Talk:Kākāpō

Click here to edit the number of living Kakapo rather than having to update it on multiple pages.

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 [mailto:michiel@thingmajig.org 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)

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 ) 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 . 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: Featured article review/Kakapo. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomy
Currently, the Kakapo is said to be in the family Psittacidae, and the subfamily Psittacinae. I'm currently reading through "A parrot apart: the natural history of the kakapo (Strigops habroptilus), and the context of its conservation management", and its chapter on taxonomy states that it is in the subfamily Strigopinae. Verbatim, "[...] but Smith (1975) used anatomical, morphological and ethological characters to place it in the endemic New Zealand subfamily Strigopinae, which has usually been followed since (Turbott 1990)." It then goes to explain the similarities between the Kea and the Kaka, and does not actually state the Psittacinae subfamily. I'm wondering about this: at the very least, it seems that a bit more discussion on the taxonomic groups this bird belongs to would be well-placed. —msikma (user, talk) 06:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the case with alot of birds where the new taxonomic stuff shows a marked difference with current accepted practice. Best to leave a note on WP Birds and discuss it there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good idea since I'm confused now and there don't seem to be too many people actively monitoring this article anymore. I'll try there. Thanks! —msikma (user, talk) 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific name for kakapo
Currently there're two scientific name using right now, one is from BirdLife & IUCN:Strigops habroptila, and the other one is widely used everywhere even in our article:Strigops habroptilus, which one is correct ?--Lokionly (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * According to ITIS Strigops habroptila is correct. Something to do with the gender of Strigops. Explained here. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lifespan?
The only mention of the birds' lifespan is "Because Kakapo are quite long-lived, they tend to have an adolescence before beginning breeding." But how long-lived are they??
 * (doesn't know how to type a whistling sound) According to BirdLife International's Rare Birds Yearbook, 90 on average, with the maximum estimated at 120. I'll put it on in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems awfully generous, considering that a span of 90–120 years would make it the world's longest-living bird! AnAge and ADW have more coservative estimates of up to 60 years. Yet perhaps the high estimate isn't altogether unreasonable: many parrots are long-lived and larger species tend to live longer than smaller ones – and Kakapo is the world's largest parrot. One must wonder, though, how justified or accurate that estimate can really be. The oldest undisputed age for a bird was 78+ years for an Andean Condor named Kuzya of the Moscow Zoo (arrived with adult plumage in 1892, died in 1964), also, Thaao (b. 1930) of Connecticut's Beardsley Zoo was still alive at at least 77. Guinness accepts a claim of an 80-year-old Sulphur-crested Cockatoo named Cocky (d. 1982 at the London Zoo), but the 24 first years of its life are unaccounted for. The oldest age for a parrot featured in AnAge (as far as I know) was 65.8 years for a captive Moluccan Cockatoo. And Charlie is simply a fraud. --Anshelm &#39;77 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sirocco the Kakapo - worth a mention?
Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia so my apologies if I get anything wrong! I work for the Department of Conservation in New Zealand, and work closely with the Kakapo Recovery Team. I also manage our social media presence, a lot of which is focussed on Sirocco, the kakapo featured in Last Chance to See.

I added a brief paragraph to the Wikipedia kakapo article, as I often get messages from people asking why Sirocco isn't mentioned. The programme is still being shown around the world, so we'll get bursts of people signing up to Sirocco's Facebook page from, most recently for example, Iceland then Norway.

My paragraph was removed, but I'm not really sure why? I've seen the discussion earlier on this page about whether or not Sirocco should be mentioned, and there's a suggestion that 'internet fame' isn't enough (which is a fair point). However, Sirocco is starting to be recognised around the world through the TV programme, and people want to find out more about him. The fact that he was named 'Official Spokesbird for Conservation' by NZ Prime Minister John Key earlier this year may also be something worth mentioning? Some may see it as a joke, but the role has brought a lot more people closer to the plight of the kakapo, and endangered species in general.

My main point though is that people want to find out more about Sirocco, and ask me why he's not on Wikipedia. Personally I thought I was justified in adding one paragraph because of this - I'd be interested to hear other's thoughts!

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris Pitt (talk • contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I argued above that such a trivial incident was not appropriate to include in the article, but I am no longer sure of that. If the incident is still receiving coverage a year later, as shown through signups to his Facebook page, and if this is now one of the most widely known portrayals of kakapo, then it should be covered in the article.- gadfium 22:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there third party sources still covering it? Active Banana    (bananaphone  20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would Sirocco warrant a separate article rather than risk adding what is in effect an "In popular culture" section to this article? Kahuroa (talk) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am unsure about the best procedure: the recent attempt to add information about Siroco is clearly very different from the rash of excited commentary when the incident first occurred, yet it is rarely helpful to include what is essentially trivia in a science article. In particular, the link http://www.facebook.com/siroccokakapo is difficult because it does not satisfy the external link guidelines, and it is not a reliable source and so cannot be used as a reference for information added to the article. The article probably needs a little restructuring with the long "The conservation of the Kakapo..." paragraph in the lead being replaced by a much shorter summary, with the content from the existing paragraph moved to a new section under "Conservation" (perhaps 4.5 "Public recognition"). I would be happier with a brief statement about Siroco if it were not in the lead of the article. The idea of making a separate article would be ideal if there is sufficient sourced material to satisfy the notability requirement. Perhaps Chris Pitt would like to comment on the new article idea (which would be mentioned in this article under "See also"). The Facebook link would be suitable on an article dedicated to Siroco, but the article would have to follow normal encyclopedic guidelines (it couldn't be chatty in the style of the Facebook page). Johnuniq (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sirocco's page at the Kakapo Recovery Programme website would be usable I think. Kahuroa (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their comments...it's amazing what goes on behind the scenes of Wikipedia, who would have thought! So - it looks like two options are emerging - either re-instating a paragraph or so about Sirocco in the main article, but in a new section; or creating a new page dedicated to Sirocco. I'm happy to do either of those - I'll leave this for a couple of days to allow other thoughts/preferences, then will get on with it! Many thanks. Chris Pitt (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you choose a new article, I suggest starting with a list of reliable sources that you could use. Post that list somewhere (perhaps here, or on your talk page, and add a link here to your talk page, like this example). That is, do not bother with an article draft until you let a couple of experienced editors comment on the sources – that would save a lot of trouble, because without sources acceptable by Wikipedia standards any new article would be deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi - thanks again for the advice. Okay, for the article on Sirocco, I'd base the bulk of the information on Sirocco's 'biography' on the Kakapo Recovery Team website, which is the authority on all things kakapo: Kakapo Recovery Team website. There are various news sites which have covered Sirocco's 'rise to fame', and these could be added as links. For example the London newspaper Metro covered Sirocco's appointment as official Spokesbird to the NZ Government Sirocco as Spokesbird Metro; plus there's a strong and quite touching piece about Sirocco, and his 'rock star' appearance at Auckland Zoo in 2009 on the respected NZ news magazine programme Campbell Live: Sirocco on Campbell Live. There are other links I could use on a similar theme, but I think these cover the basic details both about Sirocco himself, and his 'fame'. I'd welcome feedback on these suggestions before I attempt to write the article! Thanks again, Chris Pitt (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They look fine, especially as you are basing the article on a reliable source. A couple of others to consider as links (there's no shortage) include Stuff and DOC's Conservation Blog Kahuroa (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks good. If you want to take it slowly (probably a good idea), you could start a draft in your userspace (for example, click this redlink User:Chris Pitt/Sirocco the Kakapo and enter some text, preview and save). When ready, the page should be moved (not copied) into article space (if wanted, ask for help). I don't think you need to be told that the problem will be keeping enthusiastic gossip out of the page, but there is no need to be overly coy in describing the incident. To be kept, the article will have to satisfy notability. The best procedure is to add information from several different sources (but not all describing the same thing); there will need to be more coverage than just the mating incident (and it would be interesting if you could find a reliable source offering explanations for that incident). Johnuniq (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - okay, the page is written! I've moved it, and it's now here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirocco_the_Kakapo. I checked my first draft and received advice about putting more references in, and I've done that. Hopefully now it's in shape! Any thoughts will be welcome; also, when/how does the page become visible in the Wikipedia (and external) search engines? Do I need to do something? Many thanks as ever, Chris Pitt (talk) 03:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I added some categories, and linked to it from a few other articles. You can use Special:WhatLinksHere/Sirocco (Kakapo) to see links. You might also be interested in the number of page views, but it will take a few days before the tallies show up.


 * This would probably qualify for an entry in the Did you know section of the front page. Could someone more experienced than me in making such nominations please consider this.- gadfium 07:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I've nominated it here. --Avenue (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As a regular with DYKs, I can tell you that it's an excellent contribution for that page. But technically, the nomination has been left too late (it needs to be nominated within 5 days of an article appearing in mainspace, and it's been 7). Technically, it should have been nominated under the heading 22 October, and not 28 October (for future reference). A way out of this is the additional rule D9. I'll comment on DYK and bring it to other editor's attention, as the additional rules aren't widely known.  Schwede 66  02:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This has already been sorted out on the DYK page, but briefly, it was not too late because it was only moved from userspace to mainspace on 28 October. (See additional rule D8.) --Avenue (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Great; the article is about to go onto the homepage and Sirocco is the lead hook. As it's a rather interesting hook, and given that the lead hook is accompanied by a photo, it's almost a given that it will attract sufficient views (i.e. over 5,000) to be added to the DYK statistics page.  Schwede 66  18:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It's scheduled to go live at midnight UK time, or 8pm in New York, and will only be up for six hours, so the timing might not be ideal for lots of views. I guess we'll see. --Avenue (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And in case you wonder, that's 1 pm to 7 pm New Zealand time on Sunday.  Schwede 66  04:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It gathered over 10,000 views yesterday, compared to around 30 in each of the preceding days - not bad. I've added it to the DYK stats page. --Avenue (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Kakapo versus Kākāpō
I'm wondering whether Kakapo is the right name for this article. Shouldn't it be Kākāpō, according to the New Zealand naming convention for Māori words?  Schwede 66  05:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Macrons might be appropriate if the thing was known by its English name and we were giving it its Maori name as well, (for example the The New Zealand Pigeon or kererū ) but the widespread English name for the species is Kakapo, not Kākāpō. I fully support using Maori words in English (particularly when the words are nicer than the English words, which they often are for birds) and the promotion of te reo, but WikiProject New Zealand's insistence that Maori loanwords keep macrons seems inconsistent with general usage in NZ. Also Wikiproject Birds avoids any diacritical marks (following the convention set by the IOC world bird list) except in the case of patronyms (example Böhm's Bee-eater). Sabine's Sunbird  talk  06:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are conflicting guidelines at play here. I think the cited sources predominantly omit macrons, which is another factor supporting that approach, although DoC now seems to prefer macrons. --Avenue (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The position has changed greatly since 2010, and macrons are now used widely. The NZ Geographic Board has applied macrons to more than 300 placenames. I see that macron policy in Wikipedia is a considerable issue in itself. --Hugh7 (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, high time this was moved to Kākāpō. Common usage has shifted. The Guardian is using the macronised form . See also Stuff ; RNZ ; the Natural History Museum, London ; and The New Zealand Herald for some other recent examples. Paora (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , we now have an "evidence template" developed by . Shall we start a move request?  Schwede 66  02:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I would certainly support that. The template is here.—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Who cares what the Guardian is doing? I actually looked this up because of the Guardian. There are no such accents in English. 100.34.46.136 (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't this article supposed to be in English?
 * https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kakapo
 * There are no such marks in English. 100.34.46.136 (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of English terms with diacritical marks, such as many loanwords in New Zealand English. --Canley (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming there are no other topics with the same name, the diacritics are rarely used BilledMammal (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The article's in New Zealand English, which regularly uses macrons on Māori loanwords, as established in the discussion below, in which it was established kākāpō was the common spelling in reliable sources. That discussion is resolved, I believe.—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Strigops habroptilus after all
It's true that the Greek word ops is feminine, so one should expect Strigops habroptila.

But the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature doesn't care:

"30.1.4.3. A compound genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine, regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by its author."

*shrug* Strigops habroptilus it is, then (I'll go change it), and Triceratops horridus stays as well.

David Marjanović (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. I hope someone can fix Wikimedia Commons and Wikispecies as well without disrupting all links. David Marjanović (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited two typos in my original comment. David Marjanović (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Parasites
I noticed this article about the kakapo tapeworm. I was wondering whether there ought to be a mention of it in the article. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Strigops habroptilus is the correct name
I'm revising and updating this article with the assistance of the Department of Conservation Kākāpō Recovery Team, and the first thing to establish is the correct Latin name. Because the species epithet habroptila appears in the IOC World Bird List and the IUCN Red List, amongst others, the article has gone back and forth a few times over the years. Summarising and expanding on a couple of previous Talk page comments, here's the argument for S. habroptilus being the correct name.


 * 1) Gray originally chose habroptilus as the specific epithet in 1845 (thanks, )
 * 2) A few years back there was a suggestion that the name be feminised to agree with Strigops; as ITIS puts it, "Mandatory correction for gender concordance" (thanks, ).
 * 3) However, according to  this section of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, "30.1.4.3. A compound genus-group name ending in -ops is to be treated as masculine, regardless of its derivation or of its treatment by its author.  So according to the ICZN code, Strigops is masculine (thanks, ). But in 1955, Hemming officially declared Strigops was to be regarded as feminine, and this has to abided by subsequently, with David and Gosselin (2002b) claiming the feminine habroptila should be used.
 * 4) But in fact "habroptilus" isn't an adjective; it's treated as a noun in apposition (ICZN Art. 31.2.2), and so it need not agree in gender with the genus name, and so (ICZN 34.2.1) the original spelling should never have been changed (thanks to Andrew Digby for passing this on). David and Gosselin (2002a) state this clearly, but then contradict themselves in their subsequent publication.
 * 5) Nevertheless, being the "correct" form isn't sufficient; what matters is what's in common use (WP:COMMONNAME). From the WikiProject Birds naming conventions: "Wikipedia article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name."
 * 6) "Strigops habroptilus" is by far the most common form in use in the scientific literature: 1,830 results in Google Scholar compared with 162 for "Strigops habroptila". In addition, all the most recent kākāpō publications in this Scholia list (based on the Wikidata item, not the Latin name) use "habroptilus". Finally, habroptilus is what's used in the official NZ Checklist, authorised by the Ornithological Society of New Zealand (readable via NZ Birds Online), which is the final word on nomenclature of NZ birds.

So, based on both the ICZN rules and WP:COMMONNAME, the specific epithet in the article should be habroptilus. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * More power to you if you have this kind of overview :) No concerns from me. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a dig at you mate; just saw that this had come up a couple of times over the last few years so thought it would be worthwhile sorting it out properly. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote you'll explain the situation surrounding the specific name in a footnote, but I think it's significant enough to discuss in the taxonomy section of the article body (which is pretty short anyway). I also wonder if it would be nice to have a cladogram in there... FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Happy with name fix as suggested and agree with FunkMonk about where to put discussion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 5 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't find evidence that habroptilus is a noun. (Frankly I think Gray meant it to mean "with delicate feathers" and confused Greek ptílos, meaning "suffering from a certain disease of the eyelids", with Latin pilosus, meaning "hairy". In any case, both are adjectives.) But Article 30.1.4.3 does not mention any exceptions for works like Hemming's. I don't know how old the Article is, but wouldn't be surprised if it's younger than 1955 and therefore simply overrides that work. David Marjanović (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to several sources, such as Brown's classic work, "ptilon" is the Greek noun for feather, "ptilos" is the noun for plumage, and "ptilotos" is the adjective for feathered. Latinized versions are "ptilum", "ptilus", and "ptilotus", respectively. You will find some folks who will argue, on a grammatical basis alone, that latinized Greek suffixes that are nouns can still be treated as adjectives depending on the prefix. There are problems with this interpretation: (1) the ICZN Code nowhere indicates that prefixes are to be taken into account when determining whether a word is a noun or an adjective; Article 31.2 does in fact specifically state that gender agreement applies only "if it is or ends in a Latin or latinized adjective". In the present case, "habroptilus" demonstrably is not a Latin adjective, nor does it end in a latinized adjective. (2) Article 31.2.1 says gender agreement is not used when a word "is a simple or compound noun (or noun phrase)" - and, again, in the present case, "habroptilus" can certainly be considered a noun phrase or compound noun meaning "delicate plumage". (3) Under Article 31.2.2, even if you allow the pedantic argument that in Greek, the term "habroptilos" could potentially be interpreted as adjectival, the point remains that when there is a debate in which one side can argue that a word is a noun and the other side can argue that the word is an adjective, then the default is to assume that it is a noun unless the original author specifically stated otherwise. That is in fact the purpose of Article 31.2.2 - to settle "academic disputes" like this. Dyanega (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Good news from Kakapo recovery programme: 2019 even better than 2016
'''Kākāpō Recovery 17 h · We currently have a total of 181 eggs having been laid so far this season and 34 chicks currently alive. Second round mating is continuing on both islands.'''

https://www.facebook.com/KakapoRecovery/

So it's better (by far) than the 122 eggs made in 2016, and the season is still going on with another bunch of eggs coming soon. Maybe we will see over than 250-300 eggs this year, the only bad news is the vaste % of unfertile eggs. But, atleast for now, we have almost 50% more eggs than the 2016 season.

Had the eggs fertiles, with this season the number of kakapo would easily double or even triple. We will see how far they will go in the next months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.11.3.98 (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Update graph? And some etymology
Fascinating and comprehensive article. However, the graph showing kakapo numbers versus year needs to be updated; currently it seems to end around 2015. On another note entirely, the Maori translation of 'kaka' (parrot) and 'po' (underground or underworld) is cognate with the word cockatoo. This comes from the Malay kaka - tua meaning 'bold parrot'. The Maori equivalent is virtually identical: kaka-tu. All of which shows the persistence and preservation of certain words throughout the Malayo-Polynesian language family.
 * I've updated the population chart to 2019 (it hadn't been updated since 2011). --Canley (talk) 06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Kākāpō. (non-admin closure) Invinciblewalnut (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Kakapo → Kākāpō – Adding macrons per recent usage. Recent usage almost exclusively uses macrons, including from multiple media sources (Newshub / Stuff / The Guardian / The NZ Herald / TVNZ / RNZ / Newsroom), as well as international sources such as the Natural History Museum, the Smithsonian magazine and Italian media. Macrons are also heavily used for kākāpō across academic sources. Turnagra (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 04:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * support as consensus in NZ is to do so. IOC doesn't use macrons but we can assume IOC is just common name stripped of macrons for IOC purposes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article clearly states that New Zealand English should be used. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as per parallel cases recently discussed. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * per nom's sourcing finds. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, as the use of macrons for New Zealand species with Māori loanword names in New Zealand English has been established in several other proposals (see discussions there):
 * 1) Kōwhai
 * 2) Wētā (see Talk)
 * 3) South Island takahē
 * 4) Kākāriki
 * 5) Kōkako
 * 6) Katipō (see Talk)
 * 7) Kererū (see Talk)
 * 8) Tūī (see Talk)


 * relsiting comment: although there is a clear consensus in the discussion above, concerns were raised in this discussion. I am undoing the my previous close, and relisting the discussion for further input. The page is currently at "Kākāpō". Pinging everyone involved:, and from the other discussion: —usernamekiran (talk) sign the (guestbook) 04:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While "Kākāpō" is used, "Kakapo" appears to still be the commonname; a review of sources finds a wide number from media sources both widely read and of more narrow interest that continue to use "Kakapo" (New Scientist, Otago Daily Times, ABC, CNN, Hindustan Times, Washington Post, Australian Geographic, Straits Times, National Geographic, Reuters, Canberra Times etc) as well as academic sources doing the same (Nature (plus many other from elsewhere in the "Nature Group", though Nature in general is a little inconsistent), Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Biological Conservation, Animal Conservation, Ecology and Evolution etc). It is also relevant to note that there is a presumption towards "Kakapo"; WP:FAUNA tells us that if the common name is not readily identifiable, we should defer to international zoological nomenclature authorities, which in this case seems to be the IOC/IOU, who hold the name is Kakapo.
 * It is also of some relevance that the use of the term in Google searches is overwhelmingly towards "Kakapo", and though there is a barrier to the use of the macrons that can explain much of this - namely, that they are not readily available on most keyboards - the sheer disparity in use is somewhat indicative, as can be seen when you contrast it to terms that are in common use with the macron such as Māori.
 * Finally, thank you usernamekiran for being willing to relist this despite the slightly unusual reason. BilledMammal (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:FAUNA actually says "When what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained, prefer the common name most used (orthography aside) by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones." Emphasis added to show that the presumption is not in favor of diacritic-free. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point; I should have read the policy more closely rather than skimming over the parenthesis. However, I believe that point is to settle more substantial differences; for instance, if 30% of naming societies had it at "Kakapo", 30% had it at "Kākāpō", and 40% had it "Owl Parrot", then the policy is telling us to ignore the "vote-split" caused by the orthographical differences and put it at some variant of Kakapo, and the general principle still applies as a reasonable way of settling the matter.
 * In any case, I note your previous position ("Support per nom's sourcing finds") was based on the notion that recent coverage overwhelming uses "Kākāpō", I was wondering if you had reconsidered now that this appears to not be the case? BilledMammal (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I love "owl parrot". Second, I don't know enough about the reasoning behind WP:FAUNA to agree or disagree with your interpretation. I think the text as-is helps neither side. Third, I am certainly reconsidering. Your sourcing is enough to disprove OP's "almost exclusively", but not enough to demonstrate a COMMONNAME. Comparing quantity of usage in RS has been challenging. Even sources that exclusively use diacritics seems to show up on searches that also look at URLs, which always include the diacritic-free version. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Alas, Owl Parrot does not appear to be an option.
 * Worth noting that Ngrams doesn't list anything for "Kākāpō", but I understand that it has problems with macrons - though having just looked into it, I note that the corpus does include words such as "Kitāb", so perhaps we shouldn't rely on this assumption? In any case, I'm going to try and find a corpus based on news results, but I'm not confident that I'll succeed.
 * For the moment, I've gone and obtained some more sources; hopefully they will help a little. Please note that I have been less careful about which sources I pick, though I have omitted unreliable sources such as blogs: Bird Guides, The Economist, DW, The Atlantic, Living on Earth, Futurity, Treehugger (I am equally surprised that they appear to be reliable), Al-Awsat, Wired, Quartz, ZD Net, Analytics India Magazine, India Times, New York Times, Forbes, Newsweek BilledMammal (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that ngrams didn't find anything at all for "Kākāpō" should be fairly clear signal that it doesn't work for macrons - I'm sure that even with your belief that it's not the common name, you'd agree that Kākāpō is used at least once in a source that would be picked up by Ngrams. Turnagra (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Ngrams prunes words that occur below a certain frequency in order to keep the database at a manageable size; its possible that Kākāpō falls into this category, particularly since per the example I provided Ngrams does function with macrons for some words; I can provide many more if you wish? BilledMammal (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of those sources you've listed have also used the macron: New Scientist, Otago Daily Times (2 3 4 and another 18 at least), ABC, CNN, BirdGuides, DW, Forbes (multiple times), NewsWeek.


 * I also couldn't help but notice that - with the exception of the Otago Daily Times - you completely ignored New Zealand sources. These include widespread usage across all media outlets - Radio NZ (~1,370 articles with the macron), Scoop (~470 articles), Stuff (~300 articles), The Spinoff (~55 articles), TVNZ, Newsroom (~45 articles each), and Newshub (~40 articles), but also the Department of Conservation, every university (Otago, Auckland, Canterbury, Victoria, AUT, Massey, Waikato and Lincoln), New Zealand Geographic, electricity companies, Auckland and Wellington zoos, books, the Royal Society / Te Apārangi, Predator free NZ, Te Papa, Canterbury museum and Otago museum. Given that the article explicitly states to use New Zealand English, the usage in New Zealand - which is overwhelmingly in favour of macron usage, especially in recent sources (per WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:NAMECHANGES) - should take precedent.


 * Outside New Zealand, there is also Audubon, the British National History Museum, USA Today, Cosmos, the Smithsonian magazine, BirdWatching Daily, the World Parrot Trust, Planeta.com, EMBL and Re:Wild all use the macron too. Not to mention the hundreds of academic sources which also use kākāpō.


 * As another user has stated and previous moves have reiterated (see Talk:Kererū), we don't need to follow IOC when there's a different common name used. IOC also doesn't use any forms of diacritics as a matter of overall policy, which means they're not a reliable source as to whether a specific bird should have diacritics. Keeping this page at the new title of Kākāpō is consistent with the relevant conventions and guidelines, and re-opening a unanimous move request for what should be an uncontroversial move is frankly a waste of everyone's time. Turnagra (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not certain your WP:ENGVAR argument applies here, dealing as it does with diacritics rather than general spelling varieties. Instead, I would think WP:DIACRITICS would be the appropriate policy, which requires common use. And globally, I believe the common word continues to be Kakapo, based on the sources I have found - I believe with the exception of OTD, most of the exceptions to my sources that you have found are uncommon digressions, rather than common use.
 * I would also disagree that reopening was a waste of time; at the very least, we have proven that you are incorrect about "recent usage almost exclusively uses macrons", and the number of objections on the technical move request suggests that this is worth taking a little longer to consider. In any case, no point debating that now. BilledMammal (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Do sources from New Zealand have more weight, returning to my point on the article stating New Zealand English? YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Per Naming conventions (New Zealand) – "Māori words, when they appear as the title of articles, are usually written with macrons indicating long vowels". This orthographic convention was decided on many years ago (although implementing it has been surprisingly gradual). The common name itself is not in question – it is (with varying orthography) Kakapo / Kākāpō / Kaakaapoo / Kaka-po etc. I don't usually comment on move requests to add macrons to common nouns of Māori origin – I take it as a given that they will be added. Nurg (talk) 08:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can rely on that aspect of the guidelines; it was implemented in this revision, when the guideline was still a draft. The guideline was marked historical here, but that was immediately removed and the guideline template added. As far as I can tell, no discussion occurred for this; as such, I am not certain we can classify any of it (except for the section on using macrons for place names, which does not apply to fauna) as reflecting a "generally accepted standard". BilledMammal (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * A guideline that has stood for 14 years must be considered generally accepted, regardless of any informality of process back in 2006–07. Nurg (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The most we can say is that it has not been objected to - and even that is dubious, for all we know someone did so only to be told that "a guideline that has stood for 1/4/7/10 years must be considered generally accepted". In any case, the use of the word "usually" means it is a suggestion at most. BilledMammal (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, there have always been editors who disagreed with that clause. Like many WP policies and guidelines, it does not have unanimous support. However, it has had support to the level of being rough consensus or generally accepted. Unless and until the guideline is changed, we should follow it. Nurg (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The usually is because some dialects opt for double vowels instead of macrons, primarily Waikato-Tainui. For example, they spell the town of Ngāruawāhia as Ngaaruawaahia, and kīngitanga as kiingitanga. It's not because of people incorrectly omitting macrons. At any rate, the use of macrons is in keeping with the common name of the bird and is consistent with many other articles that use macrons as required (see Tūī, Wētā, Kākā, Kererū, Pā, Hapū, Te Puni Kōkiri, Kī-o-rahi, most iwi, every article with Māori in the title, and hundreds of place names. Given the meaning of Kaka without macrons, the use of macrons here is even more important than most. Turnagra (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. Kākāpō is now the most common spelling in use in reliable sources in New Zealand English.


 * 1) The article is in New Zealand English, which includes loanwords taken from te reo Māori. Māori loanwords in New Zealand English are increasingly being spelled with the macrons that indicate long vowels, because these change the meaning of words.
 * 2) The spelling kākāpō means parrot (kākā) of the night (pō) in Māori, so macrons are required to indicate both pronunciation and meaning.
 * 3) Despite what was asserted above, accented characters are commonly used for loanwords in English Wikipedia: éclair, jalapeño, Béla Bartók. (WP:DIACRITICS)
 * 4) Because widespread macron usage has only happened since about 2015, we're required to give extra weight to recent NZ sources (WP:NAMECHANGES).
 * 5) The spelling Kākāpō is now the commonly-used spelling in reliable sources written in New Zealand English: "major…organisations, major English language media outlets, quality encyclopedias…major scientific bodies." – see the numerous examples of NZ media etc given above. (WP:COMMONNAME)

I'm surprised this RfC was reopened, as consensus in favour on exactly the same issue has already been reached in several articles, after much the same discussion: for example Wētā, Katipō, Kererū, Tūī.

—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. All of the above arguments from . Kākāpō just feels more correct, and we should aim for correctness, even if the (non-New Zealand) literature is doing a poor job of reflecting that. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Fat land parrot" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fat land parrot and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 18:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Turkey parrot" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Turkey parrot and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Evaluation
Article starts with a very detailed and thorough lead section. The content does focus a lot on conservation efforts, but still includes important information about the spices history, behavior, anatomy, ect. Article is well balanced and has un unbiased tone throughout. Many sources are current though most focused on the rehabilitation of Kākāpō. Whole article was very well organized and well written, but did have a few small spelling errors. There where many helpful figures, graphs and nice images that supported the writing well. Overall the article was very well written and included a lot of well sourced information and article seems very compete. Some improvements would be another round of proofreading. Dominowenz11 (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
The "Ecology and behaviour" section is largely unsourced. File:Kakapohist.svg is also unsourced. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Betcha that the majority of the reference-trailing sentences are actually sourced to those references (an error often made by novice editors), and that you didn't go to the trouble of checking that... right...? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Elmidae,
 * I didn't check them all but here are a few examples:
 * I cannot see anything related to Every individual kākāpō receives an annual health check and has their transmitter replaced in the previous reference.
 * Same for During the winter of 1981, only females lighter than 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) were given supplementary feeding to avoid raising their body condition, and the sex ratio results in 1982 were close to parity, eliminating the male-biased sex ratios in the unrestricted feeding (the previous source actually mentions something similar during the 2001 winter?).
 * The source before One of its last refuges was rugged Fiordland. There, during the 1930s, it was often seen or heard, and occasionally eaten, by hunters or roadworkers. By the 1940s, reports of kākāpō were becoming scarce isn't available (even the archive)
 * The source before Kākāpō feeding grounds almost always host manuka and yellow silver pine (Lepidothamnus intermedius) scrubs." does mention these two species but adds "Likewise a bias may have occurred when determining the vegetation types kakapo preferred to feed in
 * While they are curious toward humans, kākāpō are not social birds.: nothing related in the source before
 * A455bcd9 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not imputing that it's anyone's in particular job to sort out all of these, but it's worth keeping in mind when mass-tagging these dangling statements. E.g. Mating occurs only approximately every five years, with the ripening of the rimu fruit. In mating years, males make "booming" calls for 6–8 hours every night for more than four months is in the immediately preceding ref; and of this, but the species was not exclusively forest-dwelling. All kākāpō that were transferred to predator-free islands in the last decades have adapted well to any changes in environment and food plants the first statement belongs to the preceding ref. (I'll fix those) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, the source says "Males may persist in calling activity throughout the hours of darkness (and occasionally also by day), on consecutive nights for up to four months throughout late summer/autumn. The intensity and length of the calling period varies considerably from year to year." I think that's a bit different from In mating years, males make "booming" calls for 6–8 hours every night for more than four months. At least we could add "may" before "make". A455bcd9 (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if that were the case, it still does not meet FA citation requirements, so the notice was entirely appropriate imv. I hope that the referencing is fixed so the article does not need FAR. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅: found the source of the historical range map. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Ecology and behaviour section - citations needed tags
Citations needed tags: Marshelec (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) The first sentence in the section. My initial reaction is that this sentence is not essential to the article and could be deleted. I did find this source that discusses evolutionary diversification in New Zealand and mammals.  (on the second page, numbered page 29). However, on its own it is not a sufficient source. Should this sentence just be deleted ?
 * 2) The second tag in this section is for the sentence: "While they are curious toward humans, kākāpō are not social birds". It is partly supported by the source cited immediately prior, but does not mention the content in that same source that says females and young birds have been observed playing in small groups. How about rewriting to include this ? A possibly useful source that compares play behaviour between kākāpō, kākā and kea is here:
 * 3) The third tag is for the last sentence. This largely duplicates the first sentence of the last paragraph, and is not essential, given that threats and conservation are discussed elsewhere. I suggest it is deleted.

Proposal to change habroptilus to habroptila to follow IOC (and all other lists)
Notwithstanding discussion above I believe that we should use the feminine form habroptila for the specific epithet. On English Wikipedia we follow the IOC list which has habroptila.(see the IOC here) may well be correct that habroptilus should be considered as a noun in apposition - but this represents original research and we follow reliable taxonomic sources (in this case the IOC). I notice that David and Gosselin (2002) in their article cited above state that habroptilus is an adjective on p. 273 and list Strigops habroptila on p. 181. The IOC is not alone in using habroptila. All major taxonomic lists appear to use the feminine form of the epithet: Authors associated with the Kākāpō Recovery Team use habroptilus such as here, here and here. These authors are not taxonomists. Other authors use the feminine form habroptila such as here and here
 * Dickinson & Remsen (2013) H&M4 Vol 1 p 353 have Strigops habroptila. The epithet is flagged as a variable (v). In a footnote they cite the ICZN Direction 26 (1955). See here. H&M4 is very influential.
 * Bird Life International/IUCN here
 * Clements Checklist here
 * Cornell's Birds of the World here
 * ITIS here
 * eBird here
 * New Zealand Birds Online here (this page appears to have been updated since the earlier discussion above and now has habroptila!)

- Aa77zz (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The overwhelming scientific consensus in actual published papers on kākāpō is S. habroptilus (approximately 10:1 ratio). Unfortunately the 2022 edition of the official NZ Checklist, put out by the Ornithological Society of New Zealand—which is the reliable taxonomic source in this instance, not the IOC—changed habroptilus to habroptila, citing Hemming (1955); incorrectly, in my and several others' opinions. I was actually approached to co-author a response to establish habroptilus as the correct specific epithet! But until that is published, for the purposes of this article we are indeed obliged to stick with the (erroneously) feminised species name. Ah well. Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I've now changed the epithet to habroptila and cited some sources - including the 2022 edition of the Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand - thanks for the link - Aa77zz (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2023 (UTC)