Talk:Kākāpō
 | Kākāpō is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 8, 2006. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| Current status: Featured article | ||||||||||||||||
Old stuff at top of page
I've put most of the information I know about Kakapo on this page. It may seem like a trivial topic to some, but I think they are wonderful animals in dire need of protection. I hope I have maintained neutrality in my contribution, please let me know what you think. Eudyptes
- Good work. But do they really create nests, for sleeping and rearing young, high in trees? You could have knocked me over with a kakapo's soft feather when I read that. Nurg 08:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I've seen pictures of nests in the bottoms of trees, in hollow spaces under the trunk. I've also read discriptions of them living and sleeping higher up. Most of the pictures of nests I've seen can't be placed high or low. Eudyptes 13:19 UTC 18 July 2004
I've been bold and changed the bit about rearing young high in trees. My next question is, can a Polynesian rat really kill an adult kakapo? Can even a black rat kill an adult? I'm sure they can kill chicks, but adults?
Also, is it correct to talk of birds being born? Shouldn't that be hatched? Nurg 08:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Good idea about the nesting. I think you're right to be cautious. The Kakapo recovery programme indicates that kiore can kill both adults and eggs, though I'm sure eggs are more vulnerable. Remember that Kakapo don't really have the fighting instinct, they just tend to freeze, rather than fight or flee. As for birds being born, I guess it is more lexically correct to say that they are hatched. I was probably just thinking about the way humans' lives are listed with at birth and death date and I didn't think to change it. By all means, change it if you want, but it doesn't matter to me. Eudyptes 15:42 UTC 19 July 2004
I changed the intro because it was getting clumsy with too many isolated facts. Eudyptes 03:13 UTC 31 July 2004
Comments
- I think this is a well-written and interesting article; good work! It might be worth putting this up as a Featured Article candidate. Some other thoughts: 1) In the "Physical characteristics" section, there seemed to be a number of short sentences which read a bit stilted; could these be tweaked slightly so that the wording flows better? 2) In the breeding section, we suddenly have the sentence, "Consequently, once eggs have been laid in a nest, a nightly watch is instituted to help ensure their safety."; this is the first mention of conservation and is a bit surprising here (though of course relevant); could it be mentioned earlier somehow that nesting is now supervised? 3) The list of all Kakapo seems slightly cumbersome (to me); maybe it could be compressed somehow, or split off into a List of Kakapo? It could be fine, it's just what occurred to me. 4) If there's any way some more photos could be obtained, it would be superb (though clearly this may not be a simple matter for a critically endangered species!) — Matt 02:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- One more thing: 5) "While the Kakapo once had a wide range on the main islands, now only two small islands support the entire population: Te Kakahu o Tamatea (Chalky Island) and Whenua Hou (Codfish Island)" — since we don't have articles on these islands...could we mention where abouts in New Zealand they are located, and roughly how big the islands are? — Matt 02:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input, I think you were right about many things. I addressed concerns 1 though 3 and 5, but I'm not sure how to find pictures of Kakapo that are available in the public ___domain. It's easy to find them with a Google image search, but I don't want to take them unfairly. Do you know how/when/if it's ok to take a picture off the internet? Eudyptes 20:14 UTC 7 Aug 2004
Distance of boom
“The booms can often be heard for up to 16 km”. When the kakapo is using a telephone maybe. Sorry but I can’t believe that statement. I need a reputable reference to consider swallowing that. Here’s some references: Best & Powlesland (1985) “at least 1 km on still nights”; Merton (1985) 5 km; Veitch in Cemmick & Veitch (1987) 7 km; Butler (1989) 5 km. I consider those reputable sources – with the exception of Butler they are all experienced kakapo scientists or field workers. The kakaporecovery.org.nz and DoC websites both say 5 km. Temple & Gaskin (2000), though a lightweight work, is interesting because it says at least a km and up to 5 km down wind. The sources that give 5 or 7 km do not mention wind. Sources that do mention wind, give 1 km without wind assistance. My conclusion is 1 km without wind, 5 km with wind assistance and 7 km in a very strong wind! Nurg 10:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Placenames
I have changed the first instance of the Codfish and Chalky Is placenames to the official names (see LINZ http://www.linz.govt.nz/rcs/linz/pub/web/root/core/placenames/index.jsp ) and subsequently used the shorter form of the official name for Codfish. Nurg 05:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Diverge some sections?
Don't get me wrong, I love this article. It's first expansion was my pet project. I think all the new information is great, but I think the length is keeping it from being featured on the main page. I was wondering what you all might think about diverging some of the content under "History and Decline" and "Recovery" into a separate article. What do you (all) think?
Style problems
There are far too many sentences that begin with prepositional phrases, including paragraphs that consist solely of "In 1954... In 1955... In 1956... etc". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 00:40
Copyvio vs. Fair use?
This article is extensively paraphrased from the Kakapo Recovery Programme webpage. I think it's probably little enough to be under fair use rather than a copyvio, but we might want to spend some time marking more clearly what is directly quoted from them. Any thoughts? --zandperl 00:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Real Word?
Under "Physical description, 4th paragraph" the word "chemosignal" is used. As I had never come across this word I searched for it, Wikipedia didn't have a topic on it, wiktionary didn't have a topic on it, so believing that this may just be an uncommon topic I used two reputable dictionaries to find a deffinition of the word. Neither Cambridge Dictionary nor Oxford Dictionary had an entry under the heading "chemosignal". Could someone (perferrably the person who used the word) confirm it's validity as a word, if it isn't infact a word I will re-write that sentence. -- Faded_Mantis 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- "Chemosignals are substances that while not necessarily perceived as odors, nonetheless have an impact on mood and menstrual cycles when absorbed through the nose" according to this article. Moriori 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- The term is used widely in scientific literature see this PubMed search, they're kind of like pheromones, but are more specifically related to sex and reproduction.--nixie 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks thats what I was looking for, I wasn't fully sure on the word thats why I didn't start editing it out straight away...looks like I also need a specialist dictionary :) -- Faded_Mantis 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Good work
Just wanted to say thankyou to everyone who contributed to this article as I enjoyed it very much so. I read about Kakapo previously in a book by Douglas Adams and found both the book and this enjoyable to read. Bawolff 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Same here. I was particularly interested to read the bit about them parachuting safely, since Adams, possibly letting whimsy override accuracy, portrayed this as the bird having forgotten it can't fly. This version makes more sense 8-). Daibhid C 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
National Geographic
National Geographic Magazine ran an article on animals in New Zealand a few years (2 or 3) ago and had quite a bit on the Kakapo. It mentioned that the bird is the largest and heaviest parrot yet inexplicably omitted any information on how large they get or their weight. Oops!
(Then there was their article on Frankincense where they forgot to include a picture of the tree it's collected from.)
- I can top that. In revision of Adolf Hitler article, the introduction never mentioned "World War II" (...only on Wikipedia). Raul654 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Should Frankincense actually include a picture of the tree? I'm skeptical because if someone wants to know about the tree they could visit the tree article (not that the picture is very good, but anyway) Nil Einne 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
HUh
Cool kokapo. though i always thought that it was spelled Cockapoo, or is this a different animal?
- That's one of those ridiculous 'designer dog' breeds. Cocker spaniel/poodle mutt. --Sparky Lurkdragon 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Too many links
Too many links, don't you think? Why does every word have to be linked. Umm... I guess they changed this back. Weird.
Lek
I thought Lek referred to the behavior, not the ___location? Lek denotes pleasurable and less rule-bound games and activities, according to the article. So the birds have a lek breeding system not because they gather in areas called leks, but because they gather and engage in lek behavior (mating displays, struggles for dominance, whatever). YggdrasilsRoot 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Photo Caption
the caption of one of these images used to be "Photo of a mature Kakapo on Codfish Island". at the time i took this photo, pura was about 1 year old. since the earliest signs of reproductory behaviour are seen around 5 years of age (see last paragraph of "reproduction"), i don't think this one should be described as being an adult. i'm not sure how much difference there is to a mature kakapo, but there might be one! if you disagree, feel free to change it back. --Mnolf 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Wings "break" fall
Under Physical Description it says that the bird's wings "break" its fall, like the bird lands on its wings as a cushion. I changed this to "brake" (slow down).
- That's incorrect, actually. A fall is "broken" by something. Dictionary.com describes this too: "18. To lessen the force or effect of: break a fall." function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
kakapo size
does someone can paint a picture like image:Right whale size.png - but for the kakapo? thanks, 88.155.133.223 09:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if a comparison image is really worth it. For whales it makes sense because they are so huge. Kakapos may be large birds but i tmight be easier for people to just look at the size and weight text. chris_huh 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. 88.155.133.223 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have made one anyway, dunno if you want to use it, it is Image:Kakapo_size_comparison.png. chris_huh 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- ok, thanks. 88.155.133.223 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
the kakapo voice
Can someone upload to wikipedia audio/video file of kakapo? thanking you in advance, 88.153.140.32 13:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that any such free material exists. There are plenty of videos of the Kakapo around, but they're all non-free, and thus unusable for this article. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 20:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- actually, i've recently published recordings of a booming kakapo on my blog, and i'm willing to put them under a free license. the problem is that the files are in mp3-format, and converting them directly to .ogg will reduce quality (right?). it's going to take some time to edit and re-encode from the original, but it's on my to-do-list. --Mnolf 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, doing conversion from one lossy format to another will always cause the loss of quality. But the loss will be a negligible amount, if you simply use the appropriate bitrate. I'm willing to do it for you if you mail the MP3 to me, you can send it to michiel@thingmajig.org if you want me to. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- email was sent. have fun :) and thanks. --Mnolf 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, doing conversion from one lossy format to another will always cause the loss of quality. But the loss will be a negligible amount, if you simply use the appropriate bitrate. I'm willing to do it for you if you mail the MP3 to me, you can send it to michiel@thingmajig.org if you want me to. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- actually, i've recently published recordings of a booming kakapo on my blog, and i'm willing to put them under a free license. the problem is that the files are in mp3-format, and converting them directly to .ogg will reduce quality (right?). it's going to take some time to edit and re-encode from the original, but it's on my to-do-list. --Mnolf 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Classification out of lead
I'm thinking the sentences on classification may be better in a section down the page than on the lead (about own genus etc.) and expanded a bit later. I'm not sure they add anything to the lead as such. Cas Liber 10:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see you've moved them down. They do seem to be better off down there than in the lead. —msikma (user, talk) 06:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, on second thought, it does seem like the section this has created is too small. I think that this should be moved back to the lead unless the "classification" section can be increased in size with important information. It current seems like it's just used to contain some minor remarks. —msikma (user, talk) 19:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm working on it - the molecular stuff is interesting and the info is needed to balance the article which otherwise is loaded towards conservation (not surprising really given the history). Maybe a bit large to go back in the lead.Cas Liber 20:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- The molecular stuff is unfortunately contradicted by another (earlier) molecular paper (Miyaki et al, see here). More severely, the 2005 scenario is virtually prohibited by the fossil record. Were the spindlin phylogeny true, one would have to assume that all the traits that distinguish living parrots from e.g. the Pseudasturidae (see doi:10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00042.x) in shirt, the parrot morphotype - evolved twice (at least) identically, that Dyck texture was present in all psittaciform ancestors 80+ mya or developed in even more lineages independently but not in the cockatoos, etc. The "review" of the fossil record is probably the lowest point of the 2005 paper (which is otherwise nice); see doi:10.1080/08912960600641224. All the bare facts therein were available one year earlier too; not Mayr & Daniels 1998 but Mayr 2002 (see DOI above) would have been the paper to consider, and that would have shown that the Fig.7 in the 2005 paper is, as far as anyone can currently tell, utter fiction. Dysmorodrepanis 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Bulk changes in the Conservation section
In attempt to save this page from de-featured, I have trimmed the section quite markedly. Disscussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kakapo. — Indon (reply) — 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Sites
I'm not sure the 4 locations quoted in the 1994 article are current; the recovery site quotes 2. I've emailed the NZ DOC to clarify, but for the time being the more current and official source is probably more accurate. --Peta 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, okay. I'll try to find more recent sources from 2006 special issues of Notornis. — Indon (reply) — 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Updated based on Powlesland (2006). — Indon (reply) — 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Section on place of the kakapo in maori culture
I'm kinda surprised there isn't one yet, considering that this is a featured article. I've just acquired some brilliant references which have alot of information in this area so expect to see some major ( but meticulously referenced using footnotes) additions to this article soon. Kotare 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- During Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kakapo (it's still running), reviewers concerned about the size of Conservation section. I have trimmed the section to save this page as Featured Article. How about creating a new page about it? Then in the Human impacts section, you could make a small summary and point the article with {{see also}} template. I'm afraid if there are major additions to this article not directly related to the subject (about the Kakapo species), then this article will get too large. — Indon (reply) — 09:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I'll do that (create a new page about it ), after all, there is a seperate page with a list of all the presently alive individual, named kakapo, so another page with additional info. on the species would make sense and as you say, there is a risk of this article getting too big and losing its featured status. Thanks for your helpful and constructive reply. Kotare 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think that it might fit into the article just fine. We can see if it does after you've made the new page. Afterall, it directly concerns the Kakapo, so I think that perhaps it will be a good addition. The article isn't all that large right now, anyway. —msikma (user, talk) 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK thats a thought, at any rate I'll take the steps suggested by Indon above for now and then we can see take stock and see whether it might be a good addition to the main Kakapo article itself. Kotare 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you have made the article, I'll come check around to see if I can help out. Let us know... :) —msikma (user, talk) 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right, the article is up>Place of the Kakapo in Maori culture . There is quite alot there - some of it is bloody fascinating, especially the accounts of kakapo preserving berries in pools for future use and the fact that they seem to make good pets. I guess the new content in this article could be integrated into the main Kakapo article but possibly this would require drastic pruning if the Kakapo article is to retain its featured status( though personally I don't know). I don't mind them being seperate articles; if thats what we decide to do I guess the main kakapo page can be linked to it using the templates that Indon suggested. Thanks to both of you for your help, Cheers Kotare 09:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you have made the article, I'll come check around to see if I can help out. Let us know... :) —msikma (user, talk) 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK thats a thought, at any rate I'll take the steps suggested by Indon above for now and then we can see take stock and see whether it might be a good addition to the main Kakapo article itself. Kotare 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- If that is all about, then I think merging it with the main Kakapo article doesn't harm the main article. A reviewer in Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kakapo even suggested to add two sections about culture and the origin of the name. I think the best way is to add a new Culture section in this article and merge the new article as subsections of it. Hope it helps. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seems like a nice article that will fit into the main article without a problem. I'll give it a bit of a copyedit later, and then I'll merge it if that hasn't already been done by then. —msikma (user, talk) 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, I've done some basic copyediting on that new article, but I think that it needs more work before it should be merged. The style of the writing is different, and needs to be altered to have a bit more native English flow. Then there's still a bit of wikification and reference formatting to be done. —msikma (user, talk) 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- Righto, I've made some final additions of new bits of info to the Place of the Kakapo in Maori culture article as well as beefing up the referencing and adding some internal links. Perhaps my wording could be simplified in some places, whatever, as long as its in the best interests of the article- my only concern is that the basic information which I've spent hours accessing from books and websites is preserved. If someone merges it now, the large number of users monitoring the kakapo article itself will probably divert their attention to any problems with this new section and make appropriate edits- it should kind of take care of itself.. focussing on sorting out any issues the article has ( if any ) now and then merging it might take longer. If its merged, it may well be easier just have the section heading as " Kakapo in maori culture" rather than "Place of the kakapo in maori culture".. my original name for that article is probably a bit wordy. Kotare 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- If that is all about, then I think merging it with the main Kakapo article doesn't harm the main article. A reviewer in Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kakapo even suggested to add two sections about culture and the origin of the name. I think the best way is to add a new Culture section in this article and merge the new article as subsections of it. Hope it helps. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Questions over reverted edit
Msikma; You have done alot of very good work on wikipedia and for this page itself.. however: looking back to when you reverted my edit at the beginning of the "ecology and behaviour" section, i think that was unfair; its not a matter of opinion as to which passage is better written, the previous passage which you revived simply doesn't make sense, here is what is there now:
" and it seems that Kakapo have adapted to fill the niches that mammals occupy in other parts of the world"
- organisms do not occupy multiple ecological niches, they occupy only one each and this also suggests that kakapo have evolved not only to occupy multiple ecological niches but that they occupy those of all mammals in other parts of the world. My edit clarifed all this:
"and it seems that the Kakapo - like many species of New Zealand bird- has evolved to occupy an ecological niche which elsewhere in the world is filled by various species of mammal".
I also don't see whats wrong with specifiying "ecological niche" as if you simply say "niche" anyone without a decent biology education will not know what you are talking about and finally I'm pretty sure "evolve" is actually the right word .Evolve: "..to develop by natural processes" ( Oxford dictionary), the word "adapted" suggests some brief changes to situation, not the cumulative result of thousands of years of natural selection.
If you've read this please give feed back so this matter can be resolved. Kotare 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I didn't very much understand the edit that you made and thought that it was simply a rewrite of the old sentence with the exception of the word "evolve", which I thought could exclusively be used for physical changes that warrant a new species. I don't have a biology degree, so I guess that it's easy to be wrong then. :-) Sorry for that, I'll put back in the revised sentence you made. —msikma (user, talk) 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, yeah no worries dude :)Kotare 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Last issues
I felt this was within criteria and that with Indon working it could be kept ("Kakapo are able to run at a fair speed" was the one throw-away line that definitely needed changing). As for the remainder:
- "...but feral cats were present. It was apparent that cats killed Kakapo with a predation rate of 56% per annum.[26] At this rate, the birds could not have survived in the 100 years after the first introduction of cats to the island. It turned out that the cats had learned how to kill the birds." What is this trying to say? That they learned to kill them, but late enough in the game that they weren't all wiped out? That the cats arrived later? I inserted a buried question on this one.
- I did not find the image issue an FA deal-breaker—unless for some weird reason a four or seven foot human being was chosen, a viewer can broadly grasp the size of the bird. User:Chris huh is editing still if someone would like to post him a note.
- There's a buried concern that "we can tell the sympathy is with the Kakapo" in the human impact section. I don't find this particularly egregious either, but we might want to source "From at least the 1870s, collectors knew the Kakapo population was declining; their prime concern was to collect as many as possible before they became extinct", as it's generalization.
Otherwise, bang-up work from many. Marskell 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- First issue is resolved. The statements were directly taken from the source that the article says that feral cats arrived around 1882 in the island. A survey indicated that the predation rate is 58% per annum, which means that by 1982 there shouldn't be Kakapo left in the island. So it is concluded that the cats learned how to kill the bird, because Kakapo were still available in 1982. I have reworded the paragraph to avoid this confusion by saying that a measure was taken due to high predation rate in the island, which were the intensive cat control & moving all remaining Kakapo to another islands. Hope it suffices. — Indon (reply) — 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Second issue is temporarily resolved by hidding it. I don't know whether size comparison is necessary for this article, as Kakapo is a parrot then it should be common for readers for its size. — Indon (reply) — 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I never really saw the point of the Kakapo size comparison image. Compared to the "average human"? How tall is the average human? Is the comparison in the picture truly scientific, or simply illustrative? It seemed like just a picture used to spice up the page a little, but it didn't look that good anyway. It's better off not being in the article. If possible, it may be replaced with a photo of a Kakapo compared to some object in the future, as it seems there are a few people here who have been able to make free photos of them. —msikma (user, talk) 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. That's why I hid the picture. — Indon (reply) — 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I never really saw the point of the Kakapo size comparison image. Compared to the "average human"? How tall is the average human? Is the comparison in the picture truly scientific, or simply illustrative? It seemed like just a picture used to spice up the page a little, but it didn't look that good anyway. It's better off not being in the article. If possible, it may be replaced with a photo of a Kakapo compared to some object in the future, as it seems there are a few people here who have been able to make free photos of them. —msikma (user, talk) 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)