![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
the female keeps trying to come in our dining room window. This has been going on for several days. Don't want them(2) to get hurt. what causes this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.143.35 ( talk) 17:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is being recorded under aegis of WP:SPOKEN & WP:BIRD. The proposed spoken text is under preparation and can be found User:AshLin/Spoken script Bird. Wikihelp and wikicompanionship welcome. AshLin ( talk) 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because you refer to a class of things is not a reason for capitalizing. Otherwise we would capitalize hammer when referring to that class of tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.52.106 ( talk) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Frankjohnson123 ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Upon browsing the article, though forgive me if I've been blind and just missed it, I noticed that while it has a fair bit of information on attracting a mate there doesn't seem to be a section on how birds actually reproduce. If this is included and I stupidly haven't seen it please forgive me, but if not maybe this could be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.28.9 ( talk) 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree - I was looking for the same information - how / if birds copulate. I found the following from [1] The male bird climbs onto the back of the female and she moves her tail to the side. The female's genital opening is on the other side, and the male leans onto those openings. The male and female's genitals only are pressed together for a moment or two, then the male dismounts and the process is complete.
78.231.23.115 ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
"Since birds are highly visible and common animals, humans have had a relationship with them since the dawn of man" Wouldn't 'humankind' instead of 'man' be more proper? Just a thought, no trolling intended 93.41.198.239 ( talk) 11:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Fertilisation" is spelled with a Z, not an S.
Ah, I see. Thanks!-- Feynix7 ( talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The section on bird origins is very strongly worded, as if there is no dispute regarding the orginis of the birds. However, that is incorrect, see for example James, F. C., and J. A. Pourtless, IV. 2009. Cladistics and the origin of birds: a review and two new analyses. Ornithological Monographs 66. Most of the current ideas are based on opinions and rather limited proof. For example, most cladistic analysis start with the assumption that the archopterix is the basis, and they use the other featherd dinasaurs as an outgroup, forcing the analysis to confirm that those are not birds. Anyway, the section needs be be rewritten to reflect that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC).
This article reads: "Fossil evidence and intensive biological analyses have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that birds are theropod dinosaurs." Really? Birds are dinosaurs... period? The sentence in the article seems very strongly worded and may be confusing to casual readers. Is it more accurate to say that "birds and theropod dinosaurs are descendants of a common biological ancestor" or "modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs" or "theropod dinosaurs evolved into the modern bird"? Can a specialist in this area please shed some light on this?. Codymr ( talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently some new studies from OSU have found that birds most likely did NOT evolve from dinosaurs-- but in parallel. Why is this wiki locked, btw? 66.190.29.150 ( talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the online scientific literature on the topic over the last few months, it's increasingly likely that birds did not, in fact, descend from theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is not an early bird, the first birds appear in the geological record long before theropods. Try typing 'thigh' 'bone' 'lungs' 'dinosaurs' and 'birds' into your search engine - no scientist is trying to refute the Oregon State University paper which conclusively proves that theropods did not give rise to birds. The Oregon State University paper has been very well received in the literature, with no major scientific backlash in the months since they published it. At the very least, you need to edit your page so that the origin of birds is cast in more appropriately uncertain terms. As it stands, you are currently justifying the popular accusation that Wikipedia is prone to innaccuracy and error.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/discovery-raises-new-doubts-about-dinosaur-bird-links-21959.html
http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2009/6/11/4218726.html
<not archived, URL blocked by Wikipedia>
http://www.birds.com/blog/new-discovery-sheds-light-on-bird-evolution/
http://www.livescience.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2045&start=0
As you can see, these are not creationist or ID articles - they are, for the most part, very much mainstream. There are very, very few online articles arguing against the Oregon State University paper on birds and dinosaurs, and it's disingenuous to suggest that it is just one more shot in a battle that's been raging over the origin of birds for decades when the shot is clearly fatal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.221.237 ( talk) 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't they under that category. May I have permission to add this page to it? Also, aren't birds then reptiles? Fusion7 ( talk) 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The article reads: "Based on fossil evidence and intensive biological, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised sub-group of theropod dinosaurs."
This seems awkward at best and incorrect at worst. Perhaps something like: "Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised sub-group of theropod dinosaurs." Codymr ( talk) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
See 1st line all birds are exothermic ie they make heat energy inside there bodies, then it is radiated to the surroundings.
Siripswich ( talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The section "Modern bird orders: Classification" can do with some reworking. The current list of Linnean orders and the phylogenetic classifications that are displayed in illustrations alongside can be confusing. Additionally the Sibley-Monroe with Sibley-Ahlquist in brackets does not seem to be helpful. "Molecular data" can also be a little misleading and "found widespread adoption in a few aspects" can give the idea that molecular data are downright dubious. It would be fair to clarify that DNA-DNA hybridization was just the start and that it only resolved some of the basal groups and that sequence based work is helping resolve at least some of the extant groups. Shyamal ( talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Text bird orders says this order includes emus, rheas etc, but Struthioniformes is a redirect to Struthio, just Ostrich Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the floowing for discussion and cleanup. When it is up to standard it can get put back.
Tyrant Flycatches and Swallows control the number of flying insects citation needed which can become pests to human health and agricultural production. citation needed Most Passerines glean for insects from trees citation needed protecting them from mass infestation. Woodpeckers are especially good at removing bigger boring insects out from below the tree bark before these insects threaten the health of the tree. The trees provide for birds; the birds care for trees. citation needed
To deal with this line by line...
The gist of this section is that birds can provide important ecosystem services. That is fine, but needs to be balanced and portrayed neutrally. The facts need to be accurate and from well respected sources. There is no place for the above paragraph in the article as it stands, but I am happy to try and work to make it more balanced, neutral and cited. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this section Even more profitable for business is the number of amateur bird watches who buy expensive binoculars, digital scopes and/or expensive camera equipment including very long lenses. Bird photography beginning equipment for serious hobbiest ranges, in 2009 dollars, from $3000 to $30,000. There may be little correlation between the amount spent and the image results. for the same reasons as the above section. It's a bit too folksy for an encyclopedia, and hasn't been cited or referenced. MeegsC | Talk 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't state modern birds that have claws on their wings. It use to under Anatomy. Which there are quite a few species with clawed wings such as the Ratites, and a few others. More towards the Ostrich article as it gives a picture with caption of claws on its wings but it is not stated or makes any reference to the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 ( talk) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Strangely, this article (and every Wikipedia page dealing with the subject) is completely unaware of decades of research on avian olfaction. The notion that only a few clades of avians have a well-developed sense of smell is now regarded as "definitely erroneous". More information can be found from these sources: The underestimated role of olfaction in avian reproduction?; Avian olfaction: then and now; Avian Chemoreception: An Electrophysiological Approach; there was even a symposium on the subject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.237.240 ( talk) 23:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I read, well saw on the news, something quite interesting a few years ago. While i'm not sure what bird it is or was, a type of bird had left his partner (maybe to migrate?) When he returned his partner had copulated with another bird and laid eggs in its nest. The first bird kicked the eggs out onto the ground below angrily, showing an odd sense of actual love to the other bird. Sorry if this has already been mentioned i couldn't find it in the article but i thought it was something quite interesting. 77.102.57.127 ( talk) 13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
the female keeps trying to come in our dining room window. This has been going on for several days. Don't want them(2) to get hurt. what causes this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.124.143.35 ( talk) 17:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
This article is being recorded under aegis of WP:SPOKEN & WP:BIRD. The proposed spoken text is under preparation and can be found User:AshLin/Spoken script Bird. Wikihelp and wikicompanionship welcome. AshLin ( talk) 15:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Just because you refer to a class of things is not a reason for capitalizing. Otherwise we would capitalize hammer when referring to that class of tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.52.106 ( talk) 19:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
-- Frankjohnson123 ( talk) 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Upon browsing the article, though forgive me if I've been blind and just missed it, I noticed that while it has a fair bit of information on attracting a mate there doesn't seem to be a section on how birds actually reproduce. If this is included and I stupidly haven't seen it please forgive me, but if not maybe this could be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.28.9 ( talk) 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree - I was looking for the same information - how / if birds copulate. I found the following from [1] The male bird climbs onto the back of the female and she moves her tail to the side. The female's genital opening is on the other side, and the male leans onto those openings. The male and female's genitals only are pressed together for a moment or two, then the male dismounts and the process is complete.
78.231.23.115 ( talk) 22:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
"Since birds are highly visible and common animals, humans have had a relationship with them since the dawn of man" Wouldn't 'humankind' instead of 'man' be more proper? Just a thought, no trolling intended 93.41.198.239 ( talk) 11:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Fertilisation" is spelled with a Z, not an S.
Ah, I see. Thanks!-- Feynix7 ( talk) 01:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
The section on bird origins is very strongly worded, as if there is no dispute regarding the orginis of the birds. However, that is incorrect, see for example James, F. C., and J. A. Pourtless, IV. 2009. Cladistics and the origin of birds: a review and two new analyses. Ornithological Monographs 66. Most of the current ideas are based on opinions and rather limited proof. For example, most cladistic analysis start with the assumption that the archopterix is the basis, and they use the other featherd dinasaurs as an outgroup, forcing the analysis to confirm that those are not birds. Anyway, the section needs be be rewritten to reflect that. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC).
This article reads: "Fossil evidence and intensive biological analyses have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that birds are theropod dinosaurs." Really? Birds are dinosaurs... period? The sentence in the article seems very strongly worded and may be confusing to casual readers. Is it more accurate to say that "birds and theropod dinosaurs are descendants of a common biological ancestor" or "modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs" or "theropod dinosaurs evolved into the modern bird"? Can a specialist in this area please shed some light on this?. Codymr ( talk) 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Apparently some new studies from OSU have found that birds most likely did NOT evolve from dinosaurs-- but in parallel. Why is this wiki locked, btw? 66.190.29.150 ( talk) 20:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
According to the online scientific literature on the topic over the last few months, it's increasingly likely that birds did not, in fact, descend from theropod dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is not an early bird, the first birds appear in the geological record long before theropods. Try typing 'thigh' 'bone' 'lungs' 'dinosaurs' and 'birds' into your search engine - no scientist is trying to refute the Oregon State University paper which conclusively proves that theropods did not give rise to birds. The Oregon State University paper has been very well received in the literature, with no major scientific backlash in the months since they published it. At the very least, you need to edit your page so that the origin of birds is cast in more appropriately uncertain terms. As it stands, you are currently justifying the popular accusation that Wikipedia is prone to innaccuracy and error.
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/discovery-raises-new-doubts-about-dinosaur-bird-links-21959.html
http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk/blog/_archives/2009/6/11/4218726.html
<not archived, URL blocked by Wikipedia>
http://www.birds.com/blog/new-discovery-sheds-light-on-bird-evolution/
http://www.livescience.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2045&start=0
As you can see, these are not creationist or ID articles - they are, for the most part, very much mainstream. There are very, very few online articles arguing against the Oregon State University paper on birds and dinosaurs, and it's disingenuous to suggest that it is just one more shot in a battle that's been raging over the origin of birds for decades when the shot is clearly fatal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.221.237 ( talk) 23:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Why aren't they under that category. May I have permission to add this page to it? Also, aren't birds then reptiles? Fusion7 ( talk) 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
The article reads: "Based on fossil evidence and intensive biological, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised sub-group of theropod dinosaurs."
This seems awkward at best and incorrect at worst. Perhaps something like: "Based on fossil and biological evidence, most scientists accept that birds are a specialised sub-group of theropod dinosaurs." Codymr ( talk) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
See 1st line all birds are exothermic ie they make heat energy inside there bodies, then it is radiated to the surroundings.
Siripswich ( talk) 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The section "Modern bird orders: Classification" can do with some reworking. The current list of Linnean orders and the phylogenetic classifications that are displayed in illustrations alongside can be confusing. Additionally the Sibley-Monroe with Sibley-Ahlquist in brackets does not seem to be helpful. "Molecular data" can also be a little misleading and "found widespread adoption in a few aspects" can give the idea that molecular data are downright dubious. It would be fair to clarify that DNA-DNA hybridization was just the start and that it only resolved some of the basal groups and that sequence based work is helping resolve at least some of the extant groups. Shyamal ( talk) 14:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Text bird orders says this order includes emus, rheas etc, but Struthioniformes is a redirect to Struthio, just Ostrich Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the floowing for discussion and cleanup. When it is up to standard it can get put back.
Tyrant Flycatches and Swallows control the number of flying insects citation needed which can become pests to human health and agricultural production. citation needed Most Passerines glean for insects from trees citation needed protecting them from mass infestation. Woodpeckers are especially good at removing bigger boring insects out from below the tree bark before these insects threaten the health of the tree. The trees provide for birds; the birds care for trees. citation needed
To deal with this line by line...
The gist of this section is that birds can provide important ecosystem services. That is fine, but needs to be balanced and portrayed neutrally. The facts need to be accurate and from well respected sources. There is no place for the above paragraph in the article as it stands, but I am happy to try and work to make it more balanced, neutral and cited. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed this section Even more profitable for business is the number of amateur bird watches who buy expensive binoculars, digital scopes and/or expensive camera equipment including very long lenses. Bird photography beginning equipment for serious hobbiest ranges, in 2009 dollars, from $3000 to $30,000. There may be little correlation between the amount spent and the image results. for the same reasons as the above section. It's a bit too folksy for an encyclopedia, and hasn't been cited or referenced. MeegsC | Talk 15:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This article doesn't state modern birds that have claws on their wings. It use to under Anatomy. Which there are quite a few species with clawed wings such as the Ratites, and a few others. More towards the Ostrich article as it gives a picture with caption of claws on its wings but it is not stated or makes any reference to the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.51.177.47 ( talk) 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Strangely, this article (and every Wikipedia page dealing with the subject) is completely unaware of decades of research on avian olfaction. The notion that only a few clades of avians have a well-developed sense of smell is now regarded as "definitely erroneous". More information can be found from these sources: The underestimated role of olfaction in avian reproduction?; Avian olfaction: then and now; Avian Chemoreception: An Electrophysiological Approach; there was even a symposium on the subject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.237.240 ( talk) 23:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I read, well saw on the news, something quite interesting a few years ago. While i'm not sure what bird it is or was, a type of bird had left his partner (maybe to migrate?) When he returned his partner had copulated with another bird and laid eggs in its nest. The first bird kicked the eggs out onto the ground below angrily, showing an odd sense of actual love to the other bird. Sorry if this has already been mentioned i couldn't find it in the article but i thought it was something quite interesting. 77.102.57.127 ( talk) 13:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |