Talk:Kererū/Archive 1

Archive 1

Request for size info

There's nothing in the article about the bird's size (average, maximum, etc.). Can anyone fill that in? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FA

With some inline reffing there's a good basis for an FA here. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Chatham species

Split out Chatham Island population. Should have been done a long time ago. Dysmorodrepanis 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a kiwi - that's pretty universally accepted then these days? I'll look into it. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I was talking about this page last night with a friend doing her PhD on Kereru, apparently it was written by another Kereru researcher. And yes, the Chatham Island Pigeon is a separate species now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK then, a wiki-mitosis will be occurring soon I guess....:)cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

1. Well-written (a) Clarity and grammar - Very good! No typo problems. (b)Style - looks good

2. Verifiability Great! Loads of references.

3.Addresses major aspects Looks good.

4. NPOV Looks good (not much controversial stuff here anyway)

5. Stable Good! No edit wars here.

6. Images Good illustration, good licensing!

Final judgment: PASS

Vultur 01:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I had intended to complete a review of the article, but got tied up with other things. Here are some of the points I had come up with already. I'm not contesting GA status, just offering some suggestions on how the article might be improved.

• Comprehensiveness: While restrictions on hunting are mentioned in one sentence, there is no coverage of the controversy over Maori traditional rights, which seems like a significant omission. See for example [1], already referenced in that sentence.
• The recent changes to reflect the Parea becoming a species seem incomplete. For instance, there is still quite a lot in the Description section about the Parea. This might be better phrased in a comparative way, or just deleted. The article still says Hemiphaga is a monotypic genus.
• In the Breeding section, we say "A complete list of fruits taken by kererū can be found below." I can't see it though.

I also had several concerns about details of the prose, but it's probably easiest for me to address those directly. -- Avenue 02:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Great - thanks for the input. As far as additions, go for thy life as I don't own the article. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I missed the Maori stuff because I don't know too much about NZ politics. Is the Parea definitely a species? If some sources still lump them, it might be OK to list it both ways and explain the controversy.

No section on place in Maori culture

The Kereru was one of the 2 New Zealand forest birds most important to the maori and they were incredibly important birds both within daily life and as a part of the myths and legends of maori oral tradition. Holy shit I mean I have a copy of Elsdon Best's "Forest Lore of the Maori" here and there are 29 pages on kereru. Kereru were also shot widely for food by european settlers in the past and indeed many are poached illegally now - Avenue ( see above) is right, this is a major omission. Expect some major additions soon. Kotare 07:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Size relative to other sp.

The New Zealand pigeons are the second largest members of the family Columbidae. Since we split out the Chatham Island Pigeon, which is bigger, I guess its now the third biggest? Also, which is the largest? I seem to recal its the Goliath Imperial Pigeon of New Caledonia (or Notu) but I'm not sure. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

+ "living" of course ;-) if using plural "pigeons" it applies to Hemiphaga as a whole, I'd argue. Or at least it might be argued, especially if a line or two about relationships would be thrown in. Nothing of much substance from me, except that they are (as might be expected) a fairly [[basal]] lineage - even among the treronines which are basal themselves. The dodo lineage, the Viti Levu Giant Pigeon, the Henderson archaic species maybe, the tooth-billed and crowned and pheasant pigeons are apparently all members of a rapid evolutionary boom that produced much of the spectrum of Columbidae diversity. No ref though as of now, though I think there is one. Might be worth checking some phylo stuff I dumped at Pigeon; as they're not incertae sedis they should have been sampled. Dysmorodrepanis 21:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if limiting it to extant species, there are several members of Columbidae that are larger (see e.g. the three Crowned pigeons, Parea, Marquesan Imperial-pigeon & New Caledonian Imperial-pigeon). I have removed it. Rabo3 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

name

Just a few comments;

• When speaking specifically about the species, please remember capitals (i.e. New Zealand Pigeon when specifically speaking about Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae, New Zealand pigeon when speaking about any pigeon from New Zealand). If not familiar with these rules, more can be found on WikiProject Birds' front page.
• Within the article I've changed it to use New Zealand Pigeon as opposed to Kererū. To avoid confusion, it is recommendable to use the same throughout the article (instead of switching back and forth). I used New Zealand Pigeon because it was the name used most times within the article, but don't care what name is used (although see below), as long as it is done consistently.
• Is the Maori name used widely in New Zealand? I've never heard the Maori name actually being used for this species. However, I have only visited New Zealand once, so my 'sampling rate' is clearly insufficient. If the Maori name for this species remains widely used among NZ birders, ornithologists and alike, it's fine, but if not, the article should be placed under the name New Zealand Pigeon - exactly like other species with native names that aren't used as "main names" on English wiki.

Rabo3 (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it get used a lot, but either would be okay. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My experience here in NZ is that 'Wood Pigeon', 'Native Wood Pigeon' and 'Kererū' are all used in common speach; 'New Zealand Pigeon' is rarely used informally. Formal usage e.g., Dept. of Conservation literature, will either refer to "New Zealand Pigeon/Kererū" throughout, or else will use "Kererū" but also provide the European name at the start of an item.

Capitalisation of kererū

Kererū is inconsistently capitalised. I once asked (here at WikiProject Birds) whether alternative common names should be capitalised. Sabine's Sunbird thought yes; Dysmorodrepanis suggested no, only capitalise formal names. Did this ever get settled anywhere? Nurg (talk) 07:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• multiple {{fact}} tags need to be addressed
• Images make the section formatting look weird. Can this be fixed? (Not absolutely necessary, but doesn't seem to be too hard to fix)
• Under "Breeding," there's a sentence that says "a complete list of fruit taken by the Kereru can be found below." Did I completely miss the above-mentioned list, or is it not there?

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address your points, although I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the images. -- Avenue (talk) 11:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I've passed the article. About the images, well, they look great now! Corvus coronoides _talk 01:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

My impression is one of surprise that this is a GA. To me it just looks far too short. Surely there is enough literature on the bird to write a longer, better article? Richard001 (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It is short, but it covers all the points reasonably well. I'm not sure how much info is out there, they are actually quite hard to study (my friends is doing her PhD on them and I've helped her a few times, they are difficult birds to handle as they panic easily.) Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know much about how much info is out there either, but I suspect there would be enough to write something as long as kakapo. Richard001 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm...not so sure, much of the Kakapo article is taken up by a very detailed conservation effort which has taken place over many years. Also, GA is not FA and many articles increase by about 30% in between GA and FA. Can you identify some information which should be here but isn't? This would be helpful and some editors can then get to work on it. All input welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• The following could be addressed in a push to FA

• Breeding is fairly stubby
• No info about cultural importance to Maori
• The lead is a mix of taxonomic info that could get merged with subspecies in its own section, and then the lead could get rewritten as a summary of the whole article
• number of smaller fixes needed.

Overall, it really depends on someone wanting to do it. I don't really feel inclined to be honest; there is simply too much else that needs doing and the article is in good enough shape that I don't feel guilty leaving it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my feeling. I ruminated about pushing on with it but am not hugely interested by pigeons...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article has been nominated for community reassessment. Geometry guy 23:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand Fairy Tern which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand pigeon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621084456/http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/wai262/pigeon_poaching/Chapt03.pdf to http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/doclibrary/public/wai262/pigeon_poaching/Chapt03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

---

New Zealand pigeon → Kererū – Kererū is used significantly more in New Zealand to describe this bird than the current title - a google search for the exact phrase (which I accept isn't exactly scientific) shows 168,000 results for "New Zealand Pigeon" but 418,000 for "kereru" and a further 68,800 for "kererū" with a macron. News articles related to the bird show overwhelming preference for Kererū as opposed to New Zealand Pigeon / Wood Pigeon, and the name Kererū is used on road signs related to the bird. Changing the name of the article reflects the common name of the bird within New Zealand and better reflects the bird itself. The macron should also be present to reflect correct spelling of the name, which has only become more common in recent years and can be seen in the increased use with recent articles. Turnagra (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose: A google search just now for "NZ Pigeon" displays 5,910,000 results whereas a search for "Kereru" only showed 442,000 results. This proposal as of 2020 is as absurd as renaming "New Zealand Fantail" to "pīwakawaka". --Dunedinite (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment with very few exceptions (I am aware of just 4 out of ~13,000), Wikipedia uses the vernacular names promulgated by the IOC for titles of articles about bird species. The IOC name is New Zealand pigeon. The article title criterion of WP:CONSISTENT favors "New Zealand pigeon"; I don't have any strong opinion about the best title for this article, and am not going to comment on whether the proposed name better fulfills the other 4 article title criteria. Plantdrew (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Qualified support. In the WikiProject Birds naming conventions: "Wikipedia article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name", and indeed there are quite a few NZ bird articles incorrectly using IOC names: New Zealand rockwren, Bushwren, Auckland merganser, Auckland rail, Auckland snipe, Auckland shag, Grey Gerygone, all of which need to be moved (or have been) so they correspond with reliable sources like the official OSNZ Checklist and standard field guides. So there's no problem with not using the IOC name. And "New Zealand pigeon" is certainly not the standard name used for this endemic New Zealand bird by New Zealanders; kereru or kererū are now more common than "Wood Pigeon" which was the former prevailing common name. Note however that the 2010 official OSNZ Checklist still uses "New Zealand pigeon", as does Heather and Robertson (2005), the standard NZ field guide. Check these via NZ Birds Online, which lists the bird under the heading "NZ Pigeon" but--notably--uses "kereru" throughout the text. So there's a case for keeping the article title, although I agree the common usage under WP:COMMONNAME is now "kereru", and macron use in NZ English is becoming standard in reliable sources since about 2015. --Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Giantflightlessbirds's analysis. I don't feel a need to go "qualified support", since WP:COMMONNAME policy is about usage in reliable sources generally, not just local and specialized ones. That is, the OSNZ, etc. are not "worth" more for COMMONNAME purposes than, say, newspapers, and may even be worth less on a WP:RECOGNIZABLE basis in particular cases. For example, IOC's vernacular names (which some professional ornithologists and amateur birdwatchers prefer as a presently not overwhelmingly successful attempt at global standardization) in some cases are portmanteaux of conflicting actually common vernacular names, and in their mixed form aren't actually used by much of anyone in the real world (though I don't think that affects a large number of IOC names; most of them probably are the common name in English). Specialized sources are more reliable for topically specific facts (e.g. what a particular bird's diet is), but not for style questions (see WP:Specialized-style fallacy). At any rate, IOC naming is not a "standard" on WP despite attempts to impose it as one several years ago, which ended with one of the longest and most detailed RfCs in Wikipedia history (WP:BIRDCON), following on an RM and a WP:MR that both upheld COMMONAME and MOS:LIFE over the wikiproject's (and external organization's) preferences. The material at the wikiproject page really needs revision [which I just made] to stop implying WP is an IOC shop except for some permissible exceptions. (Removing the word "may" would go a long way to fixing it, so it describes facts rather than implies rules.) That's not even guideline material, but a project essay. More than 4 articles have been moved away from IOC names or were not at them to start with, following WP:COMMONNAME/WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Many of them were put at IOC names, pre-BIRDCON, simply through out-of-process mass moving; it's a WP:FALSECONSENSUS that needs more cleanup, not a WP:CONSISTENT basis to argue for. That is, we apply CONSISTENT to names that comply with the WP:CRITERIA and other relevant WP:P&G; we don't defy the criteria and P&G to make more articles consistent with old, poor name choices that need to be re-examined. I don't want to get into this in any more detail, as it's liable to re-open old wounds. PS: Yes, do use the diacritic. For over a decade now, WP has not been dropping diacritics from things that reliable sources tell us belong there, unless the usage in modern, reliable, English-language sources is overwhelmingly against using the diacritic (or, for things like WP:ABOUTSELF / WP:BLP cases, the subject has made it clear they no longer use the diacritic, which doesn't really relate to this RM of course).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.