Talk:Tanimbar corella

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Wow, guys, good work with the copyediting. Looks very professional now. -FB

Picture[edit]

We should look for a picture. Like this one: http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/docs/VCS727/sld013.html -FB

There is no image on that page now (visible on my system with various media scripts switched off) and at the present time the link is just a list of college items of no relevance to this article. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

For some reason this article was titled in lowercase, so I moved it to capitalised version in accordance with agreed convention. jimfbleak 06:41, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Uploaded picture of pet cockatoo. I think he's going to be glad that he's famous. It would be nice if I could figure out the proper sizing (I still have the original photograph, and it's GNU because I took it myself.) -FB

Upload the full-size picture, FB, and post a link to it here (if you like). I'll resize it and stick it in the taxobox. The present one is just a tad small. Tannin 03:49, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What are the dimensions for the taxobox? My camera takes 1600 x 1200. -FB

Post the full size if you want to & I'll resize. Or else, if you want to re-size and sharpen yourself, the best taxobox pics are about 220 to 230 pixels wide. Within reason, height doesn't matter. Cheers, Tannin 06:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've given you an image thawith a width of 220, the filename is gofcock2.png. Best of luck to you, Mr. Tannin. --FB

Thankyou Frank. I had a crack at it, but I can't winkle much improvement at alll out of it - probably because the bird and the background are so similar in colour, though possibly it has to do with the png format. I think (hope) I could do considerably better with the full-size image, shrinking it when complete. Tannin

Alas, Tannin, the bird is not mine, the camera is on the shoddy side, and most of the house that the bird lives in is the same color as he is. FB

That seems to leave only two choices. (a) Paint the house. (b) Paint the bird. ;) Tannin

Bird size[edit]

"Goffin's Cockatoos are the smallest of all Cacatuidae" ? Surely cockatiels are smaller. Nurg 08:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cockatiels are not in the Cacatuidae group, but rather in the black cockatoo group. Nymphacae or some-such. (It's too early for me to research) FrankB

Removed section[edit]

I have removed the following section since it reads more like a beginner's pet-care guide rather than like a section of an encyclopedia article. Please clean it up and make it encyclopedic before readding any part of it to the article itself. Thanks Tomertalk 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goffin's Cockatoos as pet birds[edit]

Before purchasing any Cockatoo Parrot, ask yourself if you are committed to have a pet that will occassionaly be very loud, messy and require a lot of your one on one attention. If you can answer yes to these questions honestly, a pet Goffins may be the bird for you, and you will have many years of enjoyment!
As pet birds (hand reared birds from hatching) gofffins cockatoos can imitate human speach, but generally they are not good talkers. They are generally quiet, but they can make a loud screeching noise. They can make good pets, as they are friendly and sociable. They enjoy physical contact, especially having their head stroked. They are intelligent and they can be trained and they can learn tricks. They have a lot of energy and they are always exploring seemingly out of curiosity and fun. They are sometimes called little clowns, and can amuse an audiance for hours. They are also known for their roaming and chewing habits.
They tend to learn by watching and copying. Just by opening the cage doors a goffins attention can be drawn to the latches on their cages and they can "set to work" on the door. They seem to learn by trial and error and they will constantly explore the latch with their beak and tongue, if they can reach it. If the latch is of a simple design they can eventually learn how to use the latch and get out of their own cages. They can learn to get in or out of the cage at any time that they wish too, the latch and the door both easly opened in seconds. They can be delightful. However, they can destroy furniture with their beaks, and they tend to demand a lot of attention. They can bite through wires and cause potentially dangerous electrical problems. Even very tame birds can bite humans when irritated or just by being excessively playful. Their droppings are semisolid and can be messy. Many new bird owners are not aware of the time and money a cockatoo demands and some pet birds are often passed from one owner to the next.
Baby Goffin's cockatoos make an endearing repetative howling/screaching noise, when they are hungery.
Occasionally, captive birds of this species (like many cockatoos) develop self-destructive behaviors such as feather plucking, if they do not have an interesting environment. Caged Goffins require a frequent change of toys to play with so they do not become bored. They need time out of their cage for one-on-one social contact of at least one hour daily and also to exercise their wings and fly.
In the UK their sale is controlled as they are classified as a rare species. Each bird must have an official certificate to prove that it was captive bread an not imported.


Goffin picture[edit]

New picture of Goffin (with black back ground) is very good, but it does not appear in significantly greater detail on clicking on it.

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tanimbar Corella[edit]

Ok, the offical name for this species used by BLI, IOC, etc is Tanimbar Corella. Can we follow this and move this species and change the names accordingly? Wwith reference to the old name of course.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw what you did there. Not that I'm particularly bothered now (though I would've pointed it out if I'd noticed your previous post!), it would probably have been a good idea to list this at WP:RM. Renaming articles about birds commonly kept as pets with long-established 'avicultural names' has proven to be mildly controversial in the past. FWIW, if it came to a support/oppose movie situation, I'd generally support keeping an article at whatever name is most commonly used to describe the bird - i.e. the term that the majority of readers would type into the search box when at the Main Page, just for the sake of simplicity. Yeah, I know - aviculturists and ornithologists: oil and water... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grin, I am actually in favour of splitting each and every article with an aviculture section in a latin name and Common name (aviculture) article. But serious, that is not going to happen. There are a bunch of redirects for all commonly used name, and the name is also in the first line, which I think is good so that aviculturists can see what is going on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gawd no...we need to get one of the more aviculture-freindly spp to FA. I did Red-tailed Black Cockatoo a while ago, but Cockatoo is gaining apace...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have difficulty in interpreting "Grin". Please explain what this means. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that this page has recently been moved without a consensus. I have suggested a name change back to its original name through a formal process. The move to Tanibar Cockatoo has not been done appropriately, because, as indicated above this is a controversial move and it should not have been moved without a formal move request. The recent name change has been based on IOC, which is not the standard on the wiki. Commonly used names have been used for bird FAs; there are a few FAs on birds that use a commonly used name rather than formal names in books. Two editors (see above) commented on a recent page move to the current article name, one pointed out this it is likely to be a controversial move, and the other did not directly comment to the page move to "Tanimbar Corella" and mentioned a "more aviculture-friendly spp to FA". See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grin means that I had to laugh. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking down on aviculture? Snowman (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all, and I have bred many parrot and parakeet species myself. However, my long experience (on and off wiki) has taught me that most aviculture parts are generally messy, unsourced, full of How to sections, and based on personal experience. If you would clean those up to standards, generally at least 50% has to be cut out. To solve the problem of generally good general information and crappy aviculture information, I would be in favour of splitting thoise articles. My more practical approach is that I just do not toutch thoise sections and leave it to others. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what does this mean "so that aviculturists can see what is going on." Snowman (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That they can see what goes on in the world of the systematics, taxonomy and phylogenetics. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify good aviculture information when you see it? If you are in favour off splitting the aviculture from bird species pages, you can make a suggestion somewhere, but I guess that you will find that your view is out-on-a-limb. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can. I have no desire to actually propose it, as I know it won't fly. My practical approach is to just leave those sections as they are and not tough them with a 10-foot pole. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions. Snowman (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, if you have such views that "won't fly" regarding aviculture content, then may I suggest that you do not make unilateral page name moves for birds popular in Avicultue. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

Note, this discussion is about the move from Tanimbar Corella to Goffin's Cockatoo, in order to undo a controversial move. Thos back move has been made, a formal proposal to move the page from Goffin's Cockatoo to Tanimbar Corella is made lower at this page. Unsigned edit by user Kim van der Linde at venus 13:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goffin's Cockatoo is the most well used name of this parrot, and I think that this popular name should be used for the name of this cockatoo. I have notified interested people by adding a short notice on the WP Bird talk page. It seems to me that the move to "Tanimbar Corella" was made without a clear consensus. I think it should be changed back to "Goffin's Cockatoo". Snowman (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per my nomination. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing wrong with a parrot being named after a person. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you did worn that is was a controversial move, and I think that the move should not have gone ahead without a formal discussion. Additionally, it seems to me, there was not a consensus for the move. The move seems to have been based on IOC names, which are not used universally on the wiki. I did not see any calculations or further discussion of which term is the most popular for the name of the page, so your opinion in the discussion may have been ignored. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The warning was done after I moved it, which I proposed here and did not receive any comments on in a 6 day period. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not want to waste time on the name of the page, and it seemed to me clear that the discussion did not have any momentum for a page move. It would have been better and you would have waisted less users valuable time, if you had suggested a move in a proper way for a controversial move by starting a page move discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For reference the page move was done by this edit at 02:04, on 29 December 2008. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC). At that time this talk page was like this. It shows that there were no replies to your informal page move suggestion at the time the move was made. Snowman (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was no opposition to the move. And I did not know this would be a controversial move. So, move it back and lets move on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can say that no one had replied to you. I did not realise that until you pointed it out, because the discussion above quickly followed the page move. I will strike through any comments that I made above, when I incorrectly thought that the move was made after some discussion, which happened overnight here in the UK. I see that you have started a discussion on IOC names on the BirdTalk page, but at the present time they are not standard on the wiki. To some extent these topics and page names are already well ploughed fields, and I guess more ploughing will not be expected to make much difference. The trouble is you can not upset a traditional apple cart, with new page names that hardly anyone uses, just because a committee said something, and when other committees and books are saying something else. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, IOC names seem to become the new standard. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But, IOC is not part of the current WP:Bird policy at the present time, and especially IOC was not part of BP:Bird policy when the page move was moved over Christmas unilaterally away from "Goffin's Cockatoo". Snowman (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that is what we want, move back, discuss again and move again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle should be taken into consideration when the voting is counted by the administrator at the end of this discussion. This page should not have been moved to "Tanimbar Corella" as it was fairly obvious that it was a controversial move, and this improper action should not be unduly rewarded. The votes for and against should be considered in reverse and as if the page was being moved to "Tanimbar Corella" from the orignial name of "Goffin's Cockatoo". I think that it would be a good principal that an improper un-discussed page move should not be rewarded, by having to defend the reverse move after an improperly performed move. I am sure this is the fair way of considering this page discussion, and it is the wish of three out of four people who have taken part in this discussion. The fourth has not expressed an opinion. Either way making a controversial move unilaterally should not be rewarded by having others defend by others having to defend by making a proper move request. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, this original page name could be resorted now prior to its un-discussed move, this discussion ended and then see if anyone wants to move it to Tanimbar Cockatoo with a proper move request. Either way making a controversial move unilaterally should not be rewarded, by having others defend by making the reverse move by a formal move process. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had NO idea that this page move would turn out controversial. But I will go ahead and undo my own move so that rules can be followed to the letter and the wikilaywering can stop. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeNeutralSupport. The name Goffin's cockatoo is linked to the scientific name Cacatua goffini, which has been synonymized with Cacatua ducorpsii.(http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/43942) This has been followed by the IOC, and is the standard in most recent publications. Instead of pandering to ignorance, an encyclopedia has to be accurate and up to date. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to Neutral. This discussion should not be made here, but at the WikiProject Birds talk page as this is dealing with a much more general issue, namely what standards should be used for naming Bird species. Using an 11-year old book, an up to date world list which is generally followed, or what is most commonly used in aviculture is not something that should be decided here. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC) to add I have no interest in this kind of discussions. I am here to make an encyclopedia, not to fight about whether a name preferred by aviculturists or ornithologists shoule be used, or whether an 11 year old and progressively more outdated book or a up-to-date list should be used. If it is not obvous that you use a carefull compilled up-to-date list, I rather spend my time elsewhere and avoid this kind of discussions. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paper that you quoted indicates that the "Tanimbar Corella" has had a confusing history. From the introduction: "The history and taxonomic status of the species-group names Lophochroa goffini Finsch, 1863, and Cacatua tanimberensis Roselaar & Prins, 2000, both used to name the Tanimbar Corella." I think, that you should not have made a controversial move in the way that you did. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cacatua tanimberensis has hardly been used, and is generally not more than a taxonomic artefact, and has never caused any confusion for the public at large. But I get it, move the page back and I move on with something else. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, it is important enough to be in the introduction of the paper that you choose and quoted to support a counter opinion. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a hardcore taxonomic paper, and those mention everything related to the subject. But mainly, they cleaned up a mess they in part created themselves. This is one of those papers in taxonomy that are needed and generally forgotten as soon as it is adopted by the community at large. Do a search on Cacatua tanimberensis, you find 6 hits in google, two related to the two papers and a one with the autor. It is a footnote to history. Nothing more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have changed you opinion from oppose, to neutral, and then to support. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I indicated, I have no desire for prolonged discussions about which name to use. If we have to use a 11-year old book as the de facto standard, ignoring all recent developments which are nicely summed at the IOC, so be it. Move the page back, undo all my changes and move on. Really, if we cannot be up-to-date or have to pander to google counts, I have no desire to deal with it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no advantages in using a page name other than the well established name Goffin's Cockatoo here, and there will be no confusion of what a Goffin's Cockatoo is or what the page is about. Tanimbar Corella is a name that has just popped up, and could be an example of WP:Recentism or a passing fad. The name Goffin's Cockatoo has been widely used for many years (including by authoritative books) and has stood the test of time. Snowman (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name of the page is discussed here, and not at a distance to the page. This discussion on the proposed move will be preserved here on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the rules at the wikiproject birds can be ignored as what counts is the arguments at this page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, the name of this page is discussed here, and it is discussed in the context of common sense, BirdTalk naming conventions, and Wikipedia naming conventions. Other issues regarding general names are discussed on the BirdTalk page, and any "resolutions" on the BirdTalk page may affect individual article names. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started a list of publications lower at this page that use either name, in which I listed recent publication using Tanimbar Corella. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that your opinion has changed from oppose, to neutral, to support, and now to oppose. I have not seen anyone change their mind so many times in one of these discussion before. I presume these are genuine, and that you are not doing this to waste other users valuable time. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 'Tanimbar Corella' is much more descriptive; it tells you where the bird is from and that it is a corella. Maias (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Tanimbar Corella" is a misleading name, because they are also native from the Babar Islands, and they have been introduced elsewhere too. They are also cockatoos, which is a word that is more widely understood than corella. I think "Goffin's Cockatoo" is a much better name that is not misleading, and it is in wide use. Snowman (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most species of the Licmetis subgenus are called Corellas already. Juniper and Parr ( Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World) give as range: Endemic to Tanimbar Island and associated island (Yamdena, Larat, Selaru), Malaku province, Indonesia. Babar island is new to me, do you have a reference? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction say Banda Sea islands. See here for Banda Sea islands. This zone seems to include other island groups as well as the Tanimbar islands. After quickly looking at the webpage, I have found that this zone includes the Banda group of islands, the Kai islands, the Tanimbar islands, and there might be more and some not being included on the website. However, I will be grateful for further information on geography and the native range of this parrot. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the suggestion that "Tanimbar Corella" is much more descriptive does not stand up to an quick examination of its native range, which includes at least two other island groups with different names. Snowman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide ref's for islands that are not part of the Tanimbar Islands. Juniper's parrots guide, Forshaws monumental book (Tanimbar islands), BLI (Cacatua goffiniana is restricted to the Banda Sea Islands of Yamdena and Larat (Tanimbar) with an introduced population on Kai, Indonesia.) and IUCN (Cacatua goffiniana is restricted to the Banda Sea Islands of Yamdena and Larat (Tanimbar) with an introduced population on Kai, Indonesia) all indicate Tanimbar islands. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am having to look up the geography of the zone. Looking at wiki pages first of all: The introduction to Tanimbar Islands says "The Aru Islands and Kai Islands lie to the northeast, and Babar Island and Timor lie to the west", and it does not say that they are part of the Tanimbar Island group. Babar Islands wikipage does not mention "Tanimbar". The introduction to Kai Islands says "Kai Islands (also Kei Islands) of Indonesia are in the south-eastern part of the Maluku Islands" and "northeast of the Tanimbar Islands". Snowman (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can short cut this discussion by by first showing a reference that actually claims that the Tanimbar Crorella is found on any of these island as its native range as we have four island until now: Tanimbar Island, Yamdena, Larat, Selaru. And here is a list of Islands of Indonesia, with the following island part of the Tanimbar range: Fordata,Larat, Maru, Molu, Nuswotar, Selaru, Selu, Seira, Wotap, Wuliaru, Yamdena, while Babar Island is a seperate island group.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For its native range I may have misinterpreted the article which says Banda Sea Islands, and on BirdLife. I thought it meant a lot of islands and not just a few. It will be worth adding something to the article on that in more detail. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Banda Sea Islands is the Endemic Bird Area Distribution the Tanimbar Correla belongs to, which is bigger than the distribution area of the Corella. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to change a species name when it has a well known name. A lot of birds are named after people and there is nothing wrong with that. There is "Rüppell's Vulture", and this is not called the "Brown African Vulture", because it is more descriptive, and Rüppell is not even an English name and contains non-English characters that are not on an English typewrite. Several other birds and animals named after Rüppell too, Rüppell's Warbler, Rüppell's Parrot, Rüppell's Bustard, Rüppell's Broad-nosed Bat, Rueppell's Chat, Rueppell's Glossy-starling, and more, and there is "Kuhl's Lorikeet", "Stephen's Lorikeet", and so on. The issue of where birds come from is often confused by feral parrots living elsewere. I just read on a website that Goffin's Cockatoos are living in Australia. There is nothing wrong with the name "Goffin's Cocktoo" that is so bad that it needs to be changed. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goffin's Cockatoo in aviculture[edit]

This bird is one of the most popular Cockatoo's in aviculture, and yet an aviculture section has not been permitted to develop on the page. Several editors over a number of years have made some bold starts on an aviculture section, and I think some reasonable content was achieved. Then came other editors who repeatedly deleted all the aviculture or most of the aviculture content, and may have discouraged new editors from adding aviculture to this page, or anything else to the wiki. I think that "do not bite newcomers" should have been considered more; however, I do not think any specific wiki guidelines were broken as there are wiki standards to maintain. It is a wiki guideline to provide sources for information added and not to add "to do" content. Sometimes, unreferenced information can be kept if it is "common knowledge". It seems to me that the overall result is a poor article on this parrot. I think that this page is best served by Goffin's Cockatoo, which is the name most widely used. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what do you think? Have a trawl through the history to see if there's anything that can be resurrected and suitably referenced? In my experience, it's quite tricky to find *good* sources for avicultural facts - too many personal website opinion pieces and commercial sites promoting their own interests at the expense of factual accuracy. A lot (most, perhaps) of the birdkeeping books I've read over the years haven't been much better, TBH. Take the oft-mentioned (yet rarely referenced) descriptions of a species' personality and demeanour, for example - way too many people extrapolating the behaviour of entire species from the behaviour of one pet bird. I know from my own experience with budgerigars that some can be sweet, gentle little things, whilst others raised in the same environment can grow up to be right spiteful, vicious little f*ckers (in the fondest possible sense!) - but I digress. So yeah, it's probably worth a try... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above in the ==Removed Section== which was removed on 12 January 2006. On this page the aviculture section in not in the article, but it has been on the talk page for years. I am not saying it is good, but there is stuff above that has been rescued from the article and put on the talk page, and there is stuff there you would only know if you kept one yourself. For example the endearing howling of baby Goffin's Cockatoos (there producer sounds) which is absolutely true. I have got a number of aviculture books and they are generally not very good, but I have used the better ones as references from time to time, after I have double checked the content. I think that there is enough reasonable sources to add content. Some ornithology facts are added as common knowledge, but does this hold for aviculture content? I have found it difficult too using linked webpages for aviculture, because of the associated advertising. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that things like the noise, feather-plucking, the need for attention, chewing, biting and the ability to open their own cages could be considered common knowledge for most parrot species. "Cockatoos can be very loud.[citation needed]" is a bit like a case of "The sky is blue.[citation needed]" --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that generally. The adults can make a loud squawk, but the chicks make a soft howling sound. Adult Goffin's are quieter than some cockatoos. The complete unilateral removal of all aviculture content has been used on this page, with out going through the stage of adding {{cn}} tags. It would be good to see cn tags rather than unilateral non-discussed deletions. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've decided to be bold and stick the majority of that passage back in, with some preliminary modifications and a couple of {{fact}} tags. Feel free to improve and expand based on your books and common knowledge... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name use popularity contest[edit]

Goffin's Cockatoo[edit]

Tanimbar Corella[edit]

Webpages[edit]

  1. International Ornithological Congress (IOC) http://www.worldbirdnames.org/index.html
  2. Oriental Bird Club http://orientalbirdimages.org/birdimages.php?action=birdspecies&Bird_ID=497&Bird_Image_ID=2314&Bird_Family_ID=81
  3. IUCN Redlist: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/full/142443/0
  4. Birdlife international http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=1404&m=0

Books[edit]

  1. Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World‎ (1998) Page 284 http://books.google.com/books?id=Ck9KRmh-IyoC&pg=PA284
  2. Parrots: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan 2000-2004‎ (2000) Page 60 http://books.google.com/books?id=YBWYK1BDCo0C&pg=PA60
  3. Endangered Wildlife and Plants of the World‎ (2001) Page 299 http://books.google.com/books?id=fSPYDR_nqXIC&pg=PA299
  4. Cockatoos‎ (2008) Page 32 http://books.google.com/books?id=u9qSHzxWdy0C&pg=PA3
  5. A Photographic Guide to the Birds of Indonesia‎ (2003) Page 148 http://books.google.com/books?id=S45LAyKrsAAC&pg=PA148
  6. New Holland Field Guide to the Birds of South-East Asia‎ (2005) Page 27 http://books.google.com/books?id=MZh_isKvAQ8C&pg=RA1-PA27
  7. A checklist of the world's bird species (2006) page 15 http://books.google.com/books?id=L5rnNQ0aioEC&pg=PT15
  8. Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds (2008) page 152 http://books.google.com/books?id=SFP9P1i-PoEC&pg=PA152

Requested move 2[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move this page from Goffin's Cockatoo to Tanimbar Corella as this is the proper name (see list of websites and books above), used more and more in all literature. The section above provides a list of webpages and books using the new name. The old name is linked to the Latin name Cacatua goffini, which has been shown to be synonymous with Cacatua ducorpsii, the Broad-crested Corella. To limit confusion, be in line with current increasing usage. Goffin's cockatoo gives ~570 unique hits at google [1] and Goffin's Corella ~13 [2] versus Tanimbar Cockatoo ~300 [3] and Tanimbar Cockatoo ~220 [4], which gives the old name a slight advantage. However, when considering that the Tanimbar Corella is a recent name while Goffin's Cockatoo is the long used old name, the new name has made serious inroad, as reflected in many publications, including books relevant for aviculture. Tanimbar Corella is better because it linkes this endemic species to its distribution range, and Corella is better as it is a member of the subgenus Licmetis, generally called Corellas. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 22:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the Broad-crested Corella is also known as the Ducorps' Cockatoo-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To add, HBW list online at the website of the publisher uses Tanimbar Corella now also. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I note that text in the nomination has changed after there had been replies to it. This can make some of the replies look odd. It is not appropriate to change text after there has been replies. I understand that the correct options could be to strike through what was wrong and/or to add text lower down the page and say what your re-think is. I trust that the amendment will be reverted and an addendum added later down the page. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there has been an agreement on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#IOC names at FA/GA articles to start IOC renames in a particular sequence. The agreement is to start with FAs and GAs and to change the name of this article being a Start class is outside of the current agreement. I would ask anyone who have voted here to keep to the agreement, if they are a WP Bird member and especially if they helped to decide on the sequence of name changes. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did agree to focuss on the GA/FA articles to see how it goes, but I did NOT agree to not do anything else. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using a google search for pages that contained "Cacatua goffini" and "Broad-crested Corella" brought two hits and neither of these confused the two cockatoo species you mentioned. Can you provide a piece of work that itself confuses the two species that you claim has happened? Any work within the last 80 years would be preferable to a very early report from when science of species was beginning. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As said above, 'Tanimbar Corella' is a far better descriptor of what the bird is. Moreover, when I searched for recent usage of the various terms, it seems to be the name used increasingly and preferentially by the ornithologists and conservation management people, whereas 'Goffin's Cockatoo' is much more used by pet owners with cutesy personal websites. Yes, I am probably predjudiced in favour of the article focussing on the biology and conservation needs of the bird in the wild, but would support a good encyclopedic avicultural section as well. Maias (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see why ornithologists have gone off on a tangent by starting using a new name. Many birds are named after a person, and there is nothing wrong with using the name "Goffin" in the name of this parrot. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there is nothing wrong with naming birds after a person. However, and unfortunately, Goffin is not a good example of such. As far as I can ascertain, he was a Dutch naval lieutenant who died at the age of 27 and who was a friend of ornithologist Otto Finsch. It was Finsch who gave the specific epithet goffini, apparently just for friendship's sake, to what was considered for a long time the type of corella found in the Tanimbar Islands. Unfortunately Finsch got it wrong, the taxon he described being the corella found in the Solomon Islands (Ducorps' Cockatoo). So Goffin has virtually no connection with the cockatoo in question. If I am wrong and there is more to Goffin and the corella than I have been able to find out, I would love to know. I would be happy to do a short article on Goffin for Wikipedia if only I could find out anything notable - ornithological or otherwise - about him. Maias (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why is the scientific name "Cacatua goffiniana"? You make it sound as if it was wrong to name a parrot after a friend. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific specific epithet goffiana was given because Roselaar & Michels (2004) decided to allude to, or acknowledge, Finsch's original scientific name for essentially sentimental reasons. See their paper [5] for their reasoning, in which their recommendation for the common name of the taxon is (surprise!) 'Tanimbar Corella'. goffiana is a new scientific name (vintage 2004) and has nothing to do with any common name that may be ascribed to ther taxon. There is no reason why a common name should reflect a scientific name; some do but many do not. Oh, and somewhat tangential to this taxon, but relevant to the broader discussion, does anyone have biographical information relating to the 'Ducorps' of Ducorps' Cockatoo, and what relevance she or he has to the bird? Maias (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - I strongly favour the use of distinctive epithets such as Corella for Cockies of the subgenus Licmetis, however, I do know it as Goffin's Cockatoo. (now if we can only fix the Conures...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Maias's explanation. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanimbar Corella → Goffin's Corella — The species has a very popular name of "Goffin's Cockatoo", which has been the stable name of this article for much of its course since it was started in 2003. It was changed to its current name in January 2009, after much discussion; however consensus can change; see WP:CCC. Cockatoos of the genus are known as Corellas, so I suggest the new name of this page is "Goffin's Corrella", which is the name Joseph Forshaw uses. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: After a long discussion at Wikiproject birds a motion was passed 10 to 2 that the IOC name "should be the default position, and that in the cases of no consensus, the name should be at IOC name (that is, for a species to remain at a non-IOC name, there has to be a clear consensus)". This is in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Article title that "If the article is about an animal belonging to a group where Wikipedia editors have agreed on a standard for choosing among two or more common names, follow that standard". -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2. A identical proposal has been discussed recently at WP:BIRD, with clear opposition to move. Voting duplicated here for reference
  • Forshaw 2006 uses Goffin's Corella, so I think that this is used in aviculture and in large books. Goffin's Cockatoo is probably more widely used in the UK. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. As I did at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Parrot_move_suggestions_from_IOC_name_to_non-IOC_name. Consider this as a reiteration of my !vote there, if required. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. IOC-name. Species was moved after an extensive discussion, see header above, in Jan 2009. Scientific name associated with Goffin's Corella has been identified to be a junior subjective synonym for the Solomons Cockatoo, and the old common name introduces a load of confusion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This move specifically requests the name Goffin's Corella, which the suggestion on WP Birds did not do. See WP:CCC. Snowman (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    generally, requesting the same thing within a 2 week period at two different places is considered forum shopping. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This move specifically requests the name Goffin's Corella unlike previous page move discussions. Snowman (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you are technically right. However, the general idea is the same, it has to move. If someone would opposed one of the two earlier suggestions, they would have voted accordingly, but they did not, and most oppose comments had a general tone of not moving away from the IOC name. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is specific request to change the name to Goffin's Corella and is less confusing. One of the voters on the WP Bird talk pagee said that he usually would vote for a more specific name, so he may have voted against then because of the possibility of changing to Goffin's Cockatoo. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This page was changed to the IOC WBL (initially controversially without any discussion at all) in an earlier phase of name changes, but a later proposal said that any page moves to IOC WBL names may be challenged after the page move to the IOC WBL name. So it is entirely consistent that the name is more formally discussed here at this time. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This page was moved after this discussion by User:Parsecboy [6] after the page was moved after an earlier, announced and uncontested move proposal that was contested after the move, which resulted in the page being moved back and an official request. That is was not discussed had nothing to do with that it was not announced. And yes, you can discuss it again, after you first objected to the name change here at this page (Outcome: Tanimbar Corella), then at WP:BIRD (Outcome: Tanimbar Corella) and now here again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. oppose again. For all the reasons I have given before again and again. You gonna keep this up till you get the result you want? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. oppose. Maias (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. oppose. Patronymic bird names are increasingly considered outdated (Victorian). The practice seems to be increasingly in favour of toponyms especially in the case of insular endemics. It also makes good conservation sense. Shyamal (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lifespan in captivity[edit]

{{I have two wild caught Goffins from Taminbar. I always understood that their life expectancy was 50-70 years. I have had both more than 20 years now and they were adults when adopted by me. In short, the idea that their lifespan in captivity is so short makes little sense.}}

Comment above moved here from the article page. Maias (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it is actually noted in the AnAge entry for the Tanimbar Corella (and mentioned in the article) that the max. longevity figure found in the literature may be rather low, considering. Basically, the 18.3years statistic refers to the oldest TC/Goffin *documented by science* - not necessarily (and almost certainly not) the oldest member this species ever. Hmmmm. Supposing that one of these owners of older birds can provide documentary proof of their bird's age (hatching certificate? breed registry certificate, if such a thing exists for this species?) - would that be permitted under WP:PRIMARY? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am new here and am not sure if this is the right forum to comment. I just wanted to let the page creators know that while I cannot definitively prove his age, I have a Goffin's cockatoo who is 27 -- older than the oldest documented captive bird noted in the article from a 2008 source. My bird's former owner informed me that my guy was hatched on June 16, 1986 making him a whopping 27 in 2013. Perhaps you can add something like.... A captive Tanibar Corella (Goffin's) hatched in June 1986 still lives with his human companion. Thanks, L. Roter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.66.156.144 (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note the longevity of Goffin's cockatoos. Our rescue fostered one that was 35 years old last year. Her adopter says that she is still going strong at 36. I have no idea how to edit wiki or what information I am supposed to leave here so... username: Starpunk Date of comment 5-30-2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.211.188 (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tanimbar_corella&oldid=1213983081"