Talk:Budgerigar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Australia / Biota (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Budgerigar is within the scope of 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Birds (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Adding an External Link[edit]

Hi everyone I'm a n00b here at Wiki and was wondering how I could add an External link to the Budgerigar page?

It's a website including all sorts of info about the up-keep and well-being of budgies and also advice on people wanting to buy budgies. I tried to edit the section but received a message saying I had to discuss it on the talk page so..here I am! Thanks :)000malt000 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the name of this site? The reason additions to the external links need to be discussed is that there are a great many legitimate sites about the upkeep and well-being of budgies that don't fit the guidelines for external links. Neitherday (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Its: "http://www.adorablebudgies.co.uk/"...what do you think?000malt000 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not measure up to WP:EL. A large portion of its content comes from this article, so it adds little to what is already here. The original content it does have isn't professionally written nor is it particularly well researched. It doesn't really expand much beyond what is otherwise contained (or could be contained) here.
There are many sites of similar and higher quality that have not been included or were removed from the external links section of this article. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of links. External links must add something substantial to the article. Neitherday (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Birds that fly away and come back[edit]

What about birds that fly away and come back? It's happened twice with 2 different male budgies. I'd be in the front garden on the phone making arrangements for a new bird and i hear a familiar chirp. I'd follow the sounds and sure enough the little bugger is sitting in a tree at shoulder height. The first time it happened it was raining and i gave up all hope until i heard his chirping in the morning. Jivesucka (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good, I guess. So what you're saying then is that you're disappointed that there isn't a section in this article about the behavior of the birds? Yeah, I'm right there with you! Gingermint (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Changed title to the green budgerigar picture top right of article[edit]

I changed the title of the green budgerigar in the top right of the article. Its description was green opaline budgerigar but it is in fact a green normal budgerigar and not opaline at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazbudgie (talkcontribs) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why did my undo not take effect?[edit]

Someone at some point came in and capitalized the word "budgerigar" all over the place. Budgierigar is not a proper noun, and an anonymous IP post recognizing this removed all the capitalization. Then someone came in and undid that revision, according to his comment using some tool called "MWT" which appears to be an anti-vandalism tool. I believe this undoing was in error, as the preceding article (with capitalization removed) was more correct, so I undid the undo.

In the diff for my edit, you can clearly see that the capitalization was removed. However, the article does not reflect that. I cleared my browser's cache, and the words are still capitalized. I then made another edit on a grammar error in a small section of the article, at the same time manually removing the capitalization. That went through just fine, and "budgerigar" in that section is no longer capitalized. It's still capitalized everywhere else.

So why did my undo not work properly? 209.251.136.45 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that the above post, as well as the grammar edit of the main article immediately after my undo-undo revision, was by me. I think I obliterated the cookie when I cleared my cache. Mbarbier (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Budgerigar Bird loosing feathers[edit]

We have two male birds one is loosing feathers around his face, is this a big problem? He is not having any other problems and is eating fine. Is there anyone that has had this happen or know what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.51.221 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

females fight[edit]

should i seperate my females to stop them fighting over there young? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.164.56 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so what I hear you saying is that you're disappointed that there isn't a section here on the care of these kind of birds. Yeah, I'm right there with you! Gingermint (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a guide to keeping budgies. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Diet[edit]

This section contains the line

"Chocolate, alcohol, rhubarb leaves and avocado are recognized as highly toxic.[20] [21]"

However, reference 20 includes nothing about these items in all its text so it is not an appropiate reference for the statemet; the reference is irrelevant. Reference 21 is a list posted in a chat room by "Stacey" and is posted totally without support, it lacks even the most miniscule credbility and does not include either chocolate or alcohol, and it does not even come close to being peer reviewed. This is a shabby substitute for published support.

My own bird has consumed alcohol, chocolate, and avocado without any observed ill effects, casting doubt on the statement. It requires better support than provided. At the very least the references shoulod be deleted and lack of citation tagged to it. Radzewicz (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Parakeet[edit]

I undid some revisions by Magsxemail. This user eliminated the list of common alternative names (including "parakeet"), and instead included a very strongly-worded assertion that "parakeet" is incorrect, providing a citation. The citation looks like a pop-ish pet page, with single, almost in-passing mention that budgies are "mistakenly" called parakeets. The user attempted to pass this off as authority on the matter.

I do not consider this even remotely authoritative. Further, the name "parakeet" is largely accepted as a correct, if imprecise, word for the animal. Therefore, I consider the notion that "parakeet" is utterly incorrect to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, which was most certainly not provided. Mbarbier (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


evolutionary history[edit]

The evolutionary history section makes no sense to me. Is the group containing the budgie and the lories really the most basal parrot group? How does the budgie "link" two genera? Can somebody clarify this? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Photograph of budgie on cage[edit]

This photo was first added last August by User:75.67.96.217. It was immediately removed. It has recently been re-added three times by User:132.177.66.126, User:132.177.65.76, and again by User:75.67.96.217. I suspect this may be the same person. The reasons it has been removed each time are below.

  • While this may be a nice snap of someone's Budgerigar, it is not of acceptable quality for this article.
  • It is out of focus, low resolution and badly composed.
  • The bird is harshly lit by a flash. Combined with the fact it is out of focus it renders it pretty featureless.
  • The cage is cut off at the left and the bottom, so it doesn't show that clearly either.
  • An entire third of the picture it taken up with what appears to the room's interior door in the background.
  • It adds nothing informative to the article.

Could any of the above editors please explain why they think this photo is valuable and useful as claimed before re-adding it? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Does this article need a 'Budgie with toys' image? If so, there are a few possibles on Commons that are of better quality than the aforementioned File:YOSHI.JPG, IMO - e.g.:
--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. These are all far better. However, I personally don't see the need. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a wording question.[edit]

The following sentence seems unclear to me. Hand feeding is not routinely done with budgerigars, due to their small size, and the fact that young parent raised birds can be readily tamed. Shouldn't it be young parent-raised birds, with a -? Correjon (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely new aspect to the "not keeping a single budgie" argument.[edit]

This is purely OR, however, having kept various Aussie parrots including budgies and rosellas for well over forty years, I would like to contribute the following.

Budgies like many other birds are very attractive to various mites and parasites. They clean themselves as best they can, but there's one thing that a single bird cannot do easily, and that is to clean and de-mite its own face. Some birds manage it - they fluff their face feathers then rub their faces in dry dirt.

Budgies have adopted a different strategy. Budgies in a group or in the wild will clean each others faces, a process which I have always known as ALLOPREENING. Interestingly, even budgies in a cage that don't like each other (ie, that fight and screech at each other) will of necessity "call a truce" and do this.

So if you have a single budgie in a cage, you need to be especially vigilant that he/she is mite and parasite free. Not to do so is CRUELTY BY NEGLECT. 58.168.75.123 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The dreaded anthropomorphism has crept into this article.[edit]

"... Budgerigars enjoy chewing on anything they can find.".

Budgies, like many other parrots, need to chew frequently to keep those beak muscles in good condition and to prevent the constantly-growing beak from overgrowing. This is evolved survival behaviour. It is not really right to talk about "enjoying". Old_Wombat (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it, along with a few other similar issues. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Development[edit]

"The appearance of down occurs precisely at the ages (around 9 or 10 days of age) for closed banding of the chicks. Budgerigar's closed band rings must be neither larger or smaller than 4.0 to 4.2 mm."

What does this mean? I can't find "closed banding" or "closed band" defined anywhere. Cousin Ricky (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Domestication[edit]

For the "domesticated animals" list, to solve a dispute, we've decided that "first list" status (unquestioned true domestication) requires that the source page for the animal have the word "domesticated". If these guys are generally considered domesticated, could someone add a comment to that effect somewhere on the page? Tamtrible (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Dictum and Dictionaries[edit]

I added two items to 'etymology'. One regarding another aboriginal language reference "Yuwaalaraay" and the other at the bottom of that section, regarding the meaning, ie. "good" and "good bird" vs. "good food" (and even "tasty treat"). I've provided references. That's just for the lead in.

The other thing I did was remove two references in the text saying "This is supported by the XXXXXX Dictionary". This is an egregious misunderstanding of what a dictionary is. A dictionary reports common (or at least some) usage. A dictionary is descriptive, NOT prescriptive. A dictionary should never be promoted as an authoritative source for anything other than reporting what other people have been saying. As a source for reporting usage, it is perfectly acceptable to use one as a reference. But it is by no means proper to attempt to lend credence to a statement by saying a particular dictionary "supports" a statement. This point should be even more apparent when one considers the fact that all dictionaries are produced in-house, and are not subjected to peer review as are most references one would consider valid. Anyone can write a dictionary and present it as a source people will tend to accept as authoritative work. Similarly, anyone can name a dictionary anything they like to emphasize this effect, and rarely will anyone question it. I offer, for example, Webster's New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 8th Edition, written by one guy, and Random House Webster's Computer and Internet Dictionary, 3rd Edition, written by a different guy. No editorial staff, no peer review. But they're both named "Webster's". Why? Because it's a dead guy's name associated with dictionaries, who can't defend himself or his name from being used to lend artificial credence. You have to ask yourself how a guy who died in 1843 could have anything to do with a dictionary of computer terms, much less two different ones. The only time his name can be used with validity is within the trademark of "Mirriam-Webster", and then it is still only a trademark, not a signifier of validity within any of the works produced with that name.

In my opinion this should be applied globally. Descriptive sources that are presented as authoritative should be removed from text as such, although leaving them as a reference for reporting usage should be allowed.

Drmcclainphd (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)