Talk:Cockatiel

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

Capitalization[edit]

Tannin, in running text, I believe that the word "cockatiel" should not be capitalized. All text that I have read has not had it capitalized. The Chicago Manual of Style says this:

8.136 Common names. For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127. In any one work, a single source should be followed. In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nounds and adjectives, as in the following examples, which conform to Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
  • Dutchman's-breeches
  • mayapple
  • jack-in-the-pulpit
  • rhesus monkey
  • Rocky Mountain sheep
  • Cooper's hawk
8.137 Domestic animals and horticultural categories. Either a dictionary or the guides to nomenclature ICZN and ICBN should be consulted for the proper spelling of breeds of domestic animals and broad horticultural categories.
  • Rhode Island Red
  • Hereford
  • German shorthaired pointer
  • Maine coon or coon cat
  • boysenberry
  • rambler rose
  • Thoroughbred horse

AlexanderWinston 02:39, 2004 Jul 4 (UTC)

We're purposely not following Chicago here. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Names and Titles. To wit, each unhyphenated word in the common name of a species is to be capitalized. This standard hs been adopted by several other sub-projects of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, although there is still some debate as to whether or not to use this standard for all articles covered by ToL. You can follow some of the debate on the ToL talk pages. - UtherSRG 06:04, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the picture in the taxobox show the wild type? This white variant would still be nice further down in the article. --Etxrge 18:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

I have listed this article on WP:CU as it does not seem to be written from a neutral point-of-view. There are several weasel terms and emotive, POV terms, such as 'magnificent', 'amazingly adorable', etc. which really do not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Kurt Shaped Box 14:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? I've removed some of the more obvious things. I left in the parts about popularity and temperament... Those are probably things worth discussing about a bird that's often kept as a pet, and generally somewhat less subjective than beauty or uniqueness. I don't know of any 'authoritative' way to describe them, though. --Aquillion 02:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks far better now than it did. My vote would be to remove the clenup label. Jtmichcock 03:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I agree, it's looking good now. Thanks for all your hard work, guys. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 10:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that the cleanup label should be removed. David Hoag 18:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of 'nutrition and diet' section[edit]

I have been bold and taken the step of removing this entire section from the article, which read like a handbook on how to care for pet cockatiels. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual and there is plenty of information on such matters in the external links. Perhaps a section describing what the birds normally eat in the wild would be appropriate? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is addressed here. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Tomertalk 04:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that that was too bold and Wikipedia should include all relevant information about each subject, I makes sense for Wikipedia to have each article encompass as broad relevant subject matter as possible to prevent the public from searching all over the internet for information that should be within that article.

Brewster 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


It is normal on encyclopedia pages about any organism to say what it eats. Care and eating are not the same at all. Yes bad they were conflated, but what do these things eat? Snakes? Small dogs? Grass seeds? Wikipedia editors? 86.233.94.158 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why the diet of the birds in the wild shouldn't be included. It would be completely appropriate. Largoplazo (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there should be some diet information included. The World Parrot Trust (click "wild status" at the top) says "feeds on a wide variety of seeds, especially Acacia, as well as wheat, sunflower and sorghum", for what it's worth. Iloveparrots (talk) 20:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements Possible[edit]

As much as I'd love to throw my two cents in on the cockatiel as a pet, I'm going to stick to Wikipedia needs; I'll look for a link to forum elsewhere on pet care advice to include for this reason. This article desparately needs citations. I'd also like to expand it to include more behavior and health topics. I have a few things already on my plate, so it may take a week or two, but in the mean time, any other suggestions for improvement would be wonderful and greatly appreciated! --Chuchunezumi 20:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the "arguably more popular than budgies language" unless anyone objects, because without citation, that sounds like weasel language. (Weasel words in an article this innocuous? How funny! :) --Chuchunezumi 17:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(This is unrelated to the improvements above.) How come the article goes to discuss cockatiel size in comparison to sizes of other cockatoos, yet omits the range of weight for adult birds of the species? Size also appears to be given in millimeters, whereas other bird articles typically use centimeters; worse, this article never uses anything more precise than even tens of millimeters. 194.187.213.95 12:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something should be mentioned about the high susceptibility to bacterial infections such as chlamydia and giardia. Infections can often become fatal if veterinary advice is not followed, which is in most cases very expensive. Vets seem to charge a high rate for their services for some reason I cannot explain. Jivesucka 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence of the third paragraph under Aviculture it is stated that the audible "hiss" of a cockatiel is supposed to be a form of mimicry to confuse snakes. Please note that snakes do not have ears and under best circumstances should have a very hard time feeling the vibration from the cockatiel. This section is either extraordinarily confusing or inaccurate and, most likely, should be taken out of the article. The.Nth (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page cleanup[edit]

I'm going to remove some of the sections on this talk page, since they have nothing to do with the article in itself. The "Worst pet" vs "Greatest pet" sections have no place in this article, and not on this talk page, since they are about the different opinions people has on the subject of this article. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, talk pages are meant for discussions regarding the article in question, not the subject of the article. Please see the WP:NOT page if you have questions about this. /M.O (u) (t) 12:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean to "scrap"?[edit]

Part of the article reads: However, some cockatiels can "scrap."

There is no elaboration whatsoever. In context it appears to have something to do with cockatiels standing up to other birds. Someone with knowledge should explain exactly what this means. Mbarbier 19:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means to be able to fight or fight back.129.2.200.225 12:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Cockatiel Care for the Beginning Bird Enthusiast[edit]

I have removed this section per WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual, and shouldn't contain advice or how-to's of this kind. Information of this kind might be more suitable for the Wikibooks project instead. /M.O (u) (t) 09:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I hope no one minds that I removed the word "some" as all members of the cockatoo family have erectile crests -Bard Ermentrout

I just had a question. Are cockatiel eggs are edible? My cockatiel just laid her first egg (finally I know it's a her!)and I was curious about whether the egg might be edible. I won't actually be eating it. I am currently in Europe, while my bird is home in the US with my parents. This isn't really about eating the egg but simple curiosity. Thank you P. Klifford Pklifford 01:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding[edit]

Is the "they will mate almost anywhere" and accompanying picture necessary? The comment seems more anecdotal than backed up by evidence, and no other pet bird pages have pictures of mating. --zandperl 01:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could go find sources for this, but the accompanying text discusses the birds' promiscuity (well-known by anyone who has a mated pair) and I thought the image demonstrated that they do, in fact, as a guy put it at a bird-club meeting I was once at, "have no couth. They will breed on a bus".

If one of our featured pictures shows two flies in the act, I don't see why we can't have this one (although I would be the first to admit that it certainly does not necessitate having a picture of animals mating on every pet page, unless (as I believe to be the case here), there is some claim made in the article regarding their mating procedure. Daniel Case 16:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made by IP user 207.112.59.135[edit]

I have left a message on the above IP user talk page ((who is also presumably this IP user too - 207.112.64.44) asking for the changes they keep making that are reverted to be discussed on this talk page, rather than keep adding them when they are reverted and especially doing so without any edit summary or explanations as to why they are doing so, and also without providing a source. Major changes like this should not simply be done without any sources and without an edit summary. I have reverted two edits but am loathe to revert more today as I don't wish to violate the 3RR rule. But I would ask the IP user 207.112.59.135 to discuss this in here rather than keep changing the article. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Whiteface lutino cockatiel: Agree[edit]

As the article Whiteface lutino cockatiel deals with an appearance-oriented mutation of Nymphicus hollandicus and is not a distinct species, I believe that merging the information from the Whiteface article with the main cockatiel article is appropriate.

If the Whiteface lutino mutation is to remain a separate article, it would logically follow that each cockatiel mutation have its own article, as is the case with arguably the most common animal used in demonstrating appearance-related mutations, Drosophilia melanogaster.

As it stands, D. melanogaster has its own article, but major varieties have their own articles, such as...

  1. Drosophila (Sophophora) melanogaster
  2. Drosophila (Sophophora) simulans
  3. Drosophila (Sophophora) sechellia
  4. Drosophila (Sophophora) yakuba

...and so forth. However, because the cockatiel mutations are not generally of concern with such specificity (and indeed it would be very challenging to accumulate enough genetic information in this regard and format it in an encyclopedic manner in this venue to make the articles substantial if independent) I believe the cockatiel article should be a single entity, containing information about mutations, as the other mutations have not been individually addressed with enough detail to warrant separation.

If in the future the mutation section IS made robust enough to warrant article division, that effort could be undertaken at that time. For the present, merging is appropriate in my estimation.

Bhs itrt 16:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion that the information should be merged. Mutations do not denote a species differential. I also have done enough research on cockatiels and own a few myself, incidentally.

Chrisw357 21:11, 24 November 2007 (UT)

Yes I agree as well, but if this mutation of cockatiel is added to the page, indepth information on other mutations should be added as well, or the section would appear to be out of place. User:Afarila 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, considering that there have been no objections, I went ahead and merged the content of the Whiteface lutino cockatiel article here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalization[edit]

Although for some reason it is popular to say that female cockatiels are able to mimic sounds (as they are in some species of parrot), I have raised cockatiels for nearly 30 years and I have NEVER heard a female even attempt to mimic a sound. This is a dimorphic characteristic of the species. Many bird species have vocalization patterns in the male only due to a special region of the brain being developed for such behavior in conjunction with mating displays. Sound mimicry alone is a 100% reliable method for sexing a cockatiel in which other dimorphic characteristics are not clear (such as with lutinos and white face). I am requesting a very substantial reference to back up this claim in the article. Jkhamlin (talk) 12:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no reason to believe, if females are capable of mimicry, that they would only be capable of whistling and not speech. This statement doesn't appear to have face value.Jkhamlin (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


lifespan 35?[edit]

it says the oldest confirmed lifespan for a cockatiel is 35, however the citation is merely from someone claiming they knew of a 35 year old cockatiel on some message board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milky the brown cow (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I have tagged the statement as 'dubious' for the moment. I'll remove it completely if no-one is able to find a reliable source for the claim. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The oldest cockatiel I've ever heard of is 33, and the source for it was almost as dubious. Our oldest finally died at 24 and our local avian vet says she has never run across one with believable evidence that was older than 27. Talshiarr (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this website which says that they can sometetimes live 25-30 years, and the information on the page apparently comes from somebody who had been contributing articles to bird magazines and breeding cockatiels for a long time, so I'd say it's as good a reference as any.... [1] --RainbowWerewolf (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it looks ok to me, i'd say put it in but i'm not very experinced - Derob ecnirp (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is of any help or interest, I have a cockatiel that I believe to be close to age 30. I came to have this bird in 1981, but believe the bird was at least 1 to 2 years old at the time. This certainly does not constitue a record, but is my contribution of first-hand information on this subject. Almostsilent (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My cockatiel will be 35 in June. I bought him when my son was six months old, so I have a good idea of his age. The problem is, of course, how do you prove it? One doesn't think to keep shop receipts just in case your bird lives to a ripe old age. Is there any way to prove the age of a cockatiel, you know, like horse's teeth and such? He is in reasonably good health (he is certainly noisy enough!) although he can no longer fly and has had a stroke. The vet told me that cockatiels can reabsorb blood clots and if they survive the first 72 hours they normally will recover. I would be happy to submit a photo of our cockatiel, if you would like. Or how about a feather to carbon-date? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.234.141.158 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable conflation in the literature as well as in the article between maximum potential lifespan (which is genetically determined) and median or expected lifespan which is a function of diet and environment. Statements in reference material like "it is not uncommon for a cockatiel to live longer than 20 years" are subject to selection bias - bragging rights? - as well as interpretation... how frequent is 'not uncommon'? I've raised dozens of cockatiels, and while only about 1/3 of them have died, their death profile is a scattergram between 12 and 16 years, with a few lost at very early ages and a few who are that old and still alive. Such statements involving 20+ years may mislead readers into wondering why, like I did, my birds are overwhelmingly dying younger. From exchanges with veterinarians and breeders, I believe the incidence of cockatiels living longer than 20 is 1 in 1000 to one in several thousand. It might be useful to compare cockatiel age with human age, i.e. incidence of cockatiels older than 20 is roughly equivalent to incidence of humans older than maybe 105.

It might be useful, since the bird is still very prevalent in the wild, to mention its lifespan there as far as is known: 10 years or less, and why: predation, disease, and human encroachment factors such as ingestion of herbicides & pesticides, accidents with manmade structures, malnutrition & starvation due to destruction of habitat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.250.0.140 (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to two of the vets at the surgery I go to (one of which is a bird expert) the lifespans we see on the internet are usually a result of people with longer living birds essentially bragging. Neither of them had ever encountered one older than 12 years or heard of a confirmed case. They both said that 8 can often be old age for a bird and lifespan of longer than that is impressive. One said that there isn't really a set old age for birds and it can vary by individual.--210.56.81.66 (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatiel (4 votes) is new collab for April/May 2008[edit]

Nominated April 5, 2008;

Support:

  1. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Shyamal (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Nominating again because of the current poor state of the article. The Cockatiel is a popular and familiar bird to a lot of people and probably deserves better than the current messy, unreferenced, OR-filled offering. Might be an interesting one to do together on account of the aviculture aspect of this species. It'd be nice to see a well-written 'aviculture' section on WP for once. It's a cute birdie too. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just voting on nationalistic grounds (could have voted the other way as more and more Wagtails seem to be recorded as vagrants here), but agree on fixing a high profile bird with a decent aviculture section would be good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I like species articles, I agree with the above comments. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to create a model article with wild bird and aviculture coverage. Shyamal (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To do list[edit]

Um, a lot, I think. We need to prune down some of the aviculture stuff perhaps, and add info on the biology of wild birds - I'll raid HANZAB for info. Eventually we need a photo of wild bird as well (possibly easier said than done, even the birds of the world group in Flickr only has one wild bird). Oh, and we'll need to, uh, prune some of the photos of pet birds and replace them with halfway decent ones. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Possible wild bird [2] with a free licence Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a decent enough pic of the 'tiel's head - but would it really be better/more useful (in terms of depicting the bird itself) than some of the higher-quality, whole-bird pet images we already have in the article (the current taxobox images, for example)? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is not that it is a better image than the ones in the article, but that we need to show some images that make it clear that the bird exists as a wild species as well as a pet. The image actually doesn't do a great job of that because it could easily be a pet bird taken outside for walkies, but my point is that we need to swing the article so that it balances wild and aviculture and doesn't unduly weight in favour of aviculture, and images are one are where the weight is almost entirely favouring aviculture. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely we do. For some reason, I interpreted your comments as suggesting that the Flickr headshot should be used as the lead image by virtue of it depicting a wild bird. Sorry about that. :) I've been looking for images of wild 'tiels for use in the article on and off for a while now myself. For some reason, pics of what is essentially a common wild bird in its range are very thin on the ground online. It's the same with the Budgerigar. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Once we have the article in good shape we can go cap in hand to various wildlife photographers from oz and ask for a donation. I have about a 25% success rate when asking for free images, so it should be doable, but it is always easier if the article looks good. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sounds good. colour forms can be listed in aviculture. breeding in nature, then some extra notes under care or something in aviculture, I guess, the heading having been split into a history, colour forms and care subsections of somesuch. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Structure[edit]

I'm wondering how to lay out this article where both aviculture and wild information may overlap. This is most especially a problem for the breeding and feeding sections, as there will be information that we really don't want to duplicate (for example courtship behaviour) but also differences or inapplicable sections. We can either treat them separately (have two massive sections, one on wild birds, and one on captive birds) or in each section have a wild and a captive subsection. Thoughts? Also, great article here for breeding , Reproductive Success of Hand-Reared vs. Parent-Reared Cockatiels in the Auk. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should probably have 'wild' and 'captive' subsections under the relevant headers to avoid unnecessary duplication and article size - or perhaps primarily document the wild behaviour and add information about any differences in captive birds in a separate "In captivity, Cockatiels are..."-type paragraph beneath. To be honest, I think a lot of it will be pretty much the same anyway, without needing to be specific.
What do you think should be done with the 'Colour mutations' section (which currently comprises about 1/3 of the article)? Trim it (I don't honestly know if what's there currently is even correct)? Spin it off a-la Budgerigar colour genetics, Peach-faced Lovebird colour genetics and sort it out later? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A split might work. There is a lot of information which somewhat overwhelms the article, but apparently is of great interest to aviculturists so really shouldn't be removed entirely. I guess summarise and move the details elsewhere. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged the section for a split to Cockatiel colour genetics. Let's run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, not much got done, did it?[edit]

Dang and blast. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, lets split it out! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.229.168.178 (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatiel Parakeet?[edit]

Why is the name "Cockatiel parakeet" used several times in the article, like as though that is the correct name of the bird in English? I know that Americans seem quite eager to use the word parakeet on any bird they can (e.g. the budgerigar), but can anyone supply an authoritative reference to justify 'cockatiel parakeet' as opposed to just 'cockatiel'? This term is not used, at least in Australia.

I just realised that there is a link on the cockatiel page 'Martin Rasek's Cockatiel Parakeet's Genetic calculator'. Following the link though, you won't find Cockatiel Parakeet, just Cockatiel. 203.101.229.213 (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure why the term 'Cockatiel parakeet' is being used here. It's been changed back and forth several times over the last few months. I'd like an explanation too. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I have two cockatiel but i don't know the sex. I have lots of trouble in touching them. They are afraid of me but they were hand feed. Please help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.64.3 (talk) 03:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to: [citation needed]

Some birds will emit a distinctive "hiss" when irritated, retreating rapidly or defending with pecking bites, which can be relatively strong for their size. |"This "hiss" is a form of mimicry used in a defensive attempt to confuse the cockatiel's most common predator, the snake.|

The citation being that snakes, aside from tactile vibrations are not capable of 'hearing' sound. Therefor Cockatiels are more likely, if at all, mimicking snakes to frighten other various predators or even more than likely, especially when combined with beak tapping and wing spreading, as a form of intra-species territorial display.

As written in its present context, the portion of text here sited by [|]is completely erroneous and misleading.

72.234.12.166 (talk) 11:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 10/19/'08[reply]

Hissing[edit]

Why do cockatiels "hiss?"

Some birds will emit a distinctive "hiss" when irritated, retreating rapidly or defending with pecking bites, which can be relatively strong for their size."This "hiss" is a form of mimicry used in a defensive attempt to confuse the cockatiel's most common predator, the snake.Cockatiels only "hiss" when irritated in the dark.For example,you wake up, everything is dark,then you try to play with your cockatiel[s],Suddenly,he,she,or they will "hiss".But,please don't try to do it,For them,it will be like seeing a ghost!

The citation being that snakes, aside from tactile vibrations are not capable of 'hearing' sound. Therefor Cockatiels are more likely, if at all, mimicking snakes to frighten other various predators or even more than likely, especially when combined with beak tapping and wing spreading, as a form of intra-species territorial display.

As written in its present context, the portion of text here sited by [|]is completely erroneous and misleading.

72.234.12.166 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 10/19/'08[reply]

I have clarified the sentence in question, and it now simply states that the hissing is the bird mimicking snakes. Does this fix your observation? ... Thinking about it though, Cockatiels I've had hissed when irritated, but have never (as far as I know!) been near a snake, so therefore it can't be mimicry but rather a natural thing. This may need a better explanation.  SEO75 [talk] 12:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hissing isn't mimicking snakes at all. Snakes are, by far, not the only animals that hiss. Are cats imitating snakes when they hiss? Many, many birds hiss. Birds are immediate descendants of therapod dinosaurs. Many experts still consider birds to be archosauromorpha, which would classify them with true dinosaurs, including crocodilians. The evolution of birds in general predates the evolution of more modern forms of reptiles such as squamata, the branch that snakes fall under. It is not known how long birds exhibited hissing behavior, but for that matter, it is not known how long snakes have, either. It is not logical, nor factual, however, to assume that because snakes are colloquially associated with hissing that that would mean that birds are merely imitating snakes when they hiss. How many domesticated birds have even seen a snake?Jkhamlin (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hello[edit]

why are my Cockatiel female throw the eggs out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.29.124 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding and egg care.[edit]

[1]

I have a breeding couple that feed each other continuously. They do this while they are nesting, after the eggs are hatched, and while the other is tending to the chick. I do not know if this is unusual. I would like to know if there are other owners that have experienced this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.186.95.182 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "In contrast to other parrots, male and female cockatiels both take part in raising their young. Cockatiels are the only members of the parrot family that do not feed their partner, therefore both male and female cockatiels incubate the eggs and raise their young together, where the male usually sits at night and the female during the day, but it can vary."


Rerated as C[edit]

Needs a description as well as wild diet, behaviour etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Do cockatiels talk?[edit]

The categories list includes Talking Birds, and I've heard a cockatiel talk, so I already know the answer. Could someone include a few sentences on this topic in the article, please? Koro Neil (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Domestication[edit]

Are cockatiels generally considered domesticated? If so, please add a note to that effect on the page. (the Domesticated Animals list has, to solve a dispute, decided that only animals that have the word "domesticated" on their source page are to be considered truly domesticated) Tamtrible (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Capitalization of mutations[edit]

I lowercased some stuff, but I see there's a lot more here, and in Cockatiel colour genetics. These mutation names are not species names, are they? Is there a reason they're capitalized here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


standard layout; biology and ecology content; scholarly tone[edit]

I've revamped a number of the more awkward parrot articles to bring them into some kind of standard layout, according to what I perceive is "most" standard among the bird articles. Here's my layout:

(intro)

Taxonomy(or Taxonomy and naming)

Description

Behavior

Feeding
Breeding (or Reproduction)

Distribution and Habitat

Conservation status

Aviculture

Popular Culture

(other non-content sections: See Also, etc)

Parts of this article would be subsections under "Aviculture", and that constitutes most people's knowledge of this bird outside Australia. But a zoological/ornithological article would have a focus on its morphological description (weight? wingspan? zygodactyl feet?), biology (breeding season? courting display? where do they nest? how many eggs? what color? hen and cock brood? hatching, fledging, weaning, and sexual maturity times?) and ecology (biome habitat, need a certain kind of nesting tree, particular food, prey, predators, migration, etc).

Lifespan is in captivity; in the wild, maybe 10 years. No clear distinction between maximum lifespan and typical lifespan. Some human lived to 122, but a better statement would be "Humans can live more than 100 years, but average lifespan is 80." For cockatiels, "Cockatiels can live more than 20 years in captivity, but typical lifespan is 12-16 years." The statement about a 36 year old cockatiel is suitable for the Guinness Book of World Records, but contributes little to understanding this bird.

There's still some flowery language anthropomorphizing the bird.

This article needs attention from an expert zoologist, naturalist or ornithologist for content and layout. I'm reluctant to engage on an article with too many eyeballs on it - there'd be more contention than consensus.

Sbalfour (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just go ahead and be WP:BOLD about it, had I the sources in front of me. This article, despite being about a popular bird species, hasn't really been edited much recently beyond people adding/removing a few words here and there, or changing the photos around. There doesn't appear to be any editors that are heavily involved at present. Have you seen Cockatiel (aviculture) and Cockatiel colour genetics, by the way? Originally, most of the content of those articles was present in this one. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Cockatiel (aviculture)[edit]

Maybe we should merge these two articles and pull out something useful from the one to have it inserted in the other? I'm VERY tempted to set the "merge" template, but I'm going to refrain from doing that for now. -andy 217.50.43.222 (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all eggs hatch[edit]

Not all eggs hatch but some do i have two cockatiel's non of the eggs  hatched.I was rely hopeing for a baby cockatiel.--68.197.115.214 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting behavior?[edit]

Just noticed that this article doesn't have any info about the cockatiel's nesting habits in the wild. Pretty big omission? 146.200.127.203 (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatiel Lifespan[edit]

I owned a bird sanctuary of rescued domestic pets. I have had too many teils. On a proper diet and care, I have had many cockatiels live their full lifespan of 30 years. More years than that? Well its like our old people leaving in their hundreds. I have had seemingly healthy birds die early between 5-15 years, like humans. But the lifespan normally is 30 years. 2603:8000:6B3E:274B:454E:7968:86F1:88E3 (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture[edit]

Hello @Predulus: This information would be appropriate popular culture if it had a real source. A wiki is not a WP:RS. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This would be unsuitable for mention in the article even if it was published in, e.g., a game review. While it may be relevant to the article on Dwarf Fortress (although I doubt it), it is simply irrelevant to the article on the bird. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even then, it would have to be not only mentioned but the fact of it being a cockatiel would have to receive significant attention. It would have to be of interest outside of the context of the game. Largoplazo (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In short, MOS:POPCULT. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You 2 agree with me. If Predulus can find such a source then MOS:POPCULT is satisfied. That is unlikely however. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 December 2022 (UTC)

resources for sources[edit]

looks like the internet archive has a multitude of cockatiel-related material, though most of it is related to domesticated ones and breeding. if anyone knows of any publications that could assist in improving the article, please let me know! this article is quite short, and the amount of domesticated information makes it hard to find more general information about these birds. thank you. B3251 (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cockatiel&oldid=1194314312"