Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SP-KP (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 16 September 2008 (→‎Thayer's Gull images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPBird Navigation

Parrots for identification (4)

Judging from Forshaw, Red-spectacled Amazon A. pretrei (?). I am no good at neotropical parrots :( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are some Aratinga that look like this too. Snowman (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll grab the book again too. You may be right there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it is clear the photographer thinks it is the Scarlet-fronted Parakeet (Aratinga wagleri) - aka Red-fronted Conure in Forshaw, but the illustration has the red a little more extensive than the photo, yet others have much less red, there are a bunch of Aratinga which look similar...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only the upper body is shown in the photograph, so it is not apparent how long these parrots tail feathers are. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look on google images and type in the latin name - someone else has already used the image...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder which came first, and I wonder if they are both from the same source. Should it be deleted from commons? The other image contributed by the same editor has got a copyright for images over 70 years old which for a colour photograph would be unusual. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way this photograph is 70 years old..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The contributor has uploaded two images and I have started IfD discussions on commons on both of them, because I am in doubt about their copyright. Snowman (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Blue-eyed (C. opthalmica) [1] to me, a 'Wallacean' species (though I've even had an escapee in a flock of Sulphur-crested here in Brisbane. Aviceda talk 20:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I am surprised that this is the first one of its species on the wiki. Snowman (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds for identification

The common weaver in JHB used to be Masked (Ploceus velatus) and if that's a red eye then that should confirm it. Aviceda talk 18:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about a male Village Weaver? Snowman (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I lived there 23 years ago and (as far as I can remember) Village Weaver didn't occur there but there probably has been some taxonomic reshuffling since. If Village Weaver = Spot-backed Weaver (P. splilonotus) then they weren't found in JHB and looking at the back of this bird this is not. [2] Aviceda talk 03:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out these refs [3], [4] Aviceda talk 03:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forest Kingfisher. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Uploaded to commons. Snowman (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local names

What's the concensus on local names of birds? I've een doing bits on the Sea Birds Preservation Act 1869. The act lists a few regional names for birds Talk:Sea Birds Preservation Act 1869#Local names. Some current species have multiple names and some old names refer to more than one species. What's the best way to link these birds? Grantus4504 (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is unique you can use a #redirect [[Current Name]], otherwise a disambiguation can be created or if the name is archaic perhaps comments in parenthesis indicating current names may work. Shyamal (talk) 10:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of including local names in English for birds. People may want to look up a bird that they know only by the name in their dialect. If a species has many common names, we can include them at the end of the article. If more than one species has the same name, we can make dab pages, as Shyamal said. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody please identify what species of bird this is? The uploader has proposed it for deletion because he was told it's misnamed, as it's not a merlin, but what is it? Apparently some kind of accipiter, but can anybody name the exact species? It looks like a nice photograph that might well be useful if categorised correctly. Fut.Perf. 07:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Cooper's Hawk? Thin, dark streaks on white breast. Northern Goshawk has buff breast. Sharp-shinned Hawk has coarse borwn streaks. (Sibley) Grantus4504 (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. What would be your recommendation for naming and categorisation if I re-uploaded it to commons, is your identification safe enough to categorise by? Fut.Perf. 10:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this, the less sure I am. I'm now favouring the Sharp-shinned Hawk. Size might play a part. The Sharpie at 10-14 inches is closer in body length to a Merlin than a Cooper's 14-20 inches. Grantus4504 (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image has been transfered to commons at Image:Accipiter on fence.jpg. Is identification in doubt? Snowman (talk) 09:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great shot. I agree that it's a Sharpie. Cooper's would have a darker, oranger head (Sibley, also Hawks in Flight by Sutton, Dunne, and Sibley). And the cross-bars on the underpart streaks are what people mean by "coarse" or "dirty" streaks. The immature Coop has "fine" or "noodle-like" streaks—only lengthwise, so its underparts can look white at a distance. You can see this in Sibley's pictures if you look closely. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The work on this hawk needs to be completed. If this has now been solved, can the description on commons be modified. Snowman (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA mews

Well, Red-necked Grebe finally crept through FA. Thanks to all those who helped retrieve this after its unexpectedly shaky start (two opposes to one support early on). The input from User:Ling.Nut made me realise the problems for those of us without access to university facilities. Five to go, but I've nothing that I can get through this month, and October includes trips to Scilly and Morocco, so no chance then either. Anyone got an FAC ready to roll - Antbird perhaps? jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

real life has interfered with my plan to nominate it last week. I have been rereading it for a bit, it could use a final pick over from a copyedit point of view and then I can nominate it. Any volunteers? Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to have a look, my next FAC is not avian...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone give it a look over? I've finished my last pass over and I think its ready. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging

Wonder if anybody noticed this on the Avibase site.

2008-03-24: .... In the species section of Avibase, I have also just added a link to Wikipedia to obtain more information on individual species (I am only linking to the English version for now). I will also be working to create another link to the Xeno-canto site, which contains sound recordings of thousands of birds, primarily from South and Central America, but more recently also now Africa and soon from Asia. This should be a great addition to this site.

If a small bunch of editors can make such a difference, there is no telling how much better WP would serve as a review of literature and concepts. There was a discussion on the Taxacom list where User:Dyanega made an interesting defence when someone wrote to him that "Wikipedia was a waste of time". I guess his response may be worth passing on to those interested in birds who have stayed away from contributing here. Shyamal (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article doesn't have any images, though I note that there seem to be plenty at Flickr. The only Commons compatible one I can see is this one. Is this the sort of species that is likely to be misidentified? Can anyone confirm that it's the right species? I have noticed a few photos there are inaccurate, so I would prefer to be sure. There doesn't seem to be any information on where it was taken, though I'll ask. Richard001 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Thayer's. The primary melanism is too pale, and the bill is too bright and deep. SP-KP (talk) 11:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader said her husband is a birder, so I assumed the ID would be correct. What do you think it would be then? Should I just put it at the genus level category? Richard001 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a Glaucous-winged Gull. Thayer's Gull would have a paler bill and darker (black rather than dark grey) primary tips. It would also show a narrower white trailing edge to the wing. MeegsC | Talk 17:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's my opinion also. SP-KP (talk) 21:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hornbill

The binomial name of White-crested Hornbill (Tropicranus albocristatus) is different on the Hornbill page about the family. Can someone with an up-to-date book check this please. Snowman (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful here, there is an asian species White-crowned Hornbill (Aceros comatus) and I think the images on the page are this species, not the African one (Tropicranus albocristatus). Aviceda talk 10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've attached a poor image of W-Crested H Image:White-crested Hornbill ug dec05.jpg at Semuliki NP, W. Uganda. Aviceda talk 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colour me impressed. Semiliki is a pretty hardcore National park to visit. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Tockus albocristatus or Tropicranus albocristatus for the African one? According the the French wiki Tropicranus albocristatus has three subspecies, so they may have different appearances, and your image may not be typical of the other two subspecies. Snowman (talk) 12:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hornbills for identification:

I have found a listing here of birds in some zoos. Central Park Zoo have one male Berenicornis albocristatus albocristatus, and there are some Berenicornis comatus in Asian bird parks. This appears to confirm 5) 6) and 7) are correctly identified. Snowman (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The binomial names used for these species are confusing and not consistent across the wiki and commons. I am not sure what is the most up-to-date classification or nomenclature. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this has been expanded a chunk by a new user. I tried to find more material online to add as it was only 142 words two days ago. If it can get to 700 words, it can be a DYK with a nice image to boot. Anyone have any seabird books, galapagos books or access to the fultext of the Laridae taxonomy article to embellish it with? Be a shame not to get a DYK out of it (which is virtually assured if qualifies. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a bit of a clean up first, tighten the prose and also remove duplication of info on the nocturnal lifestyle. I will endeavour to dig some more info up. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to be just about 700 words now. First Light (talk) 05:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
fantastic. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i've being trying to find more info on tapetum lucidum in this bird. What I've found is contradictory. Several susgestion that owls and nightjars (goatsuckers?) have reflective layers. But a 2004 paper "Comparative morphology of the tapetum lucidum (among selected species)" says "Some species (primates, squirrels, birds, red kangaroo and pig) do not have this structure". Grantus4504 (talk) 08:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, but I have made a DYK nom on T:TDYK :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is contradictory? Some animals have them and some do not. Humans do not have them. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The TP article implies that no species of birds have a tapetum lucidum. Grantus4504 (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may be from this ref on the TP page, but I can not access the full article. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the article, I can't access it either. And no results for a search on tapetum lucidum in Ibis Grantus4504 (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] says the birds examined, which included owls, don't have a TP jimfbleak (talk) 10:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1886 is a bit out of date, since the Swallow-tailed Gull article is 1967. Here's a 1974 article about TP in Goatsuckers [5] Grantus4504 (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found reference for TP in birds, added to that page. Grantus4504 (talk) 06:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be more than one kind of tapetum lucidum - this one is on the iris-

Tapetum lucidum iridis. This structure reported in the iris of columbiform birds consists of reflective cells iridocyti which are visible in histological sections under transmitted or polarized light. Chiasson and Ferris (1968) described two types of cells in the Inca Dove (Scardafella inca): cells with large reflecting platelets scattered in the superficial layer of the iris and deeper cells with smaller platelets forming a more discrete iridocyte body Corpus iridocytorum.

— p 597 Howard E Evans and Graham R Martin in Handbook of Avian Anatomy: Nomina anatomica avium 2e (ed. Julian J. Baumel. 1993, Nuttall Ornithological Club)
  • Chiasson, R. B. and Ferris, W. R. 1968. The iris and associated structures of the Inca Dove (Scardafella inca). Amer. Zool. 8: 818. HTH Shyamal (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adolphe-Simon Neboux is currently the only redlink (two occurrences) on the page. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an article on French Wikipedia. See what I can do. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following comment is on the talk page: "This article refers to a taxon that doesn't have its type locality listed. If you can, please provide it." What does this mean? Snowman (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of a species which does have its type locality listed, see Rufous Flycatcher-thrush - look at the bottom of the taxobox. SP-KP (talk) 22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that one is a bad example because it links to a dab page. From the rather over complex page on "type locality", I think it means the place where it was first found. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. I'll see if I can fix the link to the dab page. SP-KP (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a protocol to follow when finding an incorrect image on an article? Just removed a pic of a wrongly-named Painted Buttonquail from the Stubble Quail article....have informed the photos owner. Aviceda talk 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator, not owner, right?
I've done just what you did. I'd also add a comment to the description page on Commons.
The photo really should be renamed before taking the next two steps, but somewhat contrary to what I just wrote, I wouldn't try to get it renamed without the creator's permission. If he agrees with you on the ID and requests a move, then once it's done, you can add the new version to Painted Buttonquail and the species article on Commons (or create a species article if there isn't one, if you like). Or maybe the photographer would be willing to do those things. (I did when people corrected my IDs of pictures from Kenya.) On the other hand, the photographer may leave it to you to request the move; there's a procedure for that at Commons.
If the photographer doesn't respond, I've done the above steps with the incorrectly named image.
If the photographer won't agree with you on the ID, you'll probably have to come back here to get more opinions. As I've never seen either an Old World quail or a buttonquail and have no sources on Aussie birds, I won't be helping much.
Let's see whether anyone disagrees with what I said. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jerry, it would be a courtesy to approach the creator as a first step. jimfbleak (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jim and Jerry, have left a message on the photographers talk page, no response yet. Aviceda talk 07:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be best to ask the photographer, but it looks like the photographer is an occasional editor, and so his response might take some time. If the consensus is 100% (I do not know much about these sort of birds) and the photographer does not respond within a week, I think that it would be best to go ahead with the move keeping the photographer up-to-date with a message on their talk page. This involves downloading the biggest resolution original image to your own computer and then re-uploading it with the proper name and description and the original credits. There must be a link on the new file to the original image. The bad name image can then be marked for deletion and an administrator will scrutinize the changes, and, if appropriate, the administrator will delete the bad name file. There are probably other ways to get a bad name file moved. Snowman (talk) 10:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibis 1870

Can someone help with access to "Obituary Robert Cecil Beavan. Ibis 1870:301-302". This would help settle some confusion on the species authority for Centropus andamanensis. (more on User_talk:Shyamal#Beavan_again). Shyamal (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary is very brief, I think that most of the point are covered in the Beavan article. Beavan published seven articles in Ibis. (This might be an advert so remove if you like: Membership of BOU is £35/year and you get access to all 150 years of Ibis online.) Grantus4504 (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dr Alan Peterson communicated to me by email that Beavan's fish book of 1877 (posthumous but not indicated in the book) is attributed to a Reginald C. Beavan who it turns out was the brother of Robert Cecil Beavan. The AMNH probably expanded the initial "R" based on zoonomen.net that Dr Peterson curates (the book itself is available on www.archive.org and there is no mention of Lt. Reginald but it only indicates Capt. R C. Beavan). Thanks to all this research, Centropus andamanensis should be attributed to Robert Cecil Beavan (more correctly perhaps as "Tytler in Beavan, 1867" - but not confident of the full implications of the many ICZN sub clauses !) In any case I think this is also a case for editors to indicate their real names on their pages just so that any credits in formal publications are made appropriately. Many thanks to Grantus and Smallweed all the same. Shyamal (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kestrel

An anonymous user has changed the caption for the infobox image on the Kestrel page. Can someone good on hawks check the accuracy of the change please. Snowman (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it back. The greyish head indicates this is a male; a female would have a brownish head. MeegsC | Talk 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have clarified the description of the image on commons based on your opinion. Snowman (talk) 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White-cheeked Pintail Duck

Image:Galapagos white-cheeked pintail duck -pair on land -Santa Cruz highlands.jpg. The White-cheeked Pintail duck on the left with red at the base of its beak is an adult. Is the one on the right a juvenile or a female? Snowman (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a youngster, but I don't know how definitively. Females should show some amount of pink at the base of the bill (duller than that on a male's bill). None of my reference books here (HBW1, Wildfowl by Madge and Burns, etc.) say anything about females having all dark bills, but all say youngsters are "generally duller than females"... MeegsC | Talk 13:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered from various websites that the female has some red on the beak and juveniles do not, so I thought that the duck on the right was a juvenile too. The bad name file will be deleted after a day or two, and I have renamed the image, now at Image:Anas bahamensis -Santa Cruz highlands.jpg. More opinions are welcome, especially regarding the amount of red on the beaks in the adults and juveniles. Snowman (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts about the image [Marbled Frogmouth edited.jpg] on this page, the only reference that I can find to Redwood in Queensland is Redwood Park near Toowoomba where this species has never been recorded. I've left a message on the image discussion page and the uploaders page. Aviceda talk 21:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bird identification request

At the memoriam to deceased Wikipedian Jeffpw, there is a request to identify the birds in this photo. Please identify the birds in the photo and post the results here. Thanks. -- Suntag 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The one on top is a Brahminy Kite, is the left one a Lammergeier?? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bird on the left looks like a young White-bellied Sea-eagle; it's definitely not a Lammergeier. I agree with Casliber that the others are Brahminy Kites. MeegsC | Talk 17:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with MeegsC, WBSE and Brahminy Kites. Aviceda talk 19:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asian parakeet

There are some more parrots for identification in the section at the top of this page (may be archived soon). One image of a parrot on commons I would like sorted out is 43 on the list above. Image:Derbyan Parakeet-2-2c.jpg (an enhanced version of Image:Derbyan Parakeet.jpg), because I doubt the identity shown. Snowman (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in shade of breast and head suggests Psittacula alexandri. This is however smaller than Derby's Parakeet. Shyamal (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I suspected; it is an adult male Red-breasted Parakeet (Psittacula alexandri). I think that the photographs do not give an impression of the size of the parrots. The image is now at Image:Psittacula alexandri -Jerusalem Biblical Zoo-4.jpg on commons, and the bad name file will be deleted after a few days. Snowman (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzards

Surly there are some better images for the Common Buzzard and the Honey Buzzard pages somewhere? Snowman (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of nice pictures of Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo) on Commons; just click the link at the bottom of the article. Honey Buzzard doesn't have as many options, though at least some are photos rather than paintings. Less common most places, so probably fewer good pictures overall. MeegsC | Talk 10:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is reassuring. I added the note here for the people who are interested in hawks. Snowman (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bird video on Commons

I have created an important new Commons category for birds: commons:Category:Bird videos. There seems to be some good stuff on YouTube too, I'm going to try getting some people to release their work under a Commons friendly license. Richard001 (talk) 09:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An occasional one on flickr too, but they are in the wrong format there. Have you got any suggestions on how to change the format. What size should the videos be on the page? Snowman (talk) 09:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to convert mpgs, wmvs etc to ogg on Windows but I use the Kino_(software) program in Ubuntu (Linux) and I think the command-line program Ffmpeg2theora is quite useful, I think you can see from this weekend's reverted edits that the clip thumbs shouldn't be displayed below 300px. Aviceda talk 09:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the reason for the 300px size for videos, because they generally appear on the page as a rather blurred static image, which generally makes the artwork on the page worse. A viewer could easily click on a small video image to view the video at a higher resolution, as is possible with static images. I suggest that they are made much smaller. They can be put in a gallery, and a viewer could still view them at a higher resolution simply by clicking on the image. They do not have to be shown at the 300px size to be meaningful, because they can be viewed at a resolution even larger than 300px by simply clicking on the image. Snowman (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, though do you feel the newer-clips are more aesthetic? ie White-eared_Monarch. I would like to re-create better-quality thumbs for those old analogue-clips though (will probably make that my next endeavour, now my PC is working properly again). Aviceda talk 02:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like seeing the videos when they get going, and they are amazing with sound. The newer clips are also best viewed (at a larger size) by starting them by double clicking over the image. What is the best way to present them? Does the caption need to indicate that they can be viewed by double clicking over the image? This is a video on flikr of an Orange-winged Amazon parrot talking in flv format. Can you edit and change the format of this one? If edited correctly, only the second half is with the picture the right way up, it might be fine on the "flagship" parrot page. Snowman (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know what the problem might be Aviceda, but I don't hear the sound when I run the White-eared Monarch video. I haven't had problems with other videos you've uploaded... MeegsC | Talk 17:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Bird

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Lee, Henry (1886) On the Tapetum Lucidum, Med Chir Trans. 69: 239–245. Free full text in Pubmed Central