Talk:Sun Conure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sun Conure article.
Article policies
WikiProject Birds
Birds Portal
Sun Conure 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. Please do not substitute this template.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Birds To-do:

Contents

[edit] The recent addition

User:Outlawz1351 inserted the following text at the end of the article. Because Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide, and because it was just tacked-on unformatted at the end of the article, I've since reverted it out, but it's good info and much of it should be incorporated into the existing article, so rather than lose it, I'm saving it here on the "talk" page.

Atlant 13:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Caring
As Adults their feathers become a bright yellow and orange. Sun Conures may eat small amounts of most human foods but MUST stay away from chocolate, avacado, and candy. People often make the mistake of giving them only seeds, its a mistake because seeds contain fat. Giving Sun Conures (or any bird) too much can lead to them gaining unnecessary weight. A Sun Conures diet should contain something else along with some seeds and vitamin water. Sun Conures enjoy apples, grapes, berries, bananas, and lettuce. Also make sure to give them vitamin water to give them the extra strength needed for a healthy growing parrot. Sun Conures require sleep each night just like us people, its good to give them around 12 hours of undisturbed sleep.
Advice for new owners
Some people get excited about getting a new pet and playing with them as soon as they bring them home. When buying a Sun Conure (or any parrot) do not take them out of the cage on the first day. Leave them in the cage for for the first day so they can become use to their surroundings, this also lets them calm down after being brought into a new home. On the second day open the cage, they'll start to come out of the cage for a walk. Usually they just go on top of the cage and start to look around, YOU as the owner should spend time around your newly bought parrot so it can observe you and see you mean no harm. Try to pet it, don't worry at first they'll be very hesitant towards you but give it some time to pass. Take a small piece of fruit and try to feed it to your Sun Conure, this gets them to get closer to you and take a bite out of the fruit from your hand. Once they see you aren't trying to harm them they'll open up to you a bit. Also, a word of advice...try not to make quick movements around them at first because it will scare them. One thing about these guys is that they have very good memory so if you try to hurt them they wont forget and wont forgive.


[edit] Attacking?

The last sentence says that these birds will attack strangers. I find this highly suspicious, considering the fact that parrots are generally shy around strangers, unless the person is sticking their fingers in the cage or something--in which case this is not "attacking," as they are merely defending their home from an intruder (how would you feel if some weirdo ten times your size started sticking their fingers in through the windows of your home?). Request verification or deletion. 71.217.114.221 02:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

My sun conure attacks strangers near his cage, or if they try to pet him. He tries to attack me if I stick my hand in his cage too though, or try to pick him up off of anything higher than about waist level with my bare hands. Cage territorialism, height complexes, and hostility towards stangers/flocking are common with many species of parrots though, cannot say if suns are more so than usual. --71.192.117.127 22:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
My bird Sunny also confirms this. She acts aggressively towards strangers, especially women. --Spcleddy (talk) 06:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] unbalanced

article very unbalanced. Needs description/habitat etc. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 03:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Without going into small details, I've pretty much added what is known about it in the wild. Unfortuntely, relatively little is known. Rabo3 00:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Y Done - Someone had to step in and close this discussion at some point. After reading through it yesterday, I was unsure how to close it, but on a further read through today, I believe things are in favour of a move to Sun Parakeet. The point that the IUCN refer to the species as Sun Parakeet, and WP:BIRD use IUCN naming conventions was particularly compelling. Neıl ☎ 10:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggest move to Sun Parakeet

All major authorities use Sun Parakeet (not Sun Conure), e.g. the South American Classification Committee, Clements, Sibley & Monroe, Howard & Moore, Handbook of Birds of the World, BirdLife International, etc, etc. Full references in my comment further down. Hence the suggest for a move of this article. Rabo3 21:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning seems sound enough, though just for your information, a quick Google search (not definitive, I know) would suggest that 'Sun Conure' is in more common use than 'Sun Parakeet' (1000-ish hits vs. 500-ish). Note that this article was previously at Sun Parakeet anyway until someone moved it via cut+paste a few months ago. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
True, a google search indicate that. However, wiki should rely on published sources, not random searches on the net. In addition to Sun Parakeet being the name used in all major World Check-lists (as mentioned in my initial comment), it is also the name used in all recently published field guides to the region where this species occurs, these being Birds of Venezuela (Hilty, 2003), Birds of Northern South America (Restall et al, 2006), Birds of Brazil (Sigrist, 2006), All the Birds of Brazil (Souza, 2006), and Birds of South America: Non-passerines (Mata et al, 2006). If anything, the fact that it, as you mention, already was placed under Sun Parakeet until someone moved it to present location by cut & paste (instead of the "official route"), supports its placement on the former. Rabo3 (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Kurt Shaped Box, I'm curious how you got those numbers. When I google, I'm getting 125,000 for "Sun Conure" versus 2,000 for "Sun Parakeet". Again Google isn't definitive, but orders of magnitude are still orders of magnitude. I note that the sources cited at the bottom of the article itself seem to be pretty evenly split between "Parakeet" ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and "Conure" ([5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). The sources attesting to "Parakeet" seem to be more scholarly, while the ones attesting to "Conure" seem more pet-oriented. Those are just some observations; I'm not sure just how the inform the question of naming.

Whatever else happens, the history ought to be patched back together after that cut/paste move. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The number of hits returned on the first page of results is nearly always several orders of magnitude out. You need to click through to the last page that Google will display (like so) to find the true figure. I must admit that it seemed a little low to me too...
I had the cut+paste move fixed up a while back (as soon as I noticed it'd happened). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so are we agreed that the article should be at Sun Parakeet? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No objections here. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Joseph Forshaw uses Conure in Parots of the WOrld. I must say I am completely baffled by the AOUs insistence on the extremely general term parakeet vs more specific conure. I am really busy for a few weeks but would prefer to hld this and object to the move. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but I'd like to remove the request from the backlog at WP:RM.... shall we put this on hold for a while? I suppose we're in no hurry, as neither title is likely to do active harm to the species. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
We can relist it at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen to get the page history sorted out, at least. Dekimasuよ! 06:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's already been fixed. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Casliber, part of the explanation is that neither Neotropical ornithologists nor birders use conure. In total I have spend years within the range of the majority of species sometimes referred to as conures, and - as of yet - I have *never* heard this name used. Regardless of the name we end up using here, I certainly do believe in consistency - for consistency we could modify the names of all the species in e.g. genera Aratinga and Pyrrhura to conures (these being the two "main" genera, which sometimes are called conures instead of parakeets), but a large percentage of these species are rarely (if ever) kept in captivity, meaining that the we'd have a lot of articles under names which in reality are not used. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that the name conure just confuse matters even further, as it, from a taxonomical point of view, has no justification, the group being highly polyphyletic (not that the "parakeets" or the more general species called "parrots" are monophyletic groups, but adding yet another name to the equation doesn't help). This stands in contrast to e.g. Amazon for the various Amazona parrots, which is widely used both by ornithologist, birders and bird keepers and is, as long as the Yellow-faced Parrot is excluded, a "real" taxonomical group. Finally, as mentioned initially, I really do find it a bit strange to use a name, conure, not used in any of the large World check-lists. Rabo3 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm..as an Australian, the only authoritative work I have seen is Forshaw's Parrots of the World. I also find the word 'parakeet' odd as I always considered it an Australian word. One of the reasons I find the affair interesting is there has been a big push to use more specific epithets in birds worldwide - hence we have the species of Turnix all termed 'x - buttonquail' where they were all called 'x-quail' when I was a kid - to distinguish from true quails. For some reason the AOU pursued 'Parrot' for Amazona and 'Parakeet' for the various Conures. I'd be fascinated to learn the reasoning behind this. Anyway, another name isn't being added, just some are pushing for the removal of one already in popular use. I have never heard of these birds referred to as anything else than conures, then again I've only seen them in Zoos or Forshaw's book. Conure, though not monophyletic, is far more exacting than the absolutely general and misleading parakeet. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have only ever known them as "Sun Conure" in aviculture and pet shops in the UK. Conure is in general use in the UK, as far as I am aware. It is not rare in aviculture. Snowman (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Casliber, knowing SACC (the South American "sub-section" of AOU) fairly well, I can say that conure would be highly unlikely to ever be elected in as it essentially isn't used (contra parakeet) in the range of these species. Amazon is more a matter of someone forwarding a proposal, as I suspect it would have a chance of going in - but this really depends on the weight placed on consistency, as they on some earlier occasions have chosen not to change names (e.g. Whitestart/Redstart) when the name already in use already had a long history of usage.

Back on the subject: For people not familiar with the major World lists, all of which use parakeet, here are the full references (versus the abbreviated in my initial comment):

  • Clements, J. F. 2007. The Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World. 6th edition. ISBN 9780713686951
  • Dickinson, E. C. 2003. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of Birds of the World. 3d edition. ISBN 0713665362.
  • Gill, F., and M. Wright. 2006. Birds of the World - Recommended English Names. ISBN 0713679042
  • Remsen, J. V., Jr., C. D. Cadena, A. Jaramillo, M. Nores, J. F. Pacheco, M. B. Robbins, T. S. Schulenberg, F. G. Stiles, D. F. Stotz, and K. J. Zimmer. Version 23 Nov. 2007. A classification of the bird species of South America. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html
  • Sibley, C. G., and B. L. Monroe. 1997. A World Checklist of Birds. ISBN 0300070837

While no more scientific than the earlier suggested google search, a check of the numerous trip reports on travellingbirder also reveal the general use of "parakeet" (rather than conure) within the range of the various Pyrrhura, Aratinga, etc. Rabo3 (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Using an advanced web search (google.co.uk) for the phrase "Sun Conure" I got about 134,000 hits and for the phrase "Sun Parakeet" I got 500 hits. Generally, the commonly used name for the subject of a page is used. see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). What do the books say on Caiques? Snowman (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Weird that there is such a preponderance of google hits for a term not supposedly used. Presumably many birders are members of the AOU, as is at least one of the above publications. I can't do much searching apart from the occasional login. I can help in looking into the issue more deeply later in december. I keep thinking that surely there must have been some discussion on this in the 70s or 80s when there was a push for official bird names. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
This likely dates back to the Peters list, which form the basis for essentially all major lists today (incl. the previously mentioned), which in turn form the basis for the vast majority of field guides/family books written. I haven't done much to look into this, but suspect the use of conure essentially originates from French (they "only" have conure, but no second name) - it appears that the practice of "borrowing" common names is relatively widespread in aviculture - and likewise among people keeping reptiles, fishes, etc. In short, it appears this situation can be boiled down to: Use the name most commonly used in the countries where these species live (i.e. Parakeet), or the name most commonly used in USA & Europe (i.e. Conure). By the way; Snowmanradio, in the article itself I have exchanged Joseph Forshaw (who is an authority mainly on Australian parrots, and never really has done much in Neotropical - in fact, I've been unable to find even a single paper authored by him on Neotropical parrots) with Thomas Arndt (who've done a fair deal of work in the Neotropics and could - arguably - be considered one of the main authorities on the species-level taxonomy in Aratinga).Rabo3 (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough on the authors/authorities - I have Parrots of the World and was aware that Forshaw was mainly focussed on Aussie parrots, though not by how much. Strictly speaking, though, I guess the most common term in countries where they live would be in spanish....now what is the spanish name...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Oops, though Snowman had added the Forshaw section. Anyhow; this species' range spans countries where Spanish (Venezuela), Portuguese (Brazil), French (French Guiana) and Dutch (Suriname) are the official languages, but in Guyana, where a significant part of this species range is, English is the official language. Even in South American countries where English is not a widely spoken language, non-English field guides are only rarely are available, meaning that many locals with interest in native fauna regularly use English names, except for the most common species. Rabo3 (talk) 00:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
So... did we settle that point then? It appears that, in the sources more focused on the species in question, the name "Conure" is less common. Shall I go ahead and move the page? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
My impression on reading the above discussion is that "Conure" is the widely used common name, which should be the name of the article page. Snowman 21:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, then I won't take that as a consensus for the move. Rereading the above discussion, did you see Kurt's reply to me regarding the Google numbers above? Have a look at this and this. For "conure," it says there are 149,000 hits, but there are actually 706; For "parakeet," it says there are 169 hits, and there really are 169. The rest of the 149,000 are just copies of the same 706 pages. So, the difference is much less marked that it at first seems.

What I got from the above discussion was: (A) Usage isn't heavily slanted one way or the other. (B) Sources using "conure" tend to be more pet-oriented, while sources using "parakeet" tend to be more scholarly. (C) There was a challenge to this trend, in the form of Forshaw, and authoritative source, but then we decided that he's more expert when it comes to Australian birds, and not so much for South American ones.

Does that not seem accurate; am I leaving out something important? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You have two google searches one listed before the next. The first one for Sun Conure is page 72 of 150,000 hits and you just happen to be viewing 701 to 709 on the list. I am not sure what it means at the bottom of the page about similar pages, but it does not say identical. If you look at non-similar hits their counts are 709 to 169 in favour of conure. So why favour parakeet? Snowman 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it appears that we have a different understanding of how Google works. I've been led to believe that the results we're seeing really do indicate a ratio of 709 to 169. That's not an overwhelming margin, and it's easily within the error range owing to the fact that we're using Google to determine common usage. It's a very different ratio than 149,000 to 169. When the ratio is less than 10:1 or so, Google numbers stop being very meaningful, and other factors become more weighty.

I don't "favor" parakeet. I just honestly thought that was the conclusion of the above discussion. I can see arguments for both. It appears to come down to: usage in the pet industry favors "conure", and usage among academics favors "parakeet". What does that indicate for us? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) help? For another species "Sea cucumber" is used instead of "Holothurian", the scientific name. I have also searched "google.co.uk" which brings results broadly similar to "google.com", adding weight to support "Conure". Perhaps after a few more days someone might come up with some more evidence for the discussion. I have not seen any evidence that Parakeet is the more commonly used name in general use in English. Snowman 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Snowman, I'm quite familiar with WP:COMMONNAME, I've closed somewhere between one and two thousand move requests over the last year and a half, including dozens involving species names. Handing me a link to our naming conventions isn't going to tell me anything I don't know. Let me clarify what I said above: when one usage isn't overwhelmingly more common than the other, WP:COMMONNAME carries less weight, and other factors carry more. Do you disagree with that?

In particular, WP:COMMONNAME states that: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name" (emphasis added). We are not forbidden from considering the various factors at work; in fact, it's encouraged. Various parts of WP:TOL have adopted specific naming conventions - do any apply here? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking questions. I see evidence for both "conure" and "parakeet" in the discussion above; I don't know why you don't see any for "parakeet". Rabo3 presented quite a bit. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure there are many factors to take into account. "Cage & Aviary Bird Survival Manual" ISBN 0-7137-2678-4 by Graham Wellstead uses "Sun Conure". I do not know the precise meaning of the two Google counts, but Google says the rest of the hits are similar, and it does not say that they are identical or that they are "copies". I guess that there are 150,000 pages out there using Conure (orders of magnitude more than parakeet), and with so many pages I expect that some of them will be similar. If most of them are "similar copies", then it shows that Conure is the term being used, when they could have "copied" Parakeet. Is it significant that Conure is used in the "similar copies" rather than "Parakeet"? Why you are not using 150,00O hits for Conure? Snowman 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Snowman, I'm just trying to read the situation as accurately as possible. I don't really know much about Google, and I don't know what the rest of the 150,000 hits are like. I think it's a good principle to click through to the last page of results and use that number as the more accurate count, but I don't know that for certain. I'm not ignoring the 150,000 number, and you may have noticed I haven't moved the page. I'm trying to discuss the evidence in good faith, and I don't see it as being overwhelming in favor of "conure". Apparently, you disagree. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope that I have advanced the discussion about the name of this page taking a balanced view off the evidence available so far. Snowman 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Wow, all this discussion while I've been gone. I am on dialup at the moment (and hence didn't feel like trawling thru google scholar) but I seem to recall Sun Conure was also used in some peer-reviewed texts as well. My own take is that although Conure is not monophyletic, parakeet is a grossly blunt epithet to use. I still would like some more background from someone 'in the know' about all this. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a lot has happened - hadn't even noticed. I'm not sure there's much more to add; both the "conures" and the "parakeets" (both in the broader sense incl. "conures", and in the narrower sense without "conures") are polyphyletic, and as such that argument is of no real use for going either way - except in terms of the potential confusion of adding yet another common name for a polyphyletic group (i.e. having two, as opposed to one, polyphyletic groups), or, as suggested above, that the "broad" parakeet is so wide that it is better to divide it, even if the suggested groups are polyphyletic. Yes, both Sun Conure and Sun Parakeet have been used in peer-reviewed publications, but they diverge in a manner comparable to that already described earlier; papers dealing with aspects of aviculture (general keeping, various diseases, etc) tend to use conure, while papers dealing with taxonomy or various aspect of their life in the wild tend to use parakeet. I think this brief section from the article itself pretty much sums it up (although one particular editor appears to be removed this and comparable sections several times from the article itself):
There are two widely used common names - Sun Parakeet as proposed by the AOU and widely used in official birdlists, field guides and by birders, and Sun Conure, used in the aviculture and by some authorities such as Thomas Arndt.
So it really depends on which view you lean towards, and how much weight is placed on google-results. Notice, by the way, that parakeet is not "just" the name used most widely in the "academic World" (if that's the term best used to describe the various authorities behind the major check-lists), but also among birders (cf. the link I gave to travellingbirder.com in earlier comment). While Sun Conure still results in far more google hits than Sun Parakeet, the apparent differences in numbers do make me wonder: I get ~3020 hits for Sun Parakeet on google.dk (?!?!). Regardless, I'll add a comment to the wikiproject birds page, as some of its well-established long-term members may have some insight into this particularly issue and/or earlier cases that were comparable. Rabo3 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that this subject has raised such heated emotions! : ) As one who regularly travels to the parts of the world where New World parakeets occur, I can tell you unequivocably that they're called parakeets and never conures, at least in that part of the world. As to the number of hits on Google, I think the comments higher about aviculture usage are telling. Far more people will have interacted with this species in a cage than they will have in the wild, unfortunately. And the websites aimed towards people who keep them in cages will always far outnumber the websites aimed at people who are interested in their existence in the wild. Now, does that mean we should use the aviculturalists' name for the article? Personally, I don't think so. We don't for most other species (instead using redirects) and I see no compelling reason to do so for this one. The IUCN refers to the species as Sun Parakeet. We at WP:BIRD use IUCN names for the vast majority of the species for which we have articles. Why make an exception for this one? MeegsC | Talk 10:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Name of page

I have started a new section because discussion on the name of this page may not have been completed prior to its rather abrupt closure this morning. Snowman (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion had been open for 3 weeks, and there had been no further comments in the past 4 days. I am unsure what other points needed to be made. Neıl ☎ 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
For example: one user said that he was going to be busy for a few weeks and wanted to contribute further. I thinik that your closure summary in incomplete as you have not indicated what weight you put the web-search results in your closure summary, which was a key point of the discussion. You have not given any chance for anyone to discuss your conclusions, before you rather abruptly closed a complicated discussion. Snowman (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I valued the IUCN argument above any based on Google hitcounts, which are usually skewed in favour of a) the western world and b) popular culture, and can be interpreted in multiple ways. Everybody made good arguments, and in that case it often comes down to a headcount, and it was 5-2 in favour of Parakeet (it is perhaps telling that the article was using pipelinks such as [[Jandaya Parakeet|Jandaya Conure]]). If you really really want to re-open the discussion, then you can do so below - nobody's stopping you. Neıl ☎ 11:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that the headcount is skewed in favour of IUCN names because the previous administrator, who was conscientiously following and taking part in the discussion, left a notice at WP:Bird asking for their opinions, but they say that Conure is the name that most people know this bird by. Anyway, I think that the headcount is not totally reliable here. I guess that the pipe links may reflect page name changes on several pages over time, and attempts to dab the links. It there a formal way to reopen discussion? I have started this section, as indicated at the top of the closure box, which re-opens the discussion, so that anyone can contribute further, if they wish to. Snowman (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no formal way I'm aware of. You can note it at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and perhaps a note on the talk pages of all those who participated above. As GTBacchus was taking part in the discussion, he would usually refrain from closing it - a previously uninvolved administrator is usually expected to do so to ensure neutrality and proprietry. His actions in notifying WP:BIRD were also appropriate - asking the relevant Wikiproject(s) for their feedback is normal. Neıl ☎ 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Just curious, Snowman—why is the headcount "not totally reliable"? And where did WP:BIRD respond that Conure is the name most people know the bird by? MeegsC | Talk 13:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Neil, I do not know how to interpret your initial edit summary, which was "Hm". More importantly, would you check your headcount? My understanding is that; the previous administrator did not come to a decision; one user did not clearly express an opinion on the page name, but commented technical issues of a cut and paste; one users view was canvassed from WB:Birds. Without these the count becomes 2:2. In addition, the previous administrator did not move the page, and he did make a point of this. The previous administrator indicated that an extremely high web-search ratio would be significant, and the discussion suggests that one interpretation of the web-count is that it is significant. Snowman (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
MeegsC, this is what you said: Far more people will have interacted with this species in a cage than they will have in the wild, unfortunately. And the websites aimed towards people who keep them in cages will always far outnumber the websites aimed at people who are interested in their existence in the wild. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Judging by above, we have 4 for parakeet and 2 (me and snowman) for Conure. Though I am unhappy with the decision -mainly as I think of parakeets as Australian and in every zoo or book I have these things are called Conures, and Parakeet is a really blunt term to use, and I still don't know the background behind all this - this is the AOU which promoted 'Parrot' for 'Amazon' as well - I'll concede and let it drop as there is a majority and IUCN on one side -not exactly consensus and not exactly a large number of people but participation at the moment on these type of things is not huge. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Caiques are called parrots as well. I'll reluctantly concede for similar reasons. I was hoping that you would comment, and complete your dialog, cheers. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that this move has left some feeling unhappy—it's an unfortunate side effect of "majority voting"! :P Casliber, if it makes you feel better, the term parakeet is most definitely not restricted to Australia, and I have dozens of books containing references to Central and South American parakeets. And some of them were even written by non-Americans! : )MeegsC | Talk 15:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
No worries - I am not from that part of the world so I recognise my familiarity is less than others. feelings? more like when your sporting team loses.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Consensus can change (WP:CCC). Snowman (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move as requested. JPG-GR (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some bird pages are reaching GA and FA status with common names and not by following the strict WP:bird rules (see Blackbird and House Martin). As this bird is known by most people as the Sun Conure there seems to be no reason for this name to be used, now that WP:bird rules are being used less strictly. Snowman (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Snowmanradio, looks like at least one anonymous editor agrees with you! Since there's no real agreement, and since most who read this are likely to be aviculturalists, you might as well move the page to Sun Conure, with a redirect here. MeegsC | Talk 20:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have formally requested a page move discussion. Snowman (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I voiced no objection to the previous move as it had the weight of then-policy and precedent behind it - I wasn't *happy* with it, as such. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that User:Rabo3 should be contacted before this is put through. Dekimasuよ! 05:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I guess that he is watching the page, but I have informed him anyway. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Aawwww. I concede but you are right :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.