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
· changes

Range of American Black Vulture

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]
@Ysangkok, Jts1882, and Craigthebirder: I've updated File:AmericanBlackVultureMap.png; let me know if it needs any further corrections - MPF (talk) 00:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much MPF, that's great! Ysangkok (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow warbler

Yellow warbler needs to be split into two pages, American yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva (Wikispecies) and Mangrove warbler Setophaga petechia (Wikispecies) per IOC. This is very long overdue (should've been done about ten years ago!), but it's too complex for me to tackle on my own - MPF (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, please? - MPF (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Setophaga aestiva is recognised as a separate species by the IOC but not by Clements (eBird/BOW) or Birdlife/IUCN (or H&M4).
The project to align the three major checklists (Working Group Avian Checklists or WGAC (see here) has led to many lumps and splits over the last couple of years but as far as I can see the yellow warbler hasn't been mentioned. The IOC have posted a list of proposed changes for the next release, IOC 15.1, but the Yellow Warbler is not mentioned. (see here)
This is an American species, and I would expect the NACC and SACC to be asked for their opinions before a decision is taken. A proposal to split the yellow warbler that was submitted to the SACC in 2003 (Proposal 62) did not pass - the committee thought it was likely that more than one species was involved but "more information needed". See here.
I'm reluctant to work on this article until the WGAC have made a decision. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aa77zz thanks! I guess we shouldn't have to wait too much longer for the WGAC now? They say 'early 2025'. I was interested to see from the 2003 SACC proposal that there is a long history of past recognition of the two as separate species; shame that they didn't reconsider it again after IOC's decision (in Version 2.8 in 2010). Unfortunately IOC didn't give references for splits back then. - MPF (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that the yellow warbler is split in Ridgely & Tudor 2009 Birds of South America. Passerines. - Aa77zz (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Aa77zz - that could well be the source for IOC's decision the following year - MPF (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The shifting of the Spotted Creepers (Salpornis sp.) from treecreepers (Certhiidae) to spotted creepers (Salpornithidae)

The Indian spotted creeper and African spotted creeper need to be placed in the family Salpornithidae, as per the International Ornithological Congress and the Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World.

Things to do-

  1. Make the family page of Salpornithidae
  2. Correct the species pages for the spotted creepers
  3. Correct the country lists


Could anyone help me in doing the above?

Note: I will be able to make the family page by myself, as I have access to many credible sources such as the Birds of the World. Mitsingh (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The family Salpornithidae contains a single genus Salpornis. On English wikipedia monotypic families are included in the genus article. Thus a new articles is not required - but more could be added to the Salpornis article. The Indian spotted creeper and African spotted creeper are already placed in the family Salpornithidae according the speciesboxes.- Aa77zz (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it a quick check over; the taxobox spelling 'Salpornidae' needs correcting to Salpornithidae, for starters - MPF (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to say the same about the family article. I changed the taxonomy template for the genus earlier today so the family spelling mistake is mine. I've also started modifying the articles, which isn't as straightforward as expected.
The country lists and other articles referring to Salpornis can be found with this search (49 results).  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882 - I think I've got it corrected to Salpornithidae throughout now; involved editing 2 templates as well, so it'll need a checkover to see I've got it right - MPF (talk) 12:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks correct. Only those two templates need changing. I was careless when I changed the parent in the genus template and then the system created the family template at the misspelt name. Incidentally when moving a taxonomy template blank we don't want the redirect at the old name. You can blank the the redirect and add category:Unnecessary taxonomy templates, which will tag the page for deletion.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jts1882 thanks! I find template editng very daunting, full of complex code I don't understand, so I prefer not to touch them if I can avoid it :-) MPF (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once you've done a few hundred it gets easier, although screw-ups like mine today still happen. Feel free to ask me if you have issues with the templates. In general, if you ask on the automated taxobox template talk pages (or at WT:Automated_taxobox_system) there are a number of people quite experienced with the taxoboxes who will answer fairly promptly.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we merge the article of Certhiidae with the one for Certhia as it is the only genus of Certhiidae? Mitsingh (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, for consistency. However, as the two articles exist and are quite different (apart from the species lists), I'd be inclined to leave the status quo.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitsingh @Jts1882 - I'd agree keep the Certhiidae article separate, as it has taxonomic history beyond Certhia alone, which other viewpoints / authorities may still accept. Although IOC is our lead taxonomy, we need to consider other views - MPF (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

African Spotted Creeper doesn't have any photos - I've checked iNat and there's some cc-by licensed there which I'll upload to Commons now - MPF (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks!
I'll have to update the country lists though. Mitsingh (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitsingh @Jts1882 @Aa77zz - now 30 photos of African Spotted Creeper uploaded, including both S. s. salvadori and S. s. xylodromus (but not the other two subspp.), at Commons:Category:Salpornis salvadori; still a few yet to upload. A lot of them also need some colour balance editing (red cast on a lot of them), which I'll do later. File:African Spotted Creeper Salpornis salvadori salvadori, Lilongwe, Malawi 08.jpg might be best for the taxobox, but check through all of them - MPF (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is probably the best for the taxobox. Mitsingh (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could anybody try to find any photos which are okay to use for ssp.emini and ssp.erlangeri? Mitsingh (talk) 04:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IOC 15.1

IOC 15.1 is live. I'm preparing to update the taxonomy sections of the Tropical royal flycatcher and Atlantic royal flycatcher, their genus Royal flycatcher, and five other species' pages. IOC has moved all seven species to family Onychorhynchidae. The text changes are easy. How do I change the family in the taxonbars? Thanks. Craigthebirder (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the species infoboxes you mean? Change it at {{Taxonomy/Oxyruncinae}} (the subfamily taxonomy template). Reconrabbit 21:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The genus page Royal flycatcher has a taxobox; the two species have speciesboxes. The two species and their genus page list them in subfamily Oxyruncinae and family Tityridae. When I changed Tityridae to Onychorhynchidae in the subfamily taxonomy template you linked, it wants a taxonomy template for Onychorhynchidae. I don't know how to create that. (I have to assume the subfamily remains the same, as IOC doesn't include that level in its spreadsheet.) Craigthebirder (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like {{Taxonomy/Onychorhynchidae}} used to exist but got deleted. I'm assuming that it is in the parvorder Tyrannida? I'm not getting any info from BoW and iNaturalist just jumps from Passeriformes to Onychorhynchidae. The red-linked template should give you information on how to set it up. Reconrabbit 00:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's existed and been deleted, it should be easier to undelete, rather than create afresh? - MPF (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the deleter to undelete it. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's been restored. Onychorhynchidae and Oxyruncidae used to be recognised by all (most?) checklists. Then the IOC (and also Clements?) lumped them into Tityridae. Now they are recognised again. With the taxonomy templates we try and delete the unused ones to keep the numbers down (there are over 100,000); it's easy enough to create a new one and hopefully the creator will add a reference.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated {{Taxonomy/Onychorhynchidae}} and recreated {{Taxonomy/Oxyruncidae}} using H&M4 and Oliveros et al (2019) as |refs= for using Tyrannida as parent to the families.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Taxonomies of royal flycatcher, tropical royal flycatcher, and Atlantic royal flycatcher pages are now up to date. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Craigthebirder @Jts1882 @Reconrabbit - as an aside: seeing the hatnote, should Oncorhynchus be added to the 'do not confuse with'? That is even more confusable than the confusion name already given, particularly as it is often mis-spelled Onchorhynchus - MPF (talk) 23:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, put it in. Craigthebirder (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grey-crowned Goldfinch (C. caniceps) is split from European Goldfinch (C. carduelis)

The Grey-crowned Goldfinch (C. caniceps) has been split from the European Goldfinch (C.carduelis) according to both the Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World and the International Ornithological Congress.

This change has not been reflected in Wikipedia yet.

Things to do-

  1. Create a page for the "Grey-crowned goldfinch"
  2. Fix appropriate country lists

Mitsingh (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitsingh surprised that wasn't done a while back! IOC split it last year. species:Carduelis caniceps and commons:Category:Carduelis caniceps both exist; there are plenty of photos to chose from. - MPF (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We still have to make the page, right? Mitsingh (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitsingh yes; I've updated the Carduelis page though. Just now, I'm busy working on renaming and updating 150+ photos in commons:Category:Carduelis caniceps, that'll take quite a while! - MPF (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF I'm working on a draft article on my sandbox-
User:Mitsingh/sandbox Mitsingh (talk) 06:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MPF Here is the draft of the grey-crowned goldfinch -
Draft:Grey-crowned goldfinch - Wikipedia Mitsingh (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mitsingh thanks! I see it has already been moved to Grey-crowned goldfinch; I've added a bit already and will expand it a bit more later this afternoon - MPF (talk) 11:39, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:BIRDS
No tags for this post.