Talk:Budgerigar

message: The section mentioning the psychic budgie predicting its own death is ridiculous. Is it vandalism, or just nonsense?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.41.64.250 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psychic Budgie 

message: What about birds that fly away and come back? It's happened twice with 2 different male budgies. I'd be in the front garden on the phone making arrangements for a new bird and i hear a familiar chirp. I'd follow the sounds and sure enough the little bugger is sitting in a tree at shoulder height. The first time it happened it was raining and i gave up all hope until i heard his chirping in the morning. Jivesucka (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birds that fly away and come back 

message: I changed the title of the green budgerigar in the top right of the article. Its description was green opaline budgerigar but it is in fact a green normal budgerigar and not opaline at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazbudgie (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed title to the green budgerigar picture top right of article 

message: Someone at some point came in and capitalized the word "budgerigar" all over the place.  Budgierigar is not a proper noun, and an anonymous IP post recognizing this removed all the capitalization.  Then someone came in and undid that revision, according to his comment using some tool called "MWT" which appears to be an anti-vandalism tool.  I believe this undoing was in error, as the preceding article (with capitalization removed) was more correct, so I undid the undo.
In the diff for my edit, you can clearly see that the capitalization was removed.  However, the article does not reflect that.  I cleared my browser's cache, and the words are still capitalized.  I then made another edit on a grammar error in a small section of the article, at the same time manually removing the capitalization.  That went through just fine, and "budgerigar" in that section is no longer capitalized.  It's still capitalized everywhere else.
So why did my undo not work properly? 209.251.136.45 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the above post, as well as the grammar edit of the main article immediately after my undo-undo revision, was by me.  I think I obliterated the cookie when I cleared my cache. Mbarbier (talk) 14:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did my undo not take effect? 

message: We have two male birds one is losing feathers around his face, is this a big problem?  He is not having any other problems and is eating fine.  Is there anyone that has had this happen or know what to do?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.51.221 (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budgerigar Bird losing feathers 

message: should i seperate my females to stop them fighting over there young?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.164.56 (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopaedia, not a guide to keeping budgies. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  females fight 

message: This section contains the line
"Chocolate, alcohol, rhubarb leaves and avocado are recognized as highly toxic.[20] [21]"
However, reference 20 includes nothing about these items in all its text so it is not an appropiate reference for the statemet; the reference is irrelevant.
Reference 21 is a list posted in a chat room by "Stacey" and is posted totally without support, it lacks even the most miniscule credbility and does not include either chocolate or alcohol, and it does not even come close to being peer reviewed. This is a shabby substitute for published support.
My own bird has consumed alcohol, chocolate, and avocado without any observed ill effects, casting doubt on the statement. It requires better support than provided. At the very least the references shoulod be deleted and lack of citation tagged to it.
Radzewicz (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet 

message: I undid some revisions by Magsxemail.  This user eliminated the list of common alternative names (including "parakeet"), and instead included a very strongly-worded assertion that "parakeet" is incorrect, providing a citation.  The citation looks like a pop-ish pet page, with single, almost in-passing mention that budgies are "mistakenly" called parakeets.  The user attempted to pass this off as authority on the matter.
I do not consider this even remotely authoritative.  Further, the name "parakeet" is largely accepted as a correct, if imprecise, word for the animal.  Therefore, I consider the notion that "parakeet" is utterly incorrect to be an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, which was most certainly not provided. Mbarbier (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parakeet 

message: The evolutionary history section makes no sense to me. Is the group containing the budgie and the lories really the most basal parrot group? How does the budgie "link" two genera? Can somebody clarify this? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  evolutionary history 

message: The following sentence seems unclear to me. 
Hand feeding is not routinely done with budgerigars, due to their small size, and the fact that young parent raised birds can be readily tamed.
Shouldn't it be young parent-raised birds, with a -? Correjon (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a wording question. 

message: This is purely OR, however, having kept various Aussie parrots including budgies and rosellas for well over forty years, I would like to contribute the following.
Budgies like many other birds are very attractive to various mites and parasites. They clean themselves as best they can, but there's one thing that a single bird cannot do easily, and that is to clean and de-mite its own face. Some birds manage it - they fluff their face feathers then rub their faces in dry dirt.
Budgies have adopted a different strategy. Budgies in a group or in the wild will clean each others faces, a process which I have always known as ALLOPREENING. Interestingly, even budgies in a cage that don't like each other (ie, that fight and screech at each other) will of necessity "call a truce" and do this.
So if you have a single budgie in a cage, you need to be especially vigilant that he/she is mite and parasite free. Not to do so is CRUELTY BY NEGLECT.
58.168.75.123 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely new aspect to the "not keeping a single budgie" argument. 

message: "... Budgerigars enjoy chewing on anything they can find.".
Budgies, like many other parrots, need to chew frequently to keep those beak muscles in good condition and to prevent the constantly-growing beak from overgrowing. This is evolved survival behaviour. It is not really right to talk about "enjoying".
Old_Wombat (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed it, along with a few other similar issues. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: please explain the difference between "evolved survival behaviors" and the ways humans behave, particularly with regard to chewing and perhaps with human enjoyment? 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The dreaded anthropomorphism has crept into this article. 

message: :"The appearance of down occurs precisely at the ages (around 9 or 10 days of age) for closed banding of the chicks. Budgerigar's closed band rings must be neither larger or smaller than 4.0 to 4.2 mm."
What does this mean? I can't find "closed banding" or "closed band" defined anywhere. Cousin Ricky (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: For the "domesticated animals" list, to solve a dispute, we've decided that "first list" status (unquestioned true domestication) requires that the source page for the animal have the word "domesticated".  If these guys are generally considered domesticated, could someone add a comment to that effect somewhere on the page?  Tamtrible (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domestication 

message: I added two items to 'etymology'. One regarding another aboriginal language reference "Yuwaalaraay" and the other at the bottom of that section, regarding the meaning, ie. "good" and "good bird" vs. "good food" (and even "tasty treat"). I've provided references. That's just for the lead in.
The other thing I did was remove two references in the text saying "This is supported by the XXXXXX Dictionary". This is an egregious misunderstanding of what a dictionary is. A dictionary reports common (or at least some) usage. A dictionary is descriptive, NOT prescriptive. A dictionary should never be promoted as an authoritative source for anything other than reporting what other people have been saying. As a source for reporting usage, it is perfectly acceptable to use one as a reference. But it is by no means proper to attempt to lend credence to a statement by saying a particular dictionary "supports" a statement. This point should be even more apparent when one considers the fact that all dictionaries are produced in-house, and are not subjected to peer review as are most references one would consider valid. Anyone can write a dictionary and present it as a source people will tend to accept as authoritative work. Similarly, anyone can name a dictionary anything they like to emphasize this effect, and rarely will anyone question it. I offer, for example, Webster's New World Dictionary of Computer Terms, 8th Edition, written by one guy, and Random House Webster's Computer and Internet Dictionary, 3rd Edition, written by a different guy. No editorial staff, no peer review. But they're both named "Webster's". Why? Because it's a dead guy's name associated with dictionaries, who can't defend himself or his name from being used to lend artificial credence. You have to ask yourself how a guy who died in 1843 could have anything to do with a dictionary of computer terms, much less two different ones. The only time his name can be used with validity is within the trademark of "Mirriam-Webster", and then it is still only a trademark, not a signifier of validity within any of the works produced with that name. 
In my opinion this should be applied globally. Descriptive sources that are presented as authoritative should be removed from text as such, although leaving them as a reference for reporting usage should be allowed.
Drmcclainphd (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictum and Dictionaries 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Budgerigar. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131022020159/http://now.msn.com/disco-the-parakeet-banters-beatboxes-and-blows-minds to http://now.msn.com/disco-the-parakeet-banters-beatboxes-and-blows-minds
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article states that the etymology of budgerigar is uncertain, but the OED is clear about its origin. The word derives from an:
Australian Aboriginal language (‘Port Jackson dialect’, Morris Austral English), < budgeri, boodgeri good + gar cockatoo.
Does the author of that section know something the OED doesn't? Is there some reason to think this is disputed?
KC 22:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Budgerigar. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017200317/http://gould.australianmuseum.net.au/naturalist/indigenous2.htm to http://gould.australianmuseum.net.au/naturalist/indigenous2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: === Mimicry ===
Male specimens of budgerigars are considered to be one of the top five talking champions amongst parrot species, alongside the grey parrot, the amazon and the eclectus parrots, and the ring-necked parakeet. Budgerigars are able to mimic the language patterns of a human, but also able to recognize differences in sounds patterns between interactive and non-interactive conditions. Their ability to recognize patterns in language is similar to a seven year old child due to the similar recognizing skills and rhythmic abilities shared with humans. Dchave28 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019 

message: Male specimens of budgerigars are considered to be one of the top five talking champions amongst parrot species, alongside the grey parrot, the amazon and the eclectus parrots, and the ring-necked parakeet. Budgerigars are able to mimic the language patterns of a human, but also able to recognize differences in sounds patterns between interactive and non-interactive conditions. Their ability to recognize patterns in language is similar to a seven year old child due to the similar recognizing skills and rhythmic abilities shared with humans. Dchave28 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimicry 

message: Juveniles and chicks are monomorphic, while adults are told apart by their cere colouring, and their behaviour.
Can we just fix that right there?
Young budgies are not monomorphic. They have their own cere colours to dictate gender.
A young male will have a pink or purple cere. Some mutations such as Recessive Pied, Albino/Lutino, Lacewing or Dark Eyed Clear the males will keep the juvinille colouring rather than turn to deep blue like other males.
Young females will have a white or pale blue cere. This is not influenced by mutation.
When a hen begins to become hormonal her cere will start to turn brown. This is called Breeding Condition. Once the cycle has ended, the brown sheds off and the cere returns to white and or pale blue.
Even in day old chicks it can be possible to discern between male and female with enough experience.
It's misinformation like this that makes it so much harder to be able to tell the 'internet experts' anything without them throwing 10 misleading articles in your face to prove their point. Crazy Budgie Lady (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monomorphic 

message: Please add a new part saying all of the budgie colours. TheIcyTree (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What more do you want beyond what's already in the sentence in the lead saying "Budgies are bred in captivity with colouring of blues, whites, yellows, greys, and even with small crest"? HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

text: There's also the link in the See also section to the very detailed Budgerigar colour genetics article. HiLo48 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  All budgie colours 

message: Why is the first sentence in this section a reference to captive breeding in the 1850s? Especially given the discussion of the etymology above, with one suggestion even being that the name means "good food" (the source referenced points out that they flock to areas that are abundant in food), there is surely some more information out there about the birds' relationship with Aboriginal people. It's not a great look for the article to skip over 60,000 years of potential human relationships, there should be at least a sentence or two before reference to 1850s colonial Australia. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable than me can supply this. 27.33.55.237 (talk) 23:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship with humans section 

message: The current distribution map is... pretty awful. The resolution is terrible, but worse is the fact that it shows the entire planet when only Australia is needed. 147.226.192.250 (talk) 147.226.192.250 (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: a photo in the article currently refers to the bird in the photo as a "Patagonian budgerigar". According to the range map, the bird is not an introduced species anyplace outside Australia. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:10D0 (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ecology section of the article mentions a wild, feral population in Florida as the only significant one outside Australia. Florida has a suitable climate. Patagonia doesn't. Fairly extensive Googling on my part has come up with nothing about a Patagonian budgerigar. Geographically it seems highly unlikely. The caption of the pic (two of them actually) in Commons is in Turkish, and translates to "light blue parakeet", not "Patagonian budgerigar". I'm wondering if a breeder somewhere came up with a nice colour and wanted to give it an exotic name? HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patagonian budgerigar? 

message: Someone has added the "citation needed" tag to the sentence "These beaks allow the birds to eat plants, fruits, and vegetables." Is it really possible that their beaks prevent them from eating, or is the request for a citation questioning whether these things do constitute their diet? Are budgerigars possibly breatharians? Do they photosynthesise? Do we need a citation for the rather obvious fact that their beaks allow them to eat? 120.22.121.175 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is wrt what their diet consists of. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does their beak allow them to eat? 

message: For the meanings of the two parts of the scientific name this article is currently just citing a Greek and a Latin dictionary. It looks a bit like original research. There is no big issue with the obvious Latin word for parrot, but I don't think "melo-" in Greek means "melodious". Generally it would mean black, surely. In any case if it is not obvious our editors should not be guessing. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We were taught at high school in Australia that it is Latin for honey meaning "sweet bird" in the sense of sweet sounding. Agree that that is a terrible Greek/Latin mix. 120.153.220.134 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology of the binomial name 

message: Well, that is 99% true, but not totally. In the wild, there are only two genes that code for pigmentation. One for all-yellow, the other for blue and white. Occasionally in the wild there is a recessive damaged gene, which is recessive. If the yellow one is damaged, the bird is blue and white. If the blue/white one is damaged, it is all yellow. If both are damaged, the bird is white. To repeat, this is only a tiny percentage, but it does occur in the wild. 120.153.220.134 (talk) 07:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source containing that information? That's what we would need to add it to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm under the impression that it's true - in that every so often a blue budgie (don't know about all yellow) is born in the wild due to there being a fairly common recessive gene in the population. I actually wanted to add that to the article myself a while back, but I was unable to find a source. The Reference Desk couldn't help either. Iloveparrots (talk) 09:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naturally, the species is green and yellow "