Talk:Peafowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Birds (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Peafowl 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.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team  
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is Uncategorized.
Note icon
This article is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (see Peafowl at Wikipedia for Schools). Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Lifespan[edit]

Seems that this article is poorly written as it is missing lots of vital information, including the lifespan (how old these animals live to be), how many eggs are laid on average and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.234.232 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Peafowl's diet[edit]

I believe that more information on the diet of peacocks should be added in this text. Also there should be noted that there is a difference in the diet of wild and tame peacocks. Wild peacocks are omnivores, which means they eat food both from plant and animal origin. They eat fruit, grain, flower pedals but they also like crickets, termites and scorpions. Amazingly, these birds will eat snakes, especially poisonous ones. Tame or domestic peacocks are more choosy than the wild ones, eating mostly grass, breadcrumb and seeds. I feel like much more can be said about the topic on peacock's diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavicaZ3 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are surely right; the article is currently largely a WP:COATRACK for material on evolution, and there's precious little on anything else - diet, distribution, non-courting behaviour, description, longevity, you name it. If you have sources (textbooks, papers) then by all means go ahead and add new material, but take care to reference it fully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(ru)Interwiki[edit]

Hey people! Can you add the russian wiki's link, pls? I've tried do it myself but appears the Error message: An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed. Деэба (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Name of article?[edit]

The common name is peafowl? And not peacock? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixing factual error: reverted as disruptive?[edit]

I revert an edit because it is factually incorrect. It's classed as "disruptive"?

Can I get another editor's opinion, please? IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While those in support of the move cite "peacock" as the WP:COMMONNAME, those in opposition counter that "peacock" is used specifically for the males and not the species in general. As a result, I do not find consensus to move this article at this time. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)


PeafowlPeacock – By far the more common name. This move has been suggested a few times in the past, and at least executed once (but reverted on procedural grounds), but no formal move request and discussion seems to be had until now. The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. While Peafowl isn't wrong per se, it is by far the less common name (Google hits excluding Wikipedia gives 560 thousand hits for peafowl[1], and 65 million for peacock![2]. GNews gives a similar 13,000 vs. 390,000, and even at Gbooks, where it is less outspoken, we get 80,000 vs. 560,000.) Fram (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

  • (came here via the RM notice) Support One could argue that WP:COMMONNAME's clause that inaccurate names (...) as determined in reliable sources are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used (...) is grounds for keeping the article in place, see the lead in the current version. However, it also says that Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and common name. Randy Kryn 16:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – the current title is unbelievable. What the hell is a peafowl? Laurdecl talk 13:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the articles for the specific species should probably be renamed as well. Lepricavark (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was here and typing in order to support, per WP:COMMONAME. I discovered the original title was peacock[3]. But from the article itself I learned it is about the species, females as well as males, while the term peacock technically refers only to the male. So I decided I would address that point by showing the common name for the species used in reliable sources is still peacock, and I went searching around nytimes.com to prove my point, my goto place for proving such points. But I couldn't. They clearly and properly distinguish peafowl, peacock and peahen at the New York Times! [4]. I see no basis in usage in reliable sources that justifies this move, as obvious as it seems based on layman's language. But we're supposed to reflect usage in reliable sources, not layman usage, in title decisions... --В²C 19:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose nom per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a compendium of web hits but an encyclopedia. I don't doubt that more people want to find web pages or photos of peacocks but this article is about all peafowl and not just the cocks. The nomination claims WP:COMMONNAME but does not include evidence that peacock is the common name for all peafowl, only that more web users are interested in the males than the females. If the article was just about the plumage or the cultural significance, I would agree to a move, but it is about the three species as a whole and the title should reflect that. —  AjaxSmack  02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose Possible - IOC disagrees, that is the end of it. We use the IOC World Bird List for the common name, and since this bird is of the genera Pavo and Afropavo (probably should make that more clear), it is a peafowl. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with AjaxSmack, this is not meant to be a popularity contest.IAmNitpicking (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per B2C, hits in Google don't necessarily denote meaning. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Peacock redirects here, and the article clearly explains why peafowl is the proper name for the species as a whole. Sounds just exactly like what an encyclopedia should do! MeegsC (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. To re-name would just be inaccurate. The re-direct from peacock is sufficient to bring uninformed readers to the "correct" page. Perhaps over time this is where wikipedia can use its powers for good and help clear the misconceptions of what the terms peacock, peahen and peafowl refer to. Loopy30 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - strongly: Peacock and a peafowl are not synonyms. One is the male peafowl with the fancy tail and feathers, the other is the kind of bird. An article titled "Peacock" wouldn't be about the species or the peahen. Google hits are likely about peacocks and their interesting characteristics, but not about the species.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. By a non-ornithologist. "Peacock" is the male bird only (with assorted metaphorical and transferred meanings). "Peafowl" includes both peacock and peahen. What next? rename Guineafowl to Guineacock? I think not. (I'm mildly surprised that the U.S. Pruriency Police have never insisted on a change to "Pearooster".) Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Peacock is commonly in use as the name for the species, just like snowcock or Peacock-pheasant is used, and not snowfowl. That ornithologists prefer peafowl is nice for them, but claiming that peacock is the male bird only is not how most people (who are not ornithologists but now peacocks anyway, it's not some obscure topic) use the term. Fram (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Although most of us know that peacock technically only refers to the male, unlike guineafowl this term is commonly used for the whole lot of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME; people demonstrably use "Peacock" for the species as a whole rather than just the male birds, and opposing voices haven't countered this fact. Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com all note that people use the form "Peacock" in this way. At this stage, there's nothing incorrect or misinformed about this use, any more than there's a problem using the conventional name Guinea pig for an animal that's not a pig and doesn't come from Guinea. Notably, Encyclopaedia Britannica lists the bird under "Peacock"; if the common name is good enough for Britannica, it's good enough for the encyclopedia where WP:COMMONNAME is an explicit policy.--Cúchullain t/c 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The OED and M-W links clearly state that peafowl is the broader or more general word. Dictionary.com is an aggregator and the first entry is from a thesaurus. Shyamal (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.