Talk:Big year

Birds Low‑importance

Big year is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Discrepancy

The lead says the world big year record is 6852 while later in the page in the World big years section that record is given as 6833. Should be a uniform number, which is correct? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually this citation cited in the lead section of the article says 6,852, not 6,833, so perhaps we should change it in the body as well. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I didn't click on that one (I limit my click-arounds) but it's the record holders own website so he is probably putting out the correct number. And check out List of birdwatchers for the huge life-lists that some people have! That page also includes the two overall-species numbers in the lead. Seems 10,700 would be a good number for the dinosaur lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it based on that ref (I mean the wrong 6,833 number). It's actually amazing how many "dinosaur" species :P people actually discover by only watching them. And yeah, seems like 10,700 would be a better number, I'll go on and change it right away. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]