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 08:19, 21 January 2013 (→Birds for identification (153)). 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

Notice of redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Cleanup may be needed

This user Special:Contributions/92.0.250.56 seems to have added Category:Birds by country to birds that may be wrong, plase help chek this if you

Digital recreation

Re: File:Glaucous macaw.jpg Is this a useful artists recreation of a Glaucous Macaw or should it be removed or deleted, because it is original work. It has appeared on the en Wiki species page. I think that the image is interesting. I have left a message on the author's talk page on Commons and I have invited the author to participate in this discussion. Snowman (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem I see is that there is no indication of what the source image is. If copyrighted, it needs to be deleted. Otherwise, I see no problem in having it on Commons, as long as it is clearly labelled as a mere restoration. But using it in the article is a little iffy, since we do have images of what the animal actually looked like. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the intent is laudable. However, it would have been better to start with the other extant Anodorhynchus (the Lear's Macaw) because though massive the Glaucous did not have the bill of the Hyacinth Macaw, it had a different shape (resembling that of the Lear's again)for the periocular skin, and again more resemblant to the Lears', were the yellow lappets of the the two mandibular bases. Further, the artist most likely got his idea for the amount of grey from the few, but very foxed, skins or mounts that still exist of the Glaucous. The bird in life did not have this much grey on the breast, and the head grey was also more of a greyish wash on turquoise blue with the most grey being on the lores, the frons, the crown, and the superior nape, and this grey dissolved into turquoise blue as it proceeded caudad from the bill insertion. Further, respect to the Hyacinth, on which this image was recreated, the overall tint of the mantle, the coverts, the upper tail, etc., was turquoise-blue, and not this deep blue of the Hyacinth. Further, the undertail color here is wrong - it should be greyish, and not blue.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed it from the en Wiki species page and one other language Wiki. I will think about how to describe it on Commons. I think that it should be deleted from Commons; however, all sorts of unscientific images can go on Commons and there may be people who want it kept. I think it should be deleted because it had no scientific nor educational value. Snowman (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commons also has stuff like this[1], so I wouldn't hold my breath. And yes, those are external testicles on a dinosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance requested on the Glaucous Macaw article, because the author has restored his digital creations on the page by reverting my edit. My recollection from Foreshaw 2006 is that the Glaucous Macaw is more like Lear's Macaw than the Hyacinth Macaw in size, and I think the recreations tend to give the wrong impression for a number of reasons as listed above by User Cuckooroller. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You could always try talking to them and pointing them at this discussion. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned above, I have notified the uploaded of this discussion on his or her talk page on Commons (user has same name on Commons and en Wiki). Nevertheless, I have just invited him to advance the discussion by leaving him or her an additional message on his or her talk page on en-Wiki. I am not sure if the uploader is also the author. I have just noticed that the images appear to be copyvio from this photoset on Flickr and that they are modifications of the Commons file File:Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus -Disney -Florida-8.jpg. This new user has also added digital recreations to a few other macaw pages. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the Commons there is a message that the image is scheduled for "speedy deletion" because its copyright category is invalid for Wikipedia. Unless the author has permission from the original photographer the "recreation" will have to go. Dger (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Flickr account is owned by the same editor. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted for second time on en Wiki. Copyright and educational value issues can be discussed on Commons, meanwhile I think that the images should be kept off all language Wikis. Assistance requested to watch pages. Snowman (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

....I did not have thr purpose of making such a inconvenience. Now I have uploaded a new corrected version of the image. It were taken into account all observations made here by the contributors. However, I wish to delette many of my images from Commons and I do not find the way to do so. I ask for assistance. Rod6807 (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the left side under tools there is a "nominate for deletion" option. Click on that, and write that you as the uploader want it removed, due to incorrectness or some such. That is usually respected. FunkMonk (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your advice, they are now proposed for deletion. Rod6807 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pigeon Hollandais.jpg

Hello, anybody here having an idea how this file of the extinct bird from the Mascarene Islands should be renamed? Is there a Dutch name for it? Lotje (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be renamed, it is referred to as such even in English sources, see for example Cheke & Hume 2008. Mauritius was under French rule before the bird went extinct, and French Creole is still the main language there. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine by me. Lotje (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a question about the attribution of the color image used on the Mauritius Blue Pigeon page. I will take it on faith that a certain Haasbroek executed a line drawing, reputed to be from a live bird, somewhere around 1790, and apparently from the one known live individual ever brought to Europe, to the Netherlands. However, the color image offered on the species page seems to have been a later rendition effected by a certain Prof. H. Schlegel, in 1884.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to what exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the fact that I found the original line drawing, in black and white but with another bird with only the head peeking into the drawing, and the same entire Pigeon as in the color image, but in black, and white. The color image when enlarged has a visible attribution, Prof. Schlegel. The logical conclusion is that he took the original line drawing and just sort of copied the shape of the original Pigeon and filled it in with color.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Hermann Schlegel was not a professor. Lotje (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a longer text in an earlier version of the image, but it is not in very high res. FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bird sounds

I'm sure most of you are aware of xeno-canto. I'm one of the administrators of xeno-canto, and I just thought that I'd mention that we recently re-designed the site. In the process we added a choice of licenses for the first time. So now there are finally recordings that are available under a wikipedia-compatible license. The default license is still too restrictive for wikipedia use (BY-NC-SA), but there are a small number of BY-SA recordings now (mostly my recordings at the moment, but a few others are starting to upload under this license as well). You can find them by using the 'lic:by-sa' search query. Hope this is helpful. Jnthnjng (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see progress. Shyamal (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've started a discussion of this on Wikimedia Commons; and created a template for linking to xeno-canto: {{Xeno-canto species}}. The latter will be useful where there are no or few files for species on Commons, and those on XC don't have an open licence. I have also asked on the XC forum for reciprocal links to Wikipedia. Don't forget, too, that XC is welcome to upload files from Wikimedia Commons, providing it complies with the applicable licences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Wiki policy to add these as external links? Is this website have information that could not be expected to be found on Commons? There are a lot of Wiki guidelines about external links. Snowman (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL allows for such links. I suggest you also read the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LINKSTOAVOID; "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." I think that these links should not be added. Snowman (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, we've got thousands of articles with no sounds at all. We have thousands of articles that are unlikely to get sounds any time soon. There is no requirement in the FA process which says that a sound is a mandatory requirement for FA status. I say link to the xeno-canto website. It's a non-commercial, non-profit site which is gathering a growing number of recordings from all around the world. It's a great resource, and one which will supplement the meagre information which is currently available on the vast majority of our bird articles. And if they're beginning to put up CC licensed recordings, that's great! MeegsC (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that #1 allows actually for these links. As long as we don't have the sound on commons (and it may not always be trivial to get it!), a site like this would add unique content, content that is actually useful even if an article has FA status. IF a sound is uploaded on meta, it is not that unique resource anymore, and may need to be removed (if it does not add anything that is already in the article ...). Care may have to be taken for WP:SPAMHOLE-effects - if there is one of these sites, next ones may come in because 'they do the same as the other, and if the other is there, this one should also be there', which may result in 15 different sites for certain birds. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 11:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that this could start a new trend and before we know it there might be multiple template banners to external sites on a lot of birds pages. Sound files are found on Commons. What is the unique resource on this external website? Snowman (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I again suggest you also read the template's documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, we only have sound files for a tiny number of species. They are not widely available for most of the species in the world. Which is worse: an external link or no sound file at all? I think it's important to put the link, so people can hear what species sound like. If we're able to find a correctly licensed, useable sound that we can import to Commons then we can remove the link. It mystifies me why anyone would want to remove a useful link just because we have recordings for 100 or so (out of 10,000) species! MeegsC (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you also have a specific licensing policy on sonograms generated by the system. Shyamal (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hm, that's a good question. At the moment, we are not explicit about the license for sonogram images. However, If I'm not mistaken, the sonogram images for all SA-licensed recordings should legally have the same license as the recordings themselves since they're derivative works of the audio files. Would it help if we stated that explicitly on the site? Jnthnjng (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the right interpretation of SA, and yes I suspect it would be a good idea to be specific about it. An aside about the NC clause is that (also worth checking this article doi:10.3897/zookeys.150.2189) strict adherence would mean that a site does not conduct any commercial activity including perhaps obtaining funds to run it and one could go on even to question the creativity involved in the process of recording (perhaps settings on an instrument dial?) to actually allow the applicability of Copyright laws. Shyamal (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have revised the template. It now has three parameters; two for genus and specific name, both mandatory, and a third for a common name or other display text, which is optional. The template defaults to displaying an italicised binominal name; would it be better (before it is more widely deployed) to default to showing the page name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might be nice to have a variant that supports full COinS metadata and in line with the citation templates (for specific call recordings with accession number) so as to be usable as a reference for call descriptions. Would be much appreciated by researchers who use Zotero or other reference managers. Shyamal (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some websites have videos with sound of the birds calling. What is special about a website of only bird sounds? Snowman (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if "some websites" tag up their videos to say which have bird sounds and what quality. It can be a pain to wait for a video to load in to Flash or whatever only to find the song is rubbish. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is special is that it has sounds for most of the species of the world. The same cannot be said for videos. MeegsC (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What is special is that it has sounds recorded by people who know the birds and it has a good number of eyes and ears doing a kind of peer-review. Shyamal (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basic data for a genus page

I'm sure others will have noticed that many of our genus pages have very little information on them - some just having a list of species and a taxobox. I thought I might spend some time improving some of them. I'd like to find out what other editors' thoughts are on the basic information that should appear on a genus page. My own thoughts are:

  • current and past views of the genus's parent taxa (family/subfamily/tribe)
  • list of species currently included and any others previously included, or others not included but which might belong
  • any closely related genera
  • the date and name of the genus's author, and the type species
  • main and alternative English names and any similarly-named genera or species whose names suggest they are in the genus, but which aren't
  • main morphological features which birds in the genus share
  • distributional information (e.g. what is the total range of the genus, and where is its main centre of diversity)
  • any notes on habitats used
  • any comments on the conservation status if the genus contains a high proportion of threatened species

What do others think? SP-KP (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. MeegsC (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great list! I usually use similar items, sorted into sections as follows:
  • "Intro" section (first paragraph(s) ): main and alternative English names etc & main morphological features etc & distributional information etc & any closely related genera etc
  • "TaxoNomSystPhyl" section: current and past views of the genus's parent taxa etc & the date and name of the genus's author etc [& homonymies, remarkable synonyms etc]
  • "Species" section (perhaps subsection of "TaxoNomSystPhyl"): list of species currently included etc
  • "Ecology" section: any notes on habitats used & any comments on the conservation status etc
Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of consistency, it might be worth looking at the structure of genus FAs and GAs, like chough, Delichon, nuthatch, pelican and river martin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SORA update

Hi folks, SORA has been updated http://sora.unm.edu/ as some have already seen I presume. This means that all "elibrary.unm.edu/sora/" links need to be updated to new format. I think it might simply be replacing this with "sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/" and then the journal, issue etc as in the old link format.

Probably the people at WP:TOL should be contacted, someone needs to run a bot over this but make sure it does not screw up. Maybe initiate botrun for each journal manually, so we have a rollback time/date in case sth is fucked up. (The link format was not 100% standardized in the old SORA, so it may be by simply running the bot once across all affected pages will break some links.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arg! I wonder if Snowman can write a semi-automated program to crawl through and check these for us... MeegsC (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have a smattering of Perl. If all the changes conform to this pattern, then it would be really easy and the script need not scan the journal on the external website. The journal articles are in pdf format, which makes it a bit more difficult for a script to scan the article, but I think it can be done by using a module. I would guess that the new links are each in the same style. If anyone is aware of any old links (or new links) that are in a different style, then please list a few examples? If there are different formats for old links, then there is no reason why a script could not deal with them and transcribe them to a new link. I have been busy in real life and might be for a while, so I can not attend to this in detail at the present time. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send them an email, and ask if they can provide us a list of "before" and "after" formats for each journal address. MeegsC (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to the DjVu-Files? --Melly42 (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I could write the code and have something working within the hour, if I knew all the possible patterns of "before" and "after". It is indicated above that all the old links were not 100% standardized, and I think that is would be useful to be aware of these and write code to deal with any non-standard urls. Some of the old links have already been tagged with a "dead link" template, so I could write a few extra lines to remove these when updating the urls. I would be cautious and spend a day or two testing on short editing runs before doing long runs. Snowman (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't yet received a response from the technical people at SORA. They sent a form letter (when I submitted my email) saying someone would be in touch within 48 hours. MeegsC (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've received an email back from their tech department, saying they'll put together a table for us. No time line though... MeegsC (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR for all

It is now possible for non-institutional individuals to read articles at JSTOR for free. You only need an account at JSTOR and than you can take up to 3 items on your shelf for 14 days. After 14 days you can remove the items and you can take 3 new items.

Register page

http://www.jstor.org/ --Melly42 (talk) 11:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, is it permanent? FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who can't see the image referred to here "Please enter the words you see in the image below:" FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that you need better access, I got one of the 100 full access JSTOR accounts issued a little while at least, I imagine that I'm not the only project member to sign up for this, but I don't know who else. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a full access account as well; it's good for at least 2013, and is proving very useful. If you don't have an account and would like to ask for one, here's the sign up list. In the meantime, feel free to let me know if there's a source you'd like checked out. MeegsC (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you have permanent free access to up to 3 articles for 14 days (or more if you put the same items for another 14 days on your shelf). But it is not allowed to save them as PDF. And yes, the capture code sucks --Melly42 (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More bird songs

User:Fae has done a sterling job, uploading 366 open-licensed files from Xeno-Canto to Commons:Category:Xeno-canto. Please help to add these to articles, where appropriate, and, if you're active on other-language Wikipedias, notify interested editors there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Hope s/he has a script that can be run periodically to incrementally convert and add new additions to Xeno-Canto. That would be a great route for those that have been holding out due to their inabilty to convert MP3/WAV to Ogg. Shyamal (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He. Such periodic updates are in hand, I believe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (153)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=534132061"