Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cuckooroller (talk | contribs) at 05:41, 25 June 2012 (→Different binomial names between IOC and Wiki for same common name). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Messy parrots almost cleaned up

[Topic ressurrected from archive, and copied to KimvdLinde's talk page]: There's still a little bit of work to do before the new parrot systematics are completely reflected (take a look, for example, at Parrot#Phylogeny, Cockatoo#Taxonomy and New_Zealand_parrot#Systematics). I'm not confident I know how to fix the problems, or rather I am confident I know what to do on those specific pages, but I don't know what kind of system KimvdLinde used to work through the parrot pages, so although I could fix these, I'm not sure what that would leave unfixed. Kim, are you still active or have you gone back into retirement? SP-KP (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tow of three were already done, updated parrot.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few points outstanding:

  • Parrot#Phylogeny compares the Cacatuoidea to the Psittacidae in respect of the Dyck texture - should this comparison now refer to the Psittacoidea?
  • Parrot#Phylogeny also says "Lorikeets were previously regarded as a third family" but this doesn't really make sense as there is no prior mention of families one and two.
  • The first paragraph of Cockatoo#Taxonomy still refers to the Strigopidae as the earliest offshoot, and then refers to the Psittacoidea radiation as the Psittacidae.

SP-KP (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (145)

Confirmed. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Identification is right. Shyamal (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fire-eyed Diucon. MeegsC | Talk 06:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Xolmis pyrope -Los Glaciares National Park, Santa Cruz province, Argentina-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chimango Caracara. MeegsC | Talk 06:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Milvago chimango -Tierra del Fuego National Park, Argentina-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated and automated tasks

I have been some coding making some data files for automated and semi-automated tasks. Some of the data files and sub-routines might be useful for other tasks. I have just scanned (without any editing) all the 1491 articles in the category Tyranni (recursive) looking for articles that have a common name different to the IOC common name in their latest spreadsheet (ver 3.1). My script took about 1 hour to run and the out-put is below: Snowman (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the present time I am not sure how good or bad the above list is or what mistakes or omissions there are, since this is the first run of the script. As expected it has detected names with different accents and names with different USA and UK spellings, which might be worthwhile considering. Some of the differences are likely to be because of taxonomy differences and I am hoping that erudite editors will be able to advice on the ornithology. I am planning to scan all the Wiki bird species articles and so I would like some feedback on what might be useful and for improvements to the script. The list above includes article names like "Rifleman (bird)", which I could exclude, but it might be useful to have a list of article names with a suffix like this. A complete run on all the bird articles could take about 10 to 12 hours (overnight when I am asleep) and the out-put will probably be ten times bigger. I could include the relevant line numbers in the IOC spreadsheet if needed in the output (perhaps alongside the binomial). Does anyone want a list of articles that are about sub-species or anything else? Snowman (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar for parrots: Snowman (talk)

Some of these have been discussed before and so discussion may not need to be re-ploughed. Snowman (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed # in front of all names where it involves taxonomy. Basically, IOC split more species than wiki currently does. In most cases, this is already described in the respective articles (see Shrike-like Laniisoma, Royal Flycatcher, Yellow-margined Flatbill, etc). If these are moved to the IOC name, someone (not me!) has to modify them to match the IOC taxonomy, and make entirely new pages to fit the additional split species. For example, if Striped Woodhaunter → Eastern Woodhaunter:
  1. Eastern Woodhaunter: Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama should be removed from the distribution, the comment that the genus is monotypic should be removed, and the article should mention that Western Woodhaunter (H. virgatus) is treated as a separate species.
  2. "Striped woodhaunter" (with "Striped Woodhaunter" redirecting) would become the genus page for Hyloctistes. If the scientific name is preferred for the article name instead, striped woodhaunter (and the caps version) would be redirected to Hyloctistes.
  3. A new page for Western Woodhaunter (H. virgatus) should be started.
In four other cases, it is British vs. US spelling: Mouse-coloured (aka -colored) Tapaculo, Many-coloured (aka -colored) Rush Tyrant, American Gray (aka Grey) Flycatcher and Gray (aka Grey) Kingbird. If these are moved, please remember to change spelling of all words in the article where there are differences between US/British. For example, if the tapaculo is moved to US spelling, the word grey within the article should be changed to gray. Neither the tapaculo nor the rush tyrant are found in USA/Britain, so they could go either way and I would suggest following IOC. Both the flycatcher and the kingbird have large parts of their distributions in USA, so I would suggest both these use US spelling (MOS:TIES). Although this deviates from IOC spelling, I still think it essentially follows IOC because of their statement on this matter: "We encourage each author and publisher to select whatever spelling of these words deemed appropriate." For the record, IOC have a comparable statement on the use of accents, cedilla and alike.
Both the spelling "Cachalote" and "Cacholote" are in use. I see no compelling reason to deviate from IOC spelling in this case. • Rabo³ • 11:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'd agree with most of what Rabo says, having part of the range in the US isn't a sufficient reason to use US English. For example, The Kingbird only just reaches the extreme SE US, but occurs throughout the mainly BE West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gray Kingbird map & American Gray Flycatcher map. Exactly how much is deemed sufficient: 20%, 50%, 75% (of course not relevant for species found in both USA and Britain)? I think both make the cut, but I'll leave the final judgement to others. Using Jimfbleak's range requirements (sorry if I misinterpret your post), there would be relatively few US birds that make the cut, and extremely few British birds would make the cut. Virtually all birds found in Britain have a far larger part of their range on the Eurasian mainland (where English isn't the spoken language, i.e. the English/US spelling discussion is irrelevant). Regardless, one could also quote the final two sentences in MOS:RETAIN. • Rabo³ • 12:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the "BE" = British English. The major parts of the Caribbean are Spanish or French (=irrelevant to this discussion). The only relatively large nation in the Caribbean with BE is Jamaica, an island that is about 1/6 the size of Florida and with about 1/7 the population. Other Caribbean nations that use BE are so tiny that they would not result in any major changes to these figures, even if all were combined. Comparably, the US Virgin Islands wouldn't result in any major change, while Puerto Rico (US English) is about the same size as Jamaica and has about 1½ times the population. • Rabo³ • 13:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English is the official language of Belize. Snowman (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but my previous reply was primarily aimed at the statement on the Caribbean being British Eng. Belize has a Caribbean coast, but it still isn't considered a Caribbean Nation using the most common definition. The Gray Kingbird is only an uncommon/rare transient in far northeastern Belize (per Howell and Web, A Guide to Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America). • Rabo³ • 13:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if Belize is an area of UK or US English. I hope that this IOC and en-Wiki English bird name comparison will help to clean-up the database of en Wiki page names. We might need to think out-of-the-box to find some answers to long-running issues with page names. Thank you for putting the "#"s on the list. I hope to have a bigger list in a few days time. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belize is British Eng. • Rabo³ • 13:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have ran lots of Perl scripts with AWB, but this was the first task that I had used AWB in the pre-parse mode (it does not do any editing). I accidentally got some of the AWB settings wrong in pre-parse mode in such a way that there are a few omissions. My script just scans the Wiki pages and finds out what is there and compares names with IOC names. Duplicates may also be possible in the trial runs above, because sometimes redirects (ie for a monotypic genus) lead the script to a species page a second time. I think it is better to leave redirects in and then removed duplicates from the final output list to avoid possible omissions. In-the-round, I think that my script works and I will run it on over 14,000 ornithology Wiki pages soon. I estimate that if I run it at night and restart it the next night, it will take about two or three nights and I might have a list for all the Wiki ornithology pages ready about Sunday or Monday next at the latest. I might be able to make the script a bit more efficient (and miss out some testing features); nevertheless, it takes a little while to download the information on each Wiki page. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it could be worthwhile to have a run through. Most of the Parrots listed that need to be changed are extinct species. A couple of others look like a clean up may be in order (i.e. Echo Parakeet). Also need to be watched are IOC names where Wikipedia has decided to keep an alternate name (i.e African Grey Parrot, Blue-fronted Amazon). Many of those should be tagged with an IOC name exception on the talk page(at least for the species I've done so far), and should be left unless you'd like to start a lively discussion (I've received pushback from other editors).....Also worthwhile to discuss(?) are species which are shared in Canada and the US-Gray Jay comes to mind for example (do we use Grey Jay or Gray Jay?)....I'd also be real careful of species splits. For example, the IOC is the only tax group recognizing Eastern Woodhaunter as a distinct species, so I left it as a subspecies redirect to the Striped Woodhaunter. There are many more similar cases. I know a few of us had some discussions sround what to split and what not to......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the present time I am concentrating on making lists, which I am hoping will be useful for other automated tasks. From the lists it is obvious that some Wiki articles would benefit from a page move; however, many other page moves are complicated by taxonomy issues or controversy. When I have the full list, it might be easier to achieve a consensus on what to do. Have you spotted any incorrect page names due to typos yet? I was surprised that the Echo Parakeet popped-up on the list. I am not going to move the articles on African Grey Parrot or Blue-fronted Amazon and I am not going to start a discussion about renaming these two parrot articles, which I think have appropriate page names on en-Wiki. I have made minor amendments to the script and AWB settings and the script has started to scan over 14,000 ornithology pages found in bird classification Wiki categories, which I hope includes all the species pages on the Wiki. Duplications can easily be removed from the script's final list. I am still not sure what errors or omissions the script might make or if the Wiki category system is faulty; however, I have just coded for a new log-file, from which I hope to be able to count the number of species pages it scans. Snowman (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So Echo Parakeet seems to be particularly confusing. The latin name Psittacula echo seems to suggest Echo Parakeet as an alternate name to the Mauritius Parakeet of which we have an article,and where Echo Parkeet is currently considered as an alternate name. None of the tax authorities except the IOC (which we have not yet accepted as a tax authority) list the Echo Parakeet (Psittacula eques) as an existing species. The Réunion Parakeet Psittacula eques eques is lised in a separate article. It is an extinct species/subspecies not referenced anywhere except the IOC or Wikipedia. Clements, Howard & Moore, Zoonomen all have no listing. My guess is Echo Parakeet should be reserved as an alternate name for Mauritius Parakeet, and the former Psittacula eques (current Echo Parakeet article) should be merged into the Reunion Parakeet article, with an explanation the confusion of taxonomy there?Pvmoutside (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My script has found pages for 9362 binomial names on the Wiki and this includes some extinct species. Should there be more than this? I plan to do some checks, because there do not seem to be enough to me. IOC have 10596 species (including extinct species) in their spreadsheet (ver 3.1). I do not know what the problem is. Any comments? Ideally, I need to sort this out before listing my script's results here. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
could be a couple that I know off the top (I'm sure there are others): Some are lacking a category I'm sure, but the IOC species pages should not match the number of species pages we have since we do not standardize with the IOC for taxonomy.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incomplete categorisation on bird articles: I have just found Yellow-browed Bulbul, a species page that did not have a category relating to taxonomy, so this would not have been found in Bird Classification directories, which my bot looked at. It only appeared in categories about bird locations. I have just added a taxonomy category. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made one of the regexes more inclusive and added another log file to my script. I used my amended script to scan the "Birds" category. I found that it runs more quickly with settings for minimal processing by AWB in pre-append mode and it did the scan overnight. If I do not become too busy if real life, then I hope to have something to show soon. I need to do a little more testing and think how to present various lists. After this, I might be able to made a spreadsheets of all the Wiki's bird species pages and perhaps bird genus pages. Snowman (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bird name topics

  • What words are used in bird names that are different in US and UK English? I am aware of grey-gray, and colour-color. Are there any more? I hope to put them all in a separate list. Snowman (talk)
If you mean names, rather than just spellings, there are the loons/divers and skuas/jaegers, although I think we're pretty stable on those now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somber-sombre. Interestingly (to me), the AOU uses "mitred", "ochre", "sabre", and "sulphur", but no doubt some Americans use "er" versions and "sulfur". (I assume you're talking about spelling variations, not things like loon-diver.) JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I searched for "mitred", "ochre", "sabre", "sulphur", "loons/divers" and "skuas/jaegers" as well in my provisional list, but I did not find any IOC / Wiki differences due to these UK-US English word/spelling differences. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has "Island" been removed from IOC names? Snowman (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many, but not where it would be confusing, as in Inaccessible Island Finch (though I suppose the finch is pretty inaccessible, come to think of it). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could search Avibase for "island" and "saint". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on IOC names and Wiki-page names, so I have not searched Avibase. Is "St." used rather than "Saint"? Snowman (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problem taxonomy (likely to be due to errors or ambiguity on the Wiki)

So a few different issues here from my perspective:
  • The Eastern Great Egret and the Kumlein's Gull read well (both currently considered subspecies).
  • The Puna Ibis and Plegadis paganus have different scientific names so it looks OK as well.
  • The Rock Dove, Helmeted Guineafowl, and Wild Turkey deal with domestication. I'll leave it up to consensus whether to merge the domesticated articles into the wild species counterparts under a Domestication header. I suppose a more comprehensive discussion then needs to be made regarding Timber Wolf and Dog, Red Junglefowl and Chicken, etc.....
  • I am not suggesting that the articles be merged. I think the problem is that these domesticated bird articles have a species taxoboxes. I think that there should only be one species taxobox per species on the Wiki. Should they have a farm animal infobox? Dog and Chicken have subspecies taxoboxes. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
....That's all I've had time for so far. I'll get to the others later.........Pvmoutside (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed Eastern Great Egret (which bolded the species classification as though it was on Ardea alba not A. (a.) modesta) and Kumlien's Gull (same problem). Plegadis paganus is pretty clearly a mistake, and I've fixed it. With Papasula, there is a fossil species, humorously named costelloi, sometimes treated as a subspecies; I don't know whether we should treat it as one. —innotata 13:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that has fixed the taxoboxes of Eastern Great Egret and Kumlien's Gull. They are now both subspecies taxoboxes. Snowman (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dark-throated Thrush used to be considered a single species, Turdus ruficollis, with two subspecies, ''T. r. ruficollis and T. r. atrogularis. It is now commonly split as Red-throated Thrush, retained as T. ruficollis, and Black-throated Thrush T. atrogularis. We seem to be following both treatments simultaneously, need to decide whether to split or lump, but not both Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What does the evidence indicate? Snowman (talk) 12:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IOC and BOU both split, so I've made Black-throated a disamb Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed Teita Fiscal (which Pvmoutside had started on). It was just a spelling variation. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example showing how thise "x" is used? I have just realised that domesticated animals have "status = DOM" in the infobox, so I could search for this to exclude these from species lists. Should they be included or excluded? Snowman (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anas platyrhynchos × strepera for intrageneric hybrids, Anas platyrhynchos × Branta canadensis for intergeneric hybrids. Not sure how they fit in the ICZN &c. —innotata 15:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither has been resolved, and while we're at it, Black-throated Saltator isn't a Saltator either (unless that genus in broadened). For the flowerpecker, I do wish people would refrain from starting pages on presumed new species until they have been formally described, but I guess you can write something (although labelled with a lot of uncertainty) when someone published something on it. I have redirected Eastern Striped Manakin to Striped Manakin. Striped can be split into Eastern and Western, but if people want to do this... at least they should get the facts right (contrary to the earlier version of Eastern, it has not been rated by the IUCN [only combined Eastern+Western have been rated], and it is endemic to the Atlantic Forest in Brazil). Of all the novel splits proposed by the IOC, this is one with a relatively large amount of insecurity over its validity, though personally I think it's valid. This contrasts to several other novel IOC splits where good published quantitative data may be lacking, but *anyone* with a reasonable level of experiance with the taxa know they certainly deserve to be split. This includes e.g. the Western/Eastern Woodhaunter split (cf.SACC). • Rabo³ • 14:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, if the question for the Spectacled FP is simply one of knowing the genus, it is an easy call. If confirmed as a good species, it will certainly be a Dicaeum. However, I have not seen as yet a proposal for a specific epithet.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was just wondering if the genus could be written in the infobox, but without me knowing any literature on this topic, I think that it is better that I did not write this update to the species page infobox. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The dilemna for me is when to decide a bird gets a species page. Some are more viable than others as has aready been pointed out. In the case of the Woodhaunters, it looks like that does deserve a page eventually, but the evidence shown here is only a proposal at the SACC, and has yet to be fully accepted. It was explained to me all we need is a backing source in order to decide whether to create or lump a page. Yellow-rumped Warbler shows contrary evidence to split and lump. Evidence exists to split Yellow-rumped Warbler into Myrtle and Audubon's Warbler, but the AOU and other tax authorities have had issues with the sourcing, so they have rejected the study. There currently is evidence to split Barred Owl, but again, there is doubt the evidence is substantial enough to warrant a split. When we discussed when to split a species, I believe Steve Pryor suggested we wait until Howard & Moore gets published, but when asked for the publication date, he suggested January, but it is now June. The project has not even accepted Howard and Moore as the taxonomical standard. In fact, the project has not standardized on any one source for taxonomy as we have English names, which is then set up for controversies. I've been taking a conservative approach and only adding/changing information when there is agreement among multiple sources (i.e. created Andean Teal, Black-bibbed Tit). Perhaps a more comprehensive standardization model can be discussed for taxonomy moving forward....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pvmoutside, I have firmer information, finally I must add, about the HM 4°. It will be published in two volumes. The first (and there is a pre-publication offer but you have to get on their list, and which closes August 26 this year). The first volume will deal only with Non-Passerines, it is slated for publication in early October this year, it will cost 60 GBP (if taking advantage of the pre-pub offer), and will be approximately 550 pages. The second volume will deal with the Passerines, and will be out approximately in June, 2013 - same price, ca. 760 pp.. It should be noted, and I have a long letter from Frank Gill, that the IOC has modified their original intent (i.e. strictly dealing with English Common Names) and that they intend to evolve the list into a bona fide published tax list. I am not sure when they will publish a revised volume. If this comes to pass, they would be a competing list to the HM. Excuse me if I do not mention the Clements. I simply consider it a lightweight in comparision to the two aforementioned lists.Steve Pryor (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free Snowman!....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will re-phrase my question. Has more information become available that might enable the Barolo Shearwater to be allotted to a genus? Snowman (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Parakeet

I've did my best to fix Réunion Parakeet and Mauritius Parakeet to prevailing taxonomy. I've merged any worthwhile information for Echo Parakeet into both species. Echo Parakeet can now be merged into a redirect for Mauritius Parakeet.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur "Carnation-of-the-walls"

Seems to be a possible error at Marc A. P. O. Des Murs which should be Marc A. P. Oeillet des Murs? Error carried over from fr.wp / to fr.wp here. Could someone else have a look please. Library of Congress: NO 0026310 Mon. Oeillet des Murs, Marc Athanase Parfait, b. 1804. Iconographie omíthologique; nouveau recueil général de planches peintes d'oiseaux, In ictu oculi (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "M. O. Des Murs" on this title page, although in the Google Books metadata he's "Marc Athanase P. Oeillet Desmurs". Certainly "Oeillet Des Murs" makes the most sense, and he's often been referred to that way. Could "O. Des Murs" be an abbreviation for that, like the Spanish "C. de Baca" for the surname "Cabeza de Baca"? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He's "O. des Murs" on the title page and "P. O. des Murs" in the dedication of the Iconographie Ornthologique. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it, there seems to have been disagreement during his time. This treats Œillet des Murs as his surname, while all the references to his contribution to the Encyclopédie d'histoire naturelle call him "M. Des Murs". In his Traité général d'oologie ornithologique he's "O. Des Murs" again, and likewise in Leçons élémentaires sur l'histoire naturelle des oiseaux (scroll up two pages) and La fauconnerie, ancienne et moderne. However, his second given name seems to have been "Athanase", not "Athanese" as in our article. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The de.wp article records his father being Jacques Oeillet des/Des Murs, but if it is a surname it is very rare. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the move. For the start of his surname, I've made some comments at the talk page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of grey, gray, colour, and color

I am starting to make lists after scanning all the bird species pages on the Wiki. Here is the first after one bug in the script was fixed to scan the Birds category (earlier lists may be incomplete). I think this is a list of all the bird names with grey/gray or colour/color (uppercase and lower case c and g included) where the Wiki page name and the IOC name are different. This is an easy one to start with. If this is likely to be a full list, then I would plan show some more lists including IOC and Wiki name comparisons. The list where the Wiki and IOC have the same name is longer; listed on this supbage. Are there any missing? Are any UK to US or US to UK page moves needed? Snowman (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (talk) 08:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those with mainly African/European/Asian/Australasian ranges should be the BE grey/coloured versions, eg Cream-coloured Courser, Many-coloured Fruit Dove, Bicoloured Mouse-warbler. Those that occur mainly in the mostly BE-speaking Caribbean but not the US should also be BE eg Blue-Grey Tanager, Grey Kingbird. Those with a largely NAm distribution like Gray Jay should be AE. Those that don't normally occur in any English-speaking country eg Grey Thrasher, might as well stick with IOC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see what yo mean. I think that any page moves would need a clear consensus in favour. Snowman (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6 (African Grey Parrot) is a non-IOC name that there's a consensus for. 13, 22, 24, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 46, 49, 52, and 54 have substantive differences, so we should change them to the IOC name unless someone has a good reason not to. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 50, 51 match the IOC name except for details such as capitalization and handling of compound words. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'd be happy with any of the following:
@Snowman @Jerry Not always necessary to have a consensus. Four-colored Bushshrike really cannot stay there, must be either ioc (Gorgeous) or Four-coloured, since all six English-speaking countries in its (African) range use BE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A move to Gorgeous Bushshrike seems reasonable providing there are no taxonomy controversies. Snowman (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we needed a consensus—though I think we do need one to override the IOC, except on spelling variants. The Bushshrike you mention is that the species limits are controversial: are Gorgeous and Four-colo(u)red separate species (T. viridis and quadricolor), as at the IOC, or conspecific (viridis)? At present we're treating them as conspecific with a separate subspecies article for quadricolor. I have no objection to moving that article to "Four-coloured Bushshrike" on the basis of national ties.
I have no problem with returning to Four-coloured Bushshrike. I switched to the IOC spelling except for Europe and Australia/New Zealand but can live with the new parameters. I you switch to Gorgeous for the Four-colored, which I also have no issue with, then you'll have to deal with merging the current Gorgeous Bushshrike subspecies article. I stayed conservative and did not split or change genus given current evidence...Pvmoutside (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC says, "We encourage each author and publisher to select whatever spelling of these words is deemed appropriate," so I withdraw my third suggestion above.
By the way, Snowman, two more variant words, according to the IOC site: m(o)ustache and racket/racquet. And did you check somber/sombre? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know why you had written "somber/sombre" at the start of your comment. I will search for this and the other spelling variants that I have not searched for yet. I might be busy in real life for a few days. Are "St", "St.", or "Saint" included as spelling variants? Snowman (talk) 09:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Language localisation variants should not be a problem for automated scripts providing a complete list of all the words that have spelling variants in bird names is available. I note that the IOC page (linked above) includes an unhelpful "and perhaps others". Snowman (talk) 09:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Sombre Rock Chat is only bird with sombre/somber. My provisional impression is that there are over 34 with m(o)ustache or racket/racquet on IOC and all these Wiki names are consistent with IOC names except there is one on IOC that I have not found on the Wiki, which could be due to a number of reasons including automatic taxoboxes that I have not scanned. Also, it might be a taxonomy difference. I would be interested to hear if anyone has different counts, so that I can check my script. I am beginning to understand how to scan the Wiki pages on birds and plan to do a log of automatic taxoboxes soon and find out how to deal with them with a script. Did you know that there are over 19,500 pages in the Birds category (recursive)? It is getting to a stage when I need to draw a diagram of the script with a pencil and paper. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a Sombre Tit and a Sombre Greenbul. Our names agree with the IOC, so I'm just mentioning them for completeness. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I think I searched the wrong log. Sombre Rock Chat is in a different log to the others, because its binomial name is different on the Wiki and IOC: Snowman (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 Wiki=Cercomela dubia # IOC=Oenanthe dubia ## Wiki=IOC=Sombre Rock Chat

The others with normal taxoboxes and sombre/somber in English bird name are: Snowman (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any others? Snowman (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These should all be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, if they're dealt with at all. I think this is not an issue, so I'd vote for "Leave them the way they are, according to MOS:RETAIN". But if you wanna get into the nitty-gritty, I think a bird that's endemic to a region covered by a regional authority should use that authority's name. (e.g., Blue-gray Tanager, Gray Kingbird, Gray Catbird) Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of St, St. or Saint

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&action=edit&section=27 The following is where the Wiki page names differ from IOC spreadsheet 3.1. Are there any taxonomy issues? Do these need moving? Are there any missing? Snowman (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same common name on Wiki and IOC:

The following page names are on the Wiki. Are there any taxonomy issues? IOC does not have these common names, but may have the scientific name. Are these all extinct birds? Do they need moving? Snowman (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on page move: Suggestion: If Sooty and Sweep were editing here they could answer with voting symbol "+" to indicate a page needs moving or a "-" that it does not need moving before a symbol for their names. So Sweep would first of all state that his symbol is "Sw" and vote "-Sw" or "+Sw" and Sooty would indicate his symbol of "So" and use this to vote. We might be quickly see which are the non-controversial page moves. Anyone can ask a question and indicate a voting symbol for their question. These pages may be easy and some replies might be "yes to all"; however, there may be some more problematic lists soon about page name changes where opinions may be needed on individual pages. The question here: Should the Wiki use "St."? Symbols are "+"=yes and "-"=no. Snowman (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sn" Snowmanradio = symbol for opinions. (see example of opinion after Macaw) Snowman (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get the above paragraph, on voting. As far as what forms of Saint we use, most places have their own customs as to which forms (Saint, St., or St) are used. British English uses St, as in St Albans and Bury St Edmunds, since the t is the last letter of the word, similarly to Mr without the period, and while St. stands for Street; I think there's a U.S. state with towns called St. Mary and Saint Mary or something similar. Then, bird names not matching the normal place name is common. If there's more than one form in use for a place, it probably doesn't matter which we use, but for all of these it looks like the IOC is using St. where it is not customary, so I don't think we should follow. —innotata 15:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is more to the Saint name that I first thought. Sooty (So) has two yes votes (+So); see 1 and 2 above (macaw and dove). Sweep (Sw) has one no vote (-Sw) on 2 (dove). I would rather use "St" or "Saint" than "St.". Perhaps, the dot might get confused with a full-stop. Can IOC names have localisation or does IOC only have "St."? Snowman (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-think: this voting system is probably too easy for people to forge. Might be better to sign with ~~~ not ~~~~ (name without date) and indicate preference. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...but not necessarily. if this word/abbreviation is a localisation variant. About variants the IOC says "and perhaps others". To me, unless stated otherwise on the IOC website, this is likely to be a language variant. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Snowman that this comes under local variants and should not be subject to heavy-handed standardisation. The Saint Helena prefixed birds come from the name of the locality Saint Helena, in turn named after a saint. A variant example is St Kilda Wren, named after St Kilda, Scotland which is not named after a saint but is of obscure origin. The full stop (period) after the "St" is simply American usage and not general British (or Australian) usage - though American usage does crop up from time to time. Maias (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the two examples are an excellent illustration, the relevant islands are always written as shown, and the associated birds should keep the same form. The full stop in St is more variable in use, but in general it's a AE/BE thing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki article is spelled out in full "Saint Lucia", so would this be the preferred language variant here? Snowman (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are none with "Saint" or St on the IOC list. The IOC have these: Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 St. Helena Petrel
  • 2 St. Helena Rail
  • 3 St. Helena Crake
  • 4 St. Helena Plover
  • 5 St. Lucia Amazon
  • 6 St. Vincent Amazon
  • 7 St. Helena Cuckoo
  • 8 St. Helena Hoopoe
  • 9 St. Lucia Warbler
  • 10 St. Lucia Oriole
  • 11 St. Lucia Black Finch

Are there any missing? Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And also these abbreviations: Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1 Mrs. Hume's Pheasant
  • 2 Mrs. Gould's Sunbird

Are there any missing? Are there any other abbreviations used in bird names? Are "Mrs" and "Mrs." also abbreviations with different local language versions? Snowman (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs is traditional in BE, but Mrs. is common today, and American English might be used in the articles. Doesn't matter in the way messing up a place name does, at any rate. —innotata 20:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note, with regard to St or St, generally used as abbreviations (with exceptions such as St Kilda) that a WP guideline is that abbreviations should generally not be used in article titles. I suggest that the full "Saint" {or "Street" for that matter) should be used except in special cases. Maias (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in the Wiki guidelines is; "Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser)." There seem to be a lot of pages with "St"; St Michael's Mount (UK place name), St Leonards, New South Wales (USA place name). The articles listed in the dab St. Mary's Church is useful at looking at the use of "St", "St.", or "Saint" all over the world. Snowman (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think St is the exception to the rule, it's almost standard for churches, common for geographical locations, and my only FA starting with St was never challenged as to its title. It also reflects the fact that in normal speech we tend to say "snt" rather than Saint (and the personal name, "St John", is pronounced sinjent) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you think it "St" should be used in bird names? Snowman (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So most of the bird species presently living (ex St Lucia Black Finch) use St. instead of St or Saint. Be nice if we can get 'em consistent. Anyone mind if I change the remaining to Saint in keeping with Wikipedia rules? (will probably avoid problems down the road). Luckily there aren't many of them...Pvmoutside (talk) 13:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean, but it looks like all the birds with a form of "Saint" in their names are named after places that commonly use only "Saint" (with the exception of the St Kilda Wren, from a place not named after a saint according to MeegsC) and in the case of Saint Helena at least don't use "St.", so I suggest we move them all to the full word. —innotata 17:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with Innotata's suggestion of changing all listed to Saint except for St. Kilda Wren......How's everyone else?...Pvmoutside (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few with "Mount". I did not find any with "Mt" or "Mt." It appears that abbreviations are not used for "Mount", so it would seem to be consistent to not use abbreviations for Saint as well. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As previously, if there are any missing please let me know. Snowman (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has St Lucia Warbler has been moved to St. Lucia Warbler? I presume that the plan is to move it to Saint Lucia Warbler. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now at Saint Lucia Warbler. Snowman (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving Saint Lucia Warbler. Page was locked when I inadvertantly previously changed to St. Lucia Warbler. Was going to note on my next locked page list.....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of bird conservation groups and websites

Please help if you want just put in chat what it is before puting it in so I can give permisson. Also it can only be the name not a link or wikipidea will delete the page because it says I'm breaking some rule. I will probaly get back to you almost everyday except saturday and sunday. Please add some more languges to it under a new section with what the name of the languge is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bird_conservation_groups_and_websites Nhog (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

automatic Taxobox and speciesbox

I added automatic Taxobox to Struthio and speciesbox to Struthio copperensi and also created all the taxonomy pages, ie struthionidae, struthio, and all the species ones. I am still getting an error can someone help me out. I have been out of Wikipedia for a bit and the taxobox's changing is the big thing. speednat (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this like having a taxonomy system imposed on WP Birds? Which taxonomy is used by automatic taxoboxes? Snowman (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever one is created. An entry is made linking to the parent group. Then when you use <automatic taxobox> it links them all together and displays the amount that you tell it to. speednat (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 50 to 100 templates (click the edit tab and see the long list of protected templates) involved in rendering one taxobox and all of them are protected. Is this against the general principal that anyone can edit the Wiki? I do not think that WP Birds could use automatic taxoboxes without knowing what taxonomy system the automatic taxoboxes use. The Wiki aims to use the best evidence for its taxonomy. Snowman (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: current automatic taxobox on Struthio coppensi, a bird that became extinct in the Miocene. The taxobox says that this in on the IUCN red list, which is ridiculous. Snowman (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should probably be an open discussion in the our wikiproject then, because they are being changed to the automatic, not by me of course (except 1), but I only know about them because of what I have seen thus far in Birds.speednat (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, I have missed something. Where is the discussion about the application of automatic taxoboxes to ornithology? Snowman (talk) 19:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:Automatic taxobox I note that it says that the documentation is under construction. I presume automatic taxoboxes are not ready for roll-out. Snowman (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Head over here [1] and you can see the superlist of created taxonomy templates. This is the important part. This is what decides whether we use clades or not, whether ratitae exists. Not the post creation linking. So if we as a wikiproject want to debate and/or get involved, the time has past.speednat (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no templates in that list. That is a number of pages that begin with the word "Taxonomy". To me is seems that automatic taxoboxes are a concept for Wiki bird pages that has a few "experimental" examples only and it has not got of the ground. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

Administrator assistance needed to move Blue-and-white flycatcher to Blue-and-white Flycatcher. Snowman (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casuariidae & Dromaiidae

I am attempting to reconcile the joined families of Casuariidae and Dromaiidae; however I can't. All the info I have is showing that they split at Casuariiformes. Birdlife International, Tolweb.com, Taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl, Clements Checklist, shall I keep on, and I can find Nothing with a captial N stating the other. In addition, the article has no references backing that statement up. So I am going to place a Dubious tag on it. And I am suggesting that the article in question gets changed and moved to Casuariiformes, and the articles Dromaiidae gets created. speednat (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is confusing. Palaeognathae states that the primary classification is Struthioniformes, Rheiformes, Casuariiformes, Apterygiformes, Tinamiformes

and the secondary classification (meaning I assume that the less popular version) is Struthioniformes and Tinamiformes.

However if you go to the Struthioniformes page it states Struthionidae, Rheidae, Casuariidae, †Aepyornithidae, Dinornithidae, Apterygidae as its children.

There are discrepancies across our pages and I may not have the most recent info at my fingertips. If I was to do anything, I would probably use ITIS.gov or something which states that they are all part of the same order - Struthioniformes.speednat (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your issue. Since it appears the Cassowaries (Casuariidae) and the Emu (Dromaiidae) are distinct families (Clements, Zoonomen, H & M, etc, probably the best thing to do to the family article is to merge all the appropriate Cassowary family info into Cassowary, move all the appropriate Emu info into the Emu article, then make Casuariidae a redirect to Cassowary, and Dromaiidae a redirect to Emu. Also needed is a link on the Struthioniformes page to the Dromaiidae. Any objections?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started making the move of Casuariidae to Casuariiformes and changing the article to match that it was an article about an order instead of a family, but otherwise the same. However I then realized that disagrees with the main premise of the Ratite article that they are all members of Struthioniformes and there is no Casuariiformes. Here is a rundown of my research

Clements and ITIS.gov agree wholeheartedly

  • Struthioniformes
    • Apterygidae
    • Casuariidae
    • Dromaiidae
    • Rheidae
    • Struthionidae

Next is Tolweb.com which doesn't really name the groups but it goes like this

  • Ostriches
  • The Rest
    • Tinamous
    • Rheas
    • The rest
      • Kiwis
      • Emus
      • Cassowaries

Zoonomen.com

  • Struthioniformes
  • Rheiformes
  • Tinamiformes
  • Apterygiformes
  • Casuariformes
    • Casuriidae
    • Dromaiidae

Finally Taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl They seem extreme, although keep in mind that they also deal with extinct species.

  • Palaeognathae
    • Lithornithiformes
    • Crypturi
      • Dromaeomorphae
        • Tinamiformes
    • Ratitae
      • Apterygimorphae
        • Apterygiformes
        • Dinornithiformes
      • Casuariimorphae
        • Casuariformes
          • Casuariidae
          • Dromaidae
      • Struthionimorphae
        • Aepyornithiformes
        • Struthioniformes
          • Struthioni
            • Eleutherornithidae
            • Palaeothithidae
            • Struthionidae
          • Rheae

IF that is not confusing enough. So generally there is nothing close to a consensus, although I think what Taxonomicon is trying to do is separate out the tinamous early and be more detailed than any other. Also, all but ITIS and Clements are keeping Cassowaries and Emus together for one taxon more than the others. speednat (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about changing back what I did with Casuariidae and Casuariformes but we can always change it back later, I am going to think about it overnight and would love to hear what other people have to say. speednat (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zoonomen is a list of authorities and it is not a taxonomy list. As far as I am aware, ITIS is not used for birds here (not sure why not) and Clements is an older system. I have not heard about the other websties quoted above. As with parrots, perhaps classification will become clearer after more DNA research and it is too early to make a lot of changes here now. Whatever changes are made to the Wiki should be based on verifiable and reliable evidence. I think erudite ornithology assistance is needed just in case this discussion leads to a lot of edits that are based on unsuitable or inconsistent sources. Snowman (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locked pages VIII

Next installment in locked pages. Some of these are on Snowmanradio's list.......Most are capitalization issues with a few exceptions.

..........Pvmoutside (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've finished the last few Wren-Babblers for you... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim and Kurt....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talking turkey

Round 274 Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration and peer review

There are a couple of articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review, and pelican is probably not too far off a GA nomination and possible pass, so might be time to think of what would be a good next collaboration - check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration everyone. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images on Flickr

I've noticed some project members uploading some Flickr images not attributed to them. I know photos taken when on govt. assignments qualify, as do photos older than 150 years can be uploaded, but some photos with some rights reserved are also uploaded. Can this creative commons tag qualify?: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0).....I've found some images if that is the case......I know we can't if all rights are reserved. And do I need to care if the author chages his creative commons license after I upload?...Pvmoutside (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only PD, CC-BY, and CC-BY-SA images are OK; Creative Commons licenses can not be revoked. For more info and links to tools for uploading images, take a look at commons:Commons:Flickr files. —innotata 16:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, images uploaded to Commons must have copyright to be distributed commercially and also they must allow derivatives. You must have the flickr licence checked by a trusted user by putting {{flickrreview}} on the uploaded file. The uploader does not have to be the author, but the images uploaded must be given an appropriate copyright licence by the author to be suitable for upload to Commons. Once the licence has been checked another tag will be put on the image to confirm the Flickr licence, and after that it does not matter if the Flickr user changes the licence or deletes it because Creative Commons licences are non-redeemable. Put {{Flickr-change-of-license}} (or {{Picasa-change-of-license}}), which will explain that the copyright of the image on Flickr has been changed and that it originally had licence that was suitable for Commons. Snowman (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information.......I'll comb through North America little by little.....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an image on Commons with a {{Flickr-change-of-license}} template; see File:Amazona festiva bodini -two in aviary-8a.jpg. On Flickr you can see that the Flickr photographer has deleted the image from Flickr. Snowman (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New African Grey Parrot split

Thoughts on this, fellas? It seems to have recently been decided that the Timneh African Grey Parrot is a distinct species, Psittacus timneh. Any thoughts on whether the TAG should have its own separate article yet? If so, what should it be called, considering that we're not currently using the IOC name for the (Congo) African Grey Parrot? The Birdlife International link uses 'Grey Parrot' and 'Timneh Parrot', for the record. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just by looking at them, I always thought that they are two different species. However, I am not sure what the current literature says. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now we have IUCN Redlist entries for Psittacus erithacus and Psittacus timneh, far what it's worth... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long list

Is it worth making a WP Birds Project subpage for a list of about 9000 en Wiki bird articles where the Common name and the binomial name in the article are both the same as IOC Common and binomial names? It might be useful, because "what links here" will show a link where relevant. I have the print out, but it might not be 100% complete for a variety of reasons, perhaps about 95%. I do not know the final count (about 8800 to 9000), because there are a few more in other print outs to add on or I'll write a few lines of code for the articles ending in "(bird)". It will be similar (but about 10 times longer) than Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Comparison of IOC and Wiki binomial names (June 2012), which is a list where the binomial name is different on en Wiki and IOC. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crested Shrike-tit or Crested Shriketit

This has been moved between these two names a number of times. Its IOC name is Crested Shriketit. The move to its IOC name appears to be controversial. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this a while back as part of one of Pvmoutside's periodic requests for IOC name-related page moves, only for User:Bidgee to disagree and move it back the same day (along with a handful of other articles I'd moved at the same time, IIRC). I'd say that this qualifies the move as controversial. I'd take it to WP:RM and go through the full process, TBH. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion of this issue is here, FWIW. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All of locked pages with the exception of the shriketit look stable. When Bidgee originally argued his case, I left his move intact and tagged with IOC name exception. Arguing over a hyphen (or lack of one) better left for another day....Pvmoutside (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion about a possible page move to the IOC name at Talk:Crested Shrike-tit. Snowman (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suffix on bird names

List of birds with "(bird)" as suffix. It is not always easy to know what is the primary topic, and moves might be controversial. Are there any worth looking at to see if the primary topic is at the bird. Snowman (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of bird species. There are more suffixes for genera and extinct birds. Snowman (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (talk) 23:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With most of these, the ambiguity is coincidental (Mao, Sora, most of the others), or the bird is derived from the main meaning (Rifleman, Redhead). The only one that I think may be arguable is the swallow. Although there is a long list on the Golden Swallow disamb page, only one, an obscure Chinese film, has an actual article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are Red Owl stores really more notable than the bird species? I've never heard of the chain (or what appears to be left of it), but then again, there's no particular reason why I would have. Any United Statesians able to comment? Also - the River Tern, a more popular topic than the River Tern, would you say? I suppose that I *could* look at the pageview stats... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, KSB, I agree that the Shropshire River is much less notable than the Indian bird, that would be justifiable as a move to primary name. I don't know if the Red Owl stores either, but that seems at least another where the bird may be more notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Page counts so far this June using this tool: "River Tern (bird)" = 318 hits; "River Tern" =172 hits. Neither terns are primary pages. Both terns have many listed in "what links here", so they would not be easy to move. However, could claim WP:Recentism for moving "Red Owl", so I have started a discussion about a possible move on Talk:Red Owl. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would move Red Owl to Red Owl (Store) and create Red Owl as disambiguation --Melly42 (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Red Owl (store)", with the "s" in store in lower-case, might be better. Please comment in the move discussion on Talk:Red Owl. Snowman (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two locked pages

Can someone move a couple of locked pages? Normally I wait and save them until I have a section completed, but these two are particularly confusing.

Thanks!....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mate, I've done those now... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laughingthrushes

I'm currently at the Garrulax laughingthrushes and notice there has been some work on creating new genus splits. I know the area I am in right now is in a huge state of flux with new families propsed, new genera proposed, and movement of species from one genus to another. So my question is, should I revert back the new genus work, in this case from Leucodioptron back to Garrulax? Looks like HBW is the only one recognizing the new genus Leucodioptron, everyone else (Clements, H & M, etc.) still with Garrulax. My preference is to revert to Garrulax until there is more consensus. I'll leave the proposed new genera splits (for now) on the general Laughingthrush page.....Any comments?....Pvmoutside (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diet of frogs

Our friendly neighbourhood vandal's latest wheeze is changing the iucn status without an edit summary or reference, the usual stuff intended to waste our time checking. As always, I've reverted all edits by this user on sight, and blocked the current isp at 86.46.247.180. No doubt he'll be back soon from another address Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of his edits that I saw last night were correct (I checked them on http://www.iucnredlist.org/ - which has recently been updated for 2012), e.g. on Festive Amazon and Yellow-naped Amazon. Is he doing a mixture of good/bad? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames in bird names

Which is the correct spelling? IOC and Wiki have different capitalisation after "Mac" in the following bird names: Snowman (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the cuckoo-dove is now at MacKinlay's Cuckoo-Dove. Snowman (talk) 20:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whose Bird? gives Mackinlay and MacQueen. —innotata 20:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Wiki uses accents as used in peoples names. Difficult to type accents appear as "?"s in the print out. Should the following files be moved? Snowman (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian language

The accents used in the Hawaiian language are not very well known globally; see ioc spelling rules. The pronunciation is usually in the first line of the article, so why put little-known pronunciation aids for the Hawaiian language in the title of bird species pages. I think that all the Hawaiian accents should be removed from Wiki pages names. Difficult to type pronunciation aids appear as "?"s in the list. Please note there may be some articles of extinct birds, which may not have be included on the IOC list, and may not appear on the following comparison of Wiki and IOC names. Snowman (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowman (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different binomial names between IOC and Wiki for same common name

See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Comparison of IOC and Wiki binomial names (June 2012).


Most are where a different taxonomic view is taken. Some of the -us/-a ending differences may be where the gender of the word has changed, as with Delichon urbicum recently becoming D. urbica. The following are ones where I think there is a spelling error, and which I believe to be correct.

  • Madagascar Partridge — wiki
  • Palau Owl — ioc
  • Seychelles Kestrel — wiki
  • White-winged Chough — ioc
  • Grey-headed Fish Eagle — wiki
  • Mountain Hawk-Eagle — ioc
  • Daurian Partridge — ioc

Sephanoides sephaniodes looks as if it should be wrong, but I don't think it is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not entirely sure if you are indicating the correct version or the incorrect version. What in-line referencing or footnotes are needed, when the Wiki binomial is thought to be correct and it is different to the IOC binomial. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an up-to-date list of binomial name spellings anywhere? How are gender differences recognised? What are the spelling rules about gender in binomial names? If gender differences are thought easy to correct, I might attempt to generate a shorter print-out that includes only gender spelling differences. Snowman (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In re only Sephanoides. The spelling of the specific epithet as "sephaniodes" appears to be a misspelling, however, it risks remaining in the hunt because of it having entered into common usage. Until there is a specific decision in merit by the ICZN this will not be resolved. In order then to your questions of the above paragraph: First, the question of calling this or that list "up-to-date" is probably wishful thinking. There is more than one list, all touted by their respective redactors as being up-to-date, and still they differ in certain instances, and they differ when there are differences of nomenclatural interpretation in the ICZN protocols that may be cogent from case to case. Second, gender differences normally depend on the determination of the gender of the generic name, however, this determination is often not intuitive. If correct gender assignment is possible for the generic name, there are then sometimes cases of non-conformation of the subspecific epithets because of the nature of the subspecific epithet itself. These differences can be understood most of the time by going through the ICZN protocols, however, they are usually very arcane and abstruse! This is stuff that I usually leave to those academics that are immersed in this subject matter. Third, save yourself the time, and don't attempt the generation of a list of gender differences - because of the esoteric nature of the subject I would consider such an attempt a waste of time as the ICZN protocols invoked are several and a generation of such a list would lead only to an restatement of treatments at times not intuitive that you would attempt to resolve by the generation of such a list.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am wondering if it is worth having a special field in the taxobox that indicates that the classification of a taxon is considered to be a species by some authorities and a sub-species by other authorities. The taxobox (or additional taxobox) could even state how a number of authorities have classified a particular taxon. Music articles have an additional taxobox for review scores (see Secondhand Daylight) and perhaps controversial taxa could have an additional taxobox for the opinions of a number of authorities. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman that can be covered in the "synonyms" parameter, such as is the case with the Silver-backed Butcherbird. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The butcherbird taxobox looks like a standard species taxobox to me. A synonym does not necessarily imply taxonomy controversy. I thought that most synonyms were due to out-of-date taxonomy or re-naming. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=499239191"