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)

Well-spotted, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatics would be more useful if it pointed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_pneumaticity, seeing as the paragraph refers to skeletal pneumaticity and not industrial pneumatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.143.236 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A little late, but done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

Change “he did not mention if it were” to “he did not mention if it was” in the section “dodos transported abroad”. It should not be subjunctive as it is neither a conditional nor a result clause. 194.75.12.108 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done – small jars tc 12:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Unknown rationale for when citations are placed in "Sources" section

Are items placed in sources if they are notable or is there some other intended purpose for not leaving them unsorted in the references section? Any responses would be appreciated. J JMesserly (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I originally used the more regular, unsorted style as it's easier when I wrote the article, but someone changed it to the sorted style without asking, and then it became too hard to reverse. So if anyone can convert the citations to the original style, as was done at Rodrigues solitaire (discussion:[4]), that would be helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is no objection after a few weeks for comment have passed, or some other style is agreed to, I would be happy to perform the work bringing it into the agreed on consistent style. J JMesserly (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, there were no objections to it before because it was the original citation style, as can be seen in the GA version:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This appears non controversial and I see now was already discussed earlier (#Citation style consistency), so I am placing the respective banner notice above (to view, show Other talk page banners). If I got anything wrong in the wording in the template, or there are other issues or questions, please comment. Otherwise I will clean up the citations using this rule in the coming days. Subsections "Citations" and "Sources" will be removed and all non inline full citations will be moved back inline as was the case in the original citation style. J JMesserly (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dodo de-extinction

You know how Colossal Biosciences is planning to de-extinct the dodo? Well, can someone edit the article to mention this? FreezingTNT2 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not really of much significance, at this stage they're just seeking funding for it, and it'll take many years to approach even the possibility of doing it, if it ever even happens (what will lay this supposed dodo egg?). Likewise, folks have been talking about cloning mammoths for well over 20 years, and we haven't really gotten much closer. No reason at all to mention it before it is tangibly closer to the goal, now it's just science fiction. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The De-extinction article has an inbound link and describes it vaguely. There are open source research papers describing the process envisioned. The basic idea is that you introduce the dodo dna to the closest dna relative, the Nicobar pigeon. You get a dodo-nicobar chick, then you iterate- moving the offspring closer and closer to the original dodo dna. Pretty dangerous tech if applied to human beings by autocratic governments, and I have no interest in communicating such information to a broad public. J JMesserly (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And considering the size of the Nicobar pigeon in relation to the dodo (it's barely larger than a regular street pigeon), I'm not sure how it developing such a potentially large egg would even be feasible... Again, it's barely even science fiction yet, and they are just making bold claims to get funding. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

FunkMonk & Hemiauchenia -- your handwaving notwithstanding, this is a serious project that is being recognized by serious science outlets such as MIT Technology Review, Scientific American, Smithsonian and the Audubon Society (scroll down to where the article talks about "PGCs"). There have been dozens of other mentions of this project in legitimate media outlets, which amply justifies a section on the goal of "de-extincting" the dodo. Bricology (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There have been tonnes of such speculative suggestions the last twenty years. The woolly mammoth should have been revived twenty times by now. Until there are any kinds of results, it should be relegated to the article about the general concept of deextinction. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The only DNA we have of the dodo is a mitochondrial genome, which is far from enough to make de-extinction even remotely plausible. It's clearly been suggested based on its popularity, rather than on any practical basis. "de-extinction" coverage in the popular press tends to be hype based and treats the topic rather uncritically, while people who are actually familiar with ancient DNA (e.g. Beth Shapiro) are very critical of the concept. Per WP:ONEWAY, I do not think the promotional, speculative announcement of an unproven company should be included here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't even a full nuclear genome sequence for the dodo, so it's little more than hot air. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not true, we have, indeed, sequenced the dodo's genome a while back, and it's being used in Colossal's dodo de-extinction project. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Short footnote cleanup

As discussed, the article has been edited to bring short footnote usage back into conformance with the style established prior to achieving Featured status.

• Some additional cleanup edits may be performed as I proof read the new version to make sure I did not inadvertently damage any content.
• The passenger pigeon article used {{harvnb}} for short footnotes, this one used {{sfn}}. I left them as is. Do folks in wikiproject prefer one over the other? If there is a mix of harvnb and sfns, should I make them all the same? In these cases which is prefered? Anyway, I won't switch templates as part of this citation sweep of featured articles unless folks want me to. Comments?
• There was one source in the reference section which had no corresponding footnote. Don't know what you folks want to do with the following. I suppose the edit history could be scanned to find out when there was an sfn to it.
  • Richon, E.; Winters, R. (2014). "The intercultural dodo: a drawing from the School of Bundi, Rājasthān". Historical Biology. 28 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1080/08912963.2014.961450. S2CID 85387209.

J JMesserly (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no citations styles preferred by specific projects, it's more up to the individual writer. As for that citation, I remember it, but it was possibly removed again because a later source reidentified the dodo drawing discussed by it as not being contemporary, and therefore not really significant enough to mention. So it can just be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I found where it belongs.J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ouch, there goes my memory... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Other minor items:

• What does 71-71. 2 mean in the pages field of the following cite. I presume this is a typo?
  • Reinhardt, Johannes Theodor (1842–1843). "Nøjere oplysning om det i Kjøbenhavn fundne Drontehoved". Nat. Tidssk. Krøyer. IV.: 71–72. 2.

I overlooked this issue, I think you're right, and it seems you fixed it. And now I look at it, I should probably spell out the Danish abbreviation for "Nat. Tidssk". FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be best not to look too closely at the Dodo article until I make my proofing pass during the next 5 hours. There may be a number of further errors that I shall find.J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I have finished my initial proofing pass of the changes, hand comparing them to the prior version. I don't see any more egregious errors and don't plan any heavy edits soon, but a second pair of eyes might pick up some errors I didn't weed out. A large number of the full citations are now directly viewable when the mouse hovers over them, and the reference section is restored to the typical form seen in most wikipedia articles.J JMesserly (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

“Its extinction was not immediately noticed, and some considered it to be a myth.” This line is ambiguous. What was considered a myth? The dodo or the fact it went extinct? Ghughes23 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Kind of both, but yes, the bird is meant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done clarified. HouseBlaster^talk 04:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

I want to add to the Extinction section of the dodo bird. I would like to add,

Just to clarify, the dodo bird’s extinction wasn’t solely a result of human actions or competition for resources among other animals. Instead their disappearance is attributed to, “human breed, carelessness, and the contingencies of history.” <ref><ref> Bergman, J. (2005). The History of the Dodo Bird and the Cause of Its Extinction. Retrieved from https://www.christianscientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PSCF9-05Bergman.pdf ‌ Lenaleens (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: You're requesting to put "Just to clarify, the dodo bird’s extinction wasn’t solely a result of human actions or competition for resources among other animals. Instead their disappearance is attributed to, “human breed, carelessness, and the contingencies of history.”" somewhere in the article? No. It doesn't add anything, much less clarifies. I think you probably meant "greed", as that's what your source writes, but still it's not an explanation and we already have better. Cannolis (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume "greed" is meant? Either way, none of this contradicts what is already in the article, but it's too hand-wavy to add with this wording. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Height or length?

I found this discussion under a dodo skeletal on Deviantart:

https://www.deviantart.com/comments/1/880014648/4921009032

Is it really true that the 1 meter tall scaling is based on the length of the fully stretched bird at 97 cm (skull to tail) in "An Ecomorphological Review of the Dodo (Raphus cucullatus) and Solitaire (Pezophaps solitaria), Flightless Columbiformes of the Mascarene Islands"? Otodusm (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The user says "In actuality, the standing height was around 61 - 67 cm." without mentioning any source, and W:original research is a no go. So what we need before we can do anything is a reliable source which mentions another height. On a cursory glance, Hume's Extinct Birds says "Description Approximately 70–75cm (28–29in)." But this does not specify whether it refers to height or length. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Otodusm, you added the measurements I listed, but the source doesn't state anything about height, so we need to make the language less specific, as it could also refer to length. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I would say it probably refers to height based on this documentary, in which Hume says it probably stood about 2.5 feet tall (at 4:50): https://youtube.com/watch/FO9Lvc2Blus?si=lQ1xboCT5n2SdhDT Also, the the same height (70 cm for females and 90 cm in males) is added in the book for the Rogrigues solitaire as the height in Rodrigues solitaire, further suggesting it refers to height. Otodusm (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a size diagram? I know that we have [6] but that's obviously based on an inaccurate restoration. What would be the most accurate restoration to trace as a base? The Mansur painting maybe? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

While it probably is the height, that's not really how Wikipedia works, we need the source to say so specifically. As for the image, should be easy for someone able to edit SVGs to replace the dodo in the image with a more recent one. Here's a free one by Hume:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Dodo size comparison

@FunkMonk: Does the scaling on this look about right? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks nice to me, a shame the image I provided doesn't show the head in profile, then the known head-length could be used for cross-checking... FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

New Dodo bird template for user page

This user wishes the Dodo wasn't extinct.

I have created an Dodo template for user page. Everyone can use it. See page. Vartolu3566 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)