Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:41, 8 August 2013

Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Birds for identification (146)

• Bird 1460. File:Petroica phoenicea.jpg | I think this is a juvenile Scarlet Robin now, but all of my literature is far away. JJ Harrison (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why a juv? Isn't this an adult male a bit the worse for wear? But I'm not sure how you separate the Scarlet Robin (like this one) which also occur in Tasmania. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Could be a roughed up male Scarlet. The question is, is it a scarlet or not? I think so at this point. JJ Harrison (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

After examining the Field Guide to the Birds of Australia and several other online pictures I believe it is a Flame Robin. I base this on the fact that the white wing bar does not reach the leading edge of the wing. In Scarlet Robins it appears that the bar goes all the way to the edge. There seems to be very few other differences between these two species. Dger (talk) 02:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Scarlet to me. HANZAB suggests combination of black (rather than grey) upperparts, head, neck and throat are diagnostic of adult male. Maias (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. Flame Robins do not have black throats. This is a Scarlet Robin. And it's not a juv. Natureguy1980 (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bird 1461. File:Pachycephala pectoralis -Wollery, Denmark, Western Australia, Australia -female-8.jpg. To confirm identification. There are several other whistlers. Snowman (talk) 16:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

A couple of brown feathers in the wing suggest retained juvenile feathers, making it an immature rather than adult female.Maias (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Australian Golden Whistler moved to File:Pachycephala pectoralis -Wollery, Denmark, Western Australia, Australia -juvenile-8.jpg on Commons and description enhanced. Is it a juvenile female? Snowman (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I suspect you can't tell the difference at that age. Maias (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bird 1462. File:Ficedula hypoleuca -Finland -female-8.jpg | Female European Pied Flycatcher to confirm identification.

Female Fidecula aren't easy, especially when you can't see the wing properly. Nothing to suggest otherwise, and given the location it's virtually certain that it's what it's claimed to be. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Bird 1463. What are these guys? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Red-crested Turacos? Maias (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, seems correct. The one on the right doesn't seem to have much of a crest, juvenile? Female? FunkMonk (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bird 1464. File:Aprosmictus erythropterus -Honolulu Zoo, Hawaii, USA-8a.jpg | Red-winged Parrot. Is it a juvenile? Snowman (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Patchy red on shoulder and relatively bright bill indicate immature (older than juvenile) male. Maias (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that the black in the wing feathers may also indicate a transitional stage of immature plumage. Image description on Commons enhanced. Snowman (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bird 1465. File:Vermivora cyanoptera -North Berwick, Maine, USA-8.jpg | Blue-winged Warbler to confirm identification, because other birds look similar. Snowman (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. Looks like a perfect match for an adult male. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 14:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Selected for the infobox image on en Wiki species page (without implying corroboration). Snowman (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bird 1466. File:Unidentified bird -Kruger National Park, South Africa-8.jpg | Coucal for identification. Snowman (talk) 17:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about the region and this is entirely based on Internet research - based on lists for the region and some images it seems like it would be - http://ibc.lynxeds.com/photo/white-browed-coucal-centropus-superciliosus/rare-sight-open-shy-bird Centropus superciliosus burchelli Shyamal (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat confused with various systems of classification, which have split the species and others which have lumped. Also, en-Wiki has lumped and Commons has split. My Illustrated Guide to the Birds of South Africa has split the species. It does not have the White-browed Coucal mapped in the Kruger National Park, but it does have Burchell's Coucal (Centropus superciliosus burchelli also called Centropus burchelli) in the park. Any comments on classification before I rename the file? Snowman (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Bird 1467. File:Zoo 8.jpg | Bird of prey for identification. Image found on Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo appears on lots of other Wikis' articles on Circaetus gallicus. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks darker than in other images of that species on Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hawaiian bird puzzle resolved?

Thanks to the work of Storrs L. Olson a Hawaiian bird puzzle seems to be resolved. Geochen rhuax is now redescribed as Branta rhuax and the following previously unidentified bird bones are now assigned to Geochen rhuax:

Synonyms of Branta rhuax

1. Geochen rhuax Wetmore, 1943:146.—Olson & James, 1991.—Livezey, 1996:417.
2. ‘‘very large Hawaii goose’’ Olson & James, 1991.—James, 1995:98.
3. ‘‘prehistorically extinct flightless goose’’ Giffin, 1993:1.
4. ‘‘large, flightless goose’’ Sorenson et al., 1999:2192.
5. ‘‘giant Hawaii goose’’ Paxinos et al., 2002:1399.
6. ‘‘flightless giant Hawaii goose Branta sp.’’ Iwaniuk et al., 2004.
7. ‘‘Branta n. sp.’’ Giffin, 2009

Reference: Olson, Storrs L. (2013). "Hawaii's first fossil bird: history, geological age, and taxonomic status of the extinct goose Geochen rhuax Wetmore (Aves: Anatidae).". Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (Washington: Biological Society of Washington) 126 (2): 161–168. Retrieved 13 July 2013.

If anyone is interested in this paper I can send you a PDF (Drop me a Wikimail with your email address) --Melly42 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Does the paper give an estimated age for the subfossil material? Maias (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

from the abstract

Although the age of the fossil was previously undetermined, recent radiocarbon dates establish that the age of the lava flow immediately overlying the bones was 9170 ± 100 yrs b.p.

. That means that this species might have became extinct in the early Holocene --Melly42 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Maias (talk) 00:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• By the way, only proper binomials can be listed as synonyms, not terms like "Very Large Hawai'i Goose". FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I believe that 'synonym' in the sense used in Misplaced Pages taxoboxes covers such terms that have been used in scientific literature as convenient referents prior to formal description and publication. However, if there is a consensus by project editors not to treat them so in bird taxoboxes, they can be removed. Maias (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it only refers to taxonomic junior synonyms and outdated binomial combinations, otherwise we would have alternate common names there as well, which we don't. FunkMonk (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that what I am referring to are known as 'manuscript names', i.e. names referring to putatative taxa which are mentioned in a paper (with enough detail to avoid ambiguity) prior to formal description, maybe acting as placeholders. I have no problem with removing them if that is we want. Maias (talk) 12:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomic manuscript names would be nomina nuda, and still be in the form of binomials. Such are acceptable, but per definition, the taxobox, should not include common names under synonyms, that's what the name field is for. FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Manuscript names are neither nomina nuda nor common names; they are labels used for convenience to identify particular specimens or fossil material until they are formally described. Maias (talk) 11:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

In any case, they are not "formal". FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation of bird names again

In case no one noticed: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Emperor_Penguin#Requested_move FunkMonk (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• We really need to be able to link directly to that guideline (why does the main page not have Table of contents?) and have a more in depth explanation, otherwise it is hard to show every time it is brought up. Had the same problem here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Dodo#Capitalization It may seem as common sense for bird enthusiasts, but not to everyone else, therefore we should have a more "outsider-friendly" section to deal with the issue. That's better than having these lengthy discussions every other month on random talk pages. FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the link should be included on the WikiProject birds tag template Template:WikiProject_Birds. Shyamal (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Could be a good additional step. It certainly needs to be more visible. FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anyone object to removing _NOTOC_ from the main page? Without it, we can finally link directly to policies. FunkMonk (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• No objection from me, and I've cast my vote on the requested move Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to remove it, nothing happens when I remove the text... FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where you're linking but what about using template:shortcut? Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The following title: "Bird names and article titles" But in any cas,e could be nice with a table of contents. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever prevents the toc from showing up needs to be removed in a hurry, anyone know how to do it? This will have to go to a much higher place to be determined, this is not the place for it. And also, if nothing is done, that article will be moved to lower-case very soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Not clear about how the TOC helps. If what is needed is a direct link to the section, it seems that would be possible with Template:Anchor. Have added one to the relevant section so that you can now link to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Birds#Naming - I have gone ahead and added an entry to the navigation box on the right as well. Shyamal (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It helps in the sense than anyone will be able to directivity link to policy sections from the main page. It is nice you provide a direct link here now, but this thread will be archived, and most people won't see it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Feedback on Crested Lark

I'd appreciate any feedback other editors may be able to give me on the article Crested Lark. It's the first bird article I've put a lot of work into and I'd just like to know whether or not I'm on the right lines. I know the article is far from finished but I've exhausted the material in the books I have, and I've been unable to find many reliable sources online. I will be expanding the Taxonomy and systematics section, though. The main points I wanted to ask about were:

• Lead section - could it be improved? I don't think it adequately summarises the article, but I also wasn't sure of what exactly to include.
• The subspecies section - is such a long list useful to the article? Would a collapsible list, possibly in the taxobox, be more appropriate?
• References - are the books I've used appropriate sources, given their age? Is there any material I haven't referenced that could be contested?
• Layout - would it be better having several smaller sections (as it is now) or combining some of the similar sections. I used the list from the project's main page as a guide to the sections, but most contain only three to four sentences.

Any other feedback in addition to this would also be much appreciated. I plan on working on a number of articles and getting some feedback now will keep me from making the same mistakes next time.

This is the last edit before I started making changes, for reference: 558017157 Thank you in advance --teb00007 23:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

• It depends what you are aiming for. I don't think as it stands that it would meet GA standards. Have a look at the GAs and FAs in the Showcase section of the project page if you are aiming for either of these assessments eventually, if not then the comments below are less relevant. As a general article it's OK apart from the lead.
• The lead is a bit short, and you have material in it which isn't summarising what is in the text. The dimensions only appear in the lead, not in description where they should be. Distinguishing it from other species also only occurs in the lead.
• In terms of headings, what you have is fine. I normally put just "Feeding", and I often have a "Predators and parasites" section, but the latter certainly isn't essential, and the former is your call.
• Subspecies list is probably OK as is, but you could probably get away with just saying there are 37 ssp and only mentioning those of particular interest. Or you could put the full list in a footnote (I'm not so sure that the taxobox would be good, it would make it very long.
• For GA, you would probably need to expand the sections a bit and give more detail. The crest alone isn't sufficient distinction (Thekla Lark at least also has a crest).
• Oiseaux.net may not be acceptable as an RS source at GA, but those facts are easily supported elsewhere. OK anyway if not going for GA
• Use Google Books and Google Scholar to see if you can find addition material (journals often only give the abstract, but that may be enough). If you search "crested lark taxonomy" on scholar, there is a useful free-to-download full text pdf as top return
• Don't be afraid to ask here for help with sources. I've got the concise Birds of the Western Palaearctic and JSTOR access, the British Birds archive is on-line (and I have all of them anyway). Others here have wider journal access than me. I've just noticed you're a student, so you probably have such access.

I would be inclined to try to bring at least one article to at GA. Then you know what you should be aiming for, doesn't mean that every article has to be of that standard. I hope this helps Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at your "planned articles" list, I have some decent sources for some of these, such as Turner's Swallows & Martins and Birds Britannia for the "in culture" stuff for British birds. If you do Sand Martin, may be worth looking at the other two British hirundine articles, since they are both FAs and may give some ideas. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is no need for the introduction to have in-line references, because the introduction is a summary of the rest of the article, where the information is referenced. Also, without references the introduction is easier to write. Everything in the introduction should be found in the rest of the article (referenced in the article, but not the introduction). Snowman (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I wasn't going for GA or FA status, although I would like to try for GA with some of the other articles I plan on contributing to (where I have more information available). My University has an aquaculture department and the library has an abundance of books on aquatic birds but there's not a lot else available on birds so if you can help me with references that would be great. I have ordered four more recently published bird books but they are coming from the United States so it'll be a few weeks before I receive them. I'll have a look through Google books for more sources - I did use it for one reference but didn't include a link because the WP policy I read said to instead include the ISBN, which provides a link to both free and commercial sources of the book (Google being a commercial service I didn't want to link to there). I'll rewrite the lead section just now and work on the rest of the article later. I'm sure I can remove Oiseaux.net as there's already another reference for the material. --teb00007 11:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right with linking. Unless there is free full text, just ISBN for books and doi/jstor/pmed if available for journals. No links to abstracts or Google books. Do you want the BWP stuff on crested lark? If so let me know and make sure you have email enabled (might be a couple of days) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be great, thanks. --teb00007 12:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking into this, the Maghreb Lark seems to be a supported split by the IOC....so some rejigging of subspecies is needed.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any references to support this? I was unable to find any useful information myself, but I will look into it in more depth later, and there were no references on the Maghreb Lark page or to support the relevant additions to Crested Lark. --teb00007 23:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the IOC page on larks, they cite Guillaumet 2005, 2006 and 2008 - this is the 2008 paper. Also, see here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

If the authority for the Maghreb Lark is Henry Baker Tristram, then it can be wikilinked in the infbox. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. As far as I can see, the IOC is the only source which lists the Maghreb Lark as a distinct species. It is listed as a subspecies of the Crested Lark here (XLS document) and at the 2008 paper you cited they repeatedly refer to Galerida randonii, rather than the names G. randoni or G. macrorhyncha given by IOC (who say G. macrorhyncha is the proper name) and don't ever say whether it is a subspecies or a species in its own right. I'm new to this, but is there a source that is accepted as definitive by ornithologists that might be able to shed light on this? The source I gave says the Crested Lark's subspecies are divided into two groups, Crested Larks and Maghreb Larks with there being two subspecies of Maghreb Lark, Galerida cristata randoni and Galerida cristata macrorhyncha. I'm just confused. --teb00007 13:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The Maghreb Lark is not listed by IUCN as a separate species. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

IUCN is tertary and there is a delay. Clements suffers from lack of regular updates. We agreed some time ago to follow IOC as a definitive/consensus source and the basis for the split looks sound. The two subspecies randonii and macrorhyncha are recognised as belonging to the MAghreb Lark - it was initially called randonii and then the other subspecific name was found to take precedence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

My recollection is that WP Birds follows IOC for bird names and that WP Birds does not follow IOC taxonomy. WP Birds uses best evidence for taxonomy. Snowman (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The evidence looks pretty good to me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the evidence, especially the DNA research, sounded quite good going on the new Wiki article on the Maghreb Lark. To reduce confusion to new editors, I mainly wanted to make it clear that WP Birds does not automatically follow IOC taxonomy, but it does follow IOC bird names (for widely accepted species). Snowman (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes - as an aside I am glad there we have some pointers to consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Larks

Some shakeups expected in the lark tree http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790313002418 Shyamal (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I can not read the illustrations of phylogenetic trees in the abstract, because they are too small. Does Template:Navbox Lark need any immediate changes? Snowman (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Need to add a new genus Alaudala and move some out of the old Calandrella - a summary is on http://jboyd.net/Taxo/Alaudidae.pdf Shyamal (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I see. It is probably best not to role it out until the navbox has been updated. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Maps

A wide variety of colours are used in our bird maps, but the most common (at least in FAs) appear to be    Breeding summer visitor,    Resident year-round,   Winter visitor. These are reasonably close to the HBW standard. Is it worth adding the colour boxes or code to the project page's guidance on maps, or is that over-prescriptive? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It could be a recommendation but hard to enforce. I've added a lot of maps that I've found on commons used in non-English WPs. I've used Freezerware dropper to get the hex colour values from the maps and added colour keys. I think it's better to have a non-conforment map than none. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's relatively easy to change the colours used on the maps to standard colours. Providing the existing maps are shared under a license that allows derivatives, there shouldn't be any problems. I'd be happy to do this, but wouldn't be able to until September. I would suggest changing the colour of resident all year round to    and for winter visitors to    as the darker colours will be easier to distinguish. Certain visual impairments may cause the yellow and lighter shade of green to look the same. --teb00007 17:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The darker, more subdued colours are certainly easier on the eyes and I have been using a green similar to that one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not wedded to the colours I suggested, just that they seem to be the most common. Going back to the original query, do we want to add colour boxes modified as per Teb's suggestion to the project page? If it's that easy to change map colours, that would be good (it's tricky for me with my limited software and skills)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimfbleak (talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly be in favour of that. Anything that makes the encyclopedia more consistent is surely a good thing, and this would improve the consistency of the bird articles at least. As for the existing maps, you'll notice I said "relatively" easy. It mainly depends on the file type. SVG files are much easier to edit that JPEGs or PNGs. Although some SVGs are overly complex and require more work. All my graphics software is on my other laptop, which I left at uni over the summer, but I could start work on this as soon as I go back, providing everyone else wants me to. And if anyone else can help, the more the merrier :) --teb00007 08:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I realize that the main question related to the colours, but if an actual standard is suggested for this project, the summer/winter terminology deserves a comment. It's fine when dealing with species that stay in one hemisphere. Otherwise, the problem with the suggested terminology is that it is strongly US/Canada/Euro-centric; one may argue that it is an example of a systemic bias. "Our" summer is often "their" winter. Anything that breeds in the Northern Hemisphere and spends the non-breeding season in the Southern, or vice versa, will usually be in both places during the summer. The Arctic Tern is just one of the numerous species that breeds in the N.Hem. summer, and spends (for the most part) the non-breeding season in the S.Hem. summer. Christmas in New Zealand in the summer, or was it winter? I also note that HBW does not use the winter/summer terminology on their maps (HBW vol. 1, subsection "Maps", page 29, quote "these colours should not be interpreted as summer and winter distributions"), instead explaining that they relate strictly to breeding/non-breeding. 62.107.194.166 (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been having a look at some of the distribution maps currently on Misplaced Pages, and I think we could do with another colour for introduced range. I'd also agree with the above comment and suggest we use the following standard colours/descriptions:

•    Breeding visitor
•    Non-breeding visitor
•    Resident
•    Introduced range

If that's acceptable to everyone, I'll get started changing the colours of the existing maps. If anyone has any requests for maps to be updated, just let me know here or on my talk page. --teb00007 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with a colour for introduced range...just that that red is a little ....bright...sure you wouldn't be happier with a burnt sienna, tan or more muted colour? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the red is much too bright. The red could dominate the map. Snowman (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Quality

I was reading WP:NOTDONE, which I recommend everyone does if they haven't already as the author makes some very good points about editing Misplaced Pages. After reading it, I noticed that 72.4% of bird-related articles are stub class and 22.3% are start class meaning just 5.2% of the articles are class C or better. The featured bird articles are excellent (I haven't read all 115, but I'm assuming they're consistently good) but it seems to me like if we aimed for C class instead of FA status there'd be a lot more useful articles, which in turn would be a lot more helpful to the readers of Misplaced Pages. I'd like to propose we try to get just 5% (583)or even 10% (1166) of the stub class articles to class C. It would vastly improve Misplaced Pages. --teb00007 08:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I quite agree and it probably also helps to prioritize within major geographies (of potential users) and focus on the most often encountered/charismatic birds. I guess there are regions in which the coverage is deficient in general - South America, SE Asia and Central Africa perhaps. Would be good to get a geographical breakup of bird article quality and article size/image statistics. Shyamal (talk) 09:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Different people work differently here. Some prefer to concentrate on an article and get it up to a high standard and others do a little editing to a lot of pages. The WP project has recently done quite a lot of work on consistency with IOC names and also adding navboxes and this applies to 1000s of pages. I would have thought that updating taxonomy on out-of-date pages would be a priority, but this is difficult and often requires specialist knowledge and knowing the latest literature. I think that the relatively few editors here chip away at over 10,000 bird species pages making useful additions and amendments on the pages or tasks that they are interested in as well as reverting vandalism. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC) 10:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd imagine specific editors are more interested in some bird groups than others, so these may only improve articles within a narrow field. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The work that those editors do is, clearly, valuable. Obviously all editors are different. I like to work on a clearly defined project, while others like to make useful contributions wherever they can. I think editors like me, who want a clear goal to work towards, would find a project like this useful. --teb00007 11:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If you can identify a particular task that you are interested in, then you might be able to start a collaboration or at least get some useful opinions from people that edit bird pages. Sometimes other editors might disagree with what you are trying to do, so I would say that it is best to discuss a big editing project or a big task here first to get a consensus about the amendments and things are likely to move along better with less opposition. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Early on on wikipedia I warmed to the idea of Good/Featured Articles as they act as stable versions that one can refer back to in case of vandalism or article erosion. I also had an idea that once a bird becomes a Featured Article it can serve as a template for others and we can improve whole series of birds - there are 'runs' of similar species with Featured Articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets perhaps just take this one article at a time instead of just saying "Hey, edit anything below a C-Class!" Maybe we should split this into groups, one group does one article and the other group does the other. Then when that group is finished the article they take on the next article. This way many people are working on one article at once but we get two articles completed. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of the GA/FA articles are for species, only a handful are for taxa above genus level. If we follow this suggestion, perhaps we should ensure before anything else that all families and orders have a C class article. That would also give us a manageable target of a couple of hundred articles, some of which will be OK anyway. Where do non-bird taxon articles (ornithologists, bits of bird anatomy, nature reserves, parasites etc.) fit into this?

Sigh - enthusiasm really makes up a big part of this. I do what I do for fun. Collaborations are good for the trickier articles, so maybe we should revisit them more often....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

(Comment) I've been looking for ways to get back into editing bird articles (having not been around for a few years), and if someone wanted to organize a specific collaboration I'd be up for it. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Many of the start-class articles are more like C-class (C-class was not introduced too long ago and many articles were rated beforehand). Just scanning family articles, Calcariidae, Cisticolidae and Bushshrike are sitters for a 5x expand and DYK. Right now, Tinamou is our current collaboration and anyone is free to nominate one to slot in after the preceding one gets GA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

NB: Am expanding Calcariidae for DYK - quite an interesting little group. Anyone is free to chip in Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

chipping in. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 21:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool - that one is 5x expanded. Its taxonomic status is so recent there's not a huge amount out there that talks about the group as it is so new...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been expanded, but I think the article contains inconsistencies, over-inclusive generalistions, ambiguities, and errors that would currently exclude it from being a DKY on the main page. Snowman (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we have had trouble finding a catchy hook. I don't think I agree with your view of the article. Can you point out exactly which sentences in the article you think are problematic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that you ask that, because I have commented on some issues that I have with the article in the DYK nomination discussion, which is transcluded to the article's talk page. Snowman (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Right - who's up for a 5x expand of Bushshrike then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I found a book with some info but probably won't get to it for a few hours. Dinner time here.Corvus coronoides _talk 22:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a flick through my books, see if there's anything I can add. --teb00007 00:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't got anything on Bushshrikes as most of my books are on either British or European birds (or both). I will be editing Lark, though, if anyone would like to help. --teb00007 23:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There are some other pages which are stubby stubs - many genera which have lots of photos, so Charmosyna and Hanging parrot. The latter is good as the sleeping upside down is an interesting hook. Snowman if you want to expand that one then we can do that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is raining today, but it is summer here and I have lots of out-of-door tasks to do before winter weather, so I would be reluctant to take on Wiki editing commitments until we have cold weather and dark nights here. Nevertheless, it sounds fun making some DKYs for parrots. Snowman (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe another category to look at is high-importance stubs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• Coccyzidae is 99 words....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

AOU changes

The AOU has recently published taxonomy changes. I have not yet found the documents directly from them, but here is something from the ABA. The changes do affect some South American species........ Pvmoutside (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like all of the changes deal w/ the Americas, except for some sandpipers in monotypic genera that are being merged into Calidris.......Ruff, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Surfbird, Spoon-billed Sandpiper, and Broad-billed Sandpiper are all moving to Calidris per the AOU, also Barolo Shearwater has been officially recognized.....Any thoughts before I move the species pages?......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ruff, Spoon-billed Sandpiper, and Barolo Shearwater are not primarily NAm birds. At least for these, I'd be inclined to wait and see whether European taxonomists follow these changes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jim...Looks like Barolo Shearwater has already been changed, but I'll leave the sandpiper species pages alone until the IOU decides to update them.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Woodlark

I've nominated the Woodlark article as a GA. If anyone has the time to review the article, I'd really appreciate it. --teb00007 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Classification headache - separate Cracticidae and Artamidae vs combined Artamidae

Right, I am writing about some of these families and have come across a snag. Australia's definitive checklist regards these two families as a single family on page 35. Whereas the IOC regards them as separate. This page (though not official) provides a good overview, and summarises the papers to research. I have been writing about the clade Malaconotoidea.

The issue is that if the families are separate, then there is a headache as to what family to list the Mottled Whistler and boatbills under as they appear to lie within the expanded family but it is unclear to which branch they are more closely related to. If we have a single Artamidae it is easier to list them - what do others think? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I am inclined to go with an expanded Artamidae, with the boatbills in their own subfamily Machaerirhynchinae. The evidence seems to suggest that the Mottled Whistler should have its own subfamily (Rhagologinae?), but since we cannot decide that ourselves it can stay in the boatbill subfamily for the time being. Maias (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging dubious parrot

We have an article about the Réunion Parrot (Necropsittacus? borbonicus) which is considered extremely dubious, and nothing but a paragraph has ever been published about it in the relevant works. Would anyone object if I merged it into the Rodrigues Parrot (Necropsittacus rodericanus), since Necropsittacus is the genus it was originally allied with? It should never be anything but a stub anyway, but the article is currently rather long and messy, and it seems the writer was carried away with original interpretations (just like Rothschild, who the article critisises!), as much of the content is not even stated explicitly in the sources used, but seems inferred from them. No one accepts it as valid, and nothing new will ever be learned about it. If done, I'll of course add all known info about the entity into the Rodrigues Parrot article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubois, who wrote about the Reunion Parrot, was a good observer. He described the Reunion Ibis and it was centuries later when bones of an Ibis was found on the Island. Who knows now what parrot he was describing? I think that merging these two "taxa" is making too many assumptions. Many hypothetical species have their own pages. I think the Réunion Parrot should have its own page. Snowman (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is more Rothschild's interpretations than Dubois' original observation. It has been suggested he saw some kind of freed captive parrot, and this would of course undermine the Necropsittacus identification. In any case, the Réunion Parrot article is problematical due to the way it is written, and much of the fluff should be cut out. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we have here a similar problem as with the Reunion Parakeet/Mauritius Parakeet. At the current status I would keep the two articles, unless there is evidence that the Reunion Parrot and the Rodrigues Parrot are the same taxon. --Melly42 (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking whether an article that short could be a GA. There's no lower size limit, as long as the sources are comprehensively covered, so I guess it could, when cleaned up. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

It could not be a GA. If it is part of an Misplaced Pages:Featured topics then it can be included as an audited article of limited subject matter or inherent instability. Snowman (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)