User talk:Rabo3/Archive 5

Please see Bird 1039 probably photographed in Venezuela. Snowman (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. • Rabo³ • 11:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, now that

Thanks – as I always do, I did check "What links here" and assumed I had dealt with all where it was relevant, but will check again in case some were missed. • Rabo³ • 16:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You can now use the

Thanks! • Rabo³ • 16:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Rabo3. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#"Spurfowl" disambiguation pages with links..
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Snowman (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I regret moving forward so quickly with this decision. However, this being a wiki, we can always put things back the way they were if there is a better solution to be found. Please rejoin the discussion, as I would like your thoughts on the matter. Cheers! bd2412 T 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have reverted the edits and reinstated the Spurfoul diambig. Snowman (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, could you identify this hummingbird ? The author (on flickr) changed his identification to Magnificent Hummingbird (Eugenes fulgens), and I tend to agree with him. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

... So who is going to identify Neotropical birds? Snowman (talk) 11:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I must admit I reverted first, and only later realised the lower case change was made by an experienced bird editor. I wondered what had happened, thanks for clarifying Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Philippine Eagle

Sorry but I never compared them (Birds) or their growth rate to mammals birds are totally different from mammals they don't have wings or feathers. Female Philippine eagles are probably the tallest and longest extant eagle and the 112 cm long specimen from the FMNH was not a an over size as you claimed as I have said the tail alone could reached almost 20 inches long remember? and you said that the longest on record to you was 17 inches? (probably that was a male eagle) here's the reference which I uploaded; the pictures and details of the book... [LINK REMOVED] Hence a 500 mm Tail is = 50 cm or 19.6850 inches long which is "almost 20 inches"! Although there was no available measurement of length on the data; 50 cm which is half a meter long. Philippine eagles tail is about 30 to 40% of it's total body length which will make this specimen about 108-110 in length or even longer (I also have previously posted the pictures from the Carnivora-forum [LINK REMOVED] just to show you how really BIG this specie besides a human which you could at least calculate and don't worry IF some of those pictures were subject to copyright law which Carnivoraforum has allowed But there's nothing I could do about it, I can only post their website for reference purposes..(you can always delete them anyway) which I hope you could have appreciated those awesome pictures. ATB, Informaticz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

I have removed the links, as they include copyright violations (

WP:COPYLINK

was already provided to you earlier. Quote: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement"). Carnivoraforum is not above the law. They can't allow anyone to use photos they do not own the copyrights to.

Actually, when you first made the claim about the tail, the comment I made (see your talk page) was that "Based on the primary sources for raptors (see below post [on your talk page]), the only documented is 42–45.3 centimetres (17–17.8 in).", but this was never really an issue because no one added anything about the tail in the article. Tail is not the best measurement (because it can be measured both as total rectrix length, like the way you would measure a feather if you find it, and visible rectrix length, like the way you would measure it when still attached to the bird), but if you want to add it, feel free to do so, but you'll need citations to add the 30 to 40% bit. However, as explained repeatedly on your talk page:

1) Do not remove information that is fully supported by a

reliable source

.

2) Do not modify referenced sentences without making sure the new version is supported by the reference.

3) If you insert new information (e.g., the wings of the Phil. Eagle have a "greater surface area than any other eagle" or that 112 cm is normal length), you should provide a reliable source that supports it. • Rabo³ • 11:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

IF you really want to know more about How truly large Philippine eagles are? since you do not acknowledged other sites than your own references which by the way is not the only available info regarding Philippine eagles, you do not monopolized the source of widely available references especially when it comes to documented records. How do you define reliable source? You are saying that the Haribon foundation data was not reliable? and yet you were using the FMNH specimen from their data even they had only 3 available-specimen that they used in the experiment their findings was still reliable the margin of error would be minimal because those 3 specimen were enough to represent the length, they had one mature female, one mature and one immature male that was use in the experiment. I was citing the length of the tail because it was included in the measurements of the specie of which you could at least have an IDEA how long they can get by calculating the total length of the body plus the tail, head and bill from the tip of the bill to the longest tail feathers and you were asking where is the reference of the "almost 20 inches long tail?" measurement and you said that the only documented length was 42–45.3 cm (17–17.8 in) so I posted the 50 cm long tail of a Philippine eagle and It was DOCUMENTED by the way from the book "Philippine birds" author: John Dupont.

Here's a renowned expert biologist which nobody can refute his credibility in terms of knowledge in many species no other than Sir David Attenborough according to him the mighty Philippine eagle is the Tallest, longest and has the largest wing surface area than any other eagles. "greater surface area than any other eagle" Source: BBC Wildlife Special on Eagles Informaticz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

For the tail, see my last comment. A reliable source is defined by

WP:PRESERVE (which you have been pointed to on the WP:BIRD discussion). Secondly, you continue to violate the three points noted above: 1) You delete information that is fully supported by a reliable source. 2) You continue to modify referenced sentence so they do not match their reference (+ in one case add a sentence and provides a reference that does not support it). 3) You continue to add new information without providing citations. Further comments at the WP:BIRD discussion (linked on your talk page and below). • Rabo³

• 08:26, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to participate in a discussion about eagles on the WP Bird talk page at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Multiple_edits_on_Harpy_Eagle_and_Philippine_Eagle. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rabo, Most of my formal training in statistics as applied to population genetics dates back to my undergrad years at UCD. I have an unsatisfactory understanding of cladistics, rather piece-meal, and gleaned from discussions in scientific papers. I need an overview, in particular that delves into the various statistical models, and methods now being used for understanding avian phylogeny. Do you know of any decent volumes in text that you might recommend?

Cheers, SteveSteve Pryor (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

reply → your talk. • Rabo³ • 13:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A bot changes all the double redirects, but it might take a day or two. Snowman (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Only noticed this bot quite recently; when you updated the 'ground-cuckoo' versus 'ground cuckoo' articles a few weeks ago. • Rabo³ • 00:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction: more than one bot fixes double redirects; User:EmausBot (this edit) and User:Xqbot (this edit). Snowman (talk) 07:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1249.
  Blue-naped Chlorophonia. We have been discussion this bird and I would be grateful for your opinion on its identity. Is it male, female, or immature? Snowman (talk
  ) 19:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_55#Birds_for_identification_(124). Thank you for enhancing the file description on commons. Snowman (talk) 20:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction on Roramian Screech Owl. There are a couple others. I'll get them changed back. Looks like taxonomy is a bit more complicated than the copy and paste moves I began doing a week ago. I'm getting to be a little more careful as I am getting a better understanding the taxonomy.

A couple of questions on Francolins/Spurfowls......looks like someone stated moving over the genus names (some species names adopted with new genusus, some not). I ended up completing them all for consistency, although looking at the taxonomy, some of the genus names have not been adopted yet and are still in Francolinus. Care to share any info?

Lastly, Grey-breasted Partridge was also pretty confusing. The easy move was moving White-faced Hill-partidge into Grey-breasted Partridge, (move button locked, need to ask for an admin move). The difficult piece was the Grey-breasted Partridge name was shared with the

Several users have been updating article names to IOC English names. Taxonomy change are much more complicated and all relevant information should be assessed and in particular IOC taxonomy should not be used in isolation. I think this discussion is best on the WP Bird talk page (or copied to there). Snowman (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Update: copied to WP Bird talk page, where a discussion on this topic has already been started under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#IOC_name_changes. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

First, my opinion on the following matters is in no way 'wiki rule', i.e. if people believe I advocate the wrong taxonomic approach to them, another solution may be the right one for wiki.

1) Megascops: Yes, the roraimae-guatemalae-centralis complex is messy, and not made any easier by the added confusion of watsonii-usta complex (where some members are vocally similar to some members of the guatemalae group), which itself is more complex than the simple two species split advocated by König et al. A more final solution to some of these matters will appear in the forthcomming paper on the Santa Marta Screech Owl, but due to the complexity they might split the paper and then it will likely take more time before the taxonomic review hits the press.

2) Francolins/spurfowl: Yes, consistency is the right approach. Either move 'em all or don't move any. When I updated the page some months ago, I maintained the single genus (Francolinus) and name (Francolin) because that was the simplest solution, i.e. lazyness on my part due to the many page moves involved. That's why I used the rather vague "groups" in the species list instead of just writing that these were genera. Based on multiple genetic studies, maintaining them in a single genus isn't possible, as it would be highly

Swainson's Spurfowl on wiki, some will be confused if it isn't included in the species list on the francolin page. The standard on wikipedia is that if we can expect many people to search for something under a specific name like francolin, the article for the species should be accessible via that page, even if we have it under another name like spurfowl. On that basis, the removal

of Nahan's Partridge is questionable since many –if not most– people will look for it under the name francolin (this is a very new change and to my knowledge *all* books published in the last few decades use the name Nahan's Francolin). However, since that species is still mentioned in the main text in the Taxonomy section, it may be acceptable to remove it from the actual species list.

3) Arborophila orientalis: Don't have a strong opinion on this complex. The evidence for either taxonomic treatment is rather weak. The split is mainly based on this. In short, Mees argues that the differences between the taxa are comparable to other taxa treated as species in the genus and he therefore believes they should be treated as species too. It is unfortunate that the IOC have ended up using Grey-breasted Partridge in the way they did (especially since it is no more grey-breasted than some other members of the group and the only other Arborophila from Java [A. javanica] is grey-breasted too; the main defining feature is its largely white head, hence the superior "White-faced"). Since the wiki taxonomy now is identical to the IOC taxonomy for this complex, it should be moved to Grey-breasted anyway and I have done that. However, I have re-inserted a modified version of the taxonomic info you removed from these, perhaps because of the Grey-breasted confusion? Comparable to the francolin situation, we can expect that some people checking the page for Grey-breasted actually will be looking for one of the taxa we treat as separate species. Furthermore, orientalis is certainly a member of the sumatrana complex, so I re-added it on the genus page and some of the individual species pages where it appears there was some confusion over that.

In summary: I) If we can expect people to search for something under a specific group name, it should be accessible via that page, even if a different name is used on wiki. II) If the wiki taxonomy matches the IOC taxonomy (wiki taxonomy isn't changed just because of IOC), the IOC English name is the main English name that should be used on wiki. When the taxonomy matches, you need a very good argument to have it placed on another English name than the one used by IOC (see e.g.

Talk:Tasmanian Nativehen#Nomenclature). • Rabo³

• 15:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1280. File:Unidentified bird -Sao Paulo, Brazil-8.jpg | Small brown bird in Brazil. I would be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Turdus leucomelas. • Rabo³

• 17:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Snowman (talk) 19:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

HI: You notified me that I had plagarized copywrited material..this is not true. I am the author of the material you mention and more. I am not sure if this message is going to the correct person, this is site is all very confusing, In any case, I don't like being accused of plagiarism, and I don't see how I can plagiarize myself. Wrenhawk (talk) 04:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)Steph/Wrenhawk

Reply on your talk page here. • Rabo³ • 09:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Bird 1287. File:Unidentified parrot -Mato Grosso, Brazil-8a.jpg | Is this a hybrid Amazon parrot? The orange on its head behind the yellow it not seen on other Blue-fronted Amazons that I have seem photographs of. I can not read the Portuguese on Flick to determine the location or if this parrot is captive or wild. Other photographs in the photo-set show Amazons being hand fed. I will be grateful for your opinion. Snowman (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Pure. No hybrid. • Rabo³ • 16:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Update: Moved to File:Amazona aestiva -Mato Grosso, Brazil-8a.jpg on Commons. I would like to add a little information about the orange on its head on Common. Snowman (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not much to add; random change that happens on occasion. This species is very common in the Pantanal region (where the photo was taken). • Rabo³ • 15:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

___________________________________

This page 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.