Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 59

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 21 April 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 55←Archive 57Archive 58Archive 59Archive 60Archive 61→Archive 65

English name synonym formatting

I've just created redirects for all the English name synonyms of Rufous-tailed Robin and included them all in the first paragraph as I believe we're supposed to as per WP:MOS. The end result looks horrible ... does anyone have any ideas for a better way of including them in the article? SP-KP (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, you shouldn't self-reference articles, which means none of those alternate names should be wikilinked. In addition, I think it's perfectly acceptable to only list the generally recognized alternate names (i.e. those found in field guides, etc.) in the lead paragraph. Other lesser-known alternate names (regional, archaic, etc.) can be put into another paragraph lower down in the article. MeegsC | Talk 17:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry, I'm an idiot - I added the wikilinks as a shortcut to checking which names were already present as redirects and forgot to undo them. Having read the guidance on redirects in a bit more detail I think your suggestion is a good one, and that's what I'll do, although it should still be in the lead section. SP-KP (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd do as MeegsC does, maybe the few most common names in lead and then the others in the taxonomy and naming section below Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Locked pages

The following are locked (IOC changes):

Resolved

Shyamal (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Burung Matamerah

Resolved

We seem to have accidentally acquired a Malay version of the Asian Glossy Starling page which will need to be deleted. Maias (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (136)

Black Kite, very worn tail.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Black Kite moved to File:Milvus migrans -India -flying-8 (1).jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. Race suratensis.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not juvenile, second summer I'd say, ssp L. a. argenteus Jimfbleak - talk to me?
Whoops, this is a duplicate of File:Larus argentatus -Eastbourne, East Sussex, England-8.jpg. Snowman (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Adult basic (non-breeding). MeegsC | Talk 17:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Commons file details enhanced. Selected for the infobox on en Wiki species article. Snowman (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Looks right to me. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Myiarchus magnirostris.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Galapagos Flycatcher moved to File:Myiarchus magnirostris -near Darwin Lake, Isabela, Galapagos, Ecuador-8.jpg on Commons. Is it possible to identify this as a male or a female. Snowman (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Not from a photo. There is some distinction possible that is age-related (this is an adult) because the wing coverts tend to be rufous-tipped in juveniles.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The infobox on the species page shows two birds, one is greyish and one is brownish. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
My interpretation is that it is a question of the "freshness" of the plumage, the browner one being fresher. They are both the same species, and they are both adult. There are also probably some differences due to the not equal photography techniques, the lighting, and possibly different adjustments made for the saturation in post-processing - the greyer one looks to have the ventral yellow particularly washed out. However, I can not exclude the possibility that though the species is considered monotypic, that there might not be slight differences of these birds as they are present on the single islands in the Galapagos.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I see. Since the infobox is not designed to illustrate this sort of colour variation or possible artefact, I have replace the two images in the species page infobox with a cropped version of Bird 1367. Snowman (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
A question more suited to somebody familiar with the convoluted meanders of domestic poultry. Personally, I would not know where to start.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Snow, it is an adult race anatum. There seems to be some confusion as to stated ranges of the various races in NA. Both tundrius and anatum range in Nova Scotia, and both winter farther south in the New World. Morphologically adult tundrius have a cleaner breast and though they do have a very broad moustachial, it does not coalesce totally into the helmet that we see in this bird, typical of anatum.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Peregrine Falcon, subspecies details added to Commons without implying corroboration. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Peregrine Falcon

This is in danger of losing its FA status. A couple of us have had a go at the text, but the references are a problem in that many are lacking page numbers. If you can fix the any of these, please help Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The obvious think to do is notify the editors who worked on it and got it to FA. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, several of the main contributors appear not to be active now. The others are likely to read this page. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

big grey bird of prey in virginia?

My Mom saw it on the ground. Said it was huge and grey. A "hawk". Said not a crow or the like. Not black.TCO (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly a male Northern Harrier? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

In Need Of Revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanahjampea_Blue_Flycatcher

The reason is that the title caption contemplates the split species Tanahjampea Blue Flycatcher, and therefore the split taxonomy is erroneous - should be Cyornis djampeanus, also known as the Sulawesi Blue Flycatcher (Cyornis omissus djampeanus). The common name in the taxbox also needs looking at - Blue Flycatcher, not Blue-flycatcher. If wishing to specify the split species djampeanus in the taxbox the citation is Cyornis djampeanus (E. Hartert, 1896).Steve Pryor (talk) 07:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be no corresponding page for Sulawesi Blue Flycatcher (Cyornis omissus). Also if we are using the IOC indications for the English Common Names, then all of the Cyornis stubs need to be revised to carry the form "Blue Flycatcher", and no longer Blue-flycatcher.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
The Wiki has one less than listed at IOC. Are Tanahjampea Blue Flycatcher and Sulawesi Blue Flycatcher the same name for a species or are they different species? Is this controversial? Snowman (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (137)

Juveniles of all races have "frosting" on the covert feathers and the tips of the primaries up to six months of age, after which they lose the feature and appear as do the adults.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it a sub-adult? Snowman (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Not with the white tips that Steve mentioned. In fact, I'mnot aware of any easily-discernable plumages of Osprey other than juv. and adult. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
With good reason. It is not a Kite. First glance impression tells me to look at plumages of Prairie Falcon. Will do so with more time.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
In addition to Prairie Falcon, Saker is another possibility. I'm afraid I'm not up on telling these two apart. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
For captive birds there is the possibility of a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirm Prairie Falcon. Separated from Saker by, among other things, the typically dark axillaries, and underwing coverts.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Prairie Falcon moved to File:Falco mexicanus -Avian Conservation Center, near Charleston, South Carolina, USA-8a.jpg on Commons and selected for the infobox image on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not hybrids. They look like slightly grubby adult American White Ibises. MeegsC | Talk 18:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Common Blackbird

A bit of a problem may be arising here. A "new" editor reinstated edits made by an anon previously which added unsourced material and removed an existing ref from this FA. I reverted the edits again, and left this message. I'm hoping that this can be resolved amicably, but I'd be grateful if someone uninvolved could keep a watching brief on this dispute. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added a comment on his talk page. • Rabo³ • 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
WRT 'blackbirds never sing at night' - isn't the Blackbird actually one of the first, if not the first bird to awaken and sing of a very early morning (i.e. when it's still dark outside and would probably be considered 'night' by most)? e.g. First link I found where this is mentioned... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Birds for identification (135)

Well, something in the back of my mind tells me to check immature plumages of H. vocifer, which I will do tonight.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that is what I figured. Third-year Haliaeetus vocifer.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
File details on Commons enhanced. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed. The powder-blue mantle separates it from malimbica. The location excludes senegaloides. The blackish postocular wedge makes it race cyanoleuca. The incipient duskiness of the lower mandible makes it a young adult.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirmed.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that Orange-crowned Warbler is now Oreothlypis celata. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Note that Orange-crowned Warbler is now Leiothlypis celata.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Snow, I would really need to search the database of the zoo for some of these. I can't find one. Ornika, presuming it is a place, which is not sure, gives me zilch. In any case, this particular owl is doable - Pulsatrix perspicillata. The one on the right is what is called in late mesoptile plumage - more or less corresponds to late, late juvenile/subadult.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
See Ornika website, which indicates that it is an annual bird show of some sort in Bad Schönborn, Germany. The date of the photographs would show that the photographer visited there on 1 Nov 2011, the last day of the show. Snowman (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I looked through the entire site (all the links) - no list of the owl taxa involved in the show. It seems more a promotion site for the show itself rather than any sort of presentation of the birds from a scientific standpoint. No help.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Spectacled Owl moved to File:Pulsatrix perspicillata -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Show in gallery on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
It either is, or is related (some of these taxa are slowly being peeled off as good species) to Athene noctua.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Little Owl moved to File:Athene noctua -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The genus constitutes no problem, it is a Glaucidium. I really would need a leg-up from the database on this one - many resemble each other. I see this more a new world Glaucidium, than an old world one.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I think it is Eurasian Pygmy Owl Glaucidium passerinum; see here (not all of the photos there are from Ornika). The subspecies in the photographs is not specified. Snowman (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Moved to File:Glaucidium passerinum -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
No doubt about the genus, or the species. Aegolius funereus. On gross morphology I tend to think it the nearctic race richardsoni.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The poster says that they have a feature on the Northern Tundra. Boreal Owl moved to File:Aegolius funereus -Ornika 2011, Bad Schonborn, Germany -bird show-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Black-crowned Night Heron. Maias (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Bendž|Ť 08:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Where is the copyright licence for this image? Not uploaded to Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It does look like that, so I have indicated this possibility in the image description on commons. If anyone has any sourced information on the pair-bonding or greeting behaviour of Great Egrets, it would be an interesting addition to the en Wiki aritle. Snowman (talk) 10:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Megascops roraimae

I am confused by the taxonomy here. What is the Common name for this species? Snowman (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Roraiman Screech Owl fide IOC.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
On the Wiki Megascops roraimae, Megascops napensis, Napo Screech Owl, Foothill Screech-owl and Rio Napo Screech-Owl all redirect to Roraiman Screech Owl. Why is this? Snowman (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Roraiman Screech Owl is the name used by IOC, but this does not match current wiki taxonomy (entry 3 in the taxonomic section of the wiki article), where that name never is used = at best, borderline WP:OR to use the IOC name. We'd be using Roraiman Screech Owl in an entirely novel way not supported by any source. The relevant comments from our earlier talk about this matter are here (see also the entry I labelled "1" in the "several months ago" link) and here (bottom of page). As explained in the last link, I see three main possibilities:
  • 1) Move the page back to Foothill SO and leave the taxonomy as is, following authorities such as Ridgely, Hilty, Hardy, Coffey and Reyard.
  • 2) Split the whole lot (entry 2 in the taxonomic section of the article). Essentially following König et al, but they made some rather striking mistakes. To take a single quote by Robbins (SACC) when he looked at this group: "König et al.'s range for vermiculatus is a composite of guatemalae, centralis, and the northern coastal range of roraimae!"
  • 3) Disregard the WP:OR issue by leaving the taxonomy as is but under the name Roraiman SO.
I invite others to make the choice. Whatever is done we'll probably have to change it when the description of the Santa Marta SO is published. • Rabo³ • 06:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Rabo, good point about the Santa Marta SO. I suggest that we wait on this until the picture clears up. A friend of mine, Rasmus Boegh, and I attempted to review the status of the so-called Choco SO, which also enters into this discourse, more than four years ago. The situation since then still has not substantially changed. http://www.flickr.com/photos/hummingbirder/487191434/Steve Pryor (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

Hey everyone. Please take a look at User:The ed17/NARA to brainstorm ideas and a structure on how we can help make the National Archives ExtravaSCANza a success. Hopefully doing this will ensure similar events will be organized so we can benefit from the high-quality, formerly non-digitized media uploaded. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about making a navobox for the family Threskiornithidae, because the American White Ibis is at FAC. Is the genus and species listing on the Wiki family page out-of-date or controversial? Snowman (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Out of date if we are intentioned on following the IOC. I also wonder which authority is being followed when I see Thaumatibis. By the way, 35 species. My guess is somebody did not add the extinct Reunion Ibis to the total after adding it to the list.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
If intending to conform to the IOC: African Sacred Ibis (Threskiornis aethiopicus); Malagasy Sacred Ibis (Threskiornis bernieri); †Reunion Ibis (Threskiornis solitarius); Australian White Ibis (Threskiornis moluccus); Red-naped Ibis (Pseudibis papillosa); Giant Ibis (Pseudibis gigantea); Crested Ibis (Nipponia nippon); Sao Tome Ibis (Bostrychia bocagei); Bare-faced Ibis (Phimosus infuscatus); Madagascar Ibis (Lophotibis cristata); Eurasian Spoonbill (Platalea leucorodia).Steve Pryor (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Please confirm spelling of Threskiornis molucca or Threskiornis moluccus. Snowman (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Christidis & Boles (2008, p.113) discuss this and go for molucca. Maias (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I reread the rationale of the C & B, but can not read: David N & Gosselin M. 2011. "Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code." BBOC 131(2):103-115. (See p.114.), because I don't have the paper. I would expect, however, that the David & Gosselin, published subsequent to the C & B, has very valid reasons for perorating "moluccus".Steve Pryor (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
What about Jamaican Ibis or Clubbed-wing Ibis (Xenicibis xympithecus)? Where does this go in the list? Snowman (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't. It went extinct too far back, more than 10,000 years ago. By the way, I am in favor of bird lists that list all taxa, extinct, and extant, but not at this stage of the game. I am not in favor of adding piecemeal extinct species, but rather rolling out a list that has all definable good taxa after somebody does a gargantuan review, and it would be gargantuan since a lot of these extinct taxa are described only in very obscure papers and do not get out generally speaking into mainstream ornithology. By the way, about to be published: http://www.nhbs.com/extinct_birds_tefno_181964.htmlSteve Pryor (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
An aside. Just read about the "Hobbit-eating Stork" Leptoptilos robustus. Rather intriguing the thought that the "hobbits" lived in terror of having their young eaten by ferocious Storks.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
See here for a good summary. There is strong evidence spoonbills are nested within old world ibises and teh new world ibises are the outgroup. I was reading about this the other day when buffing some spoonbill articles. The evidence looks convincing to me but then I am a layperson. I'd be keen to hear from Kim, Sabines Sunbird and others about their views.Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
From the introduction of that website; "This set of web pages contains a guess at what the avian part of the tree of life might look like." Is this WP:RS? Snowman (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't proposing using the website itself, but it does mention three peer-reviewed articles which support various bits of the phylogeny laid out if you read it. Hence the best thing would be to buff the family article and review all the evidence and compare with IOC, AOU, C&B etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
To answer Snowman's question about the website, I'd look at it as a one man Wikipedia. You wouldn't want to cite it but it is a good place to get a handle on the most up to date stuff and links to the journal articles that he uses. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The Wiki does not even have a page on Eudociminae yet. Using a 2010 reference, the Wiki family page says; "... and hence casts doubt on the arrangement of the family into ibis and spoonbill subfamilies[5]". The navbox reflects the state of the Wiki articles. If the Wiki articles are updated to reflect any alternative and current widely accepted taxonomy, then I would definitely need to update the navbox to reflect the updated Wiki. Until then, I might just add "Traditional listing" at the head of the navbox, as has been put in some other navboxes. Is this a reasonable option at this juncture? Snowman (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess traditional is easiest for the time being. I note their are several studies indicating the new arrangement. I have read Chesser 2010, but Krattinger 2010 is a thesis which I haven't access to. I have emailed the author to ask for a copy to read. (see here and scan down to "Krattinger". I am warming to ibises as I see so many tame ones around Sydney. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Navbox now rolled out. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Leptoptilos robustus

Is there any reason why this article of an extinct bird is under the binomial name? Snowman (talk) 13:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably because there is no common name. I've removed the supposed common name from the article, since I was unable to find any sources for it. Ucucha (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't use "Hobbit-eating Stork". Nobody calls it that, and I was just joking.Steve Pryor (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

List of chicken breeds spam

I have noticed an increasing problem with the List of chicken breeds article, which falls under both Wikiproject Agriculture and Wikiproject Birds; many of the breeds on the list which have red links, have them for a good reason. They don't exist! - I can find no mention of many of the breeds on these breeds anywhere on the net, or in my poultry books and the various poultry standards. I have removed some of the problem fake breeds already, but there appears to be a large amount of them and going through them all is a job that would take more time than I have. It would be helpful if some other people would help me track down this problem and stop this continued spamming of the list. Anjwalker Talk 10:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted all the red links except the referenced ones for South Africa. If any of the lost breeds are genuine, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a blue link or a reference. Added to my watchlist Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree with that strategy, but it is up to you. Anjwalker Talk 11:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Unreferenced material may be removed if challenged. I understood you to be challenging the material. I've also removed forced images sizes per MoS and unreferenced references, my edits. Ekarius is listed twice in refs, not clear if accidentally duplicated, since no page number. If you're not happy with the edits I've made, I won't lose sleep if you revert. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Can you link me to the policy that says not to force image sizes? That was done because the images at their full size crowded the page. I have referenced those red-link breeds that really do exist, so that should no longer be a problem. I don't know anything about the Ekarius situation, so I will let others resolve that. Anjwalker Talk 11:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
It's in this section. The specific bit reads For most images outside the introduction, prefer the default image size, which is 220 pixels for most users, but should not be specified. The lead image is usually given a width of about 300 pixels. See Manual of Style/Images for information on when and how to use other sizes. The emphasis is mine. MeegsC | Talk 14:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
One thing you can do is add the parameter "|upright" (that's the pipe sign followed by the word upright) to any of the vertically oriented pictures. That will shrink them down a little bit. Don't use it for horizontally oriented pictures though. MeegsC | Talk 14:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Locked pages II

MOved. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Looks like both the IOC and the SACC committee of the AOU have ruled on this species. The IOC English name is Urrao Antpitta, and we have no other bird species using the scientific name as the lead in. Regarding the scientific name, the South American Committee of the AOU currently standardizes on Grallaria urraoensis. My preference is to standardize with SACC (and IOC).

SACC reasoning from web site: 14c. A new species of Grallaria has been described from Colombia in two separate papers with competing names: Grallaria fenwickorum (Barrera et al. 2010) and Grallaria urraoensis (Carantón-Ayala, D, & K. Certuche-Cubillos 2010). SACC proposal passed to recognize new species. SACC proposal passed to use urraoensis as the name for the new species.

Further evidence: Recommendation by majority: Because of the problems with the description by Barrera et al. and, in particular, the failure to comply with the requirements of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, the name ‘fenwickorum’ is not available. This situation is not problematic because there is already another name available for this bird. Therefore, I recommend the committee to adopt the scientific name proposed by Carantón & Certuche for the new species: Grallaria urraoensis.

Regarding the English Name both Barrera et al. and Carantón & Certuche proposed English names based on the corresponding scientific names: Fenwick’s Antpitta and Urrao Antpitta. The former may not be appropriate given the invalidity of the name 'fenwickorum'. Urrao Antpitta has the advantage of being parallel to the scientific, which will facilitate communication between people that use English names and people that use Latin names, and also highlights the only known area of occurrence of the species, may promote additional local conservation efforts.

Alternate minority argument(but supports move of english name):Watching all of this from the sidelines in the end it appeared to me that both camps in this debate had not necessarily acted in the most intelligent ways. All that aside one aspect that concerns me is the inherent politicization of the issue, so much so that a vote here by this committee is perhaps seen from the public as taking a political stand of sorts. I really regret that this is going on. As much as we are all trying to be unbiased and unemotional in this issue, the reality is that it is naturally emotional at this point, to some extent, and probably more than any one of us would like it to be. I will keep it brief because all that there is to say about this topic has been said already. The description of fenwickorum is not the best, and is clumsy and leaves much to be desired but in my consideration the name is available. I think an opinion from the ICZN would be good here, to see if availability is indeed true for this name. I think it is, and as such the name has priority and priority does trump everything to paraphrase Kevin. Having said that, the English name Urrao Antpitta would be good to use for various reasons, including trying to come to some balance in this unfortunate situation.

The SACC (don't know about the IOC) has taken some heat for "choosing sides" in this quite nasty disagreement. I think Wikipedia might do well to stay out of the fray until such time as greater agreement is reached. MeegsC | Talk 19:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I did a move proposal for the name change to Grallaria fenwickorum, and I think any new change should also go through this process, given the controversy (which those of us who worked on the introduction of the article wanted to do more than hint at).
My former reasons for preferring Grallaria fenwickorum are now invalid, and I don't think that name keeps us out of the fray. I'm almost tempted to suggest a neutral title along the lines Snowman suggested before—maybe "Colombian antpitta described in 2010" or some such. Aside from that sort of thing, we have two scientific names and three common names to choose from. As they say at the SACC, proposal needed.
Meegs, where could I see that heat the IOC has taken? Is it anything the article needs? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Jerry, I don't know about the IOC. I have several friends on the SACC, (and others in various neotropical communities and organizations) and have just heard "through the grapevine" as it were. MeegsC | Talk 23:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
If IOC calls the bird Urrao Antipitta (and it does, see http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-antbirds.html), then why is this up for discussion? The page should be called Urrao Antpitta. Case closed. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Meegs, thanks for answering the question I meant to ask as well as the one I did ask. :-)
Natureguy, I don't think it's quite "case closed"—we did leave ourselves the option of differing from the IOC when there was good reason, and given the controversy, this might be such a time. On the other hand, I like your suggestion because it avoids the technical question about valid types and the possibility that we'd have to change the article if the ICZN rules on the scientific name (as well liking the consistency with our policy). I suppose we would have to change it if a different consensus on the common name appears, but at the moment I don't know of any sign of such a consensus. Not that I would, I suppose. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Nice mess. I think that the SACC is incorrect. I read the Grallaria fenwickorum article, and I think there is nothing wrong with it as far as the code goes. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Kim, I think that the question is not so much the taxonomical probity of the epithet. I read a lot about this two or three years ago, and there were many questions raised about the two investigators involved with the description as fenwickorum. Notably, there was a question of the proprietary rights to the knowledge accumulated by them, under contract at the time with ProAves Colombia, and from which they deliberately concealed the discovery for their own personal edification, and then, there was a question of their collecting specimens for which they had no permits from Colombian authorities. Given these conditions, I can personally see that to allow them to have a pass on the entire situation could possibly stimulate others to act as "loose cannons" for their own personal aggrandizement. For many reasons, good ecological reasons, scientific investigations, especially regarding species the demographics of which is unknown, must be controlled.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Um, except that the guys who deliberately concealed were the not the ones that named it fenwickorum; that at was the ProAves name. MeegsC | Talk 14:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I went back and went through the entire convoluted affair anew. The entire thing should have been accomodated by an airing of mutual grievances between the first-namers (intending the real ones, Caranton & Certuche), and ProAves, and this in spite of what I consider ProAve's most founded objection, that of deliberately collecting and killing one specimen, and (sic) another by mistake. Yes, you are right, fenwickorum was ProAves idea, and I do remember that when I first read about this sordid affair that I was in favor of urraoensis, not fenwickorum. The position of the SACC should now be the final nail in the coffin as far as the naming of the taxon, and the authorship of the discovery. ProAves, an enormous force for the good of bird conservation in Colombia, comes out with egg on their face. They would be best advised in the future to review any and all out-contracted work that they allow on their bird reserves. People must know what is expected of them, and in this case the contracts appear to have left much to the imagination.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry, but the CODE does not have to say ANYTHING about the ethics concerning how the individual was collected and the dirty games played other than to not to name a bird knowingly that someone else is doing that (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&booksection=appendixA). And as such, we cannot bend the rules about naming in order to rectify foul play. And based on what you write here,if fenwickorum was ProAves idea, it should affect the authorship, not the species name. They seem to realize that already when they write" However, in this instance, the authors and Fundación ProAves de Colombia have agreed that it would not be appropriate for Fundación ProAves de Colombia to be treated as an author of the name fenwickorum for purposes of the Code." As far as I am concerned, that settles it. Unless there are good reasons concerning inappropriate application of the CODE, the name is valid. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
After reading more about the case, if anything, both sides violated some ethical rules. Not that it changes anything about priority. The flimsy reasons used by the SACC won't hold up at the ICZN as a photograph is valid holotype. Maybe both sides could agree to retract their publications while admitting their ethics violations after which they together, in order of actual contributions, write a new article and get it published in an independent journal, such as Condor. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Can I suggest we take this discussion to the iczn discussion list. I have the feeling it does not get settled until the commissioners themselves have weighted in. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I contend that following IOC, as WikiProject Birds has decided to do, is the best way to go. It should indemnify wikipedia of any bias. IF IOC decides to change, then so can we. Why make this more complicated than it is? (On a related note, wikipedia seemed to have no problem adopting the name "Gunnison Grouse", which is a politically charged name used by no taxonomic authorities in North America. Why is this different?) Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
  1. We have chosen to use the IOC as the end-all source for English names, with caveat that we can divert is needed (See African Grey Parrot for an example).
  2. We have NOT chosen to use the IOC as the end-all source for taxonomy.
  3. The issue at hand is a nomenclatorial issue, namely what name is the valid name for the valid species. The species by itself is valid. The IOC acknoledges so much when the state that "Newly described species with unsettled nomenclature and propriety".
  4. The SACC choice of the name is based on a lot of politics, conflict of interest and questionable interpretation of the information.
  5. We could decide that we accept the IOC English name regardless of the scientific name, and go with that.
  6. However, we cannot decide at this stage which scientific name to use because of the unresolved holotype discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
But if we use a common name as the title of the article as usual, we don't have to decide which scientific name to go with. We can give both in the lead sentence.
Incidentally, I don't know enough about the ICZN to comment on the SACC's decision, but otherwise I completely agree that there's plenty of blame to go around. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 02:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A few things should be noted:
1) Whether the ICZN ethical code was breached is purely an ethical matter. It is only a recommendation and a scientific description can't be invalidated because of it.
2) You can't just retract a scientific description. If it fulfills the ICZN requirements it is valid, regardless of later opinion and wishes of the author. This compares to the widespread (in earlier decades) attemps of unjustified emendations by original author of scientific name; after they realized they made some mistake in the original description.
3) If we assumed this was somehow possible, The Condor has already been pulled into this mess and another venue would probably be recommendable. The problem is that this matter ended up being so widely discussed that you would be hard pressed to find any relevant journal where the usual editors have not already been involved somehow, or are close acquaintances of people that have been involved. Regardless of what other people might think is right, the pro fenwickorum camp (only talking about the overall ethical behavior, not judgement of validity of the description) is a minority among Neotropical ornithologists.
4) Overall the SACC hasn't taken much heat for "choosing sides", at least not among Neotropical ornithologists. Disregarding people directly or indirectly associated with ProAves, the relatively few people that have voiced their strong discontent are birders with little Neotropical experiance. Wrong or right, their opinion just doesn't carry a lot of weight among pro Neotropical ornithologists; just like my opinion doesn't carry a lot of weight at the auto mechanic just because I changed the tire a few times. In any case SACC, or at least several of the members, were pulled into this: First Cadena, then Stiles, and finally Remsen (incl. the older ABC article that included a number of lies that were never retracted). Since this is a large percentage of the SACC membership with major knowledge of Colombian birds, in hindsight their best choice might have been to only choose an English name, while including both the proposed scientific names in the list. It would be difficult to justify not listing anything. As already said below, I'm not entirely convinced the arguments that are supposed to invalidate fenwickorum hold. • Rabo³ • 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, when I read the arguments that the voters at the SACC give, they generally take into consideration the ethical issues as well. As you said, those are irrelevant to the CODE. What is striking to me is that non-Neotropical ornithologists are generally going with fenwickorum. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I could have missed something, but few ornithologists *anywhere* (and by ornithologists I mean pro's, i.e. not people that are "only" birders) have been in the fenwickorum camp when it comes to the overall ethical behavior. To my knowledge the people that have voiced their strong support of the fenwickorum camp are almost entirely ornithologists associated directly or indirectly with ProAves, or birders. There are birders in both camps. When it comes to the accuracy of the claim that fenwickorum is an entirely invalid name, there have been relatively few comments compared to earlier discussions. Probably because few birders have the knowledge (or interest) that is required to become familiar with ICZN code, and even among biologists many are largely unfamiliar with the rules. Biologists in various other fields often say biologists that specialize in taxonomy are crazy. They're probably right. At least sometimes ;-) • Rabo³ • 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Intermediate solution

I propose we rename the species to Grallaria spec for the time being, with an explanation of the unresolved discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see the last half of my final comment on Talk:Grallaria fenwickorum#Proposed move. Evidently I was wrong in the assumption that the scientific name was essentially resolved (this was before some of the issues were revealed, in early 2011), but Grallaria spec could cover several taxa; even more than "Newly discovered antpitta in Colombia" suggested by snowman back in 2010. If this ends up being an exception from the general policy of following IOC for Eng. names (Urrao Antpitta), I would suggest we use the Eng. name proposed by BirdLife International (Antioquia Antpitta). Both the Urrao side and Fenwick's side have made some choices that were less than fortunate, and the only entirely uninvolved group that has made a choice is BirdLife International = Antioquia Antpitta. As you acknowledge in the above, we do not have any fixed rules on scientific names, and no one suggested the page should be moved to Grallaria urraoensis. Any discussion about what scientific name is correct is irrelevant to the article name, though it deserves a mention in the article text – it is already briefly mentioned in the lead. (Can't say I'm entirely convinced about the arguments used to supposedly invalidate the name G. fenwickorum, although few people match Claramunt when it comes to knowledge about the ICZN code.) • Rabo³ • 12:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I think using the BirdLife International name, Antioquia Antpitta, might indeed be the best solution.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Rabo and Kim that Antioquia Antpitta is probably the best (most neutral) interim solution. Unfortunately the SACC seems to have become politicised. Maias (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
I made a move proposal at the Talk:Grallaria fenwickorum page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Any more votes? There are only five so far, with no sign of a consensus. Should we publicize this, say at WP:TOL? I'd really like to get it changed to something that's not G. fenwickorum. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, I keep meaning to thank Pvmoutside for checking the IOC list for updates, which I should have done more often. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Cityparrots.org - good external link?

I notice from my watchlist that links to the urban parrot-related website cityparrots.org have been removed, added again, removed again, added again, etc. to several parrot articles over the past few days. 82.171.147.35 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose contribs would suggest has something to do with the site in question, has been re-adding them (many of those links seem to have been in place for a long time before that), various other users have been removing them on sight.

Aside from that though - any thoughts on whether cityparrots.org is a useful EL for WP parrot articles? I must admit that I have perused the site on occasion over the years and found it interesting and informative - but that's not the issue here, really... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As a blog, it is not particularly reliable, but if you find an interesting fact there, you should typically be able to find a more scholarly source to support it if it is indeed a fact. Shyamal (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
As one of the editors who removed some of these links, I removed links to web pages that I feel had little or no relevance to the content of the articles they were placed on (brief, local-interest stories, for example). Since then 82.171.147.35 (talk · contribs) has been edit warring with at least four established editors across multiple articles to try to reintroduce links to cityparrots.org. All edits from this IP address since last October have included nothing but attempts to add links to this website, so I'm now convinced that this is merely promotional activity. Deli nk (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If it is 82.171's site, then he shouldn't be mass-linking it - and I'm not suggesting that every species featured on that site should have a "<species> @ cityparrots.org" link at the bottom, but I was wondering if an EL to the front page of the site would be appropriate on Feral parrots...? AFAIK, CityParrots is a legit conservation org. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to reintroducing the link to that page. Deli nk (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
These links have indeed been in place for a long time. There where some dead links to this site that have been resolved now that it is back online. Somehow resolving these dead links caused some editors to take offence. As other, less informative, links where not removed this "clean-up" was seen as an "attack" on this specific site and undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.147.35 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt the removals were an attack on this particular site. Rather, the fact that your account seems to exist only to link to this website appears to be an example of WP:LINKSPAM. While it's certainly appropriate to link to this site from some Wikipedia articles (an article about the organization, for example, and perhaps from Feral parrot) it is not appropriate to link to this site for each and every species of parrot in the encyclopedia. MeegsC | Talk 18:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
With regards to the other 'less informative links', please do feel free to flag them up here. It's possible (probable, even) that there are several inappropriate links spread across various parrot articles that could do with removing. The 'anyone can edit' nature of Wikipedia makes it that sometimes things get added to low-traffic articles (there are some iconic parrots and some which are less so...), often in good faith (yaknow, people just passing by and adding sites they like that have nice pictures on them, or a a forum they like, or whatever) and no-one notices at the time. Then that particular edit get buried under other people's subsequent edits and ends up staying there until someone else notices and flags it up months/years later, or checks a bunch of links at the same time and removes the less useful/no longer working ones en-masse. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading the the remarks above I conclude that blanket ban for this EL was uncalled for. The site documents urban/introduced distributions of parrots. Accept perhaps for the green-winged macaw page the links where designed to highlight these trends in the specific species distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.147.35 (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the site more closely, it actually appears to fail WP:ELNEVER ("If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it.") - with the exception of a few embedded videos, every single blog entry I can see on that site is a straight copy-and-paste of somebody else's news or blog article. If there are any particularly relevant articles hosted on cityparrots.org, we can simply link to the original news story instead. --McGeddon (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The website is that of an actual conservation group. The articles appear to be legitimately aggregated and could be useful external links, for example in the sorting by species. Also, some articles (about the World Parrot Count) no longer exist on the original websites (the page on Leiden University's website redirects to cityparrots.org's). —innotata 15:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization of species names

A discussion relevant to this project is ongoing here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Organism_capitalization_synch. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Erik, for notifying the project of this discussion. It would have been nice to have heard about it from the editor who was canvassing for opinions! Though, of course, since s/he strongly disagrees with this project's use of title case, perhaps it's not a surprise that we weren't notified... MeegsC | Talk 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I strongly disagree with it, too. But in fairness, the initiator did post in a *lot* of neutral places and doesn't even seem to be targeting the birds exception specially anyway. But conversation drifted to it, as it always does, so I thought I'd let y'all know... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Though perhaps this discussion does not have the explicit intention of targeting the behavior of the Wiki Bird Project editors it is obvious that the recurrent citing of this project as being outliers respect to the collectivity of thought of more generalist editors is problematic. The problem in a nutshell is that there are many more generalist editors that believe that style conformity must be uniformly imposed lest the wiki appear "amateurish". Most bird project editors with a background in ornithology would take the position that the abandonment of established bird naming conventions, for a question of style conformity, would be "amateurish" within the limited scope that is ornithology. I would suggest that the more generalist editors make the decision that they have intended making without attempting to enlist the complicity of the bird project editors. At least there would be clarity. Very few editors with an expertise in ornithology would find it easy to capitulate on a point of principle, that of scientific rigor, and placing a bene placit on what would be considered the diffusion of information that is not state-of-the-art ornithologically speaking. It is not the case that we do not understand the position of the generalist editors, we do, but there is a conflict of interest that appears to have no middle ground. For many it is a question of personal and professional ethics. Nonetheless, once forced style conformity becomes instituted, those editors that are more intimately involved with the Wiki Bird Project will have the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to continue voluntarily participating in the Bird Project. Many will leave, some will stay, but at least the issue will have resolution, and indeed, perhaps the wiki which appears to desire only superficial and rather generic notions would be better off going forward with style compliant specific project editors though they may lack any particular expertise. With the explosion and development of serious web-available ornithological resources of recent years that the wiki be considered a serious ornithological referent might not be in the cards, nor even necessary. I daresay that most, if not all of the bird project editors have invested their time with the idea of making the bird project as state-of-the-art as humanly possible. It is unfortunate that for reasons extraneous to the project some of us will be forced to make a decision.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I am getting so sick of the style bullies that I sometimes wonder if we would not be better of to start a BirdWiki based on the model already in place here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The cross-fertilisation of input is extremely helpful to article quality. We also get a slow but steady stream of editors becoming interested in bird articles from general wiki editing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, a lot more readers will come to wikipedia than to a new wiki. Incidentally, there is or was a bird wiki, which I haven't looked at for years. It seemed to be focused on birding and had a lot of impressive ID information. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Frankly I don't see the value of sentence-case (i.e., non-capitalization). Many animals' common names involve one or more adjectives and that makes it problematic for novices to know where the adjectives stop and the name starts. I work with the butterflies and dragonflies articles where most articles use upper case for common names. Upper-case has also been adopted for amphibians and reptiles in North America (see SCIENTIFIC AND STANDARD ENGLISH NAMES OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF NORTH AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO, WITH COMMENTS REGARDING CONFIDENCE IN OUR UNDERSTANDING) by The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and The Herpetologists’ League. Yet Wikipedia, so far, has not followed their lead. Dger (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you think it makes sense to consistently use capitals for all species names? Or to you, is the ideal to capitalize some groups and not others? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
For me personally, I would like to see title case applied consistently across all species names! MeegsC | Talk 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, everyone. Agreed, Megan, for species covered by a standardizing authority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed that is what I would like to see. That way editors don't have to look up which species use one system and which the other. Dger (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Dger, you can see the arguments at that discussion, but be warned that the tone isn't always moderate. Briefly, people feel Wikipedia should follow the style of encyclopedias and other general-interest publications rather than that of ornithological journals and field guides and other specialized publications. I don't think that's unreasonable, but I've given my reasons for disagreeing with it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Reading that discussion, I think it is awesome that people (well, mostly 1) with few, if any, edits to bird articles want to dictate how bird names are written. OK, perhaps "awesome" wasn't the right word. If, theoretically, all WP:BIRD editors moved to a BirdWiki as suggested by Kim, at least this wiki would still have the Diet Of Frogs And Rodents editor. Cheers, • Rabo³ • 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of the debates but it appears there will never be a consensus. I still feel we should be helping the lay reader by consistently indicating the full common names of each animal species. Cheers. Dger (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Infobox poultry breed

I've asked here for a change to this infobox, in order to remove the current limitation to poultry breeds recognised by the APA. There appears to be no technical obstacle, so all that's lacking is some sort of editor consensus that such a change is desirable. I'm not sure how important poultry is to this project, but am putting this here anyway. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Immature Pomarine Jaeger?

File:Stercorarius pomarinus immature - SE Tasmania.jpg Just wanted a second opinion to confirm the ID of this picture. I'm guessing its an immature light morph of a Pomarine Jaeger. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

JJ, for what it is worth, and I am certainly not an expert on sea birds, it looks like an immature Long-tailed Jaeger to me. The bill is certainly too weak for pomarinus, and it appears too short for parasiticus.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
It looks too lightweight in structure for a Pom, I'd be inclined to go with Long-tailed too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
+1 for Long-tailed. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
+ another for Long-tailed. MeegsC | Talk 22:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Name Capitalization Justification

I apologize if this is not the proper venue. I propose that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles be modified as follows to further clarify and justify Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds's position on the capitalization of common names:

The common name of a species functions as a [proper noun], and as such is always capitalised to differentiate it from more general terms.[1][2]. The phrase "in Australia there are many Common Starlings" indicates a large number of Sturnus vulgaris. In contrast, the phrase "in Australia there are many common starlings" indicates several different types of starling. This topic has been discussed often before and discussions may be found in the archives. (Examples: 10-1, 7-1, 7-2, 2-1, 2-2, 2–3). There is also a global committee set up as part of the International Ornithological Congress (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/) which has tried to standardize the English names of birds. (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/principles.html)

Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of correctness, it probably shouldn't say "proper noun", because they aren't proper nouns (or proper names, which is what you probably meant). The thing about differentiating common starlings vs. "Common Starlings" is ok, I guess, and fine to mention, but it isn't a justification per se. If you are interested in justifications, I'd focus on the IOC thing—possibly even add references to the ornithological journals' style guides that call for capitalization, also?—these are the strongest justifications, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A tip for sanity checking any justification: make sure your justification doesn't also support capitalizing starling all the time. Why is Common Starling a proper noun but not starling? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree that bird names aren't proper names (and I said so in a letter to Birding a number of years back), but I think the "common starling" thing is a good justification, as is the standard of the IOC and other sources. Anyway, we agree that both can go on the project page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There appears to be some special pleading here regarding common names of birds (and many other animals and plants). A common name (as used for individual species by, for example, the IOC) that refers unambiguously to that species is a proper noun (also often called ‘proper name’); it refers to a particular entity. The entity is genetic rather than an individual example, but it is still a particular entity that is tied to a formal scientific description and a type specimen. One of the virtues of having such a specifically-tied common name is that (recent IOC shenanigans notwithstanding) it has at least the potential to be more stable than the scientific name as it does not have to follow the ICZN. What form of capitalisation it should take is a separate matter, though it is evident that title case preserves information better than sentence case and is, if for no other reason, therefore preferable. Maias (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to argue about whether species names are proper names here, but I hope people won't mind a grammar digression. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language says proper names are expressions that refer to specific entities, such as New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, the University of Manchester, and the Open University. Proper nouns are "word-level units" such as America, Manchester, and Zealand "which are specialised to the function of heading proper names". (The "head" is the main word in a phrase, which other constituents of the phrase are dependent on.) Thus some proper names contain proper nouns (New Zealand, the United States of America, the University of Manchester) and others contain only common nouns (the United Kingdom, the Open University). However, as you point out, some grammarians make no distinction between "proper nouns" and "proper names". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Jerry – neither have I any wish to argue about definitions of 'proper name'. I note that views differ and some authorities are stricter than others. I commented on the subject because there has been a tendency for sentence-case proponents to claim that common names (in the restricted sense of current use in the bird project) are (a) not proper nouns (something I disagree with), and that (b) consequently sentence case should be used. Whether a common name is a proper noun is something of a Red Herring here. Grammar has evolved, and is still evolving, because it is useful for communication. Conventions in grammar are codified because they are useful. There is no reason why new conventions should not be adopted if they are useful. Title case in common names is useful because it provides more information and lessens ambiguity; 'Common Starling' is just one example of many. Convention should be the servant of utility; sentence-case proponents argue for the contrary. Maias (talk) 07:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree, and that's more or less what I've said in the discussion: the two reasons are clarity and following the IOC (and every other standard for common names). You can see the counter-arguments in the discussion. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, species - especially bird - names are commonly always capitalised. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The only species name there is "guinea pig", which isn't capitalized. (The G is capitalized because it's an article title, but the p isn't.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger—that is a remarkable claim, can you provide any evidence? You linked to COMMONNAME, which as far as I can tell overwhelmingly supports using lowercase unless specialist guides are taken into account. Which is a reasonable thing to do, certainly, but if you look at reliable sources in general you seem to find species names lowercased much more often. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I should clarify that the editors I know in the bird periodcial business, and who have high-education English language backgrounds, do indeed consider species names as proper nouns, just as Great Lakes is a proper noun. Maias, that is why I suggested this change: stating that the birdwatching and ornithological communities consider English-language bird names as proper nouns provides a much stronger footing for fending off future attacks. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, the IOC, which is Wikipedia's common name authority, states on its webpage: "the strongest argument for capitalizing the English names of birds is that we now have a single, unique name (see below) for each of the biological entities that we call bird species. These names must be regarded as proper nouns (thus receive capitals in all English publications), rather than as common nouns (vernacular names). My unabridged dictionary defines a "proper noun" as (1) a word that is not necessarily preceded by an article (e.g., "the," "a") and (2) denotes a particular person, place, or thing." At http://www.worldbirdnames.org/rules-caps.html Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Despite the education level of those who feel otherwise, species names are not proper names. The dictionary definition doesn't really help here much—consider my earlier plea to make sure you don't put forward an argument for capitalizing starling all the time. Why is Common Starling a proper name but not starling? Unless of course you do support capitalizing it always? Greenlaw—the man quoted on the IOC page—may be an accomplished ornithologist and animal behavioralist, but I would suggest that he is not a writing style or grammar expert. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Common Starling points at a particular entity called also Sturnus vulgaris, which is precisely deinfed and circumscribed. Hence a proper name. Starling can be any of multiple species with the name starling in the name, hence a common name. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
But it is still well-defined entity, no? Are only species somehow well-defined? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Species are the only taxonomic level that has a underlying biological criterion, namely the biological species concept which divideds groups of individuals into species based on whether they can reproduce or not. Higher level categorizations do not have such a biology based criterion and are basically based on the subjective criteria proposed by the researchers. Hence, they are not a particular entity, as required for proper nouns. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say something about the species problem but what? This is such a stretch to link ability to reproduce with proper names. Saying "bird" is not an entity because it's arbitrary would be like saying the Great Lakes are not an entity because they are an arbitrary collection of lakes, not a specific well-defined lake that we could call an entity. Only single lakes have a single underlying criterion, higher-level categorizations like groups of lakes are based on subjective criteria. Kim—are you getting these interesting ideas about proper names from any kind of source, or is this just your intuition about what "proper noun" means? You have said some really odd things at WT:MOS and here about them yet seem reluctant to support any of your assertions with something others could go read—are you just making these up? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, we all know about the species problem. That does not negate the underlying principle of using the biological criterion of reproducibility. I am not familiar about the circumscription of the Great Lakes as a particular entity. I suspect it is because there are not many other great lakes that close looking at the map, and that they are within a single watershed. See, it is already nicely circumscribed and not really arbitrary. The definition of bird to the contrary is a complete mess, with featured dinosaurs that are more bird-like excluded and visa versa because the criterion is set completely arbitrary as the Archeopteryx being the first bird. As for sources, look at the world bird name explanation. Another source is our science editor (aka the grammar police) at my work. I do not think there is any grammar source that discusses this issue of standardized bird names in complete detail and comes to a solid conclusion. That is why we have to go with prevailing usage in the relevant literature for bird articles. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
To add, there are a few techniques such as how you can use the word that provides obvious clues to whether a word is a proper noun or not. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I mean sources for the idea that the arbitrariness of the criterion has anything to do with whether it is a proper name. I wouldn't expect such a source to mention anything having to do with birds. "look at the world bird name explanation"—which one are you talking about? You don't mean Greenlaw's quote, do you?
Clearly Great Lakes is not considered a proper name because it is a single watershed. "I suspect it is because there are not many other great lakes that close"—kind of like how "birds" all share many features in common such as feathers and are very different from other animals. If you only consider extant critters, "bird" is arguably better defined than some extant species are, and if you don't then your definition of species is completely blurred anyway, so that doesn't really get us anywhere. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Um, Great Lakes is certainly a properly capitalized place name, making it a proper noun if not a proper name. If we can't agree on that, then there's no point in this discussion. (And for the record, it is not currently a single watershed since the Chicago River drains the southern tip of Lake Michigan into the Mississippi River, rather than the St. Lawrence.) Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
So, how do you determine that a noun is a proper noun or not? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if we're really going to do this...

The subject is contentious among linguists and philosophers. I found a book chapter by one Jerrold Katz discussed one difference from common nouns that looks like a good test to me. (He also discussed others, which I have objections to that we probably don't need to talk about here. This was all in the course of arguing that proper nouns [which the CGEL would call "proper names" as I described above] have no meaning [in some philosophical sense].)

One can ask either "What does it mean?" or "What is it?" about a common noun, but only "What is it?" (or "Who is it?") about a proper noun. My example: responding to "It's a story about a kraken," one can ask, "What does 'kraken' mean?" but responding to "I liked Kraken a lot," one can only ask, "What's Kraken?" (Or if one does ask "What does Kraken mean?" orally, the answer will be "a sea monster in folklore", not "a fantasy novel".) This shows how proper nouns have a different semantic relation to their referents than common nouns.

Species names behave like common nouns in this way. Responding to "I heard a Sora behind McDonald's," one can ask, "What does 'Sora' mean?" and get the answer, "It means a species of rail."

However, as I said before, this is not how we determine capitalization. Proper noun has a nice example: "He wants to play chess, but I want to play Monopoly." The words are syntactically identical and have the same semantic relation to their referents, but we capitalize "Monopoly" because it's a trademark and to distinguish it from monopolies in business. To me these seem not entirely different from the reasons for capitalizing bird names, by the way. (Also by the way, the article says, "Although both are names of games, Monopoly is a unique product owned by Hasbro, while chess can be freely produced by anyone, with no owner or known originator." This is not a good explanation; folk songs can be freely sung by anyone, and have no copyright owner or known originator, but their titles are still proper nouns and we capitalize them, just like the titles of recent pop songs.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

KvdL—I don't have a better answer than that. Thanks Jerry. Natureguy, pardon, that is not what I meant at all—my point was that since Great Lakes is a proper name despite being arbitrarily defined, the reason bird is not a proper name can not be simply because it is arbitrarily defined. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Move request

I'd like to request a move of Long-tailed Skua to Long-tailed Jaeger, the IOC name for the species. http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-shorebirds.html Thanks! Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Good te see they have fixed their original error.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Natureguy1980 (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages III

These are all cosmetic:

Okay - will work on these for you now... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
All done. No worries. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Thank-you!....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

US pronunciation of Quetzal

I know Jerry's edit summary was just a little joke at the expense of us poor Brits, but it make me wonder if it's actually correct to describe the "ketzal" pronunciation as American English — it sounds more like Spanish to me. AFAIK the normal AE pronunciation of "qu" is "kw", same as BE. I wonder if an American who didn't know that this word was of Spanish origin would pronounce it as Jerry suggests, or in practice say it much like us? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I regularly lead tours in Middle America, where quetzals live, and the most common pronunciation I hear from my non-expert, North American English-speaking clients is "KEHT-suhl". The Spanish pronunciation is "keht-SAHL". The accent is different, as is the vowel in the final syllable. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This reminds me of discussions I had with two British clients in Mexico last month, who kept saying things like "tor-TILL-uh" and "JALL-uh-PEE-no" instead of "tor-TEE-yuh" and "jahl-uh-PAY-nyo". In both cases, one of the men didn't even know what the words meant: he was just reading them off a menu. The American clients, by contrast, were familiar with both the meanings and the more accurate (yet still Anglicized) pronunciations. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
(Just so those unfamiliar with "jalapeño" don't get confused, Natureguy meant that the American pronunciation is "hahl-uh-PAY-nyo" with an h.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"Quetzal" (anglicized) originates from the Uto-Aztec family of tongues, Nahuatl (aka Aztec). The transliteration of the classical nahuatl phonology renders something like "ketsalli". The various anglicized phonemes "kw", or "que" having the "w", or the "u" not pronounced and therefore silent. By the way, until a few years ago, when I did look it up, I pronounced the "ue", not making it silent! Jim, I should have guessed you were British. I doubt few Americans would follow, or perhaps even know about Tottenham. I am american, native-american more precisely, and I suppose I should be ashamed because my birth tongue is from the Uto-Aztec group of tongues, and I did not know how it was pronounced!Steve Pryor (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster shows only pronunciations accented on the second syllable, but as Natureguy's NAm clients accent it on the first syllable, I don't think we need the national labels, so I took them out. I think I learned to accent it on the second syllable from an article in National Geographic, possibly in the early '70s, but I'm glad to get some better information on how others pronounce it.
Steve, my birth tongue is from the Indo-European family, and I don't feel ashamed that I don't know how to pronounce every Indo-European language! If you don't mind my asking, what is your birth language? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Jerry, a dialect of Comanche (sensu stricto - ethnic Comanche not the catch-all Comanche of various ethnic groups that were pushed into the southwest and sort of amalgamated with us and then collectively called Comanche), known as Yamparika. I could speak it when I was nine years of age, but after more than fifty years of not speaking it, I remember very little of it.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I've always used "Kwet-zal" myself, although wondered if it should be "Coe-et-zal" instead... - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious what the justification is for the "kwet-suhl" pronunciation. I've never heard it pronounced that way other than by someone unfamiliar with the word. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Michael, really no need for a justification, it is just one of the possibilities of pronunciation of "que" when one first encounters the word. Unless a pronunciation guide is provided to words of differing origins that have entered into the english language the first time a word is encountered, then it is easy to simply anglicize it as the diphthongish "kw" sound. I still get a kick out of the american pronunciations of surnames from french, or italian (which I speak) where not even the third or fourth generations of the people having the surname know how their surnames were originally pronounced in the countries where those languages are spoken. It just happens.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Steve, I disagree. If it's listed as an accepted pronunciation on the quetzal page, I think there should be a justification. (And perhaps there is.) "Because it looks that way" doesn't cut it in my book. If we take that track, "fuh-KADE" becomes an accepted pronunciation for facade, and "kuh-NIFE" for knife. Speaking of Italian words, one of my pet peeves is the tendency in British English to change the "ah" in pasta, mafia, and lasagna to the short "a" as in cat. When the sound in the original Italian word also exists in the borrowing language, I don't see a valid excuse! Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Michael, I wasn't talking about justifications on the wiki, or in an encyclopedia. I was just talking about "Joe Blow" that first encounters the new word Quetzal while reading this or that bird book, and instinctively anglicizes the pronounciation because he has no instant pronunciation guide when he first encounters the word. One of the possible instinctive pronunciations would be the vocalization of "que" as "kw". The Italians always pronounce the unaccented "a" (there is also an accented a, i.e., since I use an italian keyboard -à), as if it is the american short a, i.e., ă. Since I can't remember how the English pronounce cat respect to American English - the sound of the unaccented Italian a is the same sound you would utter in an american doctors office if he stuck a popsicle stick down your throat and told you to say ah! That said, I imagine that there are slight differences even in this within the United States. I learned English initially in Arizona, but mostly in California, and I find the english used let's say in New England to be somewhat closer to U.K. English than to west coast american english. Steve Pryor (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I misunderstood—I didn't realize you meant the justification for having it in the article. I think our pronunciations should be sourced in dictionaries, and in fact I don't see anything with a "kw" in Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com, or the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, so you're probably right that we should take that out unless anyone's got a reference for it.
Next: jacana.
I'm actually quite happy with what's on the page with respect to pronunciation! Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear it, since I wrote most of that! I'll link to it from the species articles. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Did you know some British people get peeved that we Americans use an "ah" sound in words such as "pasta", since Italians use the "cat" vowel in those words? The discrepancy is because British "cat" vowels are typically different from American and closer to the Italian "pasta" vowel. In fact, the OED uses the same symbol for both RP "cat" and Italian and Spanish "a". You may have noticed in your trips to Middle America that the Spanish "a" is not our "father" vowel but between it and our "cat" vowel. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Italians do not use that sound to the best of my knowledge, but rather, the "a" in father, as is typical of most Romance languages (which also typically lack the "a" as in cat). This wiki entry seems to agree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language#Phonology Furthermore, my experience is that the British "cat" and American "cat" vowels are nearly if not completely identical. Steve, you said you spoke Italian. What do you think? Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
According to this chart, the "a" in cat is pronounced as the same sound in British and American English; the same is true of the "a" in father, which is just held for a longer duration in BE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_chart_for_English_dialects Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
And, on the contrary, Jerry, in my experience the Latin American "a" is identical to the American (and British) "a" as in father, just as I was taught in voice classes in college. (This is also true of church Latin and Italian.) Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree in part. Spanish seems to have slight differences in pronunciation of the a according to the word it is in. E.g., estas - the a here is exactly the same sound as the unaccented italian a - no glottid - just ah!, per contro, let's take mantequilla - the first a would tend to be not so open, more closed, a bit of glottid and the last a completely open like the italian unaccented a. However, these are very subtle differences, and even within the various countries you have slightly different pronunciations that stem from dialectical histories of the regions in which you are in. Tuscan italian is different in inflection, in cadence, and in pronunciation from let's say the italian spoken in Venice.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for offering your experience, Steve. I understand that making generalizations about Italian is difficult, just as for English. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thanks (and for answering my question on your original language—your last named suggested that you weren't one of the Tewa-speaking people from here in northern New Mexico).
The article on Italian phonology actually says the "a" represents /a/, which is the sound I was describing as between typical American "father" /ɑː/ and "cat" /æ/. On the other hand, our page on Spanish phonology says the Spanish "a" is /ä/, which seems to mean something like the "father" vowel. That agrees with your impressions of your experience with Spanish speakers but disagrees with my impressions of mine (which I too have a fair amount of). Short of trading sound recordings, we'd probably better leave it at that. Except that I agree that dialects differ, and can't help wondering whether you speak with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Jerry. I do not, at least knowingly, speak with the vowel shift. I grew up in east-central Illinois, speaking the "boring" North Midland dialect. I speak with the cot-caught merger (something that is, I thought (?), prevented by the vowel shift), speak with the Mary-merry-marry merger, and grew up with the pen-pin merger. I forced myself to mostly stop speaking with the last one when it created social problems in college (particularly with a friend named Jen), but it does come out when I'm speaking quickly or get excited (e.g., "Git outta here!") Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Then again, "git" has nothing to do with the pen-pin merger since it's not a nasalized vowel. *shrug* Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Jerry, I would tend to doubt that! I speak grammatically correct italian probably better than nine of ten italians. I don't translate much, and I am asked often, but here is one thing that I did do for flickr http://www.flickr.com/groups/birdguide/discuss/72157626606983886/ I learned the grammar before coming to Italy, and then I took an initial intensive course at the Università degli Stranieri in Perugia, but actually was totally immersed in the language when I moved to Naples (where I had to sort of navigate my way around the many less-educated neapolitans that remain attached to dialectical pronunciations). People know that I am not Italian, but I have lost enough of any really discernable accent that would allow them to know exactly where I am from, and when they guess they are all over the map. If I have acquired anything of a regional italian pronunciation it would have to be closer to that spoken in southern Italy. Without recording myself and actually analysing my accent, that is about as much as I can say. EDIT: I thought you were talking about some italian peninsular thing with the Northern Cities Vowel Shift - did not hit the link. Have never lived near the Great Lakes so it would be extraordinary.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Steve. Sorry not to make it clear that I'd switched from addressing you to addressing Natureguy, since you'd already said where you learned English. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It's the same as the justification for the "z" sound in "dessert" and "brassiere", the "sh" sound in "machete", and the "eye" sound and first-syllable stress in "Ivan", if you see what I mean. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Interesting, even I know that jalapeno has an "h" start, even if I don't stress it right. Obviously, there's much less Spanish spoken over here so there is an explanation for our ignorance, if not an excuse. It's nice to have a civilised discussion, having come from the current bloodbath at WT:FAC — even though I'm mortally offended by the suggestion that Spurs aren't famous throughout the world (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Locked pages IV

More cosmetic IOC changes......Pvmoutside (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Shyamal (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Images from New Guinea

I recently met Phil Gregory, tour leader and HBW contributor, while visiting Cairns. He's got a lot of experience with the birds of that region and New Guinea, and expressed a great deal of admiration for what we do here. He said he'd love to help with some images of birds from New Guinea. He said he was stronger on non-passerines (but not parrots), so if anyone can think of some images we need from that region I'll send him a message and ask for them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I will put my thinking cap on about it but it will be a few days once I get back from London.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow - fantastic! Let me see.....damn I keep thinking of passerines...maybe List of birds of Papua New Guinea will help....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Cas, you might want to check this out: http://www.naturalistjourneys.com/pdfs/NewGuineaChklist.pdfSteve Pryor (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Noisy Miner....

...is approaching FAC - all pre-FAC input welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Page update request

I'm not sure where to start something like this, I'm sure I will be moved/corrected as needed.

The clarity of today's (1/12/2012) article about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variegated_Fairywren has a link to the general Fairywren page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairywren

The 2nd page listed is not even on par with the quality of the Variegated page. I don't know enough about the topic to add content, but I can (and will) add links to the other species of fairywren's. And I would like to suggest that the author's/contributor's of the Variegated page, take at look at the other and see what they could do.

Thanks UMP Ursa major prime (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there are so many articles, and so few editors. It would be nice if all our articles were of the standard of Variegated Fairywren, but there are so many birds, and so few people willing and able to improve the pages. The fairywren article isn't bad, but it needs a lot of work to bring it to FA standard. As it happens, this is one of the best-covered families, with six of its 12 species as featured articles, thanks to Cas. You should find that the other fairywren species already link to the family page. Thanks for your support and interest, if you can help with any other articles, please do so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, be nice to buff that one sometime. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be a good article to work on. But it is interesting that fairywren redirects to Maluridae - while the name is used for the whole family in HBW, only the species in the genus Malarus have the name in their common names, the others are emu-wrens, grasswrens or just plain wrens. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Feral parrots once more...

I just wanted to ask you about http://www.youtube.com/user/californiaflocks - a useful external link to add to the feral parrots article? What do you reckon, fellas? It's just something I found whilst browsing yesterday. That channel has some really interesting (and relevant) videos on there, IMO. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No thoughts? Any objections, then? :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Peaking pattern after the fact

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Spanish_Sparrow - The traffic indicator shows a peak on 11 and 12 Jan 2012 and this news report is on the 12th - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16529892 . An early warning indicator of articles showing traffic peaks might be something nice to have for WikiProjects. Shyamal (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Other than for interest, did you have anything particular in mind? For this sort of event, at most we are going to have just a few days advance warning before the media pick it up. That would give a bit of time to clean up an article, but not much more than that. Am I reading too much into your comment? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
A bit of time should be good enough to raise an article from a stub to start class. One might imagine that the high hits are because the article is coming up high on Google searches although there are stubby articles that come up first on Google searches and it would be nice to ensure that folks actually looking for useful information get something. Shyamal (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Presuming these spikes come from news stories, we can preempt them by noting when news stories occur and "flash-mob" the bird articles mentioned....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Common Tern

I thought I might start Common Tern on the long road to FA, and I could do with advice on Poole and Gill Birds of North America to which I don't have access

  • There is an existing ref to the Common Tern article in BNA 618, but no page numbers, can anyone oblige?
  • If someone can email me the BNA article, that would be even better.
  • The page was started in AE, if you are watching the page and see me drift into BE, can you correct please

Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim: I've got the BNA series, so can help you out there. I'm in Mexico at the minute, but should be home by next week. MeegsC | Talk 11:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that, it will be months before this is ready, so no rush Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Jim, I'm not sure if BNA has traditional page numbers - I've never used them. The original format was each bird was assigned an issue (which were not released in order), these were later compiled into books in a similar fashion to bound journals. But today it is exclusively online and each page is a webpage depending on the subject. Check out the migration page for Hooded Merganser here. Given each entry is no longer than a journal article and navigating them is easy I am not sure you need page numbers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I did wonder, but all I can see is the non-subscriber's preview, so its useful to have it confirmed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Bird sizes

IP editor 86.46.211.73 has been changing several of them without giving sources. I don't know if his changes are valid and he's uncommunicative, so please check them and decide if mass reverts/blocks are necessary.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 19:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

More similar edits from 86.46.228.162 (talk · contribs) and 86.46.228.148 (talk · contribs) today. I've reverted them all. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
86.46.228.162 now blocked for continuing to do this without explanation. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
86.46.192.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked by Jim) and 86.40.76.12 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) today. I've mass reverted everything. If anyone is willing to vouch for any of this person's edits, then please feel free to re-do them, with sources added... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
The IP did update Rufous_Fishing_Owl correctly though. Interesting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It may be the case that he's editing with the best of intentions, but the high volume of edits (with some breaking the formatting), lack of cited sources, IP-hopping around blocks and the fact that he won't communicate is making it difficult to maintain an assumption of good faith here. Though it should also be noted that quite a few of the existing figures he's been changing are unreferenced anyway (or at least without an inline reference) and have been for some time. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Hm. It seems he finally cites a source as 86.46.247.98 (talk · contribs) this time - Handbook of the Birds of the World. If anyone here has them, can you confirm? I wish he'd just talk though. >.< -- Obsidi♠n Soul 18:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Locked Pages V

More locked pages.....These are mostly cosmetic......Pvmoutside (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs versus birds are descended from them, again

I could use more opinions on the matter at Talk:Bird#Birds_are_dinosaurs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sabine's Sunbird. I will comment here, but I won't get into it there. This is one of those questions for which the two basic positions are both equally legitimate. It is a question of semantics, and it is a question of argumentation from differing sets of defining parameters. Personally, I have no problem reconciling the propositions that modern birds are at the same time glorified, highly specialized dinosaurs, as I have thinking of them as being so different that according to the defining parameters they be thought of as a definable Class by themselves. However, without the one, the other would never exist. According again to the parameters one wishes to invoke and define things on, always by convention and personal opinion, we are all descendants of ancient Reptilia (and Amphibia, lobe-finned fishes, etc., etc., etc.) The next time I go fishing and pull up a Coelecanth, I probably should not eat him. He is somehow my cousin carried out to the n-th generation, and I might be considered a cannibal. Again, it is a question of semantics, and the parameters being invoked for defining higher phylogenetic taxa. Steve Pryor (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Birds for identification (137)

(birds 1370, 1371, and 1372 returned from archives for more to be added to this set of 10)

Juveniles of all races have "frosting" on the covert feathers and the tips of the primaries up to six months of age, after which they lose the feature and appear as do the adults.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it a sub-adult? Snowman (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Not with the white tips that Steve mentioned. In fact, I'mnot aware of any easily-discernable plumages of Osprey other than juv. and adult. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
With good reason. It is not a Kite. First glance impression tells me to look at plumages of Prairie Falcon. Will do so with more time.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
In addition to Prairie Falcon, Saker is another possibility. I'm afraid I'm not up on telling these two apart. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
For captive birds there is the possibility of a hybrid. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Confirm Prairie Falcon. Separated from Saker by, among other things, the typically dark axillaries, and underwing coverts.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Prairie Falcon moved to File:Falco mexicanus -Avian Conservation Center, near Charleston, South Carolina, USA-8a.jpg on Commons and selected for the infobox image on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Not hybrids. They look like slightly grubby adult American White Ibises. MeegsC | Talk 18:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Long-tailed Duck. Maias (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a cracking winter/spring adult male, although the pale brown around the eye is less obvious due to the angle of its head Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Long-tailed Duck moved to File:Clangula hyemalis -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -male-8a.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Same bird as Bird 1317 in Archive 58. Needs another look. Snowman (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Certainly a parakeet of the genus Psittacula. Which one I'm afraid I do not know. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Could be an immature of P. finschii Shyamal (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
It's an Oldsquaw. Appears to be an adult female, but this species has one of the most complex and misunderstood molt strategies of any bird, molting as many as 4 times over a 6-month period of the year, so I would not say I'm sure about the age and sex. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It's late December, which limits the possibilities. It's not full adult female winter plumage, so if I had to stick my neck out, I'd go for first-winter female. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Long-tailed Duck moved to File:Clangula hyemalis -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -female-8a.jpg. If anyone is certain of its age, please amend to image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Maias (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Not sure that you can tell from the image but, if the location is right, presumably the nominate. Maias (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks like White-faced Scops-Owl to me, but I have no experience in Africa and don't know if there are similar-looking species. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right. Light-mantled should have a blue-gray sulcus; it's yellowish on this bird--a characteristic of Sooty. Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Common Tern

I'm working Common Tern up towards FA. I came across this sentence: When commuting with fish it flies close to the surface in a strong head wind, but 10–30 m above the surface otherwise. It looks plausible, but is unreferenced, and I can't verify it. Can anyone provide an RS reference, or do I take it out? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Renewed capitalization discussion at WP:MOS vote

In case it gets lost in the mass of text above, note that the compromise text has not yet established a consensus. There is another vote at WT:Manual of Style#Another compromise text: Mention guidance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Slow times?

Is it just me, or are most bird editors kind of absent currently? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Summer holidays just ended in Australia - everyone busy attending to sunburn and shark bites. Down in the northern hemisphere they are all shovelling snow... Maias (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

birdwiki.net

In case the caps warriors force lowercase on bird names, I own birdwiki.net, so we could just move there and build a far better bird wiki than ever could be made here..... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Renewed capitalization discussion at WP:MOS

The CAPS discussion at the MOS has been revived, with another poll giving a false choice and trying to slowly cut slices of the issue to the point the bird articles are going to be lowercaped. Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Poll-- Kim van der Linde at venus 23:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

And they're going to "win" eventually, because those of us who feel strongly about the other side of the issue will eventually just give up. It's like trying to fight a Tesco or Walmart coming to your town; they just keep reintroducing the same thing over and over and over and over until they exhaust the patience (and willingness to continue) of the other side. I, for one, am finding it harder and harder to stay enthused about contributing, as it seems more and more that the wrong things are being made "important". But maybe that's what they're hoping will happen — that the whole WP:BIRDS project will just fold and they'll be able to lowercase everything and have their perfect little world! MeegsC | Talk 23:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
That is my take as well. There does seem to be the intention of rendering the Wiki so toxic to the people that really have expertise, that they will just wind up rolling their eyes and throwing their hands up in total disgust. I, for one, am now deathly tired of being characterized as dense and stupid simply because I disagree with the "style is God" mavens to the exclusion of wishing that the Wiki Bird Project be curated by people that know the subject. We all understand their position, and almost all of us simply honestly disagree. Speaking only for myself, if the Wiki BP is finally coerced into capitulation after years of thinly concealed disgust that has been directed our way, then I am out of here. Let them recruit people that know nothing about birds and can convert the entire project into some sort of creative writing exercise that nobody that really wants to know about birds will access simply because it would immediately become bush league among those most likely to access the articles, the birders, and those interested in the discipline of ornithology. Lately, in view of the continuous sniping directed towards the Project unwelcome thoughts have started to intrude on my mind at least. Considerations that until recently I had never entertained, such as the fact that somebody earns money from the Wiki, not I, not most of us that have been gratuitously contributing of ourselves for the benefit of the user accessing the Wiki hoping to benefit from our knowledge and dedication. It starts to beg the question of whether or not our attention shifts from wishing to give that benefit to others, or no longer wanting to contribute under the vituperation of those that earn money from the Wiki, and continue to denigrate us for this pleasure? It is increasingly difficult justifying taking precious time to contribute when one feels that that time is not appreciated, and that to continue under a dogmatic regime would be tantamount to becoming a mindless robot dancing the tip tap for people that obviously see many of us as just cogs in a machine and buttons to press at their leisure and pleasure. We are already seeing the mortifying effects of the last time that this whole question cropped up again, as it has been wont to do for years. It seems to me that there has been a dramatic curtailing of work being done on the Project since the last time it resurfaced. The Project may already be dying on the vine. If the entire discussion resolves where I think it will, then I hope those that do not like us revel in their pyrrhic victory! We that have dared to disagree must now be sacrificed on the altar of pedantic sophistry for the sake of regimented conformity. This is just another chapter in an age-old struggle, that of those daring to be free-thinkers striving for excellence, against those desirous of the accumulation of power, the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I They seem to be trying to win by wikilaywering at the moment. I can't quite see what the point of that is, except laying the groundwork of a trap to snap on us when we aren't paying attention. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
As I've said on your and my talk page, the general tide against your capitalization has been coming in since at least 2008 if not 2007. The changes I'm proposing would actually hold it at bay at longer. If MOS says there's a controversy about it then, well, until that controversy ends, guess what? Status quo. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It's the same way the "hyphen hysteria" finally got its precious en-dash (or is it em-dash?) into the date ranges of aircraft-by-decade categories - by CFDSing and CFDing over and over and over until the aircraft people finally threw up their hands in disgust. =/ - The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I've decided to support the proposal. SMcandlish describes it as A process we're ensuring leaves your project alone if you'll just let it. So I'll take him at his word and assume good faith and all that. I'm sick of this godamn fight and if this is what it takes... Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
SS, how can you look past that vitriol and take him at his word? I've proposed alternative wording that, I feel, makes us sound "less stupid". He won't like it. Natureguy1980 (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I might also add that SMcandlish has himself called our convention "Stoopid Capitalization". Hardly inspires confidence that he's working in good faith. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I was characterizing what the typical reader's thoughts are likely to be on the matter, and I believe I was referring to capitalization of everything under the sun, like Domestic Cat, and Goldfish, not just birds. I realize (everyone within virtual earshot of this project has had it browbeaten into them, frankly) that you feel that you have different, better reasons for capitalization. Not everyone agrees with you. At least you have some kind of rationale. There is no such "it's an official standard" reason for idiocy like "Lion", which is what the debate at MOS is about. Kim is trying to whip you into a frenzy with a blatant straw man, and is engaging is the most stunning display of WP:IDHT I've ever seen over at WT:MOS, as well as creating a false poll where she's voting for you. The direct personal attack on me below, by the way, has not gone unnoticed. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's the original, in which it's clear that I'm specifically exempting this project's use of caps:

Please do [lower-case species names], but not in birds, plants or winged insects articles, or some people will flip out; there needs to be a clear site-wide consensus on this, a la the de-linking of dates, and not putting spoiler warnings, and other controversial stuff that took years to resolve, got resolved, and suddenly wasn't controversial any more because the entrenched opponents finalize realized WP:Wikipedia is not about winning. In the interim, however, a zillion articles on great cats, squids, antelopes, spiders, etc., etc. have Stoopid Capitalization in them, and MOS has been clearly saying not to do that for at least 4 years now, so any lower-casing cleanup help there is a Good Thing. .... — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from quoting people incorrectly and out of context. It's not helpful in any way. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Steve's comment completely sums it up. I've made the point to SMcandlish that we are volunteers being asked to implement rules that would be pretty tight-arsed even if we were paid. I wonder about the motivation of these people — there appears to be no problem with the million completely unreferenced articles (it's quantity, not quality that matters), but creators of worthwhile stuff are harassed by people who probably collect paper clips for a hobby. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There is NO good faith at SMcandlish side. In fact, he frequently is implicitly saying he is using the salami tactic to put the bird editors under his foot. This is just a line out of his latest reply at his own talk page " I want to stop that, and leave the birds issue for later resolution, which could take another 7 years, basically" [2]. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

A thought: why don't we just go on strike? If all of our big names (all of whom seem to be in agreement that capitalisation is fine) were to stop editing for an agreed period, progress on bird articles will almost certainly grind to a halt. That would, if nothing else, demonstrate the strength of feeling. SP-KP (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be pointless to go on strike. The fundamental premise of going on strike is that the witholding of labor would be seen as non-desirable by the counterpart. We simply have no leverage. We have explained the depth of our convictions repeatedly. The only ones that are truly interested in the Wiki Bird Project are the contributors themselves. I am certain that were the W:BP simply to cease to exist, that there are many that would count it as a victory, would feel that they have saved the world for their children, and would pop the cork in a communal toast that they have secured their totalitarian power after crushing the neck of the imbecilic upstart editors of the W:BP under their jackboots. When form without substance trumps substance in a form not deemed acceptable, then you can take a fight just up to a point. This is not a fight that I feel we can win. If the Wiki Bird Project is destined to wither up and die, then it is unfortunate in my view, but there seems to be nothing that any of us can do to avoid it. Steve Pryor (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
That would, however, be somewhat pointy. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I like that. But I think a better way to go is to start thinking about WP+ (Wikipedia Plus). Wikipedia is bogged down by its governance system that has an enforcement system for bad behavior, but not for content. Articles based on large amounts of literature are easily highjacked by edit warriors that can satisfy WP:RS and WP:V by swiping up a few fringe articles published that are within the policies. My idea for WP+ is the following. WP+ should be a shell application aimed at providing a simple mechanism for experts to flag articles, sections, paragraphs or sentences that are correct. If a reader comes by, the last rated version is presented with approved data in green borders, faulty information in red borders and yellow borders for unrated material. Because WP+ does not generate their own material, everything available at WP is also immediately available at WP+ and everything unrated is served as unrated. Each rated page should also indicate whether sections, paragraphs or sentences have been changed since the last version. If someone comes to WP+ and finds and error, they can click edit and that would bring them to the appropriate WP page for editing, fix it t be WP+ correct, and leave the page alone. if that version is the best according to WP+ rules, any changes made by WP gnomes won't affect it and there is no need to keep the proper information active at WP. I think WP and WP+ can live happily next to each other and the result is a far better system for reliable info than what we have now. All it needs is a few handy PHP programmers and a few people who are wiling to set up the initial governance system including NPOV, RS, V and the rating mechanism. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Unless I'm summoned back here to comment first (BTW, it's pretty lame to attack me by name and question my motives without notifying me of the conversation; you all have e-mail and if you want just dish, you can do so privately), I'll only say a few things here, for you all to mull over.
  1. I don't appreciate being lambasted for being honest. I think your capitalization convention here is ultimately doomed, because it is too weird and ungrammatical to too many people (basically, everyone but birders and ornithologists, and a few "typographical allies" in lepidoptery or something). It's a specialist practice by specialist writers for specialist publications for specialist readers, and isn't suited to an encyclopedia. I don't need to hear your arguments against this viewpoint; I've heard them for years already. You have one view, I and a lot of others have another. I could be run over by a bus tomorrow, and it would still be doomed.
  2. Your project's insular elitism, assertion of effective ownership of bird articles, blatant gaming of the system to tweak one guideline to favor your view so [you think] you can ignore another with impunity, and frequent accusations that everyone who opposes your practice is meddlesome, ignorant, obsessive or [insert 10 other random attack words here], are not helping you. They make you look collectively extremist, entrenched and sneaky.
  3. Just because I don't like your pushing of a specialist typographic convention, which actually has some kind of rationale behind it, does not mean I'm incapable of working for compromise, and I resent the implication that I'm am. I've been bending over backwards trying to do so, but Kimvdlinde has probably completely sabotaged it all at this point. She actually makes me want to take up the torch against your caps practice again (i.e., Kim, it's backfiring). But I'm about as tired of this as Sabine. I just want to firewall your project so others stop emulating it, and in way that makes it clear that MOS is not acting as ArbCom and declaring the controversy ended because a) that's not MOS's role, and b) it would lead to utter chaos, as every other project on the system would demand their own oh-so-special exemptions from every other point in MOS. Given my way, MOS would never mention birds at all, and you'd be doing what you're doing under a pure WP:IAR argument, but it's more important to compromise for the good of the 'pedia than for me to get my way.
  4. I'm the least of your worries. I have a long background in politics as an activist and lobbyist (among many other things, from systems and network admin to anthropologist). I can turn on the revolutionary fervor or the come-to-the-table diplomatics as needs be, like a light switch. There are other opponents of your practice who are more singleminded and reactionary. At least one of them argues far more persuasively than I do, too. One RfC by someone with that person's verbal skills, and it's all over.
  5. I'm tired of being misquoted and misinterpreted. When I say the debate's not over and might go on for another 7 years, that doesn't mean I'm promising to fight you for 7 years, it means I'm observing that the debate isn't over and might go on for another 7 years. Actually, I don't believe the latter, per my previous point.
  6. That you all get so worked up about your pet capitalization scheme in face of over half a decade of opposition looks irrational or worse to a lot of people, and gives the strong impression that your project is far more interested in writing a work for ornithologists than helping write a general-purpose encyclopedia. No one else on the system, in any field, has made any sort of fuss about anything the way you all have about this. You're missing the forest (enyclopedia) for the trees (writing as ornithologists for ornithologists instead of for soccer moms and dairy farmers and web developers).
  7. All this "we're being attacked by obsessive jerks!" angst you feel is precisely how everyone else feels when you tell us we have to capitalize bird names. We outnumber you about 1,000:1 or so. That right there should just end the debate. There are many, many things I disagree with in MOS (sentence case for headings? WTF?), but I woke up one day and realized that my typographical, grammatical and other preferences were less important than consistency, for for reader experience and editorial sanity.
  8. If you'd actually quit Wikipedia over it, you need to re-examine your priorities and perhaps your reasons for participating in this project at all.
  9. Of course everyone knows that sourcing shaky articles is far more important than typographical stuff like this; but it's logically fallacious to suggest that it's not important at all.
  10. I have nothing against any of you personally (including Kim, whom I've had to post to ANI about for false polling, canvassing, disruption and personal attacks; it was the false poll that did it, really). I'm sure you're all nice folks. I'm a real fun guy (there's a mushroom joke in there somewhere), myself. This medium dehumanizes communication to an extent and leads to unnecessarily raised tempers. Good to keep that in mind sometimes.
  11. I actually think you do great work. The birds articles are better, on average, than any other animal articles on the system, and it has nothing to do with capitalization.
  12. No one has characterized WP:BIRDS as "dense and stupid"; the issue is that unless you are an ornithologist or birdwatcher (or a few other things, like a lepidopterist, maybe - they never came to consensus about that), the capitalization practice looks illiterate and childish to the average reader (actually, even to the educated reader like me). Your project collectively engages in a massive amount of WP:IDHT when it comes to arguments against using your ornithology-specialist practice in a non-ornithological-specialist work; you simply recycle the same arguments over and over again, when most of them are not even relevant (since the real question is "should this practice, perfectly legit in specialist works, be used here in this generalist encyclopedia?", and the answer when this comes up for anyone else is always "no", but for you, you argue it's "yes". It's not that you come across as dense, just bullheaded, unreasonable and unable to see past your own interests and habits for the greater good. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of points to respond to here, but I'll start with one. There's no "1000 to 1" or any other such vast majority who think capitalized common names look "stoopid", and we're not writing just for ornithologists. In 1996, the total sale of Peterson field guides was estimated at 18 million (Diane Schmidt, A Guide to Field Guides). On the one hand, some people have more than one. (I have two of their bird guides and one of their wildflower guides, all of which capitalize common names.) On the other hand, birdwatching has been growing rapidly in popularity and is one of the most popular hobbies in the United States [3] and Britain [4]. And more than one person in a household may have looked at their field guide. And probably many birdwatchers these days don't have a Peterson guide at all. And if people aren't interested enough to get a field guide, they may still look at Web sites such as All About Birds and WhatBird (site blocked). Furthermore, some field guides on other subjects (such as The Kaufman Guide to Insects) capitalize, as do Web sites such as BugGuide (see for example this species page), although others don't. So I would estimate that a substantial minority of literate Americans are used to seeing capitalized species names in their sources for authoritative information on species. Presumably these people are overrepresented among people who look at our bird articles.
In general (as you'll have observed), most people don't care about style points. I very rarely hear complaints about it (outside Wikipedia, maybe once). Of those who care about this one, I think it's quite possible that the majority prefer capitalization. I think it's even more likely that the trend will be toward capitalization, not away from it. But in any case, please stop saying that all the soccer moms dislike capitalization.
I realize this is irrelevant to your "firewall" proposal, but you do keep bringing it up.
(I'll copy this to your talk page, since you implied you might not respond here.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 16:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Answered there. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty close to overjoyed to report that there's some new suggested compromise wording that both KimvdLinde and I have endorsed, here: WT:Manual of Style#Another compromise text: Mention guidance. It should stick a cork in things like "Domestic Cat" and "Goldfish" while stopping people from de-capitalizing bird articles. Dunno about you, but I'm about ready for a beer and a massage. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I seem to be missing something here. Why is it that capitalisation of something is so important? Yes, I agree that capitalisation helps remove confusion - for example, a "blue crane" vs a Blue Crane, where the first simply refers to a crane that is blue and the second refers to a specific bird species. Drakenwolf talk 19:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unranked taxomonic name with no article

Resolved
 – It's something in the taxobox template code, not something article-specific.

Why does Gaviiformes have "(unranked): Natatores" in its infobox? Is this normal? I'm more into caudate herpetology and felinology, when it comes to animals, than ornithology, so I'm not sure what the taxobox norms are for birds. I don't see what purpose it serves to add some kind of "sub-class" level that isn't agreed upon, unless there were an article about it and it explained what's going on (e.g. some dispute about it being a class or an order or a superorder or whatever, with summaries of the sides of the dispute linking to reliable sources presenting these sides, presumably journal articles). If it is project-normal to add things like this, and I've just missed that fact, I'm curious what the rationale is and where it's explained. If it's just weirdness at that article, I'll bring it up on the talk page there. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest you ask Dinoguy2 (talk · contribs) about this; he's the one who changed the article to display these parameters. MeegsC | Talk 02:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Sure. Just seeing if there was something at the project level about this. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing at the project level about this. Some in WP:DINO also have an interest in those parts of this project having to do with cladism and taxonomy. MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone said in user talk that the template just does this automatically. Not sure that's true. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the automatic taxobox gets its data from, but I notice that Dinoguy changed one of the parameters in that taxobox from "display parents=3" to "display parents=2". Perhaps the person you referred to meant that the display is automatic. I guess the next question would be who sets up the information in whatever location this taxobox gets its information from, and what source did they use to create it. MeegsC | Talk 03:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That sounds right. I don't see a need to pursue it, since that would make it something that is showing up automatically in a bunch of articles, not just this one, so the redlinked clade or whatever it is must not be a big deal, or others would probably have noticed and done something about it. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
What is the point of automatic taxoboxes? Snowman (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, without them, the information about what taxa are subsets of what other taxa is encoded over and over and over again. This duplication of data is problematic because it leads to inconsistencies/errors, takes more time to fill out, and makes it difficult to change something—for example if a family is moved to a different order you only have to make 1 change instead of tens or hundreds. Also it makes it easier to create tools to visualize the tree, but that is obviously a much lesser concern. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Capitalizing the NON-standard common names

Totally ignoring the debate about whether IOC names should be capitalized in WP articles, what's the project's rede on capitalization of non-scientific, vernacular names that are not the standard proposed by IOC or some other major authority (like the AOU)? In reading through the archives on the various bickerings about capitalization, the project's main argument pro-caps has been that IOC publishes an official list of all recognized species and vernacular names for them, including that they should be capitalized (and some have further argued that this makes them proper names, an idea which even members of this project have disagreed with strongly, so let's not even get into that side issue). This IOC reasoning clearly wouldn't apply to misc. "names that are common" vs. "official common names". I'm also aware that many would argue for capitalization uniformly in an ornithological article simply on the basis of intra-article consistency, and even argue for capitalization of the common names of non-bird predator and prey species in the same article on that basis. I'm not asking about that or anyone's opinion on that, but rather about the project's internal capitalization rationales themselves – as I've said publicly at WT:MOS I find the IOC rationale a bit more compelling than "we like to capitalize because the majority of our specialist sources do", and the rationales are clearly separate ones regardless how I feel about them. The IOC rationale is unique to birds, too, from what I can tell; there's no comparable "official" list of salamanders or cats or fungi or jellyfish, much less any that require capitalization. We all know that WP:BIRDS feels very, very strongly about the IOC rationale, but it's not clear how strongly the project feels about the looser "our sources" rationale. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the project's capitalization rules suggest that all bird names be capitalized in the same way as official IOC names are — i.e. title case. That's certainly how I've interpreted things. MeegsC | Talk 02:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
There have been several "official" lists before the IOC. Some still exist. The Asian list was "controlled" by the Oriental Bird Club, while North and South America had their own organizations. All of them follow(ed) some form of capitalization, regardless. Shyamal (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I.e. "it's complicated." I suspected that might be the case but was hoping it wasn't. Heh. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I have not observed as yet that there exists among other groups dealing with whichever class of organisms, i.e., not Class Aves, the kind of situation that we have been dealing with for Class Aves. Therefore, with the exception of birds, I think that most of us would not have any great problem following whatever decision might be taken by the editors dealing with style questions in the articles. We would just need to know exactly what they are. Personally, I would not have any particular problem one way or the other, that is, if the general editors decide that all extra-Aves names be not capitalized, then fine. I don't think that it has ever been within the purview of most of the bird project editors that they attempt to establish any naming convention, or the form of the naming convention as far as capitalization for extra-Aves taxa whatever they are.
In reference to the point mentioned by Shyamal - the raison d'etrè of the IOC initiative was precisely the confusion that the existance of "regional lists", however official or officious that each one was wont to portray itself, engendered a confusing multitude of common names being applied for naming just one scientific taxon. It was, and still remains to a lesser extent, a problem that stretches back for hundreds of years. The tenacity with which the bird project editors now defend the initiative is in large part because we have all seen the need for the homologation of the English Common Names of avian taxa. Steve Pryor (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
IMHO, "non-standard" names shouldn't be capitalised. "Rock Pigeon", caps; "Rock Dove", as a former name, caps, "common pigeon", not capped. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
If a particular name has never been recognized by an official naming/taxonomic authority, then we should not capitalize it. Examples include "redbird" for Northen Cardinal and "turkey buzzard" for Turkey Vulture. This is one of the reasons the capitalized names exist. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Would there be any kind of distinction drawn between certain kinds or levels (national? "big powerful nation" national? multinational continental? non-governmental?) of organizations? I noted the "official or officious" comment above, and I've seen that WP:FISH rejected the evidently more officious than official sudden reversal of the American Fisheries Society to a pro-caps position, and stuck with lower case. Is the AOU "officious"? Who decides? Where's the line drawn? I ask because the proposal at WP:Manual of Style#Another compromise text: Mention guidance (the one KimvdLinde and Sabine's Sunbird endorsed as well as me and Darkfrog24, who drafted it) is stuck on whether to capitalize everything in a birds article or just the bird names. If WP:BIRDS itself only capitalizes the IOC names and not "what people in rural Arkansas called this bird in the 1850s according to some random source", then this is a strong argument in favor of also not capitalizing things like prey and predator non-bird species, and against the "capitalize or lower-case 'em all consistently in same article" position, and the proposal might start to move forward again. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Official names are recognized by official scientific organizations. Most are continent-wide. I'm afraid you'll have to explain "officious" to me. What people in rural Arkansas call a bird is not capitalized unless they use an official name. I think that non-bird species should not be capitalized unless they are capitalized on their own pages. Capitalizing all species names makes no sense to me in instances when there are no official names for them. Natureguy1980 (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Re: "Officious", I was quoting Cuckooroller/Steve Pryor, above. Anyway, I think I'm seeing a general-ish agreement that WP:BIRDS wouldn't want to capitalize non-bird common names or even non-official common names of birds (though what "official" really means is perhaps open to interpretation). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 03:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
My comment was intended to convey the proposition that until the IOC initiative, largely underwritten by an enormous and growing number of national, and regional listing authorities, that the calling this or that regional list "official" or "officious" - my personal interpretation that has always seemed to me to be closer to reality - always begged the question of "official according to whom"? In other words, many have in the past claimed a sort of sovereignty for their particular interpretation both of which common names should be used, what taxa are considered species, or simply subspecies, as well as that which each "authority" decided as to the correct scientific nomenclature for the birds within their direct regional interest. In the case of the IOC, most, not all, but most of the leading regional authorities have been convinced to support the IOC initiative, and thereby ceding much of what they had heretofore considered as being a proprietary interest in being able to name their regional birds in the manner deemed by them as correct and proper. Further, it was not only a problem of regional lists, it was also a problem of authors of regional guidebooks that themselves in many cases distanced their taxonomical interpretations within their guide books from the more, or the most accreditated regional list dealing with the birds subject of their particular guide books. It is obvious that many times authors simply coined their common names as they pleased also to give themselves, by being different from other existing authorities and their common names, greater notoriety!
Michael, in reference to the consideration of lists being continent-wide, well, the sample set of those conditions that I can think of off the top of my head reduces to just one! Australia. Even within the United States there are competing lists. That which distinguishes the IOC initiative is not only does it have a global scope, but also that other world lists, and there are still a bunch (though only two are truly important, the Howard & Moore, and secondarily, the Clements), have always given pre-eminence not to the common names, but rather to the scientific nomenclature, and with the common names being sort of an afterthought that sometimes coincided with others, and sometimes not. The other thing that counterdistinguishes the IOC initiative is that even the regional authorities have finally seen that true common name homologation is desirable, and this to the point that so many have ceded their proprietary viewpoints on the common names of their regional birds. Even the editorial boards of the two most important taxonomy-first world lists, the HM, and the Clements, now work closely with the IOC initiative. This is a first, and it is long overdue. Steve Pryor (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Steve, there is only one official list for the U.S., and indeed, all of North America: the AOU Check-list. To what are you referring? Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Michael, I had to do a bit of research. The last time that I dealt with any regional list other than for the areas of my major experties (Oriental Avifaunal Zone, and the country list for the Philippines) was decades ago. I was referring to the ABA list and the AOU list. The ABA list, I have learned just now, is now subservient to the AOU checklist, or better they now put out by agreement a common taxonomy. It has not always been so, but it is now. I have not checked out, however, if there is now an agreement by all of the central american countries that they now follow the AOU checklist, but if there is, also that must be an agreement hammered out in the last couple of decades. I have usually dealt with world lists with the exceptions that I specified above. I should also look into the present situation for the Afrotropical Avifaunal Zone. Generally speaking the Robert's List has taken pre-eminence but this also in the last couple of decades, and I don't know if all of the countries of that region now defer to that list (redacted at the Percy Fitzpat of Cape Town). For Africa, there has been competition between the the BOU list, and the Robert's list because the BOU carved out a proprietary interest in the palearctics of Northern Africa. As far as Asia is concerned, I really don't know how many countries adhere to the OBC list, and I would have serious questions at least for China, and Russia (especially far eastern Russia). Other areas that might still have differences to be ironed out might be for some of the countries that either share islands (e.g., Borneo), or have geographical estensions that cross into more than one avifaunal zone (e.g Indonesia). At least Indonesia kept until recently its own list, and maybe it still does. I am not sure who deals with the Papua New Guinea list, maybe the Australians handle it, or maybe even the Brits.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Project US

A bot, Kumi-Taskbot, is adding project US banners to lots of bird articles, none of which, as far as I can see, are endemic to the US. I think I've stopped the bot. I've done so because

  1. it's been adding project banners to family/genus articles where most species do not occur in the US (might as well add it to bird if the peripheral occurence of any member of the group justifies the tag)
  2. also to species articles like White-tipped Dove and American Flamingo where the occurrence is marginal to say the least.
  3. even for species like American Robin, adding the project banner without adding content is just spamming, and is to be discouraged. Otherwise, might as well add the England project banner to American Robin, it's on the British List... as is American Golden Plover... American Bittern...
  4. ... and for species like Peregrine Falcon or Common Tern, we could end up with 100 country project banners
  5. even redirect and disambiguation pages are being tagged
  6. needless to say, there's no assessment of quality or importance

I've reverted the articles that are on my watchlist, but obviously there are others that need removing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Only articles that started with United States, U.S. and American are being tagged as WPUS and even then I went through the list and screened out the majority of obvious false positives. I'll remove all bird articles. Just for info, WPUS does tag some redirects and disambiguous articles and once I tag the articles I will go back through and assess them. Its very difficult to tag and assess at the same time because in many cases I have to look at the main article in order to determine the assessment. Please let me know if you notice anything else. --Kumioko (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I have identified 43 bird related articles that start with American, several of them were already tagged with WPUS and some were part of the Texas - WPUS conversion. Only about 30 from what I can see were part of the tagging of articles starting with american. I will remove those a little later today. Please let me know if you see any other problems with the bot. --Kumioko (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately there was some collateral damage. While the removal of the WPUS tag from the "American" prefixed bird articles was quite appropriate, some categories and articles legitimately tagged had their WPUS tagged AWB'd away; I have restored them. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I also removed the tags from several birds as well as some animals and insects, such as, American toad‎, American red squirrel‎, American Red Fox‎, American Emerald, and American Painted Lady‎. I am guessing there are many more. The word American in these cases implies the Americas not the USA. It seems to me this was a poorly conceived project. Dger (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
From what I hear, I think that this bot should have been written better. Snowman (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Just Fyi the bot didn't remove the WPUS tag from the birds articles I did it manually based on this discussion. The bot works fine it just doesn't know how to tell some projects don't want the WPUS tag. As for being poorly conceived, that might be true, the bot task was open for over 2 months with few comments so the opportunity was there for anyone who had a concern. I am in the process of removing some but of the 11, 000 ish articles the bot tagged I found about 150 it shouldn't have. --Kumioko (talk) 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Woah, hold up hold up a second. You're removing legitimate tags along with the ones that shouldn't be tagged. American Eagle Foundation and American Birding Association, among others (also American Racing Pigeon Union and several others), are legit WP:US subjects - your running along AWB-ing the tags from everything "American"+"Bird" is causing another problem on top of the original over-enthuiastic tagbot. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
There were 43 articles the 2 projects had in common and yes per the discussion above I removed most of them. Feel free to put them back. Frankly I didn't think tagging articles for a project would be such a contentious issue. Sorry if I seem a little unfriendly but several people in several projects are moaning about how I am doing such a lousy job of tagging and how dare I. Its wearing thin so when someone starts complaining about how I tagged articles I just remove them. It used to be in the old days a project cannot tell another project that they can't tag an article they believe to be in their scope but I guess those days have changed. --Kumioko (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
What has also changed is that the tags are being added by a mindless bot, not through the conscious decision of a human who has read the content to check for relevance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
More to the point, in this case, it was the human (but AWB-assisted) removal indiscriminatly that was the problem. I've restored the tags to the appropriate articles. And I fully agree that one project telling another "you're not allowed to tag our article" is rubbish. A legitimate concern about inappropriate tagging is one thing; WP:OWN-ish behavior another. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Reply to Jim - Just FYI I manually reviewed about 26000 articles (starting with American) to get to about 11000 that got tagged. Of those I erred on about 100 - 150 depending on how you gage error. Some were obvious and some less so. Either way the error rate there is about .825%. Personally there are quite a few more that I think could or should be tagged as WPUS including Wild Turkey and the various state birds such as American Goldfinch, which my bot tagged and you removed. Especially so since this is the state bird of Washington which is a supported projects of WikiProject United States. But that's just my opinion. This is the exact sort of behavior that drives editors from Wikipedia when one editor or one project attempts to force undo ownership over an article or group of articles. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
State birds should probably be tagged for WPUS, yes. However I do not see "project...[forcing] undo[sic] ownership" here. The majority of bird articles containing the name American do not need to be, and should not be, tagged as within the scope of WPUS. The fact that a few should be doesn't excuse indiscriminate tag-spamming on those that shouldn't be, nor does it call for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater while untagging. I understand some WPs are in fact engaging in WP:OWN behavior (Conneticut for one, from what I've seen?) but that doesn't mean all WPs are out to get you and your little bot, too. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

<--outdent

There are certainly some birds that would be appropriate for various state projects: things like Golden-cheeked Warbler for Texas (the only place in the world where it breeds) and the state birds for the appropriate states, for example. But I think it's more appropriate to tag those with the appropriate state project's banner, not the umbrella WPUS banner. Just out of curiosity, why would you add Wild Turkey? And would you also advocate adding project banners for Canada and Mexico (where it also occurs)? And is WPUS saying that they will begin helping with the expansion of some bird articles? MeegsC | Talk 01:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Most of the state projects have been subsumed into WP:US, it seems. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Not most but about half and not subsumed but supported. Many of the projects WPUS is supported were either inactive or on the verge of becoming so. Some were more active but thought that having one banner and a more collaborative structure was better. Knowone has made anyone do anything. In fact when Texas and several related projects were added a couple did not want too and that was completely fine. The goal is to collaborate on improving articles not fighting over turf. --Kumioko (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
On another note, I see that your bot has flagged Red-breasted Nuthatch for WPUS with a Texas subproject. This bird is found in virtually every state in the US. Plus every province in Canada. Plus many states in Mexico. Has the bot really tagged these appropriately? MeegsC | Talk 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree not every bird should be in the projects scope and I agree that the state banner should normally be the one to display. Bear in mind the WPUS supports about half the state projects now so removing the WPUS/TX banner for example is counter productive. I may add the US banner first but then come back later and add the state or other project. Its extremely hard to code a bot to know what state project an article should fall into. I have to do each project individually. The reason I would Wild turkey is because it has a National history as potentially being the other possibility to be the national symbol like the bald eagle. On the question of the Red-breasted Nuthatch article. My bot didn't "tag" that article it simply converted an existing TX banner to WPUS/TX so if no one had a problem with the TX banner they shouldn't have a problem with the WPUS/TX banner either IMO. To answer the most significant question yes, the intent is to help expand article relating to the US wether they be birds, mammals, people, buildings, events, etc. I plan to do this primarily through the individual projects but having all the articles in one place, under WPUS and the supported project offers a lot of advantages for doing bot tasks, determining quality content, determining articles that should be merged or deleted, ensuring that if an article is submitted for deletion it is seen by someone, etc. There is a saying, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it". In order to measure it I need to determine what they are. While this is being done and once this is done then we can work on improving content, recruiting people to join the projects, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Witkop Cockatiel

Anyone feels the need to rescue Witkop Cockatiel? It is nominated for deletion and I can find that many sources that it looks like a hoax... Night of the Big Wind talk 23:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd give it a >98% probability of being a hoax and have G3'd it accordingly. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fifty places to go birding before you die

This book was given to me, and I thought it was worth sharing. Who would have thought that 24 of the world's top 50 bird spots would be in the US, with another six handily next door in Central America and the Caribbean? I wouldn't have gone to Australia if I'd known its total of world sites was only two, same as New York. Lucky California has as many sites as the whole of Asia, while Alaska has the same as the whole of Africa. England gets one site, but, bizarrely, the United Kingdom, listed separately, only has South Georgia (tip –this is a long taxi journey from Heathrow). Shyamal should be pleased that India isn't left out, I'll pencil in the Andaman Islands for my next trip. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While the Andaman Islands would give several endemics to tick, it is a pity if that book did not consider worthy a location from the eastern Himalayas! Bhutan perhaps? Shyamal (talk) 11:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The book is obviously biased. The red-hot place to go for a while now, among the oriental birders at least, is Eaglesnest (Arunachal Pradesh). I could probably think of about twenty spots from memory just in mainland Asia before I would pick a stateside venue (and my first in the States would probably be somewhere in southern Arizona). The total omission, for example, of the countries of Colombia, Ethiopia, and others, considered unworthy apparently, more or less speaks to the admirable objectivity of the book: http://www.birderslibrary.com/reviews/supplemental/fifty_places-list.htmSteve Pryor (talk) 15:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In fairness, Bhutan was another of the few Asian sites. The contributors were mainly professional guides, mainly American, often writing about places they took trips to. It's hardly a surprise when Debbie Shearwater picks Monterey Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, this one was widely slated (i.e. not recommended) by most of the reviews I read. Many suggested it was a book you were likely to receive for Christmas/Hanukkah/etc. from some well-meaning non-birding relative, as opposed to one you'd chose yourself. Sound familiar Jim?!  :) MeegsC | Talk 01:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It does indeed. A bit like the Christmas book I received from well-meaning North American relatives on feeding garden birds. Funny, I still haven't had any hummers coming to the feeders Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I think Central Park, New York is quite good; see File:Bird watchers in Central Park - New York -USA-14Apr2009.jpg. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I assume that's tongue in cheek, Snowman. "Quite good" doesn't really explain why Central Park is rated higher than say Kaikoura, Kruger National Park or Sinharaja Forest Reserve Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
In case my joke might be misunderstood, I have put a strike out through it. Is Central Park on the list in the book? I would be interested to know what the place in England is. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I did assume you weren't serious. NY has Central Park and Jamaica Bay. The English location is Cley. If anywhere in England qualified, I think Cley or Minsmere would be reasonable picks, but Scilly would be my choice. The Cley article is written by Bryan Bland, who lives in, and offers professional guiding in ... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
How would you rate Bempton Cliffs? I have been to Minsmere several times and to Cley once. Snowman (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Oops, inadvertently reverted Snowman, reverted myself now. I think that the UK would only be of importance (in European terms) for (a) migration watchpoints (you could add Spurn Point and Fair Isle to those above). (b) major seabird colonies. Bempton isn't as notable in terms of numbers as some of the island colonies in the north, and doesn't have breeding terns or skuas, but it does have the advantages of easy access, the only mainland site for breeding Northern Gannets, and proximity to yet another migration hotspot at Flamborough Head Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe we should have an NPOV article about the world's best birding sites just kidding.
When I was little, my parents had a coffee-table book, illustrated with paintings, called Birds of Field and Forest. It took me a while to figure out that Ohio was not a good place for such common and familiar birds as the Chaffinch and Song Thrush. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) Does going to see the Kabushima gulls count as birding? Either way, I'd love to go there one day. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Common Tern

I'm going to take this to FAC soon, and I've got to the stage where I can't see my own errors. There is masses of information available, so it's been largely a matter of what to leave out. Any comments, improvements or criticisms are welcome. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have added notes on their tropical breeding off Sri Lanka. The zone between India and Sri Lanka could be coloured yellow as also some part of the southern Tibetan Plateau to be included in the breeding range for the map. Shyamal (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for new material. I've amended the map, although I'm never convinced what value they have for widespread species like this. Even with my sources, there are differences of what must be millions of square miles in depicted breeding areas, and wintering ranges are almost completely arbitrary. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Also thanks to Maias for text tweaks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
And to Snowman for improving the table, and Cas for rerating Jimfbleak - talk to me?
I was going to suggest going to GA first, but it's come together really well (funny how sometimes they just do and others they just...don't) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Cas, saw your tweaks. I tend to go straight to FAC with birds now, and via GA for my occasional places-in-Norfolk efforts — although two of those are stalled for reasons I won't even bore you with Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


Illegitimi non carborundum

Non-collaborative discussion closed
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

Just for info, there is an Arbcom case with a long statement from "uninvolved" SMcCandlish. He is not going to give up Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I was WP:DGAFing on the caps discussion already, but everything becomes much clearer now with that last link. I didn't know it even existed. The tone, the walls of text, the sheer effort and time poured into it... looks frighteningly like a crusade to me. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
He is not going to stop till he has his way. He is convinced he is right and he will continue till he has the MoS as he wants it. Talking about ownership. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you think User:SMcCandlish/Capitalization of organism names is some kind of "smoking gun" or a "discovery"; I've been frequently posting links to it for two months throughout the entire debate. PS: Calling me a bastard, even in Latin, is personally attacking as well as disappointingly childish. If you have an issue with me, raise it on my talk page. WikiProject pages are for collaboration on article improvement, not bashing individual users. I've pointed this out here before. Your collective repeated misuse of a project page like this for personal, ad hominem vendetta reasons is starting to look habitual. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 18:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
That last sentence is supremely ironic.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 19:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that everyone here just step away from this argument. Don't respond — in any way — to any comments, taunts, provocations, etc. posted here or elsewhere. Let's agree to WP:SHUN each other, as it were. It's better for everyone's blood pressure. Nothing any of us say or do appear to be able change the increasingly hostile attitudes being displayed by all involved here. So just step away. MeegsC | Talk 19:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC – WP title decision practice

Over the past several months there has been contentious debate over aspects of WP:Article Titles policy. That contentiousness has led to efforts to improve the overall effectiveness of the policy and associated processes. An RFC entitled: Wikipedia talk:Article titles/RFC-Article title decision practice has been initiated to assess the communities’ understanding of our title decision making policy. As a project that has created or influenced subject specific naming conventions, participants in this project are encouraged to review and participate in the RFC.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to comment on that page, it seems a genuine attempt to move things on, unlike this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Stresemann's Bushcrow

Does anyone have any reference which explains the meaning of the monotypic genus Zavattariornis ... something-bird, but what? SP-KP (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

From James A. Jobling's "The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names" (Christopher Helm, London, 2010 isbn 978-1-4081-2501-4), p.413: "Zavattariornis Prof. Edoardo Zavattari (1883–1972) Italian zoologist and explorer, Director of the Zoological Institute, Rome University 1935–1958; Gr. ornis bird." So it's an honorific. MeegsC | Talk 16:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) it:Edoardo Zavattari Shyamal (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. SP-KP (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2012 (UTC) I've added this information in. Looking at the whole article, I think it's at least a B-class (it was categorised as Start-class, which it's way better than in my opinion). I've decided to be bold, and nominate it as a GA, and we'll see what happens. SP-KP (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Josep del Hoyo, Andrew Elliott & Jordi Sargatal, ed. (1998). Handbook of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. p. 25.
  2. ^ Potter, EF (1984). "On capitalization of vernacular names of species" (PDF). Auk. 101: 895–896.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_59&oldid=1151047090"