Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#I'm out

White owl currently redirects to the article White Owl (cigar brand). Should the lower caps version redirect to Snowy owl or Western barn owl, both known as white owls? Mika1h (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The article about the cigar has a link to :White Owl (disambiguation) right near the top, though it's slightly hidden by a template that's been there since 2009. I'll look at cleaning up the cigar article to see if that can be removed. I think that's adequate. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::@SchreiberBike @Mika1h - as an aside, I have severe doubts that an obscure cigar brand like that meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) test for deserving an article of its own at all. My inclination would be to get rid of it as "not notable", and merge the disambiguation page with the main White Owl page - MPF (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I have brought some of the common names of the Western barn owl to the lead, which is a very short lead for a FA. I have changed the emphais within the DAB page. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Suggest move White Owl to White Owl (cigar), with both White Owl and White owl redirecting to the DAB page. Snowman (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Snowmanradio - missed your reply earlier! That sounds sensible, if the cigar brand is deemed noteworthy enough to retain an article; can you do it? I'm guessing it'll need admin privileges to do the moves. - MPF (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

For anyone interested:

There are currently two pages in {{Category|Birds articles needing expert attention}}. The specific articles are Common raven physiology and Theunis Piersma. 🌳 Balsam Cottonwood (talk) ✝ 20:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Is the Identification Guide to North American Birds by Peter Pyle considered a reliable source? I band birds, so I am not concered about reliability; my main concern with this source is free access. Atlashrike (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:Oops, worded this badly. I meant that I know the information is trustworthy, but I am unsure if it aligns with Wikipedia's criterion for a good source. Atlashrike (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Free access is not a requirement for sources, if it meets WP:Reliable sources it is likely useful. CMD (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Awesome, thanks so much!

:::Atlashrike (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:: I'm not that familiar with the source, but have heard of it. It seems it is a good source for certain technical aspects. It should certainly be considered a reliable source for what it covers, but there might be better less technical sources for general information. I see no problem with using it as a source.  —  Jts1882 | talk  19:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Atlashrike I've heard of it as well; a good source for me too. One point to remember, when dealing with pages in English spellings other than US and Canadian, the term to use is 'ringing', not 'banding' - MPF (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::In Australian English we use "banding", not "ringing", so not neatly applicable to all English varieties outside of North America. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:03, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I was curious about what you use in Australian English! I am Canadian and I find that our terms tend to be halfway between American terms and the terms used elsewhere. I was aware of ringing as a term, but it is a good reminder (also merganser v goosander, chickadee v tit, etc). As an aside, the book in question only covers North America (it is generally used as the "reference text" when processing banded/ringed birds). What are analogous texts outside of NA (I am somewhat aware of the European/Asian sources as well)?

:::::-Atlashrike (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Ethmostigmus thanks! I didn't know about Australian usage. After checking around a bit, it's banding in New Zealand as well, but ringing in Africa, and in India at least in Asia. Seems to be interchangeable in South America, if [https://neotropicalbirdclub.org/articles/10/C10-bullbd.pdf this report] is anything to go by.

::::::@Atlashrike there's a couple in Europe; for passerines, the main one is Lars Svensson's Identification Guide to European Passerines; for non-passerines, J K Baker's Identification of European Non-Passerines - MPF (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to create a second talk page subject in one day; I am still new to Wikipedia and I have a hard time navigating through the pages, so if there is a better place for me to direct these queries, please let me know!

I have started drafting a page in my sandbox on avian moult patterns. Please note it is partially-written and a good part of it is just shoddy point-form lists. Before I continue, I would like to know if it would be more beneficial to direct this content into plumage, moulting, and/or Humphrey–Parkes terminology. My rationale behind drafting the page is that generally, none of these pages seem appropriate for the level of detail I would like to go into (I would like to note as an aside that I am interested in editing all three of these pages regardless of page creation). Moulting is not avian-specific, and Humphrey–Parkes terminology does not cover... anything that is not Humphrey–Parkes terminology. Plumage seems like the best place in theory to direct this, but then I am concerned about it overlapping too heavily with moulting. I could split the information between the three, but I would probably have to create a new page for Wolfe-Ryder-Pyle terminology at minimum. Any advice regarding all this is deeply appreciated! Thank-you for reading through, and in addition, thanks in advance :)

- Atlashrike (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Atlashrike}}, I think this is an excellent idea and definitely worth creating as a standalone page separate from plumage, moulting, and Humphrey–Parkes terminology. While it is obviously closely related to those three articles, a detailed overview of bird moulting patterns does not fit neatly into the scope of the existing pages but is still of obvious encyclopedic value. What you've got written up currently looks like a great start, but might I suggest including an overview of the different molt strategies as outlined in [https://doi.org/10.1111/jav.03169 this paper]?

:I assume (apologies if I'm wrong!) that you are located in North America, and would encourage you to try to give this article a global scope, noting that the systems developed in Europe and North America don't neatly apply to birds in other parts of the world where seasons function differently - enwiki often has a major Northern Hemisphere bias... If there's anything I can do to assist you with non-American/European sources please let me know, I have a decent library of Australian literature I would be happy to share with you. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:54, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, that paper is awesome! I have it open as a tab right now, but I kind-of forgot about it, so thank you for the suggestion.

::And yes, I am North American (but not US American, if my spelling of moult over and over goes to show). I definitely have thought about and want the coverage to be global, but I was not sure how to start. I tried to emphasize that one of the issues that the life cycle based system has is that it is based specifically on systems as percieved from the Northern Hemisphere, but I have a dirth of material actually covering Southern Hemisphere outside of that (and generally, knowledge-wise, I have a rough understanding of how it works in South America, but not much else). I am still trying to navigate writing the article in a way that covers different systems without confusing the reader. Thank you for the reminder, and if you have any Australian sources you would like to reccommend, I would deeply appreciate them!

::- Atlashrike (talk) 03:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::HANZAB is the go-to resource for Australia/New Zealand birds, and is available for free online if you register with Birdlife Australia[https://hanzab.birdlife.org.au/] - it is a truly excellent resource on birds in this region and I highly recommend it, it's my preferred source for working on Australian bird articles. The section on plumage is pages 28-40 in the Introduction, Acknowledgements, Contributors and Reviewers, Abbreviations and Conventions section of volume one. HANZAB follows the terminology of Birds of the Western Palearctic rather than H&P and outlines some of the differences between the two and the limitations of H&P's terminology, which seems like it would be useful for your article.

:::The Australian Bird Guide (the handbook used by most Aussie birders) uses a simplified system for classifying plumage stages, being a practical guide first and foremost, but may provide some useful information nonetheless - this one isn't available online, but may be available through a library in your area. If you have emails turned on, I would be happy to take photos of my copy and send them through to you - otherwise, WP:RX is an awesome resource for getting access to difficult texts. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:59, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Atlashrike an interesting overview! The [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ibi.13164 paper] you cite by Yosef Kiat is a gem; one for every contributor on this wikiproject to read. It basically proves (as I'd long thought myself) that the Humphrey / Parkes terminology isn't comprehended by anyone outside of a narrow group in North America; I'd suggest we should in general avoid using it in wikipedia bird articles as per MOS:JARGON - MPF (talk) 09:41, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

I just noticed this old discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Deceased_Wikipedians#Pvmoutside - wonder if anyone knew him or contacted him personally? If so, someone should consider adding in a short memorial blurb at Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians. Shyamal (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article :Ural Striped-maned pigeon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged as Unreferenced and unimproved for 15 and 1/2 years. Tagged for Notability concerns for 6 months. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. While species are notable, breeds are not.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

:*I'd vote to delete, but can't find the voting page? -

:MPF (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::It's just a PROD, so unless someone wants to keep it, this is going away in 3 days. -- Reconrabbit 17:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

::: I'm inclined to agree, but there is a category for pigeon breeds. Is there somewhere else we should be asking this question? If deletion is appropriate, the same editor also created Sverdlovsk blue-gray mottle-headed pigeon.  —  Jts1882 | talk  19:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

AviList, "A Unified Global Checklist of the World’s Birds" has just been published: . This is the combined effort of Avibase, the American Ornithological Society, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, BirdLife International, and the International Ornithologists' Union to reach agreement on the world's avian taxonomy. Many species' articles will need to be rewritten! Craigthebirder (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:And it needs an article itself. Unless someone else jumps in (feel free) I'll write one in a couple of days. Craigthebirder (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'll see if I can give it a quick starter tonight 👍 - MPF (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Craigthebirder - just a thought, though: I'd be holding fire on rewriting species articles just yet, particularly for species split by IOC but lumped by AviList. I know from personal communications with IOC that at least some of these, the IOC folk maintain strongly should be retained as splits (examples mentioned to me Sandwich Tern/Cabot's Tern and Inca Jay/Green Jay): I am presuming that AviList will have, like IOC did, [bi?]-annual reviews, and I'd guess that even though AviList lump them for now, they will (re-)split them soon. It would make a right mess to lump pages here now, and then have to re-separate them soon after. We should obviously mention that AviList lump them, but keep them at their current IOC status until the situation is clearer. - MPF (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I wasn't planning to go back to my earlier expanded articles any time soon, if ever...just sighing, I suppose. I seldom use AviBase as a taxonomy source; I stick to IOC, BLI/HBW, and AOS (north and south). And I was thinking more of articles where differences among their treatments are described - often BLI/HBW is an outlier. Craigthebirder (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Craigthebirder Arrgh! For some unknown reason I put 'AviBase' above when of course I meant 'AviList'. I've corrected that now, does it change what you added in any way? - MPF (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: Agree on holding fire on changing species articles, etc. For starters, the consensus of the project is to follow the IOC, so we'd need a discussion to switch to AviList. We probably should wait for final IOC 15.2, which will be making all the lumps needed for alignment. Apart from all the species lumps there are four families merged, although Icteridae/Icteriidae won't be missed, as well as many genus changes. A list of the differences between IOC 15.1 and AviList-2015 can be found with the [https://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/compare.jsp?source1=avilist&version1=AVILIST2025&source2=ioc&version2=IOC15_01&continent=®_type=3 Avibase comparison tool].  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

One that clearly does now need to be done here, the split of Yellow Warbler into Mangrove Warbler (Setophaga petechia) and American Yellow Warbler (Setophaga aestiva); it's been mentioned before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 75#Yellow warbler) with a conclusion of 'wait to see what AviList does': AviList splits it, upholding IOC's long-standing treatment. - MPF (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I've been looking at the Avilist spreadsheet and using the Avibase comparison tool linked above. I've noticed these changes.

• New order Galbuliformes with two families, jacamars and puffbirds, split from Piciformes
• 4 families lumped:
• Bucorvidae (ground hornbills) merged into Bucerotidae (hornbills)
• Alcippeidae merged into Leiothrichidae (laughing thrushes)
• Scotocercidae (streaked scrub warbler) merged into Cettiidae
• Icteriidae (yellow breasted chat) merged into Icteridae

• 20 fewer genera than in IOC 15.1 (2376 vs 2396). 35 genera included in IOC and not in Avilist, 15 genera included in Avilist and not in IOC.
• 126 species have changed genus
• 12 species have been split to give 28 species
• 234 species lumped to give 99 species - (7 species lumped for the imperial shag, 7 species lumped for the little shrikethrush)
• 26 species have a different English name (not counting those associated with splits/lumps where the English name is sometimes changed)

Subspecies are still work in progress. The Avilist website:

https://www.avilist.org/checklist/components-of-the-avilist-checklist/

has this text:

" AviList v2025 started with a baseline list of subspecies from IOC v11.2 (July 2021), and this initial subspecies taxonomy has been largely carried through to AviList v2025."

and

"An initial task for AviList v2026 will be to bring the subspecies into full alignment with the final version of IOC (15.2, expected in July/August 2025)."

Avilist involved processing a large amount of information and there will inevitably be errors. Laurent Raty has pointed out on Birdforum that a few of the specific epithets are questionable. see https://www.birdforum.net/threads/new-unified-list-of-birds-avilist.464188/page-27#post-4804826

I've been told that IOC 15.2 will be closer to AviList, but that it won't be identical.

-Aa77zz (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Aa77zz any info as to the differences? I'm guessing it might include the Sandwich Tern/Cabot's Tern and Inca Jay/Green Jay cases I mentioned above? - MPF (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{u|MPF}} I know nothing more about the content. The aim is to release it later this summer. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:17, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

:::OK thanks! - MPF (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)