Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Collaboration Page?

Well, since this is a WikiProject, I thought a collaboration page would be useful in expanding pages and bringing articles to featured status. Any thoughts? Australian Raven 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful, and would be glad to help in any collaboration efforts. Hey jude, don't let me down 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It's been suggested before (by me I think!) but we all tend to do our own thing round here. Like herding cats it is! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a bird person, but I can tell you the WikiProject Dinosaurs team have found our project collaboration page very useful. Most of our Featured Articles would never have reached that status without these group collaborations. I think a collaboration page could be very useful for WikiProject Birds, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's give it a go. I went and did something rash (I mean bold!) and created the page...Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration. Lets try nominating something! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Very cool. I've nominated an article myself, to help the ball get rolling. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the criteria in the procedure of nominating an article is: Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection. To my knowledge, there are different types of protection which you may be referring to. I would like to know which one are you guys referring to. See: Wikipedia:Protection policy. Well, I would like to nominate an article, but it is under Semi-protection. Luffy487 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The text was all copied from Dinosaur's collaboration page (with most references to dinosaurs changed to bird). The whole thing is negotiable really I think. I think it would be preferable to exclude pages that have any kind of protection so that anyone can participate, but I guess it would mostly be registered types doing it. (It may be that the clause is specific to the Dinosaur wikiproject - I recall one unregistered user that was a major contributor to dinosaur articles back when I started). Which article did you want to nominate? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The protection clause may have been added to the dinosaur collaboration page because the impetus behind many (or most) collaborations is preparing the article for Featured Article submission. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1(e). states that the material must not be the subject of edit wars or disputes. Admins often protect an article to prevent edit wars from continuing; semi-protection will only keep out IP edits. As Sabine says, I'm sure it's negotiable, since the page was only created a few hours ago. You would just want to make sure any page you submitted for Featured status wasn't protected due to edit wars or instability.

As an aside, there was indeed at one time a very prolific IP editor on WikiProject Dinosaurs; there is a different one now, but s/he only posts to the talk pages. Now the only IP edits we get are vandals, Christian POV pushers, and those folks adding interwiki links. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the article I would like to nominate is Bald Eagle. Bald Eagle was on the brink of extinction in the US late in the 20th century but now it has a stable population. So I would like to nominate this article and bring it as one of the featured articles. By doing so, the article may bring attention to the world that so long as we human put in effort in conserving the animals, and stop the activities that would destroy their habitats, they may still have a chance to survive. It is such a pity to see that many different species have gone extinct. And our next generation would never have a chance to see them. Luffy487 08:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, a species with such a limited range as Bald Eagle is less suitable for a collaboration than cosmopolitan birds such as the Osprey or Peregrine Falcon. Also sources for northern hemisphere species are much more readily available. What about southern hemisphere species? I have some good resources, but I'm not likely to write/improve articles for birds I've not seen without some prompting. jimfbleak 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Osprey and Peregrine Falcon are good aussie birds....but seriously, there are no rules. It can be hit and miss with collabs, dino collabs went well for a while and then went very quiet for a few months, before some great work recently. I coordinate Fungi colabs and it has been an uphill battle to generate sustained interest. Given it is a volunteer project, interest is paramount. Blad Eagle may be a great choice and it does have some very interesting environmental issues...I put all the current bird FAs down the bottom so poeple could get an idea. They may be good as a template. Kakapo was an early FA which recently had a prety decnt overhaul and I reckon looks pretty good now.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick question here... since it seems we have several articles nominated for collaboration, and coding for voting, when/how would we agree on a collaboration and start? By the way, thanks for starting it!Australian Raven 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The other thing is to look at the current articles listed as GA which seem to vary widely in quality. I think Dodo or Bird are the best bets there. Australian Ringneck needs alot of work, Ivory-billed Woodpecker I can foresee some controversy and edit wars but then again maybe not...The Atlas of Australian Birds doesn't really grab me but then again...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Need to announce a deadline to select a bird. I'd give it 7 dayscheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Bird is actually a trainwreck that probably needs months of work. I think there are enough noms for now. 7 days seems fine to choose what they want to work on.Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... how do I vote? Where do I add the code? Or do I just change the title? Australian Raven 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but my impression is that voting is the same thing as adding your support, just signing your name with a number and four tildes, which you've done already. It's fine to vote for more than one article, as well. Hey jude, don't let me down 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

White-browed Sparrow-weaver

I have created a page for the White-browed Sparrow-weaver. Please edit - it has most of the info it needs, but there are a few minor details missing. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job! :) Luffy487 07:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI Images

This user on Flickr has some stunning free to use images of Asian birds. I've added a few to the Commons and then linked some articles to here, quite a few are for species we don't have articles on yet. Enjoy, but be warned, not every one of them has a free licence, so check carefully (to check look in the bottom right hand corner.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories by country are being systematically deleted right now -- is this the way to go?

There is a heated discussion at Category_talk:Biota_by_country regarding the matter to recategorize the species. Please feel free to voice out your opinion. :) Luffy487 08:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Project members' category

I've added a category, Members of WikiProject Birds, to the user box, so anyone using it on their user page is automatically added to the category. Andy Mabbett 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Deadline for collaborations is 23rd of March!

Currently Raven is ahead by a whisker (or is that a bill?) if you hate crows go vote! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! J'adore les corbeaux. I love ravens, and all members of their families! That includes crows :) Australian Raven 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested Articles

There is a long list of requested articles for birds, and the article request page for this project is a red link. Should I create a page for it? -- Hey jude, don't let me down 00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if there are lots of requested articles. I didn't relaize there were any. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay... so its every bird in Australia and Brazil that doesn't have an article. No pressure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hah, well, I created the page. --Hey jude, don't let me down 21:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

standardising headings and subheadings

Hi all, there has been quite a bit of variety over what headings and subheadings are used in various biology article over wikipedia and I have tried streamlining those often while dividing up large chunks of text.

How do people feel about (on a bird species page):

(lead)

Description

(I have removed "Physical" from some sections called Physical Description as it is redundant.) (this includes call at the end of the section)

Distribution and habitat

(conservation can be included as a subsection here)

Behaviour

Breeding

(or nesting? or reproduction?)

Taxonomy and Classification can be separate section or under description somewhere

cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Casliber, I agree with you on the desirability of standardising the format of species (and other levels of taxa). I have fiddled with the layout of Australian Painted Snipe along the lines you suggest, but more could be done. With little-known species the headings may seem a bit clunky with not a lot of descriptive text, but it would improve the articles with more material. With something like 10,000 species of bird in the world, and each maybe eventually having a separate article, it should make it a lot easier to move from one to another and to make quick comparisons. Maias 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally opposed to this. In articles without a great deal of content it doesn't make any sense in my mind to have numerous subheadings. Sooty albatross to my mind looks fine without it. In articles with enough content the exact layout of the sections depends greatly on what's available info-wise. Some articles might have a lot of info on breeding but none on taxonomy. If two particular sections are small then merge them, if a usually small section has agreat deal of info (like one species is famous for something unusual) give it its own subheading. Most subheadings are pretty logical and many times are the same as what you suggest, and most people already use an unoffical layout (I try and use the same, or similar, layouts on the family pages, for example), but I can see no need to formally standardise them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is good idea to standardize the format. However, research on different species of birds are done differently. Some species may have more information on its breeding while some don't. And some species may have more information availablee on its habitats while some don't. I am sure you don't wish to see 2 sentences of words just under one heading. Luffy487 05:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about smaller articles (do you mean opposed to the whole lot or juist for smaller ones?); having an article with one line per section looks silly to say the least. Question is how big should an article be before subheadings are used? Size aside, the reson I like the approach above is that there is a hierarchy of headings too, which many articles lack. I've been involved in a few animal FAs now and reviewers there, while appreciating some pregmatism when using subheadings, generally seem to like more of a standard format than what is used about the place. e.g. I've ben substituting Distribution for the synonymous range as that is what is used in many more articles (including FAs) so makes no sense to leave. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: A thought - do you want to show me an article size which would be the natural size below which you wouldn't split into subheadings? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PPS: For mine, Sooty Albatross is just big enough to split (in fact I've probably been guilty of splitting smaller ones cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Its not a case of an article being a certain size before its okay to split up, its a case of how it looks once you've split it. If there are a couple of subheadings with one line underneath it then it just looks ugly. And overall I am more objecting to it being mandatory - I don't want good articles being hobbled because they don't conform to rigid guidelines set out here. If we do establish some guidelines it needs to be explicit that they are to be applied flexibly depending on the species involved, the info around and suchlike.

And while we're at it...

• Evolution, taxonomy and systematics
• Morphology and flight
• Range and habitat

• (Migration?)

• Behaviour

• Diet
• (Migration?)
• Breeding
• Other as appropriate

• Relationship with humans

• Exploitation
• Conservation and threats
• Role in culture

• Species or subspecies list (as appropriate)

is what I use. more or less. It depends. In Procellariidae I broke breeding up into three extra subheadings, called description Morphology (something I also did in Great Frigatebird, I think its more precise). I used different hierarchies as well, looking at them again. Still, it's featured and no one complained. Anyway, if you're going to insist on this that's what I'd suggest. I'd just sooner you didn't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Having headings for one or two sentence sections not only looks ugly, but to my mind is an insult to the reader. I'm aware that my own new articles sometimes might benefit from one or two heading, but Sabine's Sunbird's contributions are pretty well spot on, imho, when it comes to organising material in a comprehensive, readable, but adult layout. jimfbleak 06:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My intention was not to lay down laws as such, just to throw up some ideas on streamlining pages. I'm not insisting as such and apologize if my posts are comnig across as forceful. All those subheadings listed above are good, and I did note the Albatross FA with different headings. I have been concentrating on some of the more straightforward ones (eg: range and distribution, ensuring there is a hierarchy of headings, inline reffing etc.)cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a simple, flexible and non-prescriptive guide to layout would be useful for the process (where it applies) of a stub being created and then gradually expanded by different editors with different areas of expertise and as new information comes along. With something like 10,000 species of birds in the world, and many more terminal taxa, if each is eventually going to get its own article, I think it will be easier for new editors to compare articles to identify where extra material is needed. In other words I see it as an aid to article improvement for those articles that currently only exist as stubs or not at all. Where an elegant, accurate and comprehensive article already exists, it obviously will not be necessary. Neither should anyone feel bound by such a guide if they feel thay can do it better some other way. Maias 00:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I found it useful to start with 2 sections, the header (range, description, taxonomical notes etc) and "Ecology" (habitat, behavior, reproduction, status), and as text accumulates move along a more finely graded system largely as per the 2 presented above. Dysmorodrepanis 03:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on image of Kookaburra.

Image:Wet kookaburra.jpg

I was wondering if anyone here knows which of the four species does this Kookaburra belongs to? Just curious. Luffy487 10:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure its a laughing kookaburra. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. Luffy487 13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, cool weird photo! Agree on species. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

County Recorders

Anyone fancy starting an article on what we in the UK know as county recorders, (for all taxa, not just birds)? Andy Mabbett 12:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Any examples? Well... I am not from UK haha... Luffy487 10:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

New Extremely rare species of owl

Take at look at this: Tiny rare owl spotted in Peru reserve. Abstracted from the article: The owl is so distinct that it has been named in its own genus, "Xenoglaux", meaning "strange owl", due to the long wispy feathers around its reddish-orange eyes. Luffy487 10:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month is....Common Raven

A good one to get your teeth stuck into. Lots of laundry lists to be cleaned out and rationalised. Also should be possible to find good online information as it is a North American species, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Online resources for access to free journals to help. I'll post a to do list/plan on the article's talk page later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

should be possible to find good online information as it is a North American species Oddly, enough, we Europeans occasionally write about our birds, too. Andy Mabbett 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to the fact that all the Auk, Condor and Wilson Bulletin journal issues up to 2000 are available online for gratis, and the USFWS images are public domain. Have you ever tried to get hold of an issue of the Ibis, Emu or Ardea online? Like blood from a stone. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair point! I had a long, and eventually fruitless, correspondence with the editor of BB (for whom have nothing but the greatest respect, I must add) recently, tying to get them to put their back issues on line, like Auk's, instead of on a DVD for sale, as they are currently doing. I'm sure lottery funding would have paid for it, with a partner in the academic or library sector. Andy Mabbett 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article request page sub-divided

I've sub-divided Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Article requests. Andy Mabbett 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Attention needed tags on template

I've been using the 'attention' needed tag in a few template boxes:

Main issue are a bunch of Agapornis spp. pages which have loads of aviculture but much less natural history on them. Actually there is the basis for an FA or two in there...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Aratinga species

I'd always called all these 'Conures' yet someone has listed them all as parakeets. There is a tendency for common names to become more exacting as the years go on yet this has gone the other way. I have Parrots of the World by Forshaw which called them Conures....

Anyone heard anything about this? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Its likely that pesky Handbook of the Birds of the World again. That said, I've only ever heard of them being conures in the pet trade....Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked on a couple of websites and the AOU likes "Parakeet" for Aratinga, and "Parrot" (instead of Amazon) for Amazona, which is amazing. Leads to amibguity, thence Orange-fronted parakeet refers to an NZ and a south american species. Everywhere else we have things like Painted Button-quail for Painted Quail etc. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes think that rival ornithological unions name species after other species in other OU areas out of spite. Then change it back because they're bored. Its pretty much for that reason that we adopted (before I even got here, BTW) the HBW for common names, even if we seem to deviate from the taxonomy more and more. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm nosing around the web and seeing if I can get any insight into it. I am very tempted to change all the pages to "x-conure" amd "x-amazon" but obviously consensus and debate is a much better way to look at the issue.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Use google scholar and see what common names turn up. I'll check the latest checklist of the birds of the world thats in the library and see what it says. As Treebeard says , don't be hasty! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well in my humble opinion, I think we should keep both names. It is to allow the minority to search for what they want. Luffy487 04:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the more I was playing around with it the more I figured with loads of redirects etc. it isnt too much of a problem, except do we have, for instance, both sets of common names on the genus page Aratinga, or would that be too cluttered?cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some examples on google search

• about 9,530 google hits for "Blue-crowned Parakeet"
• about 14,200 google hits for "Blue-crowned Conure" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

• A whopping 119,000 google hits for "Sun Conure" vs. 648 for "Sun Parakeet"....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• 575 google hits for "White-eyed Conure" vs. 13,800 for "White-eyed Parakeet". cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• 7 for "Sulphur-breasted Conure" vs. 539 for "Sulphur-breasted Parakeet" cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• 19 for "Pacific Conure" vs. 604 for "Pacific Parakeet" cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Which reflects the adoption of the term in the pet trade. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, true. I guess the other thing to consider is that common names aren't really bound by any rules like scientific names are for nomenclature. As an Australian we don't see many of these critters in cages here nor have I done much birdwatching in the Americas....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 01:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Addendum - Amazon vs. Parrot

• "Yellow-headed Parrot"=20,200 hits, "Yellow-headed Amazon" = 29,300 hits on google

And probably plenty more for "Double yellow headed amazon" and all the others. I tried to make all the redirects to that article I could think of, but I'm sure I missed some.

• "Black-billed Parrot"= 511 hits, "Black-billed Amazon" = 380 hits on google

hmmm. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As an American, I can't conceive of disagreeing with the AOU on nomenclature. If I could, I'd say there's a better case for "amazon", which is a nice well-defined genus, than for "conure", which according to the article is paraphyletic (or whatever the word is).

Let's try Google Scholar as suggested:

• Sun parakeet: 9
• Sun conure: 24

A lot of the latter are veterinary, but still I'm amazed.

• Nanday parakeet: 3
• Nanday conure: 31

Here's one that's not in the pet trade:

• Golden-plumed parakeet: 8
• Golden-plumed conure: 3

I still think we should be using the ornithological names with redirects from the avicultural names. However, there seems to be more ornithological use of "conure" than I thought—not only Forshaw, who you mentioned, but Juniper and Parr, Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World (clever title). So I don't know. —JerryFriedman 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes

This is an exaggeration.

Bird FA section?

Your project needs a FA section for bird articles which have become featured. With the inclusion of the soon to be featured Archaeopteryx (Well hopefully...), and any others you guys have, I'd say it would be wise to have one & to keep the team morale up with the addition of their achievements. It works at Wikiproject dinosaurs, & it never hurts to be proud. I think it's a good idea, thoguhts? Spawn Man 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)