Talk:Budgerigar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Biology Portal Budgerigar is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Birds To-do: edit MAJOR taxonomic overhaul (see here) Create Galloanserae For new cat: Category:Natural history of the Americas, replace "Hummingbird" article (by Some collaboration, hopefully) an article: along title LINE of: Hummingbirds--the bird of the Americas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Budgerigar article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Portal	Budgerigar is maintained by WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Wiki policy on image use 2 Cleaning up the article 3 Why the "Context speaking Budgie section?" 4 Budgerigar naming 5 Taxobox 6 Editing 7 External Links 8 Shouldn't the first image be something other than an albino? 9 New section for color mutations? 10 Budgies are called indeed "Parakeets" in the U.S. You do have a point! 11 intro

[edit] Wiki policy on image use

If possible, I believe the Scientific Classification picture should illustrate a wild specimen. The current picture shows two color mutations, which are not representative of what the species looks like naturally. Fledchen 23:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I've cleaned up part of this article since it sounded much like a manual, telling others how to take care of their budgeriar. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --JoanneB 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what you think. It's advice,to help people.(Reverting). 27 October 2005(UTC)

Please follow the link I gave above, about what Wikipedia is not. It's not just what I think, it's Wikipedia's policy. No matter how helpful the advice was, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "how to" guide. --JoanneB 06:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up the article

I think there is no point to this article anymore.A large amount of it is being deleted.We must expand it.Josh215 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed 3 links from the external links section and added 1. 2 were pointing to NBA and NFL (!) the third one was pointing to a page with a mix of Jesus and Budgie content! I added a link to PetSmart online care guide for budgerigars. Also, I have to agree about removing the "how-to" parts. This is an encylopedia and there are plenty of publications online or offline which can deal with taking care of a companion bird.--Payam81 17:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If anyone feels like it, they can always move the "how-to" content to Wikibooks - that would be the appropriate place for it. A quick search found an article on Cockatoos, but nothing on budgies... — QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the "Context speaking Budgie section?"

Is it really sensible to include a link to the Reynolds site about contextually speaking budgies ? Could it at least be made more clear that that link is completely rediculous. User:169.71.50.41 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't blame you for your disbelief, but in so far as I can tell, the fact of Reynold's reports, and the as of yet undisputed accuracy of these findings is noteworthy enough to put into this article in so far as I can tell. Thanks,

-Scott P. 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budgerigar naming

A previous revision of the page notes the urban legend that budgerigar was a European misinterpretation of the phrase "good to eat". If anyone has a good reference (either for or against), I believe this would be worth mentioning in the article. The legend is extremely widespread, and it would be good to de-bunk or confirm if possible. --PJF 01:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a reliable reference, but I have an old book about budgerigars ("Australia's Pet Budgerigar" by Suzanne Troy & Kevin Kelly, published by Horwitz Publications Inc Pty Ltd, Australia in 1986) which says: "The Aboriginal association with this little bird has been mainly as a source of food in drought areas when other meat is scarce. In fact, the part of the word pronounced "boodgeree" in aborigine means 'good' and the latter part 'gar' means 'food' or 'to eat'." Roxybudgy 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, the only thing I've ever heard about the meaning of the word "budgerigar" is that it means "good food," before KimvdLinde found that dictionary reference to "good cockatoo." Unfortunately, I've never seen a citation I would consider reliable for "good food." You know, this would be a good question to pose on the Linguistics helpdesk ... think I'll do that right now. --Ginkgo100 02:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My Grandfather was raised amongst the desert people around White Cliffs. In fact he 1st saw another white child when he was 12 years old, and he had extraordinary bush skills. He claimed that the word meant "good to eat", and I can only assume this was based on his knowledge of aboriginal languages. He passed away in 1968 so I can't really ask him now. Johnpf 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxobox

I noticed the taxobox background color was changed from pink to green. While this may have seemed more aesthetically pleasing, the color of the taxobox is standardized based on the kingdom an organism belongs to. For animals, it's pink. Complete information is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage. Ginkgo100 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

I have changed some things in the article. First I ahev brough all captivity sections under one main section. Furthermore, I have grouped the general information in the lead section. Finally, I have exchanged the images so that the most natural looking is now in the taxobox, but I do feel that a image of a true wild individual would be best to illustrate the taxonomic component. KimvdLinde 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment on your talk page, but I also have some comments of a more general nature. I agree an image of a wild budgie would be most preferable for the taxobox. I'm also glad to see the fact request on the translation of the Aboriginal word budgerigar. I have seen this translation widely, but I wonder if it's apocryphal. I think most of the content in the sections on captive budgerigars, buying them, and breeding them is non-encyclopedic and contrary to Wikipedia policy on how-to guides, per WP:NOT, and should probably be removed. The external links section can probably be removed as well, per WP:NOT and WP:EL. Ginkgo100 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it, see your talk page. I am less willing to weed out all howto aspects, most of them can be rewritten to encyclopedic stuff. But lets work toards a better and more comprehensive article on this. KimvdLinde 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

In keeping with WP:EL, and in order to prevent this article from becoming a spam farm like some other articles have become in the past, I pared down the list of external links to just three. I removed links to personal sites, links to sites lacking references, a link to a copyright violation, and a link that produced huge numbers of pop-up ads. I left a comprehensive, detailed, non-commercial site that has been around for a long time and two well-referenced articles. I hope this is acceptable to other editors. --Ginkgo100 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

A good idea. Josh215 15:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't the first image be something other than an albino?

Just saying, given that albino budgies are a bit rare. Certainly not typical. I'd suggest having an image of an average, natural colours budgie (i.e. grassy green and yellow) instead, to avoid giving incorrect impressions. That's the first thing one sees when opening the page after all. — 88.112.2.159 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For a while there was a picture of wild budgies, but while the image was used with permission, it was not released under a free license and was eventually deleted -- Wikipedia prefers freely licensed images (GFDL, CC, or public domain). I agree that an image of wild budgies, or failing that, wild-type budgies (no color mutations) would be ideal for the taxobox, but so far I have not seen any posted. I was bold and replaced the albino with a Commons image of a group of budgies in an aviary; the albino is further down the page now. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the person who inserted the albino picture into the article when the previous image was deleted. IMO, it was the clearest and best-quality image of a single bird that I could find on the project at the time (it showed the physical characteristics of the bird much better than any of the others, I thought - if not the colour). I personally think it would be better to leave it as the taxobox image until something better is found but I'll certainly go along with the majority opinion on this... --Kurt Shaped Box 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was also following the old discussion at the top of this page. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New section for color mutations?

An anonymous user (who I have encouraged to formally join the project) added substantial information about the genetics of budgie color mutations. While interesting, I feel there's so much information it unbalances the article, so I am suggesting the section be split into its own article, Budgerigar genetics. What other article titles might be preferable? Does anyone agree with this? And does anyone know a published source to verify this new information? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added the {{generalize}} template to the section. It's certainly in-depth but it's *way* too technical for the general reader (IMO at least). --Kurt Shaped Box 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article should be split. When people look up 'Budgerigars', I guess that they would be more interested in the bird itself than the gentics of colour mutations. I could probably add some information, in the past I've read a few books about budgies that went into detail about mutations, but there's no guaruntees. Roxybudgy 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Those books you have with information about mutations are a good resource because any article should always have a good source to cite. If nobody objects in the near future (defined as between now and the next time I think about it) I'll start a new article, but I could really use your help with those book resources because I myself have no sources to cite. Any comments about the title of the new article are welcome and appreciated! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs · e@} 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally managed to get some free time to head down to the city library and found two books with information about budgerigar mutations, colour variations and genetics, as well as a bit of history on when mutations were first seen. The books are pretty old though, one of them lists references to a magazine that was printed in the 1940s, but I guess when it comes to this topic, the information is unlikely to change over time.

At the moment, I don't have enough free time to look over the information carefully. Perhaps I should photocopy/scan a few pages and post them up somewhere, unless that's copyright infringement. Roxybudgy 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be a copyright violation and I could never recommend that to another editor. The decision is yours, however. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate saying this but despite the obvious amount of effort that's been put into it, that entire section is useless to 99% of people. There is no definition of what the codes mean, no mention of chromosome locations (which is common in genetics), and so on. More importantly, wikipedia is generally targeted for people who don't understand the topic they are reading, especially in pages that should be broad-based like this page. It's technobabble that even I have to sit and decipher. The biggest relevance this really has to anyone is for breeders, and it should be placed on a page more related to that subject. In any case, it requires much more clarity, and it must have more than what is effectively a list for its long-term survival on Wikipedia.Volantares 11:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's been copied to another article already and it really needs to be removed. Apparently nobody got around to it. I'll work on it now. Also I don't think it's ever been verified even in the new article; I'll take a look there and may {{prod}} it. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Budgies are called indeed "Parakeets" in the U.S. You do have a point!

And even more than you may think. Ever read Robert Arthur's Three Investigators and the Secret of Terror Castle? Those "parakeets" referred there are indeed budgies and NO (bigger) parrots. This specialty has also been taken care of in the 1984 dramatized play by Edward Kelsey, published by Random House UK on MusiCassette. The sounds you hear on the cassette are indeed budgies' sounds, no parrots' sounds. So this article is awesome, covering a well-known U.S. misnaming. Well done folks. -andy 80.129.113.55 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] intro

Given that is the most common domesticated parrot and a popular pet - why is this not mentioned until about halfway down the article?GraemeLeggett 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fine for you to make that change. --Ginkgo100^talk 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)