Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

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 ]

Sorry, missed this before; I checked both iNaturalist and Flickr, and there's nothing with a valid licence available of either of those two subspecies - MPF (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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). Recon rabbit 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. Recon rabbit 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 ]

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 ]

This arises from the Grey-crowned goldfinch discussion above - Mitsingh cited a book "Taxonomy of the birds of the world" by an anonymous author "fotolulu" as a source for English vernacular names of subspecies. The first 30 pages are available here. So far as I can see, this is a self-published work, and the English subspecies names largely invented by the author without any peer review or basis in reality. I can find no review of the book anywhere; it certainly hasn't been reviewed in British Birds (which I would expect for a work with a title like this, if it was a significant text). Should this book be treated as an unreliable source and blocked from use as a reference citation? In my view, yes. What do others think? In general (in at least UK), subspecies don't have separate vernacular names in English, except in a small number of species with highly distinctive, readily identifiable subspecies, like Motacilla flava or Motacilla alba . The subspecies of Carduelis caniceps certainly don't meet that criterion (as a group while within C. carduelis they did, but not separately from each other). - MPF (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would agree that this cannot be considered a reliable source, given that it's published by Books on Demand, a self-publishing service, and written by an unknown author. Worth also noting that the copyright page reads "English names of the subspecies © by fotolulu", not exactly a copyright likely to be enforced but one we should be mindful of as editors.

I'm not quite sure where the desire to invent common names for every single taxon comes from, but it's something I've seen quite a lot of - it's very common on iNaturalist to see entirely new, never-before-used common names added to taxa by users... Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Here is his website - https://www.fotolulu.de/ Mitsingh (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Seems to be a photographer using a classification to organise their photos, who also wanted a complete list of German common names. It does say (or at least Google translate says): "The name should not meet any scientific demands. The names are based on translations from the Latin name, geographical distribution areas, the names of the discoverers and translations from English." Clearly there is no claim that these names are common names in the Wikipedia sense, just convenient vernacular names (i.e. a goldfincg subspecies confined to the Left Island would be the Left Island goldfinch). Calling it dubious seems unfair, but it doesn't meet the standards for a reliable source for Wikipedia.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've proposed that the article Scrub robin is moved to the genus name Cercotrichas. Please take a look here: Talk:Scrub_robin#Requested_move_12_March_2025. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi,

I am making distribution maps for bird species. If there are any articles lacking sufficient distribution maps, please respond to me. Mitsingh (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is very useful, but what sources are you using ? It would be helpful if you added this information to the image file pages.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For now, I have done Indian birds, so Birds of the Indian Subcontinent has been useful, as it shows which areas the bird is resident, a vagrant, or a summer/winter visitor. Mitsingh (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It would be much more desirable to use a more progressive approach via geojson than as images. Shyamal (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The page La Palma chaffinch is out of date, describing it as a subspecies of Common Chaffinch (now Eurasian Chaffinch) Fringilla coelebs. Since the split-up of F. coelebs into 4 species, it is now a subspecies of Canary Islands Chaffinch F. canariensis, from which it differs only minimally (unlike its substantial difference from F. coelebs). I was going to update it, but then thought: is it really distinct enough to deserve its own page? Would it be better merged into Canary Islands Chaffinch? - MPF (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Project-Class bird pages
• NA-importance bird pages
• WikiProject Birds articles