Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

en mass changes

Betacommadbot had been making en mass changes and had messed up a lot of genus categories by adding defaultsort; see previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 17. Update:

Tabulate lists?

I found this, and thought that tabulated lists look much smarter than our current format, and give more scope for clear annotation and referencing. I tried it on Thailand birds, and, imoh, it looks considerably better than untabulated. Once I'd sorted out the format, with the aid of Word's "edit and replace" it took just a few minutes per family to do it manually. I imagine the bot writers could automate the whole process. Should we tabulate at least the featured lists? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The tabulated lists do look better in my opinion also. I see from Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Country lists that there is only two other featured lists anyhow? I wouldn't mind if all the lists were eventually in tabular format. Looks like a big job though and it would be great a bot could help out?--Sting Buzz Me... 09:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kookaburra species identity request

Someone said that this Image:Blue-winged Kookaburra (Dacelo leachii) -female.jpg‎ is a Blue-winged Kookaburra, but it has stripped tail feathers. Snowman (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a female Blue winged kookaburra?--Sting Buzz Me... 09:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes it is a female Blue-winged Kookaburra. The information is not on the article but my field guide to the birds of Oz shows good drawings of the male and female blue winged, and the picture above is definitely a female Dacelo leachii.--Sting Buzz Me... 09:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And this one Image:Blue-winged kookaburra arp.jpg with a blue tail? Snowman (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That's the male. It has the tail all deep blue. Male Laughing kookaburras sometimes have a blue patch on the rump but nowhere near as pronounced as the female blue winged. Description of tail on female blue winged reads as "Female tail rufous, barred dark blue (refers to dark blue patch upper tail}.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Plus if you take a look at the Laughing Kookaburra you will notice the brown eye-stripe. That's a pretty good aid to identification if in doubt. The blue winged species has no eye stripe.--Sting Buzz Me... 10:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for parrot images on flickr, but I found such a good Kookaburra image that I uploaded it. There is no info on sexual dimorphism on the Blue-winged Kookaburra wiki page, so I thought that the male and female were different species. I have corrected the image name by uploading one with the correct name and requesting that the badname file is deleted. Good name renamed file now used in above link to reduce confusion, now that the old badname image is listed for deletion on commons. Snowman (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles for attention

Over the past few months, an IP has been suggesting articles on prehistoric animal genera for creation at WP:AFC. It's great that someone is taking an interest in the topic, but the articles are sub-stubs with little context, formatting, categorization, and wikilinking, and no taxoboxes. The bird articles that could use attention are:


I had been working on the whole group of articles, but my schedule has changed, I got tired of keeping up with the indefatigable IP, and I don't know much about birds. I've been heavily reliant on the Paleobiology Database for classifications, locations, and ages. If anyone wants to take a couple when they're bored, I'd greatly appreciate it. J. Spencer (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC) (updated 01:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

Ghoura, anyone?

I'm working on research for a ship article and came across some info about a member of the ship's crew that was prosecuted for illegally importing bird feathers around 1920. The objects seized were described in the legal docs as:

one bag containing seven packages of Paradise and Ghoura feathers one package containing 150 feathers of the bird of paradise and 150 quills and 43 boxes containing heads and feathers of birds of paradise and Ghoura heads.

I get birds of paradise, but does anyone know sort of bird Ghoura might refer to? Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm stumped. I can only guess it is a local name for some bird that has been widely dropped from usage. Sorry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I suspect it refers to Goura, the genus containing crowned pigeons. Maias (talk) 03:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, that makes sense. I tried a bunch of different spellings but not that one. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, especially in the context of the quoted information. Thanks for the help. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomnomnom

Comming of the back of a great Collaboration of the Month last month (sending Cattle Egret all the way to FA), this months hasn't really gotten off the ground. Oh well. Only two current nominations for next months, however, so go nominate or vote for something now! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Puerto Rican Amazon

A few of us have been working on Puerto Rican Amazon, which I feel isn't far off GA. Caribbean H.Q. has added a mass of material and Joelr31 and I have been giving it a spit'n'boot polish. Anyone else is welcome to chip in and offer an opinion on hwat else is needed etc. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

....and now at GAN..Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Scientific names after common names?

Some of us usually mention the scientific name of an organism immediately after the common name, as in this sentence from Blackbird:

Two related Asian Turdus thrushes, the White-collared Blackbird (T. albocinctus) and the Grey-winged Blackbird (T. boulboul), are also named blackbirds,[5] and the Somali Thrush (T. (olivaceus) ludoviciae) is alternatively known as the Somali Blackbird.[8]

We see this often in print, but is it useful when there's a link to the article on the species? I doubt many people will think, "I wonder what the scientific name is" but not "I wonder what else I can read about it". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am directly talking about their names, or wish to make it clear that two birds are unrelated and or share the same common name (Rock Wren (Salpinctes obsoletus) versus Rock Wren, (Xenicus gilviventris)) I tend not to include the scientific names. I don't think it adds much for lay readers. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I generally like doing it, especially when there are species with similar common names, and also when talking about classification (eg. showing something is in the same genus). Given both are occurring, shall we make a consensus vote on it? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
As usual, I'm not in favor of an even mildly binding vote. (Should we take a vote on whether to take a vote?) I'm also not against people adding the scientific names where they see a good reason. I just want to suggest that doing it automatically might not be necessary. By the way, though I've often been guilty of writing too technically about birds, I speculate that a fair number of readers skip all scientific names without picking up any information from them. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 01:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree, no vote, no consistency, let people do it the way they want to. We don't need to standardise everything. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree, as the perpetrator of the example, I tend to do it when I want to illustrate a relationship (or lack of) and not otherwise. Jimfbleak (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The scientific name may also be useful in captions for images, when there are several subspecies, and where there are several common names. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hippolais

Splitting the Sykes'/Booted Warbler article into two has been on my to do list for a while - I've finally got round to it. If anyone feels like checking to see if I haven't made any schoolboy errors, please do. Western & Eastern Olivaceous Warbler need splitting too, if anyone's keen - otherwise I'll do it myself in a spare moment. SP-KP (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Introduced Birds of the World

Picked up this great 1981 book from the library with loads of info about when, how many and which species birds have been introduced to places. It is world wide but a bit Australian-centric. I am planning to embellish material to various pages, starting with the FAs already. If anyone has a particular bird they want me to check, let me know. Did you know King Penguins were introduced into Norway in the 1930s and were seen for about 10 years....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I must say I like the idea of penguins in Norway.
I don't have any birds in mind, but does the book shed any light on the words "introduced", "escaped", and "feral" discussed above? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 05:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess that the King Penguin may have temporarily occupied a niche once taken by the Great Auk in Norway. I think, it would be a million time better, if the Great Auk still lived there. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Image dumps

Is there any WP Birds project guidelines on image placement and image sizes, and use of images for videos? Any comments on the position and the size of the video on the Blue-winged Kookaburra and Laughing Kookaburra pages? Snowman (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snowman, you are obviously referring to the video-clips that I've been inserting (....so far nearly 200 + 300 images) I originally put them on to add some content to articles with little or none to spur on the 'wordy-guys' like yourself, If better content can be found I would have no problem if they were 'removed' as I realise the quality is not always very good. But saying that I think they really are a waste of time smaller than 300px.I will continue uploading unless I get unanimous disapproval, I have received encouragement from more than one admin on the WP Birds project. Aviceda talk 08:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Many images of the videos appear out-of-focus on the wiki page (static image prior to playing the video) at the 300px size, and disrupt the page because they are bigger than the infobox image in almost all cases. Can you use some discretion about what size to choose? Some of these images will adequately go in a gallery. It is a wiki style rule not to have text with an image to the left and right, and many of your images break this rule as they are placed giving text with the infobox on the right and your image on the left. Also, it is a wiki style rule that images should be autosized, unless small detail needs to be seen in the image and also for some images in the introduction. For many of your additions the images are so blurred that increasing the size adds nothing to the detail that can be visualized. Here is a small sample of your images; Rufous Songlark, Forest Kingfisher, Flame Robin, Satin Bowerbird. I think that the presentation of many need to be changed to be in line with wiki style guidelines as well as to give a better artistic appearance to the wikipages. The videos are interesting and I have viewed a few ,and I find that the 300px default size pointless as they can be viewed at their full size of 384×288 by clicking on the image. - Snowman (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I repositioned and resized the Kookaburra video images to bring them inline with wiki style guidelines, but you reverted the changes. Even though you have my general approval (and the others that you claim) to add videos, I think that the static images of the videos must be presented better, and kept in line with wiki style guidelines. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, I made this here - Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds/Collaboration#Standing_list_of_very_short_articles_with_surplus_of_pictorial_content so as we can prioritise getting some of these very short articles longer. Anyone then is most welcome to chip in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand the relevance of a list of two, and I do not see the relevance of your comment in advancing the discussion on keeping to MOS and artistic presentation of pages with images. I also have added hundreds of images (mainly parrots) in the hope that others will help me to add to the text content. This project does not appear to value contributors who work on images, which I feel are so important to many short neglected pages. I feel that many bird pages have been insulted with 300px out-of-focus images. Snowman (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Umm..I just got it started and was hoping you and Aviceda would add to it. I have alot of bird pages on my watchlist but only a small minority. As I am Australian, it is alot easier for me to quickly bulk up Australian bird articles, whereas American, English etc. can do so with their own pages. I thought standing lists may help if someone was at a loose end. I do appreciate both of your images very much. I have not paid attention to the formatting sizes. sorry. been busy. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Could the use or an explanation of the new list be added under the heading? The other lists have a line of explanation under the heading. Snowman (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Done. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
So it is very similar to the heading above the new heading. Perhaps, it could be replaced by the heading above having subsections; "Short articles", "Medium length articles". I have changed the heading because it appeared to have a different meaning to the description. Snowman (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know of an open-source app that can create a thumbnail from a video-clip? I'm currently using KinoDV to make the clips, which it is very good at, however currently I have no control over the creation of the thumbnail that displayed when I add the clip to Commons, if it was possible to do this I could probably make a link in a manner that Snowman suggests, where the clip opens on the Commons page. As I feel that the captioning is just a 'formatting' issue, I will investigate this for the time-being. Aviceda talk 02:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

FAC

Common Treecreeper now inconspicuously lurking at FAC Jimfbleak (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)