![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 15:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The common name is peafowl? And not peacock? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved. While those in support of the move cite "peacock" as the WP:COMMONNAME, those in opposition counter that "peacock" is used specifically for the males and not the species in general. As a result, I do not find consensus to move this article at this time. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Peafowl → Peacock – By far the more common name. This move has been suggested a few times in the past, and at least executed once (but reverted on procedural grounds), but no formal move request and discussion seems to be had until now. The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. While Peafowl isn't wrong per se, it is by far the less common name (Google hits excluding Wikipedia gives 560 thousand hits for peafowl [1], and 65 million for peacock! [2]. GNews gives a similar 13,000 vs. 390,000, and even at Gbooks, where it is less outspoken, we get 80,000 vs. 560,000.) Fram ( talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
inaccurate names (...) as determined in reliable sources are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used (...)is grounds for keeping the article in place, see the lead in the current version. However, it also says that
Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Also, the female doesn't have a train, but still "displays her plumage to ward off female competition or signal danger to her young." What plumage? They don't have a train. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
These questions could be addressed with photos of the female, including a close up of the head, so we could see the difference. (The one photo of a female doesn't show its tail.) A photo of a female displaying her plumage would also be helpful. I realize that the females aren't nearly as photogenic, but the article was written to inform, not entertain. MiguelMunoz ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
I just noticed this. The article contains the {{ Use Indian English}} template, while there is an attached page notice to say {{ Use British English}}. Although the latter is earlier I think the former is more reasonable. Any thoughts? YorkshireExpat ( talk) 16:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The below section is from the current version of the article.
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)
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)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 15:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The common name is peafowl? And not peacock? Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved. While those in support of the move cite "peacock" as the WP:COMMONNAME, those in opposition counter that "peacock" is used specifically for the males and not the species in general. As a result, I do not find consensus to move this article at this time. -- Tavix ( talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Peafowl → Peacock – By far the more common name. This move has been suggested a few times in the past, and at least executed once (but reverted on procedural grounds), but no formal move request and discussion seems to be had until now. The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. While Peafowl isn't wrong per se, it is by far the less common name (Google hits excluding Wikipedia gives 560 thousand hits for peafowl [1], and 65 million for peacock! [2]. GNews gives a similar 13,000 vs. 390,000, and even at Gbooks, where it is less outspoken, we get 80,000 vs. 560,000.) Fram ( talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
inaccurate names (...) as determined in reliable sources are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used (...)is grounds for keeping the article in place, see the lead in the current version. However, it also says that
Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.Tigraan Click here to contact me 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Also, the female doesn't have a train, but still "displays her plumage to ward off female competition or signal danger to her young." What plumage? They don't have a train. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
These questions could be addressed with photos of the female, including a close up of the head, so we could see the difference. (The one photo of a female doesn't show its tail.) A photo of a female displaying her plumage would also be helpful. I realize that the females aren't nearly as photogenic, but the article was written to inform, not entertain. MiguelMunoz ( talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
I just noticed this. The article contains the {{ Use Indian English}} template, while there is an attached page notice to say {{ Use British English}}. Although the latter is earlier I think the former is more reasonable. Any thoughts? YorkshireExpat ( talk) 16:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The below section is from the current version of the article.
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)
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)