Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
aargh!
Line 420: Line 420:
There is a discussion going on where people [[ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Dagger (typography)| are unhappy with the biological use of the symbol † to denote extinction]]. Since this has the potential to affect quite a few of our articles it might be worth a look. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]] [[User talk:Sabine's Sunbird|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]] 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on where people [[ Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Dagger (typography)| are unhappy with the biological use of the symbol † to denote extinction]]. Since this has the potential to affect quite a few of our articles it might be worth a look. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]] [[User talk:Sabine's Sunbird|<span style="color:#008000;">talk</span>]] 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing this to our attention. [[User:Natureguy1980|Natureguy1980]] ([[User talk:Natureguy1980|talk]]) 00:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing this to our attention. [[User:Natureguy1980|Natureguy1980]] ([[User talk:Natureguy1980|talk]]) 00:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

== Proposed name changes - multi-move discussion about bird names ==

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the naming discussion taking place at [[Talk:Palawan Peacock-pheasant#Requested move]]. Cheers. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:03, 26 August 2011

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

IOC name changes

I'm playing around with synching up IOC English names as I have time. Most moves are working well.....however a couple are giving me issues. No big deal right now, as the ones I found so far eliminate dashes. I'm sure they'll be more complicated ones later. So, right now, I'm locked from moving all the Piping-guans to Piping Guan and the Brush-turkeys to Brushturkey. Can someone move these articles, or let me know if this doesn't warrant the time, and I'll move on.

Changing taxonomy using the IOC classification is less clearcut I'm assuming reading the posts. I've been deferring to the North and South American Committees of the AOU, the African Bird Club Checklist, the Birds Australia Checklist and the British Ornithologist's Union Checklist for guidance, as well as the IOC. Since the African Bird Club has indicated their ageement to standardize on the IOC, any objection to splitting the Ostrich into Common Ostrich and Somali Ostrich? I've split them into their own articles.

Also the AOU and the IOC has split the Snowy Plover from the Kentish Plover and the Common Gallinue from the Common Moorhen. I've split the new names out (Snowy Plover, Common Gallinue), but left the original articles intact except for a reference of the AOU split (Kentish Plover, Common Moorhen), until more review committees make their determinations. Let me know if I should approach differently.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A significant misunderstanding and in direct conflict with the information provided in the intro of Common Ostrich, Somali Ostrich and Ostrich: IOC is not and never has been the standard for taxonomy on wikipedia. IOC is our standard for English names. The frontpage defines it clearly (well, I hope it does, since I wrote it) under Taxonomy and references:
"Scientific names and classification are based on evidence rather than a specific list. There is no single authority to rely on; no one list can claim to be the list... The preferred standard for English common bird names is the IOC."
Due to time restraints my participation in this project will be limited (at least for a period) and if others believe we should change so IOC also is our standard for taxonomy, it is a possibility, though one I would warn against. In the case of the ostrich, I believe it is sensible to split it into two, but not because IOC advocates it. Because genetic evidence supports it and reveals a quite deep split (see this, this and this). If you skip the IOC sentence, you could add "The Somali Ostrich has traditionally been treated as a subspecies of the Ostrich, but the former is morphologically and ecologically distinct, and genetic evidence supports its treatment as a separate species" (or something like that + appropriat wiki links). However, I would argue against splitting the Common Ostrich further. This is suggested by the authors of the most recent article and IOC has Southern Ostrich among their candidates. Since members of the northern and southern clade hybridize freely, it would not be an easy split to accept under the biological species concept. As far as I know, similar unrestricted hybridization has not been shown in Somali versus remaining. • Rabo³ • 14:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a related issue, I urge everybody to be careful when changing taxonomy since this often require additional changes within existing articles: [1] (plumage + distribution update needed w. split of Colombia) & [2] (not in the Amazon). • Rabo³ • 15:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also reverted this. Please see the taxonomic section, which explains the issue of Roraiman versus Foothill (they're not synonymous, despite the identical scient. name). IOC follows version #2 described in the taxonomic section, but the presently available evidence doesn't support this (despite being based on the few samples available to Robbins in 2001, his SACC proposal presents a good summary of the vocal variations; König made some mistakes in 1999 and partially repeated them in 2008). If you have made other copy and paste moves like the page started at Roraiman Screech Owl (was a copy of Foothill Screech-owl; just with name change), please follow the instructions at WP:CPMV, which allows merging history. • Rabo³ • 14:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IOC name changes (2)

(copied from User Rabo3's talk page, partly because he has said he is busy Snowman (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the correction on Roramian Screech Owl. There are a couple others. I'll get them changed back. Looks like taxonomy is a bit more complicated than the copy and paste moves I began doing a week ago. I'm getting to be a little more careful as I am getting a better understanding the taxonomy.

A couple of questions on Francolins/Spurfowls......looks like someone stated moving over the genus names (some species names adopted with new genusus, some not). I ended up completing them all for consistency, although looking at the taxonomy, some of the genus names have not been adopted yet and are still in Francolinus. Care to share any info?

Lastly, Grey-breasted Partridge was also pretty confusing. The easy move was moving White-faced Hill-partidge into Grey-breasted Partridge, (move button locked, need to ask for an admin move). The difficult piece was the Grey-breasted Partridge name was shared with the Arborophila sumatrana complex which everyone is now splitting into 3 species (Sumatran, Roll's and Malaysian) no longer needing to use Grey-breasted Patridge for sumatrana complex, freeing it up for the White-faced Hill-partridge change. I've split them since everyone else has. You agree with the changes on this one?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several users have been updating article names to IOC English names. Taxonomy change are much more complicated and all relevant information should be assessed and in particular IOC taxonomy should not be used in isolation. I think this discussion is best on the WP Bird talk page (or copied to there). Snowman (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new page has been made from the redirect at Snowy Plover. In view of the confusion the editor has expressed in updating taxonomy pages, I would be grateful to know if there is any evidence to treat the new page as a new species page, a new subspecies page, or to explain controversy. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A statement was already added explaining the controversy. I added another to further clarify...Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... But the introduction says unequivocally that it is a species. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this edit an error. Surely, it is the non-capitalised form for a group of birds. Snowman (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My bad....Quail should have been written in smaller case. I can't correct, can you or an admin help out????....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)BTW, I'm also reverting the Quail disambig. Didn't realize there were sooo many articles attached to it. Once I get the Quail page back, I'll broaden it to Galliformes and add some things about domestication. hunting and aviculture. That should help clarify things I hope.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted with administrator assistance. Snowman (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the above questions are about specific taxonomic changes (not just names), I am not sure they are of general interest. Unless we change to using IOC as our taxonomic standard too, but IOC taxonomy versus English names have been discussed before (here and here, among other places) with no one being pro such a move. Replies to the specific taxonomic questions about francolins and Arborophila are on my talk page, but the general summary, relevant to the entire project and matching earlier discussions on WP:BIRD and related pages, is: If the wiki taxonomy matches the IOC taxonomy (wiki taxonomy isn't changed just because of IOC), the IOC English name is the main English name that should be used on wiki. When the taxonomy matches, you need a very good argument to have it placed on another English name than the one used by IOC (see e.g. Talk:Tasmanian Nativehen#Nomenclature). • Rabo³ • 15:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy, but since these questions weren't on my talk page, I'll add a comment here: Snowy versus Kentish Plover is a pretty clear split (long overdue) and I can't think of any major argument for keeping them together. The delimination of Phasianidae and its subgroups, mentioned indirectly in Quail and elsewhere, is difficult and not entirely resolved. I've considered updating Phasianidae and the associated New World quail every time I've come across them, but the very large number of changes this would require has made me hesitate (if you've been to Gambia or Cameroon on a birdwatching trip, you can likely cross off this family on your list!). I certainly won't have the time for Phasianidae+associated pages until 2012 and admittedly hope these issues have been dealt with by others before that. • Rabo³ • 18:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird for identification (127)

Well, the species is correct. However, there is a rather large parrot-breeding operation on Gran Canaria, including of this species. I would not like the color tone of the head of this bird were I considering it a wild-type. I would hypothesize an escape after somebody has been fooling with selection. V. http://aviariograncanaria.jimdo.com/Steve Pryor (talk) 18:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought that the colours on the head (and the leg ring) may suggest captive breeding for colour selection or hybridization. However, Forshaw does not mention a population on Gran Canaria. Is there a distinctive type native on Gran Canaria? Is this parrot-breeding operation for the pet trade or for conservation? Snowman (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, it has nothing to do with bird conservation. Breeding imported birds to sell in the caged-bird trade.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: described as feral. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's near impossible to be totally definitive about Charadrius eggs, even if you exclude those which are improbable on range, like Kentish Plover. Given the source, I can't see any reason to doubt the claimed ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I should have asked if there is any reason to doubt the photographer's identification going on the picture of the eggs and location. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I was using an old second-hand book and I was slightly puzzled by what I presume is an old synonym for the binomial. First image of this species on the Wiki. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirmed. Red wash on upper breast. There are also a lot of photos of the male in the same album, as well as the rather distinctive large-billed tasman race of Colluricincla harmonica, and the endemic tasman Anthochaera.Steve Pryor (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have uploaded to Commons the male rosellas some time ago. Can you link the two photographs that you are interested in? Snowman (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colluricincla harmonica strigata – Tasmania, Flinders I., King I. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5307499488157108578 Crappy photo of it, but it is Sericornis humilis. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5307499893328153634 Melithreptus validirostris – an adult. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5307502390478599186 Melithreptus affinis – immature. https://picasaweb.google.com/102115791168459957284/200901Australia#5415118732136226914

This is a good addition for WP. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean just this one (uploaded now at File:Anthochaera paradoxa -Australia -adult.jpg), or all of them? —innotata 20:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anthochaera paradoxa – adult. Steve Pryor (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you mean you're more selective than with other websites, and than you could be? Flinfo, the description generator, can now do Picasa; you need to download the file, but all you need to type is some of the description field and categories. —innotata 22:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suitable file name also needs writing in. I did not know that Flinfo does Picasa Web Albums as well. I usually use flickr2commons, but is not not working at the present time. There is no equivalent for Picasa. Also, some of Sammy Sams photographs have watermarks, and it is extra work to remove the watermark. Generally, I pick the low-hanging fruit first. Snowman (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys. I seem to be making extra work for those that actually edit these things. I have virtually no handle on what has already been done on the wiki unless somebody actually asks me to review a species page for some reason. When I come on, I do so just to look at the bird identifications. I recognise that some of these photos have already been uploaded but I did not think to check.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extras (as I call them) or other good photographs from the same set are usually welcome and has picked up some photographs of rare birds that I missed. Snowman (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow, there is still a bit of softness at the commissure, so it looks a late juvenile. Instinctively, but if someone else wants to entertain other possibilities, a juvenile Cinnyricinclus. The photographer offers no help because his birds were probably shot in some bird park in Europe somewhere and there is just a hodgepodge.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have now had more time to look at this. I confirm the species. However, I can now sex it. It is a female. Presuming that it were a late juvenile male this bird does not demonstrate any indication of the incipient substitution of the covert feathers, and the outer primaries with the adult purple plumage, and this should be seen at this stage were it a male.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cinnyricinclus is a genus of three species. Has the identification been narrowed down to the species or to the genus? Snowman (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow, I had not considered that some may consider the genus as contemplating three different specific entities, as least for a while now. Yes, you are right, formerly associated (and maybe some still do) in this genus were Sharpe's Starling, and Abbott's Starling now considered more correctly associated to those Starlings, such as Kenrick's, Stuhlmann's, and Narrow-tailed Starling in genus Poeoptera. Therefore, in this case, having said Cinnyrinclus meant not only the genus, but also the species since the only left populating this genus was/is Cinnyricinclus leucogaster (Violet-backed Starling).Steve Pryor (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will need time to look at this one. The genus does appear to be Lagonosticta. Will do a range search for the possibles, and then I have to explain the bill color to myself.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I will go along with the ID as captioned by the photographer. We are more or less at the range interface here (in SC Tanzania) of rhodopareia, and rubricata, however, there is just no way that I can make this bird out to be pinkish! A male bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption on Wiki species page enhanced. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird 1279. [3] - My guess is a juvenile Olive Whistler based on the call, but I'm not really sure. JJ Harrison (talk)
    • Hi JJ. Can you give me an exact location? Obviously, I haven't the advantage of listening to the audiofile.Steve Pryor (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • here. Habitat is probably best described as wet sclerophyll. I don't have an audio recording - camera's built-in microphone isn't useful for something 25 meters away. JJ Harrison (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, I have had an initial look at it. The bill looks just too strong for P. olivacea where (for a Pachy) the bill is rather stubby. I also have difficulty in associating the reddish component around the eye to any ranging Pachy. There is also the problem of the fine ventral streaking. I will have to look further into this photo, however, I am more oriented right now to considering something immature, but not Pachy (V. 4th pic down), e.g., http://www.gardensforwildlife.dpiw.tas.gov.au/gfw.nsf/GardenStories/E0C965ABB65BC4B5CA2577430014ED55
Steve Pryor (talk) 07:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The call was a single periodic (in the loose sense) "du-whit" if that makes sense. JJ Harrison (talk) 06:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, I am pretty sure already that it is a juvenile Colluricincla harmonica strigata. However, I will try and find time today to send the photo to a knowledgeable aussie friend or two just to confirm.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JJ, I just heard from Tom Tarrant (site administrator of: http://www.aviceda.org/abid/)
He is in total agreement. Juvenile Colluricincla harmonica strigata.Steve Pryor (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to List of birds of Nepal - could someone review?

See diff. A series of edits made to the page by 78.147.115.131 (talk · contribs) today. Are these edits correct/helpful? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not correct. My guess is that this user is removing anything s/he has not personally seen. We have a similar occasional vandal who hits the List of birds of New Jersey page. MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess: is he leaving in only the breeding birds of Nepal? Snowman (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not according to my copy of Birds of the Indian Subcontinent, which includes Nepal. For instance, for Mallard (removed) it says "breeds in small numbers in Nepal", and for Plum-headed Parakeet (removed) it says "fairly common below 500 m, frequent up to 1525 m". MeegsC | Talk 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This anon isn't squeaky clean any way; I picked up a change of "India" to "Republic of India" (seems familiar?), and "Jammu and Kashmir" to "Occupied Kashmir" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted all edits to the list - some may be correct but it is too much of a bother particularly since the edits are not aimed at being correct birdwise. The editor has a long standing record of attempting to use fauna articles to highlight political issues, sometimes using category addition and sometimes editing country names. See User:First_Light/Fauna_vandalism#Nationalist_vandalism - if the IP whois gives you Irlam, Manchester as a location, you can definitely revert it. Shyamal (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, guys. So, what about the IP's other edits? Every one I've checked so far is adding Category:Birds of Nepal to various species articles. Are these accurate? I considered a mass revert but thought that I'd check in here first... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The category additions are based on the lists for various countries. The user's modus operandi is to start adding categories for existing countries and then to follow up on a later date with categories for non-existent countries - example Kashmir, Sindh, Baluchistan etc. Shyamal (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now there is an Indian IP 223.189.57.217, 27.56.91.26 out to reverse the usage of "South Asia" to "Indian Subcontinent" (a term which was earlier removed by another bunch of rival editors). There is absolutely no policy here and it seems like this will continue to swing back and forth! Shyamal (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He did a lot of edits. More than 250 in about 24 hrs. I presume these need checking. Snowman (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As expected ! Shyamal (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locked moves/Punctuation

Thanks for the input regarding taxomomy and using IOC for english names. I'll be much more careful moving forward with changes (I left Comb Duck alone, for example).....2 issues have come up. One is some of the english names can't be moved using the Move function. A red note appears stating an existing article exists. I've sent a note to WP: Move requests as I find them, unless there is a faster way to do it...

Also, I was trying to change Hawaiian Goose to Nene per IOC (IOC uses no punctuation). Also, our article uses punctuation (i.e. Nēnē), but no reference of Nene, without punctuation. Move to Nene, without punctuation?......Pvmoutside (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nene is a dab, so you can not move it there unless the goose is the primary topic. Looking at the dab, I doubt that the goose would be the primary topic. I have moved it to Nene (bird). Snowman (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC says it omits diacritics, and doesn't give opinions as to whether they should be included. I haven't looked at this, but I'd expect Nēnē is better than Nene. —innotata 23:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@innonata. Disagree, MoS says use the common English form. So Nene I think. @Pvmoutside, several project members are admins, so you could post a move-over-redirect request here if you wished Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the rather apparent tendancy of the IOC towards simplification, and given that what the IOC is now doing, Donsker et alia, in their continuing review of all of the subspecific taxa, and knowing from him that all of that work, including nailing down and reviewing all of the ranges for all taxa, will eventually be poured into the HM 4°Ed., well, it would be extremely surprising to me to find that the diacritics are not all elided in the text HM 4° Ed. In other words, the collaboration between the HM Editors and the IOC group is such that were the diacritics destined to show up in the upcoming HM, it would be logical to expect them to already be on the IOC list.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IOC says to use diacritics as one feels appropriate: "the committee is neutral as to the wishes of authors of regional works, who should feel free to add pronunciation marks that they consider to be appropriate for their intended audience." Note that diacritics are not the same as punctuation. Also note that "Hawaiian Goose" is the "'common' English form". The article should either be called Hawaian Goose or Nēnē. Nene is arguably not even an accurate term for this species. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NG, here I actually agree with you. Everybody is waiting for a text tax work to be published, and I am sure that were that volume (the HM in this case) to include the diacritics, that the IOC would be fast in revising their common names in accordance. Unfortunately, we are still all in a taxonomic vacuum for the moment.Steve Pryor (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a move request at Nene (bird), that the page be moved to Hawaiian Goose or Nēnē, at Talk:Nene (bird)#Requested move. —innotata 16:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would any more editors mind commenting on the move request? —innotata 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification (128)

Will gladly contemplate other ideas on this one since my probable ID does not satisfy me for a couple of reasons including the tail length, and the undertail color, however, going through the range possibles and eliminating: not a Cinclodes; not any sort of Thrush that I can figure the plumage for, plus the bill would be extremely weak for a Turdidae in this locale; leaves, at least for me, Furnarius rufus, however, if that is what it is it is confusing for being one, including the rather grayish head, the longish tail, and the throat that is not conspicuously white. Having said that, I can't think of what else that it could be here.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tell him thanks, and that I am ashamed of myself. I should have had this one. My mistake was that I foolishly used a book that I really detest - the Souza Bird of Brazil where it shows the bird with a lighter-colored bill, heavy throat streaking and a longer tail. I should have double-checked with Clement & Hathway.Steve Pryor (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I had a dollar for every screw-up over the last twenty years, well.... Rest assured that I am not covering my head in ashes and wearing sack cloth! I like to think I am pretty good at this stuff.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, something weird has happened here. This is now redirecting to a picture of two Magpie Geese, but I can see the (I'm assuming) original pigeon in the upload history. MeegsC | Talk 14:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's better. Adult Patagioenas speciosa.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I think I uploaded it with the wrong file name due to having several browser tabs open at the same time, and then someone moved the file on Commons. Fixed now. Just needs the version accidentally uploaded to the en Wiki deleting. Snowman (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird 1283. File:Eolophus roseicapilla.jpg | Image is on Galah article and several other Wikis. Has Common's quality image badge. Image description on Commons says it is male. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a youngster. Don't know about the gender - I don't think you can determine it visually at that age. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kurt, yes you are right. Not sexable at this stage. An immature race albiceps.Steve Pryor (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it has still has grey feathers on its chest and abdomen. File description on Commons and caption on en Wiki article enhanced (I will fix other Wikis tomorrow). I appreciate the consensus and I have informed the photographer on Commons. Incidentally, what is it feeding on there on the short grass? I known that they have a bland diet and in aviculture need special tiny seeds and bland food. Surely, the grass is kept too short to produce grass seeds. Snowman (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe it was eating grass shoots? Or someone had scattered some birdseed about on the lawn? Or it was pecking for bugs? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird 1284. What's the yellow weaver at left in the series starting here. of photos from Kenya? (The sparrows are all Kenya Sparrows.) —innotata 20:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the adult male Ploceus baglafecht reichenowi? That other yellowish bird looking at the watermelon is probably an immature baglafecht, but I don't feel like pulling the trigger on the ID - just too much not visible, including the iris color. BTW, this might be of interest: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwooper7/6013974507/in/set-72157623845943546
It is an adult Turdoides hypoleuca. No photos of it on the Wiki! Steve Pryor (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded two of the images in question to File:Ploceus baglfecht and Passer rufocinctus in flight.jpg and File:Ploceus baglafecht and Passer rufocinctus in Kenya 1.jpg. —innotata 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have misunderstood each other. This is the adult male Ploceus baglafecht reichenowi: http://www.flickr.com/photos/fwooper7/6014513602/in/set-72157623845943546
The ones you have linked, on the first the bird in flight to the left could be an immature baglafecht, and the second, the bird being yelled at by the sparrow is almost certainly an immature baglafecht.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about the series of weavers with the sparrows, and I thought you were replying. I've corrected the images I uploaded; I don't know if the image of the male P. baglafecht should be uploaded. Isn't the weaver with the mouse is the same as the one being "yelled at" by the sparrow, and does that photo help? —innotata 14:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I clicked the Kenya set to get the whole series, and then I asked you about the adult male bird. In any case, I have the idea that all of those photos of the bird that you intended are possibly of the same bird - the watermelon bird, the sparrow-screeching bird, the flight bird, and the mouse bird.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, Aplonis metallica, an adult. Aplonis is not usually kept for breeding purposes. Not that some might not be in trouble, but those in trouble are in zones so out of the way, and they might be so rare, and with such strict habitat requirements, well, you get the gist.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Metallic Starling moved to File:Aplonis metallica -San Diego Zoo, California, USA -head-8a.jpg on commons. Shown on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk-browed Mockingbird Mimus saturninus --Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chalk-browed Mockingbird moved to File:Mimus saturninus -Paulinia, Sao Paulo, Brazil-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bird 1287. File:Unidentified parrot -Mato Grosso, Brazil-8a.jpg | Is this a hybrid Amazon parrot? The orange on its head behind the yellow it not seen on other Blue-fronted Amazons that I have seem photographs of. I can not read the Portuguese on Flick to determine the location or if this parrot is captive or wild. Other photographs in the photo-set show Amazons being hand fed. Snowman (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yellow-billed Kite. Maias (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to File:Milvus aegyptius -Tsimbazaza Zoo, Madagascar-8a.jpg on Commons and shown on Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatoo fun

I got Cockatoo scheduled to go on the mianpage on Aug 20th - and then stumbled over this recent study, a manuscript version of which is freely available at [4]. Fascinating stuff - the Palm Cockatoo is actually in the white cockatoo subfamily, and the Galah and Gang Gang are sister taxa (and the authors hint that maybe they are better in one genus rather than two). Am happy to add the study to the article. Question is, is the study robust enough to "trump" previous research and rejig the cladogram...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not until it's actually published. Right now, it's been accepted, but not published, if I'm reading the comments correctly. MeegsC | Talk 13:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have difficulty in believing that the Palm Cockatoo is in the white cockatoo subfamily, going on the physical differences. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it has been published, says Molecular phylogenetics and evolution Volume 59, Issue 3, June 2011, Pages 615-622....@snowman, structurally the Palm Cockatoo is very different in body shape to the Calyptorhynchus and more like the stocky white cockatoos. Anyway, I am not good on genetics so was interested in Kim van der linde and dysmorodrepanis and others have to say. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That quote you gave does not support your claim. The quote says that the Palm Cockatoo "is more like the white cockatoos", and not "is one of the white cockatoo sub-family". The Palm Cockatoo's beak is a lot different to a white cockatoo's beak. I think that the paper for publications does have some new conclusions for the article and that the cladogram in the article is out-of-date and should be removed from the article. Can you postpone the appearance of the Cockatoo article on the main page? Snowman (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the salient points of the manuscript, and the argumentation does seem compelling in my opinion. Once one gets beyond the understandable perplexity that certain of these taxa, considered on gross morphology and on anatomical considerations, particularly of the bill and its mechanics, have such different phenotypic expression, is really not so astonishing considering that natural selection for the requirements of niche-occupation is well known. The study does seem serious.Steve Pryor (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the Palm Cockatoo's lineage is monotypic over the last 19.3 million years (approx), and this started before the divergence of the traditional white cockatoos. I am not exactly sure where one might put the cut-off for a sub-family; perhaps before or after the divergence of the Palm Cockatoo. However, I am not convinced that the one paper should totally overturn a traditional apple-cart. How is a sub-family defined? I think that the appearance of the Cockatoo article on the main page should be postponed. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow, I substantially agree, indeed, I think the manuscript is still up for peer-review. Of course, we all know that when we speak of the why, the wherefore, and the when of deeming taxa of whatever level distinctively open to being associable, including subgenera, subfamilies, tribes, etc., that we are always basing on varying degrees of subjectivity (obviously one attempts to objectivize!) in our interpretations. In the last couple of decades, usually, the underpinning turns around the degree of genetic variance. However, where to draw the line is always the sticking point. When is any taxon different enough genetically to be considered something else from another closely related, and therefore needful of being classified differently? We always do these things in finality basing the judgments on accepted convention and persuasion.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the paper treats the Cockatiel as a separate monotypic linage that started about 22.2 million years ago, but treats the Palm Cockatoo diverging 19.3 million years ago as part of the white cockatoos. The two dates here have large and overlapping 95% confidence intervals, that do not look significantly different to me. In fact, the linage of the Budgie in this paper has a commencement date of 33.5 mya with a 95% confidence interval that overlaps with three of the early splits of the cockatoo group. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have asked to put the mainpage appearance on hold for a while until this is settled. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I would like to see the "Cockatoo" article on the main page, but not if new information suggests amendments. It might be a while before the dust settles. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, we have many bird articles that can go on the mainpage in the meantime, and we have the blurb already written so Cockatoo can be easily nominated in the future. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I slung up Red-necked Grebe instead....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been peer-reviewed; "Accepted Manuscript" (that's the final version you get back when they're ready to publish it). Except for a few minor aesthetic differences (e.g., no line count), it has also been published. All borders in phylogeny vs. taxonomy are arbitrary: There is no entirely or even largely accepted rule stating when two groups should be separated in different families, subfamilies, genera, species, etc, based on genetic–or for that matter morphologic–differences. How does this paper stand up against others that have been published; Quite well, I'd say. Most of the other papers currently used in the taxonomic section of cockatoo are essentially aimed at the position and delimination of the parrot families, and their sampling (in genes and species) reflect this "higher" aim. Others use outdated techniques (e.g., the protein sequencing in Christidis et al. 1991 and Adams et al 1984) or rely on a single gene. The latter is the case in Brown and Toft 1999, which is the main basis for the current placement of the Palm Cockatoo as basal (the wiki sentence "...Palm Cockatoo is in its own genus Probosciger and is descended from the earliest offshoot within the cockatoo family"). The one hesitation I have is the thesis Astuti 2004, but this is apparently also based on a single gene. Has anyone here actually seen the entire thesis? I haven't. The link in the reference section of cockatoo to Astuti 2004 barely equals a normal abstract. It only has one sentence about the Palm Cockatoo (underlining mine; "The tribe Calyptorhyncini consisting of Probosiger and Calyptorhynchus was paraphyletic and genus Calyptorhynchus was likely diverged earlier than Probosciger"), and that also conflicts with the basal placement found in Brown and Toft 1999. In summary, White et al. 2011 isn't perfect, but when it comes to the placement of the species within the cockatoo family, it is superior to other things that have been published. • Rabo³ • 14:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rabo, The Astuti 2004, I looked for it a couple of years ago, and could not find it. However, I do recall having seen a one-page graphic that is based on the findings of the paper. I refound it for you. http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:k0r0p_bcqTUJ:atbc2010.org/doc/posters/p-15-9_astuti.pdf+Astuti+A+Phylogeny+of+cockatoos&hl=en&gl=it&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiRzlPVEF8U09Zuof5r9cJBHLMzgpRSCRt93z8NcbKJRTL-Wv-94CIZ7axXfvZG2xyzMPJtqKLDqvv4a3j3o86xe3BQfUfiOjFN6jZeKU3vBxKHMSumRqgA-nogC9CTGtU9N_CU&sig=AHIEtbSxp4cooR859meljZOLVwcwuZ8QWQ
Steve Pryor (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Awful support for some of the nodes, but the results largely match White et al. 2011. • Rabo³ • 15:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locked articles/IOC changes

The following are locked, and can't get them to move to the IOC english name:

  • all the Brush-turkeys at the end of the Megapodes: IOC lists them as Brushturkey
  • 3 of the 4 Piping-guans, (Trinidad, Blue-throated and Black-fronted: IOC lists them as Piping Guans.
  • Udzungwa Forest-partridge: IOC lists as Udzungwa Forest Partridge
  • Crested Wood Partridge: IOC lists as Crested Partridge
    • note: I moved from Crested Wood-partridge to Crested Wood Partridge, and can't move again to Crested Partridge to correct
      • ALL THE ABOVE are already listed at REQUESTED MOVES.....I'll remove them if they are taken care of prior to the request being taken up....

I found another:

  • Each of the Peacock-pheasants (8 species) are listed as Peacock-Pheasants by the IOC.

Hope this is helpful....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently changed the Forest-falcons to Forest Falcons. Snowman (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Udzungwa Forest Partridge is a great example of why we SHOULD be using hyphens. Is it a forest-partridge that lives in the Udzungwa region, or is it a partridge that lives in the Udzungwa Forest? Palau Bush Warbler is another example. Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not seen any discussion about that move. Was there any discussion anywhere? Snowman (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IOC, Clements, Birdlife Internatonal, Sibley and Monroe, ebird, and Howard & Moore all refer to the Australian Wood Duck as the Maned Duck. It appeared the Australian Wood Duck was a regional name, so I moved it. In North America, we have the Wood Duck. So if we choose to keep the name as Australian Wood Duck, then NA's Wood Duck becomes American Wood Duck???????? The name listed on the page now is Australian Wood Duck. My guess is we want it reverted back to Maned Duck? I am now locked and can't make the revert.

On a larger issue, I didn't realize were discussing each change to an english name, as many have not been discussed. I could do that, but we should probably set up a separate talk page at WP:Birds with all the changes taking place. Alternatively, a note can be created on each article's talk page. Either hasn't been done prior, but I can start that moving forward.......Thanks for the discussion below regarding IOC english name changes. It was very helpful.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that we are now discussing each change from regional names to the IOC treatments because there are people that simply are not satisfied that homologation of english names might succeed. If the wiki is actually intentioned to being so impatient that they can't wait for less than a year until we finally have a new text tax work that should englobe all of these changes, including the IOC names after they have been peer-reviewed themselves, then I suggest that the wiki be coherent enough to withdraw their support from the IOC initiative, and spearhead an effort to roll back all of the english common names to the status quo pre-IOC initiative. However, such a move, it seems to me, would prove to be extremely myopic and with the apparent aim of saving a few "favorite son" common names on the behalf of the few that rather than interact with discussion to arrive at a compromise position would rather throw the baby out with the bath water as long as they get their way.Steve Pryor (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, I did not see it announced above. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quail

I've made some minor fixes to the Quail page so it makes a little more sense. I've then re-created the Old World quail page since now it has a little more significance. Let me know what you think...Pvmoutside (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL TO AMEND COMMON NAME USAGE

This topic has come up in the past, but I don't think it was ever resolved. At least, not satisfactorily. There are examples where, as in the case of "Gunnison Grouse", the IOC uses a name for an endemic species that is not in agreement with the regional authority (AOU in this case). The result is that Wikipedia Project Birds looks wildly out of touch and on the road to irrelevance. Why should Wikipedia use an English name for a bird that practically no one in the English-speaking country the bird lives in uses, or has even heard of?

I STRONGLY suggest that Wikipedia Project Birds adopt the following policy: "Wikipedia ProjectBirds follows the IOC common name for a species when its name is in dispute (i.e., two or more regional authorities disagree). When not in dispute, common names follow those used by regional authorities." Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. The question you are asking in the final sentence of the first paragraph is the exact same question that all of the various regional authorities have asked themselves throughout the course of this international initiative. Many of them, especially the AOU seems to feel that this dooms them to some sort of irrelevance, and they seem to be marking their territory. There are many, many birds that have been renamed and for which in their particular regions the existing regional groups have camped objections. The AOU is probably the most defensive in their intention to apparently obviate this initiative.

"AOU Checklist of North American Birds

The NACC invited the IOC North America subcommittee to submit proposals for change. The first proposal submitted April 2007 invited the NACC to align their guidelines for spelling and use of compound names (see 6th edition of the AOU Checklist of North American birds) with those recommended by the IOC. They rejected this proposal (see Auk 124:1472), but will review proposals on a species by species basis. This decision separates the AOU from other leading ornithological institutions and publishers (BOU,WOS,DOS,HBW,DK,ToL project etc.)."

I would suggest that your objection might be better served if broached again once the HM 4° Ed. is published, which hopefully is not too far off. As seems evident from the preceding paragraph the stance of the AOU is reactive, and not proactive. They feel apparently that they should have been the final arbiter that must pass on the final decisions for the entire initiative. They could have been proactive, and presented their case with the IOC on a bird-by-bird basis. Instead, they seem to brook no interference and with little willingness to proactively participate.

In any case, I will drop a line to Frank Gill and simply ask him why this common name has been applied to C. minimus on the IOC list. It should be noted that the IOC list is still a living list and is constantly being revised. There is no reason why reputable representatives of the AOU might not present their objections, and motivate their reasons for believing that specific english common names should be modified.

There is an ever increasing number of groups that in spite of some misgiving recognise the utility of finally having homologation of the english common names. I would imagine that the AOU might feel rather squeamish if it turned out that virtually everybody adopts the IOC indications, with the singular exception of the AOU. Steve Pryor (talk) 16:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely a related issue. Florida Scrub-Jay, for instance, is called Florida Scrub Jay by IOC, yet it's only found in Florida, where the former spelling is used almost exclusively. Is it a scrub-jay that lives in Florida, or a jay that lives in a habitat called Florida scrub? Without a hyphen, it's not apparent. Had I been on the AOU committee, I'd have joined in the rejection of that proposal, as well. I do not understand the justification for eliminating the hyphens in bird names. Hyphens, and the cases of the letters that follow them, convey information and remove ambiguity without taking up any additional room. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of these sorts of questions. I have always viewed the hyphenation itself as being confusing. In other words, it makes one wonder if there is some particular morphotype recognisable by this as inhabiting only scrub habitat! Nobody likes change!Steve Pryor (talk) 16:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... but jays they can not be put in an alphabetical list under "Jay", if some are scrub-jays. Some jays would be under "Jay" and some under "Scrub-jay". Snowman (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. I have lots of books with hyphenated names in the index. A (good) index will list "Jay, Florida Scrub-" Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... so people looking for it under "Scrub-jay" could miss it, not realising that it was under "Jay". Snowman (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, because a good index will list it also as "Scrub-Jay, Florida". You don't give index writers nearly enough credit. They've been dealing with this (i.e., "Lark, Meadow") for decades. This is truly a non-issue. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
... How would a good index writer put scrub-jays under both "Scrub-Jay" and "Jay" on the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a redirect!  :) We already know that the Wiki doesn't make good indexes. Just see all the examples where things are listed as (for example) "Least Grebe" rather than "Grebe, Least"! And how about the people who are looking for "scrub-jay" (since that's what all the books call it) in the list and don't find it? Let's face it: no matter which option we choose, somebody will struggle because of the way the category system (Wiki's "index") currently works. MeegsC | Talk 21:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of a redirect currently used like this or is this a new to WP birds? What template is put on the redirect? see Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Snowman — I was being a bit flippant. There currently is no real indexing function in Wikipedia. The only way to provide multiple "indices" to an article is through redirections (like we currently do with scientific names, for example). Categories work to some extent, but not well for biological entities. For example, look at the category [[Category:Non-native fauna of the British Isles]]. There are some pheasants under C, some under L, some under R. None under P, where one might expect to find them if this were a real index. And even where things are where we might expect (ducks under D, for instance), they're listed as "Ruddy Duck" and "Wood Duck" rather than "Duck, Ruddy" and "Duck, Wood". If, (for the sake of illustration) Florida Scrub Jay also occurred as a non-native species in the UK (!!), then theoretically we could create a redirect called "Florida Scrub-jay" which would also be assigned to this category. Then at least readers would find it under "S" (for Florida Scrub-jay, if it was sorted as "Scrub-jay, Florida") as well as J (for Florida Scrub Jay, if it was sorted as "Jay, Florida Scrub"). And, in reality, this is probably what we'll need to do - at least until the powers-that-be change MediaWiki to better handle true indexing. MeegsC | Talk 22:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that explanation of indices in Wikipedia, MeegsC. My apologies for being pedantic, but Florida Scrub-Jay is the AOU name for the bird. I'm aware of no authority that uses Florida Scrub-jay. Understanding and appreciating the difference is key to understanding why hyphen usage is important in bird names. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Currently no one uses Florida Scrub-jay that I am aware of. However, Birdlife International used to use it. http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?avibaseid=D78D24B97846B620
One of the reasons that a need has been felt for the homologation of english common names is because throughout the years so many regional guide books have been published using common names provided by multiple taxonomical authorites, the authorities that in the time frame in which the books were published were in competition, one with the other. In spite of the valid reasons that many regional groups might have that would tend to not want homologation at all, personally, I will find it much easier if one english common name is adopted universally. The principal reason why I almost categorically refuse to use common names is because there are just too many of them. For this reason, I have almost always used scientific binomina because it cuts across regional differences, including those created by different languages.Steve Pryor (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, I think most people here, myself included, would agree with you on the larger point of reaching consensus on names to communicate more easily. But there's no reason for IOC to invent a name where there is no disagreement! By creating a new name that no one uses for a species that has no alternate names, they're only breeding more confusion--a self-defeating action. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the IOC has little business making up entirely new names in the absence of a need to do so, I second the suggestion that you take it up with them. I got them to change some New Zealand names, and they have shifted a bunch of Pacific and New Guinean names for the same reason. Overall I disagree with your proposal as it makes things even more confusing. Also, there is no need to shout in section headers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sabine's Sunbird, yes, this is actually the thrust of my comment. In the case of the Grouse, I actually think that Michael has a point. However, I personally am happy with the simplification operated by the IOC vis-a-vis the creeping hyphenization that has entered into the common names. Being the total simpleton that I obviously am, well, I like simple things. It would be auspicable in my view that the IOC does indeed consider renaming to Gunnison Sage Grouse (sans hyphen). Your point is well taken in regards of the changes that many regional groups have had to accept. Generally speaking, a certain favoritism towards the usage in the U.S., and the U.K. has been evident, and given that those less fortunate (I am being prosaic here, and intend no value judgment) have already ceded so much, well, I think it unfortunate that some would wish to impose themselves and cede nothing at all.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few observations: 1) Much of this resembles the earlier discussion on WP:BIRD here, specifically the section Amendment 6. My opinion pretty much matches with the comments by Sabine's Sunbird back then (with the caveat that we've moved to IOC instead of HBW now). 2) Florida Scrub-jay (not Scrub-Jay) is also used by HBW; BirdLife International aren't alone. 3) It should be pointed out that the hyphenation rules referred to by Natureguy1980–where hyphenation depends on phylogeny–essentially are "AOU rules" since major authorities elsewhere (Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia) don't follow them, and always have words after hyphen in lower case. If Aphelocoma coerulescens was to turn up on the BOU list and they used a hyphen, it would therefore be Florida Scrub-jay. For people with a greater interest in the AOU hyphenation rules, I would suggest reading the paper that formed much of the basis for them, Parkes 1978. • Rabo³ • 14:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

Could someone move Sylvia minula from Small Whitethroat to its IOC name Desert Whitethroat, please? It needs an administrator. British Birder (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved with administrator assistance. Double redirects will be fixed by a bot in a day or two. Snowman (talk) 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same should be done at Maui_Nui_ʻAlauahio (to Maui_ʻAlauahio). Natureguy1980 (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic authority

It was just brought to my attention that, although IOC is the standard for common names on Wikipedia, it is not the standard for taxonomy! If this is true, what is the standard, and can anyone rationalize it? This sounds much more confusing that the proposal I submitted above. Natureguy1980 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to understand. The taxonomy on the Wiki is based on the best evidence available from a number of sources. In many cases bird taxonomy is in a state of flux as can be expected at the cutting edge of a science. Snowman (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about that very thought today. I was going to avoid a discussion for a bit given my questions on the IOC and diacritics. Since you bring it up, has anyone considered Clements as our standard? I prefer them for a few reasons: It gives us a single source to iron out many controversies, they continually update their taxonomic data (last in Feb 2011), they use other sources outside North/South America to base their decisions (use the British Ornithological Union for Europe, Royal Australian Ornithologists Union, etc), and Ebird uses them who have now loaded bird species worldwide into their database and are getting worldwide participation. Looks like the Brits are using the site pretty frequently. Clements also lists all subspecies. I know there is some reluctance to change taxonomy until Howard & Moore publish their list. I know Steve mentions it is weeks away. Does anyone know how HM will update once they publish their list?....Pvmoutside (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked at Clements in detail - suggest we all take a look and see how we feel. Have been a bit lazy and just used IOC as we are using the common names alot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, a quest for a "standard" is in vain as there really is'nt one, nor is there ever going to be a single unique and undisputed one. There is'nt even a "standard" definition of a "species" (see species problem). A lot of ecological research can do with very conservative treatments and are rarely going to be concerned with gene-flow, while those involved in conservation or population genetics might really go down to the level of metapopulations and look even beyond what the contemporary taxonomic literature deals with. It seems like the main motivation for a standard is to match the article names on Wikipedia to that standard and that itself may need to be questioned carefully. I am probably in the minority that is in favour of dealing with some phylogenetic splits on a single page instead of splitting into separate, stubby articles, especially since the life-history characteristics are nearly identical (perhaps with only call and distributional differences in the vast majority of cases). Shyamal (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, you must be kidding. What you describe is the furthest thing from "easy to understand". It is totally subjective. Anyone who expects everyone to come to the same independent conclusion "based on the best evidence available from a number of sources" is incredibly naïve. If this is such a surefire way to treat taxonomy, then why not do it for common names, too? Surely, if we use IOC for common names we should also use it for taxonomy. Now that is easy to understand. By the same token, if we're going to use Clements, then let's use all of it: taxonomy and common names. It is my opinion that the same authority should be applied to both taxonomy and nomenclature. To do otherwise is incredibly confusing and does not contribute to greater understanding and communication. For instance, what happens when IOC doesn't split something, but everyone else does. There is no IOC name for it, so now what? This problem has a very easy solution. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Snowman said everyone would come to the same conclusion based on the best evidence available.
As I understand it, the reason we don't use some world list such as Clements or the IOC for taxonomy is that some of the most knowledgeable people here feel that all of the lists are out of date and otherwise seriously flawed. We'll see how those people feel about the new Howard and Moore.
Cas, I'll be interested to hear your opinion of Clements. A few years ago, I saw some complaints from Australians about its names for several of their birds. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerry...I'm looking at Clements checklist 6.5 aargh, they have Maned Duck as well...Australian Ibis for Threskiornis molucca (?!), Australian Kite for Elanus axillaris (???) (both of these are too generic and there are other members of the same genus in Oz anyway), the native-hens are still hyphenated, they've omitted Red-collared Lorikeet as name of ssp rubritorquis of Trichoglossus haematodus. Hyphenating the King-Parrots looks very weird to me - something no-one ever does in Oz. will look more later...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Snowman did not say that everyone would come to the same conclusion based on the best evidence available. What he did say was that "The taxonomy on the Wiki is based on the best evidence available from a number of sources" and that this was "easy to understand" (and, I gather, apply). I cannot disagree more strongly. Who decides this? Snowman? Or is there some committee of self-annointed, veteran Wikipedians in a dark, smoke-filled room that makes these decisions? Please excuse my facetiousness, but this is not a suitable way to run things. Jerry said, "all of the lists are out of date and otherwise seriously flawed". Yes, I agree. But there simply must be a standard; otherwise we have anarchy! Avoiding that was the whole point of adopting a common name standard, was it not? If, as I gather, there is no taxonomic authority, then everyone can go around changing pages based on what they think is right. And they won't be wrong. No one will. It's a potential cluster*#$&% that is easily avoided by adopting a taxonomic standard. If someone can explain to my why it's logical to use a standard for common names, but not for taxonomy, when the two are so intricately linked, I'm listening. "Because that's how we do it" is not an answer. Natureguy1980 (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, look, here is how it goes. We used to be HBW for taxonomy and nomenclature. Then we started making taxanomic alterations because both had been fixed in the mid-nineties and were not keeping remotely up with changes (I think it was the albatross genera that started the whole thing). It was then that the two became unhitched. No other standard was picked because none seemed to reflect the fast changing world of bird taxonomy, which seemed an odd way to go on an encyclopedia that was supposed to be up to date. Then much later we decided to switch from HBW to IOC for names no one pushed to latch onto the IOC's taxonomy, although it does have the virtue of being up to date, because the focus at the time was names. That is why we do it that way, it is the way we do it, that doesn't mean we couldn't decide to do it another way if we chose to. Personally I have usually deferred to the opinions of Dysmorodrepanis on matters taxonomic, as I think a lot of people have; I wouldn't be adverse to following the IOC taxonomy either. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing this discussion is really about Bronze-winged_Woodpecker - if so, have added my comment on the talk page. Shyamal (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shayamal. Bronze-winged_Woodpecker was indeed the spark that got me to start this thread, but it is not "about" that. My reason for posing this thread was one of genuine and utter confusion. Natureguy1980 (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know what they say about opinions. They are like a****les, everybody has one, including myself. This notwithstanding, there are several things to be considered on this subject. First, the Clements list. This has ever been a reactive list, not a proactive list, meaning that it has always essentially waited around for other taxonomic authorities to do their peer-reviewing. Even when Clements was still alive, the list would wait for the HBW to publish a volume, and then immediately thereafter we would see a ton of updates (at that time through the Ibis Publications site). Upon Dr. Clements death, the administration of the list passed to the executors of his estate, and because there had been precedent agreement that the Cornell Ornithology Laboratory subsume to the direction of the list an initial tax committee, headed at that time by Jared Diamond, attempted in an extremely rushed manner to continue the tradition by preparing and publishing the ill-fated Clements 6° Ed. The problems immediately presented themselves since the vetting of the taxonomy was extremely lacunar, in many cases fallacious, and in many cases they even forgot the taxonomic changes that had been previously wrought, by them, through the Ibis updates. As a direct consequence of their rush to publish, the list took an enormous hit in its prestige. The tax committee that redacts the list has now assumed another direction with the substitution of Diamond with Tom Schulenberg. In my opinion, though it now seems they are getting their act together, the damage was done, and many that had used it as a taxonomic authority lost faith in the list and switched to the Howard & Moore. They are still laboring to reacquire credibility.
The Howard & Moore. Well, I admit to being preferential for this list because it was always pro-active in its peer-reviewing. Whereas the Clements had always had a regional credibility in North America for its close alignment with the ABA, the HM has always had a global approach. Ed Dickinson, and his collaborators have reviewed to a great extent much of the bird taxonomy worldwide (however, leaving out the New World preferring to integrate collaborators from the NACC, and in particular the SACC). The reviews have been published, and many are still to be found here: http://science.naturalis.nl/research/people/cv/dickinson
The problem with the Howard & Moore has been that the tax group had no provision for the continuative updating of the list other than providing small adjustments for the justificational attributions of the various bird taxa through a series of Corrigenda. There was no provision for the integration of splits, lumps, or specie novum. Hopefully, once the HM 4° Ed. is published, there will be such a functionality addressing this problem, perhaps through a web-site.
At present, ever since the faux pax of the Clements rush to publication of their list, there has been established an editorial board with regional sub-boards by the HM authorities that have been, and even now are proactively peer-reviewing avian phylogeny even at the highest level (sub-board headed by Cracraft). Hopefully, the publication of the new edition will give us a new starting point! It has been obvious for years that there is a dire need for a proactive peer-reviewing global authority, that is not unduly influenced by the siren call of the anarchy represented by PSC thought, and that makes an honest attempt to tie up all of the loose ends of an incredible number of regional taxonomic questions that have come forth especially in the last decade.Steve Pryor (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, thanks for the info on Clements and Howard and Moore....I didn't know any of the past history of Clements or how Howard & Moore bases their decisions. One troubling point is the uncertainty about continual updates moving forward once HM publishes their new edition. Any way to verify? As an aside, any idea of a publish date for the new edition? I think you mentioned in past discussions it was weeks away....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pvm, well, when will they publish? I have been waiting for them to pull the trigger for more than two years by now, and the story has always been shortly, almost there, hold your horses, etc. This is hearsay mostly from e-mails, but there have been problems with acquiring control of the remaining unsold volumes of the third edition (I imagine they want to cut the price and sell as many as possible), and then I heard that they are waiting on Cracraft. He might be a hard nut to crack since he will have to bite his tongue I would imagine. He is a dedicated proponent of PSC thought, and the approach of the HM is basically BSC, or reasonable variants. In any case, I can't imagine that it should be too far off. At a guess, late this year, or early next.Steve Pryor (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, I just found this 2010 study, which looks like the end of threskiornithinae and plataleinae... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, in re Trichoglossus rubritorquis. I am certain that they have seen the Christidis & Boles (2008). Paraphrastically, their position is not that it might not be a good species, but that the entire Trichoglossus haematodus complex is in dire need of revision (i.e., probably other species involved and not just rubritorquis). So, it is a position in abeyance of further developments as it were.Steve Pryor (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know, I was just pointing out they'd left out the name, as Jerry had asked me above about common names on Clements. Damn those pesky lorikeets for living on inaccessible islands...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every single list that exists has some serious problems (name any major list and I'll point to several places where their treatment is in direct conflict with the published evidence). This is where taxonomy differs fundamentally from English names. English names are not about evidence; e.g., "this bird is called a Rainbow Lorikeet because DNA has supported that name". Taxonomy is about evidence. How can I, or anyone with a scientific background, justify following a specific taxonomic treatment just because some list does... when we know that taxonomic treatment doesn't match the published evidence? Natureguy1980, I believe there is a reasonable simple answer to your question on who decides taxonomic treatments on wiki: Evidence does. If you want to split off the Bronze-winged Woodpecker as a species, you should provide the published evidence for the it. This matches the very core of wikipedia: Anyone can edit wikipedia as long as the information is balanced and a reliable reference is provided. • Rabo³ • 12:09, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rabo, in a perfect world I agree with you, however sometimes the evidence isn't strong enough, sometimes it is. Sometimes all the tax web sites agree, sometimes they don't. So in that imperfect world, with taxonomy always changing, how does one verify that changes are worthwhile, accurate and who decides and when? Right now as Natureguy1980 points out, it is pretty arbitrary and has no consistency. Some vandal could come up with a dummy study, or someone could come up with a weak study with little supporting evidence for each of the 10,000 species of birds, change the taxonomy and there would be no way to verify it. Also, I think we all know how difficult it is to cite references whenever we make changes. So are we doomed to leave a species taxon the same until someone cites some study to support the change? If we do that, I think in no time we'll be more out of date than we are now. Using a taxon web site, whether thats the IOC, Clements, Howard and Moore or Birdlife International or someone else makes it a whole lot easier in my opinion..Pvmoutside (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your questions, Pvmoutside:
* "How does one verify that changes are worthwhile and accurate?": By reading the evidence pro/con, i.e. the basis for the possible change. Yes, this does require a level of knowledge about how biology works, but making major changes on wikipedia (regardless of subject) in a field you don't know is questionable in any case. Comparably, you won't see me making major edits to Bongo Flava or Beulah Gundling because my knowledge about these subjects is, shall we say, limited.
* "Some vandal could come up with a dummy study... there would be no way to verify it": Actually very easy to verify. Check if the quoted article/book exists. If yes, check it and compare with the information provided in the article. Perhaps I misunderstood it, but it appears you're suggesting that only sources that are freely available online are good sources?! If someone needs a source and is unable to find it, they can either ask here on the talk page of WP:BIRD or at WP:RX.
* "So are we doomed to leave a species taxon the same until someone cites some study to support the change?": If someone can't provide a source for a claimed taxonomic change, they should not add it to wikipedia. In cases where there is more than one taxonomic treatment (e.g. taxon treated as subspecies by some and species by others), it is by default "challenged or likely to be challenged" → WP:V. • Rabo³ • 14:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: Just because a taxonomic treatment is used by the IOC but not other authorities doesn't automatically invalidate it either; evidence is the key. For example, among major world covering taxonomic lists IOC are the only to have Pygmy Eagle as a species instead of subspecies and I guess that is the reason this edit earlier today. The recent papers (here, here and here) that deal with it all support the split. No recent published evidence for its treatment as a subspecies. • Rabo³ • 22:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rabo, a point well taken. Bird taxonomy is chock full of this sort of thing that we usually speak of as "being in the pipeline". I knew about weiskei only because I bought the Christidis & Boles when it came out. The most that we might want for a published list is that it ties up the clutter as much as possible, and that it gives us a new starting point, and then of course we all expect that other taxonomic problems will present themselves as we go on, and as we have more studied data to consider. BTW, though I am sure you are aware probably others are not. There will be a HBW-17. What exactly will be in it, well, I am not sure. I would expect it will be heavily taxonomic, and I would expect higher avian phylogeny to be a central thematic.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I knew something new was coming (supposedly announced at this weekend's BirdFair actually), but I'm pleased there will be another HBW! I was half imagining they would start at the beginning again in the light of everything new that has been learnt since 1992! At any rate, Another book for me to buy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to formally propose that IOC be the taxonomic basis for us at WikiProject Birds. As you can see here, IOC does keep up with taxonomy, and I don't think we could find a more up-to-date standard anywhere. Could anyone please let me know how to go about formally proposing this? Many thanks. Natureguy1980 (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, just create a new subsection, state the proposal clearly, explain the reasoning, then create further subsections for supporting, opposing, neutral and further discussion (look back at how I proposed to switch to their names). Personally I'm inclined to support, providing we can decide in certain instances to deviate if consensus decides. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I think a policy of using IOC taxonomy as a default, with the provision that it may be abandoned in the presence of a clear majority, is a good one. Natureguy1980 (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my choice. Incidentally, it would be a worthwhile project for us to try and get daughter articles to match to their parent articles. We have quite a few Old World warblers where the parent articles list the species as being in one of the new families but are still listed as Sylviidae on the species page. Making our taxonomy consistent across the project is a worthwhile goal! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of reflections. The IOC taxonomy, and consequently also the common names, is supposedly aiming towards establishing an end point, with the Version 2.10. The implication is that their taxonomy is being reviewed (and there are a number of PSC splits in my estimation that may not hold muster) and destined to being folded into the HM 4° Ed. Further, in my view, there already exist certain problems with the higher avian phylogeny as it is now being presented on the IOC list (e.g., Ploceidae), and I would like to see this phylogeny being represented after due deliberation. I am as anxious as anyone else that a new point of reference is established as far as bird taxonomy. I am presently using myself the IOC taxonomy out of desperation. However, in my opinion, the HM 4° Ed. is certainly destined to assuming the role as the taxonomic standard in the near future. It should provide the new taxonomic starting point that has been lacking in the last eight or nine years. In spite of the mounting degree of impatience that many feel due to the taxonomic black hole that we have been thrashing around in the last few years, and given that the new volume should be published within the year, it seems to me that reconverting the wiki taxonomy to the IOC taxonomy may prove to be in many cases just make-work. I would counsel a bit more patience until a true annotated, peer-reviewed text taxonomic work is published, and then change the wiki taxonomy.Steve Pryor (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the standard used for taxonomy, I strongly advocate that it has to be the same as the authority used for common names. Right now, the we follow IOC for the latter. Would it not be a good idea to follow IOC's taxonomy, as well, until a better resource for both comes out? Then we can simply vote to follow a new standard. I contend that a standard is better than none. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic Authority Proposal

I submit the following for your consideration.: "In order to conform with common name usage, WikiProject Birds will use IOC taxonomy as a default, with the provision that it may be abandoned in the presence of a clear majority." Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With some thoughts in the discussion. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose

  1. Perhaps conflictedly opposed might be nearer the truth. I certainly agree that a taxonomic standard is necessary. I think, however, that adopting the IOC taxonomy is tantamount to making a purse out of a sow's ear. It has never been a taxonomic authority, and such has been the position of the IOC itself that disavows any inclination by third parties to endow a false patina of ufficious authoritativeness in a strict taxonomic sense. I will continue to use multiple taxonomic sources, complaining all the way, and I will wait until the HM 4° Ed. is published. We have all struggled in the taxonomic vacuum for years, a few more months will not change things.Steve Pryor (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I really think that this proposal is inappropriate. I think that there is absolutely no need for the Wiki to have IOC taxonomy "to conform with IOC common name usage". IOC have a list of English names, which is not the same as a taxonomy list. Taxonomy is a science that is evidence based and at present is subject to a lot of change due to scientific advances. I am not exactly sure what criteria IOC have to make a taxonomy list, but as far as I am aware, essentially IOC seem to have have names for anything that might be a species as a catch-all in order to have a name for every possible species including any taxa that might be split into a species. Erudite Wikipedians may wish to refine this over simplification and explain how IOC make their taxonomy list, so that others can make their own opinions based on better information. Snowman (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. The IOC is not the end on taxonomy. It can be one source, it can be a major source, but no, it cannot be the final word. Taxonomy should be based on reliable sources. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I believe that the current policy of following no taxonomic authority is anarchical. Adopting a standard taxonomy makes sense for the same reasons that adopting a common name standard does (which we have: IOC). It will help to alleviate conflict. I have included a provision that allows for deviation from the standard in the case of a clear majority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it makes sense to have a standard, so long as it is merely the default . Our taxonomy is a hopeless mess at the moment, and we'll retain the ability to deviate from it if we want to, but at least we can make the taxonomy we use internally consistent. I know all taxonomy is in a state of flux but I suspect it is going to continue to be so for quite a long time. So we may as well pin our colours to one of the better ones. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presence of a clear majority": If this proposal is adopted, then I expect people will say that they will prefer a particular IOC taxonomy name, because it is according to the IOC taxonomy that WP Birds use. Thus I suspect people would have pre-determined opinions and vote in consensus discussions according to this proposal rather than on available evidence. I think this proposal is a bad idea that does not enhance good science nor good scientific discussion. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a hard one, for all the reasons outlined above. Part of me has been using IOC for species splits and lumps, as they have been updating pretty promptly on recent papers etc. But I have concerns about higher level classification. My feeling is that the project is harmonious enough and of a size where we've been able to sort these issues out on a case by case discussion. The clincher is Steve's note about upcoming which might be a good one to look at....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious problem with an article

I was doing some reading on the article about the Anas genus of waterfowl birds when I clicked on the link to Yellow-billed Pintail and something disgusting and obscene came up. I can not even edit the link/direction article to fix it so someone with better knowledge or access should probably do something. Thanks for any help with this. Epf (talk) 12:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using my computer I can not replicate the problem that you have encountered. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Epf, a well know troll has been hacking into various templates in the taxoboxes; a similar problem happened a lot yesterday. The best place to raise this Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dodo if it happens again. If you got the image check the link I just gave also as you may have picked up some malware. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to change the visibility of this presumed vandalism in the edit history, but can't find where it happened. Maybe malware as SS says Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was on Template:IUCN and has already been revdeled. I think the vandalism changed the entire page into a link to a malware site or something of the sort. Ucucha (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic authors

I'm easing my way back into the project by adding genus authors to all our genus articles that don't have them (all the ones created by Polbot). However I've encountered a problem. The genus Glaucis is listed by Wikispecies as having been described by Heinrich Boie, but four years after he died (on a collecting trip). Is there another site I can double check this on that has the full names of taxonomic authorities for linking purposes? The dude had a brother that might have written up the paper. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a posthumous publication but the date looks ok by Nomenclator Zoologicus "Glaucis Boie 1831, Isis (Oken) 24:545" Actual page here Shyamal (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the starting page it says it is by "F. Boie" Shyamal (talk) 05:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Friedrich Boie according to Zoonomen.Steve Pryor (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. I might use Zoonomen instead; and check all the Boie attributions to make sure the right ones are in. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bird photo and birdcall recording source

An acquaintance of mine is taking freely licensed photos of North American birds and recording their birdcalls and making visualizations of them. Maybe you could help upload those artifacts to Commons and use them in relevant articles? Hope this is helpful! Sumanah (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a coincidence: I also know Jonathon! I've uploaded a small number of his photographs from Flickr. I don't see the visualisations (and by this, do you mean spectrograms?) under Creative Commons licenses though (which would need to be Attribution or Attribution-ShareAlike, like his Flickr photographs, but not Xeno-Canto sounds). What the linked blog post describes (I think) is a tool for generating these spectrograms. —innotata 01:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathon here. Innotata, you know me? do I know you? :) Anyway, you're right that I've not uploaded any spectrograms, the tool is just for making little thumbnail icons for personal use. I'm not sure whether freely-licensed spectrogram images would actually be useful -- would they? In any case, spectrograms can be generated with a variety of tools, though I admit to being unsure about the issues around licensing a file that was software-generated from an audio file... Also, a bit of clarification on xeno-canto sounds: I know the standard x-c license terms are too strict for a lot of uses, so everything I've uploaded there are is also available under a Attribution-ShareAlike license in case that's useful for anything (see here) Jnthnjng (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A sonogram derived from an audio file would be a "derivative work" - a cc-by licensed audio would need the derivative to have the original source author to be attributed and the cc-by-sa would need attribution to the original author as well as require the derivative to be licensed under the same terms as the source(s) used. The license of the tool used in the creation of the derivative would probably have no relevance. Shyamal (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't want to put that much personal information up here now, so I think I'll email you via Wikipedia. Thanks for the note; as all your recordings are under the Attribution-ShareAlike license, they can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and placed inside Wikipedia articles, and I'm sure we could use many of them. I've uploaded File:Picoides pubescens drumming Roberts Bird Sanctuary, Minnesota.ogg and added it to Downy Woodpecker so you can see what this looks like (incredibly, there was only one recording of a Downy Woodpecker). I'd imagine spectrograms would not be useful all that often, but sometimes they would be good to illustrate the differences between bird calls. —innotata 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Licence is CC, but one that is not permitted on Commons. Snowman (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sounds, you mean? Jonathon mentioned that he has also released them under the CC-BY-SA license, and noted this at his page at xeno-canto. —innotata 19:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I did not look at that page, which is somewhat remote from some of the sound files. I think that it would be clearer, if you linked this additional page about CC licence in the file details on Commons. The licence reviewers will be able to check the licence easier. Snowman (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did that, but somehow, the user reviewing the license didn't notice, and tagged the image for deletion. I've posted to that user's talk page. —innotata 22:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Wood Duck/Wood Duck

A small issue, but I thought I'd bring it up for discussion. The IOC english name Maned Duck has been rejected by Move Requests, looks like consensus went the other way to Australian Wood Duck. Should we now change Wood Duck to American Wood Duck to avoid confusion? I feel a disambig page occuring down the road. I'll be happy to leave as is....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We try to use the common name on Wikipedia, and surely American Wood Duck is not at all a common name. Presumably, the consensus was because Australian Wood Duck is in fact commonly used. It seems a really bad idea to move to a name that is not commonly used, and a name not used by our main standard. Wikipedia:Disambiguation says that if there are only two topics, there should only be a disambiguation page if there is no primary topic, and I'd expect Aix sponsa is for the name Wood Duck. —innotata 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion about daggers

There is a discussion going on where people are unhappy with the biological use of the symbol † to denote extinction. Since this has the potential to affect quite a few of our articles it might be worth a look. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name changes - multi-move discussion about bird names

Readers here may be interested in contributing to the naming discussion taking place at Talk:Palawan Peacock-pheasant#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=446894932"