Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Isee back in 2016 someone deleted Categories: Birds of...(African countries)but just for the African countries, nowhere else. Long term project is to try to restore them in some fashion....Pvmoutside (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably due to a large overlap between different countries and the arbitrary nature of confining birds to specific political regions, though I don't know why this wasn't done for any other continent. Also, the timestamp for this comment didn't have (UTC) at the end so it wasn't archiving properly, fixed that for you. Reconrabbit 14:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and felicitations. When I edit bird articles I sometimes find a commented-out stub of a reference, as was the case with this edit to Harpy eagle. What are they for? —DocWatson42 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the reason for this particular case, but when making larger edits/updates to articles, it happens that some references are no longer in use. Instead of removing them completely, some editors prefer to simply comment them out if they think they could be useful again when the article is expanded in the future. An alternative, and probably better way to keep and organise unused but useful references is the Template:Refideas, which is placed on the talk page but will create a info box that is seen when editing the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My incorrect guess was that it was a left over when converting to inline references, as I've used comments until I'm sure all are moved. However, it seems just to have been a way of leaving a note or reminder. A commented out reference was first added to the external links section in 2007, with later comments in the reference section here and here (both in 2008) and here in 2010. I think they can safely be removed now.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a previous discussion about these at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_60#FieldianaZool,_etc._comments. Almost all of the commented out references were added by a single no-longer active editor (Dysmorodrepanis). More than 1000 of them were deleted following the TOL discussion. I believe the intention in adding them was that the could be used to expand the article. However, most of these that I look up weren't actually good sources for expanding the article.

For example, one of these I looked at was a checklist of birds from a national park in Bhutan. Most of the species mentioned in that checklist just were a entry in a row in a table. Threatened species present in the park had a couple sentences about where they were found in the park (potentially some useful information about habitat).

Overall, the commented out references Dysmorodrepanis added don't seem to really be selectively chosen as useful references but are just a random scattering of various journal articles that happened to mention a species. I think they should all be removed. Plantdrew (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I make a note of that (on my user page, not in an article :-) ). Thank you. ^_^ —DocWatson42 (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came across one case where the commented out references are crucial. Dysmordrepanis added a large number of fossil Phalacrocorax species to cormorant (starting with this edit, but adding more in other edits of the course of several years). There are multiple "Phalacrocorax sp. 2". Designations like that are only going to make sense in the context of a single paper. Of course, it would be better if there were actual citations rather than commented out ones, but at least the commented out ones provide some clue to somebody examining the page source code.

However, I'm inclined to delete the entire list of Phalacrocorax species. The article says "Provisionally, the fossil species are thus all placed in Phalacrocorax here", with "here" apparently meaning Wikipedia. Have all the species listed actually been assigned to Phalcrocorax by sources outside of Wikipedia? Overall the list of fossil species seems to be undue weight for a lot of dubious assignments and non-formally named fossils. Plantdrew (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I decipher those references? —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone take a look at White-browed shrike-babbler? The second half of the lead states it was formerly a subspecies of itself? Is that text meant to be on Pied shrike-babbler, or is the name wrong? CMD (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article for species Pteruthius aeralatus was formerly at Blyth's shrike-babbler, which was lumped by Clements into a broader species known as the White-browed shrike-babbler. The sentence made sense until the page was moved. The old Wikipedia article lists six subspecies (as does the "retired" BOW entry for Blyth's shrike-babbler).

The current Wikipedia article lists eight subspecies (as does the curent BOW/Clements taxonomy). The addition subspecies are P. a. ripleyi and P. a. annamensis. I assume these were the birds lumped with Blyth's shrike-babbler to make the White-browed shrike-babbler, but I'll need to look further into what these subspecies were previous called before updating the article.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The recent lump was of the Pied shrike-babbler (and its six subspecies) with the Dalat shrike-babbler (Pteruthius annamensis) and Himalayan shrike-babbler (Pteruthius ripleyi). I'm not sure, but it seems there was an earlier lumped species, which may have had a broader scope. Anyone know more?  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The notes at IOC 14.2 pointed me to Rheindt & Eaton 2009. Traditionally there were five recognized species of shrike-babbler (Pteruthius). Reddy (2008) split them into 19 species under the PSC, while Rheindt & Eaton 2009 reviewed the splits and proposed a BSC classification of 9 species. Two of these species were subsequently lumped into Pteruthius aeralatus by HBW and that is now followed by the major checklists.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gunnison grouse#Requested move 22 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TiggerJay (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have two images on Commons for this bird: File:Coragyps atratus map.svg and File:AmericanBlackVultureMap.png. It's inconsistent but I have little knowledge on birds. I'd appreciate if somebody more knowledgable can tell me which one is more correct. Maybe we should delete the other one? Or rename it to match the year in which it was correct? Since ranges can change, maybe range maps should always have a year in their file name? --Ysangkok (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The maps are based on different sources and both seem reasonable, so perhaps rename both to indicate sources and year.. The former is based on the IUCN distribution map. While the map was made in 2007, newer versions of the IUCN assessments have a similar map. The latter is based on a map in Birds of the World. The description of the geographic distribution in BOW is more detailed and mentions the absence from the high Andes. Curiously, the credit on BOW says "BirdLife International and Cornell Lab of Ornithology (in review)", but the Birdlife map shows the same distribution as the IUCN assessment. The assessment is 2016 so an update must be due and perhaps the distributions will align better.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coragyps atratus map.svg is much more accurate along its northern range boundary. File:AmericanBlackVultureMap.png stops well short of Ohio but they're year-round residents up to about the middle of the state and not infrequently encountered all the way to Lake Erie in the northeast. Craigthebirder (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]