Jump to content

Talk:Duck/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Anecdote: Duck Intelligence

Perhaps ducks do not have much of a reputation for intelligence, but to add to the growing volume of data showing that many animals possess reasoning ability, there is a fairly recent story of a park ranger who found a mother duck tugging on his pant leg and he followed her to a sewer grating where her ducklings were trapped. As she wanted, the ranger rescued them. Do not find the link to this specific story.Jrm2007 (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Long corkscrew penis and vagina

Material such as the following should be added to the article.

The Argentine Blue-bill duck is notable for possessing, in relation to body length, the longest penis of all vertebrates; the penis, which is coiled up in flaccid state, can reach about the same length as the animal itself when fully erect, but more commonly is about half the bird's length.[1][2] It is theorized that the remarkable size of the spiny penis with its bristled tip may have evolved in response to competitive pressure in these highly promiscuous birds, removing sperm from previous matings in the manner of a bottle brush.

Although most male birds have no penis[1], ducks have a long corkscrew penis, and the females have a long corkscrew vagina, which spirals in the opposite direction.[2] The males often try to force copulation, but the complex mating geometry allows the females to retain control -- most of the forced copulations do not result in successful fertilisation.[3]

-69.87.204.48 (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple Edits

I noticed that in the references, someone's cited the MYTHBUSTERS episode where they tested if a duck's quack has an echo. Unfortunately, whoever typed the citation misspelled MYTHbusters as MYbusters. Could someone with the authority to ammend this please do so? Thanks. JourneyV (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Presence on Most Vandalized Pages

  • Hello. I help to maintain the 'most vandalized' page and, having looked at the revision log of Duck, believe that it no longer merits inclusion on the page, so will be removing it. Please do not hesitate to re-add it if IP vandalism becomes a problem again. Hadrian89 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry but I have to ask: Why do people vandalize a page about ducks? Doesn't seem like a very controversial or inflammatory topic... Aksel89 (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
  • God knows why, but it happens. For a long time nearly every edit to page Duck was vandalisms and reverts for same. Ducks have a perpetually silly image to many of the general public :: compare the amount of silly cartoon duck characters: Donald Duck and his relatives; Daffy Duck, etc etc. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Etymology (German)

An interesting addition to the etymology of the word "duck" is probably the parallel between the English noun "duck" and the German verb "ducken" which means exactly the same as "to duck" (to bend down, to dive...). Cheers, Ben 88.71.248.21 (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

== Addition to Etymology section ==

I'm a German and I think it would be useful to add some information to the Etymology section of this page. There is another popular word in German referring to the root of duck: ducken (to duck, to bend down very low). Maybe this might be a better explanation than tauchen.

Sorry, I didn't scroll down enough to the bottom of this page, so I didn't see that this topic has been mentioned before.

Crazykriz (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think German "ducken" is likely borrowed from another West Germanic source, which is why Grimm's D->T shift hasn't occurred in this case. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I can't find any info about it in Deutsches Wörterbuch, though. Strange. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Dutch duiken = German tauchen = "to dive". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Quack

Ducks have beaks. There is a paragraph about the supposed belief that a duck's quack has no echo, and there are some citations for debunking the myth. Why is this included? There is no rational reason to believe such tripe, and there should be no reason to debunk it here; it only gives the stupid belief more traction. This kind of thing does not belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

the reason it is included is no doubt to educate the large number of people that do believe it is true, and to prevent people adding the fact if they see no mention of it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm new here, so please be forgiving, but I work in a park with a large population of mallards, and the males definitely make a noise that sounds like a quack to me. The section of the article that reads 'Despite widespread misconceptions, only the females of most dabbling ducks "quack".' is troubling to me for this reason. I am not a scientist, so I made sure that mallards are in the "dabbling ducks" subset before raising this issue (they are). If male mallards do not quack, what would you call the quacking noise they make, and how do you differentiate the noises? It seems to me that if a claim like this is made, there should be a citation or an explanation as to how this seeming nonsense is valid. I spent two days paying careful attention to the male mallards in my park before hearing quacking noises from three independant males. I realize that this is not scientifically documented evidence, but I do think reality should have some pull on an encyclopedia. 208.214.136.146 (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger_proposal

OK discussion here:

Support

  1. . I am warming to the idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  2. Support per proposal Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

(copied from WT:Birds)

I'm going out on a limb here, but this is a preliminary survey of opinions before I formally propose a move. I'm going to suggest a move and merge of Anatidae to Duck. My reasoning is as follows...

  1. Duck is one of our most visited pages. As of the last count it was the 10th most visited bird page with over 2000 visitors last month. It deserves improvements.
  2. Thing is, duck isn't really helpful taxonomically. It describes all the members of the family Anatidae that aren't geese or swans. But many things that are ducks seem to be no more closely related, or distantly related, to other things called ducks than they are to things called geese or swans.
  3. The best thing to do is describe the family as a whole, as we currently do (rather incompletely) at Anatidae. The thing is, people don't visit pages with scientific names unless a redirect sends them there. People visit pages with names they are familiar with, like duck, eagle, warbler, parrot.
  4. To me the solution would be to have the family page at Duck - a name which describes most of the species, and thn have the intro and taxobox read Ducks, geese and swans. (MOS guidelines rule out using that as the page title, unfortunately). That way we can cover an important group in a position that might actually lead to it beig read.

Thoughts? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Sabine, do you have a link for these MOS guidelines? Tried a cursory search, but did not find it. In any case, it would seem to me that a set of guidelines that makes things more difficult, rather than straightforward should be amenable to change. In my view, for this group, a main page for the group, to which everything should be linked, should carry a name which can include all branches of the group, i.e., starting from Anseriformes even if it means sticking in a lot of common names, i.e., Ducks, Swans, Geese, Screamers, and so forth.Steve Pryor (talk) 07:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with you about the common names . I think that you are saying that there should be a page on each group using common names including separate pages on "Ducks", Geese", and "Swans". Incidentally, on a page like this I think that you need to be clear about what you are saying in case it is misunderstood. Snowman (talk) 10:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd think it a good candidate for a merge as my impression was that the family was called Ducks for short, with the geese and swans assumed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This is where the proverb "If it looks like a duck ... then it's a duck." came from. To most people there are 3 main sorts of Anatidae: ducks, geese, swans. Geese and swans may be specialized enlarged descendants of ancestral ducks. Page duck describes only a subset of the Anatidae. Leave these 2 pages separate. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fortunately science has moved beyond proverbs and "everyone knows" when it comes to what birds are what. And duck does not describe only a subset of Anatidae, it describes a randomly picked collection of subsets, in some case incomplete subsets. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Duck is a popular search term (the 10th most popular bird on the wiki) and its popularity is a indication to improving it and not abolishing it. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    Nowhere in the above proposal does it say anything about abolishing the duck page. In fact, it talks about improving it by bringing the material currently in Anatidae into this article! MeegsC | Talk 15:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    But the article "Duck" effectively disappears and becomes a redirect. And this is the 10th most viewed bird page. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    Have you actually read the proposal? It says that Duck becomes the main page, but has Anatidae information added to it! Nowhere does it say that "Duck" will be abolished or redirected. Where are you getting that idea?? MeegsC | Talk 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Goose and swan are well known terms and they should have their own pages too. If the taxonomy is complex and there are borderline cases, then I think this is an argument for describing this on the relevant pages and not for abolishing the pages. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Your point 4: I do not think that there is anything wrong with a heading "Ducks, geese, and swans", if it is agreed in a separate discussion about only the name of the page. Actually, I think this is the best heading, because it is a WP:Birds policy to use common names where they exist. Nevertheless, there should be separate pages too. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    The problem with a plural name like "Ducks, geese and swans" is that it goes against WP naming conventions (for which, see here. These say: Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English, such as scissors or trousers, or concerns a small class, such as Arabic numerals, polar coordinates, or Bantu languages, that requires a plural. Unless we can say it's one of those "small classes"! MeegsC | Talk 15:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    "In general..." seems to allow for a degree freedom or flexibility. The wiki rule that you have quoted could be used to support the case of the plurals for a page name "Ducks, geese and swans", which is a common-sense name. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I've formally opposed on the basis that geese and swans are not the same as ducks. I can't see anything particularly wrong with Anatidae redirecting to "Ducks, geese, and swans", which, as Snowman says, is consistent with English titles, but I'm not bothered about that (I'd probably abstain in a vote). Sabine says, I think, that "Duck" includes groups that are not as closely related to each other as to non-ducks like geese an swans. That doesn't matter - ducks is a common word that needs an article, and doesn't have to be totally taxonomically sound. Having said that, duck is a far more homogenous grouping that some other common bird articles, like hawk, vulture and eagle jimfbleak (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste from WT:BIRD

  • No merge. The interlinking between the wiki pages "Ducks", "Geese", "Swans", and "Anatidae" needs to be clear, and I think that the wiki needs dedicated page on ducks. Some taxonomy could be added to the page on ducks. Snowman (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Goose and swan aren't going anywhere. I don't understand your first point, but your second point makes no sense. Duck is just the name given to any anatid that isn't called a goose or swan, that is a small one. Do we really need two pages, one for all anatids and one for all anatids that aren't geese or swans (and aren't even a distinct or monophyletic group)? Because that is all the duck page is now, an article on a group of birds linked by nothing more than the vagaries of etymology. For example the Egyptian Goose is closer to the Torrent Duck than it is the Greylag Goose. The Trumpter Swan is much much closer to the Greylag Goose than the Corsoba Swan. They are all ducks, even if not all of them have the word duck in their name. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"And this isn't going to change. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • My second point is that duck is a popular search term (the 10th most popular bird on the wiki) and its popularity is a indication to improving it and not abolishing it. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not proposing abolishing it. Are you being obtuse? Where did I propose abolishing it? I was proposing merging and improving it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But the article "Duck" effectively disappears and becomes a redirect. And this is the 10th most viewed bird page. Snowman (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
NO!!!!! Anatidae becomes a redirect, duck becomes the family page. The page duck covers all ducks as well as ducks known as swans and geese. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see, but I think for many that will be confusing having Swans and Geese on the Ducks page. I think your suggesting is too confusing, and I think that it is better as it is now. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
How stupid do you think our readers are? Even the most imbecilic internet user, if presented with a goose, a swan, a mallard and a chicken couple probably, with a moment's thought, identify which of these things is not like the other. If the first sentence goes "The ducks, geese and swans form the family Anatidae" what grounds are there for confusion? It seems a case that we've taught people something. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Goose and swan are well known terms and they should have their own pages too. If the taxonomy is complex and there are borderline cases, then I think this is an argument for describing this on the relevant pages and not for abolishing the pages. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention moving or abolishing those pages either? Anywhere? No. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But will these become redirects too? Snowman (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see, but I think for many that will be confusing having Swans and Geese on the Ducks page. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
No, goose remains the page for tribe 'Anseri and swan remains article on the genus Cygnus (the true swans). These pages are subsets, just like the scoters page still exists for that genus. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Your point 4: I do not think that there is anything wrong with a heading "Ducks, geese, and swans", if it is agreed by a separate discussion about the name of the page only. Actually, I think this is the best heading, because it is a WP:Birds policy to use common names where they exist. Snowman (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • For clarity, I am proposing moving the family article to duck, turning Anatidae into a redirect and using the term ducks, geese and swans in the text. If you want I am doing this for two reasons, elitism and vanity. Elitism, as I want to improve the coverage of the group, but have no intention of further improving duck as it stands, because of the aforementioned taxonomic reasons. I simply have better subjects to write about than this taxanomic mishmash and only so much time to devote to it. Vanity, because one of the more worthy articles to write is the family page (currently sitting at Anatidae), but I have no further desire to improve that page if all the readers are flocking to the inferior Duck and no one sees the good stuff. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, if I am listing my sins, throw in sloth. Difficult as it is to write about higher level taxa, writing about a subset of a higher level taxa is really difficult if the texts you use don't treat them as a separate subgroup. It is no coincedence that many of the family level articles that are still stubs are recent splits (the various kingfisher families, the eared-nightjars, the new Old world warbler families). The books I am using to improve swan, which I would use to write about the family as a whole, don't makes statements about ducks in the sense the article as it stands, they either refer to everything or to named subgroups. Picking through this to establish what statements can be applied to just the ducks makes the whole thing even more time consuming, and I can't be bothered. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand this gloomy point of view, because there is the "Anatidae" page which includes all these subsets to work on. Snowman (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
READ! Read the words that I wrote where I explained why I am suggesting this! Why working on Anatidae is suboptimal! Where I wrote I have no further desire to improve that page if all the readers are flocking to the inferior Duck and no one sees the good stuff. Or don't, whatever. I am seriously regretting bringing this up. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand your gloominess. Perhaps, most readers want to read about ducks. I am sure readers will find there way to the family page, if they want to read about it. Snowman (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Deep breath* There is a big disparity between the pages that are good/are worked on and the pages that people want to read. People come, generally, looking for birds they are familiar with using common terms. To my mind then our efforts would be better directed improving the pages that people actually fucking read. It's simple economics, it makes more sense to allocate effort to improving Duck from a readership point of view. From an encyclopaedic point of view the effort is better allocated to Anatidae, because it isn't a taxonomic wastebin of everything that isn't called a goose or a swan. The best result would give the best article to the readers on the most encyclopaedic subject; that is having the family article on the most viewed page. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The William Shakespeare page has about 25,000 hits per day, and it is about him. There is a separate page on Anne Hathaway his wife which has much fewer hits. It would not be appropriate to get the readership up on Anne Hathaway by adding all the content to the William Shakespeare page. However, The William Shakespeare page has links to Anne Hathaway in the introduction and readers can easily find that page, if they did not find the Anne Hathaway page from the dab page, or an alternate route. Snowman (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Apples and oranges. That would make sense if the ducks (sensu taxonomic dustbin) were more encyclopaedic than the family as a whole. But duck in the sense of the article is the subfamilies Dendrocygninae, Thalassorninae, Stictonettinae, Anatinae, Aythyinae, Merginae, Oxyurinae and bits and pieces of Tadorninae and the unresolved genera. The situation with Tadorninae is particularly intolerable, some ducks and teal, some shelducks and some geese. Nothing links these ducks except that they are in the same family and are not big enough to be called geese. It makes as much sense as having a green parrot article, with parrots from across the whole family that have nothing in common except green plumage. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the commons, which is not a encyclopaedia article. Don't bother responding, I can't be arsed with this anymore. You've misrepresented almost everything I have said here so far, so fuck it, I give up. Keep these inadequate half-arsed articles in their pitiful and pedantically accurate state and I'll stick to improving articles where the idiocies of the English language don't trump the basics of taxonomy. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The commons category shows that people have grouped green birds together. Apples and oranges (note plurals) have been grouped together in a wiki article. Snowman (talk) 10:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
English, do you fucking speak it? The reason Apples and oranges are grouped together is to, and I fucking quote the fucking article, indicate that two items or groups of items cannot be validly compared. It's a phrase, not a noun, so plurals are irrelevant and they aren't grouped together for any other reason than to show that they can't be. What the hell was ypur point except some illogical Chewbacca defense? And my point about the illogical articles is still valid, we are not fucking the Commons. We don't have an article on small greenish woodpeckers, large whitish shearwaters, loud potoos or any other arbitary decriptive aggregation. Such groupings may make sense in the Commons but we arent the commons. Sabine's Sunbird talk 10:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no intention to filibuster. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Snowman is correct that you must have an article page at "Duck", and Sabine is correct in that what is there is not much good despite periodic sweeps. I have a suggestion:
  • tidy but keep the opening paragraph,
  • keep etymology
  • briefly mention domestication with a link to that article
  • say something like "for morphology, behaviour, distribution... see the genus articles listed at Anatidae".
That might help with the biological problems. The remaining folklore etc can't always be assigned to a species, but could perhaps be hived off as Ducks in popular culture or something similar jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No need to hive off popular culture - :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
NB: I think SS raises a valid point, for instance, I had the idea of a pyramid of pages for some huge subjects - so we have Treatment of schizophrenia and schizophrenia, however the former only got 1954 hits in march, while the latter 362965. Similarly ~800 hits/day vs 2000. The at-times frustrating aspect is how WP reflects but does not synthesize usage.
Do any official bird classifications call Anatidae "Ducks" or do they all call the family "Ducks, Geese and Swans"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

~please note that ducks also eat bread( rip them apart first) throw the bread at them and they will eat it.~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piplup441 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How dumb ducks are

duck hate color ever color so when they see color the y attack it so when your duck hunting be careful.:0  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.135.91 (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Lamellae

Lamellae are plate-like structures, such as the gills of fish or mushrooms, and are quite different from the comb-like structures on the edge of the bill which should be referred to as pectines (singular pecten) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.31.182 (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

DuckS

Shouldn't this title be named "Ducks" instead? I mean, it's att genus, not a species. Only species can be named in singular.--Buggwiki (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Mallard

            Mallards. Aren't they wonderful? I certainly think so. I have a question. You betta have an answer. Okay, here it is. "I'm looking for really good ducky websites. FInd them for me!"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.90.127 (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Duck

Ducks love dicks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.179.6.53 (talk) 01:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Is not the original and old plural of 'Duck' actually 'Duck'? ...as in one duck, two duck? (like one sheep, two sheep)... I have been searching around for original definitions but all seem to take on the modern view that Ducks is plural... prior to the 1970's duck was taught as being plural and singular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadpan110 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Any source for that? It seems ducks have been the general plural for a long time, although duck sometimes is used collectively, like "fish" and "man" [4] [5] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

i love ducks they are my absoulute favorite animal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.29.139 (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Typo in references

{{editsemiprotected}} Reference #6 should be "Mythbusters" not "Mybusters". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnterickson (talk • contribs) 05:06, 9 December 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for pointing that out. Celestra (talk) 05:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

subzero weather 68.188.54.159 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can Crested ducks survive subzero weather with snow and ice. Has small pond with small portion without ice coverage. Refuses shelter, should we bring into house?68.188.54.159 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article

This article really needs a list of species, broken down by subfamily and such. --Aurelius787 (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article includes list of fictional ducks but not real duck breeds, and why does it include paragraphs like quack like a duck? Riveira2 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that ducks are really brillient ! xxxxxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.94.98 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 94.11.203.147, 10 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}


Ducks are the ONLY water animal to have udders. 94.11.203.147 (talk) 11:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming you can't provide a reliable source for this? Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 12:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

There has never been a duck named Scooby Doobie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.2.52.28 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to German Page

Since this article is protected, please add this link to the German page for Entenvögel http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entenv%C3%B6gel --217.50.245.100 (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep; I did this, in passing...but next time, please use {{editsemiprotected}} so that somebody notices your request more quickly. Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.3.173.67, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Ducks do now have sexualities. They can neither be heterosexual nor homosexuals.


173.3.173.67 (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Requests to edit semi-protected articles must be accompanied by reference(s) to reliable sources.
I suggest you get an account, then you can help us improve articles. Chzz  ►  22:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

About duck marriage

"The ducks are generally monogamous".

Sorry, that's not true: I'm a duck myself and have got seven wives. Donald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.70.104.181 (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

robyn is a duck


63.239.78.4 (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

No actual request here --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection

    • Anyway, some comments were really funny. Have you got no sense of humour?! They do no harm, do they? This lack of sense of humour is one of the many reasons why I don't like Wikipedia. I prefer ducks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.70.118.67 (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is about information, not humour --Maxjjazz (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ McCracken, Kevin G. (2000): "The 20-cm Spiny Penis of the Argentine Lake Duck (Oxyura vittata)". The Auk 117(3) p.820–825. PDF fulltext
  2. ^ McCracken, Kevin G. et al (2001): "Sexual selection: Are ducks impressed by drakes' display?". Nature 413 p.128. DOI: 10.1038/35093160 PDF fulltext
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duck/Archive_3&oldid=591227998"