Talk:Tanimbar corella

message: We should look for a picture. Like this one:
http://www.vet.ohio-state.edu/docs/VCS727/sld013.html  -FB
:There is no image on that page now (visible on my system with various media scripts switched off) and at the present time the link is just a list of college items of no relevance to this article. Snowman (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: For some reason this article was titled in lowercase, so I moved it to capitalised version in accordance with agreed convention. jimfbleak 06:41, 10 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: "Goffin's Cockatoos are the smallest of all Cacatuidae" ? Surely cockatiels are smaller. Nurg 08:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bird size

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 20:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Ok, the offical name for this species used by BLI, IOC, etc is Tanimbar Corella. Can we follow this and move this species and change the names accordingly? Wwith reference to the old name of course.... -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, done. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw what you did there. Not that I'm particularly bothered now (though I would've pointed it out if I'd noticed your previous post!), it would probably have been a good idea to list this at WP:RM. Renaming articles about birds commonly kept as pets with long-established 'avicultural names' has proven to be mildly controversial in the past. FWIW, if it came to a support/oppose movie situation, I'd generally support keeping an article at whatever name is most commonly used to describe the bird - i.e. the term that the majority of readers would type into the search box when at the Main Page, just for the sake of simplicity. Yeah, I know - aviculturists and ornithologists: oil and water... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Grin, I am actually in favour of splitting each and every article with an aviculture section in a latin name and Common name (aviculture) article. But serious, that is not going to happen. There are a bunch of redirects for all commonly used name, and the name is also in the first line, which I think is good so that aviculturists can see what is going on.  -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh gawd no...we need to get one of the more aviculture-freindly spp to FA. I did Red-tailed Black Cockatoo a while ago, but Cockatoo is gaining apace...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have difficulty in interpreting "Grin". Please explain what this means. Snowman (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this page has recently been moved without a consensus. I have suggested a name change back to its original name through a formal process. The move to Tanibar Cockatoo has not been done appropriately, because, as indicated above this is a controversial move and it should not have been moved without a formal move request. The recent name change has been based on IOC, which is not the standard on the wiki. Commonly used names have been used for bird FAs; there are a few FAs on birds that use a commonly used name rather than formal names in books. Two editors (see above) commented on a recent page move to the current article name, one pointed out this it is likely to be a controversial move, and the other did not directly comment to the page move to "Tanimbar Corella" and mentioned a "more aviculture-friendly spp to FA".  See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. Snowman (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Grin means that I had to laugh. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you looking down on aviculture? Snowman (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not at all, and I have bred many parrot and parakeet species myself. However, my long experience (on and off wiki) has taught me that most aviculture parts are generally messy, unsourced, full of How to sections, and based on personal experience. If you would clean those up to standards, generally at least 50% has to be cut out. To solve the problem of generally good general information and crappy aviculture information, I would be in favour of splitting thoise articles. My more practical approach is that I just do not toutch thoise sections and leave it to others. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And what does this mean "so that aviculturists can see what is going on." Snowman (talk) 13:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That they can see what goes on in the world of the systematics, taxonomy and phylogenetics. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you identify good aviculture information when you see it? If you are in favour off splitting the aviculture from bird species pages, you can make a suggestion somewhere, but I guess that you will find that your view is out-on-a-limb. Snowman (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I can. I have no desire to actually propose it, as I know it won't fly. My practical approach is to just leave those sections as they are and not tough them with a 10-foot pole. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone is entitled to their own views and opinions. Snowman (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless, if you have such views that "won't fly" regarding aviculture content, then may I suggest that you do not make unilateral page name moves for birds popular in Avicultue. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanimbar Corella 

message: Note, this discussion is about the move from Tanimbar Corella to Goffin's Cockatoo, in order to undo a controversial move. Thos back move has been made, a formal proposal to move the page from  Goffin's Cockatoo to Tanimbar Corella is made lower at this page. Unsigned edit by user Kim van der Linde at venus 13:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is nothing wrong with a parrot being named after a person. Snowman (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Yes, you did worn that is was a controversial move, and I think that the move should not have gone ahead without a formal discussion. Additionally, it seems to me, there was not a consensus for the move. The move seems to have been based on IOC names, which are not used universally on the wiki. I did not see any calculations or further discussion of which term is the most popular for the name of the page, so your opinion in the discussion may have been ignored. Snowman (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The warning was done after I moved it, which I proposed here and did not receive any comments on in a 6 day period. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not want to waste time on the name of the page, and it seemed to me clear that the discussion did not have any momentum for a page move. It would have been better and you would have waisted less users valuable time, if you had suggested a move in a proper way for a controversial move by starting a page move discussion. Snowman (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference the page move was done by this edit at 02:04, on 29 December 2008. Snowman (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there was no opposition to the move. And I did not know this would be a controversial move. So, move it back and lets move on. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can say that no one had replied to you. I did not realise that until you pointed it out, because the discussion above quickly followed the page move. I will strike through any comments that I made above, when I incorrectly thought that the move was made after some discussion, which happened overnight here in the UK. I see that you have started a discussion on IOC names on the BirdTalk page, but at the present time they are not standard on the wiki. To some extent these topics and page names are already well ploughed fields, and I guess more ploughing will not be expected to make much difference. The trouble is you can not upset a traditional apple cart, with new page names that hardly anyone uses, just because a committee said something, and when other committees and books are saying something else. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IOC names seem to become the new standard. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But, IOC is not part of the current WP:Bird policy at the present time, and especially IOC was not part of BP:Bird policy when the page move was moved over Christmas unilaterally away from "Goffin's Cockatoo". Snowman (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that is what we want, move back, discuss again and move again. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle should be taken into consideration when the voting is counted by the administrator at the end of this discussion. This page should not have been moved to "Tanimbar Corella" as it was fairly obvious that it was a controversial move, and this improper action should not be unduly rewarded. The votes for and against should be considered in reverse and as if the page was being moved to "Tanimbar Corella" from the orignial name of "Goffin's Cockatoo". I think that it would be a good principal that an improper un-discussed page move should not be rewarded, by having to defend the reverse move after an improperly performed move. I am sure this is the fair way of considering this page discussion, and it is the wish of three out of four people who have taken part in this discussion. The fourth has not expressed an opinion. Either way making a controversial move unilaterally should not be rewarded by having others defend by others having to defend by making a proper move request. Snowman (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, this original page name could be resorted now prior to its un-discussed move, this discussion ended and then see if anyone wants to move it to Tanimbar Cockatoo with a proper move request. Either way making a controversial move unilaterally should not be rewarded, by having others defend by making the reverse move by a formal move process. Snowman (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I had NO idea that this page move would turn out controversial. But I will go ahead and undo my own move so that rules can be followed to the letter and the wikilaywering can stop. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: *The paper that you quoted indicates that the "Tanimbar Corella" has had a confusing history. From the introduction: "The history and taxonomic status of the species-group names Lophochroa goffini Finsch, 1863, and Cacatua tanimberensis Roselaar & Prins, 2000, both used to name the Tanimbar Corella."  I think, that you should not have made a controversial move in the way that you did. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Cacatua tanimberensis has hardly been used, and is generally not more than a taxonomic artefact, and has never caused any confusion for the public at large. But I get it, move the page back and I move on with something else. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 13:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *But, it is important enough to be in the introduction of the paper that you choose and quoted to support a counter opinion. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a hardcore taxonomic paper, and those mention everything related to the subject. But mainly, they cleaned up a mess they in part created themselves. This is one of those papers in taxonomy that are needed and generally forgotten as soon as it is adopted by the community at large. Do a search on Cacatua tanimberensis, you find 6 hits in google, two related to the two papers and a one with the autor. It is a footnote to history. Nothing more. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that you have changed you opinion from oppose, to neutral, and then to support. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as I indicated, I have no desire for prolonged discussions about which name to use. If we have to use a 11-year old book as the de facto standard, ignoring all recent developments which are nicely summed at the IOC, so be it. Move the page back, undo all my changes and move on. Really, if we cannot be up-to-date or have to pander to google counts, I have no desire to deal with it. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no advantages in using a page name other than the well established name Goffin's Cockatoo here, and there will be no confusion of what a Goffin's Cockatoo is or what the page is about.  Tanimbar Corella is a name that has just popped up, and could be an example of WP:Recentism or a passing fad. The name Goffin's Cockatoo has been widely used for many years (including by authoritative books) and has stood the test of time. Snowman (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: *The name of the page is discussed here, and not at a distance to the page. This discussion on the proposed move will be preserved here on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, the rules at the wikiproject birds can be ignored as what counts is the arguments at this page. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the name of this page is discussed here, and it is discussed in the context of common sense, BirdTalk naming conventions, and Wikipedia naming conventions. Other issues regarding general names are discussed on the BirdTalk page, and any "resolutions" on the BirdTalk page may affect individual article names. Snowman (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I started a list of publications lower at this page that use either name, in which I listed recent publication using Tanimbar Corella. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I note that your opinion has changed from oppose, to neutral, to support, and now to oppose. I have not seen anyone change their mind so many times in one of these discussion before. I presume these are genuine, and that you are not doing this to waste other users valuable time. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Most species of the Licmetis subgenus are called Corellas already. Juniper and Parr ( Parrots: A Guide to Parrots of the World) give as range: Endemic to Tanimbar Island and associated island (Yamdena, Larat, Selaru), Malaku province, Indonesia. Babar island is new to me, do you have a reference? -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction say Banda Sea islands. See here for Banda Sea islands. This zone seems to include other island groups as well as the Tanimbar islands. After quickly looking at the webpage, I have found that this zone includes the Banda group of islands, the Kai islands, the Tanimbar islands, and there might be more and some not being included on the website.  However, I will be grateful for further information on geography and the native range of this parrot. Snowman (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the suggestion that "Tanimbar Corella" is much more descriptive does not stand up to an quick examination of its native range, which includes at least two other island groups with different names. Snowman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you please provide ref's for islands that are not part of the Tanimbar Islands. Juniper's parrots guide, Forshaws monumental book (Tanimbar islands), BLI (Cacatua goffiniana is restricted to the Banda Sea Islands of Yamdena and Larat (Tanimbar) with an introduced population on Kai, Indonesia.) and IUCN (Cacatua goffiniana is restricted to the Banda Sea Islands of Yamdena and Larat (Tanimbar) with an introduced population on Kai, Indonesia) all indicate Tanimbar islands. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having to look up the geography of the zone. Looking at wiki pages first of all: The introduction to Tanimbar Islands says "The Aru Islands and Kai Islands lie to the northeast, and Babar Island and Timor lie to the west", and it does not say that they are part of the Tanimbar Island group. Babar Islands wikipage does not mention "Tanimbar". The introduction to Kai Islands says "Kai Islands (also Kei Islands) of Indonesia are in the south-eastern part of the Maluku Islands" and "northeast of the Tanimbar Islands". Snowman (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can short cut this discussion by by first showing a reference that actually claims that the Tanimbar Crorella is found on any of these island as its native range as we have four island until now: Tanimbar Island, Yamdena, Larat, Selaru. And here is a list of Islands of Indonesia, with the following island part of the Tanimbar range: Fordata,Larat, Maru, Molu, Nuswotar, Selaru, Selu, Seira, Wotap, Wuliaru, Yamdena, while Babar Island is a seperate island group.-- Kim van der Linde at venus 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: For its native range I may have misinterpreted the article which says Banda Sea Islands, and on BirdLife. I thought it meant a lot of islands and not just a few. It will be worth adding something to the article on that in more detail. Snowman (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to change a species name when it has a well known name. A lot of birds are named after people and there is nothing wrong with that. There is "Rüppell's Vulture", and this is not called the "Brown African Vulture", because it is more descriptive, and Rüppell is not even an English name and contains non-English characters that are not on an English typewrite. Several other birds and animals named after Rüppell too, Rüppell's Warbler, Rüppell's Parrot, Rüppell's Bustard, Rüppell's Broad-nosed Bat, Rueppell's Chat, Rueppell's Glossy-starling, and more, and there is "Kuhl's Lorikeet", "Stephen's Lorikeet", and so on. The issue of where birds come from is often confused by feral parrots living elsewere. I just read on a website that Goffin's Cockatoos are living in Australia. There is nothing wrong with the name "Goffin's Cocktoo" that is so bad that it needs to be changed. Snowman (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move

message: This bird is one of the most popular Cockatoo's in aviculture, and yet an aviculture section has not been permitted to develop on the page. Several editors over a number of years have made some bold starts on an aviculture section, and I think some reasonable content was achieved. Then came other editors who repeatedly deleted all the aviculture or most of the aviculture content, and may have discouraged new editors from adding aviculture to this page, or anything else to the wiki. I think that "do not bite newcomers" should have been considered more; however, I do not think any specific wiki guidelines were broken as there are wiki standards to maintain. It is a wiki guideline to provide sources for information added and not to add "to do" content. Sometimes, unreferenced information can be kept if it is "common knowledge". It seems to me that the overall result is a poor article on this parrot. I think that this page is best served by Goffin's Cockatoo, which is the name most widely used. Snowman (talk) 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what do you think? Have a trawl through the history to see if there's anything that can be resurrected and suitably referenced? In my experience, it's quite tricky to find *good* sources for avicultural facts - too many personal website opinion pieces and commercial sites promoting their own interests at the expense of factual accuracy. A lot (most, perhaps) of the birdkeeping books I've read over the years haven't been much better, TBH. Take the oft-mentioned (yet rarely referenced) descriptions of a species' personality and demeanour, for example - way too many people extrapolating the behaviour of entire species from the behaviour of one pet bird. I know from my own experience with budgerigars that some can be sweet, gentle little things, whilst others raised in the same environment can grow up to be right spiteful, vicious little f*ckers (in the fondest possible sense!) - but I digress. So yeah, it's probably worth a try... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See above in the ==Removed Section== which was removed on 12 January 2006. On this page the aviculture section in not in the article, but it has been on the talk page for years. I am not saying it is good, but there is stuff above that has been rescued from the article and put on the talk page, and there is stuff there you would only know if you kept one yourself. For example the endearing howling of baby Goffin's Cockatoos (there producer sounds) which is absolutely true. I have got a number of aviculture books and they are generally not very good, but I have used the better ones as references from time to time, after I have double checked the content. I think that there is enough reasonable sources to add content. Some ornithology facts are added as common knowledge, but does this hold for aviculture content? I have found it difficult too using linked webpages for aviculture, because of the associated advertising. Snowman (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that things like the noise, feather-plucking, the need for attention, chewing, biting and the ability to open their own cages could be considered common knowledge for most parrot species. "Cockatoos can be very loud." is a bit like a case of "The sky is blue." --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with that generally. The adults can make a loud squawk, but the chicks make a soft howling sound. Adult Goffin's are quieter than some cockatoos. The complete unilateral removal of all aviculture content has been used on this page, with out going through the stage of adding  tags. It would be good to see cn tags rather than unilateral non-discussed deletions. Snowman (talk) 00:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to be bold and stick the majority of that passage back in, with some preliminary modifications and a couple of  tags. Feel free to improve and expand based on your books and common knowledge... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goffin's Cockatoo in aviculture 

message: Move Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To add, the Broad-crested Corella is also known as the Ducorps' Cockatoo-- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To add, HBW list online at the website of the publisher uses                    Tanimbar Corella now also. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 21:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I note that text in the nomination has changed after there had been replies to it. This can make some of the replies look odd. It is not appropriate to change text after there has been replies. I understand that the correct options could be to strike through what was wrong and/or to add text lower down the page and say what your re-think is. I trust that the amendment will be reverted and an addendum added later down the page. Snowman (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 20:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: there has been an agreement on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#IOC names at FA/GA articles to start IOC renames in a particular sequence. The agreement is to start with FAs and GAs and to change the name of this article being a Start class is outside of the current agreement. I would ask anyone who have voted here to keep to the agreement, if they are a WP Bird member and especially if they helped to decide on the sequence of name changes. Snowman (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did agree to focuss on the GA/FA articles to see how it goes, but I did NOT agree to not do anything else. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

text: *Using a google search for pages that contained "Cacatua goffini" and "Broad-crested Corella" brought two hits and neither of these confused the two cockatoo species you mentioned. Can you provide a piece of work that itself confuses the two species that you claim has happened? Any work within the last 80 years would be preferable to a very early report from when science of species was beginning. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

text: *I do not see why ornithologists have gone off on a tangent by starting using a new name. Many birds are named after a person, and there is nothing wrong with using the name "Goffin" in the name of this parrot. Snowman (talk) 12:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree that there is nothing wrong with naming birds after a person.  However, and unfortunately, Goffin is not a good example of such.  As far as I can ascertain, he was a Dutch naval lieutenant who died at the age of 27 and who was a friend of ornithologist Otto Finsch.  It was Finsch who gave the specific epithet goffini, apparently just for friendship's sake, to what was considered for a long time the type of corella found in the Tanimbar Islands.  Unfortunately Finsch got it wrong, the taxon he described being the corella found in the Solomon Islands (Ducorps' Cockatoo).  So Goffin has virtually no connection with the cockatoo in question.  If I am wrong and there is more to Goffin and the corella than I have been able to find out, I would love to know.  I would be happy to do a short article on Goffin for Wikipedia if only I could find out anything notable - ornithological or otherwise - about him. Maias (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is the scientific name "Cacatua goffiniana"? You make it sound as if it was wrong to name a parrot after a friend. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The scientific specific epithet goffiana was given because Roselaar & Michels (2004) decided to allude to, or acknowledge, Finsch's original scientific name for essentially sentimental reasons.  See their paper  for their reasoning, in which their recommendation for the common name of the taxon is (surprise!) 'Tanimbar Corella'.  goffiana is a new scientific name (vintage 2004) and has nothing to do with any common name that may be ascribed to ther taxon.  There is no reason why a common name should reflect a scientific name; some do but many do not.  Oh, and somewhat tangential to this taxon, but relevant to the broader discussion, does anyone have biographical information relating to the 'Ducorps' of Ducorps' Cockatoo, and what relevance she or he has to the bird? Maias (talk) 10:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 

message: # As I did at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds#Parrot_move_suggestions_from_IOC_name_to_non-IOC_name. Consider this as a reiteration of my !vote there, if required. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Comment above moved here from the article page. Maias (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, it is actually noted in the AnAge entry for the Tanimbar Corella (and mentioned in the article) that the max. longevity figure found in the literature may be rather low, considering. Basically, the 18.3years statistic refers to the oldest TC/Goffin *documented by science* - not necessarily (and almost certainly not) the oldest member this species ever. Hmmmm. Supposing that one of these owners of older birds can provide documentary proof of their bird's age (hatching certificate? breed registry certificate, if such a thing exists for this species?) - would that be permitted under WP:PRIMARY? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lifespan in captivity