Talk:Glossary of bird terms

Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001
Reference 251 cites Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001, p. 27 - which is not defined in the Sources. Presumably this should be Raptors of the World here - but couldn't one of the existing sources be used for tertials? - Aa77zz (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing this. All fixed, with some better location and other information added.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Resident
Should we include both meanings of resident? It is often used to mean non-migratory for individuals (sedentary is probably more accurate) but also is descriptive of parts of the range where it means that birds are found in an area year-round; but those may not be the same birds all year. Example: Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The black-fangled jacamar is resident in Costa Rica: (Jacamars would defend the same territory year-round).
 * The green-spangled paradise goose is a breeding visitor to Scotland, resident in England, and a non-breeding visitor to France.
 * Yes, this needed this. Took me a while but I found a source and tweaked the definition. I've been trying hard to only use sources that actually define terms, directly verifying the content, rather than ones that use a term in context and I define it from the use. Tell me if you think it's suitable. I also added your example use above. I think this benefits from an example use like that. However, would it be possible for you to come up with and change the example to use a real bird we can link to, and a correct statement of their visitation/residency and then cite a source? I think that would be much better than this fictional goose (I am correct it's fictional?). Thanks!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll work to find a cited example. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  17:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Eurasian blackcaps are summer visitors to Eastern and Northern Europe, resident in Western Europe and winter visitors to Africa. British breeders overwinter in Africa, and are replaced with Central European blackcaps. (You could also use the map from that species page) Sabine's Sunbird  talk  17:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you. Added in, with the map, and I tried to clarify the meaning a bit more.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Oxford commas in this?
I just want to ask before I edit for compliancy with WP:MOS, do you want Oxford commas or not? RileyBugz Yell at me &#124; Edits  17:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for asking! I never intentionally use oxford commas. If you see that inconsistency, please remove them.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, what variety of English? British, American, etc.? RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  17:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say about 30% of the text is imported (and copyedited and modified and sourced, where it was unsourced in the original [which is true of an alarming amount], with copyright attribution always provided). In some of those entries, I had left in the Commonwealth/British spelling. However, all content by me uses American English for spelling and grammar (though I am quite comfortable with much British spelling and grammar, and at some times prefer it, e.g., I would never write analog, as opposed to analogue; somehow that spelling was always how I knew it and I only later learned there was a language split on this). If you think it should be made consistent, then I guess, yes, American English. However, there are some parts that I'm nor sure should be switched, where I used the British spelling for the term itself. For example, I have used "moult", everywhere, as opposed to "molt" because it seems to me a better fit with MOS:COMMONALITY, than would the reverse. What do you think?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems that we should probably use the British spelling anyways, but even if we don't, we should definitely keep "moult", as per MOS:COMMONALITY, but we do need to consistently use some particular variety per MOS:ARTCON, and since almost all articles on birds use British spelling, I think that the article should probably be British spelling. Of course, it might just be better to use American spelling per MOS:RETAIN, but I do think that using British spelling has its benefits, and thus should probably be used. This might take a good bit of time to fix although, but I bet that a lot of people are willing to help with that. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  18:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * MOS:RETAIN would only apply if I protested, right? And as the person who is involved, I have no problem whatever with consistent use of British English. So yes, let's do that.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, pretty much. I will post something at the birds talk page to let people know so they can help out. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  19:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Seem to me the easiest start to this is to do a global search and replace of "ize" with "ise", and then preview to see if it produces any false-positives. I'll do that now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "ize" is actually fine, British English uses both. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  20:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Only according to those subversives in the OED :P Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Another question, spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes? It seems that this article uses both, which is a consistency problem. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  22:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I prefer unspaced em-dashes. I switch between them all the time though.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I will get to work on fixing it. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  18:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I got them all. I didn't substitute em dashes for spaced en dashes when you were distinguishing between a singular and plural. RileyBugz Yell at me  &#124; Edits  19:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Calls
Are you going to integrate flight calls into the calls entry, for consistency? RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  15:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I simply missed it when doing that entry.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. This is a pretty quick GAN, so I hope this passes! RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  16:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I just added a bit more to the flight call thing in the call entry and removed the flight call entry. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  16:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Query on title
Is it "bird terms" or "ornithological terms"? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @The Rambling Man: I believe it it is both, with this title the more accessible of the two, with reliable sources using this title without blinking, about 100 × more often than they use the alternate one you suggest, and with it being already provided as a redirect, among others. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Very nice work indeed by the way, something Wikipedia can be truly proud of.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that makes my day brighter. Thank you, and thanks for the fixes!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Is the entry and —and for that matter, —clear enough? Any suggestions? RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  20:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They look fine to me. Is there something you think is missing? DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, I just wanted to make sure that the layman can understand it. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  21:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in both entries is exactly what a layperson would be looking for. The following sentences give more detailed information that allows readers to follow up should they so desire.  Good work. DrChrissy (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hey First, thanks for all your efforts here. I changed the definition before your revert in ways I thought were necessary to make it correct or required for clarification. Here's my reasoning so we can meet somewhere in the middle.
 * "[H]ave down" is not correct because on the one hand, psilopaedic does not mean lacking down, it means "naked at hatching or have very sparse down" (so psilopaedic nestlings may very well "have down"), and on the other, ptilopaedic does not mean having down but "covered in down" (Pettingill page 313 [or, I think, page 371 in your edition]).
 * "[A]ble to move" is not synonymous with mobile and idiomatically parses as implying something like inertness/paralysis/the actual inability to move at all (and not as non-ambulatory, or not able to leave the nest). I had changed it to "able to leave the nest" because Pettingil defines precocial as chicks that are nidifugous, which he in turn defines as birds that "leave the nest soon after hatching".
 * The third sentence is redundant with the first sentence, stating the same attributes, only adding the technical terms nidifugous and ptilopaedic, for the same information content. So let's fold those technical terms into the first sentence and then get rid of the third.
 * The last sentence does not parse for me. It has what amounts to two parenthetical definitions after each attribute statement but which are separated by commas — list punctuation – and so reads as separate items rather than the second clarifying what the first means. For example, "Semi-precocial young are those that are ptilopaedic, downy, ..." does not parse as: "ptilopaedic (which means downy)", but as two separate list items: "they are both: ptilopaedic, as well as downy", which is not what is meant. (I don't see why we have to define ptilopaedic again, anyway, when its directly defined for the reader higher in the same paragraph.)

So, here's what I would propose:
 * <dd>Also defined herewith: semi-precocial. Young that at hatching have their eyes open, are meaning covered in  feathers, and are  meaning mobile and able to leave the nest soon after hatching. Some precocial young are dependent on their parents for food, while others are independent or forage with their parents. Semi-precocial young are those that are ptilopaedic but  rather than nidifugous, meaning not immediately able to leave the nest, or feed themselves. However, unlike most  nsetlings, semi-precocial chicks are able to walk. </dd>


 * Ok, I will alter it to fit your wishes. I will not, although, adopt your definition as yours implies that birds have to be nidifugous to be precocial, which is wrong, as the citation says "A bird that is typically altricial is also nidicolous and psilopaedic while a bird that is typically precocial is also nidifugous and ptilopaedic." Thus, I your definition would be incorrect. I will alter the definition although. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  00:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Does this look good?
 * <dd>Also defined herewith: semi-precocial. Young that, after hatching, have their eyes open, are, meaning that they have , and are able to move soon after hatching. Most precocial young are , meaning they leave their nest shortly after hatching, although this is not always the case. Semi-precocial young are those that are ptilopaedic and , not immediately leaving the nest, but still able to move. Contrast: .</dd>
 * I addressed most of your concerns, although I did not address those that, with their implementation, would create tension with the source. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Two parts are still problematic for me. It still says they "have down", rather than are covered in down (and so does not correctly define ptilopaedic); and still says they are "able to move", rather than that they are mobile, which has the off connotation I discussed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I fixed the down thing, but not the other, as in the definition for precocial, it says "and are capable [emphasis added] of locomotion soon after hatching". Additionally, if they were nidicolous, then they would not be leaving the nest, thus they would not be moving more than say, altricial young. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  14:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're two ships passing in the night on the "ability-to-move" language issue. The problem is that locomotion (locomotion) does not mean the "ability to move", it means "[t]he ability to move from place to place " (emphasis mine); ambulatory; the condition of being mobile. "Not able to move", stated without qualification, implies something much more restrictive. Using the very word, "locomotion"; adding "from place to place" after "move..."; changing it to use "mobile"; using some phrase with "ambulatory" (or some other equivalent), is what I'm talking about.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will change the last sentence slightly to say "able to walk", and I will change this, "are able to move soon after hatching", to this, "are able to move from place to place after hatching, although not all do". I added "although not all do" to clear up any thoughts that all altricial young actually move from place to place, thus out of their nest, soon after hatching. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  15:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

GA nomination of list class article
Is this appropriate in terms of the GA criteria? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey Peter (Southwood). Well, that never occurred to me. I suppose this is a form of list (though a far more integrated one both in form and content than the typical stand-alone one), and I've just looked and found Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 22. Oh well, I guess it's to FAC, which I now realize will actually be an FLC.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FLC is said to be easier than FAC, but I have not gone through either yet. That said, I think this one is a good candidate and I will help with the reviews when you nominate, as I think it must be pretty close to FL if not already there. Certainly a fine glossary. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter. It's getting there. I may ask for a peer review first. Do you possibly have any suggestion for expansion of the lead? (does it needs expansion?) I've been wondering what else I could add there to enrich it. It feels off balance in size, but that may just be my trained sensibility from the way long (regular) articles usually have commensurately long leads. It's not as if the body is lacking in material, but it can't serve the function of a normal lead and summarize the content in any direct way. P.S., I addressed your request for clarification of nutrient pulp.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Wattle
Wattle is not in the list. It is discussed under caruncle, but it possibly needs its own entry. DrChrissy (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Will do--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)



Tool use
Tool use is not in the list. Given that corvids are among the most proficient tool users, more so than many mammals (see Tool use in animals), this perhaps deserves an entry. DrChrissy (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I saw a solve by a crow recently of a three-part tool test requiring amazingly complex abstraction.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - I know the study - absolutely amazing. DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not new but are you aware that Ravens have learned to fly toward gun shots? They figure hunters don't bother them, but they do dress their kill and leave all those lovely entrails lying around.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Ah: article--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I have not heard of this before. I find it a little surprising because here in the UK, farmers shoot corvids because of their tendency to attack injured lambs. DrChrissy (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, your UK ravens haven't met my Yankee ravens. One more: I saw some documentary a few years back that showed some type of corvid (I don't remember which), somewhere in Asia I think, that uses cars to crack open some kind of nut. That's already complex, but: this was in a city and the birds had figured out the traffic lights. They would wait for the red light so it was safe to drop the nut in the intersection; wait for them to be run over, and wait for another red light for safe retrieval.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I have heard of that too - I think they are crows. Here is a Youtube of the behaviour.

Whiffling
Whiffling is not on the list. We have an article Whiffling. DrChrissy (talk) 19:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Raptor
Raptor is not on the list. DrChrissy (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a class of birds (in the informal sense; I don't mean "class")--the Accipitres of Linnaeus. I am not against including it, but it falls slightly a-fowl of the rule that we are not including entries on species and things of that ilk. As I said at WT:BIRDS: "there really are a few thousand terms that could be included, so we must be selective with our editorial judgment on inclusion. ... part of the purpose here, at least in my mind, is not just to provide all terms one might expect, but what we would think people would naturally want to link to as part of bird article writing (within the bounds of WP:OLINK)", and with that in mind, I would think we would generally link to our article on Bird of prey rather than linking to the glossary for this broad classification.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point and completely agree we have to be selective, however, the list has an entry "passerine". Just a thought. DrChrissy (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right that this would be in keeping with that, but maybe, rather, I shouldn't have added passerine. But one difference between them is that "raptors"/"birds of prey" is, I think, much more well known to the general public than is passerine. Also, passerine is descriptive of more than half of all birds. Of course it's a continuum, but I think we should favor the wide use term, while balancing whether it is already known to most.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nuptial display
So what is this? RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録 20:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Should we have a sandbox?
Rather than simply listing possible entries on the talk page, should I set up a sandbox where editors can write a possible entry and it can be c/e and formatted before being placed on the list? DrChrissy (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of such sandboxes because I think they discourage boldness. More importantly, though, they are fraught with copyright concerns. Say I add an entry and then users: John, Paul and George make edits, after which Ringo adds that content to the article. If Ringo does not leave a proper attribution edit summary, both clearly indicating the copying taking place, and providing a properly formatted hyperlink to the sandbox where its lists of authors is available from the page history (or listing each editor separately), copyright is violated (though this is non-ideally fixable using a dummy edit). Okay, but say Ringo does this correctly every time he copies across? Then the next issue is that the sandbox, containing the edit history, must be retained forever as the source of copied/merged content. There are many ways this can be compromised later. For example, down the road, someone unfamiliar with copyright issues (or familiar but at a time when the sandbox's connection as the source of copied/merged content has become obscured) tags the sandbox for deletion and it is deleted or an admin deletes it directly. Copyright is violated. I've seen that play out many times. Lastly, even when there is no specter of either of these eventualities playing out (which cannot be guaranteed), secondary attribution through edit summaries referring to another page attenuates the required credit to the authors. Though we have interpreted this scheme as allowable under our copyright licenses, it is never as good as simply having direct attribution in the page history, by direct editing of the page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough - thanks for considering the idea and your objections. DrChrissy (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Canopy feeding
@DrChrissy: I love the image you added for this entry. The one thing I don't like is the apparent inability to cite page numbers for the source used (which I imagine might be a problem at FAQ/FLC). To you or anyone: After looking at the source, it appears the entry should be cited to these two pages from this apparent e-book;
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=ldzxpcqepksC&pg=PT27
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=ldzxpcqepksC&pg=PT139

Does anyone know how this works? Do the pg=pt27 and pg=PT139 indicate page numbers (where a normal url to a Google paper book source will have "pg=PA93" at the end of the url?) Would it be correct to add |pages=27, 139 ? Is there some alternate way to pinpoint the location in an e-book for transparency of verification? --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Fuhghettaboutit Sorry, I don't know the answer to this problem. Perhaps you could ask at a project page or even the Help Desk. DrChrissy (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, they can't be the equivalent of and cited as the page numbers because different devices will break up the information into different lengths. I've asked a question about this (couched as a general question rather than about this page) here. Cheers--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I have put this on my watchlist. DrChrissy (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've got a paper copy of this one. The bits you're looking for are on pages 20 and 101–102 (the latter starts on the bottom of page 101 and continues onto page 102). MeegsC (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I've added it in.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Pileum
I've just come across "pileum" used in a bird article - a fancy word for the plumage on the head. I assume more than just a cap. Perhaps worth including here. Webster's Dictionary (not the best source) has: "the top of the head of a bird from the bill to the nape". Aa77zz (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip Aa77zz. I've added it in using a more tailored source. Just for possible future reference, my go-to first search attempt when looking for sources for the glossary is to use Google Books, and search for the term but also include "ornithology" in the search. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Another suggestion
How about adding Jizz (birding)? It's a term birders use regularly. MeegsC (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you for all your suggestions and help!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Hallux
It would be useful to have an entry for "hallux" (the rear facing toe) - at the moment I can link to Bird feet and legs - which is very clumsy. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * OK - I've added it citing Lovette and Fitzpatrick 2016. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it Aa77zz! I've expanded the entry a bit.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your expansion is a big improvement. Many thanks. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Glossary of bird terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.audubon.org/news/new-study-doubles-worlds-number-bird-species-redefining-species
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150622030534/http://bcs.whfreeman.com/gill/bcs-pages/body-right_10.asp?s=10000&n=00010&i=99010.06&v=chapter&o=%7C13000%7C00010%7C&ns=undefined to http://bcs.whfreeman.com/gill/bcs-pages/body-right_10.asp?s=10000&n=00010&i=99010.06&v=chapter&o=%7C13000%7C00010%7C&ns=undefined
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.birdsnways.com/cockatoo/crests.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earthlife.net/birds/digestion.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.columbiauniversity.org/cu/psychology/silver/publications/035Silver%201984.PDF
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/birds-produce-milk-similar-to-mammals.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://numbat.murdoch.edu.au/Anatomy/avian/avian2.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://smithsonianscience.org/2015/04/bird-nests-variety-is-key-for-avian-architects
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G204/lectures/204birds.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/feather_evolution.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.darwinfoundation.org/datazone/galapagos-research/article/galapagos-plumology/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/auk/v103n04/p0835-p0835.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/4/461.full.pdf+html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glossary of bird terms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620170547/http://www.biosci.missouri.edu/avianecology/courses/avianecology/readings/Rolland_C_1998.pdf to http://www.biosci.missouri.edu/avianecology/courses/avianecology/readings/Rolland_C_1998.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

HTML cleanup
Hey, sorry about the uninformative cleanup tag. Since February I've put together much more detailed instructions and added a flag to the template to indicate what HTML needs to be cleaned up. In the case of this article, there are a ton of <dd> tags, which can be replaced with the preferred markup documented at MOS:DLIST. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I've just fixed all these tags on this article with a relatively simple search-and-replace. -- Beland (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Omission
Under "canopy feeding" it says that "double-wing feeding" is here too, but I can't find it listed in the "D"s.2604:2000:1383:8B0B:7D4B:5349:2D6B:5C59 (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
 * Christoper, it's right at the end of the canopy feeding entry! It says "Some herons adopt a similar behaviour called double-wing feeding in which the wings are swept forward to create an area of shade, though a canopy is not formed." MeegsC (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Include "neck fan"?


See picture. Whatever this feature is called. I think it's "neck fan" (or "neck frill")? It's not a crest like in a cockatoo. It pops up from the neck and encircles the head when the bird is excited/angry.

I'm not actually sure if it's something unique to the red-fan parrot. *Among parrots*, it's unique to this species for sure, but I can't find much info about it to write something. --Iloveparrots (talk) 13:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We of course must be selective to not include one-off uses here, or we would overload the glossary. I would just also say, generally, the place to start when considering an entry is to find reliable sources as the starting litmus test, and ground from which to build, if at all, and that any such search should attempt to do so in a manner that tends to concentrate them, e.g., a targeted search using Google books or scholar, as opposed to a web search. Anyway, as far as I can tell, this is a unique feature of the species, per e.g., the output of this search—that returns many results saying things like "unique ruff" (etc.) in relation to the species. Couple that with the apparent lack of useful results for a search of "neck fan" "ornithology", and I don't think a stand-alone entry is warranted. On the other hand, an entry on the word ruff does seem useful, and in any such general entry, a "...neck ruff (also neck fan)..." might be included, and well as mention of our beautiful friend for its "unique form of ruff", and even possibly with the image included (at some point, if the Rs ever are expanded enough that it would not crowd existing images, which I think it would now, given where an entry on ruff would fall alphabetically.) By the way, I just want to note that some of the recent entries are great additions, but have used website, non-paper sources for verification, with some of them of questionable reliability. I am not saying that web sources can't be used in any categorical way. But as I've already intimated, our default should be trying to find the highest quality sources to use for writing an entry, citing those sources as we go, which usually gets off on the right foot when we default to a book or similar targeted search. Of course I recognize that some of the recent entries have been taken from other articles, where those sources were what was already in use. Nevertheless, I am trying to emphasize that just because another entry uses mediocre sourcing, does not mean we should accept that level here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Me again - thoughts about adding entries for these?
Some stuff I made recently.

Eye pinning and Chronic egg laying, both WRT parrots. Do these belong on here? --Iloveparrots (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey again Iloveparrots. Definitely. Nice work and great fodder for entries. However, sorry, but once again, I look and see websites for all the references, where a good book, journal article, etc., would be preferred. I would only import if I researched and replaced the references with better ones.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I just came across the term hypotarsus which I wanted to link from Rodrigues night heron. Could be covered under tarsometatarsus? FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

'Avian-dinosaurs' in lead
Would be nice to find the information that birds are avian-dinosaurs in the first or second lead paragraph. Any suggestions for wording? I've added a 'See also' with Glossary of dinosaur anatomy, maybe that can be moved to a lead link. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Randy Kryn. I liked this idea. It took some mulling to figure out how to fit it in seamlessly, but I think I succeeded with this edit. Let me know what you think. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Works well, concise and accurate. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Pectoral tuft
How about adding something about pectoral tufts, which are an important ID feature for various sunbirds, flowerpeckers, etc.? MeegsC (talk) 16:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maintenance behaviour
, it I've been asked (in the preening GA review) to link "maintenance behaviour", and I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to add an entry here. Bathing, anting, dusting, preening, etc. are all such behaviours—as, indeed, are eating, drinking and sleeping. Here's a ref, and I can supply more if needed. Or I can write it myself if you'd prefer! (By the way, did you see the note about pectoral tufts just above?) MeegsC (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey MeegsC! I hadn't. Sometimes I don't look at my watchlist for a while, and then suddenly realize, 'oh hey, haven't looked in like two week'. (And then usually find everything I care about has been added to <tt>Category:Fart</tt> by a bored 12-year old from the Czech Republic; fun process!) Both entries sound great (as has everything you've ever suggested for this article; thanks for the support). It's really nice when an entry can cross-link to multiple others because of its nature, as I expect maintenance behaviour will be good for. Please do the honors. By the way, I never got a ping from your post – just saw this on my watchlist. I was therefore expecting to find you didn't link my name in the same edit you signed or something like that, but the diff looks perfect, so why I didn't get it is a bit of a mystery.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the eversion of the cloacae during a cloacal kiss an autonomic response?
I apologize if my vocabulary isn't quite correct.

The entry for "cloacal kiss" states that "When male and female birds of such species [that do not have a phallus] copulate, they each evert and then press together, or 'kiss' their respective proctodeum." My question is, is the eversion mentioned here an autonomic response, like an erection, or is it a deliberate action, like penetration? RedKnight7146 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Should gynandromorphism be added as a term?
Gynandromorphism is, in short, an individual animal having both male and female characteristics in different parts of their bodies. Birds are far from the only animals to exhibit gynandromorphism - it was first observed in lepidopterans and, according to the article, the term is still primarily used in entomology - but it has been observed in birds; in fact, the sexual dimorphism exhibited by some birds makes them among the most clear and striking examples of gynandromorphism. Does this topic warrant an entry in the glossary? RedKnight7146 (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)