Talk:True parrot

Parrot (computing)

Maybe we also need some disambiguation of the Parrot interpreter currently under development for the Perl 6 programming language? PML.

Good point. Logically, that should go under Parrot (programming language) .... er ... it's not actually a language, is it. Some variant of that in any case. I'm three parts persuaded that the parrot, parrot (order), and parrot (family) structure some idiot inflicted on us needs to be revised in any case. Tannin

IMHO, I think it would be a good idea, if only to give consistency with other bird articles. As for the computer bit, to an IT-idiot like me, it might as well be a Norwegian Blue Parrot (LOL) jimfbleak 15:26 27 May 2003 (UTC)

So .... I made the link for you. You going to write the species account now? Tannin

(Lucky Ed's not around!)

I need to do the research first jimfbleak 15:48 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I've done the article, but need help with the taxobox jimfbleak 16:17 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Norvegicus azurus, or something like that? -- John Owens 16:19 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Parrot (family) and Parrot (order)

Am I missing something? Is there a reason we have Parrot (family) and Parrot (order) at all? Why not just move them to Psittaciformes and Psittacidae. Then the disambig can point to those. I didn't do an extensive search, but it seems that using the taxonomic name as the real link is standard. If no one objects, I'll make the change later today. - UtherSRG 13:20, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There are a lot of links to these articles which will have to be repointed. I make it about 24 to the family and another dozen to the order. jimfbleak 13:45, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)[User:Jimfbleak|jimfbleak]] 13:42, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is that the only reason? Look at my list of contributions. A great number are for fixing links because of moves that needed to be done. - UtherSRG 13:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's not an objection, it's just that our paths haven't crossed and I just wanted to reassure myself that you knew what you were doing. Although I've written hundreds of bird articles, I've only ever seen about five species of parrot in the wild, and that's including Monk Parakeet on a trip to Florida, so I'm not too concerned otherwise. Jim.

Ah. Cool. I'm a RecentChange watcher, and saw Parrot (order), wondered what it was, and found the abberration. Knowing that there sometimes are good reasons for unconventional article names, I wanted to ask before blindly moving the articles. I'll move them in about an hour on my lunch break. - UtherSRG 16:07, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The pages stay as is. Common name over rides scientific name. Later on I'll fix the links pointing to Psittaciformes and Psittacidae. - UtherSRG 18:08, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

UtherSRG is right. The present page names suck. I have intended to reorganise them to something better and more appropriate for some time: probably parrot for the parrots and Psittaciformes for the order. But please note that there is nothing wrong with redirects. There is absolutely no reason to change good, simple links just because they arrive at the desired page via a redirect. Tannin 21:32, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I might as well do it now. Tannin

Ok. I like the way the split is now. Homever there is something wrong with redirects. It is valuable to have all links on one page to become 'visited' at the same time. [[Parrot] and parrot (family) (which redirects to parrot) do not both get marked as 'visited' when one of the links is clicked. Users seeing the 'unvisted' link will think there is more data there. It's a minor annoyance, but one I'm willing to take the time to fix. - UtherSRG 15:41, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On the surface of things, I agree, Uther. However, whenever we do that, we remove information from the database. Many links that arrive via a redirect actually indicate a subtle shift of meaning. bird and Aves are not quite the same thing. Right now, we have the technical term Aves as a redirect to bird - but it is possible that the redirect will one day be replaced with a seperate article. If that ever happens, then it will be an absolutely massive job to sort out the mixed up links - so massive that no-one would ever do it, not even you.

OK, that particular one might not be a good example, as I don't think that particular article is likely to be written, but you get the idea: redirects contain some meaning in and of themselves, and very often the information that is contained in them would be very, very difficult to reproduce. Hand-repointing them is essentially a kludge. A much, much better way of dealing with the visited pages bug (which annoys me too on a regular basis) would be to fix it once and for all by improving the Wiki software. Perhaps we should draw this to the attention of Tim Starling (one of the Wiki developers) and see what can be done. Tannin 21:46, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Good points, and I agree for the most point. bird and Aves won't be split. If they are I'm confident that the split will be for non-Aves related reasons (such as a disambig page). I think contacting Tim would be a great idea. - UtherSRG 00:53, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Species list

Looks like the species list is incomplete. There are more macaw species listed on that article than are listed here. Since I'm not well versed in ornithology, I'm hoping someone else will correct one or both of the lists. Otherwise, I'll add the additional species to this list sometime later in the week. - UtherSRG 13:57, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The list of species, assuming it was done by me (can't remember), will be a complete listing as given by Handbook of the Birds of the World, our standard.

Discrepancies could be due to

• HBW does not list the extinct species
• The source for the macaw article uses different taxonomy
• alternative names - see the discussion between me and Wild Bill. Jim

I wasn't even loking at the common names, just the scientific names. Macaw has more. If HBW is the final authority on our bird articles, then the macaw article should be changed to list only the macaws found on the parrot page. - UtherSRG 16:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've changed some of the genera to HBW, which helps, but doesn't give an exact match still - I also don't like the alphabetical original listing. Should I replace the original list with a copy of the relevant part of HBW, plus the extinct species? Jim

Ah... I'd missed those other three genera. I must be going batty. I'lltake a stab at it. - UtherSRG 11:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Isn't the species list already covered by List of parrots? If it is, why not remove the list from this page and simply provide a link to list of parrots? Is there some subtle difference between the lists that I am missing? --Ardonik 23:52, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)

one list is taxonomic, but because there are so many species, I did an alphabetical list for ease of reference - no strong feelings, delete alpha list if it is a problem jimfbleak 04:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cockatoos

Cockatoos are a family of their own? Since when?

The last time that I checked, the only group of parrots suggested as a seperart family were the lories and lorikeets or brush tongued birds, and that was several years ago. Since then, I'd thought that they were all considered one family until their relationships could be better understood. It seems rather odd that the cockatoos would be already distinguished as a seperate family, and much more likely that it's one of those incindences where somebody decided to create familiar names for every general group of parrots (i.e. conures in one family, Cockatoos in another, Macaws in another, Amazons in a family of their own, etc.) Does anybody have the actual story on this?

--Quintucket 03:07, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cacatuidae is recognised by Handbook of Birds of the World and by the Handbook of Australian and New Zealand Birds, which are the two standard sources for Wikipedia species' lists. jimfbleak 16:40, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Err, bit late in the day for this, but try reading cockatoo. As you'll see, they are quite different. Tannin 09:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In common English usage, cockatoos are are a subset of parrots. The other parrot-related pages here at wikipedia bear this out - even the Parrot page contains the phrase "types of parrots, including ... cockatoos." Maintaining consistency will be an uphill battle if you want cockaoos portrayed as non-parrots, since most people English speakers familiar enough with parrots and/or cockatoos to contribute to Wikipedia will be writing about cockatoos as a subset of parrots. (NateW Jan 10 2005)

a cockatoo is a parrot, anyone who thinks differently must be on drugs. is is a hookbill, all hookbills are parrots. the guy who said cockatoos and cockatiels are not parrots is ignorant, in my OPINION!!!

No, he is right. read the text and see there is a higher taxonomic level where they connect. --KimvdLinde 16:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No, he is wrong. A parrot is a very broad term for all hookbills, Parrot is not a scientific term. He is wrong and so are you. But i do appreciate what you taught me about how this page works.

You have arrogance. --KimvdLinde 16:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean to say "you are arrogant." I have been raising birds, cockatoos, macaws, etc for over 30 years, to suddenly decide a cockatoo is not a parrot is like saying a Chevy is no longer an automobile. The same way a macaw is a parrot, the same way a conure is a parrot, a cockatoo is a parrot. The same way a ford is a car, the same way a mazda is a car, a chevy is a car. From Webster's dictionary: cockatoo n : white or light-colored crested parrot of the Australian region; often kept as cage birds

Did you notice how it said 'parrot' there, I suppose the Webster's dictionary is arrogant too! LOL!

From encyclodedia.com 1. cockatoo COCKATOO [cockatoo] see parrot .

2. parrot PARROT [parrot] common name for members of the order Psittaciformes, comprising 315 species of colorful birds, pantropical in distribution, including the parakeet . Parrots have large heads and short necks, strong feet with two toes in front and two in back (facilitating climbing and grasping)

From Encyclopedia Britannica : cockatoo any of the 21 species of crested parrots (order Psittaciformes) found in Australia as well as in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Most are white with touches of red or yellow; some are black. All ...

I know you will probably delete those definitions but you see now I am correct and it has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with being correct.

A cockatoo is a parrot the same way a macaw is a parrot, the same way a lovebird is a parrot. There are no parrots that or more or less parrots than other parrots.

Editorial Comment?

"given the nature of Pepperberg's actual tests, this is ludicrous."

This seems to be an editorial comment. Is it appropriate?

I agree. I've removed the comment. - UtherSRG 16:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unidentified parrot species

I have added three parrot pictures, but I don't know what species they are. If anyone of you could tell me, I'd be most grateful. The pictures are Image:Buberel Gray parrot.jpg, Image:Buberel green parrot.jpg, and Image:Buberel White parrot.jpg. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 05:40, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well, to tell the truth, they are exactly the same images I deleted, pruning down and beautifying an appearance of the article. I didn't find an appropriate place for putting them back in, thereby they were wretched out of a list [which was placed right in the bottom intestines of the article] and thrown out of the text; If you do know where to put them in, feel free to do so; --Dennis Valeev 02:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You're right that they don't belong in the shortened article. I was thinking that they, and other parrot pics, could go in the two lists of species, but it's not that important. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:36, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Parrot Pics

Quadell

The grey parrot is a Congo African Grey (Psitticus erithacus erithacus) The green parrot is a Yellow Fronted Amazon (Amazona ochrocephala ochrocephala) The white parrot is a Moluccan Cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis)

Thanks! But someone else had told me that the green one is a Yellow-shouldered Parrot (Amazona barbadensis). Can you confirm which it is? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yellow-fronted, also known as Yellow-crowned, of the race Amazona ochrocephala ochrocephala, has the yellow on the head restricted to the crown, and has a darker bill, whereas the image shows the all-yellow face and pale bill of Yellow-shouldered. It would help if we could see whether the shoulder patch was red or yellow! Similar Amazonas included Mealy (yellow crown), Orange-winged (yellow crown and throat, not in between) and Scaly (no yellow on head). jimfbleak 07:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is a parrot?

From Webster's dictionary: cockatoo n : white or light-colored crested parrot of the Australian region; often kept as cage birds

From encyclodedia.com 1. cockatoo COCKATOO [cockatoo] see parrot .

2. parrot PARROT [parrot] common name for members of the order Psittaciformes, comprising 315 species of colorful birds, pantropical in distribution, including the parakeet . Parrots have large heads and short necks, strong feet with two toes in front and two in back (facilitating climbing and grasping)

From Encyclopedia Britannica : cockatoo any of the 21 species of crested parrots (order Psittaciformes) found in Australia as well as in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Most are white with touches of red or yellow; some are black. All ...

The Above FACTS state that Cockatoos are indeed PARROTS!

Fact 1: In common usage "parrot" applies to all of the order Psittaciformes, including cockatoos. I checked definitions of "cockatoo" in a number of recent dictionaries and without exception they define cockatoos as "various ... parrots". The most recent dictionaries I checked included Shorter Oxford (2002), Chambers (2003), Webster’s Universal (2003) and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate (2001).

Fact 2: Wikipedia article naming convention is "give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "use the most common name".

Fact 3. Wikipedia currently uses "Parrot" as the article title for the family Psittacidae, which excludes cockatoos.

Question: Is there a good reason why "parrot" should correctly be applied only to Psittacidae, and not to cockatoos? (I have not been able to find the answer to this myself.)

Problem 1. If the answer to the question is Yes, then the articles on Psittaciformes, Parrot (Psittacidae) and Cockatoo should (all 3, probably) contain an explanation of why "parrot" correctly applies only to Psittacidae, as well as a clear acknowledgement that in common usage it applies to all of Psittaciformes. Currently the articles have only partial, unclear and inconsistent info on this.

Problem 2. If the answer to the question is No, then "Parrot" should be the title of the Psittaciformes article and the title of the other article should (probably) be Psittacidae (or just maybe True parrot(?), a la True thrush). Nurg 09:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response 1: In common usage "parrot" may or may not apply to the cockatoos. Usage varies.

Response 2: Most English speakers would expect to find cockatoos at cockatoo, and parrots at parrot. The fact that most English speakers don't know very much about birds and a good many of them mistakenly think cockatoos are parrots is not relevant.

Response 3. Wikipedia currently uses "Parrot" as the article title for the family Psittacidae, which is entirely appropriate. What better place t find the parrots than at parrot?

Summary. This is a problem area. There is genuine ambiguity and there is a case for for using parrot as the title for the article on all Psittaciformes. On balance, however, I feel that the case against is stronger. I don't think there will ever be a way around this: we have discussedit over and over, and tried out several different schemes, but in the end we wound up back at the preaent one. It's about as good as it's going to get, I think Tannin 09:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS: Inconsistent? Where? I'll go look.

Nope. At least on a quick inspection, the explanations seem pretty clear. The one in parrot, being split into two paragraphs, is a little untidy though, and could perhaps be rephrased. Tannin 09:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi Tannin. Can you provide any references to support the idea that some common usages of "parrot" exclude cockatoos. I have found none in the dictionaries I have looked at, some of which I mentioned above. I'd also be interested in readily-accessible references to technical usage, which I don't doubt but am not familiar with. thanks Nurg 05:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I doubt I'd have anything in wrting, Nurg. At least, not that I'd be able to find, as why would I notice it, and thus remember it so that I could find it afterwards? I do notice it the other way, of course. But then I live in a place where there are parrots and cockatoos everywhere (yes, even in cities, though not as many as I'd like). Most people (i.e., not bird watchers, just ordinary people) distinguish between parrots and cockatoos without particularly thinking about it. Something along the lines of "parrots are small and green, cockatoos are large, noisy, and white, or sometimes black. Rosellas are ... er .. a sort of parrot, I think". That's roughly where most people stand on the parrot - cockatoo thing. Naturally, in countries where there aren't any cockatoos, it might be different. Cheers, Tannin

PS: the other part of your question. Do you mean on-line technical literature? Off the top of my head, I don't think there is much. I have heaps here on paper (HANZAB, various other volumes large and small) but I gues that's not much use to you. Tannin

Cockatoos may also be pink/grey---think Galahs. I agree with Tannin in distinguishing quite sharply between Cockatoos (of which a Galah is a sort) and parrots; I would not dispute that they're related, but merely that they're not the same, as Kangaroos and wallabies are not the same. Felix the Cassowary 09:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. In common usage, cockatoos are parrots (note article "Parrot pics" contains the quote "The white parrot is a Moluccan Cockatoo (Cacatua moluccensis)". With reference to the last paragraph, kangaroos and wallabies are found in the same genus, and are even less distinguished from each other in the public mind than are cockatoos and other parrots. Perhaps this varies also by country, but my impressioon is that everyone here (Australia) would regard cockatoos as parrots. Russell c 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

US Parrots

The article currently states, "...with one species, now extinct, in the United States (the Carolina Parakeet)" Haven't Thick-billed Parrots (Rhynchopsitta pachyrhyncha) historically occurred in Arizona? I think there may even be efforts underway to re-introduce these birds.

Lost parrot: here polly

The Princess Parakeet needs a clean up, it is more likely to get attention here then with a cleanup tag. It might be either a Princess Parrot, Polytelis alexandrae or a Alexandrine Parakeet, Psittacula eupatria. MeltBanana 19:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Why parrots developed the ability to imitate sounds?

Delta G 03:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Animals tend to have a rather fixed repertoire so that they can recognize each others and communicate "out-of-the-box". Why do parrots have this plasticity? Is it to better single out their family members? I am still looking for a clear answer.

Cockatoos are Parrots

From Webster's dictionary: cockatoo n : white or light-colored crested parrot of the Australian region; often kept as cage birds

From encyclodedia.com 1. cockatoo COCKATOO [cockatoo] see parrot .

2. parrot PARROT [parrot] common name for members of the order Psittaciformes, comprising 315 species of colorful birds, pantropical in distribution, including the parakeet . Parrots have large heads and short necks, strong feet with two toes in front and two in back (facilitating climbing and grasping)

From Encyclopedia Britannica : cockatoo any of the 21 species of crested parrots (order Psittaciformes) found in Australia as well as in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Most are white with touches of red or yellow; some are black. All ...

You talk about the Psittaciformis. --KimvdLinde 17:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on the first sentence of this article, a parrot is a member of the family Psittacidae. As cockatoos and cockatiels are members of another family, Cacatuidae, I have removed a phrase from this article which implied that they are parrots. If we want to include cockatoos and cockatiels as parrots, we have to revise the first sentence to include Cacatuidae. Brett.donald 02:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Boy, the density of you people is awe-inspiring!!!! Cockatoos are parrots!!! Not only is this confirmed over and over in very legit sources (webster's, britannica...) it is commonly, commonly, commonly known. 72.255.7.154 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Name confusion

I think our annonynious editr has a point, but a different one than that he is making. Popular usages of the term includes both families of the order, and the Psittacidae are beter named true parrots. Could we change this page name to "True parrots", change Psittaciformis to "parrot" and maybe move some general stuff to of this page to the Psittaciformis page? --KimvdLinde 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the current page remains confusing, as the scientific scope of the page is Psittacidae, while the popular scope is now Psittaciformis. --KimvdLinde 21:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, having now read the earlier talk (a couple of years ago) I think we should have articles on Psittaciformes and Psittacidae, and Parrot should be a disambiguation page only. Brett.donald 00:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Brett, let see if there is oposition to the idea, and if not, go forward with it. The general idea in Wikipedia is that you use the common name for a page if there is one, and have a redirect of the scientific name. Using Parrot and True parrot might solve the issue as well. For most people, they end at the Parrot side, and the other pages can clarify it as well. --KimvdLinde 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a true parrot as opposed to parrot. The same way there is no true car as opposed to car. There is just parrot, check sites like upatsix.com for clarification. You are really showing your ignorance. You canmake these changes just because you want to spite me, but that just shows how small you are. But go ahead, you are just weakening wikipedia by doing so. 72.255.7.154 02:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, be careful about Brett, I think he has an agenda he is not sharing with you Kim. Oops, forgot to sign this. 72.255.7.154 02:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nah, it is a common taxonomic practise to specify a subgroup with the same name as "true parrots". With the appropriate explanation, no problem.--KimvdLinde 02:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

perhaps in your little country, but where real science comes from in American Universities such as Harvard and Cornell, this is not common practice. By the way, if you can't even spell 'practice' correctly, how can you be an authority on this?72.255.7.154 02:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

72, be civil. Making clever-clever jabs at people's spelling abilities is not going to make them more disposed to your edits. Nor is being Americentric. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

72, your uncivil language and chauvinist attitude, together with unwarranted attempts to Americanise the spelling (eg colour->color) for a bird group which is only peripheral to North America does the country of which you appear to be so proud little credit. jimfbleak 11:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have moved this page to True parrots and have requested the move of Psittaciformes to Parrot as the name is preoccupied. As soon as that is done, I will edit the content of both pages to reflect the new situation (most infor here will go to parrot. This moving will preserve links with the many pages using the taxonomic names. KimvdLinde 03:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

article short of content and scholarly standard

This article needs a comprehensive redraft, with attention to accurate detail as well as integration with the big picture of birds & ecology, biogeography, evolution, etc. This article could be a whole book, or at least a big chapter. I'm going to be bold here, and throw in the basics of organization and information. Maybe other editors will be motivated to fill in my omissions as I go. Rather than scribble on the Talk page, write the article - THEN let's argue about it.Sbalfour (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely. Looks really good what you've done with the article so far. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

References need work

The references need cleaning up in at least two places I found:

1. In the Taxonomy section, sentence/paragraph starting "The following classification is based...", the list of references at the end of the sentence includes item 3 twice.
2. In the References section, items 3 and 5 are identical, so assorted other references will need to be fixed as a result.

--zandperl (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)