Talk:Budgerigar/Archive 1

Wiki policy on image use
If possible, I believe the Scientific Classification picture should illustrate a wild specimen. The current picture shows two color mutations, which are not representative of what the species looks like naturally. Fledchen 23:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Why I deleted quite a large part of the article
I've cleaned up part of this article since it sounded much like a manual, telling others how to take care of their budgeriar. I don't think Wikipedia is the place for that: Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. --JoanneB 16:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That's what you think. It's advice,to help people.(Reverting). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.36.86 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 October 2005


 * I think there is no point to this article anymore.A large amount of it is being deleted.We must expand it.Josh215 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please follow the link I gave above, about what Wikipedia is not. It's not just what I think, it's Wikipedia's policy. No matter how helpful the advice was, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "how to" guide. --JoanneB 06:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning up the article
I removed 3 links from the external links section and added 1. 2 were pointing to NBA and NFL (!) the third one was pointing to a page with a mix of Jesus and Budgie content! I added a link to PetSmart online care guide for budgerigars. Also, I have to agree about removing the "how-to" parts. This is an encylopedia and there are plenty of publications online or offline which can deal with taking care of a companion bird.--Payam81 17:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If anyone feels like it, they can always move the "how-to" content to Wikibooks - that would be the appropriate place for it. A quick search found an article on Cockatoos, but nothing on budgies... &mdash; QuantumEleven | (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I can understand an ampersand here and there, but when there are so many scattered throughout an article? Lazy. Also, something needs to be done about the abundance of 'and/ors' in the article. Either cut them out or find way to rephrase the sentences? Mazu tsai 07:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why the "Context speaking Budgie section?"
Is it really sensible to include a link to the Reynolds site about contextually speaking budgies ? Could it at least be made more clear that that link is completely rediculous. User:169.71.50.41 10:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't blame you for your disbelief, but in so far as I can tell, the fact of Reynold's reports, and the as of yet undisputed accuracy of these findings is noteworthy enough to put into this article in so far as I can tell. Thanks,


 * -Scott P. 15:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Budgerigar naming
A previous revision of the page notes the urban legend that budgerigar was a European misinterpretation of the phrase "good to eat". If anyone has a good reference (either for or against), I believe this would be worth mentioning in the article. The legend is extremely widespread, and it would be good to de-bunk or confirm if possible. --PJF 01:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a reliable reference, but I have an old book about budgerigars ("Australia's Pet Budgerigar" by Suzanne Troy & Kevin Kelly, published by Horwitz Publications Inc Pty Ltd, Australia in 1986) which says: "The Aboriginal association with this little bird has been mainly as a source of food in drought areas when other meat is scarce. In fact, the part of the word pronounced "boodgeree" in aborigine means 'good' and the latter part 'gar' means 'food' or 'to eat'." Roxybudgy 01:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, the only thing I've ever heard about the meaning of the word "budgerigar" is that it means "good food," before KimvdLinde found that dictionary reference to "good cockatoo." Unfortunately, I've never seen a citation I would consider reliable for "good food." You know, this would be a good question to pose on the Linguistics helpdesk ... think I'll do that right now. --Ginkgo100 02:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My Grandfather was raised amongst the desert people around White Cliffs. In fact he 1st saw another white child when he was 12 years old, and he had extraordinary bush skills. He claimed that the word meant "good to eat", and I can only assume this was based on his knowledge of aboriginal languages. He passed away in 1968 so I can't really ask him now. Johnpf 04:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reference that comes readily to hand  is from the Australian National Budgerigar Council (ANBC) Inc. “''...however, it can be stated on reliable authority that the name means “good food”. Two extracts support this. In Budgerigars in the Bush and Aviary by Neville Cayley, Percy Peir is quoted as saying.....''”  Whilst not good, this makes it stronger than just another  urban legend.--Aspro (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox
I noticed the taxobox background color was changed from pink to green. While this may have seemed more aesthetically pleasing, the color of the taxobox is standardized based on the kingdom an organism belongs to. For animals, it's pink. Complete information is at WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage. Ginkgo100 01:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Editing
I have changed some things in the article. First I ahev brough all captivity sections under one main section. Furthermore, I have grouped the general information in the lead section. Finally, I have exchanged the images so that the most natural looking is now in the taxobox, but I do feel that a image of a true wild individual would be best to illustrate the taxonomic component. KimvdLinde 02:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I left a comment on your talk page, but I also have some comments of a more general nature. I agree an image of a wild budgie would be most preferable for the taxobox. I'm also glad to see the fact request on the translation of the Aboriginal word budgerigar. I have seen this translation widely, but I wonder if it's apocryphal. I think most of the content in the sections on captive budgerigars, buying them, and breeding them is non-encyclopedic and contrary to Wikipedia policy on how-to guides, per WP:NOT, and should probably be removed. The external links section can probably be removed as well, per WP:NOT and WP:EL. Ginkgo100 03:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I found it, see your talk page. I am less willing to weed out all howto aspects, most of them can be rewritten to encyclopedic stuff. But lets work toards a better and more comprehensive article on this. KimvdLinde 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the first image be something other than an albino?
Just saying, given that albino budgies are a bit rare. Certainly not typical. I'd suggest having an image of an average, natural colours budgie (i.e. grassy green and yellow) instead, to avoid giving incorrect impressions. That's the first thing one sees when opening the page after all. — 88.112.2.159 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For a while there was a picture of wild budgies, but while the image was used with permission, it was not released under a free license and was eventually deleted -- Wikipedia prefers freely licensed images (GFDL, CC, or public domain). I agree that an image of wild budgies, or failing that, wild-type budgies (no color mutations) would be ideal for the taxobox, but so far I have not seen any posted. I was bold and replaced the albino with a Commons image of a group of budgies in an aviary; the albino is further down the page now. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was the person who inserted the albino picture into the article when the previous image was deleted. IMO, it was the clearest and best-quality image of a single bird that I could find on the project at the time (it showed the physical characteristics of the bird much better than any of the others, I thought - if not the colour). I personally think it would be better to leave it as the taxobox image until something better is found but I'll certainly go along with the majority opinion on this... --Kurt Shaped Box 01:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was also following the old discussion at the top of this page. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 14:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

New section for color mutations?
An anonymous user (who I have encouraged to formally join the project) added substantial information about the genetics of budgie color mutations. While interesting, I feel there's so much information it unbalances the article, so I am suggesting the section be split into its own article, Budgerigar genetics. What other article titles might be preferable? Does anyone agree with this? And does anyone know a published source to verify this new information? --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 20:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the template to the section. It's certainly in-depth but it's *way* too technical for the general reader (IMO at least). --Kurt Shaped Box 22:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article should be split. When people look up 'Budgerigars', I guess that they would be more interested in the bird itself than the gentics of colour mutations. I could probably add some information, in the past I've read a few books about budgies that went into detail about mutations, but there's no guaruntees. Roxybudgy 23:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Those books you have with information about mutations are a good resource because any article should always have a good source to cite. If nobody objects in the near future (defined as between now and the next time I think about it) I'll start a new article, but I could really use your help with those book resources because I myself have no sources to cite. Any comments about the title of the new article are welcome and appreciated! --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs · e@ 03:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally managed to get some free time to head down to the city library and found two books with information about budgerigar mutations, colour variations and genetics, as well as a bit of history on when mutations were first seen. The books are pretty old though, one of them lists references to a magazine that was printed in the 1940s, but I guess when it comes to this topic, the information is unlikely to change over time.
 * At the moment, I don't have enough free time to look over the information carefully. Perhaps I should photocopy/scan a few pages and post them up somewhere, unless that's copyright infringement. Roxybudgy 04:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be a copyright violation and I could never recommend that to another editor. The decision is yours, however. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 18:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I hate saying this but despite the obvious amount of effort that's been put into it, that entire section is useless to 99% of people. There is no definition of what the codes mean, no mention of chromosome locations (which is common in genetics), and so on. More importantly, wikipedia is generally targeted for people who don't understand the topic they are reading, especially in pages that should be broad-based like this page. It's technobabble that even I have to sit and decipher. The biggest relevance this really has to anyone is for breeders, and it should be placed on a page more related to that subject. In any case, it requires much more clarity, and it must have more than what is effectively a list for its long-term survival on Wikipedia.Volantares 11:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe it's been copied to another article already and it really needs to be removed. Apparently nobody got around to it. I'll work on it now. Also I don't think it's ever been verified even in the new article; I'll take a look there and may prod it. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on a series of articles that will cover the history and genetics of (some of) the colour mutations in budgerigars. They will contain some technical information, but this is useful for breeders who want to understand how to breed certain colours. As an example, see Blue Budgerigar Mutation. Please leave any further comments there. Trevor37 (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Budgies are called indeed "Parakeets" in the U.S. You do have a point!
And even more than you may think. Ever read Robert Arthur's Three Investigators and the Secret of Terror Castle? Those "parakeets" referred there are indeed budgies and NO (bigger) parrots. This specialty has also been taken care of in the 1984 dramatized play by Edward Kelsey, published by Random House UK on MusiCassette. The sounds you hear on the cassette are indeed budgies' sounds, no parrots' sounds. So this article is awesome, covering a well-known U.S. misnaming. Well done folks. -andy 80.129.113.55 23:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

intro
Given that is the most common domesticated parrot and a popular pet - why is this not mentioned until about halfway down the article?GraemeLeggett 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it would be fine for you to make that change. --Ginkgo100talk 20:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Image removal
Request removal of Image:Dom Dutch Budgie.jpg due to the fact that this image is hard to look at (seems like a large, hard yellow glow, and the yellow in the front of the bird lacks information), and the image adds little to the article. It seems that it really only makes the article harder on the eyes to look at. Althepal 03:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If at all possible, request to keep Image:Dom Dutch Budgie.jpg]]. Is there anything I can do to the image to make it more suitable? It didn't appear to have any problems on my monitor, but if there is concern, I would like to do everything possible to keep it there. Thank you. SilverPelican 05:11 18 May 2007 (EST)
 * Hi. I wrote on your talk page what is technically wrong with the picture and why it is detracting from the article. It doesn't seem to me to add to the article, so can you please explain why it should be kept? It is a cute bird, but pictures shouldn't be kept just because they are cute. Understand that I'm only requesting its removal because it is in the best interest of the article, non simply for no reason. Althepal 22:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel this article has unnecessary images anyway. At least one is redundant, ie tells me no more than another image does. I think that only three of the photos in the article should remain. I'm going to be bold and remove the ones I don't think should be there. Change back as you see fit, and we'll talk about if you do that. Jsc83 22:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I liked your idea so much I removed another one. Articles like this can suffer "image creep" as editors add their own pictures. I agree with cleaning them up to leave only images that illustrate specific topics on budgerigars. --Ginkgo100talk 02:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken it upon myself to return some of the higher-quality images to the article in gallery form, plus a few of the better pics from commons. I think that it's highly useful to illustrate budgies of different ages and plumage colourations. This way, it doesn't clutter the text of the article, however. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Good idea; thanks, Kurt. --Ginkgo100talk 03:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a very fair compromise. Jsc83 22:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

word bundgerigar appears in harry potter and the order of the phonix
on page 4 of harry potter and the order of the phonix the news reporter, reports on a water skiing budgerigar.- Jason Iqbal
 * "Yeah, that's why i came here to find out what it was, harry potter is cool."-unknown
 * "Can budgerigars really water ski?"-unknown

"Only if they are trained to and have the mini skies tied to thier feet (claw)JasonIqbal 00:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the article??

Eenyminy (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Victor the talking budgie
On the surface, this looked like it might be notable enough to include, but the original link is dead, and this one shows it to be a very unreliable story. I say leave it out. --Ginkgo100talk 00:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Victor might be notable enough to have a seperate page on Wikipedia, especially if the page also included the skepticism surrounding the claims. However, including Victor in the budgerigar article is giving those claims undue weight. Neitherday 03:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The author of the museumofhoaxes article clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyways, I don't object to the removal of Victor from this article, Puck's equally impressive record is enough for that section.  Dionyseus 08:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

About Budgerigars in Captivity
I think the section about captivity is grossly outdated and provides wrong and even harmful information and needs to be updated. Budgerigars should NEVER be kept as single pets. They are swarm animals and need fellow birds around them. Budgerigars kept single suffer have long been shown to develop both physical and psychological disablities. What's more MIRRORS should NEVER be used as toys. The birds don't recognize themselves in the mirror and think it is another bird. Because of this they will try to feed the other bird. Because the 'other bird' is only a reflection this can lead to chronic physical ailments like inflammations of the craw which can cause serious pain and even death. Hadoriel 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm an IP so I get limited say but Budgies may be kept alone If they are provided with regular Human contact they only need other budges if they recieve not time with humans outside their cage, so this really only applies to a bird that will leave it's cage. -A Budgie Lover. PS the what you said about the mirrors is well put though.


 * This section undergoes frequent renovation by various IPs with nary a source cited; I have no doubt it could use some rewriting based on reliable sources. And actually, I am not really sure it is appropriate to have information on "how to" keep budgerigars, since Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, so I am removing all such information now. --Ginkgo100talk 20:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot I think you are right in removing this part of the article. Hadoriel 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This part of the article seems to have slipped back in... I agree with it's removal, but just want to add that as a bird owner and knowing many bird owners for over 20 years, Budgies do well as mentioned above without other birds as long as they have regular/frequent human contact and are tamed, but I don't have a citation source (since this is personal experience). Since this is almost a political issue, it should be removed again because, as stated, Wikipedia isn't a how-to.  I've seen many VERY happy budgies who are bonded with their human and suffer no psychological problems (the common symptoms being feather plucking, obsessive behavior, frequent illness, biting, and so on) and are very obviously happy (preening owner, offering kisses, bobbing head, singing "sweetly" (as opposed to squawking or yelling), and so on and so forth).  To sum up, many opinions, but this isn't an opinion article. :-) Thx1200 02:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Birds love mirrors and shiny objects. They don't become problems until they become obsessed with them. This generally happens in greater frequency with single birds. Eenyminy (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Picture of budgerigars and conifers
I think the picture of the budgerigars sitting on the conifer and trying to eat them should be removed. The reason is that most types of conifers can actually be harmful for budgerigars especially when they are still fresh or on the tree because of the resin. Information about this can be found both in common literature about budgerigars or on the web for instance at http://www.tgpa.com/Plants.html Hadoriel 09:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dangers / Health Issues
I think it should be mentoined, that plastic Toys and so on, can be dangerous for a budgies health, also Mirrors wich can cause Psychic damage to the Bird, especially lone kept birds. And dangerous too are the gasses of used teflon stuff like those table grills. Birds die in seconds when they breathe those gasses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 August 2007‎ 84.86.46.8


 * I have heard that parsley is poisonous to them! No citation though. --nsstaykov 14:28, 12 October 2007 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.106.141 (talk)


 * No, I believe parsley is perfectly fine; in a list of toxins I have seen in a care guide for parakeets, it did not mention parsley once.

Eenyminy (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Teflon is extremely dangerous for budgies and other domestic birds. Krasss (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Personality
Frankly the personality section of this article is a disgrace so I've gone ahead and made some changes. ALL current literature on budgerigars agrees that the birds should NEVER be kept single. Yet this paragraph, and in fact the article as a whole, states that it is difficult to keep budgerigars together with other of their kind. This is simply not true. It IS true that keeping two females together can result in a lot of problems but keeping only males or pairs of budgerigars generally doesn't pose any problems at all and in fact is highly recommended. Hadoriel 15:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We definitely need the article to reflect current literature on the subject! However, we equally need to cite that literature to make the article authoritative. Can you provide citations to reliable sources for these comments? If you need help with the technical aspects of citing books or articles, just let me know and I'll be happy to assist. --Ginkgo100talk 15:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'll try and look it up. Since I'm German I could cite plenty of sources in German. However I guess English sources would make more sense for this site so I'll have to look for some. Hadoriel 09:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should also cover the fact that while parakeets do have distinct personalities, there are some traits that almost all parakeets have-such as almost all of them being very easily scared/excitable, and so on. most people dont seem to believe that parakeets can easily get scared.The Pink Panther (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got a reliable source right here: Parakeets by Nikki Moustaki. Here's what she has to say on the subject of single birds: " 'The single budgie does well when he has a lot of toys and gets a lot of hands-on attention from his human companions, If you're not going to be able to pay a lot of attention to your bird, consider getting two.' " Eenyminy (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Taxobox image, Fall 2007
Seems like we have to discuss this every few months. User:Althepal left an edit summary with a very good point: the "outdoor" budgie image (Image:Zebrabudgie.jpg) is a low quality image with "blown highlights". The "indoor" budgie image (Image:Budgie001.jpg) is a much higher quality image. Both are photos of domesticated birds (read the image description page for zebrabudgie: it's not a wild bird). Zebrabudgie's body conformation looks a little closer to wild type, but the color looks like it might be olive, which is a mutation. Budgie001 has a bit of a "show budgie" (English budgie) look, but the colors are right. Overall, there's no reason to replace budgie001 with zebrabudgie. If you disagree, feel free to share your opinion here. --Ginkgo100talk 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Althepal has quite a WP:COI regarding this image. I suggest his opinion is disregarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.72.200.11 (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am the photographer of (Image:Zebrabudgie.jpg). I do agree with the statements above, my image, in my opinion, does not suit this article as a taxobox image due to the distraction of the tea leaves infront of Zebra.  This however, is just my opinion, as they both look great as taxoimages. :) If you wish, I can photograph another photo of my budgie, without the noise of the background (It would appear similar to (image:budgie001.jpg) but less noise and blur.  Or, I can place it in a "close-to-real" environment simulation that can be used as our "wild budgie" image (like this: ) Comments?-- Penubag  05:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with the idea of trying to simulate a wild budgie image. If it's a domestic bird, it's a domestic bird, and should not be represented otherwise. I think we should continue to use Image:Budgie001.jpg unless and until an image comes along that improves on it in some way. The trump would be a free image of a bona fide wild (not feral) bird or birds. --Ginkgo100talk 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Budgie Hardiness
I live just south of Cincinnati, Ohio USA and know that there are feral monk parakeets in my area that overwinter outside with no apparent problem. I am wondering (since budgies are so much more inexpensive than monk parrots) if I could keep a small colony of budgies in an outdoor aviary here in Cincinnati year-round; or, are budgies not tolerant of cold weather (of course allowed to acclimate- would start the outdoor aviary colony in late Spring or early Summer so that they could acclimate to Winter by the gradually lowering temps in Autumn). Are they hardy enough? Just how cold-tolerant are budgies if allowerd to acclimate? I promise that I won't attempt this if it would just be a cruel death sentence for the little budgers. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.3.226 (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, but I would not attempt it. Budgies occur naturally in the subtropical climate of Australia.  I would not expect them to survive a hard Ohio winter. Mbarbier 14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in the Cincinnati area too and the Cincinnati area is in the subtropical transition zone (unlike the rest of Ohio) and does have noticably milder winters than the rest of the State but I would probably not do it either, maybe just have a smaller "flock" of quaker parrots or the ringneck (name?) ones that are the same found at telegraph hill in SanFrancisco. There is an year-round outdoor aviary with some kinds (more than one type) of parrots on 128 off River Road (50), I think they sell flight cages and are called trueflight or something like that; sorry I can't give you numbers on the hardiness though, if it were plants I could say "hardy to X degrees" or something like that, sorry. Maybe have the aviary attached to a shed or something where they can go in and warm up- ever thought of that? hmmm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.173.226.229 (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)