Talk:Woodpecker

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 25 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zyv2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
move completed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose moving this page to woodpecker for the following reasons.

  1. The family page is more important than the subfamily page.
  2. The term woodpecker can be used to describe the whole family as well as specifically the subfamily.
  3. Woodpecker gets higher levels of traffic than Picidae.

The throughout the text the group would be referred to as woodpeckers and piculets, if that is preferred. The idea of the move is not to suggest the whole family are woodpeckers, if people feel that they are not (personally I think of them as such, but we'll see what other people think). The idea is simply to have the article title on the name that gets the biggest number of hits (802 a day as opposed to 35). As an incentive, if this is approved, I will push the article to Good Article Status within a month of the move. Scouts honour. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do we do with the present page for Woodpecker, which covers the Piciformes? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it covers Picinae, the subfamily, and I suggest moving it to Picinae, currently a redirect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having a fair deal of Neotropical experiance, everybody in that part of the world, regardless of background (random birders to pro ornithologists), consider and speak about piculets as "just small woodpeckers" (and the vast majority of piculets are, after all, Neotropical). A comparably situation applies to wrynecks (at least in Europe). So, I'd also feel fine about just referring to them all as woodpeckers; no need for "woodpeckers and piculets" or alike throughout the text (except in cases where descriptions specifically refer to some - but not all - of the subfamilies). • Rabo³ • 10:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sure it's where they started. The wrynecks are a minor stumbling block because they are normally called just that, but they are woodpeckers, and it makes sense to have the family where you would expect it jimfbleak (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.

File:Ivory Billed Woodpecker.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Ivory Billed Woodpecker.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy Revisions[edit]

The recent edits on other pages moving several Picoides species to other genera has led to some orphaned genera. Example: the Red-cockaded woodpecker was recently edited changing its genus to Leuconotopicus, which is not mentioned on this page as a genus within Picidae. I don't know enough about the current state of bird taxonomy to know whether to add Leuconotopicus to this page, or to revert the other changes to species pages. May be in need of an expert eye to untangle. Chanther (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Scorpion and the Frog or The Weasel and the Woodpecker?[edit]

Unbelievable picture and story: The Tale of the Weasel and the Woodpecker 82.171.6.217 (talk) 09:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA[edit]

I have acquired the 2014 book Woodpeckers of the World: A Photographic Guide by Gerard Gorman with a view to working on this article and taking it to GA. The book has a twenty page introductory section with a lot of general information on the family. If anyone else would like to join me, they are welcome to do so. I am also expanding some of the species stubs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was one of the people that got it to B class, so I guess I'll keep helping. Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pre-GAN comment (not sure if I will get to review it), but it seems a bit strange that the ivory billed woodpecker is mentioned several times throughout the article, but not in the status section, where it may be most relevant. I think you could list extinct and threatened species there. The last paragraph under "Habitat requirements" seems misplaced (says nothing about habitats), and could probably be moved to the status section. FunkMonk (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I have moved the paragraph you suggested and will see what I can find on extinct and endangered species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Woodpecker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • The caption is way too long for the image in the General characteristics section, pick one topic to briefly glance over in the caption, and let the article do most of the explaining   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep switching from singular to plural, like with, "The largest surviving species is the great slaty woodpecker..." and right next to it, "the probably extinct imperial woodpeckers," be consistent where you can   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basic rule of thumb for commas and adjectives, if you can't switch them, use a comma (like, "... have short strong legs," should be, "... have short, strong legs") I fixed that last one by the way   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be wikilinking things in the lead and then not in the rest of the article. If you wikilink something in the lead, you still have to wikilink the first mention of it in the rest of the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to wikilink all the big, sciencey words (like "collagen fibers"). Think of it like if sixth-grade you didn't know it, wikilink it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It had been reported..." I think it should be, "It has been reported..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you at one point reshuffle this article a bit? I noticed that sometimes words aren't wikilinked on their first mention but are wikilink some ways later (like piculets)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sometimes overlink words (right now I see passerine and cactus are wikilinked twice)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use this converter to convert ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 as per WP:ISBN   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Relationship with humans section could use a picture, maybe of one of those woodpeckers discussed in the Status and conservation section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref no. 3 and 6 are incomplete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking on this review. I think I have dealt with all the points you raised, and I agree that the article was grossly overlinked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think ref no. 29 is a deadlink   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the further reading section, the link for "A phylogenetic analysis of woodpeckers and their allies using 12S, Cyt b, and COI nucleotide sequences (class Aves; order Piciformes)" won't open for me (but that just might be by crap wifi)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's the source for the List of genera section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • you wikilinked bill twice and wryneck on the second mention in the General characteristics section
Done these apart from the list of genera. That predated my involvement with the article, and if you think it is important, I shall have to make enquiry at the Birds Project page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that might be best because some species may have been invalidated since whenever this list was made, or it may be incomplete   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I asked at the Bird Project page and Shyamal has added some references for the "List of Genera" section. Are you happy with that? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, if you're taking this to FA, you might want to get more recent refs. I see one from the 1984 and another from the 1800s   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sound[edit]

Can you put more.......soundtrack or video about woodpeckers?😃 Yellow man (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tongue bones[edit]

I just saw a CT scan[1] of a woodpecker showing the insane tongue bones wrapping around the skull and going into the right nostril. I think this feature is notable enough to show, perhaps use one of these[2][3] images in the lower right of the characteristics section? Also could be good to note the asymmetry (only entering the right nostril), if that is a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have added it to the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Makes them seem even more amazing. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do they eat small birds?[edit]

[4] 104.162.197.70 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like it, and the article mentions that their diet includes eggs and nestlings. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No shock absorption[edit]

This study comes to the conclusion that woodpeckers do not actually have shock absorbers in their skulls. Instead, their small-sized brains seem to prevent trauma. Perhaps a candidat for inclusion in list of common misconceptions, too? AndersenAnders (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featured picture scheduled for POTD[edit]

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Campo flicker (Colaptes campestris) female.JPG, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for January 9, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-01-09. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Woodpecker

Woodpeckers are a group of birds in the family Picidae, which also includes the piculets, wrynecks, and sapsuckers. Members of this family are found worldwide, except for Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand, Madagascar, and the extreme polar regions. Most species live in forests or woodland habitats, although a few species are known that live in treeless areas, such as rocky hillsides and deserts, and the Gila woodpecker specialises in exploiting cacti. This photograph shows a female campo flicker (Colaptes campestris), a woodpecker species native to South America, in the Pantanal, Brazil.

Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woodpecker&oldid=1193716414"