Talk:List of Puerto Rican birds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Puerto Rican birds is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

List of Puerto Rican birds has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Puerto Rico Portal List of Puerto Rican birds is part of WikiProject Puerto Rico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the people, history, language, and culture of Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help with the tasks listed below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Please do not substitute this template.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Puerto Rico To-do: edit Article requests: Art of Puerto Rico, Lourdes Chacón, Dagmar, Law of Puerto Rico, Central Fajardo, Flora of Puerto Rico more Cleanup: Mona, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Puerto Rico, Ponce Massacre, Morovis, Puerto Rico, Bayamón, Puerto Rico, Caguas, Puerto Rico Verify: Dominican immigration to Puerto Rico Wikify: Ceiba, Puerto Rico Expand: Public welfare in Puerto Rico, Culture of Puerto Rico, Demographics of Puerto Rico, Geology of Puerto Rico, Transportation in Puerto Rico, Education in Puerto Rico, Communications in Puerto Rico, Public housing in Puerto Rico more Merge: Puertorrican people –> Puerto Rican Category Sorting: Category:Puerto Rican politicians, Category:History of Puerto Rico Images needed: Roberto Clemente

	Caribbean Portal This article is supported by the Caribbean WikiProject, which provides a central approach to Caribbean-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please help us by assessing and improving articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Accidentals 2 Budgerigars, Parakeets and Parrots 3 Introduced species 4 Informal peer review

[edit] Accidentals

The two type of accidentals, human introduced and natural are lumped in one category, and budgies are just not making it on themselves. Maybe that would be a good distinction. I preferably would use small on all those escapies that do not have estabished them) or make a seperate list. The parrot list would then look like:

[edit] Budgerigars, Parakeets and Parrots

Order: Psittaciformes Family: Psittacidae

• Budgerigar, Melopsittacus undulatus (Esc)
• Red-masked Parakeet, Aratinga erythrogenys (I)
• Hispaniolan Parakeet, Aratinga chloroptera (Esc)
• Brown-throated Parakeet, Aratinga pertinax (I)
• Orange-fronted Parakeet, Aratinga canicularis (I)
• Nanday Parakeet, Nandayus nenday (I)
• Monk Parakeet, Myiopsitta monachus (I)
• Canary-winged Parakeet Brotogeris versicolorus (I)
• Hispaniolan Parrot, Amazona ventralis (I)
• Puerto Rican Parrot, Amazona vittata (E)
• White-fronted Parrot, Amazona albifrons (I)
• Red-crowned Parrot, Amazona viridigenalis (I)
• Yellow-headed Parrot, Amazona oratrix (I)
• Orange-winged Parrot, Amazona amazonica (I)

Just ideas..... Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly this would be a bit hard to implement right now since I don't have references that distinguish human from natural. I could do this by inspection but I prefer to have a reference to back me up. If/when I find one I will consider the suggestion. Thank you. Joelito (talk) 14:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Some are obvious, budgerigars are from Australia, so that can only be escapies. Other species might be more difficult, and should be left as they are untill there is a god source backing it up. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduced species

I changed all entries in which introduced species are mentioned. Introduced species are not Porto Rican species (by definiton), and that is likely to confuse people. For that reason, I think it is better to make clear that they are present, but not of the country. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the escapees since as I sadi above it is impossible for now to account for all of them. Also other lists usch as List of North American birds, List of Florida birds, etc. use only introduced species. Joelito (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with that, the point is, they are just not accidentals, which does have a specific meaning in ornithology. The other main point is sill standing however, and that is that introduced species are not always considered a native species, and generally are refered to as a species of their original country, or area. It is not a Puero Rican budgerigar, but it remains an Australian budgerigar. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I can explain better what I mean. This will take me to my own work on fruitflies. One of the most common species in the US is Drosophila melanogaster, and introduced species from Africa. In the literature, you will only encounter on occation that it will be called an american species, most of the time, they avoid to give the origin, or refer to it as an (American) population of the African species. Currently, we are tracking the expansion of a newly introduced drosophilid species, Zaprionus indianus, which is an species from Africa/India. This definatly is not an American species.

If you want to go a bit further, only the endemics are Puerto Rican species, the rest are Caribian, North-American, Central-American etc species. The way I would go aroun this is to refer to the Puerto Rican avifauna, and use a sentence like: "Five species are found on Peurto Rico", or "Five species are found on Peurto Rican avifauna". For native (non-endemic) species, I personally think the common language is to refer to them as Puerto Rican species, and I have no big problem with that. However, I think the labeling of introduced species as Puerto Rican species is incorrect. (Ok, enough rambling about semantics)Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have understood your concern since the beginning. I have just been following the conventions used in other lists. For example List of Florida birds includes as Florida species all introduced parrots. To avoid having to rewrite a lot of the family descriptions maybe a footnote explaining the difference between true Puerto Rican species and introduced species which occur in Puerto Rico is a good solution.Joelito (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, my reaction would be as follows. Should this page repeat errors of other pages? You requested peer-review for this page. I have not gone read every detail to do so, but if this was an article that I would review professionally, it would be send back with the recommendation of accpetance with monir revision, aka, the fixing of the terminology and the confusing language. And yes, it is a lot of work, but I think that just running through it one time and fix it will cost less time than us discussing here. :-) Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you. So, change everything to "There are x species world wide and X species which occur in Puerto Rico"? That better right? Joelito (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be perfect, as it is clear and non-confusing. I think I said it before, you have done a very good job on this article!!! Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal peer review

I have not judged it on content (as in are all species on the list or not), because I assume that people can reproduce a list. The rest of the text seems fine to me. I made some small changes to clarify stuff. I think the article is in very good shape, and is a usefull addition to WP. The article has referneces, but it would be good to link them using <ref> Text here. </ref>, which is pretty much a requirement for a good article. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 05:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The references I used a general references so there is no need as of yet to have footnotes. Joelito (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to add them everywhere, but I would add it as a footnote and provide the user with the option to directly jump to it in stead of that they have to guess that the references are given at the very end. We as regular editors knwo that, but someone who comes in with a google search not so likely. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)