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 189: Line 189:
::Hi Totodu,
::Hi Totodu,
::You read too fast to assimilate. The article speaks of two subspecies "groups"![[User:Cuckooroller|Steve Pryor]] ([[User talk:Cuckooroller|talk]]) 16:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
::You read too fast to assimilate. The article speaks of two subspecies "groups"![[User:Cuckooroller|Steve Pryor]] ([[User talk:Cuckooroller|talk]]) 16:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
::The map is misleading. It infers that the colored zones correspond to the ranges of the six subspecies if they are treated as two subspecies groups in a species complex but the captioning does not make this clear, and rather it makes it appear that we are looking at the ranges of just two subpecies. The latest authoritative australian work that looks at the relationship of the various races is the 2008 Christidis & Boles, and they do not seem to put that much stock into even dividing these races into two groups. Perhaps somebody that possesses the HANZAB can provide further insight. It should be remembered that many times when we speak of any polytypic species the further attempt at subdivision into subspecies groups (that usually has the implicit argument that maybe somebody will try to split the groups at a future date) are not always well-founded in objective analysis. Personally, the reasons for attempting this further subdivision in this particular species seems to me, but this is just my opinion, rather sketchy. At least one (the Flinders I. ranger would seem to be intermediate). If you can find for me the locations of the photos that you talk about, I will review them myself and assign the races.[[User:Cuckooroller|Steve Pryor]] ([[User talk:Cuckooroller|talk]]) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
::The map is misleading. It infers that the colored zones correspond to the ranges of the six subspecies if they are treated as two subspecies groups in a species complex but the captioning does not make this clear, and rather it makes it appear that we are looking at the ranges of just two subpecies. The latest authoritative australian work that looks at the relationship of the various races is the 2008 Christidis & Boles, and they do not seem to put that much stock into even dividing these races into two groups. Perhaps somebody that possesses the HANZAB can provide further insight. It should be remembered that many times when we speak of any polytypic species the further attempt at subdivision into subspecies groups (that usually has the implicit argument that maybe somebody will try to split the groups at a future date) are not always well-founded in objective analysis. Personally, the reasons for attempting this further subdivision in this particular species seems to me, but this is just my opinion, rather sketchy. At least one (the Flinders I. ranger) would seem to be intermediate). If you can find for me the locations of the photos that you talk about, I will review them myself and assign the races.[[User:Cuckooroller|Steve Pryor]] ([[User talk:Cuckooroller|talk]]) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:30, 7 December 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 (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]
Anyone can list a bird here for identification. Snowman (talk) 17:25, 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]
Thanks, Steve. I'm glad you got out before the fighting! I've updated the file description. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Young male or female Green Pheasant. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the images that I could find on the internet are adult males, which have yellowish irises. See also File:Phasianus versicolor(Male female).jpg, which appears to show a female with pale irises. I presume that Bird 1526 is not an adult female. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're seeing, but females have brown--not yellow--irides. I think the iridescence on the bird means it cannot be an immature female. This may be considered a "dark morph", as it seems most female Green Pheasants do not look like this, but there are many examples of this plumage on the web, and I've seen it personally on Maui. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid bird of paradise articles

There's a ton of two line stubs for these birds[1], 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[2] 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]
I have a rather dated and hard to find volume by E. Thomas Gilliard - Bird of Paradise and Bower Birds, 1969. I will try and find time to see if there is anything useful about such hybrids.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up to the above comment. I have checked the book, and the list on the wiki (derived from Beehler & Frith. Though the list of hybrids in the Gilliard (taken from Rand & Gilliard (Handbook of New Guinea Birds, 1967) are by and large in agreement, two questions regarding the original descriptive spellings when published of two of these hybrids has come up. The first, and I think that I have established that the original spelling of one of the hybrids should be Neoparadisea ruysi, Van Oort (1906) which was published with that spelling in notes from Leyden Museum, where he was curator at that time: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.1906.tb07819.x/pdf
I do not know why the spelling was changed, nor by whom, to Neoparadisaea, but it seems to be an incorrect amendment.
The second, and I have not yet been able to access the original publication, is the spelling of the specific name by Currie (1900) for Cicinnurus lyrogyrus (which seems to be the original acception), but found in the Beehler & Frith (according to the wiki list, but I lack that source myself) as being spelled lyogyrus.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article use a wrong spelling? FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two accounts from 2012 (Extinct Birds by Hume/Walters) and (Drawn from Paradise by Attenborough/Fuller) which both regarded Elliot's Bird of Paradise as valid --Melly42 (talk) 07:40, 6 December 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[3] with an illustration (of the Réunion Solitaire) in a Dutch publication from 1854 so obscure that recent authors cite later crude tracings[4] 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]
Indeed, Jobling's etymology of Cyanopsitta is "Gr. kuanos dark-blue; Mod. L. psitta parrot. Amend. Cyanopsittacus." I just belatedly added this link to the project's Resources page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just used it as a reference for the meaning of "Cyanopsitta". I note that it is used a lot in bird articles, so it would be worthwhile making a Wiki article for the disctionary. I did not know that cyano- was from Greek. In Latin would cyano- be from Old Latin or New Latin? I am not very good on Latin. Snowman (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, yes from the greek. The closest from old latin would be indicum and this is not an exact pairing of the hue of the blue. An aside, and anecdotal since I am just recalling a memory even though my memory is rather eidetic, and that is that the original etymology even before the greeks coined a word for the description of this particular hue of blue was probably from a non-indoeuropean word possibly from ancient southeastern anatolia, or thereabouts, that was used to describe this particular tone of blue since they engaged in a flourishing commerce of locally found lapis-lazuli, however, as so often happens when we are constrained to deal with very ancient history there seems to be some confusion on this point because some maintain that the greeks may have been attempting to describe not the hue of this semi-precious gemstone, but rather a rather important ancient dye extracted from certain shellfish of genus Murex, and now called Tyrian Blue. Steve Pryor (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mauritius Blue Pigeon passed FAC, now Broad-billed Parrot is up. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 4 December 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[5], 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]
Is there any evidence that students are reviewing their peers articles? If students are reviewing their friends GA nominations, then I think that these reviewers would need to concentrate on being objective owing to a possibility of a conflict of interest. Should they declare a COI? Are there any guidelines on the level of editing experience needed to be a GA reviewer? Could a GA review be declared null, if a COI affected the reviewing process? Snowman (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that the Spix's Macaw article could have been quick failed, because it contained a lot of unreferenced text, factual errors, and for several other reasons; however, an experienced reviewer took it on. I suspect that it will be a mammoth task checking facts and tidying up and I doubt that it will achieve GA standard in 2012. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it'll be pretty good when it is done though. I think when SBalfour has finished this one, he'll know what to do and what not to do next time, and be able to improve many articles. So walking him through now will be a benefit later on. I only started writing articles after having lurked for several years, if I'd begun right away, it would probably had been disastrous... FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it could be possible to find a lasting hobby as a Wikipedian and learn a smattering of Wiki lore from nominating an article for GA and following it through. However, I guess that it is probably easier to learn the ropes at one's own pace by making small amendments and additions to articles of interest. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have told the students in the class that now the behavior parts of the assignment are done, they need to attend to the rest of the article content. I have told them about using only open source images and about referencing everything they find. Many of these birds are super important to our understanding of the evolution of behavior. My students are very interested in this whole project. We will spend the rest of the semester focusing on getting the articles to a much better standard, not just the behavior section. They have been so grateful and appreciative of all the attention the Wikipedia community has given them. The level of interaction has been really good. I agree it is very useful for them to be told what to fix, if I haven't done it, than to just shoot them down immediately. I have also told them to read GA and FA a lot. Then they can start doing more reviewing. I have also encouraged them to start contributing to areas they are experts in that have nothing to do with my class. Thanks to everyone for their help in engaging these students as permanent Wikipedians. Agelaia (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikipedians specialise and are interested in welcoming new users and I understand that some monitor and assist new users for a while. I wonder if the Wikipedia:Welcoming committee have resources to offer a batch of new science editors any practical support? Of course, many Wikipedians would help new users from time to time, but the Welcoming committee might offer a more organised approach that would minimise any adverse impingement on the Wikipedia and optimise assistance to new editors. For some thoughts on communicating with new users see; Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Snowman (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing that frustrates me is that this (see point 5) is why we have a slew of half-finished articles being submitted all at once. Hopefully, some of these editors have been bitten by the same Wikipedia bug that bit all of us, and they'll be back to finish what they started! :D MeegsC (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It says that their "Assignment 8" ended on 27 November 2012. Assignment 9 ends on 6 December 2012. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 29 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]

Gibson's Albatross

I have put together a start-class article on this taxon since there was a bit of discussion here about it (and because some nice images were available). I do have some concerns, however.

  • Taxonomy – is there any emerging consensus as to whether it is a subspecies of the Wandering or Antipodean Albatrosses, or a good species? For now I have placed it under Antipodean as the BLI option.
  • Wingspan – the figures I quote have a respectable source – a scientific report published by the NZ Dept of Conservation – but they seem too small, only half what I think they should be. Any other info?

Any comments and improvements would be very welcome. Maias (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That was my first thought - that it was a simple mistake, but the source definitely says 'wing span' and also gives measures for 'wing length' which are a lttle under half the former. Maias (talk) 13:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Onley and Scofield (2007) Albatrosses, Petrels and Sharwaters list the "Wandering" group species as Snowy D. exulans, Tristan D. dabbenema, New Zealand D. antipodensis and Amsterdam Island D. amsterdamensis, but note that NZ is sometimes split as Antipodean (nominate) and Gibsons D. gibsoni. Wingspans are 250-350 (D. exulans) 300 (D. amsterdamensis). Wings for the other two (wingspans just given as "?") are just over 63 for females, 65 for males Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. That tends to confirm my suspicion that a mistake has been made. If 300 cm is about right for a great albatross wingspan, the 63 and 65 for wing length is less than a quarter of it and is probably wrong. Those last figures seem to come from the same (presumably) mistaken source I used. Maias (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what your point is, Snowman. The figures Maias used are clearly inconsistent with established secondary sources, and not just by a few cm, they are half the correct figures. You are looking at the difference between a 10-ft wingspan and a 5-ft wingspan. An albatross with the latter measurements couldn't possibly be any of the Wandering-type species. In any case, we aren't being asked to identify the image, we know what that is, it's to sort out the obviously incorrect figures from a supposedly reliable source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the dodgy wingspan measurements. I know that they have an apparently good source and that WP is not about what is true but about what has been reliably reported, but I do not feel comfortable leaving them in. Maias (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question at the Science Reference Desk

Hi, I asked if anyone could help ID a bird for me at the Ref Desk and an editor suggested I should ask the project. The question is at Unidentified Bird in Neighbours if anyone is willing to help. - JuneGloom Talk 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this looks like a Common Bulbul, which isn't supposed to be in Australia! It's not an Australian Hobby, which is one of the things suggested by the reference desk. MeegsC (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the footage of the bird is just a stock shot and the producers weren't particularly bothered about matching up species and location? http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SomewhereAnOrnithologistIsCrying is worth reading for more examples of bird-related errors in fictional works... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is a Willy Wagtail (Rhipidura leucophrys). It is found all over Australia. Dger (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, but another possibility is a butcherbird. If Neighbours is filmed in Melbourne that would be Grey Butcherbird. Maybe someone could check measurement compared with that of a standard? house brick. Maias (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bird was sitting on the chimney of one of the houses used in the show, so I don't think it was a stock shot. If anyone wants to see the brief glimpse of the bird, then it's about a minute into this video [6]. - JuneGloom Talk 19:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Common Myna - introduced and common as muck... :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phedina

Any ideas on the etymology of this swallow genus name? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS: Note that Jobling, in his intro, also says "Although authors such as Jean Cabanis and Harry Oberholser took pains to provide etymologies for their newly created genera, those of the stamp of Prince Bonaparte and Gregory Mathews seldom threw light on the origins of the names they coined". Maias (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be! Poor James isn't earning the royalties he deserves... MeegsC (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrich (journal)

Resolved

Can anyone access Mills, Michael S L (2007). "Brazza's Martin Phedina brazzae: new information on range and vocalisations". Ostrich. 78 (1): 51–54. doi:10.2989/OSTRICH.2007.78.1.8.52. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)? It's just the description of the vocalisations I need, thanksJimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superb Fairywren

Hello, this article said that two subspecies were recognized, cyaneus and cyanochlamys, but IOC scores 6 for Malurus cyaneus. I try to figure this in theses edits but: images captions sometimes give the subspecies cyaneus or cyanochlamys... are they correct ? and which is actually the composition of the two groups of sub-species? Regards, Totodu74 (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Totodu,
You read too fast to assimilate. The article speaks of two subspecies "groups"!Steve Pryor (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The map is misleading. It infers that the colored zones correspond to the ranges of the six subspecies if they are treated as two subspecies groups in a species complex but the captioning does not make this clear, and rather it makes it appear that we are looking at the ranges of just two subpecies. The latest authoritative australian work that looks at the relationship of the various races is the 2008 Christidis & Boles, and they do not seem to put that much stock into even dividing these races into two groups. Perhaps somebody that possesses the HANZAB can provide further insight. It should be remembered that many times when we speak of any polytypic species the further attempt at subdivision into subspecies groups (that usually has the implicit argument that maybe somebody will try to split the groups at a future date) are not always well-founded in objective analysis. Personally, the reasons for attempting this further subdivision in this particular species seems to me, but this is just my opinion, rather sketchy. At least one (the Flinders I. ranger) would seem to be intermediate). If you can find for me the locations of the photos that you talk about, I will review them myself and assign the races.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=526885090"