User talk:Rabo3/Archive 4

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.

Hello, I would like to have your opinion about my additions to the Pale-breasted Thrush entry, describing the differences in colour patterns betwwen this species and the Creamy-bellied Thrush. In Rio de Janeiro, where I live, the two species overlap range, with the Pale-Breasted being rarer and seasonal, while the Creamy-bellied is commoner and resident. The differences offered are based on personal observation, but this may not be so accurate as far as the general populations of the two species are concernedCerme (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistakes, what I meant was barely understanable. I've corrected my question aboveCerme (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've checked, and added a brief note on the two most easily used features. • Rabo³ • 03:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!Cerme (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added two tables to the Trichoglossus page, and it is more complicated that I first thought. I have tried to use what you have written on the Rainbow Lorikeet page. I am not sure if there is a nominate to the species that are sometimes listed as separate species or sometimes as a subspecies of the Rainbow Lorikeet. I have listed nominates in the taxonomy list, or is it like your list on the Rainbow Lorikeet page, which do not appear to have a nominate. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're asking about, but if it is about the "transfer" of the nominate in case the Rainbow is split, then yes, e.g. Trichoglossus forsteni forsteni becomes the nominate subspecies of the Scarlet-breasted Lorikeet (likewise with T. c. capistratus for Marigold Lorikeet, etc.). I have modifed the species listing slightly, as the inclusion of brackets around the taxa indicates that they sometimes are split, e.g. "T. (h./f.) mitchellii" would indicate that T. mitchellii sometimes is considered a distinct species. Also, when including authority and year, either both - or neither - are in brackets, and they are separated by a comma. E.g. "Linnaeus, 1758" (if described in that genus) or "(Linnaeus, 1758)" (if described in another genus) are correct, but never "(Linnaeus) 1758" or "Linnaeus 1758". • Rabo³ • 03:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that covers what I was asking. Snowman (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was on speed mode then. The ludicrousness and uncitedness of turbo chook, and the addition of an extra </ref> screamed test edit. Having seen that it was you I was a second away from asking for a cite when you added one. I was surprised when the name turned out to be genuine, it tripped every bullshit meter my mind has. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I will be grateful for you opinion on the first four birds in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Birds_for_identification_(28), they are all parrots. Snowman (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

All four appear correct (though I find it difficult to separate C. baudinii and C. latirostris). • Rabo³ • 04:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rabo3, you recently made a correction to the spurs on the female with the qualification that it is "usually" lacking. I rechecked and found that Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) seem to be quite categorical in stating that females lack spurs. Do you have any contrary sources ? Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

You mistake my edit for the edit done by User:Pperdix. In my edit I did not change anything in regards of the spurs, but just before that user:Pperdix did. While I do not know the situation for this particular species and don't plan on spending any greater amount of time browsing through literature to check, I do know that there are several members of the Phasianidae where the strictly correct would be to include 'usually', even if standard field guides seem to forget that. Of course the question is if what typically would be considered an aberrancy (comparable to the relatively common occurrence of Common Blackbirds with a few random white feathers) should be included in the main description. • Rabo³ • 20:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

All I know about it is that when I took the photo, I was with an ornithologist who has worked in that region for many years, and I seem to recall that he told me it was a white-throated caracara. I've emailed him to see what he thinks. Cadwaladr (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

My comment regarding above here. • Rabo³ • 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

	Thank you
	Thanks for all your WikiGnoming! Your contributions are appreciated, and we need more Wikipedians like you. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! • Rabo³ • 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On June 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Moluccan King Parrot, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royalbroil 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be grateful for your opinion of bird 314 to confirm its identity. Snowman (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't need to, as you already solved it. • Rabo³ • 16:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you have not noticed; it looks like the Papuan King Parrot article will be a DKY soon. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by your edit. You removed the edit, with a summary that I assume to mean that you removed it because it was clearly not Antarctica. However, couldn't the possibility exist that it's a shot from a zoo? Was removing the image necessary? Thanks, Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where it was photographed. They never look *anything* like that. So yes, it was necessary to remove the photo. • Rabo³ • 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks for the clarification. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a brief explanation, in case someone need it: The subject bird has distinct, dark scapular bars (like a non-br. Common Tern). The only plumage of the Antarctic that shows that are juv. and 1st basic. However, unlike the subject bird they also have barred tertials (and in the case of juv., extensive barring to the back). • Rabo³ • 02:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Buff-sided Robin.jpg is from BIRD, apparently the image is free to copy, distribute, and display the work under the conditions: credit must be given to the original author and the image must not be used for commercial purposes - the image did not have the original author listed on BIRD so I wasn't able to give credit. I looked in the history of the image and the only edit made was by User Tannin, So I'm assuming he is the original author who uploaded the image to BIRD. Is this correct?

you can see this page at:

http://bird.net.au/bird/index.php?title=Image:Buff-sided_Robin.jpg

If this is the original author, then is there way I can update the copyright status on File:Buff-sided Robin.jpg and give credit for the work? Thanks --Skinips (talk) 11:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply here shortly. • Rabo³ • 11:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have identified bird 337 correctly, but no one else has commented on the identification so far. I would value your opinion before showing this rather good photograph in the relevant infobox. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Answered "over there". • Rabo³ • 23:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yunga Costal - Sea Yunga - Maritime Yunga I think u might be right. Yunga Costal is not a good name for Lomas vegetation and its Mist forest islands in Peru. I added a line on Yungas discussion. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, can you identify this hummingbird ? I feel like I saw this photograph somewhere else under an other species name. Thank you ! PurpleHz (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! PurpleHz (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.

You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xandar 21:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think Bird 393 and Bird 395 are both Poicephalus gulielmi. I would be grateful for your opinions of the subspecies. Snowman (talk) 09:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

So explain your change? ZooPro 11:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I already did. On your talk here. If not familiar with the criteria, etc, that I mentioned, you should of course feel free to ask and I'll explain what it means. • Rabo³ • 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rabo3, I just read one of your articles at newpage patrol, and was surprised to see that an editor who writes so well hadn't already been approved as an wp:Autoreviewer. So I've taken the liberty of rectifying that. ϢereSpielChequers 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! • Rabo³ • 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Rabo. I noticed that at Quetzal you changed

Pharomachrus is from ancient Greek pharos, "mantle", and makros, "long" , referring to the wing and tail coverts of the Resplendent Quetzal. (The second h is unexplained.)

to

Pharomachrus is from ancient Greek pharos, "mantle", and makros, "long" , referring to the wing and tail coverts of the Resplendent Quetzal (the second h is unexplained).

However, the original style is recognized in the second bullet at Wikipedia:MOS#Sentences_and_brackets and is recommended by the Chicago Manual of Style (which is why I use it), so you don't have to change it on general principles. Of course, if you consider that in a specific case the form with only one sentence is better, that would be a good reason to change it. Just for future reference—I'm not fighting about this particular change. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I must admit that the matter of brackets v. punctuation fails to graps my attention, let alone cause any greater reaction. I guess I changed it based on aesthetics, but don't really remember – my primary reason for editing that article was an inaccuracy ("found in tropical regions of the Americas") and the almost complete lack of info beyond etymology. If you prefer one version of brackets v. punctuation over the other, please do feel free to change it. • Rabo³ • 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Aratinga aurea -Chapada das Mesas National Park -Brazil-8.jpg and File:Maritacas jovens- young parakeet -Brazil-8.jpg: What do you think these are? Snowman (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The first is correct, but the latter is an Aratinga aurea. Not young as suggested by the photographer, just seriously messed up. • Rabo³ • 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I listed the first one by mistake instead of this one; File:Maritacas jovens- young parakeet -Brazil-6.jpg, which was in the same flickr photo-stream as the second image. By messed up to you mean that its feathers appear to be discoloured with dirt, dust, and grime and that sort of thing. Snowman (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean by messed up. However, on the photo in your most recent comment, the two Aratinga aurea are young (but also messed up), leading me to have some doubts over the one featured in the second photo of your first post. I wouldn't bet on it due to the quality and angle of that photo, but it might well be young, too. • Rabo³ • 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Psittacula derbiana-20040821.jpg. I have been thinking of this one for some time. I think it is wrongly identified, but the angle of the photograph makes it difficult. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I can see how it could be mistaken for a Red-breasted (though it isn't one). • Rabo³ • 01:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a niggling doubt that it seems to have too much green visible by its leg extending too high over its abdomen for a Derbyan. Snowman (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and as said in my earlier comment, I do understand how it could be confused with a Red-breasted. Cannot say I have any serious doubts over ~the accuracy of its identification as Derbyan, though. • Rabo³ • 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand what WP:HG is for. I saw vandalism by an IP in between a few of your edits. Sorry for the confusion. 173.65.212.189 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. It happens. • Rabo³ • 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rabo3, can you confirm the identifications made for these species please ? file:Haplophaedia aureliae-2.jpg and File:Lesbia nuna.jpg. For these ones, I misundertood the portugese text so the filename are wrong: File:Mellisuga minima.jpg (Hylocharis cyanus ?), Image:Heliactin bilophus.jpg (a Chlorostilbon ?). Thank you ! PurpleHz (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
PS : can you counsel me a book/guide for identifying hummingbirds ? I'm interested in buying one, but one that would cover almost all species, with systematics/range/etc. Regards.

No single guide for identification of hummingbirds exists. The Lesbia nuna is correct, but the Haplophaedia aureliae is not. I'll have to look into the latter again later, as reaching an exact identification is a bit tricky from the specific angle. The remaining are now dead-links, and I assumre you've solved them. • Rabo³ • 16:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this identification and the one coming. I haven't solve anything, but MPF did (?). They are now here: 1, and 2 as Hylocharis cyanus. PurpleHz (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And he was right. • Rabo³ • 15:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Were you able to identify this one file:Haplophaedia aureliae-2.jpg ? Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Steely-vented Hummingbird. I've requested a rename on commons. • Rabo³ • 07:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Aratinga aurea -Chapada das Mesas National Park -Brazil-8.jpg and File:Maritacas jovens- young parakeet -Brazil-8.jpg: What do you think these are? Snowman (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The first is correct, but the latter is an Aratinga aurea. Not young as suggested by the photographer, just seriously messed up. • Rabo³ • 20:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I listed the first one by mistake instead of this one; File:Maritacas jovens- young parakeet -Brazil-6.jpg, which was in the same flickr photo-stream as the second image. By messed up to you mean that its feathers appear to be discoloured with dirt, dust, and grime and that sort of thing. Snowman (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean by messed up. However, on the photo in your most recent comment, the two Aratinga aurea are young (but also messed up), leading me to have some doubts over the one featured in the second photo of your first post. I wouldn't bet on it due to the quality and angle of that photo, but it might well be young, too. • Rabo³ • 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have amended the image descriptions and categories. Snowman (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Psittacula derbiana-20040821.jpg. I have been thinking of this one for some time. I think it is wrongly identified, but the angle of the photograph makes it difficult. Snowman (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, but I can see how it could be mistaken for a Red-breasted (though it isn't one). • Rabo³ • 01:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a niggling doubt that it seems to have too much green visible by its leg extending too high over its abdomen for a Derbyan. Snowman (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and as said in my earlier comment, I do understand how it could be confused with a Red-breasted. Cannot say I have any serious doubts over ~the accuracy of its identification as Derbyan, though. • Rabo³ • 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I just checked and found that carpet sharks are a legitimate species. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Mistakes happen (I assume this was your comment, too). • Rabo³ • 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was. WP:HG opens Internet Explorer by default, and it's not my default browser, so I wasn't logged in. Sorry again. Boomshadow ^talk _contribs 04:28, 2 February 2010 (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.