Kommunal.az

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Kākāpō is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 8, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 18, 2004 Peer review Reviewed August 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted February 20, 2007 Featured article review Kept July 22, 2023 Featured article review Demoted Current status: Former featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Birds Mid‑importance Kākāpō is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. It is requested that an a range map be included in this article to improve its quality. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more) Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more) Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more) Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more) NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more) Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more) Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more) Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more) Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. New Zealand: Māori High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Māori task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball (talk), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: Important.

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

Can someone upload to wikipedia audio/video file of kakapo? thanking you in advance, 88.153.140.32 13:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 michiel@thingmajig.org if you want me to. function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email was sent. have fun :) and thanks. --Mnolf 13:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 doi:10.1046/j.1096-3642.2002.00042.x) 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 doi:10.1080/08912960600641224. 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)[reply]

In attempt to save this page from de-featured, I have trimmed the section quite markedly. Disscussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kakapo. — Indon (reply) — 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Currently there're two scientific name using right now, one is from BirdLife & IUCN:Strigops habroptila[1], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 '77 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Are there third party sources still covering it? Active Banana (^bananaphone 20:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sirocco's page at the Kakapo Recovery Programme website would be usable I think. Kahuroa (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. Schwede66 02:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Schwede66 18:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

And in case you wonder, that's 1 pm to 7 pm New Zealand time on Sunday. Schwede66 04:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? Schwede66 05:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[2] --Avenue (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Schwede66: Yes, high time this was moved to Kākāpō. Common usage has shifted. The Guardian is using the macronised form [3]. See also Stuff [4]; RNZ [5]; the Natural History Museum, London [6]; and The New Zealand Herald [7] for some other recent examples. Paora (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paora, we now have an "evidence template" developed by Giantflightlessbirds. Shall we start a move request? Schwede66 02:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly support that. The template is here.—Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Assuming there are no other topics with the same name, the diacritics are rarely used BilledMammal (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [8]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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, @Illjaygee:)
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, @Sabine's Sunbird:).
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, @David Marjanović:). But in 1955, Hemming officially declared Strigops was to be regarded as feminine,^[1] and this has to abided by subsequently, with David and Gosselin (2002b) claiming the feminine habroptila should be used.^[2]
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,^[3] 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)[reply]

More power to you if you have this kind of overview :) No concerns from me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 14#Fat land parrot 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)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Turkey parrot and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 15#Turkey parrot 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The "Ecology and behaviour" section is largely unsourced. File:Kakapohist.svg is also unsourced. A455bcd9 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Got it, thanks! A455bcd9 (talk) 17:55, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 · c) buidhe 23:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: found the source of the historical range map. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed tags:

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. [9] (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: [10]
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.

Marshelec (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Giantflightlessbirds 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:

• 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!)

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]