Talk:Great blue heron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I have a Blue Heron eating my fish out of a water garden and would like info on getting rid of it. Any ideas would be appreciated..--24.31.245.135 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)mike

It will go when it's eaten all the fish. jimfbleak 14:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cover the area with a net. Electrode 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This worked with geese at a place where my Mom worked. Maybe it'll help with your heron. They went out and bought a bunch of pink plastic flamingos. Every day someone moved the falmingos around so they wern't always in the same place. Whenever anyone saw a goose approaching, they would run out, grab a flamingo, and chase it away waving the flamingo around and shouting. Keep in mind; birds are not stupid, but they are easily startled... you have to keep moving the flamingos and when they get brave you have to give them a reason to be scared. ONUnicorn 16:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Taxobox image

Low quality image: bad lighting, unfocused, low resolution.

I think I have to agree with Susanlesch on this one. The image Googie man posted is a stunning photo, and if it was nominated for Quality Image status on Commons, I'd support it. The problem (as I see it) is that the taxobox image doesn't need to be the best photo available of a particular species - what it really needs is to show the major distinguishing characteristics of the animal, including the animal's profile. Even though it's clearly not as sharp, well-focused, or as large (in terms of pixels) as Googie man's photo, I think the original better displays the Great Blue Heron's distinctive side profile, stance, posture, and markings. Those features are especially critical when we're talking about bird articles, because most casual readers who look them up are trying to identify a particular bird they saw in their yard, or at the lake yesterday, or whatever. Googie man's photo should definitely be in the gallery, but I don't think it's the best available for the taxobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 'Card (talk • contribs) 23:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why must we pick one and only one image? There's room for two. Cburnett (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh. That's a big-ass taxobox. 'Card (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Cburnett (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Just a non-expert here. I looked at all of the photos here in the gallery, and in Wikimedia commons, and in the Creative Commons images at Flickr (they had more than 700 tagged). A few are nice. Most are oh-I-saw-a-heron. So I guess the ultimate encyclopedic free image has yet to be taken. In the meantime I like the complete view even though it is not so clear as some. One image at Flickr is to my untrained eyes the outstandingly best combination of profile and clarity, but is it the right bird for this article? These two looked pretty nice too (1, 2) -Susanlesch (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ones on Flickr that you linked to are great photos (especially that first one) but they're either clearly copyrighted at worst, or at best the copyright status is unclear. 'Card (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)\

• You are right, shoot. One sold to a charity. Here are two in case they help. Image:Heron-Everglades-20070401.jpg and Image:Great Blue Heron-Alberta-20070430.jpg. Both say they are acceptable Creative Commons licenses, at least in these low resolution copies. But the first one might be half flamingo. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• P.S. Gee whiz this is awfully critical commentary to single out one photo at right (an unsigned caption). I can actually see the bird there and see no reason to single it out worst photo example. But nice of this user to clean up the gallery. -Susanlesch (talk) 03:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Image for diet section

The FP image is a very sharp and a very high quality image. I supported it, when it was nominated, yet IMO because it shows an immature bird and because a fish is seen good only at the highest resolution it hardly adds a value to the diet section of the article. It is probably not a good place to discuss it, but IMO in general FP status of the image not necessarily makes it the best image for an article. That's why I added a low quality image , which IMO suits the article much better than FP image does. If the image I added is removed again I will not add it any more. I realize that the image I added made layout of the article look worse.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Mbz1, it's a wonderful photo. And useful in multiple articles like maybe carnivore or others as well as this one, where it surely belongs. Thanks very much. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your support,Susanlesch. Your support is very important to me because the image of the heron with the snake was removed from the article as a low quality and excessive image. I'm very glad that you believe the image adds the value to the article and may stay. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many images

As a long-time photo contributor to Wikimedia Commons, I'm really pleased to see so many people recently contributing bird photos with non-restrictive licenses to that project. I also understand that when you've got a good shot of a particular species, you really want to see that photo utilized on the Wikipedia article for that species. Good wildlife shots are hard to get, so when you've gotten a good one you're proud of it, and when you're proud of it you want people to see it - nothing wrong with that. It's exactly that type of motivation that often inspires people to start contributing to this sort of project. The problem comes about when so many people are wanting their images included that the photos begin to take over the article, and I think that's the point we've reached now with this one. Try looking at the article on a monitor set to 1024x768 (which is still the most common screen resolution worldwide) and you'll see what I mean. Either there are too many images, or they're too big, or (in my opinion) both. I'm going to suggest that we think about moving some (most) of them to a photo gallery, or remove them entirely and let people find them through the Commons category link - but I wanted to start a discussion about it here before I start making changes because I know it's going to ruffle some people's feathers. (so to speak) - 'Card (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree and encourage all to upload to Commons where their photos can be viewed via the Commons icon in the lower right of the article and will be available to all projects. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There WAS a gallery of images but Cacophony deleted it as a minor edit (an abuse of the minor flag, IMNSHO). I put it back and flushed all images into gallery. They can then be hand-picked and put in the article where they are appropriate and demonstrate something specific. Cburnett (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

How many oz. can a great blue heron eat per day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.83.68 (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Blue heron in farm field

I have had the pleasure of watching 2-3 Heron living in the field around my home. There is only one small creek in the area. They seems to stay in this grassy area near a dried creek instead of the flowing one. We are about 8 miles east of Lake Erie, as a crow flies. But, this family seems to enjoy being in the farm fields. What could they be living off of? Is this normal for them?

Although they are mainly seen at the water's edge, both Blue and Grey Herons will feed on anything they can catch, and will stand in fields as you observed. Often they appear to be just resting, but depending on the wetness they mauy find frogs, voles or other rodents, or large insects. jimfbleak 06:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Around here I have seen Great egrets and cattle egrets eating lizards, but that probably doesn't apply where you live. snakes and toads are always a possibility. Michael1115 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Great White Heron redirect

Great White Heron currently redirects here; but the name was clearly long used in British English for Ardea alba (Egretta alba), as a search for the term on Google Books can show. I don't have any English book later than B. Bruun, The Hamlyn Guide to the Birds of Britain and Europe (1970) where the name is still used for Egretta alba, so I don't know if modern terminology has changed (I see that the RSPB calls it Great Egret). But in any case, a disambiguation page would surely be better than a redirect, if I'm not misunderstanding anything. Any objections? N p holmes (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Colony abandonment

It says in this article that herons abandon a colony when a predator kills an adult or baby bird in the area. At a rookery near me I have seen many examples of predation by eagles and hawks, with multiple examples every year, but the herons have never shown any indication of abandoning the site. Maybe the article should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.221.219 (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

Regarding a different, but related topic, it seems to me that the gallery contains too many pictures. While I know that many editors like to display their pictures on the article page, the Commons gallery is better for that purpose and allows the selection in the article to be more illustrative of the article content. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree; the gallery is far too large and needs some paring down. I think a few specific shots would do nicely; a closeup of the head, a view from the back, a view of the bird catching or eating a fish or other food, a view of the bird in flight, and picture of a juvenile are the main ones. There definitely doesn't need to be 5 or 6 versions of almost identical shots. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image

Image by Mike Baird

Former taxobox image

Current taxobox image

I noticed that the Taxobox image was changed 5 days ago from the picture at top left, of a heron viewed from behind, to the image at bottom left, a closeup of the bird's head. I'm not sure if the current image (brown and missing the black plumeage at the back of the head) is a juvenile or a female or what, but I'm not certain it makes a very good "This Is What A Great Blue Heron Looks Like" image.

I've been uploading some photos by Flickr user Mike Baird to the Commons today, and I think the image at right would be a better photo to illustrate what the bird looks like; it shows the profile of the bird and its beautiful blue plumeage (though unfortunately the legs are submerged). I've close-cropped and flipped it to look better in the taxobox, if it does get used. I won't put it in the article myself, though, as I know very little about the Great Blue Heron; frequent contributors to this article will likely be able to make a better decision, so I'll leave it up to them. Cheers! -- Editor at Large • talk 03:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree suggested image is better as a lead pic, especially as the head shot image is not fully documented. It's a good image, but better elsewhere in article or at Commons. I don't mind doing the deed, but it may be a bit premature at present, and I'll be on holiday very shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion of File:Ardea herodias, Coleman Beach - by Mike Baird (cropped).jpg. It is a good picture both technically and in composition. Many TOL editors think that the taxobox image should show most of the organism unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. I don't think that is the case here, especially since one of the distinguishing features, the black plumes running from just above the eye to the back of the head, is shown well in the suggested image and is not shown well in the closeup. The best alternative is File:Great_Blue_Heron_5158.jpg, in my opinion. It is a "Quality Image", but I don't think it is as good as the Baird image. It shows the feet, but too much of the back and the white on the head is overexposed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you both agree for the same reasons I thought the Baird picture would be better, I'll go ahead and put it in the taxobox instead of the current one. If anyone objects they can just change it back again ;) -- Editor at Large • talk 15:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to reply about the second suggestion, File:Great_Blue_Heron_5158.jpg; I agree that while the image is very good quality, it does show too much back. I think the profile shot by Baird better shows the Great Blue Heron's distinctive profile, despite the submerged legs. There are many shots showing the legs further on in the article though, so I don't think that's much of a problem. -- Editor at Large • talk 15:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is the mythology?

To my knowledge Blue Heron's are associated with death and stuff. IS there a didffferent page for it's place is myth and legends and folklore? Kairos (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Eggs...

Any word on how many eggs they lay, how big the eggs are, what they look like, etc? —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)