Talk:Guadeloupe amazon

violacea

My Latin dictionary has viola "violet", or this book mentions violacea too. I don't have that bird book, only what I seen on google. There was this source I used for Cortinarius violaceus too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, can't see the first one, but though the second book is about mushrooms, the word is exactly the same (just another gender), so should be possible yo use it? Or will it be "synth"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guadeloupe amazon. 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/20140207182726/http://www.auburn.edu/~willi71/carib_parrot.pdf to http://www.auburn.edu/~willi71/carib_parrot.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) 01:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories

Since this parrot was not even confirmed to be a real species, I argue it should be removed from the categories relating to extinction until a non-IUCN source confirms its existence. Riding on just one source isn't smart Ddum5347 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The taxobox here itself is designed to follow the IUCN. Notice "status_system = IUCN3.1". And quit drive-by changing stuff to your personal liking without consensus, you are doing this in a lot of articles, and a lot of people are irked by it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If its got an official IUCN designation, that's good enough for me. I agree with FunkMonk that Ddum's behaviour is problematic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

STOP your edit warring would ya? Everyone here agrees that this species exists, and bseides, a IUCN designation is enough to determine that it actually existed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 07:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the sentence that keeps being changed, "Rare by 1779, it appears to have become extinct by the end of the 18th century." is correct whether it was a distinct species or not, since no one doubts there was population of amazon parrots on the island that is now extinct. Ddum5347's overall edits have been disruptive, and they need to be scrutinised. There was even a section devoted to their antics at the bird project:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Festive amazon which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)