Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

WikiProject Birds

General information Main project page talk Naming and capitalization  → Article requests  → Spoken Article requests talk  → Photo requests talk  → Attention needed talk  → New articles talk Project portal talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk Collaboration talk Featured topics talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Country lists talk Bird articles by size talk Hot articles talk Popular pages talk Task forces Domestic pigeon task force talk Poultry task force talk

Category:Birds of (African countries)

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

Status of Lamprotornis elisabeth - merge with Lamprotornis chloropterus?

Hi all! Just came across the Miombo blue-eared starling (Lamprotornis elisabeth) article - it appears that Avibase[1] and BirdLife International[2] now considers this a subspecies of L. chloropterus, L. c. elisabeth. I assume this should be merged with or redirected into the L. chloropterus article, but this is outside of my wheelhouse (I'm a birder, but not a bird article editor lol) so I figured I'd bring it to attention here and leave it to be handled by someone more experienced. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 12:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

We follow the IOC who have Miombo blue-eared starling (Lamprotornis elisabeth) and the lesser blue-eared starling (Lamprotornis chloropterus) as separate species. Clements has the Miombo blue-eared starling as a subspecies Lamprotornis chloropterus elisabeth.

The Working Group Avian Checklists (WGAC) (see here) is working to reconcile the different lists - but as far as I can see, they haven't yet reached the starlings (Sturnidae). - Aa77zz (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

According to the Avibase entry for Southern Blue-eared Glossy-Starling, version 0.01 of WGAC recognised Miombo Blue-eared Starling (Lamprotornis elisabeth), presumably because they used the IOC as the base taxonomy, but it was changed to Lamprotornis chloropterus elisabeth in version 0.02, where it remains in version 0.04 (7/07/2024). I assume this means it only a matter of time until the IOC make the change. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Which phylogeny to use?

Hello everyone (excuse my English), out of curiosity, what taxonomic reference do you use for the classification of birds on Wikipedia (there may be several)? As I am making a list for the French avifauna, I do not know exactly in which order the orders/families should be arranged between them, as well as the species within the same family. An example with the Anatidae, where we have a large number of more or less recognized subfamilies and tribes, even leading to a lot of confusion on Wiki.en. Rather than using a simple alphabetical classification, I would rather apply a more phylogenetic arrangement. Ellicrum (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

To decide which species qualify for articles we use the IOC and follow their scientific name and family and ordinal classification. They don't give subfamilies and tribes in their listings, although the sequence usually follows recognised subfamilies and tribes in other sources.

Anatidae is a particular problem as the published taxonomies lag behind the phylogenetic studies and there isn't complete agreement in the latter. I did try and reorganise the taxonomy templates for the automatic taxoboxes a couple of years ago but found there was too much disagreement between sources to come up with a taxonomy that wasn't original research (WP:OR).  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed answer. I assume that this list is the main reference here. Since there also seems to be a phylogeny within the genera (as if there were subgenera), it makes the whole thing much more complex. To take the list of American avifauna as an example, there is clearly the same type of phylogenetic classification, even if we see that the species present are not always classified in the same order as those in the Google Sheet. I will look into this. Ellicrum (talk) 16:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that although the IOC checklist is normally followed, some lists on wikipedia follow a different source. The American list you linked to mentions AOS and AviBase as sources. The differences may be in sequence and also in species recognised. - Kweetal nl (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bird Island, South Georgia#Requested move 5 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bird Island, South Georgia#Requested move 5 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 10:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Taxobar question

When I move a bird species from one genus to another, how do I handle the Taxobar in the species article? Should I just delete the Taxobar? How do I created a new one?

A related question, how should I handle the Commons category page?

Thanks, Aa77zz (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I assume you mean {{taxonbar}}. After the move the taxonbar should have the Wikidata IDs for the new combination (in |from1=) and the old combination, and possibly some others. The taxonbar does pick up some names (basionyms) but its best practice to list them explicitly. An example may help make it clearer.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Jts1882 for your reply. The genus Accipiter in IOC 14.1 contained 50 species. A large genetic study of the Accipitridae by Catanach et al 2024 confirmed that Accipiter was polyphyletic. In IOC 14.2 (and presumably eventually in other lists - I believe all changes are part of the WGAC initiative to harmonise the lists) Accipiter has been split into 5 genera: 4 genera have been resurrected: Lophospiza, Aerospiza, Tachyspiza and Astur. I'm sure, ornithologist will eventually describe some common morphological features of birds in the resurrected genera but frustratingly Catanach et al only discuss the genetics. Only 9 species remain in Accipiter - ie 41 species have changed genera. These include many well known species - some of the articles are large (actually too large). I've created short articles for the new genera and I'm in the process of editing the species articles to reflect the change of genus (I'm not "moving" articles in the wiki sense.). As an example - how do I change the {{taxonbar}} in Chinese sparrowhawk. - Aa77zz (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)