Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

WikiProject Birds

General information Main project page talk Naming and capitalization  → Article requests  → Spoken Article requests talk  → Photo requests talk  → Attention needed talk  → New articles talk Project portal talk Project banner talk Project category talk Departments Assessment talk Collaboration talk Featured topics talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Country lists talk Bird articles by size talk Hot articles talk Popular pages talk Task forces Domestic pigeon task force talk Poultry task force talk

IOC World Bird List has published an updated list. Do we still plan to wait until AviList updates before making systematic changes?

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)

@SchreiberBike @Kweetal nl @Jts1882 and anyone else: when is the next version of Avilist due out? - MPF (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The latest information is that AviList 2026 will be released in "September/October" - see here. - Aa77zz (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

AviList have just launched a list explorer: https://avilist-explorer-demo.vercel.app/

See also Birdforum here: https://www.birdforum.net/threads/interactive-avilist-web-explorer-soft-launch%E2%80%94feedback-invited.481040/ - MPF (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Aa77zz @Jts1882 @Kweetal nl @SchreiberBike there's a new progress news update from AviList here; no taxonomic changes (that's deliberate, as it isn't a full update), but a few typos from their errata page incorporated. This involves a couple of sci name gender corrections and author corrections, and some English name corrections in the former Island Thrush complex that we'll need to add here. - MPF (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

My reading of the AviList Errata page is that the gender corrections and Island Thrush English names have not been corrected in this minor update, but will be in the 2026 version. Errors in ranges and decision summaries have been corrected. The other changes are the links and codes are aligned with the Clements/ebird update. And the main purpose of the Bird Forum update was the announce the official release of AviList Explorer.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

On birdforum here:

I noticed in SACC proposal 1078 a mention that AviList's English Names Committee has a July 15th deadline for any name changes/updates for AviList 2026. Not sure if the same timeline applies to splits and lumps or just names.

- MPF (talk) 21:05, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Another update, on Birdforum here and AviList here - MPF (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Not really an update on the list, which remains unchanged. They have made public their Github discussions on the decisions made for Avilist-2025. There is wealthy of information there in over 1000 proposals. For the update of Avilist, the new discussions will be published at the same time.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That said, there may be clues as the what will appear in Avilist-2026. The split of the Crimson-bellied and Splendid woodpeckers in Avilist-2025 (proposal 796) was reopened following a SACC decision and looks like it will be reversed. There are probably a few others.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Laughingthrush family name spelling

Question for the people more knowledgeable about nomenclature than myself - what should the family name for the laughingthrushes be? Avibase and ourselves have it at Leiothrichidae, but per this 2024 paper we should be using Leiotrichidae. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:24, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

IOC, Clements, and AviList all use Leiothrichidae. Perennial outlier HBW uses Leiotrichidae. So I say stay with the former unless they agree with the paper and change in a future update. Craigthebirder (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree w/ @Craigthebirder - I think it makes sense to keep whatever AviList/IOC are using. Having now read the BOC paper (thanks for linking!), unfortunately their entire argument hinges on being well-versed in Greek. I am not, so who knows if they're correct? But if they are, I imagine the other taxonomic authorities with get around to it in 3 - 5 business years. DuckWrangler97 (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Gotta keep those classicists busy Craig. Anyway, thanks for the replies, I'll leave it for now but I did create a redirect from the possibly correct spelling. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Normand David is a familiar, and highly respected, name in papers about the correct orthography of scientific names; I'd think it highly likely that Avilist will adopt their spelling soon (I'd not be surprised if there is a proposal in the works already). But agree - we should change when Avilist do - MPF (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree we should keep using the Avilist/IOC/Clements spelling until Avilist made the change. Normand David is almost certainly correct on the spelling but this doesn't always get followed by the taxonomy for established names.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Old World babbler

Actually, while I'm thinking about it, I would also be interested what people think about where the family Timaliidae should sit. It currently sits at Old World babbler, which is what the family was know as before Leiothrichidae and Pellorneidae (along with a slew of other genera) were split out. Neither the IOC nor BotW use Old World babbler for the common family name, and generally when it is used it is referring to the pre-split wastebin "babbler family" not the sensu stricto meaning of the article now. Might there be value in moving the family to Timaliidae and having Old World babbler be either a) a dab page or b) a page to detail the entire taxonomic history of the sensu lato Old World babblers or even c) have it redirect to Sylvioidea? I don't have a strong preference but I do think it needs to be adjusted. Not starting a RFC, just seeing what people think. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:32, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

The article shoulld be moved. Babblers of the Old World are found in at least three other families, Leiothrichidae, Pellorneidae and Zosteropidae. The only reason for keeping the article at that name is if the authorities were using it in a revised way. Old World babbler should probably be a disambiguation page or possibly an article on the old concept, which I think is sufficiently important.

While checking some common names I noticed there are Yuhinas (common name) in three Zosteropidae genera: Staphida and Parayuhina, as well as Yuhina. Perhaps there should be a 'Yuhina (disambiguation)' page, especially as the white-bellied erpornis (Erpornis zantholeuca) was once known as the white-bellied yuhina. There might be others.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Agree that our article Old World babbler should be moved to Timaliidae. I suggest that Old World babbler should just be disambiguation page listing the families. Details about the splits can be mentioned in the individual family articles. -Aa77zz (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird @Jts1882 @Aa77zz + one more for move to Timaliidae. The most familiar OWB (the birds from which the name "babbler" derives) are now in the genus Argya, so if any single family were to be at that page, it should be Leiot(h)richidae, not Timaliidae (which would also avoid the spelling problem 😂) - MPF (talk) 08:27, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

If we turn Old World babbler into a dab page we'll need to change every instance were an article points to it and make a call of what to point to if the article is specifically referring to the old wastebin taxon not the current family. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:51, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sabine's Sunbird I'd be happy to help with that. About half of the 'what links here' are already via the current Timaliidae redirect, so it won't be too onerous - MPF (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Parrotbill

Related to the above; Paradoxornithidae currently redirects to Parrotbill, but only two of the several genera in that family are actually called 'Parrotbills', or even have vaguely parrot-like beaks. Another one to move to the scientific name? - MPF (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Two genera but a majority of species in the family. I'm happy to leave it there, but I have always had a strong bias towards leaving family articles on common names where possible. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:07, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it looks very odd calling e.g. Wrentit or Fire-tailed Myzornis 'parrotbills'. Perhaps comparable would be giving Anatidae the page title 'ducks' when a significant minority are not ducks within the normal sense of the word - MPF (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

At the risk of drawing attention to them and creating a wave of moves, we have a bunch of family articles along those lines. You don't say the wrentit is a parrotbill, you say it is a bird in the parrotbill family. The BotW/IOC apporach is to name these families "parrotbills and allies" etc, but Wikipedia MOS decsisons dating back to before I joined preculde that option. (Also if you check duck's talk page I argued years ago that Anatidae should sit at duck because of the relative viewership numbers, but my belief we should put important articles were people will find them rather than behind technical names readers avoid is rarely a winner). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires article titles to be unambiguous and precise and prefers common names when there is one that is unambiguous and precise.

You don't say the wrentit is a parrotbill, you say it is a bird in the parrotbill family. Exactly, because it is not a parrotbill. It's in the parrotbill and allies family. While abbreviating it is more acceptable in the text, after making the topic clear, it makes an imprecise title. If Paradoxornithidae was being used more narrowly for the wrentit and two parrotbill genera, with the wrentit the sole species embedded among 22 parrotbills, then parrotbill for the family might be acceptable, but there are myzornis, fulvettas and various other babblers in family as described.

Anatidae should sit at duck because of the relative viewership numbers. That means more people are looking for an article on ducks than on geese or swans. It doesn't mean they consider geese and swans to be ducks. The relative use of vernacular names is used to determine a common name for the same thing, not a common name for a group of different things.

In a different world, common names might have evolved differently. We might use ducks as a broader term to include larger relatives, use geese to mean big ducks, swans for big white ducks, but we don't. We might use monkey to include apes and humans, but we don't, even if there is no good reason not to consider them tailless monkeys. The common name is what people use to describe something. We shouldn't use them imprecisely for categories they are not used for.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:56, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Support the move to the family name, which is unambiguous. Parrotbills are a couple of genera nested within the family so its use as title is misleading or the majority of the genera (7/9). The species count is not overwhelming in favour of parrotbills (22 of 38), so it's not just a few exceptions.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Support move of Parrotbill to Paradoxornithidae for the reasons stated by Jts1882.- Aa77zz (talk)

• Oppose, and this would need an RM in any case. Parrotbill is a much easier name to understand than paraetcetc, and being English Wikipedia it's best to stick to English for animal names whenever possible. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:49, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• (Breaking this out from a reply initially directed at Jts1882) I'm going to be fantastically pompous and do something I've never done before in twenty years, invoke WP:IAR. No, I'm not going rogue to overrule consensus, I cite it because the rules exist to serve the Wiki, not visa versa, and that was the interpretation I gave when I was made an admin. And we have a lot of rules to consider and this conversation is hung up on one, which I think overstates its importance, and not giving weight to the others, and that hurts us overall. We have an imperative to use common terminology when possible. We have an imperative to be as unambiguous in the title as possible. We have an imperative to use singular words. This all means with higher level bird taxa some groups are very frequently never going to satisfy all. Threskiornithidae is not a common name and is a five car pile-up of the vocal cords. Ibises and spoonbills is plural. And picking one of the other is also very jarring. For some groups the scientific name is always going to have to be the one we use. But I disagree strongly that ambiguity is the only criteria we should judge this by, because it puts undue weight on one criteria to the exclusion of others. The reason I invoked IAR is because we need to take this back to first principles - the needs of the wiki, which is in turn determined by the needs of the readers. The average reader does not understand the mismatch between common names and scientific ones. They want to learn about birds. And they come using the names they are familiar with. So we have a situation where the article about the duck family (Anatidae gets one third of the daily views of the article duck. Neither article is very good. And this goes beyond this, it applies to many or most of the birds that people know versus the taxonomic articles. We should, wherever we can, be placing our articles in places that are not jargon. We should not be getting hung up on the fact that some species have different names - in many cases it genuinely doesn't matter (a scaup is still a duck, a chickadee is a tit). There is currently a move discussion at Talk:Trogon suggesting that Trogon be moved because a few species are quetzals - even though quetzels are called trogons by HBW and BotW. And I absolutely concede that some will have to be scientific (Threskiornithidae) - but there are lots of ambiguous ones in the middle that could be afforded some discretion. Are we going to move Vireo to Vireonidae, because the shrike-babblers were found to sit with them? Move Pipit to Anthus cause the madanga isn't a white-eye but is actually in that genus? Per a rigid desire to avoid ambiguity we should. I'm suggesting that where a family or genus has a dominant but not universal name within it that is frequently used as a stand in for the family (as already happens with some established common family names - example Old World flycatcher), that the trade off is worthwhile to keep the needs of the general reader in mind, especially as the article itself can be explicit. Or that at a bare minimum we consider the trade off, even if we decide to settle on preciusion. (Also, btw, BotW uses Parrotbill as the name for the whole family). Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Progress on these

Looks like consensus for moving Old World babbler to Timaliidae; ditto or nearly so for moving Parrotbill to Paradoxornithidae — time to get these done? - MPF (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Yeah I want to see more that three opinions on parrotbill before concensus is declared. Like even at least one discussion of the points I raised. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

I've tried to address your points above. The previous edit summary was meant to say that but I inadvertently saved the edit while typing.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:00, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Still awaiting action on these moves! Raising this again before it risks being archived and forgotten tomorrow . . . - MPF (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion about image collages versus single images for taxoboxes

Over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life there is a discussion about whether high level taxa are best served by a collage or a single image in the taxobox. I have opinions and have shared, but some of you may have thoughts too. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:29, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Trogon#Requested move 3 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Trogon#Requested move 3 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 15:24, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Article on the dangers posed by AI

Worth a read. A paper by Alex Lees in Nature, accessible via his bluesky thread (the Nature article is paywalled, but the link here gives access) - MPF (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

One of the Bluesky replies also mentions finding them on WikiCommons. I've found (and got deleted) one fake insect on Commons, not caught any birds yet but I'm sure they're there. CMD (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh dear!!! Courtesy of bluesky posters . .. enjoy! 😂😂😂

• Jake the Fake with an Extra Leg
• Petrel with a gull's head for a tail, or . . . ???

MPF (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Lake Eyre#Requested move 31 July 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lake Eyre#Requested move 31 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Feedback requested on Skomer guillemot study draft

Hello. I have prepared User:Beagle1859/Skomer guillemot study draft, about the long-running study of Common Guillemots on Skomer Island.

Before moving it to draft space and submitting it through Articles for Creation, I would be grateful for comments on whether the subject appears suitable for a standalone article, whether the independent sourcing is sufficient, and whether the balance between the project's history, methods and scientific findings is appropriate.

I would also welcome any comments on ornithological accuracy, undue detail or important omissions. Many thanks. Beagle1859 (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll comment on the dandbox talk page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Authority for Undulated antpitta

IUCN/BirdLife International and the IOC list Prévost & Des Murs (1842) as the authority on the Undulated antpitta (Grallaria squamigera). That said, AviList v2025b, Birds of the World, AviBase all list de Lafresnaye (1842). In this book, Petit-Thouars (1846), he cites Lafresnaye as the authority (this is the citation Avibase provides). In this book, Menegaux & Hellmayer 1864, Lafresnaye is again the authority, with Grallaria squamigera in 1842 – Prévost & Des Murs are listed with a subsequent misspelling (Grallaria squammigera) in 1855.

All said and done, I can't find anything I'm confident is the original species description, can't read French, and am hoping someone here might know a little more than me about why no one seems to have a unified opinion on the authority. Thanks very much! DuckWrangler97 (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

https://www.birdforum.net/threads/lowland-antpittas.354423/page-2#post-4344588

hth - Kweetal nl (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Feedback on lead image for Velvet-purple Coronet

I would welcome any comments to resolve which lead image to use for the Velvet-purple coronet article. Please see the talk page. -- E bailey (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Bringing the "XXXX year in birding and ornithology" series of articles to todays standards

Hello! I found these sets of articles while participating in the August Unreferenced articles backlog drive, and they should be brought up to today's standards. I'm linking the first one in the series for reference: 1800 in birding and ornithology. Lots of these articles don't have leads, headers, or citations, and the ones that do have citations usually only have one. I was able to add a citation to three articles, but tbh birding is not my niche, and I think someone else more knowledgeable than me could take the task over. Maybe the articles could be merged into decades, per Wikipedia:Decade merges?

@Notafly: seems to still be active, and since they made the articles, I was hoping for their thoughts. Thanks! (Also thanks to User:Dreamyshade for helping me formulate a request.) Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 18:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)