Talk:Canada goose/Archive 1

Archive 1

Capitalization

At least in American spelling, the "goose" is not capitalized -- see the Columbia Encyclopedia Article about geese, goose. The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, which does not capitalize the second word. I think the Columbia Encyclopedia is as reliable a source as any, and I have not seen any encyclopedia but Wikipedia that capitalizes both. Bobburito 06:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Its spelt both ways:Canada Goose (if its a title of a book or section ie chapter, encyclopidia topic, and canada goose, but Canada goose could mean any kind of goose that origenated from canada, and canada Goose is improper spelling, relly all this stuff is confusion with the diferent forms.

---

• Please, we've been through the capitalization discussion. This is the convention we reached after much discussion. Both terms are capitalized. Danny
  • Where is this discussion? Is this only for titles? All dictionaries I've reviewed (including Canadian Oxford) do not capitalize the "goose". Jade Squirrel
    • No, it is for all appearances. I did not take part in the discussion, but it is in one of the naming convention articles. Danny

---

I just reviewed the Wikipedia naming conventions. It states:

"Unless the term you wish to create a page for is a proper noun, do not capitalize second and subsequent words." (my emphaisis) http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(capitalization) Jade Squirrel

---

An exception was made in the case of animals. You might want to check the Australian animals, becauzse that is where the discussion took place. It was not too long ago. Please don't start it off again. Danny

---

I didn't find any relevant discussion on this. If that decision was made, the naming conventions have not been updated. I noticed most of the Australian animals follow the convention you stated, but there are a few other animals where only the first word is capitalized. Since the Wikipedia is inconsistent, I'm not going to bother with this issue. Jade Squirrel

---

Tannin has informed me:

"You'll find several discussions of the naming conventions for animals around the place, but (for complicated reasons I won't go into) there isn't a naming conventions page that sets them out yet. Sorry abut that. The heat has gone out of the debate now, and the compromise that was hammered out is working well, so I'll see if I can attend to that over the next few days. But in the meantime, you will find the essentials at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. That's bird-specific, but the same rules apply to mammals." Jade Squirrel

I noticed that bird books by National Geographic capitalize the names. --Evice 02:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

These geese also occur in the City park of [[de:F%FCrth|Fuerth]] (Germany); this year the population grew remarkably - the last days I observed 50 or more. There are also some with white or red-orange heads. A picture is here; I can add some more, if wanted: http://de.wikipedia.org/upload/1/15/Wildgans-schwarzer-kopf-fuerth.jpg

---

Thats because(The geese are in gemany) the geese were raised in captivity and then they flu allong side a plane to europe

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.159.7 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Geese Integration

One of the photographs in the article has a Snow Goose hanging out with the Canadas. Is it common for different species of geese to interact and flock together? Cranston Lamont 23:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Geese are very gregarious, and isolated individuals/escapes etc will join any available goose flock. Our local Canada flock currently contains an escaped Bar-headed Goose. jimfbleak 05:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think......

I do not like what people do on these things!! It is so rude. Please Do not change the information on the birds please.

                               Thank You-
                          Big Tree Elementary Schools

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.84.228 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Canadian goose with friends.jpg

Normally, I wouldn't post such a negative critique of someone else's work, but the editor insisted on re-adding the image after I removed it. This image is low resolution and low quality. The goose featured in the photo is very small and not at all clear. This article already has many very beautiful pictures of geese. Thus, the image is entirely redundant. If the article really does need another goose photo to illustrate the "See also" section, then there are many much higher quality examples to choose from in Commons. The editor who posted this photo is also the photo's uploader, so perhaps he's got a bit of an emotional tie to it. At any rate, folks who would like to discuss the relative merits of this image should do so here. Rklawton 01:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy: nasty Canadian geese and their excrement

I am thinking that this article needs to address some of serious health concerns about having large folks of Canadian geese within surborban and urban areas: I recall watch a news program on television reporting that an adult Canadian Goose produces four to five pounds of excrement every day with droppings every seven minutes and these birds pose serious health concerns for those visiting park ares with rivers, lakes, ponds, etc.17:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a bit POV to me. I've read that Canada Geese may poop as much as 3 pounds a day, much of that water. There also is no study that connects goose poop with increased disease risk. Cases where high coliform levels have been measured in water have either been blamed on geese without testing, or when testing has been done, the geese were exonerated and humans were generally to blame. If you can document that geese are "nasty" go for it, but posting claims from recollections of a media story doesn't really cut it. I do agree that this alleged health concern should either be documented or debunked with documentation, so thanks for bringing that up. Bob98133 19:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

From the DEFRA reference on the article -

Fouling with droppings

• Because of their inefficient digestive system and the low nutrient value of plant material, Canada geese may need to eat large quantities of vegetation.
• When grazing they may produce droppings at a rate of one every 6 minutes.
• The droppings contain bacteria that may be harmful if faecal matter is inadvertently swallowed and they also make grassed areas unattractive and paths slippery.
• If the droppings are passed into water bodies they may cause increased nutrient loadings leading to possible toxic algal blooms and low oxygen levels in the water.

May be something to start with - Foxhill 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Goose, part 2

Ok, whoever it is that elects to edit this page at least seems to concede that Canadian goose is widely used. However, the discrepancy between standard English and the non-standard Canada goose should be recognized. Ebnauman 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept original research. Canadian Goose needs a verifiable reference Jimfbleak 05:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." The term "Canadian goose" will generate 120,000 hits on Google. Who is the administrator for this entry. I ask that person to admit that Canadian goose is so widely used that it should be acknowledged as an alternative.

Look, the term "bow wow" generates 3.5 million hits on google, but that doesn't mean that it is a legitimate name for "dog". The name of this article and the name of this animal is Canada Goose. I have no objection to a simple line being included that many people refer to these animals as Canadian geese (it doesn't even have to say 'erroneously'), but claiming that "millions of people" use this term is totally undocumented and doesn't belong. Bob98133 13:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

But if it is claimed that many people use it, that needs a references, the fact that no source has been added over months and numerous pleas to do so, suggest that the claim cannot be substantiated. It is not a non-standard construction, see Canada Warbler, California Quail, Tennessee Warbler, Dartford Warbler, Sandwich Tern, Kentucky Derby, World SeriesJimfbleak 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian

I've added "Canadian Goose" as an alternative term along with the only in-text citation thus far in the article. Neitherday 15:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Jimfbleak 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallery

At what point will this article contain enough images of this bird? I think three or four images for the article would suffice and that no gallery is warrented. Rklawton 15:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, better yet, there are enough photos within the actual article itself. Anyone who still wants to put their photos up should upload them to Wikimedia Commons. There can simply be a link to it from the article itself. there is no canada goose page yet so someone should create it. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Canada+goose&go=Go

Anyway, this article is illustrated best of what I have seen in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.42.13 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Need Another Picture?

I have taken another picture of geese, you can find it here http://www.flickr.com/photos/21376635@N04/2074550543/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenio (talk • contribs) 23:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A Pest

• Maybe we should include a section on how it is a pest and how in certain areas, like in Jersey, people view the creature as pest because of the constant noise they create and all the feces they leave behind? *Daijinryuu*
• I would like to see expanded discussions on the presence of Resident Geese -- How they started, etc. Appropriate control methods should also be included here, as well as population shifts when large numbers of geese are exterminated as a control method.

Oh. I had just removed the following from the article:

Some migratory populations in temperate climates frequent cities as well, due to convenient, predator-free open spaces. These birds are considered by many to be a nuisance , mainly because of the large volume of feces they produce, and like other water fowl, they also frequently walk with their young across roads, creating traffic tie-ups. Some cities have begun extermination programs against them . Other solutions have included relocation and the use of a substance to coat the eggs to prevent maturation and hatching. Many geese are also killed in collisions with automobiles and, occasionally, aircraft.

Is there any information on how it's considered to be a nuisance? We shouldn't be adding info we can't verify, and I don't think it's been verified properly. --Kjoonlee 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

There's an entire industry dedicated to removal of Canada Geese from private property (espescially Golf Courses/Corporate Parks) see www.geesepoliceinc.com 72.88.249.60 01:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I found this NZ government report:

www.mwpress.co.nz/store/downloads/LRSS_30_Spurr4Web.pdf

The authors note that geese are considered a pest because they compete with livestock for grazing, and this is referenced.

Other reasons for their pestilent nature are described (defecation etc) but those points are unreferenced.Garethvaughan 21:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NZ Canadas aren't migratory - see text above. jimfbleak 06:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) in 2005 declared them to be a nuisance in localized areas Source

"Non-migratory Canada goose populations have increased drastically in recent years, causing crop damage and nuisance problems in residential neighborhoods. Park visitors often complain about goose excrement on state park beaches and other facilities, and water quality at some state parks has been adversely impacted."

--Nathan Gerber 16:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• An early season was implemented again during 2007 Source: PA DCNR. I also noticed on the front page the high fecal califorms are listed as needing a citation even though a reference listed on the article from DCNR makes mention of that statement, as well as the latest source listed here. --Nathan Gerber (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

V-pattern

Is this the only bird species that flies south in the V-formation? Funnyhat (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

No, many large birds (geese, storks etc) do Jimfbleak (talk) 07:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Licence to handle Canada Geese in UK

I was watching a TV program about an RSPCA rescue of waterfowl after an oil spillage on a lake in the UK. Cleaning other birds, ducks and white geese, and I beleive even Swans (which are protected under the queen) were OK to handle. But the program said they had to obtain a special licence to handle the Canada Geese, but never went in to much detail as to why or where they got this licence.

I thought it was a peice of interesting information, but could not find it anywhere onlune. Is it because the Canada Goose is considered a pest? I'm not too sure, maybe someone could elaberate and add it to the article

yet another Matt (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Aleutian Canada Goose

There is no mention of the Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) here or (remarkably) elsewhere on Wikipedia. Its range historically includes a population that breeds in Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands, wintering in Japan, as well as an Aleutian Islands-California population. The former are highly endangered, the latter have recovered from near extinction. Is there a reason for this omission? There should be some adjustment of the implication that the Canada Goose is only native to North America as well. No? Eliezg (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now that it has been reclassified as a Cackling Goose - I had no idea. Though, if an animal that looks like this: is a distinct species than this , I have newfound respect for birders' masochistic tendency for impenetrable systematics! In the meantime, I will make a redirect from Aleutian Canada Goose to the Cackling Goose article, since I believe it is still widely known (i.e. Googlable) as the former. Best, Eliezg (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Canada Goose sleeping habits

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure of the following:

• Canada geese do not burrow
• There is no such thing as an aveterra
• Canada geese do not construct these "aveterras" under large bodies of water
• That picture is totally photoshopped. Poorly, at that.

Still, it's mighty hilarious.--Stacecom (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the Sleeping Habits para because there is no Google reference to the word "Aveterra" AND the pic of the bird is indeed photoshopped. The same pic (but reversed) can be seen in its proper surroundings by clicking on the long link on the Image Description page for the false image. It's not funny when people have to waste their time sorting out this vandalism - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

plane crash in NY

I understand that there has been media attention to this crash being caused by Canada Geese, but it is as valid as deciding that Irag has WMD. Wiki is not news and placing the text you did is not only news but inaccurate. I do appreciate you referencing it, though. The NTSB will determine the cause of this crash, so anything else is specualtion. My revert was not due to vandalism. It clearly stated that it is too soon to attribute this to Canada Geese. I have changed "blamed" to "speculated". (also posted on editor's talk page) Bob98133 (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How high can these birds fly?

In light of the recent forced landing of US Airways flight 1549 caused (seemingly) by hitting several Canada Geese at an altitude of about 3000 ft, it would instructive and useful to include a reference in the main article to the known, or typical, cruise altitude of a flock of migrating Canada Geese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.201.85 (talk) 15:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If in fact these birds did cause the crash of flight 1549 then the statement on the V formation is questionable. The captain stated that the birds were hitting both the wings and the airframe and also were ingested into both engines. The engines are roughly 6 feet below the wings so if the flock was in a V formation and all at one altitude they could not have impacted both the airframe and the engines. Apparently they fly at different altitudes while in their V formation. Arydberg (talk) 17:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Image showing world goose populations

I am taking some exception to the image that is being used to show worldwide goose inhabitation and time of year. The image caption refers to "light" and "dark" tones and different coloring. This is insensitive to the needs of those who may be challenged in discerning different colors, or who may have different beliefs about what names are or should be assigned to the various colors. Furthermore the interpretation of "light" and "dark" are subjective and may be seen differently by people in different cultures throughout the world. In general I think it would be better to denote the different areas glyphically, as that is more concrete and not subject to opinion, worldview, or different interpretation, assuming of course that culturally and politically neutral symbols are used to denote each area on the image. I would take care not to use arabic numerals as there are billions of people in the world who do not use the arabic number set and may not understand what they mean, or who may, through no fault of their own, confuse their meaning. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

You are free to overlay the map as an annotated image if you think the colours need a symbol to assist. This is en-wiki, so just use Arabic numerals. jimfbleak (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Citation

I'm a fairly inexperienced and infrequent wikipedia user, so forgive my potential breeches of protocol (if any). I was rather intruiged by the last line of the "relationship with humans" section of this article where it is claimed that the Canada goose is the smartest bird in the world, and the third smartest animal (after humans and doliphins). This seemed to scream "citiation needed" to me. Although I don't doubt the Canada goose is intellegent (and malevolent - I swear a non-migratory bird stalked me for three years), the claim that they are the third smartest animal in the world seems misplaced, especially since I have reason to believe that scientists consider cephalopods to be more intellegent than dolphins (citation on that, however, is most definetly needed). At any rate, you may note that there is a citation for the line in the article. Problem is, the article it cites is "Canada Goose" from, well, wikipedia. In short, the article cites itself. Is there anything we can do to check out these facts and get this fixed? Thanks. -James —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.72.218 (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Splitter business

Please provide a link to the primary and secondary sources for the papers saying there might be 6 species and 200 subspecies. There might have been typos in the names preventing me from finding them. Abductive (reasoning) 20:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have Hanson's book, though I can get in a month or two if you think it is necessary. I can get the review, and I've added a doi link. —innotata 21:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hanson has been publishing since the 1940s. Is it possible he is still alive and publishing? I feel that either the material needs removing or expanding. My issue is if Hanson is the only one with this opinion, is it right per WP:UNDUE to include the material? Is Banks the only person to take notice? Abductive (reasoning) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really that surprising to see that Hanson is alive or was very recently—do you think some impersonator is fooling people like Robert Banks? Certainly more information on taxonomy is needed, but there is no obvious reason to remove this currently, as I see it. —innotata 16:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have problems with including the information. It clearly is an outlier as far as scientific consensus is concerned; one researcher proposes it based not on DNA evidence but on old-style anatomical characteristics. The lone reviewer doesn't like it, and multiple sources are generally required when info is challenged (as I am doing). So it runs afoul of WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENT and WP:PSTS. Abductive (reasoning) 20:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Bird-plane collision, maybe goose

At the then-Pacific Missile Test Center, Point Mugu, California, a Douglas A-3 attack aircraft that was serving as an electronics test bed had just landed when a heavy bird, in my memory a goose, smashed through the pilot's multilayer windshield. The pilot lowered (ducked?) his head just in time to avoid being hit by the bird, which disintegrated against his headrest. Not sure of the landing speed but 100+ miles per hour is believable. The next base newspaper had an overhead photo of the aircraft, the runway, and the skid marks from the brakes locking up. This was sometime in the 1980s. MWS (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Urban Canada Geese never migrated

Some years ago, I saw an article in the Wall Street Journal which said that the urban Canada geese were not the result of the migrating geese settling down in urban or suburban locations, with a good deal of history describing why that was the case. This article would be improved by someone looking up the WSJ article and adding NPOV remarks about the situation.

Also, I saw a newspaper article about the use of sheep-herding collies in driving away Canada geese from golf courses and elsewhere. DThomsen8 (talk) 12:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Dthomsen8

One thing that's unusual about the geese that inhabit urban and suburban locations is their tolerance of humans. You can often get within 20 feet of them before they react. Most wild birds you'ld be doing good to get within 50 feet (an exception being a nesting bird). This goose is about as close to being 'domesticated' as you can get without acutally being domesticated. 71.214.221.153 (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The geese near my area you can get within 2 metres and they won't do anything -___- All they do is eat and poop! D: -- 5Celcious (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do geese honk while flying?

Would be nice to include a documented explanation of their constant honking while in formation. I've found nothing authoritative elsewhere online. Claims I've found are:

• To encourage the bird(s) ahead, or the leader
• To locate family members
• To help maintain formation
• To express joy

But many of the explanations are more allegories for human motivation, with no scientific reference nor details as to the mechanics of the communication, and some seem merely flippant. Eplater (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that it's impossible to know what's in a bird's mind, especially the improbable "joy", but it's clearly about contact, important for a gregarious species that may migrate at night or get caught in poor weather. Calling keeps the flock together, and helps members of a family to find each other Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mixed-species flocks?

I've noticed on two separate occasions flocks of Canada geese flying in V formation with a single white goose among them, along with a few times seeing Canada geese mingling on the ground with small numbers of white geese (as in, 1 or 2 white ones out of close to a hundred geese). Are these albino Canada geese I'm seeing, or is there some documentation of different species of goose migrating together? 75.76.213.106 (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The white ones are likely snow geese. They have similar food requirements and migration patterns. It is common to see a single or pair of snow geese in a flock of Canada geese. Similarly, it is common to see a few Canada geese traveling with a flock of snow geese. Tom (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada v. Canadian

Stale

 – This topic has been superseded by later discussions of the same matter.

Jim Bleak, quit excising mention of "Canadian" as an alternative. It's not in any books you have laying around, but that doesn't change its very common usage amongst the millions of Americans who live in the frequent habitat of this bird. I've got a couple dozen sleeping within a hundred yards from my back window right now, and if I referred to them as "Canada Geese" to anyone in California, they'd wonder what the hell I was talking about. Your pedantry doesn't change reality; besides which, I'm pointing out that it's vernacular, not trying to claim it's any sort of proper scientific usage. Get over it. 74.38.10.245 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is regrettable for the integrity of Wikipedia than a single person, apparently Jim F. Bleak, can exercise unilateral control over content, completely suppressing the well documented fact that not everyone calls the Canadian goose a Canada Goose. Removing a simple sentence to this effect constitutes an act of vandalism. Complaining about the removal is not vandalism but democracy. It is true that many people consider the insistence on Canada Goose an ungrammatical affectation of self-proclaimed elites. The independently minded should read the complete discussion. Several challenges were set including finding dictionary references and doing a Google search. Two American dictionarys list Canadian goose as an alternative. The listings contain no perjorative remarks. The Google search gave overwhelming support for fact than many people prefer Canadian goose to Canada goose. Note that the search was for documents that contained the term "Canadian goose" and did not contain the term "Canada goose." Mr. Bleak's sole argument that has not been refuted is the he has never heard the term Canadian goose used in Europe. I note that Europe is not included in the normal range for this bird.

jimfbleak had in-line demanded Where????. I've moved his question down here, and ask it myself. Produce a citation for this "documented fact" and your submission will likely survive. Until then, I concur with its removal. mdf 14:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

How can a reasonable discussion occur when someone chooses to delete even the discussion in addion to deleting well supported additions to the main entry? This behavior is sophomoric. Who are you?

Canadian Goose is an accepted variant in at least two American dictionaries: Webster's Third New International Dictionary and The American Heritage Dictionary. A Google search for the words “Canadian Goose” but without the words “Canada Goose” yielded 129,000 entries! There seems adequate support for recognizing that Canadian Goose is an alternative to Canada Goose that is preferred by many because the name then follows normal rules of grammar.

It appears an editor wishes to take issue with the name of this bird, changing it to "Canadian Goose" without supporting sources, and inspite of existing references to the contrary. Those wishing to discuss or debate the matter should do so here. As per policy, facts should be supported by sources, and this article has no sources as of yet supporting the name "Canadian Goose." Rklawton 04:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

nothing to debate, all sources use Canada. Bird names don't necessarily conform to the rules of grammar - thus Lesser Spotted Woodpecker, but Great (not Greater) Spotted Woodpecker. jimfbleak 06:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is something to debate. Dictionaries, e.g. the American Heritage Dictionary, do not recognize Canada as an adjective. The idea that birder should somehow be exempt from standard English grammar obviously applies to the binomial name for the animal. However, at issue here is the common name. At the very least, a few sentences should be allowed to present the issue and to represent an American opinion that words like America and Canada are nouns, not adjectives. It is worth noting that the article subsequently refers to a Canadian $100 dollar note (At least it is not a Canada note. However, North Americans would call it a bill, not a note).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebnauman (talk • contribs)

That's a good idea but only if you can find a decent source that supports your position. I just checked with the all-American "Webster" dictionary, and it recognizes only "Canada Goose". If you don't have a few good sources supporting "Canadian Goose" then you're not going to get very far here. Them's the rules. Rklawton 00:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The (1985) American Heritage Dictionary itself also only has "Canada goose." But I'm conflicted. In conversation I've never used or heard anything other than "Canadian." Eleuther 20:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the Lesser and Great Spotted Wood Peckers, both lesser and great are perfectly acceptable adjective and both names conform to the rules of English grammar.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebnauman (talk • contribs)

The main English speaking bird organisations in N America and Europe all use Canada, so do all my American and European field guides, so does Wildfowl, the standard text - this is just a nuisance tactic by Ebnauman jimfbleak 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

It's not a matter of proper citations or formal reference. It's a matter of common usage. In common usage across broad regions where the Canadian Goose lives, that's what it's called. I've edited the main page to reflect this.kmmontandon

PS should it be World Series - World is a noun?

IMHO Wikipedia should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, if only for the reason that Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view. "Canadian goose" and "Canadian geese" seem to be attested in use, so they can be justified to stay. --Kjoonlee 05:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Arguing that "Canadian Goose" should be advocated looks like linguistic prescription to me. That would be NPOV POV. --Kjoonlee 05:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of prolonging this, where is it attested, apart from the editors above? I've added {{Fact}} and in anycase pointed it to NAm usage if true - certainly never heard Canadian Goose used in Europe. jimfbleak 06:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Later -try typing Canadian Goose into Google. Unless a citation can be given, the Canadian will have to go - you can't just give in to persistent wrong info. jimfbleak 06:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

/me shrugs. Perhaps it isn't widely attested, but I always called them Canadian Geese when I used to live in London. I haven't done extensive research (and I shouldn't) but a quick google search for "Canadian goose" and "Canadian geese" yields non-zero results. Maybe it also includes mentions of "Canadian 'goose species'" as well, but nevertheless, I think people other than myself and Ebnauman would call it Canadian Goose as well. --Kjoonlee 06:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wrong" is a prescriptive POV. --Kjoonlee 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily accept that "wrong" is POV (eg 2+2=5 is wrong) although I see that it can be. I would be happier if there was a citation for this as requested at the start of this section - the fact that none has been found in nearly two months suggests that the usage is very unusual and of dubious validity. If I started calling it American Goose, would that merit mention in the article? jimfbleak 10:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics doesn't change but language does. If more and more people start saying "egg corn" to mean acorn, then yes, that does merit a mention somewhere. Minuscule mentions "miniscule," for example. --Kjoonlee 10:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You might argue that "Canadian Goose" is not widely attested, in which case I rest my case, and will not object if it were to be removed for that reason. But if you say it's not attested at all, or that it's incorrect, I'll probably complain to myself. --Kjoonlee 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any proper sourcing that this is a widely used variant,and in the face of a lot of evidence that it isn't (eg not in the US dictionaries or bird books) I intend to remove the statement. Note also that this construction is not uncommon - Canada Warbler, California Quail, (and California Thrasher and California Least Tern) Tennessee Warbler, Dartford Warbler, Sandwich Tern, Kentucky Derby, World Series. jimfbleak 05:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The proper slang is "Canada", but I think it is more of a regional thing. I think fewer people say "Canadian goose". *Daijinryuu*

It is amazing how a supposedly open encyclopedia has fallen victim to a cult of pedantic birders. The widespread use of "Canadian goose" rather than the ungrammatical "Canada Goose" deserves at least one sentence in the article. I accept that birders prefer Canada Goose, apparently because is shows their erudition. However, Wikipedia is not a bird manual. I have added a perfectly true and well supported sentence: "The bird is commonly called a Canadian goose in North America." Adding this sentence is not an act of vandalism. Removing it again would be. 74.70.146.173 02:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Please reread Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is/isn't vandalism. --Kjoonlee 02:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

See also descriptive linguistics; you seem to be prescribing a less-described term. --Kjoonlee 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

--- The proper term is "Canada." If you ask any serious hunter whether he got any "Canadians" on his hunt he'll laugh and say he doesn't hunt people, just geese. -- Cottonmather0'Cottonmather0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.109.114 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah hah ... this must be a "talk" page!

Enough already ! The fact that there exists a long-established consensus within the entire literature on ornithology to call this bird a "Canada Goose" should exercise enough authority to end the discussion. Grammatical rectitude and fundamentalism is entirely irrelevant to given names or established appellations, as shown by the names given to many other bird species, animal species, plants, trees and so many other things where an entitty is closely associated with a geographical region (Do I reaaly need to cite examples ? man, I hope not !). However common it may the fact that this bird is called a "canadian goose" in the U.S. simply points to a common misunderstanding about names and designations. Either that or americans can't telle the difference between Brunta canadensis and any other goose species migrating south from Canada. The fact that there exists yet another misnomer in the U.S. vernacular is not exactly news, not exactly a reference for anything as far as the rest of the world is concerned. Nobody, but nobody anywhere else calls this bird a "canadian goose" or makes the equivalent mistake in any other language. Perhaps, to remain "in touch with reality" the issue indeed deserves mention in Wikipedia pages but perhaps that belongs within pages about unitedstatsian sociology and culture, not ornithology. The rigour Mr Bleak is advocating is essential to the conservation of clarity and coherence anything else confuses the necessity of stable common knowledge bases and lexicon with lowest common denominator convenience. 09 August 2007 François Hogue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.17.44 (talk • contribs)

I agree that Mr. Bleak is out of touch with reality if he insists on "Canadian Geese" being wrong.

For what it's worth: I happened on this page randomly, and as I read it I found myself wondering, "Canada goose? I wonder why they don't call it the Canadian Goose?" That's actually why I bothered looking at this discussion page, which turns out to be kind of silly. I don't contest that the formal name is Canada Goose, but I will say that I, and everyone I know, have always called it the Canadian Goose. A quick google search reveals lots of sites that call it that (as mentioned above), and one of the top hits I found was http://the-stewardship.org/newsletters/2005-08-06.htm which acknowledges the fact that the formal name is "Canada Goose" and that "we have accordingly been directed to switch to the term ‘Canada goose’ for the species, despite the fact that many ordinary individual humans who have use for the term know this species as ‘Canadian goose’." (emphasis added). You can argue about grammaticality all you want, but there's no question the term is used. I don't see what the problem would be in changing the lede to "The Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), also known as the Canadian Goose..." That said, this is a bit of a retarded argument. Have fun, kids. Eleusinian 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree ... the most common term is Canadian ... I've never heard anyone call them "Canada Geese" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Anser canadensis an alternative classification?

Hope this is a good place to ask this kind of question. I'm not sure where else to go. (Tips in that regard are appreciated.)

While perusing M. A. R. Barker's study of the Klamath-Modoc language in the 1950s and 1960s, I've found a reference to a species of bird called the "China brant", identified as Anser canadensis. My best guess is that A. canadensis is an older and/or vernacular version of Branta canadensis and hence refers to the Canada Goose. But I can't confidently confirm that. I wonder if anyone can help.

I can't find any A. canadensis on Wikipedia or Wikispecies, nor any reference in a Google search to any living thing called the China brant. I can, however, find the genus Anser, and of course, B. canadensis. As well, a Google search for "anser canadensis" yields several pages on the Canada Goose.

How close to reality is my guess that A. canadensis is the Canada Goose? — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 10:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You are spot on, it's the old name for Canada Geese before the geese were divided into black (Branta) and grey (Anser). Why it should be called China brant, I can't begin to speculate, since it doesn't breed in Asia (and isn't made of porcelain...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the talk page of the bird project linked in the banner above is a more reliable place to get an answer. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated! — Athelwulf ^[T]/_[C] 08:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Canadian goose Canadian geese Canada geese

23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)I have a question and can't find the answer anywhere,, how old do goslings have to be before they can swim? They are in danger of flooding here and the babies will all die,,, Please help! Dianalee 23:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI-Canada Goslings can swim the same day they are hatched. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.173.43 (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fulvous Whistling Duck which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Mating Behavior

Here it says "most couples stay together all of their lives," but the cited source [1] says something slightly different - "Mated pairs may stay together for more than one year, sometimes staying together for life." Which is correct? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.104.189 (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The birds will attempt to stay together, but if one of them dies or they become separated by predators or a storm, they will eventually try to find a new mate. Tom (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That's good to know! Have you edited the article accordingly? If so, it would be helpful for other editors to be notified of it by placing a template such as {{Answered}} here at the top of this section. Thanks! KDS4444^Talk 09:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

In continental Europe

I've seen birds that definitely looked like Canada geese over the lake in École Polytechnique, so it seems there are semi-wild populations in France too... David.Monniaux (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Can you find any published sources that support this anecdotal piece of evidence? If so, then please feel free to add this kind of information to the article! It would be good to know that the range of the bird is wider than many current sources have suggested. KDS4444^Talk 18:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Adminhelp request: American English editnotice

Please create an edit notice for this article, placing in it the template {{American English|form=editnotice}}: earliest non-stub version of the article appears to be in American English and this should be retained per MOS:RETAIN (so that future editors will be sure to use "gray" and "recognize" rather than "grey" and "recognise", etc.). Much thanks! KDS4444^Talk 09:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Happy New Year. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the request was for an edit notice for the talk page, rather than the article. This looked like a mistake, so I've changed it to be an edit notice for the article instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed that was a mistake on my part. Editnotice request was meant for article, not talk page. Thanks for correctly second-guessing. KDS4444^Talk 18:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Swarming image

FEED ME

I think the defining image of this species, for many people, is a huge flock of them swarming towards you in the hope (correctly or not) that you have food. Does anyone have a good picture of this, ideally showing their target? I've tried to find one on Wikimedia but this is the best I could do. Should probably just go down to a park with some birdseed and take one, but I'm lazy. Blythwood (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Swimming down a river

Also, while we're at it: does anyone know the proper word for the classic goose/gosling family group swimming on a watercourse where you have a goose at the front, then the goslings and finally a second parent at the rear or side? The best image of this I can find on Wikimedia uses 'V-formation' and 'convoy' which I find respectively confusing and anthropomorphic. Blythwood (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

most common name

Is there a source for "Canadian" not being the most common name? Anecdotally, among the populations I've been exposed to, "Canadian" Goose seems to be the most commonly used. The term "Canada" Goose would appear to be the outlier. That doesn't mean I think "Canadian" is in fact more common. I don't believe my perceptions are in anyway reliable. I just think this needs sourced or pulled.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.156.25 (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

uh, it's Canada Goose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.162.62 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Canada goose is the correct name. Sum Dum Hou (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster ... I have never heard anyone call them "Canada Geese" ... I've ONLY heard "Canadian Geese" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.160.33.158 (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there are some regional particularities. In Canada, I've only ever heard Canada Goose, in the US I've heard Canadian Goose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.90.83.10 (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"Canadian Goose" is WRONG, not an alternate term

Yes, lots of people call these birds "Canadian Geese". That is incorrect. "Canada Goose" is correct. "Canadian Goose" is not an alternate term, and is not acceptable.

All ornithological resources are in agreement: "Canada Goose" is the correct species name. There is no debate in the field. There are no reputable sources that refer to the species as the "Canadian Goose".

It is fine to include a redirect to the article from "Canadian Goose" because many people will not know the correct name when they are trying to find the article. Likewise, it is fine to include a note in the article that many people call them "Canadian Geese" because that is true, many people CALL them that, so including that information expands knowledge, but that is not what they ARE. Thus, any reference to "Canadian Goose" must make it clear that that nomenclature is incorrect.

I have updated the taxonomy section to reflect this (again). Tom (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing grammatically wrong with the name, but sure, it's not the common or standard name, so incorrect is reasonable enough. —innotata 05:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but still - the grammatical correctness is not the issue at hand; the taxonomical correctness is. Tom (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no "taxonomy" in common names, just frequency of usage and such. I thoroughly fail to see how "Canadian Goose" is incorrect. —innotata 23:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with innotata on this one ... nothing inherently or specifically incorrect with Canadian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.197.249 (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

While you may personally disagree and find 'Canadian Goose' acceptable, that should not affect the article. This is an encyclopedia and there is consensus in the ornithological field that the name is 'Canada Goose' and that 'Canadian Goose' is unacceptable (as is indicated in the provided references from experts on the subject). If you have a scholarly reference from an entity in the field (ornithologist, zoological publication, biological conference, etc.) which disputes this, please feel free to provide it for discussion. Tom (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Acabtp The references don't actually say "Canadian goose" is incorrect, and there are no rules for colloquial names. They can be wrong grammatically, or misleading. That isn't the case here, and we can just say it's colloquially used. It doesn't make any sense to call the name "incorrect", when it's just the one that's less commonly used and not the standard among ornithologists and birders. —innotata 14:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The references don't actually say "Black white and brown goose" or "Honking goose" are incorrect either. What the sources do say is that the name of the bird is the "Canada goose". So it makes perfect sense to call it incorrect because anything else is simply incorrect by definition (1 Not correct; erroneous or wrong. 2 Faulty or defective. 3 Inappropriate or improper.). Many people have many misconceptions, but it is clear what the references say, so the article should be clear about clearing up the misconception of the name. There is no reason the article should reflect something the sources do not say (and that there is no agreement with in the field). Tom (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Canadian goose" is colloquially used, you haven't disputed that. That is to say, it's used often in speech and there's plenty of usage in books (as you can see, even in some hunting and popular science books today, and historically the names were equally used). If the name is incorrect in any way, that does mean cannot be a colloquial alternative. Having established that, Wikipedia does not practice linguistic prescription, as that's not something that belongs in a neutral encyclopedia. And finally, "Canadian goose" is not incorrect in any meaningful way, as having one more common, and standardised, name does not render other names incorrect. —innotata 17:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Canadian goose" is incorrect in the very meaningful way of not being supported by any scholarly references. The question of the colloquialism is moot because it is more important to note that the term "Canadian goose" is wrong. If this were not the case, you already would have cited an encyclopedic quality reference to support the use of "Canadian goose". Tom (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

To expand: A lot of people confuse centrifugal and centripetal force. Despite this popular misconception, the article for centripetal force does not state that it is also known as centrifugal force, or that centripetal force is colloquially known as centrifugal force, because that's wrong and no references support that no matter how many ill-informed people think it. In fact, the articles explain in great detail the differences between the two. Same idea here: a lot of people think they are called one thing ("Canadian goose") but the individuals in the field who know what they are talking about are in agreement that it's actually something else ("Canada goose"). It is not Wikipedia's duty to reinforce a popular misconception; really it should be the opposite.Tom (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no misconception involved in calling the bird "Canadian goose". There are a number of dictionaries, as mentioned above, that list the alternative name. Again, Wikipedia is not prescriptivist, and there's nothing incorrect with the alternative name. —innotata 17:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"There are a number of dictionaries, as mentioned above, that list the alternative name." I don't see any dictionaries with the two links you posted above... in fact the top results on your first link are a children's book, a book about hunting that includes making a joke of calling the bird "canadian" ("for we see very few long- necked geese wearing little red coats or drinking Labatt's Blue" hah) and an oragami manual; not encyclopedic quality sources. And your second link shows that in literary use, "Canada goose" is the overwhelmingly used phrase, while "Canadian goose" is used very infrequently by comparison (probably by people who don't know what they are talking about when it comes to birds, like children's book authors and origami artists). See Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources.

References

Tom (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the American Heritage Dictionary and Webster's Third New International Dictionary, mentioned in one of the other threads above. What Google Books shows is that the name has remained fairly commonly used, enough that we should mention it, and was historically nearly as common. Look, I want this name to be mentioned in the article because it is commonly used in speech. However, what I really don't agree with is the article saying the name is incorrect. That is completely improper for a Wikipedia article; you still have not shown that the name is incorrect in any way. Now, do you mind if I ask other users for opinions? —innotata 22:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be prescriptivist. It might appropriate to describe a sourced opinion of prescriptivists (without necessarily promoting the prescriptivism), but that's not what's going on in this article. There are 3 sources that supposedly support "Canadian goose" being "incorrect", but none of the sources actually even mention the term "Canadian goose", let alone provide a prescriptivist position on it's correctness. This is a really inappropriate use of references; if you want to say it's incorrect, find a source that actually makes that case. If the edit summary for this diff] is accurate, Encyclopedia Britannica may have said something about "Canadian goose" being incorrect earlier this year, but there's no mention at all of "Canadian goose" in Encyclopedia Britannica now. EB does mention that they are "derided as "pond starlings" and "Canada rats"; while these terms appear to be used as metaphorical descriptions of Canada geese as a pest species, rather than alternative names, if people do happen to adopt these terms as alternative colloquial names, then that's what they'll be. Alternative colloquial names. It doesn't matter that geese aren't actually starling or rats; if people call it "pond starling" that is not INCORRECT (although it is potentially misleading). Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:GREATWRONGS to me. If reliable secondary sources use it, it is, as a matter of real-world fact, an alternative name for WP purposes. And they do: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. It took under 5 minutes to find those cases of "Canadian goose" (capitalized "Goose" or not, usually not), used exclusively or used synonymously with "Canada goose" in the same source, and they range from primary refereed-journal papers, through secondary mainstream newspaper articles, to secondary and tertiary nature portal sites, down to unreliable self-published blogs (I think I put them in that order, but I was copy-pasting pretty quickly). This proves that the usage exists, across all registers of English writing and editing, other than (probably) in ornithology itself. It's a WP:NPOV problem to promote one particular organisation's naming conventions as the only extant name of something. But it's WP:UNDUE weight to treat them as equal, if the standardized one is more prevalent; we should not use them interchangeably, but prefer the standardized one, while not lying to our readers about alternative names being sourceable. This matters for multiple reasons, including the obvious one that people do not always do the searches you'd like them to do in an ideal world. If this article doesn't contain the phrase "Canadian goose", then a search on something like "Canadian goose" migratory bird act by someone who isn't entirely sure of the terminology, which is probably 99% of people are not ornithologists or life-long avocational birdwatchers, will fail to find this article. We have a maxim to "follow the sources" for more than one reason, and they always come down to serving the readers, not serving the interests of language prescriptivists with a point to make. If you want to include it but label it "wrong" as an English language usage, then you have to provide a reliable source on English language usage that says this, and we'd still have to directly attribute that controverted and non-neutral view to that source, since it's obviously contradicted by even a few minutes of looking around for conflicting data. I'm skeptical than any editors would consider such an exercise in negative advocacy to be encyclopedic fare, and so it wouldn't be appropriate to include it in this article anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: The current wording, giving it as a colloquial usage, is adequate.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Map

The map of the distribution of Canadian Geese does not include Eastern Canada. I edited it to include it. Map of Canadian Geese distribution in North America

CuffX 02:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor does it include, for example, the Netherlands and Japan, which are mentioned in the text: Canada Geese have reached western Europe naturally, as has been proved by ringing recoveries. The birds are of at least the subspecies parvipes, and possibly others. Canada Geese are also found naturally on the Kamchatka Peninsula in eastern Siberia, eastern China, and throughout Japan.

Greater Canada Geese have also been widely introduced in Europe, and have established feral populations in Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

Since the map is supposed to include feral populations, it might be time to either change the text or the map depending on which one is right. 87.78.134.22 21:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Japan is habitat of Cackling Geese B. h. leucopareia but not Canada Geese habitat.

References

--Mmjinger (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Map Question

Is the map accurate I live in the southern U.S. and I would testify under oath that these pest are around for the whole year not just summer it is so bad that in some places in the middle of summer you can't go outside without stepping in their "gifts" ChrisLamb 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the range map should be rethought. Tallahassee, FL, for instance, is well-known to have a year-round population of Canada Geese (who especially enjoy defecating on FSU's intramural fields). What is the source for these range maps? 38.106.100.57 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Brownsea Island recording

Are we sure this is a pure recording of geese and only geese? I think I hear seagulls... Blythwood (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

English spelling changes

Since it's called the Canada goose. I think the spellings should be changed to Canadian spellings. LittleJerry (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works here at Wikipedia. Articles remain in the variety of English they were started in. The sole exception to this rule is if they are about a subject restricted to an area with a particular variety of English (i.e. an article about a Canadian town would be written in Canadian English). Since this is about a goose which is found across much of the world now (an area with multiple "English varieties" -- Canadian English, American English, Australian English, British English -- it should stay as it started. And the variety it was started in was Australian English. Sorry! MeegsC (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada goose. 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/20071019223411/http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/09/68937 to http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/09/68937

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Canada goose

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Canada goose's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CRC":

• From Great horned owl: CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses by John B. Dunning Jr. (Editor). CRC Press (1992), ISBN 978-0-8493-4258-5.
• From Peregrine falcon: Dunning, John B., Jr., ed. (1992). CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8493-4258-5.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• From Spur-winged goose: CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses, 2nd Edition by John B. Dunning Jr. (Editor). CRC Press (2008), ISBN 978-1-4200-6444-5.
• From Greylag goose: Dunning, John B. Jr., ed. (1992). CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8493-4258-5.
• From Greater white-fronted goose: Dunning, John B. Jr., ed. (1992). CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8493-4258-5.
• From Turkey vulture: CRC Handbook of Avian Body Masses, 2nd Edition (2008). John B. Dunning Jr. (Editor). CRC Press. ISBN 978-1-4200-6444-5.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

edibility

I think this should be expanded that commercial farmed geese are not as 'gamey' tasting, and may be slightly fattier meat. I can eat Canada goose, but it is not a favorite. Even farmed geese have lost out in a major way to turkey just about everywhere. Maybe a bit about what is usual in the preparation of wild geese of the species would be an expansion of information for the article? 50.111.44.55 (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

50.111.44.55, that's fine but what we need are citations. I added this section originally and was limited by what I could find. Blythwood (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)