Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Merge proposal discussion under Crex talk page due to IOC taxonomy change....Pvmoutside (talk) 8:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Because my primary interest is birds, I am posting this here, but have also posted a short notice in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals because the issue probably applies at a minimum to other animals.

I think most editors would agree that IUCN is a reliable source for the population status of a species (e.g. vulnerable or endangered). However, I have found them less reliable for ranges. (Range information is provided to IUCN by BirdLife International.) Three examples are:

• The IUCN range map for nanday parakeet shows populations in the Finger Lakes region of New York and in east-central Vermont.^[1] Neither state's rare bird committee include the species on their lists and both confirmed to me in personal communication that the species is not established in their states.^[2][3]
• The IUCN entries for gray seedeater and wing-barred seedeater state that they are resident in Trinidad and Tobago.^[4][5] The two accounts cited are dated 2016. Several other species' accounts dated 2016 and 2018 also state residency in that country. The Trinidad and Tobago Rare Bird Committee has determined that they have been extirpated; the South American Classification Committee of the AOS has listed them thus dated September 2020.^[6]
• The IUCN range map for cedar waxwing is accurate, but the text description of the range is grossy inaccurate.^[7] (For instance, the species is listed as a "passage" bird in Canada when it actually nests throughout the southern half of the country, and is listed as resident throughout the Caribbean when it is at best a non-breeding visitor there and in many places a vagrant.) In December 2020 I queried BLI about the error. They stated they were aware of it but that it would not be corrrected until the next major updates that are scheduled for late 2021.

The first two examples point to the problem I have witnessed of replacing more recent and/or more local-knowledge information with IUCN range data, when I believe the recent/local should take precedence. In my opinion, IUCN (or anyone else's) outdated information should not even be cited as a counterpoint to the recent information. The third example points to the folly of blindly accepting data from IUCN, or anywhere else for that matter, that conflicts with an article's primary source. It this particular case, familiarity with the species should be enough to ignore the erroneous data, but cross-checking with other sources would also determine which data are correct.

Comments, please. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not sure there is anything particular to be done here, but I would agree that in cases where there is a conflict between information on IUCN and other sources, the other sources are usually going to be correct. Somatochlora (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'd agree. To be honest, I think all sources of ranges need to be compared carefully, not just IUCN. For example, there's been some conflict lately on the Puerto Rico list, with ashy-faced owl being one of the species in question. I queried Denis Lepage about this species, as I know of no records of the owl (which is endemic to Haiti and the Dominican Republic) for the island. Turns out there are records of an extinct bird which might have been a subspecies. So it should — at best — be listed as extinct. And probably shouldn't be listed at all until its provenance is sorted. He's said he'll update his list "at some point". MeegsC (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think you need to understand what goes on with the 4 major lists of birds to appreciate your difficulties here. I do not write much on birds and came from the link to this on the project animals site. However, I am one of the authors of recent papers on Global Species lists and can give some info that may help. For those of you interested in birds you are of course aware of the competing global lists, Birdlife Int and IOC being two of them. Birdlife International has taken it upon themselves to be the sole provider of information to the IUCN, The congruence between the species lists is only about 60% and Birdlife Int. have more species of birds than the other lists and are criticized for taxonomic inflation. So in effect any information you get from IUCN is based on Birdlife Int only, so if you are using IOC then you will get a lot of disparity, such as reduced ranges, because Birdlife over-splits. In the IUBS Working Group for Global Species Lists we actually use the 4 birdlists as an example of why we need governance of species lists. To get round this you need to compare the Birdlife List and the IOC and determine what the two lists consider a species, then figure out your ranges from that. Personal opinion, Birdlife Int and hence the IUCN birds lists are ridiculously over-split. Such is life at the moment. I can provide lots of refs on all this for those interested. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 11:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Faendalimas, most of us know that all too well! We've been dealing with a rogue editor whose edits are very reliant on IUCN range maps, and are trying to figure out how to approach him/her to educate him/her of the same! MeegsC (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the IUCN-sourced range entries from List of birds of Trinidad and Tobago; see its Talk page for details and rationale. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ditto List of birds of New York (state). Craigthebirder (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Seabird for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 01:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

• Well, it looks like I'm going to have to head into town sometime and see if Victoria University of Wellington still has the textbook I used to do this article. Fingers crossed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sabine's Sunbird, I've got a pretty extensive library (including all of HBW, BWP, Cornell's "Birds of North America" (the pre-online version), many of the Helm guides, field guides from most countries, etc. etc.), plus access to JSTOR. Let me know if I can help. MeegsC (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. The most important book is Schreiber, Elizabeth A. and Burger, Joanne (2001) Biology of Marine Birds. which was the main text I used for generic statements about seabirds as a whole. I know my local uni used to have one so I need to visit on a weekend and see if I can find it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply