Talk:Great Tit

Picture

You can find a picture of a great tit at the german wikipedia: de:Bild:Parus_major.jpg -- de:Hokanomono

Well, this "German" picture is actually taken by me and it is in wikimedia commons, but I've decided it's not so good to be attached here. If anybody thinks otherwise, be free to attach it.

--Akumiszcza 09:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Appearently the picture has been moved to Image:Parusmajorde.jpg. I had posted the top comment a long time ago, when there had not been no such thing as wikimedia commons and images were being shared between wikipedias by download and upload. – Hokanomono 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Can somebody explain why "Great Tit" is capitalized like a proper noun? Craw 11:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

All species names should be capitalised. That way, you can tell the difference between, say, a Little Ringed Plover and a Ringed Plover which is smaller than average. Andy Mabbett 11:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

This guideline is documented at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Birds. (And, hey, most guys spend their time thinking about great tits. Only birders worry about Great Tits.) -- Coneslayer 21:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And how would you know if it was indeed a great tit or a Great Tit that was referenced to? 80.217.188.76 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

... capitalization ... read harder. Vael Victus (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read this page without laughing. I dare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.96.82 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

that is impossible due to "acrobatic performances when feeding on nuts or seed." (that was a quote from the page!) 85.149.120.16 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Big tits!

The anon ip who redirected Big tits to this article deserves a barnstar. lol! -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha, redirect to here? I think that's a great idea, will go change it back lol, besides, what would you rather want to read if you entered "big tits" into wikipedia's search, a page about "brassiere measurement", or get a laugh being redirected to a page about a bird with a funny name? --Iateyourgranny (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you would want to find the information you were looking for.... See also past "Redirect for Discussion". Mind you, the joke was funny... the first time it was done :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: Notice that Breast size also redirects to Brassiere measurement. I also thought of redirecting to some paraphilia that had been named after the obsession with big breasts, but I could only find Partialism [1] (see list in the right column of page 737) which I find that is not specific enough to redirect there. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, see Wikipedia:Featured redirects for a laugh. ;) -- œ^™ 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Birds?

Why is this article about birds? Is this an elaborate joke? 24.62.5.69 (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

No joke, tits are birds. See Tit (bird). I think the the usage referring to breasts came from Teat. -- œ^™ 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I used to work with boobies, and that never stopped being funny. Until they tried to peck, they have bills like steak knives. I still have scars from handling young boobies. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

handling young boobies - the images that conjures up! 06:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! -- œ^™ 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with humans

There is some text in here which seem rather irrelevant: "However, human habitat also has an effect on the Great Tit. The song of the Great Tit has been observed to change in noise polluted urban environments. In areas with low frequency background noise pollution, the song has a higher frequency than in quieter areas." (this refers to a paper entitled "Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise") Birdsong is used to advertise territory & presence to potential competitors & mates, and birds naturally vary their songs so they may be heard better in their surroundings whether those are dense forest or open fields, so this seems to be heavily anthropomorphizing ("birds sing when they're happy" etc.). If this can't be improved it would be better deleted. Innotata 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Species splits

Regarding the splitting out of the taxanomic groups, it is argued in this paper that the Turkestan Tit should be lumped with this species even as the the Japanese and Cinereus Tits should be split out (contra HBW 2007 but as done by IOC). Should we take the plunge and lump? Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another paper abstract here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

A further query about subspecies. Current article says there are 36, but only lists a dozen or so and apparently keeps Turkestan Tit as a subspecies. Harrop and Quinn split Turkestan Tit as a full species and describe 33 ssp of Great Tit. Otherwise they deal mainly in terms of the major/cinereus/minor groups for general descriptions, sex/age, voice, distribution and movements , habitat, and breeding biology.

treatment by the three (four if Turkestan lumped) groups keeps the information comprehensive but manageable. Other than appearance and range, detailed data on most of the individual ssp will be difficult or impossible to find. I suggest that we follow Harrop and Quinn in dealing with the broad groups, but don't bother describing all 30 odd ssp. Any views on treatment of ssp and whether to include bokharensis?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That was me; I started adding subspecies, then got totally confused as to which others were still included. Nothing I could find online regarding the split answered the question, so I've been digging through boxes of books (still not unpacked following the recent move) trying to find something that does! In the meantime, I was putting in anything that wasn't included in the Cinereous Tit article, and had also left out all Asian subspecies pending confirmation of which were still included. Sorry! MeegsC | Talk 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Not just Meeegs's fault. The confusion occus partly because I have started expanding and haven't finished. Since we have split out all the subspecies ascribed to minor group (Japanese Tit) and cincerus(Cincerus Tit), which is why they are not described. But I hadn't finished the taxonomic history description, which explains the split to four species and then back down to three. Harrop and Quinn treat the Turkestan Tit as a separate species, but that was in 1996, and didn't take into account the 2003 and 2005 studies. Almost all the modern analysis it is lumped with major and the other two are split out, most recently the conclusion of Packert et al 2005, which is what I think we should do. I have finished the bare bones of the taxonomy section, so hopefully this will be clearer now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In case the map is at odds with the text, do let me know how it should be and I can fix it. Shyamal (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, treatment as per SS above is fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Shyamal, since you offered, we've lumped Parus bokharensis with Parus major, can you make a version of the map that reflects that? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Have change the colour scheme so that major and bokharensis are two shades of red - seems a pity to lump them together ;) Shyamal (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. The map shows Parus monticolus, but I am not finding it mentioned in the text. If I'm reading the text right, the eastern group has two species. The map seems to shows three overlapping species. Is there a zone in South/Southeast Asia where three species or notable subspecies can be found? If so, it would be good if the text mentioned the third, and indicated if it is a subspecies of Cinereous or Japanese. Or am I just missing something?--Brambleshire (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the original map http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/z/zoomed/images/vol80/nr05/8005a03fig5.jpg - this shows that major and bokharensis overlaps in parts (as also major with cinereus) while cinereus and minor have a long and narrow contact belt. Parus monticolus which is apparently a well separated species is shown as overlapping with cinereus and minor. It is included in this map merely because the source includes it and if it is too confusing, this species could be dropped from the map. Shyamal (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Great mate. Onlty thing is could the P. bokharensis become P. m. bokharensis? Cheers Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. The fonts have been giving me trouble esp with the wikipedia commons converter... have to live with those small legend font for now, unless someone can fix it ... Shyamal (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The map clearly illustrates the concept now, and the contact zones are self-evident.--Brambleshire (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions

The dimensions and weights I have for this species are pretty vague. Given that the species has been split and insular and tropical forms (which tend to be at the extremes) have been removed, does anyone have some sources on the weights and sizes of remaining subspecies? Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remove or explain jargon in the lead section

The following sentence is too heavily scientific for the lead section: "In the past this species was considered a ring species with several subspecies covering a wide distribution, but these have now been separated as the Cinereous Tit of southern Asia, and the Japanese Tit of East Asia." Can it be moved and/or re-written so that a layperson would understand it? I tried reading the article on ring species, and it's pretty dense. I am not convinced this concept holds any interest for the layperson. Please consider, what is the salient point, and is it really such a basic truth about the bird that it needs to be in the lead section? Anyway, it sounds like the notion of the Great Tit as a ring species is out-dated, so if that is the case, please explain (in the article) why it is being mentioned at all.--Brambleshire (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. We've been expanding the article recently and I usually leave the lead till last. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That is much better. Thanks for all your hard work!--Brambleshire (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Great Tit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Annalise (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Hi, I'm going to be reviewing this article over the next few days.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I have a few concerns:

   • The areas of the article that discuss taxonomy are sometimes confusing. In the lead, from "in the past" to the end of the first paragraph, I find it hard to tell exactly which species is being discussed at any given point. What were the "two distinct groups"? And then they were separated and... what happened to what? I'm not sure.

   • I hope I have clarified the issue for you. Let me know if more is needed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Okay, that's much better. Thank you! Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • I'm also wondering if perhaps you should switch the places of the "taxonomy" and the "description" sections. The taxonomy is the most technical section and is probably not the first thing that the general reader wants to learn about Great Tits.

   • Confucius says the first step to knowledge is calling something by its proper name.... basically this has come up before in other species. We tend to follow the convention of putting taxonomy first (only sometimes last) , see albatross, Golden White-eye, Cattle Egret, on the basis that before one can talk about something one has to define exactly what "it" is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Okay. I'm not particularly familiar with articles on birds, and when I looked at the Wikiproject and it seemed like it could go either way. If there's consensus, I won't mess with that. Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • The Manual of Style says that lists should be avoided unless they cannot be incorporated into the article. Is it possible to incorporate the list of subspecies, or do something with it?

   • Again, it is fairly standard to list taxon when there are quite a few of them with little to say about them, and there are quite a few here, with little to say about them beyond who described them. It could probably be turned into text but dull text, with no benefit and a loss of clarity. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Again, good point, and if there's consensus I won't mess with it. Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Are they red with white spots, or white with red spots? The picture and the text seem to contradict each other, and while I'm guessing the picture's right, I don't know enough about the bird to feel comfortable correcting it myself. Annalise (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • Fixed. Some old brainfail there. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   • The two points in the middle paragraph of the section "Relationship with humans" are unrelated. It really confused me when I was reading the paragraph. Since it's short anyway, perhaps those two points could be integrated into the other paragraphs or otherwise made to belong?

   • Moved them into the rest of the text. It is always hard with speices that have a few but not many relationship with humans bits, they can easily come off as non-sequiturs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Looks good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Left-aligned images aren't allowed to be used at the start of sections. Other than that, though, everything looks great. There're some really wonderful images here.

   I was under the (mis?)impression that only applied if the subsection was === or smaller. I've swapped them around anyway. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

   Honestly, I mentioned that by memory, and I can't remember exactly where I read it to confirm quickly. It doesn't matter now, but for the future I'll definitely reread and check over that. Annalise (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

7. Overall: Everything looks good. Congratulations!

   Pass/Fail:

Onwards

Well done, anything you want me to do to move this towards FAC? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have information on specific sizes of birds in Europe? The only book I have just has a size for the whole species which includes every subspecies including the ones now split out. There is more that needs doing before this goes to FA, I need to take stock and work out what that is. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Clements should have at least the comparative sizes of the races (larger/smaller than nominate) and might have one or two specific sizes. BWP or any other Europe book will have measurements for at least nominate - I'll check later, everyone's asleep but me (holiday) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, is it worth moving the ssp descriptions to the ssp list? Or combining the two in a table? Just thoughts to maybe improve the readability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought about this, but decided against it. I'd rather keep the description bits together, but if I'm overruled I'll go with the consensus. Thanks for the size info, I'll tray and work it in soon. Do your sources have some average egg sizes too? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't help myself, please check meddling Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)