Talk:Peafowl

message: Seems that this article is poorly written as it is missing lots of vital information, including the lifespan (how old these animals live to be), how many eggs are laid on average and so on.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.234.232 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan 

message: I believe that more information on the diet of peacocks should be added in this text. Also there should be noted that there is a difference in the diet of wild and tame peacocks. 
Wild peacocks are omnivores, which means they eat food both from plant and animal origin. They eat fruit, grain, flower pedals but they also like crickets, termites and scorpions. Amazingly, these birds will eat snakes, especially poisonous ones.
Tame or domestic peacocks are more choosy than the wild ones, eating mostly grass, breadcrumb and seeds. 
I feel like much more can be said about the topic on peacock's diet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavicaZ3 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are surely right; the article is currently largely a WP:COATRACK for material on evolution, and there's precious little on anything else - diet, distribution, non-courting behaviour, description, longevity, you name it. If you have sources (textbooks, papers) then by all means go ahead and add new material, but take care to reference it fully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peafowl's diet 

message: Hey people! Can you add the russian wiki's link, pls? I've tried do it myself but appears the Error message: An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed. Деэба (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: (ru)Interwiki

message: The common name is peafowl?  And not peacock?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name is peacock only to those who don't realize that a hen is not a cock. --Khajidha (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article? 

message: I revert an edit because it is factually incorrect. It's classed as "disruptive"?
Can I get another editor's opinion, please?
IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing factual error: reverted as disruptive? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Peafowl. 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/20060622111429/http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-1/p18.html to http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-1/p18.html
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) 05:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Nothing about peacock as a dish. It did exist in the history, and it was anecdotical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 22:39, November 26, 2019 (UTC)
:Knock yourself out. You supply the citations and add the prose. — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add new material directly to the existing section on Gastronomy where there is already an image of a dish included. Loopy30 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Okay, I'm confused. The Plumage section says females "lack the train and the head ornament." Then it says both species have a crest atop the head. Huh? So what's the "crest" and what's the "head ornament"? In the closeup of the adult (presumably male) head, I see a head ornament, but nothing resembling a crest. What are we talking about here? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree the part on the head ornament is contradictory. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have had a go at fixing this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  Have a look at some pictures on your favourite search engine. The females puff out their plumage as a warning, but they don't do the fan thing that the males do. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

text:  Agree, but don't have one, sorry. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Male and Female 

message: Maybe it's just me. (See my user name.) Should the article refer to "peacock eggs"? Cocks do not lay eggs. Hens lay eggs. IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, good point. The Indian Peacock article notes that the females only incubate the eggs and the chicks follow the hen around, but I have given the father (grandfather?) some credit and gone gender neutral, however unfertilised eggs would come from a female! I guess that the male bird would have been sometimes eaten in preference to make a table display though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: One could argue that half of fertilized eggs would be "peacock" eggs, because the chick is male, but .... IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eggs 

message: I just noticed this. The article contains the  template, while there is an attached page notice to say . Although the latter is earlier I think the former is more reasonable. Any thoughts? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I am going to update the edit notice for Indian English rather than British, as well as add the notice to the talk page. Indigopari (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I added the talk page notice and filed an edit request for the edit notice. Indigopari (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  English 

message: Due to Wikipedia changing the page to Peafowl instead of Peacock, if you google Peacock, you are given the wikipedia page of the NBC streaming service Peacock, even if you aren't American. I don't want to immediately start another contest to change the name but just do want this to be noted Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't "changing" in any meaningful sense. That has been the name for years. People should be encouraged to use better search engines, e. g. DuckDuckGo, which favors Wikipedia in its searches. (Note: not serious.) We don't do SOE here, as far as I know. IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peafowl instead of peacock damages google searches 

message: The American NBC television found the peacock an excellent metaphor for bright color. NBC was an innovator in color TV, significantly preceding at the least its American competitors. 
The file is taken from the Wikipedia article on "NBC", so I presume that the image already has at the least a fair-use rationale. The logo is no longer in use, so there can be no harm from its use.
Yes, as a symbol of a heavily-watched TV network it is certainly a cultural reference to a peacock. Face it: a multi-colored eagle would not have worked as well. The Laramie peacock is no longer in use. Pbrower2a (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBC peacock 

message: what's up with the food courtship theory's source? it links to like some health supplement?? Mstov (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks as if the original online journal, naturalSCIENCE, went under and a domain squatter grabbed it for Lean Stack. I switched the reference to point to the Wayback Machine archive of the original article (but I sort of question its importance). IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  lean stack? 

message: The below section is from the current version of the article. 
==== Sexual selection ====
Charles Darwin suggested in On the Origin of Species that the peafowl's plumage had evolved through sexual selection. He expanded upon this in his second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners.Sexual selection is the ability of male and female organisms to exert selective forces on each other with regard to mating activity. The strongest driver of sexual selection is gamete size. In general, eggs are bigger than sperm, and females produce fewer gametes than males. This leads to eggs being a bigger investment, so to females being selective about the traits that will be passed on to her offspring by males. The peahen's reproductive success and the likelihood of survival of her chicks is partly dependent on the genotype of the mate. Females generally have more to lose when mating with an inferior male due to her gametes being more costly than the male's.
The quoted section is just a general description of sexual selection, with no reference to peafowl. The follow-up paragraph is more on the general idea of sexual selection, that makes a lot more claims than is in Darwin's quote. 
"In general, eggs are bigger than sperm, and females produce fewer gametes than males." <-- Yes, this is a very GENERAL quote, and has nothing to do with peacocks in particular. Or even birds...
"Females generally have more to lose when mating with an inferior male due to her gametes being more costly than the male's." <-- This is the most specific quote in this section, and it doesn't relate to how peahens select peacocks. 
Furthermore, despite Darwin's The Origin of Species being referenced, the peacock is only mentioned 4 times in that book, and all of them are offhand mentions without talk about sexual selection. 
Google searching has led me to some articles entitled "Darwin Hates Peacocks: How Beauty Shows that God Exists" and "How the Amazing Peacock's Feather Refutes Evolution" which I think may have to do with why there's suspiciously scanty (and somewhat questionable) generic sexual selection facts in the article that's supposed to be about peafowl. This may warrant further digging in the edit history to see if there's a root cause. 
In any case, I have updated Darwin's quote to the most relevant peacock/sexual selection quote I could find from the The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, though it's much less "this is why peacocks have fancy tails" and more "this is what must have happened according to evolution and natural selection".  Calabax (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darwin/Origin of Species doesn't actually say much about peacocks 

message: Charles Darwin suggested in On the Origin of Species that the peafowl's plumage had evolved through sexual selection. He expanded upon this in his second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners.Sexual selection is the ability of male and female organisms to exert selective forces on each other with regard to mating activity. The strongest driver of sexual selection is gamete size. In general, eggs are bigger than sperm, and females produce fewer gametes than males. This leads to eggs being a bigger investment, so to females being selective about the traits that will be passed on to her offspring by males. The peahen's reproductive success and the likelihood of survival of her chicks is partly dependent on the genotype of the mate. Females generally have more to lose when mating with an inferior male due to her gametes being more costly than the male's.
The quoted section is just a general description of sexual selection, with no reference to peafowl. The follow-up paragraph is more on the general idea of sexual selection, that makes a lot more claims than is in Darwin's quote. 
"In general, eggs are bigger than sperm, and females produce fewer gametes than males." <-- Yes, this is a very GENERAL quote, and has nothing to do with peacocks in particular. Or even birds...
"Females generally have more to lose when mating with an inferior male due to her gametes being more costly than the male's." <-- This is the most specific quote in this section, and it doesn't relate to how peahens select peacocks. 
Furthermore, despite Darwin's The Origin of Species being referenced, the peacock is only mentioned 4 times in that book, and all of them are offhand mentions without talk about sexual selection. 
Google searching has led me to some articles entitled "Darwin Hates Peacocks: How Beauty Shows that God Exists" and "How the Amazing Peacock's Feather Refutes Evolution" which I think may have to do with why there's suspiciously scanty (and somewhat questionable) generic sexual selection facts in the article that's supposed to be about peafowl. This may warrant further digging in the edit history to see if there's a root cause. 
In any case, I have updated Darwin's quote to the most relevant peacock/sexual selection quote I could find from the The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, though it's much less "this is why peacocks have fancy tails" and more "this is what must have happened according to evolution and natural selection".  Calabax (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual selection 

message: I need to know in order to cite them,and the date of publication. 2603:7081:2CF0:8F60:2C72:A9D2:96DF:3137 (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: These people on these dates. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this article?