/archive 1 discussion prior to Nov. 2004
/archive 2 discussion prior to Feb 2007

Page layout & formatting

Bulbul

Someone has moved Bulbul to Bulbul (bird) because apparently there was singer by the same name from Azerbaijan. Given that almost every usage of Bulbul on Wikipedia is going to be for the bird, anyone want to move it back? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I perfer as it is now. Right now Bulbul is a dab page, and we should not remove it. Luffy487 07:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages work when there are several well known meanings for a word. When there is one well known usage and one obscure one, the well known use occupies the main namespace and links are provided to other uses (example albatross or fulmar).Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy, systematics & specific taxa

Struthioniformes

I find the present setup (ratites = Strithioniformes) fairly untenable; it is not supported by current molecular and morphological phylogenies. Altogether, the page should be split, but there is need to collect many references first. These can be collected e.g. in my sandbox, either under "General" or "Ratites". Dysmorodrepanis 13:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streak-headed Mannikin

I have created a stub for Streak-headed Mannikin Lonchura tristissima, lumping White-spotted Mannikin L. t. leucosticta in with it because of info in Coates (see ref). If anyone has better or more recent info that suggests the latter needs needs full species treatment, please let me know. Thanks. Maias 05:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New pictures

Two new pictures that might inspire someone to write an article: Commons:Image:Syrigma sibilatrix.jpg and Commons:Image:Scarlet-headed Blackbird.jpg. I'm mentioning this at the request of the photographer, Ken Erickson. Anyone have a South American book? —JerryFriedman 19:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can do the heron one as I have the HBW that covers them. Give me a day or two. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who would have thought? The page on this species from Ridgely and Tudor is one of the few pages of that book visible at Google Book search. So Scarlet-headed Blackbird is started. —JerryFriedman 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird taxonomy in the news

Yikes. I assume you've seen the bit about news species of birds in North America based on barcoding. Here's the pdf oof the paper in Molecular Ecology Notes [1] I wonder where the appropriate place to stick this is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pdf! I don't know what to make of this really. Low sample sizes (n=1; this is sometimes OK in paleontology, but only if there is no alternative), no specimen data (subspecies/provenance - where do all those Canada Geese come from? Captives? Is the parentage known?), failure to incorporate 2 years of methodological criticism, discussion, and improvement (see also Cladistics 20: 47–55 and doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2006.12.005); I think I see a major debate about this one in the journals. By mid-2007, it might be possible to estimate this study's merits. As if Astraptes fulgerator, Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Gobius lagocephalus and the wrongly-calibrated molecular clocks we've been using in ornithology for nearly 10 years weren't enough.

This is all frustrating and a bit annoying. I wonder what the Cladistics and MPE crowd will make of this.

People will have read about it in the news and want to put it up on Wikipedia - and admitted, it would be better than no reference at all - but I'd advise against it. I've been following the barcoding debate for the last 15 months or so very closely and my impression is that this here paper is a prime candidate for being ripped to pieces. Whoever wants to do some mol-taxo referencing better check out Google Scholar and choose from the work of Jon Fjeldså. These are generally tried-and-true. Or maybe Michael Wink's papers - there is one rotten egg among them, but we already have it on WP (together with the rebuttal. Of course). Dysmorodrepanis 09:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a article on genetic barcoding at all, so perhaps we should at least have that, outside the auspices of this project. Then if people want we can have a line that mentions this study in the appropriate articles if people want it without altering our taxonomy in a big way. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, we do. So, yeah, I agree that for the momement we need to keep this out of the taxonomy until at least some other scientists have commented. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another cracid ID request

See my comments under Image:Piping guan.jpg. I shall whip up a quick stub for Aburria, because the cracids are all messed up regarding redirects etc. Dysmorodrepanis 17:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other bird-related pages

New Members

How do I join WikiProjectBirds? Teak the Kiwi 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing formal - add your username to the Participants section on the main project page, have a read through and you're in! Richard Barlow 11:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kakapo FAR

Kakapo has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project Userbox

A modest proposal:

This user is a member of
WikiProject Birds

{{User:Aerobird/WP Birds Userbox}}

- Aerobird 21:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gladly thunbs-up. Dysmorodrepanis 06:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed icon width so that it fits with the other ToL userboxes. Rv if you disagree. Also, everyone - would it be OK if this were listed on Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects#Animals? Dysmorodrepanis 16:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I' ll list it now. Hey jude, don't let me down 21:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviculture WikiProject proposal

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Aviculture. The purpose of this project is to help increase the amount and quality of content related to aviculture on wikipedia, and to maintain and organise articles relating to the subject, eventually bringing as many as possible up to good- or featured-article status. I feel that is sufficiently different to WikiProject Birds (aspects of ornithology and biology) to need a separate project. Snowman 17:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this. It could also be argued that WP Birds could be split three ways into ornithology, birding and aviculture. Maias 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for shared names?

I'm working on a page for the Rock Wren of New Zealand, which has exactly the same name as the Rock Wren of North America (even on the HBW website). I'm wary of using the name suggested on the New Zealand wren article (New Zealand Rock Wren) as I've never seen that name anywhere else. So, do we go for the clunky New Zealand Rock Wren or do we have Rock Wren (New Zealand)? (p.s. yes, I might finally be back) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use "South Island Wren". It's the name used in the Clements and Sibley & Monroe checklists and also used in the Birdlife species factsheet Tigershrike 13:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would work... Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HANZAB gives Fiordland Rock Wren as an alternative. Maias 03:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went with South Island Wren and created redirects for the other names (as well as changing any links into Rock Wren that were refering to this species). A bit annoying for Kiwi birders though, since they all seem to refer to this species as the Rock Wren. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi! I am a new member of WikiProject Birds. Recently i am trying to categorize African estrildidae according to countries which they are native in. However, it was proposed to merge all of the subcategories into Category:Birds of Africa. I was wondering if any of the experts here have any idea to organize the category/ subcategories? See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Category:Birds of Africa, for discussion. Luffy487 04:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies taxobox example?

I was wondering if there is any subspecies taxobox example available? See Green-backed Twinspot, Solitary Tinamou and Star Finch, for examples. Luffy487 06:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luffy. There is a subspecies taxobox at Bonin Nankeen Night Heron‎. Is this what you are looking for? Maias 11:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. I was away for quite sometime. Well I am looking for taxobox which can provide more than one example of subspecies. Thanks by the way. Luffy487 08:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeopteryx

Hi all,

Recently, the WikiProject Dinosaurs team has been working to improve Archaeopteryx. Since this article is partially under the purview of the Bird folks, I thought I'd stop by and drop an invite to you all to come help improve or refine the article in any way you can. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okarito Brown Kiwi

Do you think this article (Okarito Brown Kiwi) should be moved to Rowi, seeing as many sites refer to it that way? Teak the Kiwi 03:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teak - if you want to be consistent with other current articles on NZ birds in Wikipedia you should stick with Okarito Brown, with a redirect from Rowi of course. Maias 04:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Corvid-Obscessed Member

Hi. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I just joined this WikiProject. I am obviously corvid-obscessed, and one of my long term goals on Wikipedia is to bring some of the corvid articles to featured article status. However, since I figure that'll take a long time, I think I'd better start small. What can I do to help out with this project?Corvus coronoides 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mostly people do what they feel like, but you know, Mariana Crow is a redlink (meaning we don't have an article yet. Click the link to start the page). Why not start with it? There's info on the species here[2], [3], and a search on Google scholar might turn up some journal articles. Use an existing article like Jungle Crow to help you format and start...Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Corvus coronoides 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and it would be helpful if someone could find a range map and photo of the bird as well. Australian Raven 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one. I'll leave some comments on the talk page.Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Crow-man! I'm looking forward to being in the field soon til April, but if you do Banggai Crow, I'll have some of the more recent references lying around and would be honored to add them! Dysmorodrepanis 22:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome, and the Banggai suggestion. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble getting enough information on them to write a full article. Can you recommend any good sources, specifically for things such as behaviour, pictures without breaking copyrights, and a range map without breaking copyrights? Australian Raven 14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration Page?

Well, since this is a WikiProject, I thought a collaboration page would be useful in expanding pages and bringing articles to featured status. Any thoughts? Australian Raven 00:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be useful, and would be glad to help in any collaboration efforts. Hey jude, don't let me down 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested before (by me I think!) but we all tend to do our own thing round here. Like herding cats it is! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bird person, but I can tell you the WikiProject Dinosaurs team have found our project collaboration page very useful. Most of our Featured Articles would never have reached that status without these group collaborations. I think a collaboration page could be very useful for WikiProject Birds, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's give it a go. I went and did something rash (I mean bold!) and created the page...Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Collaboration. Lets try nominating something! Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. I've nominated an article myself, to help the ball get rolling. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the criteria in the procedure of nominating an article is: Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection. To my knowledge, there are different types of protection which you may be referring to. I would like to know which one are you guys referring to. See: Wikipedia:Protection policy. Well, I would like to nominate an article, but it is under Semi-protection. Luffy487 05:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text was all copied from Dinosaur's collaboration page (with most references to dinosaurs changed to bird). The whole thing is negotiable really I think. I think it would be preferable to exclude pages that have any kind of protection so that anyone can participate, but I guess it would mostly be registered types doing it. (It may be that the clause is specific to the Dinosaur wikiproject - I recall one unregistered user that was a major contributor to dinosaur articles back when I started). Which article did you want to nominate? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The protection clause may have been added to the dinosaur collaboration page because the impetus behind many (or most) collaborations is preparing the article for Featured Article submission. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1(e). states that the material must not be the subject of edit wars or disputes. Admins often protect an article to prevent edit wars from continuing; semi-protection will only keep out IP edits. As Sabine says, I'm sure it's negotiable, since the page was only created a few hours ago. You would just want to make sure any page you submitted for Featured status wasn't protected due to edit wars or instability.

As an aside, there was indeed at one time a very prolific IP editor on WikiProject Dinosaurs; there is a different one now, but s/he only posts to the talk pages. Now the only IP edits we get are vandals, Christian POV pushers, and those folks adding interwiki links. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article I would like to nominate is Bald Eagle. Bald Eagle was on the brink of extinction in the US late in the 20th century but now it has a stable population. So I would like to nominate this article and bring it as one of the featured articles. By doing so, the article may bring attention to the world that so long as we human put in effort in conserving the animals, and stop the activities that would destroy their habitats, they may still have a chance to survive. It is such a pity to see that many different species have gone extinct. And our next generation would never have a chance to see them. Luffy487 08:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, a species with such a limited range as Bald Eagle is less suitable for a collaboration than cosmopolitan birds such as the Osprey or Peregrine Falcon. Also sources for northern hemisphere species are much more readily available. What about southern hemisphere species? I have some good resources, but I'm not likely to write/improve articles for birds I've not seen without some prompting. jimfbleak 09:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osprey and Peregrine Falcon are good aussie birds....but seriously, there are no rules. It can be hit and miss with collabs, dino collabs went well for a while and then went very quiet for a few months, before some great work recently. I coordinate Fungi colabs and it has been an uphill battle to generate sustained interest. Given it is a volunteer project, interest is paramount. Blad Eagle may be a great choice and it does have some very interesting environmental issues...I put all the current bird FAs down the bottom so poeple could get an idea. They may be good as a template. Kakapo was an early FA which recently had a prety decnt overhaul and I reckon looks pretty good now.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 09:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question here... since it seems we have several articles nominated for collaboration, and coding for voting, when/how would we agree on a collaboration and start? By the way, thanks for starting it!Australian Raven 21:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing is to look at the current articles listed as GA which seem to vary widely in quality. I think Dodo or Bird are the best bets there. Australian Ringneck needs alot of work, Ivory-billed Woodpecker I can foresee some controversy and edit wars but then again maybe not...The Atlas of Australian Birds doesn't really grab me but then again...cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Need to announce a deadline to select a bird. I'd give it 7 dayscheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bird is actually a trainwreck that probably needs months of work. I think there are enough noms for now. 7 days seems fine to choose what they want to work on.Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait wait wait... how do I vote? Where do I add the code? Or do I just change the title? Australian Raven 00:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but my impression is that voting is the same thing as adding your support, just signing your name with a number and four tildes, which you've done already. It's fine to vote for more than one article, as well. Hey jude, don't let me down 16:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White-browed Sparrow-weaver

I have created a page for the White-browed Sparrow-weaver. Please edit - it has most of the info it needs, but there are a few minor details missing. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! :) Luffy487 07:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Images

This user on Flickr has some stunning free to use images of Asian birds. I've added a few to the Commons and then linked some articles to here, quite a few are for species we don't have articles on yet. Enjoy, but be warned, not every one of them has a free licence, so check carefully (to check look in the bottom right hand corner.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories by country are being systematically deleted right now -- is this the way to go?

There is a heated discussion at Category_talk:Biota_by_country regarding the matter to recategorize the species. Please feel free to voice out your opinion. :) Luffy487 08:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Project members' category

I've added a category, Members of WikiProject Birds, to the user box, so anyone using it on their user page is automatically added to the category. Andy Mabbett 12:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for collaborations is 23rd of March!

Currently Raven is ahead by a whisker (or is that a bill?) if you hate crows go vote! Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! J'adore les corbeaux. I love ravens, and all members of their families! That includes crows :) Australian Raven 21:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Articles

There is a long list of requested articles for birds, and the article request page for this project is a red link. Should I create a page for it? -- Hey jude, don't let me down 00:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if there are lots of requested articles. I didn't relaize there were any. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... so its every bird in Australia and Brazil that doesn't have an article. No pressure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

standardising headings and subheadings

Hi all, there has been quite a bit of variety over what headings and subheadings are used in various biology article over wikipedia and I have tried streamlining those often while dividing up large chunks of text.

How do people feel about (on a bird species page):

(lead)

Description

(I have removed "Physical" from some sections called Physical Description as it is redundant.) (this includes call at the end of the section)

Distribution and habitat

(conservation can be included as a subsection here)

Behaviour

Diet

Breeding

(or nesting? or reproduction?)

Taxonomy and Classification can be separate section or under description somewhere

cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 02:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, I agree with you on the desirability of standardising the format of species (and other levels of taxa). I have fiddled with the layout of Australian Painted Snipe along the lines you suggest, but more could be done. With little-known species the headings may seem a bit clunky with not a lot of descriptive text, but it would improve the articles with more material. With something like 10,000 species of bird in the world, and each maybe eventually having a separate article, it should make it a lot easier to move from one to another and to make quick comparisons. Maias 04:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally opposed to this. In articles without a great deal of content it doesn't make any sense in my mind to have numerous subheadings. Sooty albatross to my mind looks fine without it. In articles with enough content the exact layout of the sections depends greatly on what's available info-wise. Some articles might have a lot of info on breeding but none on taxonomy. If two particular sections are small then merge them, if a usually small section has agreat deal of info (like one species is famous for something unusual) give it its own subheading. Most subheadings are pretty logical and many times are the same as what you suggest, and most people already use an unoffical layout (I try and use the same, or similar, layouts on the family pages, for example), but I can see no need to formally standardise them. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Categories

"Endemic" birds categories

Proposal to delete "Fauna of [country]" categories

Help needed

Changing of Category:Fauna of country to Category:Birds of country