Talk:Peafowl

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 15:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Lifespan

Seems that this article is poorly written as it is missing lots of vital information, including the lifespan (how old these animals live to be), how many eggs are laid on average and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.234.232 (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Peafowl's diet

I believe that more information on the diet of peacocks should be added in this text. Also there should be noted that there is a difference in the diet of wild and tame peacocks. Wild peacocks are omnivores, which means they eat food both from plant and animal origin. They eat fruit, grain, flower pedals but they also like crickets, termites and scorpions. Amazingly, these birds will eat snakes, especially poisonous ones. Tame or domestic peacocks are more choosy than the wild ones, eating mostly grass, breadcrumb and seeds. I feel like much more can be said about the topic on peacock's diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlavicaZ3 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You are surely right; the article is currently largely a WP:COATRACK for material on evolution, and there's precious little on anything else - diet, distribution, non-courting behaviour, description, longevity, you name it. If you have sources (textbooks, papers) then by all means go ahead and add new material, but take care to reference it fully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(ru)Interwiki

Hey people! Can you add the russian wiki's link, pls? I've tried do it myself but appears the Error message: An error occurred while saving. Your changes could not be completed. Деэба (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Name of article?

The common name is peafowl? And not peacock? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The common name is peacock only to those who don't realize that a hen is not a cock. --Khajidha (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixing factual error: reverted as disruptive?

I revert an edit because it is factually incorrect. It's classed as "disruptive"?

Can I get another editor's opinion, please? IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. While those in support of the move cite "peacock" as the WP:COMMONNAME, those in opposition counter that "peacock" is used specifically for the males and not the species in general. As a result, I do not find consensus to move this article at this time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Peafowl → Peacock – By far the more common name. This move has been suggested a few times in the past, and at least executed once (but reverted on procedural grounds), but no formal move request and discussion seems to be had until now. The reason is WP:COMMONNAME. While Peafowl isn't wrong per se, it is by far the less common name (Google hits excluding Wikipedia gives 560 thousand hits for peafowl[1], and 65 million for peacock![2]. GNews gives a similar 13,000 vs. 390,000, and even at Gbooks, where it is less outspoken, we get 80,000 vs. 560,000.) Fram (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• (came here via the RM notice) Support One could argue that WP:COMMONNAME's clause that inaccurate names (...) as determined in reliable sources are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used (...) is grounds for keeping the article in place, see the lead in the current version. However, it also says that Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support per nom and common name. Randy Kryn 16:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support – the current title is unbelievable. What the hell is a peafowl? Laurdecl ^talk 13:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support the articles for the specific species should probably be renamed as well. Lepricavark (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I was here and typing in order to support, per WP:COMMONAME. I discovered the original title was peacock[3]. But from the article itself I learned it is about the species, females as well as males, while the term peacock technically refers only to the male. So I decided I would address that point by showing the common name for the species used in reliable sources is still peacock, and I went searching around nytimes.com to prove my point, my goto place for proving such points. But I couldn't. They clearly and properly distinguish peafowl, peacock and peahen at the New York Times! [4]. I see no basis in usage in reliable sources that justifies this move, as obvious as it seems based on layman's language. But we're supposed to reflect usage in reliable sources, not layman usage, in title decisions... --В²C ☎ 19:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose nom per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a compendium of web hits but an encyclopedia. I don't doubt that more people want to find web pages or photos of peacocks but this article is about all peafowl and not just the cocks. The nomination claims WP:COMMONNAME but does not include evidence that peacock is the common name for all peafowl, only that more web users are interested in the males than the females. If the article was just about the plumage or the cultural significance, I would agree to a move, but it is about the three species as a whole and the title should reflect that. —  AjaxSmack  02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strongest Oppose Possible - IOC disagrees, that is the end of it. We use the IOC World Bird List for the common name, and since this bird is of the genera Pavo and Afropavo (probably should make that more clear), it is a peafowl. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Agree with AjaxSmack, this is not meant to be a popularity contest.IAmNitpicking (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose per B2C, hits in Google don't necessarily denote meaning. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Above calls for move (and past attempts) are argument from ignorance. Shyamal (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• oppose apart from anything else, all the species in the genus are named as peafowl, eg Indian peafowl Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Peacock redirects here, and the article clearly explains why peafowl is the proper name for the species as a whole. Sounds just exactly like what an encyclopedia should do! MeegsC (talk) 09:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. To re-name would just be inaccurate. The re-direct from peacock is sufficient to bring uninformed readers to the "correct" page. Perhaps over time this is where wikipedia can use its powers for good and help clear the misconceptions of what the terms peacock, peahen and peafowl refer to. Loopy30 (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - strongly: Peacock and a peafowl are not synonyms. One is the male peafowl with the fancy tail and feathers, the other is the kind of bird. An article titled "Peacock" wouldn't be about the species or the peahen. Google hits are likely about peacocks and their interesting characteristics, but not about the species.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. By a non-ornithologist. "Peacock" is the male bird only (with assorted metaphorical and transferred meanings). "Peafowl" includes both peacock and peahen. What next? rename Guineafowl to Guineacock? I think not. (I'm mildly surprised that the U.S. Pruriency Police have never insisted on a change to "Pearooster".) Narky Blert (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Peacock is commonly in use as the name for the species, just like snowcock or Peacock-pheasant is used, and not snowfowl. That ornithologists prefer peafowl is nice for them, but claiming that peacock is the male bird only is not how most people (who are not ornithologists but know peacocks anyway, it's not some obscure topic) use the term. Fram (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Although most of us know that peacock technically only refers to the male, unlike guineafowl this term is commonly used for the whole lot of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Very clearly the WP:COMMONNAME; people demonstrably use "Peacock" for the species as a whole rather than just the male birds, and opposing voices haven't countered this fact. Oxford English Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, and Dictionary.com all note that people use the form "Peacock" in this way. At this stage, there's nothing incorrect or misinformed about this use, any more than there's a problem using the conventional name Guinea pig for an animal that's not a pig and doesn't come from Guinea. Notably, Encyclopaedia Britannica lists the bird under "Peacock"; if the common name is good enough for Britannica, it's good enough for the encyclopedia where WP:COMMONNAME is an explicit policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The OED and M-W links clearly state that peafowl is the broader or more general word. Dictionary.com is an aggregator and the first entry is from a thesaurus. Shyamal (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peafowl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622111429/http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-1/p18.html to http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-57/iss-1/p18.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

History

Nothing about peacock as a dish. It did exist in the history, and it was anecdotical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 22:39, November 26, 2019 (UTC)

Knock yourself out. You supply the citations and add the prose.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

You can add new material directly to the existing section on Gastronomy where there is already an image of a dish included. Loopy30 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Difference between Male and Female

Okay, I'm confused. The Plumage section says females "lack the train and the head ornament." Then it says both species have a crest atop the head. Huh? So what's the "crest" and what's the "head ornament"? In the closeup of the adult (presumably male) head, I see a head ornament, but nothing resembling a crest. What are we talking about here? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree the part on the head ornament is contradictory. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I have had a go at fixing this. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, the female doesn't have a train, but still "displays her plumage to ward off female competition or signal danger to her young." What plumage? They don't have a train. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at some pictures on your favourite search engine. The females puff out their plumage as a warning, but they don't do the fan thing that the males do. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

These questions could be addressed with photos of the female, including a close up of the head, so we could see the difference. (The one photo of a female doesn't show its tail.) A photo of a female displaying her plumage would also be helpful. I realize that the females aren't nearly as photogenic, but the article was written to inform, not entertain. MiguelMunoz (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree, but don't have one, sorry. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Eggs

Maybe it's just me. (See my user name.) Should the article refer to "peacock eggs"? Cocks do not lay eggs. Hens lay eggs. IAmNitpicking (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@IAmNitpicking: No, good point. The Indian Peacock article notes that the females only incubate the eggs and the chicks follow the hen around, but I have given the father (grandfather?) some credit and gone gender neutral, however unfertilised eggs would come from a female! I guess that the male bird would have been sometimes eaten in preference to make a table display though. YorkshireExpat (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

One could argue that half of fertilized eggs would be "peacock" eggs, because the chick is male, but .... IAmNitpicking (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

English

I just noticed this. The article contains the {{Use Indian English}} template, while there is an attached page notice to say {{Use British English}}. Although the latter is earlier I think the former is more reasonable. Any thoughts? YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I am going to update the edit notice for Indian English rather than British, as well as add the notice to the talk page. Indigopari (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I added the talk page notice and filed an edit request for the edit notice. Indigopari (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Peafowl instead of peacock damages google searches

Due to Wikipedia changing the page to Peafowl instead of Peacock, if you google Peacock, you are given the wikipedia page of the NBC streaming service Peacock, even if you aren't American. I don't want to immediately start another contest to change the name but just do want this to be noted Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't "changing" in any meaningful sense. That has been the name for years. People should be encouraged to use better search engines, e. g. DuckDuckGo, which favors Wikipedia in its searches. (Note: not serious.) We don't do SOE here, as far as I know. IAmNitpicking (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

NBC peacock

The American NBC television found the peacock an excellent metaphor for bright color. NBC was an innovator in color TV, significantly preceding at the least its American competitors.

The file is taken from the Wikipedia article on "NBC", so I presume that the image already has at the least a fair-use rationale. The logo is no longer in use, so there can be no harm from its use.

Yes, as a symbol of a heavily-watched TV network it is certainly a cultural reference to a peacock. Face it: a multi-colored eagle would not have worked as well. The Laramie peacock is no longer in use. Pbrower2a (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

lean stack?

what's up with the food courtship theory's source? it links to like some health supplement?? Mstov (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks as if the original online journal, naturalSCIENCE, went under and a domain squatter grabbed it for Lean Stack. I switched the reference to point to the Wayback Machine archive of the original article (but I sort of question its importance). IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Darwin/Origin of Species doesn't actually say much about peacocks

The below section is from the current version of the article.

Sexual selection

Charles Darwin suggested in On the Origin of Species that the peafowl's plumage had evolved through sexual selection. He expanded upon this in his second book, The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex.

The sexual struggle is of two kinds; in the one it is between individuals of the same sex, generally the males, in order to drive away or kill their rivals, the females remaining passive; whilst in the other, the struggle is likewise between the individuals of the same sex, in order to excite or charm those of the opposite sex, generally the females, which no longer remain passive, but select the more agreeable partners.

Sexual selection is the ability of male and female organisms to exert selective forces on each other with regard to mating activity. The strongest driver of sexual selection is gamete size. In general, eggs are bigger than sperm, and females produce fewer gametes than males. This leads to eggs being a bigger investment, so to females being selective about the traits that will be passed on to her offspring by males. The peahen's reproductive success and the likelihood of survival of her chicks is partly dependent on the genotype of the mate. Females generally have more to lose when mating with an inferior male due to her gametes being more costly than the male's.

The quoted section is just a general description of sexual selection, with no reference to peafowl. The follow-up paragraph is more on the general idea of sexual selection, that makes a lot more claims than is in Darwin's quote.

"In general, eggs are bigger than sperm, and females produce fewer gametes than males." <-- Yes, this is a very GENERAL quote, and has nothing to do with peacocks in particular. Or even birds...

"Females generally have more to lose when mating with an inferior male due to her gametes being more costly than the male's." <-- This is the most specific quote in this section, and it doesn't relate to how peahens select peacocks.

Furthermore, despite Darwin's The Origin of Species being referenced, the peacock is only mentioned 4 times in that book, and all of them are offhand mentions without talk about sexual selection.

Google searching has led me to some articles entitled "Darwin Hates Peacocks: How Beauty Shows that God Exists" and "How the Amazing Peacock's Feather Refutes Evolution" which I think may have to do with why there's suspiciously scanty (and somewhat questionable) generic sexual selection facts in the article that's supposed to be about peafowl. This may warrant further digging in the edit history to see if there's a root cause.

In any case, I have updated Darwin's quote to the most relevant peacock/sexual selection quote I could find from the The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, though it's much less "this is why peacocks have fancy tails" and more "this is what must have happened according to evolution and natural selection". Calabax (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Who wrote this article?

I need to know in order to cite them,and the date of publication. 2603:7081:2CF0:8F60:2C72:A9D2:96DF:3137 (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

These people on these dates. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Shiver

In this article "shiver" is used as a transitive verb. According to both American and British English, shiver is intransitive, except to cause a sail to flutter by heading to close to the wind.

[https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/shiver Collins definition.

The Shivering article does not use shiver as a transitive verb.

"Shiver" comes directly from the source, which is a British journal, however, it is not used as a transitive verb in British English either.

When I read the article for the first time, I stopped in my tracks, when I got to the word shiver. I was confused, and I suspect other readers were also confused when they saw shiver used in this way.Comfr (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Comfr English is a living language. It isn't regulated in the way that French is, for example. The sentence makes perfect sense to a native English speaker, and 'shiver' conveys a certain quality about the movement in question that I would struggle to describe with any other word. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I am well educated native English speaker, and the sentence confused me. I had never seen the word used like that before. It did not convey any quality at all to me. I decided to "be bold" and change it to what I thought it meant. It was my best guess, and my guess turned out to be correct. In this article shiver means shake. Why confuse other readers?

Today I did a Google search for shiver, and it always means the same thing as the Wikipedia article, in which shiver is a response to cold. However a dog shakes its body to get dry.

I cannot find a reliable or unreliable source where shiver means to shake something.

I did find this: Difference between shiver and shake

And I found this in Google:

'Shake' is the more common word. Animals and human beings 'shiver' when they are cold or afraid of something. The act of shivering is usually involuntary and suggests that the person/animal is in some sort of discomfort. Objects like trees, chairs and doors cannot and do not shiver, but they can be shaken.

Wikipedia always tries to explains things in a simple, ordinary way, not just in Simple English Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but words should be used consistently across articles, including shiver.

Shiver (disambiguation) does not mention any meanings similar to how it is used in this article. Comfr (talk) 18:27, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Comfr Oxford Learners? The object in question is not inanimate like the ones in your example (arguably the tree is, but you get me), but a part of the animal. Another thing to bear in mind is that the text is closely following the source. As a compromise I might suggest something like he will then turn to face her and shiver (rapidly shake) his train. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I also noticed how closely it matches the source, almost copied word for word. Perhaps the phrase that matches exactly should be in quotes, to give proper attribution to the author.

I like your idea of telling readers exactly what the quoted word means in common English.

Thank you for your excellent idea for improving this article. Also thank you for your many other extensive contributions to Wikipedia. Comfr (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Comfr No problems. I'll leave you make the edit if you wish. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)