Jump to content

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
Line 346: Line 346:
::::Thanks for the heads up, everyone. Agreed, Megan, for species covered by a standardizing authority. [[User:Natureguy1980|Natureguy1980]] ([[User talk:Natureguy1980|talk]]) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::::Thanks for the heads up, everyone. Agreed, Megan, for species covered by a standardizing authority. [[User:Natureguy1980|Natureguy1980]] ([[User talk:Natureguy1980|talk]]) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::Dger, you can see the arguments at [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Organism_capitalization_synch|that discussion]], but be warned that the tone isn't always moderate. Briefly, people feel Wikipedia should follow the style of encyclopedias and other general-interest publications rather than that of ornithological journals and field guides and other specialized publications. I don't think that's unreasonable, but I've given my reasons for disagreeing with it. —[[User:JerryFriedman|JerryFriedman]] [[User talk:JerryFriedman|(Talk)]] 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::Dger, you can see the arguments at [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Organism_capitalization_synch|that discussion]], but be warned that the tone isn't always moderate. Briefly, people feel Wikipedia should follow the style of encyclopedias and other general-interest publications rather than that of ornithological journals and field guides and other specialized publications. I don't think that's unreasonable, but I've given my reasons for disagreeing with it. —[[User:JerryFriedman|JerryFriedman]] [[User talk:JerryFriedman|(Talk)]] 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
::: Reading that discussion, I think it is ''awesome'' that people (well, mostly 1) with few, if any, edits to bird articles want to dictate how bird names are written. OK, perhaps "awesome" wasn't the right word. If, theoretically, all WP:BIRD editors moved to a BirdWiki as suggested by Kim, at least this wiki would still have the [[User:First Light/Fauna vandalism#Diet Of Frogs And Rodents|Diet Of Frogs And Rodents]] editor. Cheers, • [[User_talk:Rabo3|<span style="color:darkblue">''Rabo³''</span>]] • 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


==Infobox poultry breed==
==Infobox poultry breed==

Revision as of 20:32, 9 January 2012

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

Birds for identification (135)

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

Birds for identification (136)

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

In Need Of Revision

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

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

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

Peregrine Falcon

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

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

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

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

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

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

Birds for identification (137)

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

Locked pages II

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

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

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

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

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

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

Intermediate solution

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

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

big grey bird of prey in virginia?

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

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

Common Blackbird

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

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

Megascops roraimae

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

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

NARA on-wiki ExtravaSCANza participation

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

Leptoptilos robustus

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

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

Cityparrots.org - good external link?

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

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

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

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

List of chicken breeds spam

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

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

Locked Pages III

These are all cosmetic:

Okay - will work on these for you now... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done. No worries. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of species names

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

Thanks, Erik, for notifying the project of this discussion. It would have been nice to have heard about it from the editor who was canvassing for opinions! Though, of course, since s/he strongly disagrees with this project's use of title case, perhaps it's not a surprise that we weren't notified... MeegsC | Talk 19:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I strongly disagree with it, too. But in fairness, the initiator did post in a *lot* of neutral places and doesn't even seem to be targeting the birds exception specially anyway. But conversation drifted to it, as it always does, so I thought I'd let y'all know... ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Though perhaps this discussion does not have the explicit intention of targeting the behavior of the Wiki Bird Project editors it is obvious that the recurrent citing of this project as being outliers respect to the collectivity of thought of more generalist editors is problematic. The problem in a nutshell is that there are many more generalist editors that believe that style conformity must be uniformly imposed lest the wiki appear "amateurish". Most bird project editors with a background in ornithology would take the position that the abandonment of established bird naming conventions, for a question of style conformity, would be "amateurish" within the limited scope that is ornithology. I would suggest that the more generalist editors make the decision that they have intended making without attempting to enlist the complicity of the bird project editors. At least there would be clarity. Very few editors with an expertise in ornithology would find it easy to capitulate on a point of principle, that of scientific rigor, and placing a bene placit on what would be considered the diffusion of information that is not state-of-the-art ornithologically speaking. It is not the case that we do not understand the position of the generalist editors, we do, but there is a conflict of interest that appears to have no middle ground. For many it is a question of personal and professional ethics. Nonetheless, once forced style conformity becomes instituted, those editors that are more intimately involved with the Wiki Bird Project will have the opportunity to decide whether or not they wish to continue voluntarily participating in the Bird Project. Many will leave, some will stay, but at least the issue will have resolution, and indeed, perhaps the wiki which appears to desire only superficial and rather generic notions would be better off going forward with style compliant specific project editors though they may lack any particular expertise. With the explosion and development of serious web-available ornithological resources of recent years that the wiki be considered a serious ornithological referent might not be in the cards, nor even necessary. I daresay that most, if not all of the bird project editors have invested their time with the idea of making the bird project as state-of-the-art as humanly possible. It is unfortunate that for reasons extraneous to the project some of us will be forced to make a decision.Steve Pryor (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting so sick of the style bullies that I sometimes wonder if we would not be better of to start a BirdWiki based on the model already in place here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The cross-fertilisation of input is extremely helpful to article quality. We also get a slow but steady stream of editors becoming interested in bird articles from general wiki editing....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a lot more readers will come to wikipedia than to a new wiki. Incidentally, there is or was a bird wiki, which I haven't looked at for years. It seemed to be focused on birding and had a lot of impressive ID information. Unfortunately, I don't remember the name. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I don't see the value of sentence-case (i.e., non-capitalization). Many animals' common names involve one or more adjectives and that makes it problematic for novices to know where the adjectives stop and the name starts. I work with the butterflies and dragonflies articles where most articles use upper case for common names. Upper-case has also been adopted for amphibians and reptiles in North America (see SCIENTIFIC AND STANDARD ENGLISH NAMES OF AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES OF NORTH AMERICA NORTH OF MEXICO, WITH COMMENTS REGARDING CONFIDENCE IN OUR UNDERSTANDING) by The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and The Herpetologists’ League. Yet Wikipedia, so far, has not followed their lead. Dger (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it makes sense to consistently use capitals for all species names? Or to you, is the ideal to capitalize some groups and not others? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me personally, I would like to see title case applied consistently across all species names! MeegsC | Talk 18:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, everyone. Agreed, Megan, for species covered by a standardizing authority. Natureguy1980 (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dger, you can see the arguments at that discussion, but be warned that the tone isn't always moderate. Briefly, people feel Wikipedia should follow the style of encyclopedias and other general-interest publications rather than that of ornithological journals and field guides and other specialized publications. I don't think that's unreasonable, but I've given my reasons for disagreeing with it. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reading that discussion, I think it is awesome that people (well, mostly 1) with few, if any, edits to bird articles want to dictate how bird names are written. OK, perhaps "awesome" wasn't the right word. If, theoretically, all WP:BIRD editors moved to a BirdWiki as suggested by Kim, at least this wiki would still have the Diet Of Frogs And Rodents editor. Cheers, • Rabo³ • 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox poultry breed

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

Immature Pomarine Jaeger?

File:Stercorarius pomarinus immature - SE Tasmania.jpg

Just wanted a second opinion to confirm the ID of this picture. I'm guessing its an immature light morph of a Pomarine Jaeger. JJ Harrison (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Name Capitalization Justification

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

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

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

Just for the sake of correctness, it probably shouldn't say "proper noun", because they aren't proper nouns (or proper names, which is what you probably meant). The thing about differentiating common starlings vs. "Common Starlings" is ok, I guess, and fine to mention, but it isn't a justification per se. If you are interested in justifications, I'd focus on the IOC thing—possibly even add references to the ornithological journals' style guides that call for capitalization, also?—these are the strongest justifications, I think. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A tip for sanity checking any justification: make sure your justification doesn't also support capitalizing starling all the time. Why is Common Starling a proper noun but not starling? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:26, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that bird names aren't proper names (and I said so in a letter to Birding a number of years back), but I think the "common starling" thing is a good justification, as is the standard of the IOC and other sources. Anyway, we agree that both can go on the project page. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 19:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Josep del Hoyo, Andrew Elliott & Jordi Sargatal, ed. (1998). Handbook of the Birds of the World, Volume 1: Ostrich to Ducks. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions. p. 25.
  2. ^ Potter, EF (1984). "On capitalization of vernacular names of species" (PDF). Auk. 101: 895–896.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds&oldid=470495204"