Jump to content

Talk:Budgerigar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 120.153.220.134 (talk) at 07:39, 5 February 2024 (→Etymology of the binomial name: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Psychic Budgie

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)[reply]

Hi everyone I'm a n00b here at Wiki and was wondering how I could add an External link to the Budgerigar page?

It's a website including all sorts of info about the up-keep and well-being of budgies and also advice on people wanting to buy budgies. I tried to edit the section but received a message saying I had to discuss it on the talk page so..here I am! Thanks :)000malt000 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this site? The reason additions to the external links need to be discussed is that there are a great many legitimate sites about the upkeep and well-being of budgies that don't fit the guidelines for external links. Neitherday (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its: "http://www.adorablebudgies.co.uk/"...what do you think?000malt000 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not measure up to WP:EL. A large portion of its content comes from this article, so it adds little to what is already here. The original content it does have isn't professionally written nor is it particularly well researched. It doesn't really expand much beyond what is otherwise contained (or could be contained) here.
There are many sites of similar and higher quality that have not been included or were removed from the external links section of this article. Wikipedia is not simply a collection of links. External links must add something substantial to the article. Neitherday (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds that fly away and come back

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)[reply]

Well, that's good, I guess. So what you're saying then is that you're disappointed that there isn't a section in this article about the behavior of the birds? Yeah, I'm right there with you! Gingermint (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed title to the green budgerigar picture top right of article

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)[reply]

Why did my undo not take effect?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Budgerigar Bird losing feathers

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)[reply]

females fight

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)[reply]

Ah, so what I hear you saying is that you're disappointed that there isn't a section here on the care of these kind of birds. Yeah, I'm right there with you! Gingermint (talk) 10:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not a guide to keeping budgies. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diet

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)[reply]

Chocolate, avocado and alcohol are indeed toxic to budgies. Anyhow, why would you feed your bird alcohol?! Source: http://www.birdchannel.com/bird-diet-and-health/bird-nutrition/off-limit-food-for-birds.aspx Mariannemarlow (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parakeet

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)[reply]


evolutionary history

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)[reply]

Photograph of budgie on cage

This photo was first added last August by User:75.67.96.217. It was immediately removed. It has recently been re-added three times by User:132.177.66.126, User:132.177.65.76, and again by User:75.67.96.217. I suspect this may be the same person. The reasons it has been removed each time are below.

  • While this may be a nice snap of someone's Budgerigar, it is not of acceptable quality for this article.
  • It is out of focus, low resolution and badly composed.
  • The bird is harshly lit by a flash. Combined with the fact it is out of focus it renders it pretty featureless.
  • The cage is cut off at the left and the bottom, so it doesn't show that clearly either.
  • An entire third of the picture it taken up with what appears to the room's interior door in the background.
  • It adds nothing informative to the article.

Could any of the above editors please explain why they think this photo is valuable and useful as claimed before re-adding it? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 07:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this article need a 'Budgie with toys' image? If so, there are a few possibles on Commons that are of better quality than the aforementioned File:YOSHI.JPG, IMO - e.g.:
  • Old version.
    Old version.
  • Old version.
    Old version.
  • Old version.
    Old version.
  • Cropped versoin.
    Cropped versoin.
--Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. These are all far better. However, I personally don't see the need. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wording question.

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)[reply]

Completely new aspect to the "not keeping a single budgie" argument.

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)[reply]

The dreaded anthropomorphism has crept into this article.

"... 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)[reply]

I've fixed it, along with a few other similar issues. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Development

"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)[reply]

It's the band that goes a round the lower leg, usually applied by registered breeders. Soft bands can usually be bought at petshops however. Registered Club Breeders will have their initials, the club, the year and the ring number on the band. Crazy Budgie Lady (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domestication

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)[reply]

Dictum and Dictionaries

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)[reply]

budgies are great! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.22.137 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Budgerigar. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

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) 

KC 22:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

According to Jennifer Ackerman's "The Bird Way," p. 238, "The name is said to come from the native Australian indigenous word betcherrygah---betcherry meaning 'good' and gah meaning 'parakeet.'" [signed Shari Dorantes Hatch] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.235.167 (talk) 23:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2019

Mimicry

Main article: Talking bird

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.[citation needed] 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)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monomorphic

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)[reply]

All budgie colours

Please add a new part saying all of the budgie colours. TheIcyTree (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Unsourced, challenged material

I started removing unsourced claims that have been challenged for a minimum of six months, but I'm giving up at this point, because there's just too much. If you care about this article, please put effort into finding sources for the challenged materials, otherwise the article is going to become a chopped up mess. Anastrophe (talk) 03:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Started a thread on WP:BIRDS about this. See here. When I have a bit more time, I might see if some of that stuff can be sourced. I know a little about budgerigars and some of the stuff you took out does seem to be correct - just gotta take the time to find some good refs... --Iloveparrots (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. If I had any expertise or even familiarity, I'd have tried doing some sourcing, but I do not, and could potentially screw things up worse. I agree that most of the material sounds perfectly fine, and sometimes cite challenges wind up being destructive, as its not clear if it's only the sentence immediately before the challenge, or the whole paragraph if there are no other cites.
I would not be averse to rolling back my removals, as that might help the process move forward...? cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and roll back. Not having the uncited material there with the tags will make it much harder for those who are best able to improve it. Anastrophe (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with humans section

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)[reply]

Map

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)[reply]

Patagonian budgerigar?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Does their beak allow them to eat?

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)[reply]

It is wrt what their diet consists of. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of the binomial name

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Budgerigar&oldid=1203629470"