Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• Bird 1500. File:Diomedea gibsoni - SE Tasmania.jpg,File:Diomedea gibsoni 2 - SE Tasmania.jpg | Diomedea gibsoni. Want confirmation. It was relatively diminutive. Only a bit bigger than a Black-browed Albatross on the water. Relatively short wingspan too. Face looks much closer to the Gibson's in this diagram, compared with say, File:Diomedea exulans 3 - SE Tasmania.jpg (a much bigger bird physically). For the purposes of discussion I've treated Gibson's Albatross as a separate species, since two Wikipedia articles currently claim it as a subspecies of their respective species (Wandering Albatross, Antipodean Albatross). JJ Harrison (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a DYK is made from milestones in the Birds for identification series. Is article expansion possible here? Snowman (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think article creation is possible here, especially with a great photo to go with it. Maias (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1501. File:Unidentified bird -Kasane, Botswana-8.jpg | Unidentified bird probably in Botswana. Snowman (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamprotornis sp.? --Leyo 11:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an adult Greater Blue-eared Starling (Lamprotornis chalybaeus). Dger (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1502. File:Unidentified bird -near Centurion, Gauteng, South Africa-8.jpg | Unidentified bird probably in South Africa. Snowman (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1503. File:Chloroceryle americana m Pantanal.jpg – Confirmation wanted for male Chloroceryle americana. --Leyo 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Dger (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1504. File:Chloroceryle americana f Pantanal.jpg – Confirmation wanted for female Chloroceryle americana. --Leyo 23:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Dger (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1505. Could anyone help with this: File:Unknown bird IMG 2934.JPG. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add, it was taken in Fremont, California in April, but since I have not found success on multiple bird ID websites, it may not be native to the area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an adult Black-crowned Night Heron. I saw one in Santa Barbara when I was there in April, so it certainly occurs in California Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now available on Commons at File:Nycticorax nycticorax -Fremont, California, USA-8.jpg and en Wiki file tagged for deletion. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "black-crowned" <-- no wonder I never found it in bird ID databases! I kept thinking the crown was blue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: file moved by the author to File:Nycticorax nycticorax Newark April 2011.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1506. File:Epthianura tricolor -Karratha, Pilbara, Western Australia, Australia-8.jpg | Crimson Chat. Is it a juvenile? Snowman (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but the bird appears to be rather worn, in which case, I doubt it's a juv. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1507. File:Unidentified bird -Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg | Unidentified bird. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An adult Eastern phoebe based on lack of any eye-ring. Dger (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: moved to File:Sayornis phoebe -Madison, Wisconsin, USA-8.jpg on Commons. Snowman (talk) 09:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: now a FP on Commons. Shown on en-Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1508. File:Mimus saturninus Jangada.jpg | Confirmation needed for Mimus saturninus. --Leyo 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current labelling of this bird on Commons indicates certitude, but if there is any doubt about the identification of this bird, then this should be reflected in the image description and categorization on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the images on Commons of Chalk-browed Mockingbirds and to me this one matches. Snowman (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. --Leyo 09:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1509. File:Thraupis palmarum Chapada dos Guimarães.jpg | Confirmation needed for Thraupis palmarum. --Leyo 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current labelling of this bird on Commons indicates certitude, but if there is any doubt about the identification of this bird, then this should be reflected in the image description and categorization on Commons. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the expert knowledge I have seen on this page, it is hard to believe that there is nobody here who is able to confirm these rather common birds. --Leyo 13:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identification is sometimes not directly associated with how common a bird is. There might be other bird species that look similar making the identification difficult. I think that the view of the bird in front of the wing-mirror is interesting and unconventional. Snowman (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bird kept attacking it for a minute or more. I made a few other shots, but none is really good due to the fair lighting conditions. --Leyo 21:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded a second version, where details are more clearly visible: File:Thraupis palmarum Chapada dos Guimarães 2.jpg --Leyo 23:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a Palm Tanager to me, not clear why there is any doubt? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Palm Tanager. MeegsC (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note the recent comments confirming the identification from two images of this bird. I had a doubt about confirming the identification 100% when only one image was shown here partly because it was a rather unconventional image showing the back of a bird and its reflection in a car wing-mirror. Snowman (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following a request, I have recently updated about 8000 external links to IUCN red-list pages on Wiki bird species pages together with writing updates to the IUCN red-list status. All the edits were written with the help of semi-automatic software and I checked all the edits manually, before clicking the "save" button. I have been watching the pages; nevertheless, I would be interested to hear about any accidental errors or typos that I made, so that I can fix any bugs or at least be aware of likely further problems and fix them before editing. During this series of edits, so far I am only aware of one typo which I missed, and this has been corrected by the user who found it and reported it to me on my talk page. I also made an edit on Desert Sparrow, which was not consistent with Wiki taxonomy, and I have asked for opinions on the taxonomy of this species above. The remaining old IUCN links on Wiki bird articles are likely to be for taxa where there are taxonomy and naming differences between the IOC, IUCN, and the Wiki, and I am aware that fixing and updating Wiki taxonomy and names is an on-going task. I anticipate doing another run after there is an update to the IUCN red list. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawaiian accents are a bit of a problem, because I did not realise that some of them only display as a "?" in the basic text editor that I used, so some Hawaiian bird species have not had their IUCN external links scanned yet, and I plan to do these soon. Most accents displayed, but this might have also have happened for some species spelt with the German omulet and other unusual accents. Snowman (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for semi-automated tasks would be welcome. Snowman (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, Snowman. the only thing that immediately springs to mind is whether all bird taxa articles have a project banner on the talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page banners; that is a good point. I had not considered talk pages much for semi-automated tasks. I might do a scan to find out how many bird taxa articles do not have talk banners. However, if a bird page has an unconventional title or spelling variation, then it and its talk page might be difficult to find. Snowman (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just added a bunch of Mannikins and Munias to the Bird wikiproject that were previously missing. It would be worth a scan me thinks......Pvmoutside (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I have changed the IUCN link or added missing links to about 18 more species pages. Any that you have edited and that the script did not edit would be due to taxonomy issues or spelling differences of the binomial or common names. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I started this bot request a while ago in order to get a list of articles with broken links to the IUCN Red List. Have you now fixed all these links? --Leyo 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not fixed all the IUCN links, because the taxonomy on IUCN and the Wiki differ and because bird common and binomial names differ on different websites. I would find it interesting to see the list of Wiki pages that still have dead IUCN links or no IUCN links. My software has not necessarily finished all its work yet, but it has reached a plateau of development beyond which it will become increasingly difficult to improve the software and get it to match more Wiki articles with IUCN pages. Recent WP Bird drives to update Wiki taxonomy and convert common bird names to IOC names have helped enormously, and it is very likely that my software will be able to update more IUCN links as more Wiki pages are brought into line with IOC names and after erudite taxonomy updates. If you did have a list of old IUCN links, what would you do with it? Snowman (talk) 14:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the length of the list. A short list could be managed by manually fixing the links. If the list would be long, we might be able to find a semi-automatized way. I've just fixed a few dozen links by updating the links in Template:Redlist CC1994 and Template:Redlist CC2001. --Leyo 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that those links were not links to species pages on the IUCN website. Snowman (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list that would need attention to update the taxonomy and check the binomial names prior to fixing the IUCN links. Adding IUCN links might be complicated for many of these pages, because the the taxa on the Wiki might not be an exact match to the taxa on IUCN. I think that would lead to many mistakes if only the common names were matched between the Wiki and IUCN when adding IUCN links. I understand that variations in binomial names can be due to different opinions on how to interpret the abstruse Latin roots of binomial names, or there might be a typo somewhere that could be difficult to trace. I think that a lot of this work can only be done manually by erudite editors and not by a bot. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Comparison of IOC and Wiki binomial names (June 2012) Snowman (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other semiautomated tasks to consider: Many bird species have no importance assessed. Aren't all species (the ones that are left anyway) gong to all be of low importance? They can be all tagged as low and manually changed for the few that someone may want to reassess? Also, most of the bird articles have photo requests listed on the individual talk pages for the ones still missing photos. Some have photos but still have the need photo tag, a number require photos and do not have the tag, a few do not have photos but have the tag. In the effort to be accurate, can we run a bot to keep them up to date? The omly problem I see is some articles have illustratons but no photos, any way to distinguish?.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Importance ratings: I am not sure where the evidence is that all bird articles without an importance rating are low importance. I would not be prepared to do semi-automated edits to give all non-rated bird articles a low rating. I think that doing this an about 4000 bird stub pages would bound to make some mistakes. It would also confuse which pages had been assessed manually and which were guessed to be low importance. Snowman (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• No-photo tags: There has already been an attempt to update the no-image tags on bird talk pages with semi-automatic software, but I recall that the editor (not me) stopped after people noticed that he was changing the "no-photo" tag for articles that only showed a painting. It would not be easy for a bot to identify an image as a photograph or a painting; however, it might be possible by automatically scanning with a complex script for clues in the text of the image description of the file on Commons. About two years ago, I scanned talk pages and articles and got a list of articles with a no-photo tag on the talk page and an image of some sort shown in the article, and then updated the talk pages following a visual inspection of the articles to see if it showed a photograph or only a painting. I recall finding about 200 articles where a "no-photo" tag needing amending. Similarly, it should be possible (quite easy) to get a list of articles without an image (photograph or painting), but do not have a "no-photo" tag on the talk page. I would anticipate that the lists for update now would less than 100 or possibly in the low hundreds again. If I got new lists, would anyone be prepared to do the manual work to do a visual inspection of articles and then update the the tags where indicated? Snowman (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're right about the importance problem. There are very few species which are of importance as food or commercial reasons, and I'd be very surprised if any were unassessed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've skipped over a number of unassessed bird species articles. I've only added the assessment to ones if I needed to make other changes as well. This would only be for bird species, not all bird articles. Perhaps having a taxobox in place could be one criteria to split the species articles away from the other bird articles....Pvmoutside (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During preparation stages, I initially got print-outs that included over 50 flea, worm, and protozoa Wiki articles about species (with taxoboxes) that are bird parasites and part of WP Birds. Similarly, some bird parks, bird diseases, conservation areas, books, ornithologists, Disney (Donald Duck) articles, and so on all have WP bird banners on the talk page. Some conservation areas, books, ornithologists, and so on are quite important in ornithology and I think that it would be wrong to automatically label all un-rated WP bird pages with "Low importance". It helps to identify the type of taxobox, and I found it useful to scan for the biological class (Aves) in the taxobox to identify a bird taxa. Snowman (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would help to first think which articles, or categories of articles, should not be rated as of low importance and tag those before giving the rest a default assessment as 'low'. Maias (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'll state for BIRD SPECIES only, not ALL BIRD ARTICLES......an article with a taxobox, in class Aves, and not previously assesssed should do the trick?...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is probably not consistent with Wiki guidelines to assess the importance of a Wiki article as "Low importance" without looking at it. I think that the un-rated bird species pages need assessing manually. Snowman (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1510. File:Unidentified bird Chapada dos Guimarães.jpg | Unidentified bird (geolocated). --Leyo 22:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rufous-collared Sparrow. MeegsC (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The article in de.wikipedia says that there are 29 subspecies. Z. c. matutina exists in Mato Grosso, but I cannot judge if this subspecies is correct here. --Leyo 07:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the subspecies can not be identified with certitude at this juncture, then I think that it would be best to clearly state where it was photographed in the image description on Commons, so that anyone who is interested will know where this bird was seen. I recall that you have had some difficulty with geolocation in Brazil, and I wonder how accurate is the geolocation that you have provided. Snowman (talk) 15:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly accurate. --Leyo 09:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Moved to File:Zonotrichia capensis Chapada dos Guimarães.jpg. The question about the subspecies remains open. --Leyo 10:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1511. File:Unidentified bird -Spain -flock-8a.jpg | Birds flying in Spain. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look like European Golden-Plover to me. Natureguy1980 (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to File:Pluvialis apricaria -Spain -flock-8a.jpg on Commons. I have looked at a number of images of this species and I think that these are in winter plumage. Image shown on en Wiki species page. Snowman (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1512. File:Myrmecocichla formicivora -Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana -female-8.jpg | Female Ant-eating Chat to confirm identification. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed based on "Birds of Southern Africa". Dger (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1513. File:Green-backed Sparrow (Arremonops chloronotus) (7223086396).jpg | Green-backed Sparrow to confirm (no image in the article at present). —innotata 02:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a web search for images and I see no reason to doubt the identification, but I do not know if there are any other birds that look similar. I would welcome more opinions. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. Similar species include congenerics, like Olive Sparrow and Black-striped Sparrow. Natureguy1980 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1514. File:Vanellus duvaucelii 2 Hardwicke.jpg. Captioned as: "« Charadrius ventralis » = Vanellus duvaucelii (River Lapwing)" ?

Hello, I found this drawing pictured on the right in the book Illustrations of Indian Zoology, from which I'm uploading all the plates, but this one could be misidentified. On the vol. 1, we have File:Vanellus duvaucelii Hardwicke.jpg subtitled « Charadrius ventralis », and this binomial name is a synonym with Vanellus duvaucelii, the River Lapwing, for sure. But in this case (in the vol. 2), those birds are also subtitled « Charadrius ventralis », and do not really look like the River Lapwing. Does anyone know what are they ? Non-breeding birds ? Totodu74 (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess breeding (right) and non-breeding Sociable Lapwing breeding plumage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it seems close. I found this plate too. On the Hardwicke's plate, we can read "Female" on the left, and "Male" for the bird on the right. Are you sure it is breeding/non breeding? Totodu74 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hayman records no difference between the sexes, nor do Svensson and Mullarney. The only other plumage is juvenile, which is less contrasty than either of those depicted Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the text that accompanies your linked image doesn't mention sex differences, just adult/juvenile. If you want a bit of OR, I think the "female" plumage might actually be first summer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I precised the file description, feel free to accurate it :) Thanks for your help! Totodu74 (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Bird 1515. File:Unidentified bird -Audubon Zoo, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA-8a.jpg | Colourful bird in a zoo for identification. Snowman (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Blue-crowned Laughingthrush and it seems that zoo has one [1].

In my series of Norfolk nature reserve FAs' I've got to Scolt Head Island. For the animals and plants, I have an excellent source from 1989. I contacted the reserve manager to see if there was anything more recent, but he confirmed that nothing comprehensive had been published since. This poses a problem: if I go to FAC with most of the animals cited to 1989, I'll get shot down in flames, similarly if I say nothing about animals I "know" are there. Any solutions? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing more recent, though I do have a 1934 book (not the journal article) edited by Steers, with chapters on mammals, breeding birds and various groups of plants and invertebrates by others, if that helps. Maias (talk) 08:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offer, but I have the 1971 edition of Steers, and the 1989 text is Allison & Morley, effectively an updated version of Steers published by his former assistants (he died a week or so before its publication). Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can they shoot you down if nothing more recent has been published?! That's ridiculous. MeegsC (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, by default, I suppose I'll have to try it and see Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any clues to regional bird populations in the British Trust for Ornithology bird atlas? Snowman (talk) 09:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen this resource before, might be useful elsewhere, but the grid is a bit too course. I'll probably continue with what I've got, although I'm tempted to interpolate a species FAC to make a break from north Norfolk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they are getting results for 2007 to 2011 ready, but I do not know when it will be published. It looks like an update to the atlas (a book), which you have referred to before; see books. The on-line atlas looks useful, so I have added an easy-to-find link to the bottom of the list of external links on List of birds of Great Britain. Snowman (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article sounds difficult if there is no recent information. I can not predict how this information shortfall will be received. If you are writing a Wiki book, then I think that the book is still possible using the facility of classifying some articles as "not possible to reach GA or FA" and a good account is made of the available information. Snowman (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might see if I can get hold of a Norfolk bird and mammal report, which will have up-to-date info, but may not relate enough to Scolt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe that the GA/FA process won't pass an article just because nothing new has been published about the site in the past 20 years. If that's the case, then the rules have become ridiculous. If you have the most currently available information, surely that is all they can expect? Or do they expect you to do your own research and get it published somewhere?! MeegsC (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems sensible to me not give GA or FA status to an article on a dynamic topic that is based on literature about 20 years out-of-date, because it would be inherently unstable. See criteria 3c of Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Snowman (talk) 22:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if it were indeed a dynamic topic, I would agree with you. But I'd say it isn't. And that's the problem with the "rules", if that is indeed what they say. Do they really make blanket statements like "you can't get an FA unless you can quote references that are less than 15 years old"? If so, that's nuts! MeegsC (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for input, I probably will do this, but I'm going to throw in short species FAC first, I should have it done within the next week Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i would look on natgeo, animal planet and discovery channle. Also here is a link to the IUCN red list (http://www.iucnredlist.org/) see if they have anything when you look up the area. Nhog (talk) 15:29, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This species has just been rediscovered after decades of obscurity, and has received some press attention. The article could do with some love, but I sadly have no time right now. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the subproject has had no edits in the past year, and only two in the last three years, including a RfC. Time to wind it up? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be an idea to widen the scope and fold the pigeons into a general aviculture/domestic bird/poultry sub-project, do you think? I know that this sort of thing has been mentioned on here before. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that just because the sub-project has not had any edits for a while does not mean that the members of the sub-project do not edit pages or that the sub-project is useless. However, I would think that it would be a good idea to raise the possibility of merging the sub-project into the main birds WP project on the talk page of the sub-project. A separate sub-project on aviculture has been mooted, but I think that the topic is suitable to remain part of the main WP Birds project. Snowman (talk) 09:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping someone here can help me understand the use of the word Macaw. When I look up this bird in the French and Spanish Wikipedias, they refer to the Ara genus. However, in the English Wikipedia the article Macaw refers to more than just Ara. I can't find any reference that clarifies this issue and I was hoping someone more versed in birds could look into this discussion and help clarify the matter. For example, in spanishe es:Guacamayo_(ave) redirects to es:Ara (animal). Please see the discussion here: Talk:Ara (genus)#Merger_proposal. Alan.ca (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, 'Ara' just means 'Macaw' (referring to any of them, even the ones not within the genus Ara) in certain languages (German, for example). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the English meaning, I looked up Ara (genus) and Macaw in the OED. Ara is not in the OED, possibly because Ara is a scientific word not in common use. The definition of Macaw given is "Any of various large long-tailed parrots (often with vivid plumage) belonging to the genus Ara and certain related genera, native to tropical and subtropical America." I think that the OED would be a reliable reference. I wonder if large Spanish and French dictionaries might help with other languages. I think that "Ara (genus)" did include what we class as other genera now, but that classification is now out of date. Snowman (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if the Spanish and French Wikis had pages equivalent to "Ara (genus)" and "Ara (bird)" to distinguish the scientific usage and general usage of this words in these languages? or have I misunderstood the problems with other Wikis? I note that similar confusion does not arise in English and I think that the current English Wiki articles about "Ara (genus)" and "Macaw" have satisfactory titles. Snowman (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ara" is a common name in Danish too (referring to macaws, see also Norwegian Wiki[2]), so the problem does seem to have something to do with common vs. genus name. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonable to add a category for waterfowls. What is your opinion about adding a new category? --Sae1962 (talk) 13:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Category:Waterfowl? Maias (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessary as all are members of the family Anatidae and, thus, are effectively already tagged. Natureguy1980 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is reasonable to add a category for flightless birds. What is your opinion? --Sae1962 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such as Category:Flightless birds? Maias (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]