Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 124: Line 124:
:::Those are both extremely widespread Neotropical species. I'm afraid they don't help, even if they were taken at the same location. [[User:Natureguy1980|Natureguy1980]] ([[User talk:Natureguy1980|talk]]) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
:::Those are both extremely widespread Neotropical species. I'm afraid they don't help, even if they were taken at the same location. [[User:Natureguy1980|Natureguy1980]] ([[User talk:Natureguy1980|talk]]) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
::::Hi Jerry. I am still here, but I have been distracted with all sorts of familial obligations for several months. I just got back from escorting my aging Mother to the Holy Land (they started shooting rockets the day after we left). In any case, you are right. Turdus rufiventris, nominate race in my estimation, that is somewhere from SE Brazil. http://www.wikiaves.com.br/sabia-laranjeira
::::Hi Jerry. I am still here, but I have been distracted with all sorts of familial obligations for several months. I just got back from escorting my aging Mother to the Holy Land (they started shooting rockets the day after we left). In any case, you are right. Turdus rufiventris, nominate race in my estimation, that is somewhere from SE Brazil. http://www.wikiaves.com.br/sabia-laranjeira
::::By the way, if there are birds that have remained with no ID since I have been absent, give me the links and I will have a look.
[[User:Cuckooroller|Steve Pryor]] ([[User talk:Cuckooroller|talk]]) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
[[User:Cuckooroller|Steve Pryor]] ([[User talk:Cuckooroller|talk]]) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)


Revision as of 16:10, 28 November 2012

WikiProject Birds
General information
Main project page talk
Naming and capitalization
 → Article requests
 → Spoken Article requests talk
 → Photo requests talk
 → Attention needed talk
 → New articles talk
Project portal talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Featured topics talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Country lists talk
Bird articles by size talk
Hot articles talk
Popular pages talk
Task forces
Domestic pigeon task force talk
Poultry task force talk
edit · changes

Notice of redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Birds for identification (151)

Rufous-collared Sparrow. MeegsC (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article in de.wikipedia says that there are 29 subspecies. Z. c. matutina exists in Mato Grosso, but I cannot judge if this subspecies is correct here. --Leyo 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the subspecies can not be identified with certitude at this juncture, then I think that it would be best to clearly state where it was photographed in the image description on Commons, so that anyone who is interested will know where this bird was seen. I recall that you have had some difficulty with geolocation in Brazil, and I wonder how accurate is the geolocation that you have provided. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Highly accurate. --Leyo 09:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Moved to File:Zonotrichia capensis Chapada dos Guimarães.jpg. The question about the subspecies remains open. --Leyo 10:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look like European Golden-Plover to me. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Pluvialis apricaria -Spain -flock-8a.jpg on Commons. I have looked at a number of images of this species and I think that these are in winter plumage. Image shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed based on "Birds of Southern Africa". Dger (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Show in infobox on species page on en-Wiki. Snowman (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a web search for images and I see no reason to doubt the identification, but I do not know if there are any other birds that look similar. I would welcome more opinions. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed. Similar species include congenerics, like Olive Sparrow and Black-striped Sparrow. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I found this drawing pictured on the right in the book Illustrations of Indian Zoology, from which I'm uploading all the plates, but this one could be misidentified. On the vol. 1, we have File:Vanellus duvaucelii Hardwicke.jpg subtitled « Charadrius ventralis », and this binomial name is a synonym with Vanellus duvaucelii, the River Lapwing, for sure. But in this case (in the vol. 2), those birds are also subtitled « Charadrius ventralis », and do not really look like the River Lapwing. Does anyone know what are they ? Non-breeding birds ? Totodu74 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess breeding (right) and non-breeding Sociable Lapwing breeding plumage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it seems close. I found this plate too. On the Hardwicke's plate, we can read "Female" on the left, and "Male" for the bird on the right. Are you sure it is breeding/non breeding? Totodu74 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Hayman records no difference between the sexes, nor do Svensson and Mullarney. The only other plumage is juvenile, which is less contrasty than either of those depicted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the text that accompanies your linked image doesn't mention sex differences, just adult/juvenile. If you want a bit of OR, I think the "female" plumage might actually be first summer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I precised the file description, feel free to accurate it :) Thanks for your help! Totodu74 (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Blue-crowned Laughingthrush and it seems that zoo has one [1]. Unsigned edit by User:Chuunen Baka on 1 Nov 2012.
Moved to File:Garrulax courtoisi -Audubon Zoo, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA-8a.jpg on Commons and selected for the infobox image on the species page on en-Wiki. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with Meyer's - more bluish underneath and a touch of yellow on the crown. Compare this Meyer's. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a Meyer's Parrot as well. Moved to File:Poicephalus meyeri -Birds of Eden, Western Cape, South Africa-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

upgrading Macaw article pages

I've substantially upgraded the Spix Macaw article page, which is graded "Start Quality". I think it's "better" now. Can somebody take a look? I'm also looking at the related macaw articles, which are a mixed bag. If these are going to be an ornithological resource, they've all got to be a lot better. Can somebody tell me what they'd like to see there that isn't? If I know the info, I'll be happy to add it. Doing a revamp on an article can take months of research, though. Sbalfour (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've done a great job, more of the same would be more than sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rated as B; no reason why it should not proceed towards GA. Maias (talk) 07:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to do the work for GA. The article has been expanded and copy-edited by me and others since a fellow member upgraded it to B. Now it's the nitty-gritty: somebody has to carefully review it and advise me on the next step. Sbalfour (talk) 00:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're well on your way, and after this first GA, I'm sure you'll have a lot of experience so the process will be less painful in the future, so to speak. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Featured content news

White-eyed River Martin was our 100th FA, so something of a landmark. I'll do a little analysis of our FA content when I get a little time. I'm working on getting African River Martin up to FA too, since that will make our only Good Topic up to Featured Topic. Then it's back to the Norfolk nature reserves... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the above, if anyone has referenced info on the African River Martin that's not already there, I'd be grateful Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats! Wow 100 FAs...sorry, not a topic I am familiar with. Let me know if you need fulltect access to something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Mauritius Blue Pigeon is up for FA now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And so is African River Martin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weet-weet

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weet-weet. -- Trevj (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

  • "weet-weet" is included in article on the Common Chaffinch on a referenced line saying that it is an alternative name for the species. The on-line OED has it as a bird call and also as an old name for a Chaffinch. Does anyone have any references for weet-weet as an alternative name for any other birds. Are there any references for any sandpipers being called "weet-weet"? Snowman (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weet weet" is also an Australian childrens' game, which I have just started; see www.ausport.gov.au. Perhaps, it could be a DKY. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird vocalization does not have anything on how bird calls can be written down or described with text. I think this is been discussed here for editing wiki-pages, and it would be interesting if literature on this topic was summarised on the "Bird vocalization" page. Snowman (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no reference for Weet-Weet = Chaffinch in either Lockwood, W B (1993). The Oxford Dictionary of British Bird Names. OUP. ISBN 978-0198661962. or Jackson, Christine E. (1968). British Names of Birds. Witherby.. The nearest is Weet Bird = Wryneck. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (152)

Given the locality, yes. Maias (talk) 00:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Selected for the infobox on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a Rufous-bellied Thrush? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 06:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're right on both counts, Snowman. It's not an American Robin, and due to the Portuguese, I bet this was taken in Brazil. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Michael (though I'm not Snowman :-). Now all we need to know is what species it is. Where's Steve Pryor when we need him? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jerry! I don't know that I've ever seen anyone else post a photo for ID here! Natureguy1980 (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For more clues - the contributor added File:Cambacica_jaboticabeira.jpg and File:Columbina_talpacoti.jpeg Shyamal (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both extremely widespread Neotropical species. I'm afraid they don't help, even if they were taken at the same location. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jerry. I am still here, but I have been distracted with all sorts of familial obligations for several months. I just got back from escorting my aging Mother to the Holy Land (they started shooting rockets the day after we left). In any case, you are right. Turdus rufiventris, nominate race in my estimation, that is somewhere from SE Brazil. http://www.wikiaves.com.br/sabia-laranjeira
By the way, if there are birds that have remained with no ID since I have been absent, give me the links and I will have a look.

Steve Pryor (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid bird of paradise articles

There's a ton of two line stubs for these birds[2], and I think it would be better to simply redirect them to the nearest higher taxon article and place the information there. Any thoughts? Those birds that may be valid species (like Elliot's Bird of Paradise) should not be merged, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nearest higher taxon for a hybrid? Why not put them all on one page in a list? Snowman (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genus articles, for example, if they are hybrids between species within the same genera, as most of these are. And maybe a list or a single article could be a solution. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are various options:
  • Leave as separate, albeit mostly stubby, articles. I have no problem with this.
  • Merge to main family article. Not a good idea; there is a summary there already and adding the illustrations would bulk it out a lot.
  • Redirect to genus articles. This would be a bit messy; some of the hybrids are intergeneric and some are uncertain. However, it would be worth at least mentioning the hybrid forms in the relevant genus articles, where it has not been done already.
  • Create a new article - basically a list as suggested, though it could go into the whole history of Stresemann 's work and the disputes that arose from it - and lump the separate articles, keeping the illustrations. It could have two sections - one for known or confirmed hybrids, the other for possible or probable hybrids. I have no problem with this either.Maias (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the last option is best, though we wouldn't need an article for possible hybrids, they could keep their individual articles, since they are possibly valid taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if you need some help ask me I may be able to help.Nhog (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'd like to see some more views before action is taken, but perhaps it isn't much of concern to most people? FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new article option, with the various stubby articles rolled into it. Anything that reduces our number of stubby, unlikely-to-be-expanded articles sounds good to me! MeegsC (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that getting a consensus prior to re-organising the bird-of-paradise hybrid articles has been given importance here. Having done tasks involving hundreds or thousands of pages myself, I find that prior discussion and consensus is a useful gauge for doing the right sort of thing and tends to reduce the chance of making a mess. Nevertheless, be prepared to think on the hoof to overcome unseen problems when actually doing the edits. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are about two dozen hybrid pages, so I would guess that the work can be done satisfactorily with manual editing quite quickly. However, if there are any simple repetitive tasks where semi-automated tasks might help, please let me know; for example, I could "wipe out" a number of specified hybrid articles, replace them with a given redirect, and provide suitable edit summaries in a few minutes. I would tend to suggest doing complex repetitive tasks manually here in view of the relatively small number of pages involved.Snowman (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the section here[3] should probably be summarised and the content be moved to the new page where it is expanded with text from the individual articles. An important thing before we begin is to establish which of these might be valid. I've read a few features of Elliot's Bird of Paradise (colours, size) make it distinct from either of the proposed parents, so that should not be merged. Are there any others that might be valid? FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Valid what? Do you mean valid species? Snowman (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts

I've been working my way through this list, and I've found some of the scripts really useful. Obviously, whether you use any or all of them depends what you want to do. Some, like the duplicate links detector, are invaluable if you're working an article up to GA or FA. Worth a look if you're not a regular user of these scripts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locked pages XI

Some more locked pages if someone can do the honors......

Thanks...............Pvmoutside (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have ran my IUCN script over the new ones and some were suitable for editing. The species not edited must have a difference in the common or binomial names between the Wiki, IOC and IUCN. I would suggest checking for anomalies in the binomial names in the species pages that the script did not edit. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't Geronticus be moved to bald ibis? FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would not object if Geronticus was moved to "Bald ibis", but I wonder if this could lead to confusion with the Southern Bald Ibis and Northern Bald Ibis articles. I sometimes find the common names for the genera King parrot and Thick-billed parrot confusing with species names. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until I corrected it (made it worse?), bald ibis was a redirect to only one of the species, so I'm not sure what is going on. FunkMonk (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

I found a reference to Le Gerfaut:De Giervalk, Volumes 55-56, p69. I know roughly what it says, but I don't know the article's title or its author. Can anyone help? Of course, if you have the text, that's even better, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should ask the publisher of this journal which is the Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique http://www.sciencesnaturelles.be/ --Melly42 (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These guys are pretty good at finding stuff: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request FunkMonk (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll try both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First attempt at the Institute using their science info address was returned as undeliverable, trying again with general info Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The resource request guys here are really good. They once found me a specific page[4] with an illustration (of the Réunion Solitaire) in a Dutch publication from 1854 so obscure that recent authors cite later crude tracings[5] of the illustration as being the original. So thanks to them, Wikipedia is actually more accurate than the scientific literature... FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope so. While I'm waiting, does anyone have access to Jennings, Michael C (2010). Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Arabia. Fauna of Arabia, volume 25. Riyadh and Frankfurt: King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology, Saudi Wildlife Commission and Senckenburg Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum. ISBN 978-3-9299-0783-4. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)? Of the four freely available pages, two (pp. 500–501) deal with the Pale Crag Martin, but don't reach the end of the article. I suspect there isn't much to come, but would welcome reassurance. I'll post this on the request page too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gatewayeight - anyone able to run their eyes over his edits?

Aside from adding Category:Cockatoo to various cockatoo articles, he seems to be here to mess around (adding Category:Parrots to inappropriate pages, random removals, fact changing, etc.). Anyhow, do we really need Category:Cockatoo (which he created) and Category:Cockatoos? Any objections to me reverting all his current edits and redirecting the new Cockatoo category to the old one? I was reluctant to do so last night as some of his contribs did appear constructive at first glance. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me, block him if you feel it's justified Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked after he carried on follwing lv4 warning. All edits reverted. If anyone believes that we also need Category:Cockatoo, please feel free to un-redirect it. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FA/GA/FT news

Réunion Ibis is a GAN. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would creating stubs for the extinct new world vulture genera have any effect on it being a FT? FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Latin came up on the Spix's Macaw GA over the meaning of "psitta" and "psittacus". I have attempted to look them up on on-line translators, but I am very much a novice with Latin. What do these mean in English. Is one feminine and the other masculine? Does one mean "little parrot" and the other "parrot"? Snowman (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "psitta" ever written by itself? See here: http://wordinfo.info/unit/1775/ip:15/il:P FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have explained that one issue in the GA discussion is about the meaning in English of "Cyanopsitta spixii". To see the discussion search for "which part of Cyanopsitta spixii means little?" on Talk:Spix's Macaw/GA1. I presume Micropsitta (pygmy parrots) means little parrot. Snowman (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure Psitta is just an abbreviated form or Psittacus, but this abbreviation only came about with botanical descriptions. I will try and find out. Interesting mystery. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Snowman, Psittakos is Greek for parrot, I assume psitta is just a shortened form, so Cyanopsitta is "blue parrot". @Funkmonk, re potential FT, I imagine that we could keep the FT to extant taxa, the existing FTs don't have any articles for extinct taxa, although most are swallows, so not much to find anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The topic for the FT could be "Extant vultures" and this would not include extinct vultures. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's necessary, just New World vultures will do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A slew of Good Article Nominations....

See Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology_and_medicine and scan down. There are a bunch of bird GANs and some look in pretty good shape actually...be good to buff up our audited content :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think somebody may need to have a chat with the professor for the course all these editors are involved with. I've had a look at a few of the articles and most of them should be quick-failed; they're certainly not ready to bring to the GA process—particularly considering the huge backlog that's already there! Yes, they can be improved. But reviewer time would be better spent working on articles that are close to being ready, rather than ones that need lots of help to get there! In several, the lead sections consist of a single sentence. Because this is a behavioral sciences course, there's scads of information about some interesting behavior (typically mating behavior) and only scanty information about anything else (unless it was already there). I think it's great that these kids are helping improve the articles, and certainly want to encourage them. But I'm not sure that having them nominate three and four articles at a time (and review each other's articles) is the best way forward. MeegsC (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the students have been overenthusiastic but it might be an opportunity to pitch in and balance some of the excessive emphasis on behavioural strategies, ESS and game theory. I only hope the GA attempts are not tied to their grades. Have alerted Dr Joan_Strassmann at User:Agelaia about the discussion. Shyamal (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed one of them[6], it needs huge improvements, but I'm willing to give it a chance. Certainly more constructive than mere quickfails. If we're lucky, they'll know how to do it properly after their first tries. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Herring Gull

Should Herring Gull not be a redirect or an article rather than a disambiguation page? FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how a redirect would work, but perhaps a stub article might be a possibility Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=525359834"