Jump to content

Talk:Red-billed chough

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleRed-billed chough is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Featured topic starRed-billed chough is part of the Chough series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 7, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 15, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 10, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
August 12, 2009Good topic candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Cornwall

[edit]

was wondereing if it would be sensible to mention somewhere the cultural/folklore/symbolic importance of the chough in cornwall somewhere, maybe in a seperate section or else a link to the culture of cornwall article and expand it there?

It would be fine in the article, unless you think that there is enough information that it should have its own article. In that case a summary within this article, with a link, would be best. --Hey jude, don't let me down 02:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Bit of contradiction in the status section; an estimated 86 to 210 million individuals in Europe alone. versus The European population is between 12,265–17,370 pairs,. One of those is badly wrong. 86 million pairs in a range of 10 million square kilometres? How dense are these things? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK the first figure was only 1000 times too large! If correct you could walk across the mountains on a carpet of choughs. Since they don't breed for three years and there will always be unpaired birds, I think the figures for individuals/breeding pairs are now consistent. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good for GA. I'd nominate it now. Any further fixes will be straightforward. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

Article is well and professionally written, easy to read, and well researched. It passes all six of the Good Article criteria with flying colors, IMHO. Pictures are very good as well. Good work! The article will be promoted. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Graja

[edit]

Per the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds, this article is on a subspecies that has no English name and little notability.

  • Support
  1. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Shyamal (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  1. jimfbleak (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC) Just make a redirect. There is nothing to merge except the Canary Islands local name. If that is added, that opens the door to adding the French, German, Hindi... names, esp as the Canaries population is one of the smallest. jimfbleak (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  1. As a more general principle I think recent splits and subspecies where the new entities have hardly any difference in behaviour or ecology, vary only in distribution and lacking pictures, sufficient published material etc. should be kept together and held by redirects until any of the factors change. Shyamal (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Shyamal, most subspecies I doubt warrant their own page unless substantially distinctive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Jim's oppose, I don't think there is a great deal to merge anyway, thus making this proposal mostly a redirect anyway. I would certainly defer to his insights into the species 9as the FAC champion of the species) anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 13:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

The image in the lead (the current one is cropped from the old image File:Alpenkrähe-Pyrrhocorax.jpg) is described as a "Alpenkrähe, Pyrrhocorax Pyrrhocorax barbarus" on commons, but in the infobox it is described as a "P. p. erythropthalmus". I do not know which version is correct. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a bit more work on this: the original image is at File:Alpenkrähe.jpg and the comment given with it at the time of first upload is "Alpenkrähe, aufgenommen auf La Palma, Kanarische Inseln", which is German for something like; "Alpine crow, photographed on La Palma, Canary islands". To me, the indications are that this is the subspecies that is known in Spain as a Graja. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it really is barbatus jimfbleak (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After checking the spelling after an internet search. It is P. p. barbarus. Snowman (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oops, yes jimfbleak (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survival

[edit]

"The first-year survival rate of the juveniles is 72.5 percent". The inline reference gives Juvenile Survival: 0.430 (in First-Year). Snowman (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks as if info has been updated, since it gives adult data too now. Thanks, Snowman, section updated Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British pedantry

[edit]

A fine article, but at the risk of ruffling a feather or two, I have question. Accepting that, as the history of Terminology of the British Isles suggests, the geographical descriptors of these islands seem specifically designed to maximise conflict and confusion, I wonder if "Its eight subspecies breed on mountains and coastal cliffs from Ireland and western parts of Great Britain..." is absolutely correct. I don't have lots of stats to hand but the RSPB map suggests that many of the most romantic places in the UK (from the Chough's point of view) are in Anglesey, Man, Islay, Jura and Arran rather than on mainland Great Britain as such. Being of timid disposition I prefer to avoid "British Isles", which annoys some of my Irish friends, so perhaps "western parts of Wales and Scotland"? Ben MacDui 15:33, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is pedantic. In sports teams, for example, we have Team GB, not Team GB + Tresco + Anglesey + the Isle of Wight.... However, wild Choughs breed in Cornwall, not just Scotland and Wales, so your suggestion, since we are being absolutely precise, is also incorrect. You don't like the British Isles either (although I don't think there is any generally accepted alternative name for the archipelago), so I've changed to the undeniably accurate "Republic of Ireland and western parts of the United Kingdom." I don't think the political entities are especially appropriate, but at least they are unambiguous and won't upset the nationalists. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the old "Team GB" Olympic fudge - splendid stuff. I didn't know about the Cornish Choughs, so you are right:
  • the current wording is unambiguous (if a small fraction inaccurate and potentially annoying to the Manx) and
  • "British Isles" is the only accepted geographical descriptor and may be the only unambiguous and completely accurate wording available.
It's just a question of deciding how to balance accuracy with potential annoyance. Ben MacDui 11:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, it's not just sporting teams, "Great Britain" is widely used as a catch-all for the island sensu strictu plus all the smaller islands around its coast, just as "Ireland" is taken to include the big island and all its little companions. I would never say I'm travelling from Great Britain to the Isle of Wight, or from Ireland to Valentia Island in normal speech. There are three alternatives:
  • Ireland and western Great Britain, taking GB in its normal wider sense. (and the Isle of Man?)
  • Republic of Ireland, United Kingdom (and the Isle of Man?)
  • British Isles
Your call, really, since no one else has raised the issue. As long as the description is accurate enough to include Cornwall, I don't mind Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current version - " the Republic of Ireland and western parts of the United Kingdom" is accurate enough but on reflection perhaps it is using political nomenclature when physical geography would work better. How about "from the western coasts of Ireland and Britain..", which tries to have it both ways, or if you prefer to avoid overlap, the arguably less accurate "from the western coasts of Ireland and Britain..".
I've followed your suggestion, but haven't linked, as per current mos, which keeps it suitably ambiguous too. Also delinked some other countries etc missed last time (I did wonder whether to keep the link for Scotland since it's not an independent country, but my courage failed me... )Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Independence being a state of mind, perhaps one day there will be a set of User Preferences for "British" entities so that we can all see what we want to see... Looks good. I was on Islay recently but failed to see any of my red-billed corvid chums. I think they must hang out on the Mull of Oa in the early summer. Ben MacDui 08:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ben MacDui has it right above: "British Isles" is the only accepted geographical descriptor .... Use it. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except if you read the first para of this section, he doesn't like that either, so we are going round in circles. I'm losing the will to live... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no specific need to use B. Isles in this case and I think it's fine in its current guise. Ben MacDui 18:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Machair Picture

[edit]

Nice picture of Machair but outwith the distribution of the bird. Perhaps an image from around Ardnave or Machir Bay on Islay, or from Colonsay could be substituted. Semudobia (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Red-billed chough. 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:

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) 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red-billed chough. 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:

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) 15:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2019

[edit]

Please change "In 2012, the red-billed choughs were living free in the central valley area of Durrell Wildlife Park, and the Trust expects colonisation of the coastal areas of Jersey in the following years" to "In 2013, juveniles were released onto the north coast of Jersey using soft-release methods developed at Durrell. Over the next five years, small cohorts of captive-bred choughs were released, monitored, and provided supplemental food. In 2015, the choughs began breeding in the wild and there is now a resident wild population once again in Jersey." The referenced link #50 is also incorrect and should be www.birdsontheedge.org Ejcorry (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ejcorry, do you have a WP:COI you'd like to declare? Also, I just looked at the link above, and it currently has no content that confirms your text, just a "closed for maintenance" notice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejcorry: In reference to your post on Jimfbleak's user talk page, I understand it's probably annoying that Wikipedia is out of date if you're the person in charge of the project, but unfortunately we can't just take Wikipedia editors at their word. Have a look at the Reliable sources policy. Are there any links where this news was published? If it was published there previously the Internet Archive might have a snapshot of the relevant page on BirdsOnTheEdge.org at least. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 12:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejcorry:  Partly done: Thanks for the extra info at Jim's talk page. I have partially updated the article with the first part of your suggested edit based on the Archive link, but I couldn't find a source for "In 2015, the choughs began breeding in the wild and there is now a resident wild population once again in Jersey." My assumption is this might be stated in one of the monthly reports, but they haven't been archived, so it might be necessary to wait until the maintenance is over. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 13:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ejcorry:, replying here to keep discussion in one place. Thanks for COI comment, could you please put that on your user page so it's transparent. Nizolan, thanks for that. I think we have gone about as far as we can until the site's back up. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2023

[edit]

Can someone add to the Status paragraph, just after the part on Cornwall? Something like "In 2023 39 pairs of choughs in Cornwall raised 112 young. Paul St Pierre, RSPB conservation officer, said, 'One of the primary goals has been to re-establish a link between the chough population in Wales and Brittany, and this year brings us closer than ever to achieving that objective'.". Citation is https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-66319535 Could you also add "As part of a conservation programme by the Wildwood Trust and the Kent Wildlife Trust ten choughs were released near to Dover, England in July 2023. The plan is to establish 15 breeding pairs in 10 years by releasing 30 to 50 individuals over five years." Citations are https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c72wn777ynpo and https://www.newscientist.com/video/2384323-red-billed-choughs-return-to-south-east-england-after-200-years/ All three sites in the above citations can be found at the Wayback machine. Thanks 92.6.107.62 (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red-billed_chough&oldid=1207713527"