Talk:Passenger pigeon

What were the motivations for hunting the Passenger pigeon?
The article details the widespread hunting of the Passenger pigeon, evidently at least a primary cause of its extinction. But the motivations for hunting do not seem to be discussed in any detail. Was the Passenger pigeon easy to shoot? Was it difficult and therefore a challenge to shoot? Did farmers shoot it to prevent crop destruction? Was the Passenger pigeon desired and used as cooked food? How widespread was the serving or eating of Passenger pigeon as meat? Details on these motivations for hunting (and their relative importance) would be helpful in understanding the extinction of the Passenger pigeon. David Spector (talk) 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, all of this is already explained in the article, in the hunting section. Some quotes "The passenger pigeon was of particular value on the frontier, and some settlements counted on its meat to support their population.", "In the early 19th century, commercial hunters began netting and shooting the birds to sell as food in city markets, and even as pig fodder. Once pigeon meat became popular, commercial hunting started on a prodigious scale.", "Passenger pigeons were shot with such ease that many did not consider them to be a game bird", and "Passenger pigeons were also seen as agricultural pests, since entire crops could be destroyed by feeding flocks.". FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

My observation was that hunting motivations were not "discussed in any detail" and you have confirmed it. It is natural to wonder how these motivations rank. Which was the main motivation for hunting the Passenger pigeon to extinction? Which was the least important motivation? We should not be satisfied with such superficial information. David Spector (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If no one ever "ranked" them (which is a silly notion to begin with), which none of the authoritative modern sources do, it doesn't really matter what we are satisfied with or not. Humans hunt animals and destroy forests for a variety of reasons, and all we can do is present them, not "rank" them. The main causes are summarised under extinction, but as usual with extinctions, a single main reason can never be pinpointed (which would be too simplistic anyway), only the contributing factors. And the issue is still debated (how important was each factor?), so we can't be more certain than the sources here just for the sake of it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't familiar with the authoritative modern sources, but I bow to your impressive and amazing knowledge of all of them. If no one has delved deeper into the causes of the extinction, then we certainly cannot say more in WP, which must reflect RSs. Thank you. I hadn't realized that the article truly reflected the limited state of our knowledge. I withdraw my suggestion. David Spector (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, even if I have not read every single paper or book itself, the theories and studies involved are summarised repeatedly in other sources. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

FRINGE claim
This is a strange claim that should be directly attributed, not put into Wikipedia's own voice: "Reviving the passenger pigeon may help conserve woodland biodiversity in the eastern US." This is not a statement that most scientists, including ecologists, zoologists, and others, would agree with. I.e., it is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure when or by who it was added, the citation is not formatted like the rest, so I'm fine if it is removed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Coloured version of the main image
Hogyncymru (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, while it's an interesting exercise, it's a bit too speculative for an article where we have actual contemporary photos and illustrations, it's a bit too far into WP:original research territory. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Citations are placed in "Cited texts" if different pages are cited, right?
Is this rationale the one being used in this article? I am not quite sure that this is the intention because there appears to be exceptions. Any comment clearing this up would be appreciated. J JMesserly (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case it's for when multiple page ranges to the same sources (mostly books) are used, then the ranges are put in References, and the books themselves under Cited texts. Sources with shorter and single page ranges are put under References. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Right. Does this notice describe that usage scheme correctly?  If not, what wording should I add or remove to make it more precise or clear?  As suggested by Jts1882 on the Birds project page, I have created different style templates akin to the British english/ American english notice templates.  The intent is that we have clear descriptions of usage for all consistent styles for using short footnotes.  An alternate style to this one is that is employed by Egyptian vulture, and Botany.  So far I have not seen other styles amongst the bird articles, but there may be more which are as yet unidentified- such as inclusion to the cited works list based on notability of the source (some historical articles appear to be doing this on occaision).  The following is a current subst of Note short footnote style 1 in use


 * Is this wording correct for this article as the template is currently written? If so, I will proceed with inquiries on the talk pages of articles presumably using it prior to placing the notice along with others at the head of the talk page.  If it is different that the described style in some respect, I will create a new style description for it. J JMesserly (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, and if there's a better way of doing it, as you have suggested elsewhere, feel free to convert it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize for begging off but honestly, each style has advantages and disadvantages. You appear to prefer the style I did for Broad-billed parrot.  If the wikiproject agreed that this was the preferred style in cases where an article had an inconsistent style for a significant period of time, it would speed up such upgrades.  Otherwise without solicitations on talk pages like this one, WP:CITEVAR prohibits me from simply changing over an article one way or the other because of my best guess of which style was preferred.  There are 300 articles with sfns and most of them I have reviewed are employed inconsistently.  J JMesserly (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you have my blessing at least to convert the ones I brought to FAC. Citation consistency is my least favourite part of writing articles after all. FunkMonk (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey. I will churn through all articles in list of promoted articles found on User:FunkMonk/Stuff restoring them to your preferred style (which to be clear to other readers is Not the one described by the above descriptions.)  The correct banner description is the following and will be added to the banners of the talk pages of those articles. Note short footnote style 3 in use


 * As an aside, I do have favorites for particular situations. My personal favorite for comprehensive articles is the form typical for journals and books- an alphabetical list of all references, but perhaps that is the Swiss-German/ former researcher in me. I did that for Holodomor which formerly was a jumble of styles.  It was quite a mess due to the edit volatility and contributions from folks not familiar with citation conventions.J JMesserly (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, because I constantly update articles with new sources, and find source work tedious in general, the current style I use where I can just add a new source anywhere without much afterthought feels easiest with my workflow. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Last confirmed wild passenger pigeon was actually shot near Laurel, Indiana on April 3, 1902
https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=163368 TheZodiac007 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the article - see Passenger_pigeon, end of first paragraph. Determining which of these records can stand as the last well-verified wild sighting has always been difficult. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)