Talk:Woodpecker

message: I propose moving this page to woodpecker for the following reasons.
#The family page is more important than the subfamily page.
#The term woodpecker can be used to describe the whole family as well as specifically the subfamily. 
#Woodpecker gets higher levels of traffic than Picidae.
The throughout the text the group would be referred to as woodpeckers and piculets, if that is preferred. The idea of the move is not to suggest the whole family are woodpeckers, if people feel that they are not (personally I think of them as such, but we'll see what other people think). The idea is simply to have the article title on the name that gets the biggest number of hits (802 a day as opposed to 35). As an incentive, if this is approved, I will push the article to Good Article Status within a month of the move. Scouts honour. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then what do we do with the present page for Woodpecker, which covers the Piciformes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, it covers Picinae, the subfamily, and I suggest moving it to Picinae, currently a redirect. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Support. Having a fair deal of Neotropical experiance, everybody in that part of the world, regardless of background (random birders to pro ornithologists), consider and speak about piculets as "just small woodpeckers" (and the vast majority of piculets are, after all, Neotropical). A comparably situation applies to wrynecks (at least in Europe). So, I'd also feel fine about just referring to them all as woodpeckers; no need for "woodpeckers and piculets" or alike throughout the text (except in cases where descriptions specifically refer to some - but not all - of the subfamilies). • Rabo³ • 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Support I'm sure it's where they started. The wrynecks are a minor stumbling block because they are normally called just that, but they are woodpeckers, and it makes sense to have the family where you would expect it jimfbleak (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed move

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ivory Billed Woodpecker.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: The recent edits on other pages moving several Picoides species to other genera has led to some orphaned genera.  Example: the Red-cockaded woodpecker was recently edited changing its genus to Leuconotopicus, which is not mentioned on this page as a genus within Picidae.  I don't know enough about the current state of bird taxonomy to know whether to add Leuconotopicus to this page, or to revert the other changes to species pages.  May be in need of an expert eye to untangle. Chanther (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy Revisions 

message: Unbelievable picture and story:
The Tale of the Weasel and the Woodpecker 82.171.6.217 (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Scorpion and the Frog]] or The Weasel and the Woodpecker? 

message: I have acquired the 2014 book Woodpeckers of the World: A Photographic Guide by Gerard Gorman  with a view to working on this article and taking it to GA. The book has a twenty page introductory section with a lot of general information on the family. If anyone else would like to join me, they are welcome to do so. I am also expanding some of the species stubs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I was one of the people that got it to B class, so I guess I'll keep helping. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 18:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the comment. I have moved the paragraph you suggested and will see what I can find on extinct and endangered species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: GA

message: Can you put more.......soundtrack or video about woodpeckers?😃 Yellow man (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sound 

message: I just saw a CT scan of a woodpecker showing the insane tongue bones wrapping around the skull and going into the right nostril. I think this feature is notable enough to show, perhaps use one of these images in the lower right of the characteristics section? Also could be good to note the asymmetry (only entering the right nostril), if that is a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have added it to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! Makes them seem even more amazing. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

text: Hi 216.255.255.202 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tongue bones 

message: 104.162.197.70 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly looks like it, and the article mentions that their diet includes eggs and nestlings. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do they eat small birds? 

message: This study comes to the conclusion that woodpeckers do not actually have shock absorbers in their skulls. Instead, their small-sized brains seem to prevent trauma. Perhaps a candidat for inclusion in list of common misconceptions, too? AndersenAnders (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No shock absorption 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Campo flicker (Colaptes campestris) female.JPG, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 9, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-01-09. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD