that a recording of Wikipedia's own would be even better. —JerryFriedman 04:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thought it would be, its the same one I saw in Belize. Thanks! Man, it would be awesome to get a recording of the calls of these guys, they sounded so cool. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
European curlews
Can some confirm that I've captioned Image:Curlews.jpg correctly, please? Andy Mabbett 07:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- The front bird should be Whimbrel also. Eurasian Curlew image from same source is here. Dysmorodrepanis 12:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Andy Mabbett 12:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
ruby-throated hummingbird
Need more info in the "ruby-throated hummingbird" article. It gives only the very basics. Zantaggerung 13:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Added some information on it. If there's anything else you think needs to be added, feel free to say, or to do so. Hey jude, don't let me down 15:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Move request:Rainbow Lorikeet to Trichoglossus haematodus
Hi, I've made a suggestion for this as there is no generally accepted common name for the species complex with the many subspecies having different names. I know it is not standard practice to have bird articles under scietific names but if you can think of a better idea please come and discuss on the talk page. cheers cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Funnily enough on IOC they have split off Rainbow Lorikeet T. moluccanus and Red-collared Lorikeet T. rubritorquis, leaving Coconut Lorikeet T. haematodus on [Worldbirdnames].... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 11:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
Bird ID on featured picture candidate
Hi! I thought you guys might want to help. If anyone knows blackbirds (Turdus merula) well, could you assure me that the picture of a female up for featured picture status is, indeed, a T. Merula? I love the picture, but looking at the page, I'm only convinced that people confuse their blackbirds. Now, the photographer seems to know what he's talking about, but I want to be completely sure that the ID on the bird is correct. The picture is at Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Turdus_Merula_female. Thanks! Enuja 04:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- If this is a wild bird photographed in Germany then it must be T. merula, I'm happy with the ID Richard Barlow 07:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- me too jimfbleak 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- me too Dysmorodrepanis 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- me too jimfbleak 08:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The case of the two Orange-fronted Parakeets
OK folks, I've set up a place to discuss options before I set up a disambig page for Orange-fronted Parakeet.....
Lemme know what you think. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Tchagra ID
Anyone got a birds of Southern Africa book handy? This is a Tchagra, probably a Three-streaked Tchagra, that I photographed in Botswana. I haven't got my notes from then with me and I don't have my book either (both back in the UK) so, uh, help? Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a Three-streaked to me! From what I can see in the photo, the bird appears to have a brown crown bordered with black... MeegsC 11:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- According to an explanation in the foreward in SASOL, it looks like Brown-crowned is the new IOC common name for the species while Three-streaked was the name commonly in use in SA before the latest IOC revisions. However, I note that we have Brown-crowned and Three-streaked on our WP tchagra genus page with different specific names, so I may be way behind on taxonomic changes in the region! MeegsC 12:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like a Brown-crowned Tchagra (Tchagra australis) in the picture. It was also known as Three-streaked Tchagra in Southern Africa but the name was changed to conform with West and East African usage and to avoid confusion with the Three-streaked Tchagra (Tchagra jamesi) of north-east Africa. Tigershrike 15:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I should have used the scientific rather than the common name in my posting, as I too thought it was Tchagra australis. That's why old Linneas invented those scientific names, I guess! Sorry for the confusion, SS. MeegsC 15:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Ratites splitup?
Should we split up ratites into many orders? I fail to find a good model that supports keeping them together, let alone in Struthioniformes (see last sentence of article)! Dysmorodrepanis 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- The main point is that the ratites are monophyletic, right? Given that, it doesn't matter too much to the general reader whether we call them an order or a superorder (subclass?), or what name we give it. And if they are one order, I don't know what's wrong with the name Struthioniformes in connection with the last sentence of the article. Is there a rule that type taxa should have split off early?
- Never mind the first two sentences above. It seems you're saying they might not be (probably aren't) monophyletic. I don't think the article quite says that. —JerryFriedman 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, they are probably monophyletic all right among crown paleognaths (not that there are many lineages left of these). But relationships are more easy to express if they are split up, and the divergences are deep in time. Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- If I may disagree with you about something you know much more about than I do, I think saying the divergences are deep in time needs some qualification. They're probably deep in time. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. It basically boils down to assembling papers much as we did for Passeriformes. The case for a deep-time split is mainly borne out by combined molecular and morphological evidence. To wit: rheids - basal taxa, Miocene. Casuarids - basal taxa, Oligocene, crown taxa Miocene. Struthionids - basal taxa, Eocene. Lithornithids, apparently an Eocene (or generally Paleogene) group. So you have the casuarids already in much the present-day state when ostrich ancestors probably were still tinamou-like flying birds.
- Very interesting, and could go in the article with just a little rewriting (and those all-important references). Crown=extant, right? —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- The molecular data is no very helpful; it must be remembered that the "ratite" morphotype is as far as anyone can tell a paedomorphic homoplasy.
- (It's nice to learn new words now and then. —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC))
- The former issue has unkonwn consequences for molecular evolution, but it is likely to have some consequences. Similarly, with the NZ taxa, it's tough to say whether genetic drift due to the several megavolcanism events down there confounds molecular clocks, but it is quite likely that it did to some degree.
- The best case I can presently make for a split is that a) it is far more flexible - who knows what surprises come up eventually?, and b) it allows for a more realistic placement of the lithornithids.
- But it all rests on collecting papers. My resources on the issue are so much strewn about, it's not as neat as with the Passeriformes where few things published before 2002 or so are really noteworthy. One might start off on the refs collected on EvoWiki. Dysmorodrepanis 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. It basically boils down to assembling papers much as we did for Passeriformes. The case for a deep-time split is mainly borne out by combined molecular and morphological evidence. To wit: rheids - basal taxa, Miocene. Casuarids - basal taxa, Oligocene, crown taxa Miocene. Struthionids - basal taxa, Eocene. Lithornithids, apparently an Eocene (or generally Paleogene) group. So you have the casuarids already in much the present-day state when ostrich ancestors probably were still tinamou-like flying birds.
- If I may disagree with you about something you know much more about than I do, I think saying the divergences are deep in time needs some qualification. They're probably deep in time. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, they are probably monophyletic all right among crown paleognaths (not that there are many lineages left of these). But relationships are more easy to express if they are split up, and the divergences are deep in time. Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind the first two sentences above. It seems you're saying they might not be (probably aren't) monophyletic. I don't think the article quite says that. —JerryFriedman 04:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I can't understand a lot of the systematics section of that article. I think I'm going to put some comments at its discussion page.
- Yes, i wince at it too, even though I did a part of it. But that was only to plug the most major leaks :( Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- In general I think changes in classification happen too fast. The result is changes getting reversed (you know who you are—yes, Northern Oriole, there's no need to giggle, and Great Common American Egret (Egretta Casmerodius Ardea alba), I don't want to hear anything at all from you), which should make systematists feel mortified but doesn't seem to. For our purposes, I don't think we should make changes unless there's a really compelling consensus.
- Or develop one, by discussing primary evidence. Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not at all sure we should be doing that. For one thing, it's a lot like OR. For another, there are very few Wikipedians who are capable of understanding the primary evidence, so I don't see how we can have a meaningful consensus. Certainly a consensus among ornithologists means a lot more—and even that can get reversed in twenty years. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The difference between "stating the obvious" and OR may be a fine line to tread. My rule of thumb is "is it the consensus of the combined peer-revieved research (even if the conclusion itself has not been published)?" For example, the Parrot paper by the de Kloets is nice as regards phylogeny, but its molecular clock is roundly rejected by the fossil record (see also doi:10.1080/08912960600641224). Neither do the de Kloets discuss the fossil record in sufficient detail, nor does Waterhouse (2006) discuss the de Kloet paper. So although the conclusion that the spindlin molecular clock is way off has not been published in a scientific journal yet, it's something that forces itself upon anybody comparing these (IIRC) 2 most recent papers on the issue: the inferred model is incompatible with the material evidence, or parsimony is violated in a most outrageous way. The latter may still be the case, but the odds are slim indeed.
- One person's "obvious" is another person's startling and probably suspect originality. I think the policy is not to put even obvious conclusions into WP if they haven't been peer-reviewed. I don't do it—any more. I'm not going to go back and change the obvious but sourceless things I've mentioned, though, so I'm not going to tell you not to do the same.
- What would happen if you wrote a short and pithy ornithological article on combining the De Kloets with Waterhouse? —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- In general, I noticed that almost nobody in the field (avian evolution) takes paleogeography into account, though one sees it increase in frequency. Paleogeographical data is basically "common" knowledge. Or rather, commonly accepted as proven fact and freely accessible, but in a disorganized manner as of now (though I hear this may change in the not-so-distant future). And if applied (e.g. in penguin evolution) it is the one thing that glues the strands of evidence together.
- It is a very philosophical question, as you noted below, going as deep as "when is something proven beyond doubt". If there's one thing I learned from WP, it's thow many relativizing qualifiers ("most likely", "probably", "almost certainly"...) the English language has to offer. And of course WP's most popular word, "however". ;-) Dysmorodrepanis 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- The difference between "stating the obvious" and OR may be a fine line to tread. My rule of thumb is "is it the consensus of the combined peer-revieved research (even if the conclusion itself has not been published)?" For example, the Parrot paper by the de Kloets is nice as regards phylogeny, but its molecular clock is roundly rejected by the fossil record (see also doi:10.1080/08912960600641224). Neither do the de Kloets discuss the fossil record in sufficient detail, nor does Waterhouse (2006) discuss the de Kloet paper. So although the conclusion that the spindlin molecular clock is way off has not been published in a scientific journal yet, it's something that forces itself upon anybody comparing these (IIRC) 2 most recent papers on the issue: the inferred model is incompatible with the material evidence, or parsimony is violated in a most outrageous way. The latter may still be the case, but the odds are slim indeed.
- I'm not at all sure we should be doing that. For one thing, it's a lot like OR. For another, there are very few Wikipedians who are capable of understanding the primary evidence, so I don't see how we can have a meaningful consensus. Certainly a consensus among ornithologists means a lot more—and even that can get reversed in twenty years. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or develop one, by discussing primary evidence. Dysmorodrepanis 21:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course this brings up the question of how we should handle classification. Should we follow some authority (HBW), or use our own best judgement? I can see advantages to both, and will only point out that you're one of the few people here who can use judgement on these matters. —JerryFriedman 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- I totally use my own judgement to make the most sense of the evidence available. E.g. of course HWB 1-2+ are bound to be off after >1 decade. Anything peer-reviewed may go, consensus papers are published about 1-3 per year, and most of these are regional and summarize things generally accepted.
- That's bound to create conflicts with the people who are going by HBW and HANZAB. In fact, I see a conflict that you didn't create: paleognathae treats the ratite families as separate orders, giving the placement in Struthioniformes (as in the rest of Wikipedia, I think) only as an alternative. But I can see why you don't want to use something that's ten years out of date. Maybe we should be following the ornithological unions that publish supplements every year or two.
- I'd say the problem is that Wikipedia relies heavily on systematics, as for taxoboxes and categories, but classifications are all tentative until you can't imagine new evidence that will overturn them. For instance, genetic evidence will settle relationships when ornithologists have sequenced the entire genome of every relevant species (including a good understanding of intraspecific variation), when they know the rate of genetic change including how it varies randomly and in time and among taxa, and when they know the dreaded age at first breeding (and why not the typical age at last breeding?) of every relevant taxon throughout history.
- I know we're far from the first and may never achieve the last breeding criterion. But until then everything is tentative. How do we deal with that at Wikipedia? In the writing, two ways: Make it clear that everything is tentative (as I suggested elsewhere on this page), and base everything on consensuses that are likely to be stable. For instance, if the ratites are probably more closely related to each other than to any other living birds, the discussion should start there.
- In taxoboxes and taxonomic categories, I don't have a good answer, except that taxoboxes can often show more than one possibility. So when you use your judgement, following peer-reviewed articles and consensuses as you said, maybe you should also give alternatives when it makes sense to. —JerryFriedman 05:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I find myself using a small "disputed" warning or a "see text" disclaimer in taxoboxes every now and then. It's better than to simply fill out the form and give the impression that these issues are settled. Dysmorodrepanis 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry for ranting when we seem to agree so much. I don't object to anything you do with the ratites as long as you note that it's disputed. Especially if you make the relevant sections of ratite and paleognathae accurate and consistent. —JerryFriedman 02:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
- I find myself using a small "disputed" warning or a "see text" disclaimer in taxoboxes every now and then. It's better than to simply fill out the form and give the impression that these issues are settled. Dysmorodrepanis 13:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I totally use my own judgement to make the most sense of the evidence available. E.g. of course HWB 1-2+ are bound to be off after >1 decade. Anything peer-reviewed may go, consensus papers are published about 1-3 per year, and most of these are regional and summarize things generally accepted.
Monotypic Genera
While exploring recently (I'm a new Wikipedian and still finding stuff on the site), I discovered our "Genera of Birds" category -- and found that we're dealing with monotypic genera in a very uneven way. Some monotypic genera (i.e. Loddigesia) have a tiny stub entry under the genus name. Others redirect to the single species in the genus. Would it make sense to eliminate the genus entries (since they appear to be little more than a single line at the moment) and to redirect those genera to the appropriate species -- which should ALWAYS contain a sentence indicating that the species is in a monotypic genus? Dixonsej and I are willing to take on that task if it's something others agree is appropriate.
Potentially more confusing to a neophyte birder/biologist though, is the page that displays if you click on "Genera of Birds"; it's a hodge-podge of genus names and species names. I think it might make more sense to always display the genus name here, even if there's only a single species in the genus. Couldn't we then redirect to the appropriate species if we decided to eliminate the genus level for those entries? Comments/suggestions appreciated!
- I've always made the monotypic genus a redirect to the species - I thought we all did that? Jimfbleak.talk. 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- When I first looked at Loddigesia, it wasn't redirecting. Now it is! James and I were in contact about this a few days ago, so he may already be cleaning things up... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MeegsC (talk • contribs) 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
- Usually, it should be to a) make one page only for species and genus in monotypic genera, such as Silktail, and to have the category tag under the scientific name, even if it is a redirect - in this case, Lamprolia (click on the small redirect link under "Silktail" to see). The species+genus article, then should go in the appropriate family category which in this case is Category:Monarchinae.
- Using categories on redirects is not advocated on WP, except in cases where it would make the category listing inconsistent - such as here.
- If no article exists for small genera such as Grallina but one species article does - Magpie-lark - I think it's also OK to categorize the single page under the higher category - here, again, Monarchinae - until the other pages are produced, as to avoid having too many empty categories which get deleted.
- For groups of birds (not necessary monophyletic taxa!) with a well-known common name, in addition to the above, categories under the vernacular name exist, such as Category:Ducks. These go under the appropriate taxonomic category, in this case "Anatidae" because "ducks" are found in numerous Anatidae subfamilies. But this is not yet as consistent as the categorizing system that uses strictly taxonomic names.
- The entire bird article categorization scheme is actually more complicated to explain than it is. As I see, you have already gotten the hang of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysmorodrepanis (talk • contribs) 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC).
I have created a Category:Birds by common name. This is included in Category:Birds by classification and might conceivably also be placed elsewhere (would it be worthwhile to put it in Category:Bird instead and mention in in the "birds by classification" explanatory text?). Given that at least Old World warbler and possibly Old World babbler too should eventually become disambiguation pages similar to warbler and that we already have loads of categories such as "eagles" or "ducks", I think such an arrangement is better than obfuscating the taxonomic category tree with common-name categories. If there is no taxonomic hierarchy for a common-name category, it can now be simply created rather than moving/merging/deleting categories and pages. Dysmorodrepanis 15:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
AfD
I note that a taxon author Hans von Boetticher is up for AfD. Jimfbleak.talk. 16:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Neotropical bird coverage
Many impressive, common, or otherwise notable Neotropical species have no article. I have started writing articles on a few of these (Yellow-winged Tanager, Solitary Eagle, and Greater Antillean Grackle) I and am now writing an article on Brown-backed Solitaire. If anyone can help with these articles it would be appreciated. Vultur 02:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Its a product of several things - we tend to write about things we know, or want to know, we tend to write about things we're familiar with or have even heard of, and we tend to write about things we have information on to write a halfway decent article on. It doesn't hurt if there are pictures either. I guess its just a sort of systematic bias. That said, taking a break from working on bird today I rattled off Rufous Hornero, a common, well known national bird of South America. It'll take time to do every species, but hey, wouldn't it be boring here if everything were done? Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been looking for some things to do, but I really don't know the names of any neotropical species. If you want to suggest a few to start articles on, I'd be glad to tackle them. Corvus coronoides ContributionsGo Blue 14:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- See List of birds of Brazil, for instance, or Furnariidae. I think it would be great to have a blue link or two in the long red stretches on that page. Say, one foliage-gleaner, one non-Synallaxis spinetail…
- Speaking of national birds, Cuban Trogon is probably a good one to do (and a gorgeous bird). —JerryFriedman 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I've been looking for some things to do, but I really don't know the names of any neotropical species. If you want to suggest a few to start articles on, I'd be glad to tackle them. Corvus coronoides ContributionsGo Blue 14:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a complaint so much as a "hey, here's something to work on." Vultur 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you want something to work on, my idea of a high priority is family accounts. For instance, Cathartidae has a summary of the taxonomic controversy (*yawn*--and I yawn despite having contributed to that section) but not a word about diet or morphology! Is that your favorite family by any chance?
- Nevertheless, Brown-backed Solitaire is a fine choice, and if you don't have Howell & Webb, I'll add a few things from there. —JerryFriedman 23:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I have Howell & Webb (in fact, that's my main source for these things). I also have used H. Lee Jones's "Birds of Belize". I'll go work on Cathartidae now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC).
- That feels much better. It's a little scary for you to take my suggestions, though. As Dysmodrepanis says, work on whatever strikes your fancy. —JerryFriedman 22:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Animals collects just what the name says. There are some things Neotropical that might be built, or straightened out; perhaps something strikes your fancy. Dysmorodrepanis 21:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Neotropical bird ID
Found this on Flickr, a Costa Rican bird taken at INBIO park ([2]) it may be an ovenbird or a antbird - in any event we are poorly represented in tropical American dull brown jobs photographically (as well as aricle-y), so it would be good to have an id on this fellow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- And why not a cotinga or a bristle-less tyrant flycatcher? And no doubt you'll tell me why this is impossible, but the birds this looks most like in Howell and Webb are the Catharus thrushes, though I don't think it's any of the species in H&W. —JerryFriedman 05:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- No I was actually more hoping than guessing. The extent of my Neotropical experience was 10 days in Belize and Guatemala where I saw no antbirds, no ovenbirds (except two woodcreepers, since they are now lumped). I guess I saw ovenbirds down in Argentina as a kid but that was years ago. Anyways, Catharus thrush is an excellent place to start looking. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- A ha. Maybe its a Clay-colored Robin. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree Vultur 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- A ha. Maybe its a Clay-colored Robin. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- No I was actually more hoping than guessing. The extent of my Neotropical experience was 10 days in Belize and Guatemala where I saw no antbirds, no ovenbirds (except two woodcreepers, since they are now lumped). I guess I saw ovenbirds down in Argentina as a kid but that was years ago. Anyways, Catharus thrush is an excellent place to start looking. Cheers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Very nice. I'm convinced. Funny that I shouldn't have thought of CR's national bird. —JerryFriedman 05:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added this picture to the Costa Rica article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vultur (talk • contribs) 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
World Bird Names says Amazons...
OK folks,
World Bird Names calls all members of Amazona Amazons rather than Parrot, but still seems to consider "Conure" a nomina non grata for some reason....Anyone have any issue with me renaming all the species Amazons (as does Forshaw)? The AOU (a North American organisation) still calls them (South Amercian birds) "Parrots", and the IOC say they are listening to AOU argue for the changing of North American bird names.....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- No problem at all. Go for it. Why not make an executive decision and reinstate Conure as well. Cheers. Maias 13:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I say change it :) Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Change it. It helps distinguish different parrot types. Totnesmartin 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Conure is probably unliked because of its association with the pet trade. No reason not to use Amazon though. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Change it. It helps distinguish different parrot types. Totnesmartin 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I say change it :) Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Another ID
I photographed this in mangroves near Morón, Cuba last month and can't identify it. I even went as far as producing the list of Cuban birds to try and narrow it down, but no luck. Sorry for the lack of scale, it was probably about 2 ft head to tail. Any ideas? Yomanganitalk 15:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose this is the time to admit that I've spent my entire life dodging the identification of immature Black-crowned Night-Herons and Yellow-crowned Night-Herons. Looking at pictures on the Web, I'm thinking this might be Yellow-crowned, but I don't really know. —JerryFriedman 16:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Redirects
What's all the carry on about creating redirects? Is there any need to create a redirect for Blackbird at blackbird? They both link to the same article do they not? Richard001 03:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This page is getting a lot of edits (mostly from anon IPs) due to the ongoing conservation/development battle in Grenada regarding the selling of a reserve to create a resort. I suspect it'll need some cleaning and bias factchecking. I'll have a go at this later but would appreciate other eyes to watch it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- I have done some tidying but have left the content largely untouched so far. I agree that the conservation section needs work. Maias 05:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Raven or crow?
Any ideas? It was put into Common Raven but questioned. It seems kind of slight to me, but the bill is thick enough. Anyone have a bird book of Japan? Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Update: After discussion on Talk:Common Raven, there seems to be consensus that this is a Jungle Crow. Kla'quot 02:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Images and Photos on commons
I can see that many of you have uploaded a number of photos. I am currently working mostly on wikispecies and trying to fill out the bird section. If you add new bird photos would you be willing to put them on commons so that we can link to them from wikispecies? Thanks so much Open2universe 00:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Articles needing attention
- Biology pages needing attention (cleanup, expansion, wikification, expert needed, etc.)
Bird intelligencereasonably covered subsequent to request for attention.- Avian pallium, High vocal center and Avian Brain Nomenclature Consortium webpage)
Blue Tit (just a small job- far too many images, they need sorting. See my note on the article talk page)Done. Now all someone needs to do is expand the text and place an image or two near appropraite text. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Microformat
Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 11:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
List of years in birding and ornithology
I've just added List of years in birding and ornithology to the "pages requested" section. Please see the few existing pages for layout. Thank you.
Also, I suggest that year links in birding articles link to one of the above, and not the general year, as happens in other genres - so 2005 not 2005
GA nominee Kereru
Hi, I've listed Kereru as a GA nominee, so if you haven't contributed please feel free to rip into it...cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Bird vocalization
Bird song may be a little restrictive and perhaps we could incorporate a few other topics if the article was instead termed Bird vocalization. This would include things like call mimicry, call semantics, acoustic niches, behavioural isolation and the use of vocalization in systematics etcetera. Comments please. Shyamal 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm in favor. —JerryFriedman 16:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Or maybe bird call? Anyway, why is it suddenly fashionable to put messages here instead of the talk page? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like there are many who are interested in birds who are on the project page, but who do not keep many bird pages on their watch list ! The response is definitely better here than on article talk pages. Similar even on WP:TOL. Shyamal 01:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- No I mean why is it on the project page rather than the project talk page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- It must be the signatures. I guess there should be no content on the project page with signed sections. I fell for that too. Now moved here. Shyamal 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Have done a work over on Bird song, needs some restructuring and copy-edits. The number of links to Bird song are daunting, so have not considered the move to Bird vocalization yet, but the current content deserves the new title. Can also do with some examples of bird calls (media files) and their corresponding spectrograms. I do not have good open source calls to do this, but can generate the sonograms if someone can point me to good media that exemplify whistles, buzzes, alarm calls and some complex song etc. Shyamal 10:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has remarkably stayed unimproved for a long long time. While bird covers the facts, this article should cover the fact-finding. This could presumably have more on history, field and laboratory techniques. The article could outline and link to other main articles matter including
- Museum techniques - collection history - eggs, skins, freeze-drying, DNA
- morphometrics, moult (I am up for illustrating this part)
- The historic role of birds in the development of the concepts of species, geographical isolation etc.
and species.
- Field techniques
- ringing, colour marking
- population estimation techniques
- behaviour, territoriality, calls
- migration studies
- Laboratory techniques
- endocrinology (?)
- flight studies
- pathology
- Conservation approaches
- in-situ
- ex-situ
Shyamal 06:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, and add population monitoring to field techniques (and long term life history data collection) and genetic studies to labe techniques. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fleshed out the article. Please do go over it. It needs more illustration and citations. There is an ugly list of organizations and journals that needs to be somehow dealt with in a better way. Shyamal 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Tinkle, tinkle…
I'm having problems with Tinkling Cisticola.
SASOL, Roberts & ITIS have these species
- Levaillant's Cisticola, Cisticola tinniens eastern southern Africa, reedbeds, sedges, rank grass, and similar wet habitats
- Tinkling Cisticola, Cisticola rufilatus, central southern African savannah
whereas Birdlife international, Avibase & HBW have
- Tinkling Cisticola, Cisticola tinniens
- Grey Cisticola, Cisticola rufilatus
Tinkling Cisticola therefore appears to refer to two different species. I can’t see any obvious evidence that the confusion arises from a taxonomic split, so I’m a bit baffled. At present, I’ve written the one I’ve seen, Levaillant's Cisticola, and created Tinkling Cisticola as a disambiguation page with Grey Cisticola red-linked. Any alternative suggestions or clarification would be welcome. jimfbleak 09:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- Zimmerman, Turner, and Person, Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania, has tinniens as Levaillant's Cisticola, if that helps. It doesn't include rufilatus or anything called "Tinkling". I don't see any better way to handle it than what you've done. —JerryFriedman 15:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think that that rufilatus wouldn't occur in Kenya anyway, it's more central southern Africa. Thanks anyway, Jerry, I'll leave as it is by default, jimfbleak 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
redirect pages' talk pages
A lot of redirect pages' talk pages have the BirdTalk box. Is this OK? Dixonsej16:24 13 May 2007
- I can't imagine any reason for it, but it wouldn't be my top priority to fix, either. —JerryFriedman 16:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
New species
Gorgeted Puffleg. Critically endangered too. At least we discovered it before it went extinct. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
- If we don't get a fix on the original description ref from the Web, I'll be stopping by at Weller's (one of the describers) lab this summer and check it out. Dysmorodrepanis 15:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Capitalization conventions
Why does the chart say to make a redirect from blackbird to Blackbird? Redirects from lowercase single words to uppercase single words are technically impossible, because the Wiki software automatically redirects anyway. Try clicking on blackbird and reading the URL.
And why should the convention be to make everything uppercase? I don't think the rationale of avoiding confusion with common terms to be that compelling. Take Bald Eagle, which is mentioned here, as an example. Nearly all the articles it links have it as "bald eagle." Within the article itself, there are several lowercase instances, showing how confusing this rule is to editors. Is this really a "convention of ornithology"? A quick Google Scholar search shows that scientific (presumably ornithological) journals all have it as lowercase. --JianLi 04:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The convention is followed by many of the big ornithological journals, the Auk for example, the Ibis, the Emu, the Condor, as well as the Handbook of the Birds of the World, the Birds of the World: Recommended English Names, and most modern field guides and the majority of family and species monographs. As for Bald Eagle, it should be uppercase throughout. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Avibase lists
Avibase has lists of birds for all the world's countries, which is a good starting point for generating articles of the "list of birds of..." variety. User:Yomangani has generated dozens of these semi-automatically. However, these lists are unreliable (eg African Reed Warbler on the Luxembourg list.
Avibase uses US nomenclature and style eg Common Loon, African Reed-Warbler throughout the world. If I grit my teeth, I can live with that, except that the American names often refer to different subspecies or even species. For example Black Scoter appears on all the European country lists except those I produced, but Common Scoter doesn't.
Yomagani said he would produce a bot to fix at least the name problems, but hasn't done so. I lack the skills to do that and I'm disinclined to go through all the lists by hand. Any ideas? jimfbleak 07:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Nestling
I made nestling, a re-direct to chick. Is there a better target? Andy Mabbett 14:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Right now, both nestling and chick take you to the Chick disambiguation page. Seems like there should be a better target than that! MeegsC | Talk 14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I just found out that there is a separate wiki called Birds Wiki at http://birds.wikia.com/. It is an encyclopedia that aims to provide a better understanding of birds. Currently, I am the only person that is writing articles for it, and I would like some help. If anyone would like to join this wiki, just go to the site and start editing. You can go to my talk page on Birds Wiki and tell me if you want to help with it if you would like (optional). Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia, but now let's go and create an encyclopedia specifically about birds! ~ ɸSwannieɸ 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I don't get it. Why would anyone spend time writing/editing about birds on wikia.com? Wikipedia already HAS a substantial "encyclopedia that aims to provide a better understanding of birds" ...and without any ads. Fredwerner 04:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The taxonomy part really needs cleanup. Shyamal 04:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- No doubt about that. I think the best way might be to have the ratite taxonomic discussion at Paleognathae. Too bad I don't know enough to do it. —JerryFriedman 00:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Raven FAC
Stopping by from WP:DINO to say good luck on your FAC! May both of our Projects one day have as many featured articles as the freakin Hurricane Project!! Heh. Sheep81 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Flight feathers
I've created a new article called flight feathers, and would like to suggest a redirect of Remiges/Rectrices/Pinion (feather) and THEIR associated redirects, as the new article will give the reader a far more thorough coverage of the subject. Any objections? MeegsC | Talk 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- looks good to me, jimfbleak 18:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Agree to all the redirects that are covered in the article.Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Citations
I've been messing around with some of the citations possibilities available on Wikipedia, and I'm wondering if we might want to switch to the HARVARD citation method rather than cite book etc. The reason I suggest this is that MUCH less information needs to go into the article itself, making it far less of a hassle to edit a well-referenced piece. Basically, you just put < ref> {{Harvnb|LastNameAuthor1|PublicationYear|p=pagenumber}}</ref > The only information you MUST enter is the author's last name and the year of the publication. You can still put ref name = "whatever" if you're going to refer to the same article more than once, and you can list up to four author names. So, for instance <ref name= "Raptors"> {{Harvnb|Ferguson-Lees|Christie|2001|p=23}}</ref>. (This would yield Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001, p. 23.) You can use the same <reflist|3}} template we're using now to create a Citations section, then add a Reference section with the expanded information that we're currently pasting into the article itself. You can still jump back and forth between the article and citations section like you can with cite book, and can also jump from Citations down to the reference section. (See the new Flight Feathers article if you want to see how it works -- but please be aware that I haven't put all the citations into the reference section yet, so a few may not work.) The only problem I see so far is that you can't easily indicate authors for something like HBW, which has many authors each contributing single chapters -- but then, we don't individually identify them now either, so I guess it's not really a problem! Food for thought... MeegsC | Talk 23:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd still like to see the Harvard script/template straightened out. I tend to use unanchored Harvard refs, but would like to use anchored ones. But WP:NOTPAPER, and therefore the template must be far more flexible and compact. Perhaps, I thought, the best thing would be a very simple anchor tag, and formatting the ref itself entirely templateless. It would, arguably, serve things better than any one template could. Dysmorodrepanis 21:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Capitalisation
I'd like to get some clarification on the policy on capital letters. These edits of mine were reverted and this policy was cited as giving an explanation as to why capitalization is the right thing here. I understand the policy to cover article titles, not the body - the first article I check, Kingfisher, includes sentences like "The kingfishers were traditionally treated as one family", with a lower-case "k". I don't want to get into a revert war, so any guidance people can offer would be gratefully received — ciphergoth 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well, this is the bird project page and you refer to a cat page, so I suggest seeking specific policies with regards to mammals there, but I believe that they follow our convention of capitalising the common names of species (Ocelot, Madagascar Kingfisher) but the common names of groups, families and orders are uncapitalised (cats, kingfishers, passerines). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, FWIW the edits you made were entirely along bird SOP. HBW uses it so I guess HMW would use it too. Dysmorodrepanis 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to contest your project's insistence on capital names for species. WP:MoS#Animals,_plants,_and_other_organisms says: "Common (vernacular) names have been a hotly debated topic, and it is unresolved whether the common names of species start with a capital. As a matter of truce, both styles are acceptable (except for proper names)." Please change your guidelines or change the Manual of Style to make them consistent with each other. -Pgan002 03:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) has it that Insofar as there is any consensus among Wikipedia editors about capitalization of common names of species, it is that each WikiProject can decide on its own rules for capitalization. It is worth pointing out that while ornithology articles use capitalisation, we don't impose that standard on other articles (for example contrast Nightingale with Ode to a Nightingale). Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Done. I editted the Manual of Style to accurately reflect that standard from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Fredwerner 04:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I thought I was being bold, and doing everyone here a favor by replying to Pgan002, and editing the MoS on Capitalization of bird names as he suggested. But I may have just opened a small can of worms. Check out the current MoS, and tweak it as needed. Also check the talk page for a bit of the back and forth on this, and clarify or add links to places where this has already been discussed at length. Fredwerner 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've been talking on the page and have suggested reverting your change Fred. We don't need to change the MOS so long as we can quote Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), it was upsetting too many peeps. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I thought I was being bold, and doing everyone here a favor by replying to Pgan002, and editing the MoS on Capitalization of bird names as he suggested. But I may have just opened a small can of worms. Check out the current MoS, and tweak it as needed. Also check the talk page for a bit of the back and forth on this, and clarify or add links to places where this has already been discussed at length. Fredwerner 15:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The Collaboration of the Month is...
Bird migration. A hard one, so later on we'll need to do some planning and lists of what needs doing to the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yahoo!
Way to go, Common Raven collaboration team!! I see it's been awarded FA status -- and deservedly so. Well done everybody! MeegsC | Talk 10:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Making long citation lists nicer
Hey, I just found the long-lost template I needed! You may have noted that I, like some other folks, resorted to bolding to make the authors more "visible" in long references lists. But this is awkward. This sweet piece of markup:
{{aut| }}
will turn everything behind the | into small caps, as most scientific journals' reference lists do. It is a good piece of code, works like a charm in < ref > footnotes too and can handle internal links, for example if you want to cite something by Sibley & Ahlquist. This is the tool to make reference lists easier to browse and more professional-looking!
It does not work in cite templates, obviously, but small caps could simply be implemented there (if people would stop for once trying to build the megalomaniac uber cite template and do something that is usable IRL for a change ;-) ) Dysmorodrepanis 15:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
image placement
So, I'm engaged in a (trivial) argument over at African Finfoot about the placement of the image. Another user has placed it outside and above the taxobox rather than in it. As far as I've been aware the image should go in the taxobox or somewhere else, not above it. So, like, thoughts are appreciated. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Placement of images in or out of taxoboxes
There are no rules about this, but the concensus, as far as I can tell from the majority of bird and animal articles that exist on Wikipedia, is that if there is one image it goes inside the taxobox. One editor currently disagrees and is adding multiple (very attractive) images outside the taxoboxes along with a edit summary stating Image added - please do not place it in taxobox!!. So I was wondering what people thought and how we should deal with this? We need some kind of consensus. Personally I think they look better in the taxoboxes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'm the editor who doesn't like images in infoboxes. To start with, I think infoboxes are unaesthetic, carry information that can be shown neatly without the awful box's being there and certainly don't need to be plonked in the top right corner where their warts and pimples can be clearly seen by all. Images, on the other hand, can decidedly improve the appearance of an article and can carry a tremendous amount of information that can be taken in at a glance, provided the image is at a scale where a microscope isn't needed - and that is what happens when it's shoe-horned into an infobox. I had a long fight with territorial editors at Jonty Rhodes about this, but the situation became tense and abusive (from both sides), so I backed down. However, the reasons for disliking small images, remain. As Sabine points out, there are no rigid rules about the inclusion of images in infoboxes (perhaps because it was thought that each case should be treated on its own merits, rather than having a rigid rule). To me the layout of a page is pretty important - the placing and size of images and headings can make or break an article. To mention just one aspect which is frequently ignored - the placing of an image where the subject is definitely looking left or right - if the subject looks out of the article, the image appears awkward. WP recognises this and gives a guideline at MoS/Biographies/Images, but few editors seem to be aware or care about this and yet the reasoning applies just as much to bird images. (See William-Adolphe_Bouguereau) Paul venter 03:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The comparison of infoboxes on biographical articles and taxoboxes is unfortunate. Your dislike of infoboxes is understandable since reducing information about people to a structured form is usually meaningless. The situation with taxoboxes is quite different. It is useful to be navigate to the genus and look at sister species and so on along well established taxonomic structural norms (since Linnaeus). It is always useful to know geographic range and appearance of the organism and this is why the provision for the image addition to the taxobox exists. If there is any problem with the taxobox formatting, then it would be good to discuss it at Template:taxobox. The size of the thumbnail image is probably settable somewhere (?), but in the case of the image of the African Finfoot -they appear to be of the same size both in and outside of the taxobox. cheers. Shyamal 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- You've discussed a lot of points, Paul, and I'm going to try to address them individually.
- You don't like infoboxes and taxoboxes in general. However, this really is a consensus, and I agree with it because readers who want that information know just where to look for what, and others can skip it easily. If you have ideas on how to make the boxes look better to you and maybe to others, I agree with Shyamal that Template talk:Taxobox is the place. (They look fine to me as they are.)
- You don't like pictures in those boxes. I have to say that I think the pictures look great in the boxes, with no white space around them (unlike the picture of Jonty Rhodes). I'd definitely support a standard that there should be a picture in the taxobox as long as one is available.
- In particular, you don't like putting pictures in the boxes because they get too small. Here again I agree with Shyamal is right—of the few bird images you posted that I looked at, all were the same size as the usual taxobox image. In any case, I don't think this is a big deal, since users can see a bigger version of the image (often too big to put in the article) just by clicking.
- Layout is crucial to you. I must admit that it isn't very important to me, as long as it's easily readable. But you've got a real problem if you feel that way about Wikipedia, since people read it in windows of different sizes and thus in different layouts.
- Images should not face out of the page. I mildly agree with you, and I think I reflected one of my few bird photos so it would face left. People might want to think about this where it applies. (On the other hand, I think that if I were looking at a lot of bird articles and noticed that all the images faced into the articles, I'd start to long for one that didn't.)
- Them's my sentiments. —JerryFriedman 05:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- You've discussed a lot of points, Paul, and I'm going to try to address them individually.
- The comparison of infoboxes on biographical articles and taxoboxes is unfortunate. Your dislike of infoboxes is understandable since reducing information about people to a structured form is usually meaningless. The situation with taxoboxes is quite different. It is useful to be navigate to the genus and look at sister species and so on along well established taxonomic structural norms (since Linnaeus). It is always useful to know geographic range and appearance of the organism and this is why the provision for the image addition to the taxobox exists. If there is any problem with the taxobox formatting, then it would be good to discuss it at Template:taxobox. The size of the thumbnail image is probably settable somewhere (?), but in the case of the image of the African Finfoot -they appear to be of the same size both in and outside of the taxobox. cheers. Shyamal 03:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- On a project, it's important to have a consistency of presentation, and I think that Paul has accepted that to the extent that images are not now being placed above the taxobox. I've also noted that some of the images are the same size inside and out of the the taxobox, and although this is subjective, I think if it is the only image it looks better in the taxobox than out.
- Even if the image is larger out, it's only a one-click action to see the full-sized version. It is quite clearly standard practice that if there is one image, it goes in the taxobox. I've not pushed this myself (too many other issues on my plate) but I'm sure Shyamal is right on this.
- I think we all appreciate what Paul is doing, especially for article where the prospect of a good photo seem remote, but, Paul, please bear WP:OWN in mind,and be prepared to accept a consensus even if it may not be what you want. jimfbleak 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- It never occurred to me that an image facing out of the page was wrong, but surely that is easy to rectify in any image editing software (so long as the bird isn't sitting on a sign). And I'd also like to express my gratitude to Paul for finding so many great images. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think we all appreciate what Paul is doing, especially for article where the prospect of a good photo seem remote, but, Paul, please bear WP:OWN in mind,and be prepared to accept a consensus even if it may not be what you want. jimfbleak 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it's nice to know so many editors are concerned about the issues that have been raised, and I appreciate the brickbats and bouquets. Firstly, I'm not against infoboxes (or their subset taxoboxes), and I agree that they are useful for finding one's way around - what I don't like is their appearance and positioning. (It seems that some people actually are fond of their angular appearance and day-glow colours!) I do think that their original purpose was INFORMATION and not a vehicle for images. To address a point raised above that an image placed inside or outside the taxobox appears the same size, would depend critically on one's settings. The appearance of a page is NOT set in stone so that it appears the same to all browsers. If you click on "preferences" at the top of the page and then go to "files" you'll find that you can set the size at which you view thumbnails. Now unfortunately this feature only works if a size has NOT been set in the coding of the article, so that images that have been placed inside an infobox (see Monteiro's Hornbill which has been set at 250px) stay small, no matter what preferences you have set for your browser. As for only clicking once to see a big version of the image, not all of us are blessed with extreme bandwidth and why toggle between a decent-sized image and the text when you really can have it all on one page?. The ownership issue raised by jimfbleak is something which can take up volumes in discussion if one looks into all its ramifications. Cheers Paul venter 07:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The last point is a good one - not that I've ever been proprietorial about
myany articles -perish the thought!. jimfbleak 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- The last point is a good one - not that I've ever been proprietorial about
Volunteer wanted
I have started blue-linking birds that were listed at Requested Pages. I've brought them all here: User:Marskell/birds (note the initial pages done the last couple of days). It's basically the IUCN plus what I can find on google to create a stub.
I'd like a second gnomish editor to a) double-check the taxa info; b) find pics (where do you folks go for those?); and c) to expand, of course, as much as possible. Let me know; there's only ten thousand-odd of these so we can get an article on all of the :). Marskell 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you like, I'll do the two Petrochelidon articles, as long as there is no rush - doing a few SAm snipes at present, jimfbleak 05:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
- Where do we go for images? Take them ourselves (mine are the blurry ones), use those that other wikipedians have taken (I've found several images on Commons that weren't being used), find them on public-domain sites like the USFWS, find them on Flickr or Google Images with a free license or get permission (that doesn't work too often), get them from friends, request pictures. That can be the "we" that includes "you", by the way :-) —JerryFriedman 01:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I offer to do sketches of birds that are tough to get images for. I can take up limited request over weekends, and they will typically be in a certain simplified artistic style like the samples here. Shyamal 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Bird peer review
I have sent the bird article to peer review. If you'd like to make some comments then please go do so here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
WP:TOL template
I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you like this
Hi I joined today, and I made this today. Do you like it? LINK: http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a386/AnimalFans/250px-Aves_diversity.png You could add it to the main Bird article. --Mitternacht90 20:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- Are the images from a copyrighted source? They look like it. Because then Wikipedia can't post it. Dysmorodrepanis 22:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scarlet-headed_Blackbird.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:American-Bittern-01-web.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Baltimore_oriole_male.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Crestedtreeswift.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anas_platyrhynchos_male.jpg, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Detail_of_Indian_Peacock_tail_feather.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carduelis-tristis-002.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Halsband-Wehrvogel_Chanua_torquata_0505273_Ausschnitt.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Scarlettanager99.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PaintedBunting23.jpg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Circaetus_gallicus_01.JPG, and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Milvus_migrans_primary.jpg
--HoopoeBaijiKite 23:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Photos
I've written start articles for Tree Martin and Fairy Martin as requested pages. I would have thought that someone in Oz might have images of these common swallows that they could add? Jimfbleak 10:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Categories/Common names
I recently nominated a category merger from Category:Strigiformes into Category:Owls. I did this because it seems they are the same thing, and I have also seen categorization under the common name in other animal categories. In fact, this is policy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life#Categories. This policy makes sense, since those who know the common name might not know the scientific name, but not the other way around.
Now I've noticed that there are many duplicates like this among the bird categories, for example Category:Toucans & Category:Ramphastidae, Category:Old World vultures & Category:Aegypiinae, or Category:Woodpeckers & Category:Picinae, to name just a few. It seems this segregated categorization may be the work of User:Dysmorodrepanis. Is there a purpose to this duplicate categorization? The policy I linked above seems pretty clear that the common name should be used to avoid confusion... --Eliyak T·C 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Well, it is helpful have a "tree" of categories according to scientific classification. The ToL policy is ludicrous and needs to be changed, seriously - whoever instated it was ignorant of the fact that most lifeforms simply do not have a common name. Such a policy would have been OK in the early 18th century, but not anymore with the 1st edition of Systema Naturae. Scientific terminology is precise and unequivocal. Vernacular names cannot replace it. As regards birds, why not have both? It does not hurt, and WP:NOTPAPER. The idea that scientific-name categories be abandoned is IMHO disgraceful. WP already has a problem with scientific credibility, and switching to vernacular names will make a bad thing worse.
- And there is no single globally accepted system of vernacular names for higher-level bird taxa. What is preferable: Parulidae, or a debate about whether the category would be "wood warblers", "wood-warblers", "New World warblers", "American warblers", ...? Dysmorodrepanis 17:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- BTW Old World vultures is NOT synonymous with Aegypinae. I don't think it's up already, but they're paraphyletic. A tree of scientific-name categories also allows assignment to multiple places in this tree for taxa incertae sedis.
- To sum it up, I did what I did because it works. The vernacular-name system doesn't, except for some taxa. Look at the horror of Category:Moths for the ugliness it cases. Dysmorodrepanis 18:00, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly agree with Dysmorodrepanis, that maintaining scientific named categories is important. Since Wikispecies doesn't seem accepted, credible, or used, categories are the next best option for a unified phylogenetically-accurate taxonomy. More dangerous than duplication is the proposed (existing?) hybrid classification system with common-name categories for taxa that have them, and scientific-name categories everywhere else. That guarantees a discontinuous, paraphyletic mess, with many gaps requiring bridges of sci-named subcategories, or inventing many new (and inevitably confusing) English names. How would you negotiate through Category:Seabirds to keep the various species and families in the right higher-order taxa? And would someone looking up Great Crested Flycatchers be less confused by a classification scheme that includes old world flycatchers, than they would negotiating Category:Tyrannidae? Dumbing down wp's taxonomy, and creating erroneous, disjointed categorization schemes just because it fits a layman's vernacular, doesn't sound desirable.
- Here's a proposal: Include one-sentence descriptors on each sci-named cat page with common names of member taxa (see: Category:Buteoninae. Fredwerner 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is my fault. I have had to create so many of them that I just couldn't follow up with it. I shall correct that whenever I come across it. Dysmorodrepanis 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Same here. I created the original tree, but did not create cat blurb for every single cat. I'm also partly responsible for leaving as many existing English names in places. I couldn't even get category:Sphenisciformes renamed properly, and after also failing to get Category:Owls merged, I gave up and used the exdisting categories as much as possible. Circeus 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- That is my fault. I have had to create so many of them that I just couldn't follow up with it. I shall correct that whenever I come across it. Dysmorodrepanis 23:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a proposal: Include one-sentence descriptors on each sci-named cat page with common names of member taxa (see: Category:Buteoninae. Fredwerner 22:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been adding to this to extend the article beyond the US, and in particular I've added the other subspecies. I'd like to have a sentence of description, but apart from costaricensis, where I have the book, I can find nothing on the web, even for the nominate race jamaicensis. I would have thought that someone, esp in the US, would have a field guide for Mexico or the West Indies at least, and could add a bit. Jimfbleak 10:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a look in the HBW. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)