Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

Looking for contribution at Talk:Bird, as to whether the first sentence of bird should read "birds are a group of vertebrate animals.." or "birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs...". There is only me and one other person, and further arguing seems pointless. Somatochlora (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

And have now created an RFC as no resolution seems to be forthcoming. Please comment if interested. Somatochlora (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Breeding behaviors of birds has two issues arising from its machine translation, (a) as a rule, 'behavior'/'behaviour' is an uncountable noun and doesn't have a plural '-s', and (b) machine translation auto-defaults to American spellings, thus a mis-match with the page engvar of its parent page bird. Please add any thoughts at Talk:Breeding behaviors of birds#Page title and engvar - MPF (talk) 16:42, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

This RfC discussion may be of interest to members of this Wikiproject. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The IOC World Bird List Master Lists has come out with v15.2 since I last checked it two weeks ago. AviList is still using v2025 from June of last year. I thought that IOC would not be making a new list and that AviList would be doing so in its place. Can anyone more knowledgeable clarify for me? Should we still plan to wait until AviList publishes their next update before making systematic changes? I suspect much is happening behind the scenes and I know some here are involved, so an explanation would be helpful. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  17:12, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

IOC always intended to provide a 15.2, to get even closer to the AviList v2025 list. So, in that sense, 15.2 is not "a new list". As a comment says: "IOC 15.2 is intended to bring us into further agreement with AviList. We enthusiastically encourage you to adopt AviList for your own use and to contribute your knowledge and critiques to AviList as enthusiastically, thoroughly, and supportively as you have done for us over the years."

(Note that IOC seems to have some file upload problem, and the spreadsheets named 15.2 are not yet available) Kweetal nl (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike @Kweetal nl I remember raising a handful of species where I consider changing to AviList v2025 wouldn't be a good idea; they're in Archive 76 here and here. These (Sandwich Tern/Cabot's Tern and Inca Jay/Green Jay, and the swamphens) I'd say we should continue to hold fire, the reasons given there have not changed - MPF (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd expect the final IOC 15.2 version to include many of the Avilist changes, so those can be updated under the current guidelines. As the IOC say that 15.2 is their final version and recommend Avilist, changing the project guideline source to Avilist 2026 should be uncontroversial, compared to changing to the initial version of Avilist while the IOC was still updating their checklist.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:40, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike @Kweetal nl @Jts1882 - is there any update to this? Although the page headers say 'v15.2', the actual lists are still showing v15.1; what changes if any they have made, are not visible. - MPF (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

No update. They (IOC) are struggling to upload the 15.2 spreadsheets (that are apparently ready). New 'provider', or something. We'll just have to be patient. *shrug*. Kweetal nl (talk) 04:44, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The problem is with their long-term web hosting service, which has been taken over by a company that buys up small web hosting services and is known for cost cutting and poor customer service. They can edit the standard web pages, but have trouble with uploading the excel files and can't get any customer support.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:19, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! That's nasty 🤬 - MPF (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Excel files for 15.2 now available at https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/ioc-lists/master-list-2/  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:39, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Took a look at a few I've been most interested in; Cabot's Tern and Sandwich Tern are retained as separate, so they must be expecting the next AviList to adopt it; ditto all the Swamphens in Porphyrio are retained as separate species. Green Jay and Inca Jay are lumped, though. More to my surprise, Eurasian Teal and Green-winged Teal are retained as distinct. Thinornis is split from Charadrius, which will be a pain to implement on Commons; not sure why, as Thinornis + Charadrius is still monophyletic, so not really needed. Scarlet and Vermilion Flycatchers are re-lumped, which looks sensible. - MPF (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to use the cite template in palmchat to cite one of those old school multi-volume series [1904]. Anyone able to help me fix what the citation should actually look like? Entering the doi didn't help much. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:44, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I just tried to improve it; not sure why "Friedmann, Herbert" is listed as author though, in the actual work I only see Ridgway's name. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

The notes for the series say parts 1-8 were by Ridgway, while parts 9-10 were completed by Friedmann after his Ridgway's death in 1929 (see here). So Friedmann shouldn't be included for Part 3.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:16, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Article updated.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the help all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:11, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Can I have some thoughts on how to proceed here. This seems to me about as clear cut as possibly can be that the lead of this article should not mention dinosaurs:

• An RFC at Talk:Bee_hummingbird#Again that dinosaur thing in the lede... on this exact question showed near-unanimous support for its removal
• There is not a single source provided about ostriches that even mentions this fact
• The only sources that mention it are an article in a physics magazine and a PHD thesis about dinosaurs

Despite this I have been reverted by a user who I do not feel is acting entirely in good faith. It seems silly to have an RFC for the question "Should articles about modern birds mention dinosaurs in the lead when the body of sources for that bird barely mentions them?". But I don't know how else to proceed. Somatochlora (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Frankly it is starting to feel as if we do need some kind of blanket decision of that type, just to prevent this from re-ocurring at whichever bird-related article needs swings into this editor's vision. We are wasting far too much time on what is, in effect, a remarkably persistent personal bee in a bonnet. (Meanhwile, at "Dinosaur size"...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:26, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Do any of the sources at Dinosaur size mention birds? Not seeing anything obvious in their titles. CMD (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Elmidae, and for the chance to respond and assure you that no, the only individual bird pages this is relevant at would be the common ostrich and bee hummingbird and I will not go further than that. The other related articles, dinosaur size, etc., have been stable for many years. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Somatochlora, please ping an editor when accusing them of not acting in good faith, you should know better than that. The discussion at the ostrich page can easily be closed as keeping the information in the first sentence, but it has been moved down in the lead which, given the opposition to including it in the lead sentence, seems fair. But the discussion shows that it is lead worthy. Clarification please, are you arguing that birds being dinosaurs is incorrect, or that it is not defining? The ostrich lead is quite large, so there is room to put this data. The other page, Bee hummingbird, is much more of an interesting case, and easily relevant for lead inclusion although the lead is short. It should be addressed again, but not now, maybe in the fall. The fact that the bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur (not just the smallest living dinosaur) is arguably extremely vital and defining, we're talking the smallest known dinosaur of all time. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I am very confident that an RFC would come to a result something like "Articles about modern birds should only mention their connection to dinosaurs in relation to the emphasis placed on that species' connection to dinosaurs in reliable secondary sources." It would come to that result because that is what the MoS says should be done for all topics for all articles on Wikipedia. Under this result, the few passing references to the hummingbird and ostrich in the literature would, perhaps, warrant a brief mention somewhere in the article, certainly not in the lead. Do we really need to have that RFC? What are we doing here? Somatochlora (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please no. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:39, 21 April 2026 (UTC)