Talk:Gouldian finch

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

Image Trouble...[edit]

- Having trouble uploading an image. I'd like to use this photo (http://englishbloopers.com/Webmaster/Personal/Photos/Birds_2004/site_2_Kiro.jpg), which is from my own domain. Can't figure out how to upload. The caption for the photo should be "Male gouldian finch" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.218.35.59 (talk • contribs)

I'm uploading it. Abby724 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tidy up[edit]

Hi, i have just tidied up this article and made some changes. I have also downgraded its conservation status to Endangered from Critical as updated from [BirdLife Species Factsheet]. Luffy487 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aviculture[edit]

This section is in dire need of cleanup. It is repetitive, and appears to be written by a person with ESL, or who is unable to grasp the fundamentals of English grammar (not to belittle whoever wrote it). Douglas C (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move comment to talk page[edit]

I have moved the following here, where it belongs, from article space. Maias (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I find this information on females controlling the sex dubious at best given the fact that red heads are the original gouldian finch. The orange and black head both came from the red heads. When breeding two red heads or two orange heads you CAN get all three head colors in one clutch. However it has been proven that when two black heads are mated they produce only black heads. This led to the belief that the other two came from the black heads. I would have to see much more scientific proof other than just breeding to make me believe that the females can control the number of males by the head color of the mate. Females carry one chromosone that determines sex. Males have two. So depending on which male chromosone fertilizes the egg you will get either a male or a female. It is also proven that some males have more of one than the other so they will produce more of that sex than the other. It has also been proven that the use of black light will help bring captive breeding populations more on an equal number of females to males. It is also possible that there was over exposure to black light in the captive breeding that could have caused the increase in males. This study needs to be done in the field and not in a lab before they can state conclusively that it is fact. They also need to rule out any dietary or environmental causes. Pollution could also be a factor and needs to be ruled out."

A self-contradiction in the article, needs correction.[edit]

In the "Description" section we have: These tubercles are commonly (and incorrectly) described as phosphorescent in spite of much scientific evidence to the contrary.

And then in the verbage of one of the images we have: A young Gouldian finch (first day out of the nest) – note the blue phosphorescent nodules on the side of its beak

Well, are the tubercles/nodules phosphorsecent or not? Can we have someone who knows FOR SURE correct the sentence that is incorrect? 121.213.121.103 (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gouldian finch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gouldian finch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than one name[edit]

Sorry, but it just is so that there is more than one Latin name!!! Look at the common garden snail as an example -different people believe the name is different. I have given TWO citations. You have just said, "thats not how it works"!!! Remember, the name DOES mean something. Therefor, it is possible that people will have different ideas as we get better research. Qwerty number1 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course one of the names is wrong, however it is still relevant because it is either unclear which is right OR many people use the wrong name! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty number1 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is more than one. But only one can be VALID. Which one came first? That's the valid one. The other(s) belong in the taxobox under 'Synonyms'. Oh, wait, the synonym you added was already there and has been for years. Sumanuil (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, the genus name DOES mean something,therefore, as our methods improve, these may change.

categories within article[edit]

Should "aviculture" and "trapping for aviculture" not be merged because the latter seems like part of the former. The former is also not very big, which makes me wonder why this was done. Qwerty number1 (talk) 08:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image location[edit]

I have moved 5 images to Gallery to avoid Sandwich effect on text (see MOS:IMAGELOC) & changed selection of images at right of text to more closely coincide with that text (ie, newly-hatched chicks & juvenile finch images are now adjacent to Breeding section). Rogermccart (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

status of the bird as least concern + population estimate + flock size[edit]

Those three don't exactly contradict each other, but it seems unlikely that the bird is considered least concern when/if the wild population estimate is 2500 individuals - as well as the flock size being 1000-2000 individuals. 216.241.156.25 (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@216.241.156.25 Citation from the article:
"[...] The population went from hundreds of thousands in the early 20th century to 2,500 or fewer by the 1980's. The current estimated population continues to be 2,500 or fewer birds. [...]
Behaviour
[...] Flocks can consist of up to 1,000–2,000 individuals. [...]" 216.241.156.25 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Australian government quoted a 2,500 figure since 2008.
If there is more recent research estimating a higher figure it may be better to use that. In regards to flock size that probably isn't true regardless of population size. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1000-2000 flock claim probably not true.[edit]

Current source is a self-published site by an ecologist who may or may not be an expert on the bird.

More reliable sources instead state a smaller figure for flock size: https://animals.sandiegozoo.org/animals/gouldian-finch

"The Gouldian finch is a medium-sized grass eating bird that lives only in the northern savannas region of Australia. It is a strikingly colourful bird which was once very common. Although Gouldian finches are popular as pets around the world, less than 2500 adult finches remain in the wild. These remaining finches are broken up into isolated flocks, most with less than 100 birds each."

https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/biodiversity/threatened/publications/gouldian-finch-erythrura-gouldiae-2008

https://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/413-conservation-advice-07122016.pdf

Traumnovelle (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gouldian_finch&oldid=1211070198"