Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 21

Glaucous Macaw (Anodorhynchus glaucus) and the Red-bellied Macaw are the only macaw species that do not have images on the wiki (excluding hypothetical species). Perhaps there is an illustration of the Glaucous Macaw somewhere in a very old book with a expired copyright so that it could be uploaded to the wiki. Also, the wiki would benefit form more images of the Spix's Macaw, because there is only one. Does anyone have any illustrations for commons and the wiki? Snowman (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Parrot with red beak for identification. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Regent Parrot, male, possibly young. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that it can not be uploaded, because it has the wrong sort of license. Snowman (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

A new user, Gast999, has been removing aviculture sections - I guess it may be good to get consensus on how these are written bearing in mind ethical and legal situations...this is probably an area we need to nut something out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How too's in relationship to aviculture are all too common and to be avoided at the best of times, but perhaps we need a scorched earth policy when the species is question is endangered or it is illegal to hold them. There should be plenty of info on endangered species as published by zoos and conservation organisations (which try an diseminate info to aid captive breeding) but we lack the manpower and inclination to improve these sections at present, so I have no issues with nuking the sections that grossly violate WP:NOT. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I ran into Gast999's removal of the aviculture section at Keel-billed Toucan, and for now, have removed it, since it seems that a statment such as "It is illegal to take toucans or any other protected wild bird species from their nest." should be cited. If there is a citation, I'm sure it would be a welcome addition to the article. Considering the aviculture sections of the articles does seem like a good idea, because granted, none of the information in the aviculture section at Keel-billed Toucan has a source either. It does seem pretty though, not encouraging keeping them as pets or anything of the like, which is why I replaced the information that was there, for now. I agree that actively sourcing those sections is a good idea, because they can be contentious. -- Natalya 01:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware anyone kept them as pets at all. I should imagine (and I will look this up) that it is a minor fringe of the aviculture community that does (They are mostly concerned with parrots and finches/bright songbirds, although I have heard of turacos and rails being kept!), so WP:WEIGHT should be considered too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC) EDIT - Although a quick search turned this up.. [1] who are breeders and resellers in California. Interestingly they had prices for the parrots (not cheap) but the toucans were "call for prices" (which is the same as "if you have to ask you can't afford!)> Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(Not that it's important, but many Galloanserae are popular in aviculture.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I largely agree, but some of the info he removed cannot be removed based on any wiki policy I'm aware of. Some may fall for WP:NOTGUIDE, but info on hemochromatosis and breeding plans in zoos certainly don't. For now I've reverted Gast999 in Toco Toucan, although I may remove a line or two (due to WP:Notguide) from the section he removed entirely. • Rabo³ • 01:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also add that, while I never would consider keeping any bird in captivity, and I do agree with the statement by Sabine's Sunbird that we "perhaps... need a scorched earth policy when the species is question is endangered or it is illegal to hold them", the species Gast999 dealt with are common and easily fall within IUCN's Least Concern category. • Rabo³ • 01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For Keel-billed Toucan, I've done a whole-article clean up, and under the aviculture section, I've dumped the How-to and tagged hemochromatosis for a source. jimfbleak (talk) 08:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also dumped how-to from Toco Toucan, but kept hemochromatosis and the zoo, hope this isn't treading on Rabo's toes, please revert if unhappy (totally unrelated, but I read recently that "tread" is a little-used word in the US - can't this be true?) jimfbleak (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(It's true. Most Americans, including me, never use "tread" except for the surface of a tire [note etymologically correct spelling] and possibly in references to flags with rattlesnakes.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - of course not. I actually considered merging most of it down to the sentence I re-added to Choco Toucan: In aviculture, their requirement of spacious cages, a high fruit diet and sensitivity to hemochromatosis (iron storage disease) make them difficult to maintain for novice keepers. Only slight modification I'm making to Toco Toucan & Keel-billed Toucan is the sentence on hemochromatosis being due to their high fruit diet. It's a bit more complex - sensitivity to hemochromatosis is something you see in many Neotropical frugivores (not only toucans and not restricted to birds) contra many frugivores from e.g. Africa and Asia. This is essentially due to the low level of iron in most fruits native to the Neotropics versus many fruits native to e.g. Asia and Africa. In other words, frugivores can be sensitive to hemochromatosis, but that is far from always the case, and if so, it is basically due to the specific fruits naturally found in the native range of the frugivore. Peculiarly, this strong geograhical difference is not found in folivores. • Rabo³ • 10:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Iron overload is also explained on some hornbill pages. Goffin's Cockatoo did have a reasonable aviculture section until an over enthusiastic member of WP:birds deleted it all. As far as I remember, it explained about the legal status (in the UK) of keeping this endangered species, and described the parrots personality. In the UK it not illegal to keep some endangered birds, but there are a lot of regulations and certification, mostly to make sure that they have not been taken from the wild. I think that the wiki is poorer without this aviculture section on this popular parrot, and others that have been deleted. Of course, it would be ideal if the aviculture data is sourced, and there are quite a lot of books on aviculture to use as references. I think that some aspects of aviculture are common knowledge to bird breeders and keepers. I have deleted "how to" sections that do not appear to be in line with wiki guidelines. Snowman (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

While only indirectly related to the actual intend of this discussion, I'd add that hemochromatosis in hornbills is up for debate with AZA's Coraciiformes advisory group looking into it [2]. That said, there are Old World groups where this condition has been confirmed beyond doubts (notably mynahs, birds-of-paradise and, if memory from college days serves me well, some parrots). • Rabo³ • 17:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

See "Trumpeter Hornbill", but there is no ref there. Snowman (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the approach above. Our aviculture sections should have information about the bird and about its status in captivity and legal status (and cultural references to captive birds where these aren't in a "Culture" section). To me, "requires big cages" is fine; dimensions aren't. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 18:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Audio seems to be quite a difficult item to obtain, as compared with video. The more rare birds often don't have photos, but almost all of the most common ones don't have any audio. Besides recording it ourselves, perhaps we could attempt to get audio others have already recorded. Some of this is in the form of audio files, but other audio can be found in video, in which the audio is a relatively minor part. Do you think the makers of such videos, e.g. the BBC's nature documentaries, would release rights to short audio clips taken from the footage? A single episode of something like The Life of Birds must contain a treasure trove of great audio, and I doubt the BBC would be harmed by letting us use it. In fact, since we would be crediting them for it and requiring they always be attributed, we would probably be benefiting them more than harming them.

Like getting free photos on Flickr, I think this might be a good way of obtaining free audio of birds for Wikimedia. Do you think the approach would be worth trying? Richard001 (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It can't hurt to ask, but I generally have better luck asking individual donors on a case by case basis. I approached Birdlife International a few times and generally they don't own the images, or at least the right to share them. Likewise a single person approaching the Beeb would have difficulty reaching someone with sufficient authority to release copyrighted material. But both the HBW's media collection and the Cornell lab's Audio library exist on the back of donations, and it may be possible to approach those people to ask permission. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I've captured a few frog-calls on my handycam and transferred the audio to WP [3] if I get the opportunity I will do the same with birds especially where the video-quality is poor, though I prefer to show both if possible [4] Aviceda talk 09:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found interesting material now and then on this project http://www.freesound.org/whatIsFreesound.php and it is already freely licensed, but one typically has to do some identificaiton, extraction and cleaning of the track. Shyamal (talk) 10:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indigomacaw.jpg large blue parrot for identification. Snowman (talk) 13:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Despite the file name and the text below the photo, it looks like a faded Hyacinth. The size of the yellow patch at the lower mandible might have lead to the suggested Lear's, but the yellow in that species is far more rounded, to the extend that it appears almost elliptical, with the posterior pole poiting towards the eye. This difference between Lear's and Hyacinth is evident even when the bill is open. • Rabo³ • 23:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that is looks like a Hyacinth Macaw, and I will ask for it to be renamed. I think that the other images on the wiki of Lear's Macaw are correct. With regard to the anatomy, is the yellow in the Hyacinth mostly over the fold of skin at the base of the beak and in the Lear's it also extends over the skin of the face towards the eye? Snowman (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Another blue macaw identification problem. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The sape of the yellow skin patch suggests Hyacinth. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

i wanted to drop a word here to let interested parties in on the proposed merger of Hawk into Bird of prey. feel free to comment here or on either of the associated Talk pages. - Μετανοιδ (talk, email) 07:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Without issues of ego being involved, I wonder if anyone can explain why an image that I've uploaded to Commons has been modified (...and to my eyes spoilt?) is it protocol to reverse this edit? see [5] [6] Aviceda talk 09:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

not entirely sure why the image was changed but the darker image was better, have replaced it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks, what was all that about? Aviceda talk 10:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If he reverts again, bring it back here rather than get into an edit war, and see if there is a consensus for your opinion. jimfbleak (talk) 10:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason not to have both images at Commons under separate names. In fact I thought that was the idea of the free licenses.

Incidentally, I hope everyone involved is calibrating their monitor. (I see I need to redo mine.) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 12:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Parrot 1 - for identification. Mostly green and grey, black beak, red rump, blue on crown.
• 2. Parrot 2 - Image:Eos reticulata -San Diego Zoo-4.jpg. Mostly red and black. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

  looking in Forshaw, this one actually looks like the Blue-eared Lory, Eos semilarvata - while Eos reticulata is Blue-streaked Lory...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cas is right, (except I'm bothered by the wing pattern, it looks like two big a blue patch). But the Blue on the face and rump are right for Eos semilarvata. The first one is more confusing, probably because it is clearly young (look at those down feathers around the neck. One contender is the Amazonian Parrotlet, but the red on the tail suggests no to that (or even that genus). In fact the yellow feet and red tail suggests, very strongly, Loriculus, hanging-parrot. I'm going to suggest juvenile female Orange-fronted Hanging Parrot, Loriculus aurantiifrons. Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• 2. I was thinking it might be a female or juvenile "Blue-crowned Hanging-Parrot". Snowman (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Casliber got first and Snowman second (while they can be excluded by other measures, Orange-fronted Hanging-parrot and Amazonian Parrotlet are among the relatively small number of parrots that are essentially non-existent in captivity outside their native countries) • Rabo³ • 12:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the Hanging Parrot a female or a juvenile? Snowman (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I am glad I brought flicr images for discussion here:

• 1. I have re-uploaded the eos with the Blue-eared Lory, Eos semilarvata, file name and I have tagged the badname file for deletion, so the bad named file should be removed after a day or two. It is the first of its species on the wiki. I have linked it to the species page.
• 2. The "Blue-crowned Hanging-Parrot" is the first on the wiki that is not an adult male. I think it is a female; juveniles have pale beaks. Snowman (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was looking and looking at the Blue-crowned Hanging-Parrot in Forshaw too, but anyway, great to have more pics :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Blu-crowned (called a Blue-topped in HBW), in my book has a much darker blue front. and the female barely has one at all. The shade in the photo more closely matches the orange front/ But I conceed the range of the Orange-front makes it an unlikely zoo specimen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just in case there still is some confusion: It is - with a certainty of 100% - a Blue-crowned (-topped) HP. The range, New Guinea, does not make the Orange-fronted unlikely in a zoo. Lots of parrots from New Guinea are commonly seen in captivity, but for some reason the Orange-fronted has not made it into captivity outside its native countries. Disregarding that, Orange-fronted has striking pale eyes, no blue to the crown, and a large orange-yellow forehead (in the male) - not just a bit of orange to the cere. That said, I certainly do understand the confusion. E.g. contra illustrations in HBW both sexes have pale eyes and male meeki only has slightly less orange-yellow to crown than nominate. For people relying on Juniper and Parr's book I'll also add a small warning as some illustrations in that book are problematic. Especially some illustrations of flying Neotropical parrots. • Rabo³ • 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

• 3 Is this another one? Snowman (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about we have a go at moving all bird images here to Commons. Of course, it will also help to tell their uploaders, if they are still active, to upload future images there as well so that it isn't a perpetual task (well, I guess it will be, though bots could potentially help identify new images as they appear so that we can stay on top of things).

Free images here are annoying for several reasons, e.g. they block using a different image of the same name on Commons, they are left apart from the other images, they are usually uncategorized and harder to find, can't be used by other Wikipedias and Wikimedia projects etc. Richard001 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And the upload on commons can be given a better more descriptive name. Snowman (talk) 11:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been renaming quite a few. How about we try to clear out Category:Images of birds? There are 200 of them there, which isn't a huge task. There will be a lot of others that aren't categorized, since images here in general are poorly categorized, bird images being no exception. But emptying this category (except for anything that needs to stay, e.g. fair use, or featured pictures that are really at Commons anyway) would be a good goal to start with. Improving the names, descriptions and categorization of the images is something that can be done at the same time. Richard001 (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But there may be many more that are not in a category. Over the next few weeks, I plan to upload the parrots on the list to commons partly because I can confirm the identity of almost all of them. Snowman (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

At Commons the Gray Gull is placed in the category Larus modestus, but the article here says it is Leucophaeus modestus. Is the Commons category just a mistake that should be renamed? I notice that Larus modestus is a redirect to Gray Gull, so is it perhaps disputed? I think the category and article should still use the same name even if this is so. Richard001 (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, seems to be a common problem; the same happens with the Laughing Gull (commons:Category:Larus atricilla vs. Leucophaeus atricilla). Richard001 (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This is based on at 2005 study that found Larus non-monophyletic. Pons J.-M. ; Hassanin A. ; Crochet P.-A.(2005) Phylogenetic relationships within the Laridae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from mitochondrial markers. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution 37(3):686-699. Hope someone with access to this paper can expand the Laridae article. Shyamal (talk) 05:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

So we should rename the Commons category? Do you have access to it yourself? If not I might be able to help. Richard001 (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd advise against changing the commons simply for the sake of en.wikipedia. We vary in more than one area, but we vary from fr.wikipedia and de.wikipedia as well. The commons decided on their taxonomy, and we decide ours. If the commons wants to change then grand, but we shouldn't change theirs simply on our account. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the same person can contribute to taxonomy on more than one wiki.

The AOU just adopted these changes to the gulls in their latest supplement. Bonaparte's Gull, the Gray-headed Gull, and the Laughing Gull are now in Chroicocephalus; the Little Gull is in Hydrocoloeus; and the Gray Gull, the Laughing Gull, and Franklin's Gull are in Leucophaeus. They also put the flamingoes next to the grebes and re-split the American Flamingo, put the Sapayoa into Eurylaimidae, split the Furnariidae into three subfamilies (Furnariinae, Sclerurinae, and Dendrocolaptinae), recognized Conopophagidae and Grallariidae, and other stuff. Some here may be happy with the change of most Turdus species from "robin" to "thrush" (except the Rufous-backed Robin, for some reason, and the American Robin, for obvious reasons). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Rufous-backed Robin remained as robin, as this name is well established among US birders (it's a regular visitor to the US). IMO they should have changed its name, too, though. Speaking of gulls, I'm in the process of moving gulls to "new" genera. The evidence for these is fairly strong (even if there still are a few loose ends), and someone had already started the move, but in an attempt of "trying to be fair" had only moved American species, but left all of the remaining species in Larus. While certainly well-intended, this "semi-move" clearly doesn't work from a taxonomical point of view. Either you move 'em all (Larus sensu stricto), or you don't move any (Larus sensu lato). Just in case people stumple upon wiki pages that contradict each other, as it may take a day or two to deal with all the pages. • Rabo³ • 00:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant this is but there is a current thread on EBN as to the 'correct' genus for Sabine's and Little Gulls, (apparently like WP) authorities now have Hydrocoloeus for Little & Ross's Gulls and Xema for Sabines (interesting to see that we are at the forefront!) Aviceda talk 05:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, since I haven't yet seen a reference concerning this yet, I've asked Z-Man to run a bot which is able to count # of hits each article receives over a specified time period. He can run it by Wikiproject (tagged). He ran it for the month of June 2008. Hope you find it interesting. The link is: Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Popular pages.......Pvmoutside (talk) 04:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This was posted at Talk:Bird, reposting here. Really interesting. Strongly suggests that the encyclopedia would benefit from hitting some of the more general articles - even though many of these are rather untaxaanomic groups (eagle, ducks, and stuff). Nice to see that a few of our FAs are important ones (bird, Bald Eagle, Emu). Only two stubs in the top 50 too, raven and mockingbird. It is also staggering to see how many people read these articles. In one month bird was viewed 139,447 times. 31 pages are viewed more than 1000 times a day. Wow. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion on Talk:Corvus (genus) about whether raven, and crow should be merged there - funnily enough few bird regulars have taken part. Given the hits about, I'd be in favour of a merge of nontaxonomic 'crow' and 'raven' which serve as epithets for random black birds within the genus. Anyway, shall we settle this now? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But what would be the name of the merged page? Should it include magpies and jays? Snowman (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I always thought 'true crow' meant the genus corvus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some people might confuse it with the crow family of birds. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone expecting to see mgpies and jays when they type in crow will have the sense to click on thr right link in the taxobox. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Popular articles: perhaps a number of bird editors could watch the popular pages for unexpected problems. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I watch quite a few of the top 20 already, and have added most of the rest. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

At Commons, Gull redirects to Larus, whereas here it redirects to Laridae. I'm guessing this time Commons is wrong? Or can "gull" have different meanings? Richard001 (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because we treat the terns, skuas and skimmers as separate families and they don't. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying our Laridae is actually synonymous with their Larus? Do you think the Commons differences might not be because of any substantive difference in taxonomic philosophy but just because there are fewer people there and they are slower to adjust to changes? Richard001 (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

While commons taxonomy isn't as up-to-date as the taxonomy on English wiki, the only way Laridae could be considered synonymous with Larus is if following a taxonomy used 100+ years ago, where species like the Swallow-tailed Gull and Ivory Gull were included in Larus (and if following taxonomy that's that old, they could just as well move the Ivory Gull to Gavia, as was suggested in the early 19th century). • Rabo³ • 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to correct certain chunks of wiki commons, if you are good with categories. Sometimes wikispecies seems better. I think that there is a "WP:Birds" project somewhere on commons, but "WP:Project of life" is more active. Snowman (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Willy Wagtail promoted to FA, Greater Crested Tern and Puerto Rican Amazon still at FAC
• White-breasted Nuthatch nearly ready for GA nomination, but I'd welcome any comments. In particular, having written it a strange foreign tongue, I'd welcome any comments from the US or Canada on spelling and grammar. My in-line dictionary keeps underlining spelling "errors", but that's because it uses proper English (: jimfbleak (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today I added a bit of info to the Rufous Gnateater, incl. a few lines on the Caatinga/Ceará Gnateater, in the process making the appropriate redirects. However, I also managed to mess up a few, using gnatcatcher instead -eater. While these mistaken redirects may be harmless, the problem is that the Tropical Gnatcatcher has a pretty distinctive race in north-eastern Brazil (atricapilla), and it is not entirely inconceivable that it may end up as a separate species in the future. I've now moved well into WP:Nor, but if atricapilla were to be recognized as a separate species, Caatinga or Ceará Gnatcatcher would be likely candidates for an English name. To avoid this potential problem, could a MOD delete the mistaken redirects I made earlier today? They can always be "re-started" if atricapilla Tropical Gnatcatcher is elevated to species status under one of these names in the future (I know there's at least one person who's working on the taxonomy of this complex currently). The specific pages are: Caatinga Gnatcatcher, Caatinga gnatcatcher, Ceará Gnatcatcher, Ceará gnatcatcher, Ceara gnatcatcher and Ceara Gnatcatcher. Thanks, • Rabo³ • 20:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them. Recreating them in the future should the need arise (shifting taxonomy) is as you say simple enough. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. Black parrot for identification
• 2. Green parrot for identification Snowman (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The first one is correctly identified on the page, it is a Black Parrot or Lesser Vasa Parrot. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As noted by Sabine's Sunbird, 1st is Coracopsis nigra. I'd leave it without subspecies - even if it has the tag "Seychelles", I doubt this reflects any actual ssp. identification (San Francisco Zoo, as also tagged, hasn't listed any ssp. on ISIS, and considering how rare barklyi is, I doubt it would go unnoticed if one were to turn up in a US zoo). The 2nd photo is an Aratinga, presumably either leucopthalmus, euops or chloroptera (all of which have red uw coverts and can lack red to the face/neck/chest entirely), but exact identification based on this photo is near-impossible (as is the case with many of these random green Aratinga's without a locality), and the seemingly turquoise tinge to its plumage is puzzling - perhaps an artifact of it being captive (light, food, etc? Disregarding the ocular-ring, I don't remember ever hearing about this in Aratinga, though), but certainly not something you'd see in the any of the prev. mentioned spp. in the wild. Could perhaps also be an indication of hybrid origin (as you probably know, several species in this genus easily hybridize). • Rabo³ • 19:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• 1. I was puzzled by the black beak, which would seem to be more like a Black Lory. Unfortunately, the tail in the photo is not seen, but the overall colour is black with a brownish hue. I took the photo of the Black Parrot in the infobox (with the sun in the wrong direction) and it has a bone coloured beak. To me it seems to be a Black Lory which can be up to 30cm long.
• 2. Not much to go on. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-br. Coracopsis nigra have a darker bill than br. Disregarding colours entirely, the proportional size of the head excludes Black Lory. • Rabo³ • 20:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

YThe overall jizz is also pushing strongly towards the parrot, not the lory. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I read something about the beak colour changing in the Black Parrot, which would explain it. But how can it change colour, surely it would take quite a while to grow out. Does "Non-br" mean non-breeding (same as juvenile) ones have a black bill or is it a seasonal change in adult ones? Snowman (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-breeding would refer to a breeding age adult that is in the non-breeding season. And birds can chnage their beak colour seasonally (example [7], and even change the shape of the whole bill (check out non-breeding puffins). Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• 3. Brotogeris for identification. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The amount of yellow on the wing, absence of white and shade of bill all point to Yellow-chevroned Parakeet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought Yellow-chevroned Parakeet, but I was not sure about Canary-winged Parakeet. I have added it to the article page in the infobox as it is a better image than the previous image. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Yellow-chevroned. Easily one of the commonest parrots in a large part of Brazil, incl. Distrito Federal where this photo was taken (well outside the range of White-winged, which also would have shown some white to the leading edge of the wing and a less contrasting eye-ring). • Rabo³ • 14:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting how the guidebooks and texts vary; the eye ring was really easy to spot at a difference in my Sibley but not so easy in my HBW. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

bird for identification. Snowman (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears it already has been uploaded under the correct name, and currently is used in the tax. box for the Chestnut-breasted Malkoha. • Rabo³ • 18:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

On a separate issue, I noticed this photo in the photo stream where the Brotogeris you asked about earlier also was found. It seems you're up to speed on uploading photos to commons, and we're missing a photo for that species (Bay-winged Cowbird). If you upload it, please do add the subspecies, fringillarius, as sometimes considered a separate species. Same with this photo, which isn't too good (a crop would help), but another case of nothing else available (Spot-backed Puffbird). In that case also worth noting the subspecies, Nystalus m. maculatus, which sometimes is considered a separate species than the SW Nystalus (m.) striatipectus. Thanks. • Rabo³ • 18:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Both uploaded to commons. Please check the text. Snowman (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I modified the text under the photo of the puffbird slightly for the English and Portuguese versions to be identical. I've now added a bit of basic text to the two pages here on English wiki (not much, but it's a start). • Rabo³ • 20:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool work! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I have started an article on Subantarctic Red-crowned Parakeet. I do realise that it will probably need to be split into Macquarie Island Parakeet and Reischek's Parakeet when molecular evidence comes in from a bona fide MI specimen. Meanwhile I have not found a lot published on either taxon. If anybody has additional info it would nice to add it. Maias (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would have been tempted not to lump them, since the only reason to do so was research that the researcher himself disavowed. I will look at a recent master's project that is in our library to see if it clarifies the matter. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to fork the article once we get a suitable ref to back up doing so. Maias (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The link is broken, but the ref you are after is as follows. Geoffrey K. Chambers and Wee Ming Boon (2005) "Molecular systematics of Macquarie Island and Reischek's parakeets^{[permanent dead link‍]}" Notornis 52 (4): Pages: 249–250. The website for Notornis is pretty unreliable, but you can see the second half of the article here. To quote Under these circumstances we feel that it is incumbent upon us to withdraw our suggestion above [regarding the link with maquarie). However, the data of Boon et al. (2001) do still lead to the convincing separation of Reischeck’s parakeet distinct from all other red-crowned parakeet types.. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

...Implying that Reischek's Parakeet would be C. hochstetteri. OK, I will fork the article. It would still be nice to get further info on both taxa... Maias (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for the ref. I was not aware of it. Maias (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, done. Maias (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been tracking a blue heron at a nearby park. I can't tell if it's an adult or an immature. How can one tell? Stormynight62 (talk) 14:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All About Birds has text and photographs that explain the differences. -- Coneslayer (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Check out https://web.archive.org/web/20040718101517/http://www.ohiobirds.org/publications/OBRClist.pdf, I think it's not in there. I have also commented on some status changes in Seneca County, Ohio in that article; some are generalized observations holding true for the whole NW of the State. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what's being questioned here. The list is for Ontario, Canada. The website is for Ohio—a state in the USA. What's the relevance?MeegsC | Talk 07:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty hopeless at this... Image:Canada goose from behind.jpg, which I have just moved to Commons has a gull (surely I got that right?) in the background. Which species will it be? Richard001 (talk) 07:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First guess, Herring Gull. But gulls are hard, especially without location info. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. I remember there was also one in the neat mobbing picture I found on Flickr. I'll see if I can get the original uploader (still active) to geocode it. Richard001 (talk) 08:14, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks a bit like a Glaucous-winged Gull [8] but that's only a first-impression. Aviceda talk 08:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Me too. The grey rather than black in the primaries basically narrows the choice down to this species or Kumlien's, which it isn't because the head- and bill-proportions are all wrong. SP-KP (talk) 10:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Should I add that category to the image or is it too uncertain? Richard001 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be OK with you adding it, but what do others think? SP-KP (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:ImmCaliforniaGull23.jpg says it's both an immature California Gull and Heermann's Gull. Which is it?

Edit: Actually, I can see a better version at Image:Larus californicus1.jpg, where it is said to be the latter. Richard001 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's also one of a chick here, though I'm not sure if any more accurate ID than the current one is possible. Richard001 (talk) 01:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless the photographer saw the parents I doubt you'll ID the species, sorry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Flying-Gull.png - any idea on this one? Richard001 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Most likely a Western Gull based n location. First year regardless. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It does look a bit like this one. Do you know of similar species that are sympatric? Should I just say that it might be L. occidentalis? Richard001 (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The range of the Yellow-footed Gull merges with that of the Western Gull in Baja but the juvenile ha a great deal more white on it than the Western. The juvenile Glaucus-winged merges in the north in Washington but is lighter. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A second image to move: Image:Gull is eating a crayfish 2.jpg. Am I right in guessing it's a Western Gull, Larus occidentalis? Richard001 (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, am I right? Richard001 (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. Northern Western Gulls are paler than southern ones so this looks OK, although I couldn't completely rule out a hybrid with Glaucous-winged from this photo. SP-KP (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved them both there now and have said that it is "probably Larus occidentalis, the Western Gull". Richard001 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sea gull sandy point.JPG, also Image:Seal gulls sandy point.JPG. Richard001 (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is Ring-billed Gull. I guessed based on the noticeable ring around the bill. I could be wrong. Docku^Hi 11:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have never seen one of those in RL, but Larus delawarensis does seem likely to me. Are there any other gulls with that sort of coloration pattern on both the top and bottom of the beak? I would like to confirm this before I move the two pics to Commons so I can give the images more specific names. Richard001 (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I cant confirm that. I hope there are Gull experts around here who might be able to help. But I will point it it to you that the pictures were taken close to Delaware, which forms part of the species name. Docku^Hi 16:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are Ring-billed Gulls. SP-KP (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. Is it because that they are the only ones who have those rings? Docku^Hi 14:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for 'notable' references to birding mailing-lists such as Birdchat, Birding-Aus, EBN, SABirdnet or Orientalbirding (or any other well-populated ones) for an WP article. I'm told they should come from scientific journals, papers if possible. All assistance appreciated. Aviceda talk 06:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look tomorrow. But I can think of no reason why birding magazines, birding newsletters and the like would not be suitable sources. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have a note on http://www.indianbirds.in/download/IB.3.4.122-137.pdf the Internet in general with regard to ornithology and the newsletter (rather than a strict journal) that published it recommends Oriental Birding as an egroup of interest on the inside of the cover page. Unfortunately that same reference was shot down in the AfD that I pointed to Aviceda. The delete voters said that the Linux Kernel Mailing List was notable since it was mentioned in a a few books but that the list in question was non-notable since there is no book or journal referring to it. Another list, Computational_Chemistry_List (on which I once used to be a member due to some work related involvement) however has also been considered notable. I think part of the problem is that many journals do not encourage the citing of Internet list communications as references (although they may be marked as personal communications). Shyamal (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

HBW noted in its intro that it is citing the web for the first time with volume 12. This isn't the first subject I've noticed voicing a certain amount of irkness as the reticence of Wikipedia to accept certain web-only sources as articles. I'll see what I can find this week Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be possible to have a generic article on birding groups mail lists to start with. I guess there may be sources to cover their growth and their geographical coverage. There seem to be a couple of journal references on the subject. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCN-427JW88-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f5dfa988e900531fb106f45a6895212c and http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1026411 Neither being open access. There is an article on "Computer networking in ornithology" by Jack P. Hailman in "Computer Networking and Scholarly Communication in the Twenty-first-century University" By Teresa M. Harrison, Timothy Stephen. Published by SUNY Press, 1996 ISBN 0791428532, 9780791428535 Shyamal (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw your request on Birdchat, Tom, but I don't know of anything. I wonder, though, whether we should have an article on these lists or a section in the Birding article on them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point Jerry, I notice that 'Newsgroups' have a couple of mentions, but no links...I suppose they don't have web-page fronts? Shyamal, David Goodman DGG has asked me to write-up a general birding mailing-list article and has offered to check it, which is good news, thanks for your assistance too, much appreciated.Aviceda talk 02:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I liked Jerry's idea of adding a chapter to the Birding article and have put up a quick-one for your perusal here User:Aviceda/BirdingLists I thought it might prove less controversial than a whole article, all comments gratefully accepted. Aviceda talk 06:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about Surfbird? That might even outnumber Birdchat for subscribers. MeegsC | Talk 12:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Great website, though I'm not sure that it qualifies as a Mailing-List. There is a regularly-updated archive of most (anglophone) lists but it's not possible to post messages on it. Aviceda talk 02:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The WikiProject Birds page states that "The de facto standard for Wikipedia bird articles is Handbook of Birds of the World (HBW) for the northern hemisphere, and the Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds (HANZAB) for groups from that region. These should be used for all articles except for those dealing with a country or region, where the appropriate local official list should be used, as in List of North American birds and British Birds."

This seems reasonable to me. The way I read it is that if a bird is endemic to the New World, taxonomy should follow the North American and South American AOU checklist. Is this correct? If so, there are lots of revisions to be done. For instance, Common Black-Hawk currently appears w/o the hyphen. I fixed this, but someone went in and changed it back. I don't want to start an edit war, so I'm looking for clarification. --Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I would describe the classification standards as rather ad-hoc, as it is essentially "HBW - unless you can give a good reason not to". But the actual common names used - as much as possible we use a worldwide standard for species, that way if you have a list of all the hawks on one page you don't have Common Black-hawk followed by Cuban Black Hawk. Ever since PolBot we've had a problem of inconsistency and it wouldn't hurt to fix that, but our standard is as far as I remember Black-hawk not Black-Hawk. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the Black Hawks, as some were listed as "Black-hawk" (e.g. Great Black-hawk), and some as "Black Hawk" (e.g. Common Black Hawk), i.e. it was inconsistent. I could have opted for a version with a hyphen, and personally have no issues with that version of the name (I know some people have expressed their dislike over these "combi-word" in some English bird-names; wren-babbler, screech-owl, etc, etc), but opted not to to avoid the "Black-Hawk" versus "Black-hawk" issue (see this - I still haven't gone forward and proposed the change more formally, so the hyphen rule I referred to in that comment still stand). Secondly, I'd add that Black Hawk, in addition to being used by HBW (our more-or-less standard), also is the name recommended by the IOC World Bird List. Admittedly, I've been a bit of a fan of this list since it came out - even more so when it became apparent that they actually were listening to issues raised about the first versions (e.g. they've now left the dreadful "Roughleg" behind). The makers of this list have used ornithologists with local knowledge widely, and it shows in the names they ended up using (still a few issues, but overall it easily out-matches any other single list IMO). When it comes to British versus US spelling (e.g. grey/gray) I have no particularly preference. However, I do believe that when the species is not found in a country where either of the varieties is spoken, either version works and unless there is a very good reason, it shouldn't be changed from whatever version the page was started with. This, too, matches WP:ENGVAR - subsection Retaining the existing variety. • Rabo³ • 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As a brief addendum to my previous comment I would add that, whatever the outcome of this is, please do not modify names in references. For example, the recent article by William S. Clark had been modified to Taxonomic status and distribution of Mangrove Black-Hawk... instead of the correct Taxonomic status and distribution of Mangrove Black Hawk.... It was probably a mistake, but just in case. Whatever version we use on wiki, it does not change the names of the ref's. • Rabo³ • 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally have no preference between wren babbler or wren-babbler (well, I prefer wren-babbler but I don't care enough to make an issue of it), but at least we aren't going by the South African wrenbabbler. I remember the howls of outrage when that was broght in in the late 90s. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I greatly prefer "Wren-Babbler", with the B capitalized to denote that it is related to or included within the babblers. Contrast this with Cuckoo-shrike, which has a lowercase S since it's not related to the shrikes.--Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Natureguy—sorry, but that's not what that policy is supposed to mean, as I understand it. The idea is that we always follow HBW (except for HANZAB birds and when we have a good reason) except in articles on regions, where we follow the official local authority if there is one. Thus the article is Great Northern Diver, but List of birds in Canada and the United States, List of birds of Ontario, etc., call it Common Loon, and if we had an article on the effect of acid rain on waterbirds in Nunavut, it too would call that bird the Common Loon. You're the second person who's read the policy that way recently, though, so I'm going to change it. Yes, there are arguments on both sides of this one, too. (Speaking of which, I agree perfectly with S.'s S. on "wren-babbler".) —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the HANZAB gets special treatment. Surely it should either be HBW all around, or HBW on widespread species, and local authorities when relevant. On a related note, I am opposed the HBW in general for two main reasons: 1. It's a static reference with no plans of being updated. 2. There actually is no "HBW list" available. Since lists for each volume are only available as they are released, there is no complete list for the next few years (when the series is completed). I highly suggest adopting a different approach: using another world reference (like the IOC World Bird List) for widespread birds, and using the appropriate local authority when a taxon is endemic to that authority's treated area. What do other's think? --Natureguy1980 (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I can recall no occasion where we have used the HANZAB list over the HBW list. But the HBW list is avaliable, it can be found here. I agree that the list is conservative and static, but all world lists tend to be, and for any genus or fmily the case can be made that they are wrong, which is why we have deviated from them so readily in the last few years. It is a useful list for no other reason that it provides a stable source of common names however, although the case could be made for moving over to Gill and Wright's new work in that instance. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I naïvely believed the policy and followed HANZAB on blue-eyed shag—one of my adventures in writing an article on a topic I know nothing about, by the way, so if anyone wants to take a look...

A reason not to follow a world authority for widespread species and a local authority for endemics is given in the discussion of gulls above. The AOU follows recent studies and splits Larus but world authorities don't, and it makes no sense to put American species in the AOU's new genera while keeping worldwide or Old World species, which would go in the same genera, in Larus. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 03:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't meaning higher-level taxonomy so much as species-level and common names. I agree with you, Jerry, on the point about the gulls. That's a mess. What I don't understand is why we don't follow AOU's common names for a Mexican endemic like Red-crowned Parrot, or for a US endemic bird like Florida Scrub-Jay, or a New World endemic like Common Black-Hawk. --Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, it leaves inconsistencies when brought into the wider world. Red-crowned Parakeet is used variously for the Mexican species, the New Zealand species and the New Caledonian one depending on which local or worldwide list you use. And as I mentioned, make a good case and there is a lot of flexibility around here. I have to say I am surprised that the AOU has gone for Storm-Petrel as they used to swing the other way (if memory serves). Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In what universe could an Amazon parrot ever be considered a parakeet?! Remind me to totally disregard that source! --Natureguy1980 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there was a small misunderstanding here. Amazona viridigenalis is referred to either as a parrot or as an amazon. No-one use parakeet for that species (or for that matter any other Amazona). The American species sometimes referred to as the Red-crowned Parakeet is the South American Pyrrhura (picta) roseifrons. • Rabo³ • 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there are two discussions here. One relates to the hyphen/capital letter afterwards issue (as noted in my first reply to this discussion with link; here), and the second more generally over the source for common names, such as the issue of Red-crowned Amazon versus Red-crowned Parrot. I'd support both changes, but not without caveats. For example, using AOU rules on hyphenation/capital letter afterwards does require a level of knowledge. Not that the rules really are that difficult, but rather that I suspect most people involved in ornithology/birding, even people that use AOU's list on a daily basis, don't know the rules, and therefore very easily would make mistakes. The second problem, and IMO by far the most important, is the issue of consistency. In other words: Whatever we do, I would oppose any inconsistency in the names used for a single group. If we use Black-Hawk for one species it should be used for all. This isn't a major issue for that small group, but what about widespread groups found both in the New and the Old World? What rules and names should apply for them? I've already expressed my opinion on British/US spelling in the earlier post, and even if we opt for following the previously mentioned changes, that precedes over any list (e.g. if a species page was started on Gray-colored Flycatcher [or Grey-coloured Flycatcher] it should remain there unless found in a country that uses British/US spelling). I think taxonomy is an entirely different issue, and from what I can understand that's not the issue being raised here. I think all (or most, at least) agree that if there's good evidence supporting a new taxonomic treatment, we should follow it (and I know we already do in many cases) - no matter what HBW says. • Rabo³ • 17:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On a related issue, I'd add that there already are several pages that don't follow the name used by HBW, e.g. House Martin (a featured article) and Sun Conure (if people are interested, old discussions relating to both names can be found on the two articles' talk pages). Even if I really don't like Sun Conure, I have absolutely no intention of re-starting a discussion to have it (or any of the other pages placed on "conure", e.g. Golden, Jenday, and Green-cheeked) moved, but it does raise the very issue on consistency. Not only regarding the inconsistency of having some Aratinga listed as Conure and others as Parakeet, but also over the inconsistency of having some pages following HBW quite strictly, and others don't. • Rabo³ • 17:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

WE have inconsistencies for two reasons; one - PolBot was based on the IUCN not HBW (these are usually uncontroversial to change if needed) and two - species that are common or popular having local names that aren't reflected in international lists. Even if you support consistency (like I do) there are few species that have been badly named by the powers that be and particularly with endemics (like the Red-crowned Parakeets - sorry for the confusion earlier) or aviary birds (conures) achieving absolute consistency with HBW is impossible from a consensus point of view. t is still a useful thing to strive for even as we accept it isn't going to happen, particularly as every exception granted adds extra firewood for those wishing to make even more changes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well rabo, I feel the same distate over calling conures the generic parakeet, which I find evem more misleading. What iss house martin supposed to be? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Common House Martin I think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Casliber, I mentioned the names simply to point out that, with them in use, the argument of "HBW is our standard" doesn't work, and similarly the argument of consistency doesn't work (while there certainly is a case for conure for some of e.g. the Pyrrhura, there are several - essentially never kept in aviculture - where the argument for using a name only used in avicultural circles consequently fail completely... so, we end up with some Pyrrhura conures and some Pyrrhura parakeets). If both these pointers fail, is there any valid argument why e.g. Buteogallus anthracinus, which does occur in the US, shouldn't be on Black-Hawk (AOU) and its relatives, only found outside the US, on Black Hawk (HBW)? If the HBW and consistency pointers don't work, what approach should we take? Could (... should?) the text on the front-page of this group be modified to reflect these things? • Rabo³ • 22:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean there isn't a standard, it means that exceptions have crept in that are hard to deal with. Personally I'd be for changing most exceptions, like Cas I don't care for conure and especially not some conures some parakeets, but I cannot choose to do so unilaterally. But that fe=act that these exceptions exist doesn't mean that on the whole we don't follow HBW and certainly doesn't mean that we'd support completely abandoning it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I should have expressed myself more clearly: I am certainly not suggesting abandoning HBW entirely. Rather adding a brief note saying it is the general standard, but in some cases other possibilities remain. After all, that's what we already can see happening, so it's more a matter of bringing the front page up to date with what can be seen in the articles than vice versa. A minor issue is that the lines on which names we use somewhat misleadingly appears under Taxonomy and references right now - would presumably fit better in the name section (?). [Sabine's Sunbird, just to avoid misunderstandings, as it appears it was switched in your comment - I'm contra conure, Cas is pro.] • Rabo³ • 23:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Certainly a note reflecting some degree of pragmatism and commonsense would be good..well it does say de facto...maybe adding a really difficult one like GND/CL.. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If the text about which naming authority is used on the front page is to be updated without the changes I suggested (use IOC World Bird list except where an endemic taxon is otherwise named by the local authority), I suggest the following: delete the bit about the HANZAB. I don't understand why this authority gets special treatment. Shouldn't it be treated like all the other local authorities, regardless of how they are treated as a whole? It comes across as looking like Australia and New Zealand are more important than Britain or America, and regardless of the intention, some may find that offensive. --Natureguy1980 (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I too wonder why HANZAB is the exception. I assumed people thought it was more reliable than HBW for birds of that region (and people didn't think the AOU was more reliable than HBW). It would never have occurred to me to infer that the region was more important. But can anyone explain? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 17:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be safely removed, I can't recall why it is the exception (all this stuff was decided back in before I got here in 2004, and I don't think it was always the only exception) , but like I said I don' recall any instances (other than Jerry's) that it has been too. So it can probably be pulled. Actually, I'll be bold and do it myself. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If standardization is important, then I agree that HBW is a poor source since, as Natureguy points out, it is a static source. We could decide to switch to regional sources which continually update lists (i.e. the AOU for North and South America) but I'm not sure all continents have accessible working committees (i.e. Africa? Antarctica?)......The other route is to adopt an international list. The only 2 I know of that are updated continually are the IUCN and Clements. My fear is everyone gets caught up in standardizing so much that editing and expanding articles slows considerably. Thoughts??????????....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The African Bird Club checklist is maintained by Peter Lack (started 2005, updated 2007 and 2008). What do people here think of it? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A third world list is the World bird names [9]. Also the Birdlife International one is close to but not identical to the IUCN one, and all three are similar to HBW one. I dislike Clements personally. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)