Talk:Great tit/Archive 1

Picture
You can find a picture of a great tit at the german wikipedia: de:Bild:Parus_major.jpg -- de:Hokanomono


 * Well, this "German" picture is actually taken by me and it is in wikimedia commons, but I've decided it's not so good to be attached here. If anybody thinks otherwise, be free to attach it. [[Image:Parus_major.jpg|thumb|80px]] --Akumiszcza 09:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Appearently the picture has been moved to Image:Parusmajorde.jpg. I had posted the top comment a long time ago, when there had not been no such thing as wikimedia commons and images were being shared between wikipedias by download and upload. – Hokanomono 21:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitalisation
Can somebody explain why "Great Tit" is capitalized like a proper noun? Craw 11:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
 * All species names should be capitalised. That way, you can tell the difference between, say, a Little Ringed Plover and a Ringed Plover which is smaller than average. Andy Mabbett 11:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This guideline is documented at Wikiproject Birds. (And, hey, most guys spend their time thinking about great tits.  Only birders worry about Great Tits.)  -- Coneslayer 21:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And how would you know if it was indeed a great tit or a Great Tit that was referenced to? 80.217.188.76 22:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ... capitalization ... read harder. Vael Victus (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Read this page without laughing. I dare you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.96.82 (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * that is impossible due to "acrobatic performances when feeding on nuts or seed." (that was a quote from the page!) 85.149.120.16 (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Big tits!
The anon ip who redirected Big tits to this article deserves a barnstar. lol! -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, redirect to here? I think that's a great idea, will go change it back lol, besides, what would you rather want to read if you entered "big tits" into wikipedia's search, a page about "brassiere measurement", or get a laugh being redirected to a page about a bird with a funny name? --Iateyourgranny (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, you would want to find the information you were looking for.... See also past "Redirect for Discussion". Mind you, the joke was funny... the first time it was done :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * P.D.: Notice that Breast size also redirects to Brassiere measurement. I also thought of redirecting to some paraphilia that had been named after the obsession with big breasts, but I could only find Partialism (see list in the right column of page 737) which I find that is not specific enough to redirect there. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

btw, see Featured redirects for a laugh. ;) -- &oelig; &trade; 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with humans
There is some text in here which seem rather irrelevant: "However, human habitat also has an effect on the Great Tit. The song of the Great Tit has been observed to change in noise polluted urban environments. In areas with low frequency background noise pollution, the song has a higher frequency than in quieter areas." (this refers to a paper entitled "Birds sing at a higher pitch in urban noise") Birdsong is used to advertise territory & presence to potential competitors & mates, and birds naturally vary their songs so they may be heard better in their surroundings whether those are dense forest or open fields, so this seems to be heavily anthropomorphizing ("birds sing when they're happy" etc.). If this can't be improved it would be better deleted. Innotata 16:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Innotata (talk • contribs)

Species splits
Regarding the splitting out of the taxanomic groups, it is argued in this paper that the Turkestan Tit should be lumped with this species even as the the Japanese and Cinereus Tits should be split out (contra HBW 2007 but as done by IOC). Should we take the plunge and lump? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another paper abstract here. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A further query about subspecies. Current article says there are 36, but only lists a dozen or so and apparently keeps Turkestan Tit as a subspecies. Harrop and Quinn  split Turkestan Tit as a full species and describe 33 ssp of Great Tit. Otherwise they deal mainly in terms of the major/cinereus/minor groups for general descriptions, sex/age, voice, distribution and movements, habitat, and breeding biology.


 * treatment by the three (four if Turkestan lumped) groups keeps the information comprehensive but manageable. Other than appearance and range, detailed data on most of the individual ssp will be difficult or impossible to find. I suggest that we follow Harrop and Quinn in dealing with the broad groups, but don't bother describing all 30 odd ssp. Any views on treatment of ssp and whether to include bokharensis?
 *  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That was me; I started adding subspecies, then got totally confused as to which others were still included. Nothing I could find online regarding the split answered the question, so I've been digging through boxes of books (still not unpacked following the recent move) trying to find something that does!  In the meantime, I was putting in anything that wasn't included in the Cinereous Tit article, and had also left out all Asian subspecies pending confirmation of which were still included.   Sorry! MeegsC | Talk 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not just Meeegs's fault. The confusion occus partly because I have started expanding and haven't finished. Since we have split out all the subspecies ascribed to minor group (Japanese Tit) and cincerus(Cincerus Tit), which is why they are not described. But I hadn't finished the taxonomic history description, which explains the split to four species and then back down to three. Harrop and Quinn treat the Turkestan Tit as a separate species, but that was in 1996, and didn't take into account the 2003 and 2005 studies. Almost all the modern analysis it is lumped with major and the other two are split out, most recently the conclusion of Packert et al 2005, which is what I think we should do. I have finished the bare bones of the taxonomy section, so hopefully this will be clearer now. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  18:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In case the map is at odds with the text, do let me know how it should be and I can fix it. Shyamal (talk) 04:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, treatment as per SS above is fine with me  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Shyamal, since you offered, we've lumped Parus bokharensis with Parus major, can you make a version of the map that reflects that? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  07:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have change the colour scheme so that major and bokharensis are two shades of red - seems a pity to lump them together ;) Shyamal (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. The map shows Parus monticolus, but I am not finding it mentioned in the text. If I'm reading the text right, the eastern group has two species. The map seems to shows three overlapping species. Is there a zone in South/Southeast Asia where three species or notable subspecies can be found? If so, it would be good if the text mentioned the third, and indicated if it is a subspecies of Cinereous or Japanese. Or am I just missing something?--Brambleshire (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the original map http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/z/zoomed/images/vol80/nr05/8005a03fig5.jpg - this shows that major and bokharensis overlaps in parts (as also major with cinereus) while cinereus and minor have a long and narrow contact belt. Parus monticolus which is apparently a well separated species is shown as overlapping with cinereus and minor. It is included in this map merely because the source includes it and if it is too confusing, this species could be dropped from the map. Shyamal (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great mate. Onlty thing is could the P. bokharensis become P. m. bokharensis? Cheers Sabine's Sunbird  talk  18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. The fonts have been giving me trouble esp with the wikipedia commons converter... have to live with those small legend font for now, unless someone can fix it ... Shyamal (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The map clearly illustrates the concept now, and the contact zones are self-evident.--Brambleshire (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The map clearly illustrates the concept now, and the contact zones are self-evident.--Brambleshire (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Dimensions
The dimensions and weights I have for this species are pretty vague. Given that the species has been split and insular and tropical forms (which tend to be at the extremes) have been removed, does anyone have some sources on the weights and sizes of remaining subspecies? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please remove or explain jargon in the lead section
The following sentence is too heavily scientific for the lead section: "In the past this species was considered a ring species with several subspecies covering a wide distribution, but these have now been separated as the Cinereous Tit of southern Asia, and the Japanese Tit of East Asia." Can it be moved and/or re-written so that a layperson would understand it? I tried reading the article on ring species, and it's pretty dense. I am not convinced this concept holds any interest for the layperson. Please consider, what is the salient point, and is it really such a basic truth about the bird that it needs to be in the lead section? Anyway, it sounds like the notion of the Great Tit as a ring species is out-dated, so if that is the case, please explain (in the article) why it is being mentioned at all.--Brambleshire (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I hope. We've been expanding the article recently and I usually leave the lead till last. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is much better. Thanks for all your hard work!--Brambleshire (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Onwards
Well done, anything you want me to do to move this towards FAC?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have information on specific sizes of birds in Europe? The only book I have just has a size for the whole species which includes every subspecies including the ones now split out. There is more that needs doing before this goes to FA, I need to take stock and work out what that is. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Clements should have at least the comparative sizes of the races (larger/smaller than nominate) and might have one or two specific sizes. BWP or any other Europe book will have measurements for at least nominate - I'll check later, everyone's asleep but me (holiday)  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, is it worth moving the ssp descriptions to the ssp list? Or combining the two in a table? Just thoughts to maybe improve the readability.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought about this, but decided against it. I'd rather keep the description bits together, but if I'm overruled I'll go with the consensus. Thanks for the size info, I'll tray and work it in soon. Do your sources have some average egg sizes too? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I couldn't help myself, please check meddling  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

"Great Tit" or "Great tit"?
Do we really need to capitalize the name? It's like writing "White Tiger" instead of "White tiger". -unsigned

No it's not. A white Tiger is simply a white Tiger, as opposed to an orange/colour-typical Tiger. This is a matter of a totally different species of bird. Albino tigers are not a different species anymore than you and me if we have different hair genes/color. 71.102.17.212 (talk) 05:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Great tit side-on.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Great tit side-on.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 15, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-11-15. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great tit. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724185757/http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-waxwings.html to http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-waxwings.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Great tit in Britain versus the Netherlands
It was announced on the news tonight that the great tit in Britain has a bill 0.33 millimetres longer than the great tit in the Netherlands. This was attributed to the way the British feed these birds. This interesting information could go in the article if anybody is an expert on this finding. Vorbee (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a look and see what links there are, and it can be looked at from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great tit. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720125434/http://kabli.nigula.ee/bib/nowa.pdf to http://kabli.nigula.ee/bib/nowa.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011071314/http://www.phthiraptera.org/Publications/2318.pdf to http://www.phthiraptera.org/Publications/2318.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

taxonomy
Per the second paragraph, The great tit was formerly treated as ranging from Britain to Japan and south to the islands of Indonesia, with 36 described subspecies ascribed to four main species groups. The major group had....What does the major group mean? Was there a "major group" under Parus major (aka The great tit, if this was the case, then what is the scientific classification of "the group")? Or the article is talking about the major group under the genus Parus (which at least does not equal to the great tit now, and thus make these sentences bit confusing)?-- 淺藍雪 ❉ 00:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

“Central (Asia)”
The page is locked, so I can’t change it, but in the intro Central Asia is linked but the second word is missing in the text. Insofarasto (talk) 12:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 4 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Saucyluffy. Peer reviewers: Rmarin08, TheLazyWaffle.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

My evaluation of this article
As part of that course, I wrote ~300 word evaluations of various bird articles on wiki. My evaluation of this one is reproduced below, which is just my thoughts about possible improvements and things the article does well.


 * This Wikipedia article on the Great Tit is well-written and comprehensive. It has plenty of references, and well-organized, well-fleshed out sections. The taxonomy section could use a cleaning up in style; the use of passive voice makes the sentences difficult to parse. The section on behavior is surprisingly the largest, though this makes sense as Great Tits are highly studied in ornithology. It even includes information about how clutch size is affected by age of the parent and density of competitors. All of the information is well-supplemented by pictures and the article even includes a sound byte of the bird's song. Some of the linking is a bit odd, though, like when the article compares the Tit's song to a squeaky wheelbarrow and links to the article for "wheelbarrow". The talk page has a few users expressing their mirth regarding the bird's name, but also has good criticisms of the lead section having too much jargon and includes discussion (with references) on the species' taxonomy. Of particular note is the "Good Article" review, which lists the qualifications of a good Wiki article and assesses whether or not this one fits the criteria. I might use the included link as a guideline when I write my articles in the future. Looking at the edit history shows the iterative nature of Wikipedia - edits are frequent but small - the largest edit in the last six months only added 138 bytes to the 44 kilobyte article. The textbook mentions Great Tits in the section on Animal Personalities, so I think I'll be able to contribute to this article in the future.

WolfyFTW (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Birds?
Why is this article about birds? Is this an elaborate joke? 24.62.5.69 (talk) 07:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No joke, tits are birds. See Tit (bird). I think the the usage referring to breasts came from Teat. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I used to work with boobies, and that never stopped being funny. Until they tried to peck, they have bills like steak knives. I still have scars from handling young boobies. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  05:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * handling young boobies - the images that conjures up! 06:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! -- &oelig; &trade; 16:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Diet and Feeding - Hunting House Sparrow
This article's section describes the Great Tit hunting bats in winter.

Recently it has been shown that they may hunt house sparrow, also in winter. Hoping one of the more experienced editors will be able to write this fascinating behavior into the article.

Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The video is certainly amazing. But I don't think it qualifies under the strict reliable source guidelines Wikipedia must follow.  When someone writes the attack up for a peer-reviewed journal, we'll be able to add it to the article.  Thanks for pointing us to it! MeegsC (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And now some anonymous IP has added that it was "widely covered" by the media, though I can find nothing other than blogs and forums that discuss the attacks. MeegsC (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked over some of those blogs and may have found a few reliable sources that support the video. I do not have access to the books in order to verify what has been written on this topic by the host website -


 * "Barnes (1975) noted that “A topic of some interest to earlier writers was the alleged murderous tendency of great tits” (p. 112). Barnes described two or three cases where Pied flycatchers Ficedula hypoleuca were “found dead with smashed skulls in nest-boxes taken over by great tits” (p. 112), and also referred to occasions when Great tits had attacked and killed birds that were caught in traps, nets or cages. Caris (1958) reported a case in which an English Great tit was seen flying away with a dead Goldcrest Regulus regulus (one of Europe’s smallest passerines: it may weigh just 5g); it had been killed by a peck to the back of the head, and had had its eyes pecked out and skull mangled. Even better, Howard Saunders (1899) wrote that “The Great Titmouse will attack small and weakly birds, splitting their skulls with its powerful beak in order to get at their brains; and it has even been known to serve a Bat in this manner”."


 * Barnes, J. A. G. 1975. The Titmice of the British Isles. David & Charles, Newton Abbot.
 * Caris, J. L. 1958. Great tit killing and carrying goldcrest. British Birds 51, 355.
 * Saunders, H. 1899. An Illustrated Manual of British Birds. Gurney & Jackson, London.

Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great! Thanks for those. I should be able to access the British Birds article, and we'll see if someone from the WP:BIRDS project has access to the books. MeegsC (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Media coverage with photos and an interview with the bird-expert Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, finnish wikipedia tells about this. The source [12] used is Ilta-Sanomat evening/tabloid newspaper, which tells about "murdering" about 20 common redpolls (Acanthis flammea). I don't know if that qualifies as a reliable source, but there are pictures (some quite graphic) of the attacker and the attacked. 109.240.75.96 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)