Talk:Dodo

Dodo multiple award winning short story, addition reverted

Under ‎Cultural significance I added the below about a multiple award winning short story about the dodo. But it was reverted as "This is not a notable appearance."

Opinions, please? Worthy? Should I have added "In Popular Culture", and add it there?

I understand Howard Waldrop may not be in the same league as with Hilaire Belloc and Lewis Carroll, but their works are mentioned under Cultural significance.

"The Ugly Chickens" by Howard Waldrop starts with a casual conversation. A woman comments upon seeing a picture of a dodo how a neighbor kept this bird on his Mississippi farm when she was a little girl in the late 1920s. "The Ugly Chickens" won the Nebula Award for best novelette in 1980, and the World Fantasy Award for Short Fiction in 1981, and was printed in the annual years best of for both awards.

What does this tell about the cultural significance of the dodo which isn't already stated? See WP:Trivia. It is just one of hundreds of references to dodo in world literature, nothing particularly significant about it. If we wanted to mention every single cultural appearance of a dodo, it would easily fill up an entire article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

How has "The Ugly Chickens" affect the public's perception of the dodo? Has it had a long-lasting affect?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Truth, it's only a short story about what did become of the dodo in America. There are many references, but how many short stories solely about the dodo? And I admit, no long lasting effect. Actually I went to to wiki to look for the author. And at the end of the fascinating entry, not finding the author (Howard Waldrop who has his own wiki) I thought to add for anyone curious. I thank you both for commenting, and has knowing about this award winning short story made either of your curious to read it? ~~KenJacowitz (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, nothing wrong with the story, but when you have an example of a literary appearance like Alice in Wonderland, any other addition pales in comparison. That book has helped shape the public perception of the dodo. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

"The Ugly Chicken" is an EXTREMELY FAMOUS story, having won the Nebula and World Fantasy Awards, and been included in the annual Year's Best as previously stated. People who read and love SF and fantasy (which includes Alice-lovers!) are well-acquainted with it. To say that it's "not a notable appearance" is false. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:59B8:559:F394:6F8B (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

What has it meant for the image of the dodo itself? That is what we should be concerned with. FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Citation style consistency

I have asked Jonesey95 (see talk page discussion for details[1]) to change the citation style back to what I used originally when writing this, since it is now a hodgepodge of two styles. The problem is that the style had been changed by another editor (who did not write text or ask about changing the style first) by the time the article passed FAC, so it would be best to gain a consensus first before changing it back. The style I propose is that used in Broad-billed parrot and most of the other articles I've nominated for FAC, which is now used for the citations under "Footnotes" in the dodo article. Pinging the original FAC commentators, if they are still here: Lucky102, Kingroyos, Crisco 1492, Nikkimaria, Amandajm, Jimfbleak, Casliber, Stfg, GrahamColm. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Hi User-duck, you may want to look at the above. The plan has been for a while to get this changed back to "regular" citation style. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

More info wanted

1. the Portuguese referred to them as "fotilicaios" at the time. Is “them” penguins or dodos?

Penguins (the point is that the name could not refer to penguins if the Portuguese didn't even use that word for penguins). FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

2. The article says (implies) no ships from 1513 to 1598. Why not? The writer in 1634 claimed a Portuguese name from 1507; that’s a big gap til the (first) reference in 1598.

I guess the islands had little interest for people at the time, but the sources don't go into this (that is more about the history of Mauritius itself than the bird). FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

3. The article doesn’t pin down the evolution; are there ancestor fossils (earlier species) on Mauritius? Diverged from the pigeon c1 million years ago? Became flightless… when?

None of this is known. But as the article states, Mascarene birds might have evolved elsewhere before reaching the islands. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

4. Diet. Any worms? What did that beak evolve for?

Theories about the diet and function of the beak are discussed in the behaviour and diet sections. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

MBG02 (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

• I missed this section, MBG02, left some answers above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Nifty. Thanks. My theory on no.2 is records were lost in Portugal in 1755 earthquake. And sailors probably didn’t write much then. Or maybe Portuguese (and Dutch) mostly stuck to the coast for the first 100 years. (Theories, plural). MBG02 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

History of Mauritius gives an outline of the early history, and explains why the islands were ignored (there were better ways to get to India, which was their main reason to be in the area). FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Dodo Re-Discovered??

Should I point out that there has been recent sighting of the so called 'extinct' Dodo bird? I remember watching a video of a baby Dodo bird in 2017 or 2016. Does anyone else think the Dodo is NOT extinct??? A lot of animals were thought extinct, but were not. FlatEarth7 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you still have the video link? And if possible, provide more evidence of this than a YouTube video. I'm pretty skeptical about this though especially considering this is by someone named FlatEarth7. dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 23:05, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

No, I do not have the link. I will look for evidence though. FlatEarth7 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have evidence for a flat earth too? FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Dodo Bird

The first mention of Dodo was not by Dutch sailors, but in fact by Portuguese sailors. The first vessel found land after weeks lost at sea without food and fresh water. They send the crew to find provisions, and what they found was a big bird that unlike any other, wasn't afraid of humans. The Portuguese sailors were so amazed by the behaviour of the animal that started to call them, Doidos. Crazy birds. They weren't afraid of humans, and so they kill some of them to take aboard, but the taste of the meat was so terrible that no one could eat them, so they had to find another food source. After that first encounter the boat returned to Portugal, and soon other expedition was sent to the new found land, to explore and report back. In that time the Dutch, didn't set sail to discover new territories, They just follow the vessels, either Portuguese, Spanish or English, to steal the route and take what ever they could find. And thats how the Dutch found the island and killed every Doido. They couldn't pronounce the name correctly in Portuguese so they called it dodo. You have to imagine, that in that time, an island in the middle of nothing, was like an outpost. A source of food, fresh water and maintenance before continuing the journey searching for new worlds. Unfortunately but true, some countries, like the Netherlands, stoled every chart, every route to a new land. They always sail behind other vessels, to take advantage of other countries discovery. If someone wants to give credit to the Netherlands for being the first to discover Doidos Bird, at least tell the story right. They stole the coordinates, went to the island and kill every Doido. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.215.59 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2020 - Typo Fix

"manoeuvrable" appears to be misspelled. Suggested correction: "maneuverable" 47.215.136.209 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per notice at the top of this talk page the article is in British English, where "manoeuvrable" is the proper spelling. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 notes

CiteRef errors (you can install this script to detect them):

• Hakluyt, Richard (2004). The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of The English Nation, Volume 10, Asia Part III. The Project Gutenberg EBook. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHakluyt2004.
• Mauritius-Holidays-Discovery.Com. "Mauritius Natural History Museum, Port Louis". Retrieved 8 November 2014. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMauritius-Holidays-Discovery.Com.
• Mourer-Chauviré, C. C.; Bour, R.; Ribes, S. (February 1995). "Was the solitaire of Réunion an ibis?". Nature. 373 (6515): 568. Bibcode:1995Natur.373..568M. doi:10.1038/373568a0. S2CID 4304082. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMourer-ChauviréBourRibes1995.
• Owen, R. (January 1867). "On the Osteology of the Dodo (Didus ineptus, Linn.)". The Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. 6 (2): 49–85. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1867.tb00571.x. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFOwen1867.

You can install this script to keep endashes in order.

What a fine labor of love! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually wanted to convert the citation style back to the original one I used (as discussed here[2]), but I don't know how to do it in an easy way... And it seems many of the citations may have been messed up when others have thought they were improving them... FunkMonk (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

DrKay is the citation guru and he is always willing to help ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I'll send him a note one of these days... FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I figured out from what I found and fixed at Woolly mammoth that the issue here is that these sources are no longer used in the article, so moving them here to talk:

• Hakluyt, Richard (2004). The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques, and Discoveries of The English Nation, Volume 10, Asia Part III. The Project Gutenberg EBook.
• Mauritius-Holidays-Discovery.Com. "Mauritius Natural History Museum, Port Louis". Retrieved 8 November 2014.
• Mourer-Chauviré, C. C.; Bour, R.; Ribes, S. (February 1995). "Was the solitaire of Réunion an ibis?". Nature. 373 (6515): 568. Bibcode:1995Natur.373..568M. doi:10.1038/373568a0. S2CID 4304082.
• Owen, R. (January 1867). "On the Osteology of the Dodo (Didus ineptus, Linn.)". The Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. 6 (2): 49–85. doi:10.1111/j.1096-3642.1867.tb00571.x.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see if I can put them back... FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I hate that harv ref business, but am slowly learning. Unwatch now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, which is also why I want this changed back to the style I regularly use... That was also done[3] to Rodrigues solitaire a while back (after it was changed without bringing it up on the talk page first). FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Pop Culture

I'm new to this. For a pop culture part: The Dodo has made quite an appearance on the internet, often being made fun of for its odd appearance. Many movies and video games such as Ark: Survival Evolved(2015) have featured Dodo birds, promoting the symbol in pop culture. 216.21.162.16 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, we shouldn't just list every pop culture appearance or reference to dodos, but cover those that have had wide cultural significance. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021 - Link Fix

The illustration which is credited to "Walter Paget", the Australian politician, should be credited to "Walter Paget (illustrator)". 67.231.66.125 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)