Talk:Mauritius blue pigeon

Misidentified picture?
The picture here is often claimed to depict a Mauritius Blue Pigeon, but reproductions of it I have seen in books have all been very small and in black and white (Fuller 2001, Cheke & Hume 2008). This full version shows some differences from images based on specimens, and does actually look like a Seychelles Blue Pigeon instead (red forehead, blue feet and tail). Anyone know what's up? FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the illustration is a good likeness, the mystery illustration and the photograph of a Seychelles Blue Pigeon look somewhat different to me mainly in the colours on the head. Also, one had a grey bill and the other has a yellow bill. It is interesting that the mystery illustration looks completely different to other illustrations of Mauritius Blue Pigeons and I wonder why this might be. Snowman (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Since there may be some uncertainty over what that drawing depicts, and because we now have a colour photo of one of the three mounted specimens I'm unsure about what image should be in the taxobox. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A new paper just confirmed my suspicion, and I'll try to reorganise the article accordingly... FunkMonk (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mauritius Blue Pigeon
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fuller Extinct": From Broad-billed Parrot:  From Red Rail:  From Dodo:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mauritius Blue Pigeon
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Mauritius Blue Pigeon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Extinct Birds": From Dodo:  From Red Rail:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Pre-FAC look-through
Hi, you asked me a couple of weeks ago if I could take a look through this article. Sorry I didn't get to it sooner; I've been very busy recently. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "congeners" is a little jargony, even with a link, for the lead; it's not a term I've ever read before.
 * Your use of the word "hackle" doesn't match the explanation given in the article on the subject. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that consistency is good.
 * "was ever depicted alive" Many of the birds drawn are depicted as alive- presumably, you mean drawn from a live specimen
 * "apart from one brief mention by François Cauche in 1651 of "white, black and red turtle doves" encountered on Mauritius and Madagascar in 1638.[4]" So was this species also on Madagascar? Or was he referring to something else?
 * "the binomen franciae" That's not a binomen, it's a specific name. The binomen is both the specific and generic name together.
 * The OED, for what it's worth, is happy with "rediscribe", "rediscription" and so on. I'd recommend just using one word in those cases, rather than two words or a compound word.
 * "taxidermy specimens" I'm not sure "taxidermy" can be used as an adjective like that.
 * "Sub fossil" Again, one word.
 * "Réunion Blue Pigeon" Link? Don't be scared of redlinks.
 * "which they separated from" From which they separated?
 * There's some real inconsistency (evident in your list of other extinct species) as concerns the capitalisation of common names. I'd recommend capitalise bird common names, and decapitalising all others.
 * "Labourdonnaisia calophylloides" Again, nothing wrong with redlinks, as long as we're sure that this name is still in use.
 * "Frugivorous birds often need a large area for foraging,and move between forest types to feed on different types of food, which grow irregularly." Awkward sentence. Also, missing a space.
 * "brought out of the forest by a marron." What's a marron?
 * Some of your footnotes lack page numbers, and some give incredibly long ranges. More accurate pagination would be useful.
 * As a general note, I'd be aware of becoming a little preachy. You may be accused of going off-topic and talking about threats to living species/generally chastising those who contributed to the extinction. Sorry that this is vague, but I am not sure whether it is actually an issue.

Generally a really, really strong article. I've not checked sources for close paraphrasing, and neither have I done a literature search to check for further material, but, those issues aside, I would have no problem supporting this at FAC once the above issues have been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! And don't worry about the time, I'm still waiting for a copy edit... I can fix those things in the mean time. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As for page numbers, are such needed even for scientific articles? I was specifically told elsewhere that it was only for books. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no hard-and-fast rule. I know when I'm writing outside of Wikipedia, I'm very careful to cite precise page numbers where possible- on-Wikipedia, it depends on the article. When you've got a very large range of pages, especially if you're citing particular data or factoids from within it, precise citations can be helpful. Be aware it's something which may come up at FAC (I've seen it come up in Sasata's a few times.) J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012 copy edit

 * Hume and Walters (FN10) pp. 134-136 is about the Dodo, not about this bird, hence failed verification. --Stfg (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thought I'd replaced the numbers. I'll fix it when I get home. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is inconsistent about putting page numbers in the notes or in the citations. I believe this would matter for FA. --Stfg (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was also noted in the thread above. I was of the impression that it wasn't needed for academic papers, only books, as someone told me that during another FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, seems sensible. FN4 needs aligning with that, though. --Stfg (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, numbers for that were specifically requested in the GAN, because it was a very long article... So not sure what to do, but I'll probably just give numbers to all. By the way thanks for copy editing the two articles I requested! FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure what's best with that either. The page numbers at FN4 are the same as in the citation, so they don't enhance anything. The only way to be more precise would be to split up FN4 by page numbers. Maybe best to wait and see what the FAC reviewers say? You're most welcome to the copy edits -- I'm enjoying the articles. --Stfg (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I'm not so familiar with this kind of citations, my original ones were converted by Br'er Rabbit, but he's now banned, so I can't really ask him for advice... FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not so familiar either, but I know who is. I've asked at User talk:Diannaa She knows everything there is to know about citations. --Stfg (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, FunkMonk, I am a friend of Br'er Rabbit and he taught me how to do this stuff. My advice is that for an 12-page paper it would be better to cite exactly where the information is located within that paper. Right now the citations all show . The main citation down below shows the page range so what you should do is change each citation up above to show where exactly each piece of information came from. For example if a particular fact appears on page 29 just change that cite to read  . If multiple facts come from the same page, the sfn template will automatically collate them for you. Br'er Rabbit taught me everything I know, but unfortunately he did not teach me everything he knows, alas. But please feel free to post on my talk page with citation questions or coding questions and I will try to help. I will also watch-list this page. -- Dianna (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I'll go and fix the issues that have been brought up, and hopefully we'll have a FAC later today... FunkMonk (talk) 08:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You might like to check out citation #8, as the listed page number is outside the given range. (page 21?) -- Dianna (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a typo, should had been 31. Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Conservation status?!
I can understand where the sidebar graph would be handy in illustrating the differences between living animals, but do we really need it for "extinct"? I think the term is pretty clear on its own, without the need for several hundreds of pixels of "explanation". Maury Markowitz (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, since it's on every Wikipedia page about recent animal species, why start here? It's a much wider issue, so such a discussion is more appropriate here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animals FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The noise that it made :: hoax?

 * The lede says " Its call sounded like "barf barf" and it also made a cooing noise.". This statement was added in this edit. Is it provable? is it a hoax? The remark about "barf" looks queryable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, then it would be a 300 year old hoax, so I doubt it. The original Dutch text says "baf", and this would apparently sound like "barf" in English. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering about this too, having inspected the article because of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. The key text is "Baf Baf [pronounced Barf Barf]" but it's not clear whether the editorial aside in square brackets is from a Wikipedia editor or from the J.P.Hume, the author of the journal article which supports this.  As the bird is long extinct and the baf baf inscription was made about 1800, how can we be certain of a good phonetic rendering? Warden (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The translation in Hume's paper is from Tuijn 1969. Since Tuijn was Dutch himself, I think we can be pretty safe with the translation. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Baffen is an old synonym for modern Dutch blaffen, "to bark". So the animal apparently made a low barking sound. The "barf" translation serves to indicate that the word should not be pronounced with the Close-mid front unrounded vowel but with the Open back unrounded vowel. It might suggest a slightly too long sound, though. The greater nasality would not be a problem as it is unlikely the pigeon expressed himself in the highly medialised Dutch vowels ;o).--MWAK (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Anachronism
"Only these three taxidermic specimens still survive.[9]". Reference 9 is Rothschild 1907, p. 163. How can a 1907 book be the source the number of specimens now (in 2013)? Snowman (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because none have disappeared since. But I see your point. Hume 20011 could be used as well. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please correct this anachronism. 11:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word in this context, but anyway, done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I should have called it an obvious mistake. Snowman (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mistake
Since a little word said about Cossiny accounts, I got the book "Lost Land of the Dodo: an Ecological History of Mauritius, Réunion & Rodrigues" to figure out where the information is coming from. So, there were two people, seems to be a father and a son - Jean-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the elder) and Joseph-François Charpentier de Cossigny (the younger). The book refers to the correspondence between Jean-François (not Joseph-François!) and Reaumur made in 1737-1755 and published in 1939-1940 (page 100). It also written that "Cossigny also occasionally sent specimens, but there was no systematic collecting until Poivre diverted Philibert Commerson from Bougainville's major South Seas expedition in 1768". Also the letter about "rare" was dated 1755, not 1730s. Citation: "The elder Cossigny wrote in 1755 of the Pigeon Hollandais that, common 23 years before, was now rare because of forest clearance and hunting by escaped slaves where forest persisted" (page 99). Though, I am unable to find any other descriptions of the pigeon made by either Cossigny in the book.--Vicpeters (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If it was only common 23 years before 1755, then it ceased being so by the 1730s. FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you please to tell what exactly written in your sources? Thank you.--Vicpeters (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From Hume 2011: "Although Abbé Bonnaterre stated that the species was common in 1790 (Bonnaterre 1790; Renshaw 1939) and Milbert (1812) noted that he ate them in 1801, Cossigny’s 1755 account (Cossigny 1732-55) (see above) indicates that they had been numerous 23 years before, but were then rare because of forest clearance and hunting by escaped slaves." So it is a bit ambiguous, and I will rewrite it accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you made correction. It would be great to change the name too. Thank you!--Vicpeters (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed, sadly he doesn't have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If you need any kind of information from that book, please feel free to contact me.--Vicpeters (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I own the book myself, I think the problem in the article here was that I left in some stuff from the old version of the article when I rewrote it, which was based on older/slightly incorrect sources. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nitidissimus
The specific name was just changed here with no explanation. Is there a citation for this? FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change, since no rationale has been given. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems del Hoyo and Collar 2014 made the change, and Birdlife follow all their changes. Any confirmation? FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

~50% higher res photo of the NMS specimen
Not sure it is otherwise an improvement though©Geni (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If I remove the tint and increase the contrast, as with the old one, I think it will be an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated the older image with a larger, modified file. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)