→Regional bird list template: new section |
capitalization of word following hyphen in bird names |
||
Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
Any other comments and/or thoughts are most welcome! [[User:MeegsC|MeegsC]] | [[User talk:MeegsC|Talk]] 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
Any other comments and/or thoughts are most welcome! [[User:MeegsC|MeegsC]] | [[User talk:MeegsC|Talk]] 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
==capitalization of word following hyphen in bird names== |
|||
While there, at least for birds, is nothing to discuss in regards of the standard capitalization of e.g. [[Rufous Twistwing]] (as evidently is being discussed [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Animal_capitalization|elsewhere]]), I would point out that, contrary to the information given on the front-page of this group, it is not a generally accepted standard that "''the word immediately following a hyphen in a species name is not capitalised''". This is true per [[BOU]], but not per [[American Ornithologists' Union|AOU]], which generally follow the rules recommended by Parkes, 1978 ([http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v095n02/p0324-p0326.pdf PDF]). An example: Black-crowned Night-heron (correct per BOU rules) ''contra'' Black-crowned Night-Heron (correct per AOU rules). In short, the AOU rules depend on the "truth" of the name, i.e. if it really belongs to the group, it should be in capital. Hence, the Black-crowned Night-Heron, which really belongs to the heron family (Ardeidae), should have "heron" in capital per AOU. An example of the contrary is the Superb Fairy-wren, where "wren" shouldn't be written in capital per AOU rules, as it doesn't belong to the wren family (Troglodytidae). Not surprisingly, there is a general tendency for African, European, Asian and Australian authorities & bird guides to follow the rules used by BOU, while authorities & bird guides in the Americas (North, Central & South + Caribbean) generally follow the rules used by AOU. Anyhow, I'm not sure how the front-page of this group came to be, but it might be worth mentioning the disagreement among the various authorities on this specific issue. [[User:Rabo3|Rabo3]] ([[User talk:Rabo3|talk]]) 23:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:55, 14 December 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
- /archive 5
- /archive 6
- /archive 7
- /archive 8
- /archive 9
- /archive 10
- /archive 11
- /archive 12
Another FAC candidate
I've put Flight feather up for consideration. Please comment here! MeegsC | Talk 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC
Yet another ID request
Anyone want to put a name to this one? Here's a back view. Apparently it's a tame bird used to keep the gulls away in a resort in California. Also apparently, the naturalist told the photographer it was an African Hawk Eagle, but I don't believe it. —JerryFriedman
Martin
I search for etymology of Swallow and martin. Thanks. 86.76.216.171 10:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hope you did try [google:Martin+etymology]. According to [1] "kind of swallow-like bird" (Chelidon urbica), 1589, from Scot. martoune (c.1450), from M.Fr. martin, from the masc. proper name in some sense. Writers in 17c. said it was named for St. Martin of Tours (d. 397 C.E.), whose festival day (Martinmas) is Nov. 11, about the time the birds depart. See also [2]. Shyamal 11:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Another good on-line source for etymologies is the American Heritage Dictionary. Type your word next to where it says "Entry Word", not next to where it says "Search Dictionary".
- I like to include the etymologies of scientific names in our articles when I can, but English etymologies are so easy to find that it makes sense to mention them only when they're especially interesting. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
according to The Oxford Dictionary of British Bird Names: The first attestation is from Scottish "martoune" (c.1450); in French, Martin roselin is the Rose-coloured starling and the Martin-pecheur is the Kingfisher. the naming of animals after personal names is a medieval tradition, with the first known example from flanders in 1152. saint martin was a popular figure among the Normans, who probably brought the name to England. Before this time, the birds would probably have been called swallows, similar to the the Dutch Huiszwaluw or German hausschwalbe. Swallow itself is a germanic word, perhaps originating in the Proto-Germanic swalwo, a cleft stick (presumably after its tail). Interestingly, this is also the source of Sula - a gannet genus. Totnesmartin 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes fr:martinet (oiseau) is a swift and it's look like. Huiszwaluw is not close to the name of the familly Hirundinidae and french hirondelle (and not far too from italian:rondini). 86.76.216.199 21:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Needs attention and possibly a move to Altricial to fit with Precocial. Shyamal 01:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- It certainly needs to be moved, as the singular of "altrices" is "altrix", not that either of those is in the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. I'd prefer "Altricial", as you say. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
California Condor on Main Page
Today (Dec. 4)'s Main page article is the California Condor. If its not already, could everyone please put it on their watchlist to revert the vandalism a main page article typically attracts? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow 02:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- And congratulations on getting it on there (and keeping wrestlers and cartoons OFF!) Totnesmartin 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Just wrote this, and will now proceed to submit it over at T:TDYK, but I'd appreciate if people could give it a review,maybe add stuff about his scientific significance in the field, given that I have relatively little on that. Circeus 03:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
why ignore an important link?
All the classification boxes ignore the fact that bird are in fact dinosaurs. T.Neo (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Considering that the class Aves was coined by Linnaeus in Systema Naturae, while Goodrich's Sauropsida was introduced some 150 years later, its actually the other way around (in terms of the taxonomical names).Rabo3 (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
So dinosaursare In fact birds? They are one and the same. T.Neo (talk) 11:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, yes and no (considering that the popular use of the term "dinosaurs" is a bit imprecise), but that's another discussion. My answer related directly to your question, where you asked why the taxo-boxes ignored the dinosaur link. They do not, as it, strictly speaking, is the oldest name that should be used (cf. ICZN). The name Aves is older than Sauropsida. So, if the rules were set in stone, Sauropsida would be a junior synonym of Aves - not the other way around (careful; Sauropsida as defined by Benton, 2004, is a rather different group). However, the Linnaeus based names are not strictly limited to monophyletic groups (even if there has been a general move in that direction in the last few decades), meaning that there are a few cases where major groups (class and upwards) are used even if they cover paraphyletic groups. Fishes is another paraphyletic group that frequently is used simply because it - arguably - is a logical group for everybody but hardcore fans of cladistics. Rabo3 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
When I use the term "dinosaur" I am talking about a creature belonging to the clade dinosauria T.Neo (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sheep81, no, and I never said Aves was paraphyletic (which it, as you clearly know, isn't). I just said that the Linnaeus system isn't limited to monophyletic groups. The Aves versus Sauropsida comment was said tongue in cheek, and I thought that was clear, but if it was not - my mistake (obviously, no one would ever serious suggest moving the whole deal to Aves!). Part of the problem is the dual use of Sauropsida - sometimes used for the polyphyletic group which popularly could be called reptiles, amphibians and dinosaurs (roughly Reptilia), and sometimes (better, the way it originally was intended and is correct as per cladistics) for the monophyletic group, which also includes the birds (+ a few smaller groups of arguably more problematic status). So, there's the problem, we've got one class, which, from the cladistic point of viuew, includes another class (and the Linnaeus system is pretty clear about the probs in that). Could it be argued that Aves should be changed - well, yes, but there's part of the point I was trying to make earlier: If nothing is gained (which I, at best, would question in this case), then the Linnaeus system does not require that the change, as it does not necessarily require that names are restricted to monophyletic groups. Of course, if was speaking to colleagues or writing a scientific paper on the phylogenetic affinities of these clades that would be a different matter, but wiki is not a "biologists & paleontologists only" club, and when most people think about birds, they think about the extant species. Rabo3 (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize, I was reading your comment backwards. Personally, if taxoboxes are going to use Linnaean ranks then I am just fine with Class Aves for birds and Class Sauropsida for all other reptiles. Linnaean ranks are inherently subjective so I don't really see the point in trying to tie them to phylogeny, making them all monophyletic. The taxobox is kind of a shortcut for people so it's best to use terminology that is more widely understood. That's my opinion. Sheep81 (talk) 06:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sheep81, no, and I never said Aves was paraphyletic (which it, as you clearly know, isn't). I just said that the Linnaeus system isn't limited to monophyletic groups. The Aves versus Sauropsida comment was said tongue in cheek, and I thought that was clear, but if it was not - my mistake (obviously, no one would ever serious suggest moving the whole deal to Aves!). Part of the problem is the dual use of Sauropsida - sometimes used for the polyphyletic group which popularly could be called reptiles, amphibians and dinosaurs (roughly Reptilia), and sometimes (better, the way it originally was intended and is correct as per cladistics) for the monophyletic group, which also includes the birds (+ a few smaller groups of arguably more problematic status). So, there's the problem, we've got one class, which, from the cladistic point of viuew, includes another class (and the Linnaeus system is pretty clear about the probs in that). Could it be argued that Aves should be changed - well, yes, but there's part of the point I was trying to make earlier: If nothing is gained (which I, at best, would question in this case), then the Linnaeus system does not require that the change, as it does not necessarily require that names are restricted to monophyletic groups. Of course, if was speaking to colleagues or writing a scientific paper on the phylogenetic affinities of these clades that would be a different matter, but wiki is not a "biologists & paleontologists only" club, and when most people think about birds, they think about the extant species. Rabo3 (talk) 05:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Conure/Parakeet
A recently suggested move of the Sun Conure article to Sun Parakeet has resulted in a rather lengthy discussions on its talk page. Any additional input would be appreciated; esp. in regards of the general naming rules - if any - typically applied to pages for birds. Thanks Rabo3 (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Collaboration deadlock and Barn Swallow at FAC
OK folks, there is a deadlock on the choice for collaboration 'tween teh Kea and the Barn Owl at 4 votes each...consider breaking said deadlock or voting for the dark horse if you so desire.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Barn Swallow
Barn Swallow has passed FA, great input from the project. The bad news is that I've started ever so slowly tweaking Blackbird.Jimfbleak (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Congratulations Jim! One question though: why is Blackbird tweaking bad news? : ) MeegsC | Talk 09:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Again, congratulations on passing it! Now, if I could only find time to actually do the oft-promised Andean Condor... Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
What featured pictures should be acceptable for birds?
There is a discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Bird at FAC....
It has pretty much been ready for months. So I threw it to FAC. If there are any other problems they are minor so go and comment! Hopefully now I can go back to simpler more fun things. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the input from various editors now makes this a fairly comprehensive article, so I'm putting it up for peer review. Please make any changes required or comment here Jimfbleak (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
ID of Hawaiian bird
File:Bird on Hawaii.jpg Is it a Saffron Finch? Bamse (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Greenspun illustration project: requests now open
Dear Wikimedians,
This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).
The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests
If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.
The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.
- General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
- Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations
thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)
Yet another capitalization debate
There is another debate about capitalization at the MoS talk page. This one started as a comment specific to birds, but it appears to be getting bigger than that. Anyone wishing to join the debate please do so. Justin chat 18:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Regional bird list template
Darn it! Basar, who'd started work on our "Bird list header" template, has gone and retired! So I've been messing a bit with the template (in my sandbox, of course) for the past few days, seeing how it works. I think the idea has some real potential; it would greatly reduce the amount of time and energy needed to create and maintain regional lists of virtually any sort. However, I think there are some problems with the template as it currently exists.
Chief among them, in my books, is the fact that the edit button is effectively deactivated; you can edit the whole page, but not individual sections. (See List of California birds, as an example.) I think this might be confusing for the average editor, who won't understand why the normal "edit" buttons aren't beside the obvious headers. (Of course, maybe this is a good thing; maybe it'll keep the vandals from doing too much damage!) The deactivation has to do with fact that headers can't be parsed, apparently. I've managed to get around this in the version I'm playing with by putting the headers in the list rather than the template (which might be what we want to do anyway, since several people have already made the suggestion that the header shouldn't say, for instance, "Trogons and quetzals" in countries where there are no quetzals.)
- So, do we want to include "standard" headers in the template, or should these be done individually on each regional list?
Another issue is that adding references to the individual sections isn't possible in the current version. Because the same template is called many times (as many times as there are orders, to be precise), the same citation gets added to the reference list over and over and over. In fact, it gets added as many times as the template is called! I'll keep playing, but I'm wondering if it might be easier and more straightforward (unless someone out there is a template wizard and can suggest a workaround) to create one header template for each order—called, for example "Anatidae list header" or "Phasianidae list header" or whatever. Each of these would only be called once, which would mean the citations wouldn't appear multiple times unless they should. However, it would also mean many more templates to keep track of.
- Any thoughts on which might be the better solution?
Some additional questions:
- Do we want to include (as standard information on all lists which use the template), a sentence which indicates how many species each order has?
- For example: There are 20 species of grebe in the world, though one—the Alaotra Grebe—may be extinct. The advantage of putting this in the template, of course, would be that we wouldn't have to update all the lists if a new species is discovered/described, or if something goes extinct; it would only need to be updated in the template.
- Do we want to include (as standard information on all lists which use the template) a line that indicates the number of a particular order found in the region in question?
- For example: There are 20 species of grebe in the world. Of these, one has occurred in The Gambia. (The bold is only for purposes of illustrating what I mean; it wouldn't be bolded in the real text.) It's easy to pass parameters to the template for the number and the country, and this would ensure that all lists have the same sort of information included. The template can also automatically convert numbers to words where necessary (ie under 10), which means we don't have to remember to do it! : )
- Do we want to include the number of species in a particular order found on each continent?
- For example: There are 20 species of grebe in the world. Of these, eight have occurred in Africa, and one in the Gambia. Again, this continent-level information could be maintained at the template level; we'd only need to pass it the parameter as to which continent's number we wanted.
Any other comments and/or thoughts are most welcome! MeegsC | Talk 22:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
capitalization of word following hyphen in bird names
While there, at least for birds, is nothing to discuss in regards of the standard capitalization of e.g. Rufous Twistwing (as evidently is being discussed elsewhere), I would point out that, contrary to the information given on the front-page of this group, it is not a generally accepted standard that "the word immediately following a hyphen in a species name is not capitalised". This is true per BOU, but not per AOU, which generally follow the rules recommended by Parkes, 1978 (PDF). An example: Black-crowned Night-heron (correct per BOU rules) contra Black-crowned Night-Heron (correct per AOU rules). In short, the AOU rules depend on the "truth" of the name, i.e. if it really belongs to the group, it should be in capital. Hence, the Black-crowned Night-Heron, which really belongs to the heron family (Ardeidae), should have "heron" in capital per AOU. An example of the contrary is the Superb Fairy-wren, where "wren" shouldn't be written in capital per AOU rules, as it doesn't belong to the wren family (Troglodytidae). Not surprisingly, there is a general tendency for African, European, Asian and Australian authorities & bird guides to follow the rules used by BOU, while authorities & bird guides in the Americas (North, Central & South + Caribbean) generally follow the rules used by AOU. Anyhow, I'm not sure how the front-page of this group came to be, but it might be worth mentioning the disagreement among the various authorities on this specific issue. Rabo3 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)