User talk:Craigthebirder

Welcome to Wikipedia, Craigthebirder! Thank you for your contributions. I am Beeblebrox and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Great edits on the bird lists.........just as a background, Wikipedia has standardized with the IOC (International Ornithological Congress) for English names when dealing with species pages. There can be variation with the North and South American lists for country and state lists. I'd use whatever the AOU American Ornithologists Union (both North and South American committees) are using for that. Didn't see any conflicts.....thought I'd give you a heads up if that helps......Pvmoutside (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For creating new state/country bird lists Pvmoutside (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig....Great work on the new lists! I hope you stick around! I see you've been updating some lists, and hope you can continue to help updating as the AOU makes changes....I know they are looking to update yellow-rumped warbler next year......Pvmoutside (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Work On All The Lists Craig. Those lists for states and countries have been particularly useful for my own research. Haydaddy (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Bio-star
		For your work on creating lists of birds, I award you the bio-star. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 23:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of list co-ordination. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate User Craigthebirder as Editor of the Week for updating, creating and monitoring many diverse lists of bird such as lists of birds of Costa Rica, Chile, the US, Ohio. South Africa, Mexico and many many more. It goes without saying that he is an active member of WikiProject Birds. His lists provide readers with great and important access to information on the popular topic of birds. Over 10K in edits, always with an edit summary and a remarkable 99% of those edits to article space.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

WikiProject Birds

Craigthebirder

Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 3, 2017

Updates, creates and monitors lists of bird and their habitats providing readers with great and important access to information.

Recognized for

maintaining bird lists

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 13:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your edits at List of birds of South Carolina and the others and wanted to let you know that the changes that had been made were based on MOS:ORDER. Wikipedia, along with all its other rules, has a standard order for sections. Keep up the good work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:54, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using the "common sense" deviation from the MOS for the reason stated when I reverted - References are more directly related to the body than the "see also" entries, so I think the references section should immediately follow the body. I've done that for all of the bird lists (I think).Craigthebirder (talk)

Hello,

I am a regular contributor of the birds by location section, an 'atlas project' in which users can literally browse bird species according to their geographical presence worldwide (retrievable from the BirdLife International website) via relevant sub-categories, many of which correspond to environmental (e.g. "birds of the miombo") as well as political (e.g. "birds of Southern Africa") geographical regions.
e.g. the Birds of South America cat. previously included a random and incomplete list of bird entries, but has since been ammended and improved, whereby now : birds with a pan-range of presence are listed on the home page, while many birds' ranges of presence tend to correspond to an environmental geographical region, to which they are particularly confined to ; e.g birds of the Northern Andes etc.
All in all, the project now allows for a clearer, well-structured and fathomable browsing of birds according to their geographical presence...

I am currently implicated in a debate against several other contributors who claim that such refined environmental sub-regional categories are needless and should be removed and merged into their political parent categories (e.g. whereby birds typically present throughout the miombo region would be upmerged into the vaguer and broader, less relevant "birds of Souther Africa" category): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_3#Category:Birds_of_the_Miombo. Despite my clarifications and counter-arguments, I seem unable to convince them otherwise.

Should you wish to express your viewpoint, please do not hesitate to leave a comment on the talk page, preceded by the word keep or merge. Regards --Couiros22 (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the IOC has issued a June 27, 2018 update were they split the seedeater, among other things. Nothing yet on Canada Jay, however. Ive split the seedeater species pages, didn't know if youd like to do the honors for the country lists.....Pvmoutside (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I'll be updating them when the new AOS list is on line - the decisions are out there but I want to download the spreadsheet to make it easier to do all the changes at once. About 80 lists are affected - US, Canada, the states and provinces, Middle American and Caribbean nations, and a dozen or so national parks...Craigthebirder (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigthebirder: Can you do some work for me at the list that I created called, List of Woodpeckers. It could need the IOC numbers added and maybe some other work.Catfurball (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Catfurball: Doing so would be a major undertaking if you're looking for a sortable format similar to that of List of tanagers or List of hummingbirds. Here's the source of the IOC list: https://www.worldbirdnames.org/ioc-lists/master-list-2/. I downloaded the Life List+ as an Excel file, sorted to get just the family I wanted and deleted the rest, added a blank column, and used fill:series to number the lines from 1 to the end. Then I added another blank column and used =concatenate to merge the common name, binomial, and number with the various formatting characters such as [[and |. I copied that column to Notepad, added the text, Wikitable code, and ==References==, then copied the whole thing to a blank Wikipedia page. So to answer your question, regretfully No. Craigthebirder (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigthebirder: You can add the IOC numbers to the Tyrant Flycatchers. And I also encourage you to make more simple bird lists, the more bird lists there the more bird portals can be made by User:The Transhumanist.Catfurball (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For diligent custodianship, since 2016, of the always flighty world of ornithology Rnickel (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, is there any reason why you are requesting the creation of redirects at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects and categories rather than creating them yourself? feminist (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've been doing them that way for a long time and I don't know how to do them any other way Craigthebirder (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy, for any title which you want to redirect to another article, just create it as follows:

#REDIRECT [[Target]]

So for example, if you want to redirect Geoffroy's daggerbill to Geoffroy's wedgebill, you create the page Geoffroy's daggerbill as follows:

#REDIRECT [[Geoffroy's wedgebill]]

See Help:Redirect for more details. feminist (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing the topic of the last days of Bald Eagle. I was surprised to find a such as vivid description of the final days of the clipper myself. I have included a link to the book with Lubbock's account: https://archive.org/details/chinaclippersbyb0000lubb/page/44. Donald McKay and His Famous Sailing Ships by Richard C. McKay is echoing the same account. I don't have although an access to the latter one at the moment. As I have researched there were some firs-hand accounts of Bald Eagle's tragedy published in Europe in the years to follow, but some other were questioning the fact that there was any survivors from Bald Eagle. Maybe we can put this on subject's talk page and go from there? Let me know what you think. Kolma8 (talk) /k8 04:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked with dictionary of Irish terminology https://www.tearma.ie/q/mallard/ Mallard is the accepted name in Irish. Chuunen Baka (talk • contribs) 11:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Also the word I replace does not occur in any Irish dictionary I have access to.[reply]

@Chuunen Baka:OK, thanks. Craigthebirder (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Yesterday at the Catholic church / square in Humacao, Puerto Rico... What kind of bird might he be? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Eloquent Peasant: Thank you for the Barnstar. But I don't know the bird - I've never been to Puerto Rico. My best guess is plain pigeon but I'll poll a couple of more knowledgeable friends. Craigthebirder (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Eloquent Peasant: My contacts say it was simply an all-brown rock pigeon. Craigthebirder (talk) 15:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't deviate from the Order or Family taxonomy. I even left the genus and species alone and only attempted to assign them to the best visual common coloquial group but placing them into specific categories of duck, goose, and waterfowl. Deal with it yourself. Isn't Wikipedia an open database? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.239.100 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @76.26.239.100: Moving species around within a family is deviating from the taxonomy. Craigthebirder (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of how domestic animals do not contribute to avifauna. Thank you. Any further edits will have a source — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddum5347 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I see you reverted my edit to the list since the redirect would catch it, but without my edit the wikilink shows up red, so the redirect isn’t in place yet. —~~ Oskila (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These birds have been introduced to New York State as dictated by the IUCN. The references I provided are reliable. While it is not a state or national source, it is an international one.

@Ddum5347: Yes, they were introduced, or escaped from captivity, but they do not have established populations according to the NYSARC, which has the final say of what's established in NY, not IUCN. And we don't include exotics that aren't established. Craigthebirder (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of birds of the Dominican Republic; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Craigthebirder,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hiya! You're the first person in the sixteen and a half years I've been editing here who has commented upon my bird list. Thanks! I'm just about to add the northern mockingbird, who are moving back into the neighborhood after several years of territorial pressure from scrub jays and acorn woodpeckers. Or something like that. I'm quite selective with that list; I've seen and heard mockingbirds just a few miles away, but I've limited this list to about a mile radius. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the Franklin's grouse, Falcipennis franklinii, in lists of both Canada provinces and U.S. states, as well as the federal lists. Here's the IUCN page: [1]. Ddum5347 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not miss it. It's a subspecies of spruce grouse according to AOS, the stated source of the Canadian and mainland US lists' taxonomy. Craigthebirder (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it to the appropriate lists soon. Ddum5347 (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I caution against that. IOC and Clements also list it as a subspecies, so IUCN is a very minority opinion that should not be given equal weight with these three major taxonomies. Remember that IUCN's taxonomy comes from BirdLife International, a rather "split happy" organization. Craigthebirder (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three major taxonomies? You only listed two. Ddum5347 (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AOS, Clements, IOC. Craigthebirder (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I see that the Franklin's grouse and spruce grouse articles say it was "recently split" with a 2014 IUCN citation. Given that IOC is the Wikipedia standard for the taxonomy of individual bird species articles, the IUCN split should have minority status to the IOC position. And of course "recent" isn't true anymore. Craigthebirder (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. You should add its contention as a subspecies for all the other taxonomies, then. Though I would still keep the IUCN ref. Ddum5347 (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updates of those two articles are on tomorrow's (Friday 5 March) to-do list, and the IUCN position will be included. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Looking forward to it Ddum5347 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IOC has changed the caracara back to one species, as Caracara plancus. You might need to update the lists accordingly Ddum5347 (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of the western hemisphere geographic lists use IOC. South American Classification Committee of OAS also made the change and all of the S.A. lists are up to date. It's been proposed to the North American committee also but they won't finalize until June/July, so North and Middle American lists retain crested caracara as C. cheriway.

Got it. Should I revert my changes to the NA and Caribbean lists? Ddum5347 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please. You should not change names (common or scientific) from those of the list's cited taxonomic source. I closely monitor the changes to AOS (north and south committees) and Clements and update the western hemisphere lists after every update. Craigthebirder (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Flame-colored tanager, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red-headed, rose-throated and flame-colored tanagers (pictured) are not tanagers but cardinals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flame-colored tanager. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Flame-colored tanager), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rose-throated tanager, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red-headed, rose-throated and flame-colored tanagers (pictured) are not tanagers but cardinals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flame-colored tanager. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rose-throated tanager), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red-headed tanager, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red-headed, rose-throated and flame-colored tanagers (pictured) are not tanagers but cardinals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Flame-colored tanager. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Red-headed tanager), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Red-billed pied tanager, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the red-billed pied tanager (pictured) is not a tanager? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Red-billed pied tanager. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Red-billed pied tanager), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noted your reversion of my recent edit to this article. Although technically the languages were correct as they appeared in the citation that I changed, anything in language parameters except the names of the languages or their codes exactly as they appear on Template:Citation_Style_documentation/language/doc, and commas, generate a CS1 error, causing the article to appear on the list at Category:CS1_maint:_unrecognized_language for corrections. Unfortunately, the language parameter is very unforgiving. Even typos cause CS1 errors, and as noted on Category:CS1_maint:_unrecognized_language, even the word "and" also does. So while I appreciate your effort to explain how the languages were used, the parameter doesn't accept explanations. Additionally, the jargon HBW abbreviation does not add anything to the information in the article.

In the meantime, I have reformatted the language parameter as I did before. I'll leave it to you figure out a solution – maybe using another or "other" parameter while leaving the language parameter blank will work?

(Most of the articles listed on the page of CS1 language maintenance are rare languages that are awaiting addition to the list page by Mediawiki.)

Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ira Leviton Thank you for the details of the template. On second item, I don't think (HBW) detracts even if it doesn't add, so why not keep it? (Rhetorically speaking...) Craigthebirder (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just an anti-jargon editor, although Wikipedia doesn't have a Wikifauna category for that yet. :)

Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 20:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craig. Just a polite reminder that it is spelt consensus, like "consent", rather than concensus, like "census". I hope this helps. Happy editing and best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the reminder. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome, and thank you for the nice reply. Cheers DBaK (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this as a better fix:

{{cite web |url=https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/bow/hummingbirds/ |title=Hummingbirds |website=IOC World Bird List |version=v. 12.1 |editor-last1=Gill |editor-first1= F. |editor-last2=Donsker |editor-first2=D. |editor-last3=Rasmussen |editor-first3=P. |date=January 2022 |access-date=January 15, 2022 }}

Gill, F.; Donsker, D.; Rasmussen, P., eds. (January 2022). "Hummingbirds". IOC World Bird List. v. 12.1. Retrieved January 15, 2022.

IOC World Bird List lists Gill, Donsker, and Rasmussen as editors so use editor name-holding parameters; you are citing a titled page in a website so |website=IOC World Bird List and |title=Hummingbirds; version has its own parameter so |version=v. 12.1.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - that's close to what I've been changing them to: <ref name=IOC12.1>{{cite web |url=https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/bow/hummingbirds/ |title=IOC World Bird List (v 12.1) - Hummingbirds |last1=Gill |first1= F. |last2=Donsker|first2=D.|last3=Rasmussen |first3=P. |date=January 2022 |access-date=January 15, 2022 }}</ref>. Craigthebirder (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when you split Anthracothorax aurulentus from Anthracothorax dominicus you cut and pasted the contents of Antillean mango into a new article Hispaniolan mango and converted the Antillean mango article into a redirect. This is not the way it is done on Wikipedia as all the history of the Anthracothorax dominicus article is now associated with the redirect article. The history of Hispaniolan mango now suggest that you wrote the whole article – which is not the case.

The correct procedure is to "move" the original article "Antillean mango" to "Hispaniolan mango". This keeps the history and the talk page with the original article. The move will leave a redirect at "Antillean mango" which you can edit.

The "correct procedure" is often tricky to carry out as when a redirect already exists at the new name, only an editor with suitable privileges can make the move. I lack these privileges and must ask another editor to make the move for me.

The editor Jimfbleak is an admin, I will ask him to try to fix this. - Aa77zz (talk) 09:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - hope he can undo the error. Craigthebirder (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw your revert of my edit adding a short description to this article. All articles in the main namespace should have a short description (which fulfills the same role as a Wikidata description) and the recommended format for organisms is “species of [order]”. Check the link if you’re not familiar with short descriptions or drop me a line. —DarTar (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2022 (

DarTar, I am familiar with short descriptions, including this section of the WP:

"All articles should have a short description (and therefore should belong to Category:Articles with short description), but some article titles are sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful, e.g., Alpine skiing at the 1960 Winter Olympics – Men's downhill."

"In those cases, should be used to add the article to Category:Articles with short description. Occasionally, a default value of "none" may already be transcluded, for example in some Wikipedia list articles; that default should not normally need to be edited, but it can be overridden for a specific page by adding

Overriding description

at the top of the page."

The article title includes "hummingbird" so a description saying it's a species of bird is not necessary. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I am well aware of that exception too but I don’t apply it to articles about organisms where the common practice I’ve seen is to model them consistently after Wikidata summaries, which enables short descriptions to show up in search results, snippets on the mobile app etc. One additional practical reason is that nothing in the article title helps the reader understand if it’s about a species, a genus or a family of birds (see for example Sunbird. For these reasons you’ll see me adopt that practice consistently for all articles about biodiversity in English Wikipedia that lack a short desc. DarTar (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you think is right, since the redundancy doesn't detract from the article. Craigthebirder (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

👍🏻 DarTar (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic job creating or expanding so many articles on birds, as a fellow birder I’m very grateful for your contributions. DarTar (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:21, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craigthebirder, not sure if you are aware but List of birds of Ontario is to be tomorrow's (Monday's) featured list on the main page. In the blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/September 12, 2022 there is "As of July 2020, there were 501 species..." and "Of the 496 species on the list...". This seems to have come from the article's lede. Does the list article and therefore blurb need updating or am I missing something? Thanks for looking. JennyOz (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I fixed the count. But it's a curious choice for a feature, given that the list is two years out of date and the taxonomy one year. If someone wants to feature a bird list, I suggest that of South America or one of its countries - they are up to date (list and taxonomy) as of this past July. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Craig, I have just made a request at Errors for the blurb to also be tweaked. (PS I have nothing to do with scheduling, I just noticed the contradiction when viewing tomorrow's main page content.) JennyOz (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craig, I'm giving a presentation to a local bird club about Wikimedia projects. The focus will be on photography, which I have some experience with, but I also plan to bring up other things (like bird-related articles on Wikipedia). I don't tend to edit many bird articles other than to add pictures, so I wonder if you have suggestions for strategies, activities, projects, etc. for new users. I plan to identify a few articles that need improvement which would be relevant to birders in New York (wildlife refuge pages seem to need work in general, as do a lot of taxa above species level), but is there anything else you'd recommend? Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking of new Wikipedia users, right? I usually don't recommend diving into the deep end with significant additions or revisions. I'd suggest that a newbie just wander through Wikipedia and touch up bad grammar and similar stuff to get a feel for the process. But creating "List of birds of Montezuma National Wildlife Refuge" using List of birds of New York (state) as a model might be relatively easy. The pages for most species that occur in NY are pretty thorough though some might need some touch-up. I haven't looked at those for genera and above. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While the list used for the Ohio bird list should be the one outlined in the lede, I believe other sources should be used as well. Considering this bird is also considered by other sources (such as IUCN) to be extirpated from Ohio, I think adding NatureServe as a reference is acceptable; the kite can be rare and still be extirpated (what I'm assuming is vagrants). Heh0002 (talk) 21:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be extirpated, it must have previously been either a regular breeder or resident, and there's no evidence that it was either. NatureServe calls it "presumed extirpated", which sort of covers that base, so I'm (barely) comfortable with that phrase but not "extirpated" by itself. (Re IUCN - it uses range data from BirdLife International and I've noted many errors in their ranges, so I don't trust them outside a species' core range. There was a big discussion of that in Wikiproject birds a couple of years ago.)Craigthebirder (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to Meyer (primary source for distribution on this species), many Midwestern states once held breeding populations of the kite (including Ohio!), but the species is no longer seen in that range.^[1] Heh0002 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found that. Carry on.Craigthebirder (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. you may not know of who I am, but my name is Vaco98 and I came here to discuss about the List of birds of Florida that needs updating. When I looked at the FOS website there (you can click on the link: [2], it immediately made me want to go speak with you about it. If I wanted to update the list itself for myself, it would be very burdensome due to the fact that I did not have much experiences with lists of birds in whatever state, especially when it comes to updating a particular list. So that is why I am kindly asking you to see what you can do about updating the List of birds of Florida. Can you please go ahead update List of birds of Florida based on the updates made by FOS? --Vaco98 (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire that the list be up to date. But I stopped maintaining the US state lists after last year's AOS taxonomic update (except for my home state of Ohio). Give it a try! Craigthebirder (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Craigthebirder:, I gave it a try and here it is ([3]). What do you think of it? If I made any mistakes, you let me know and I can fix it. --Vaco98 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't cross-check everything but did see that least grebe should have an (A); there may be others that need it also. Also, in the "Use American English" template the original date should be restored - its the date the template was added and should not be changed. Craigthebirder (talk) 14:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right @Craigthebirder:, I already put the Least grebe as (A) and restored the original date for the American English template. What are other bird species in the List of birds of Florida that need to be listed as accidental? --Vaco98 (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that FOS requires a report for. Craigthebirder (talk) 16:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, please use the Help:Move to relocate a page, or ask an admin if you are prevented by the software from doing so, using Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Thanks! Izno (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing my mistake. I'd forgotten the right way to do it since when I made the same error last August. Craigthebirder (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Craig - could you please browse the Hummingbird article for its candidacy as a GA? WP:RGA explains the review process, but the six criteria are straightforward and should enable an efficient assessment. An example of a GA bird article is Mallard.

If you feel the hummingbird article is worthwhile, please also consider working with me and other editors as the reviewer to bring it to GA standard. If you are unable to participate, please recommend a bird editor whom you feel would participate. Many thanks. Zefr (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invitation. I did a quick pass through the article and it seems to meet the GA criteria, though a detailed read would probably find areas to improve. i can't promise to spend much time in a deeper evaluation. I suggest posting an announcement in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of historical Sylviidae species is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of historical Sylviidae species until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

AryKun (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at the bold link above. Craigthebirder (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Craig, I'd been removing those horizontal TOCs as I was doing other things. I thought those no longer did anything since the last redesign. In fact, the pages do not look different to me when the is horizontal TOC is added back. Should I stop taking those out? Thanks,21:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)  SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please leave them. Without it the TOC stretches down the left side of the screen for ages before any content begins. Dunno what browser you're using, but with and without are different in Firefox. But I'm using the legacy structure - maybe that's it. Craigthebirder (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do (and will check to make sure I didn't remove any others). I'm also using Firefox, but using the default appearance. SchreiberBike | ⌨  22:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. My sandbox40 has a copy of the Colombia birdlist that I used to find errors (sorry to have left a few too...) Perhaps it's nice to take that whole sandbox and put it as List of Colombia? I am hesitant to make such a big change on 'your' page - you do it if you like the version with the authors. Personally I like the extra author info but it makes page a lot fuller, and causes some lines to wrap. - Kweetal nl (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Kweetal nl. Go ahead and make the replacement. When I do big edits I use Windows Notepad. I just "<ctrl>a" the finished product, copy it, open the edit screen in the current version and <ctrl>a it, and paste the new one. Of course I scroll down to make sure I haven't boogered up anything - sometimes errors don't show in the Sandbox version. And thank you for the many corrections you've made to binomials. Craigthebirder (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. There are a number of binomials without author for all kinds of reasons. IOC/SACC difference, typos, formatting minutiae. Might be useful to look it over. - Kweetal nl (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...per eBird. MeegsC (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But not according to the SACC, the stated source of the all the South American country lists. Craigthebirder (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is! Sorry, looked in wrong place. MeegsC (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done that myself a few times... Craigthebirder (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is sensible to try to describe how the taxonomies of the different authorities have differed in the recent past - it is a mess and gets very complicated. Hopefully the decisions taken by the Working Group Avian Checklists (WGAC) will mean that the IOC, Clements/ebird/BOW and Birdlife/IUCN will all adopt the same taxonomy. WGAC is working through the families and hopefully by the next IOC release (14.2) IOC and Clements will be aligned. I don't know how this will effect decisions taken by SACC and NACC. I've noticed that SACC are currently considering a change that has already been adopted by WGAC. - Aa77zz (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the different approaches interesting and enjoy writing them up. By this time next year maybe there will be more consistency. I will be updating the pages as each system makes changes. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dig what you did, but the way you did it caused the article to appear in Category:Taxoboxes with an unrecognised status system. I'm not sure there's a way to more easily distinguish having multiple IUCN statuses. If you ask at template talk:automatic taxobox you will probably be directed to remove the status as the taxobox covers the whole species, and I understand the IUCN recognizes two species while we recognize two subspecies. Someone else may notice anyway and pull it out of there. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let someone else fix it, since I prefer to leave the two statuses in the taxobox. Craigthebirder (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it a little. I think this works better. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, thank you. I'll use this approach from now on and bag the "see the..." note. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be the final solution, but it will probably last for some time. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It'll hold until HBW adopts the other systems' treatment, at which time a revision will be needed. Craigthebirder (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]