Talk:Osprey

Classification?

OK, so what is the currently accepted classification of this bird?

Falconiformes? Accipitriformes? The table says one but the text says another! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.184.101 (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Old comments

There is an illustrative image at [1] you might want to integrate in the article. Thue | talk 18:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FA one day.................

Actually, this would be one that would be meaty ewnough for an FA one day........Cas Liber 12:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Queries

1. I've added to the description, but I don't know whether the age/sex plumage differences apply to all ssp (I should have looked at American birds more carefully).
2. The image say the Oz ssp is the most distinctive. Why?
3. I'd prefer the ssp list outside the taxobox -any views?

I agree with you there. I hate taxa lists inside taxoboxes. Better listed and elucidated upon in article properCas Liber 06:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

1. The external links seem very parochial. I'd be inclined to chop them all except the HBW internet videos, and possibly the RSPB.
2. i need a little help in here. it is written in the article that ospreys are only a migratory species in South America and i have found that this is certainly not true. I live in Venezuela and i have been watching a family of ospreys nesting, fishing and breeding for the past few years just a few hundred meters from home. since they seem to be very successfull in this place im keeping a close watch on them. now i need some advices so make some reliable info on this so i can update the article

jimfbleak 06:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't help with other queries yet.Cas Liber 06:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Research limitations osprey nests put on utility workers and the Telecom industry; they like to build nests on radios and that can cause issues with govt/tower owners

Popular Culture

Rather than having a bunch of facts placed in a popular culture section, it should blong in a triva section. I suggest replaving popular culture with triva.Sgt. Hydra 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need a little help in here. it is written in the article that ospreys are only a migratory species in South America and i have found that this is certainly not true. I live in Venezuela and i have been watching a family of ospreys nesting, fishing and breeding for the past few years just a few hundred meters from home. since they seem to be very successfull in this place im keeping a close watch on them. now i need some advices so make some reliable info on this so i can update the article

Although breeding is obviously likely to occur in Venezuela, since birds often summer there, you need a published reference or internet source, since otherwise it is original research, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. jimfbleak 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"finger" feathers

What does it mean when the article talks about "finger" features.Sgt. Hydra 19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Osprey is WP birds collaboration

Nominated March 14, 2007;

Support:

1. Casliber | talk | contribs 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Hey jude, don't let me down 19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Maias 01:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
4. The Nature Guy 16:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
5. jimfbleak 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
6. MeegsC | Talk 13:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

• Global species so everyone can write about it. Has quite a bit of material so has a good start.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 07:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd go for this this month since Casliber and I have already tweaked it a bit, but bird migration needs a good overhaul too. jimfbleak 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Australian subspecies "most distinctive"

The caption under the picture beside the Taxonomy section mentions that the Australian subspecies is the "most distinctive", and yet the description in the taxonomy section merely mentions that it is smaller than the others and non-migratory. Surely there must be more to it than that! MeegsC | Talk 22:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully - will become clear (I guess) as we wade through some references. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Word origin and taxonomy

Taxonomy deals with the naming of the taxon and an etymology sub-section here would be expected to explain the meaning of the genus and species names, but the English name origin should perhaps be outside it, maybe in the lead. Shyamal 01:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Partly, but all points in the lead must be expanded elsewhere in the article. have a look at Common Raven as an example. Also Fin Whale, Humpback Whale and Amanita phalloides as some recent examples of FAs. Often issues of derivation and classification are intermingled, hence for some articles we just call the section Taxonomy and naming. It is tricky but we try to avoid stubby sections. If a great deal more etymolgy info comes up we can review how big it should be cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. There is a good bit here [2] [3] [4] [5] Shyamal 04:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted! Looks like there's going to be a ton of information and judicious pruning will be required.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To-Do List

OK, feel free to chase up a task here:

• There should be alot of info on pesticides and its effects on egg shell thickness etc. The conservation section could be expanded significantly.

• Subspecies differences

• More on taxonomy. Any molecular work come to light?

• Rewrite pop cult section into cohesive pargraphs (see Common Raven as example.

Add more ideas here. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the BNA this is the best studied bird of prey in North America, mostly because of the DDT thing, so the infor should be avaliable. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tidying

I've just spent 30 mins going through removing repetition, contradictory statements, inconsistency of style etc. Most of the edits are self explanatory, but I was in doubt whether to leave the plane in pop culture - it's already on disamb, but I don't know whether it's notable enough for the main article??. Jimfbleak 07:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody with journal access

If you can get a look at these articles (without having to pay—I wish I lived closer to a university) they look interesting...

• Individuals in an osprey colony discriminate between high and low quality information
• Organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and mercury in osprey eggs—1970–79—and their relationships to shell thinning and productivity
• Weather and Osprey foraging energetics
• Mercury in Eggs and Nestlings of the Osprey (Pandion haliaetus ) in Finland and Its Bioaccumulation from Fish
• Temporal Patterns in Pre-Fledgling Survival and Brood Reduction in an Osprey Colony
• Fall Migration Routes, Timing, and Wintering Sites of North American Ospreys as Determined by Satellite Telemetry

More to come! MeegsC | Talk 08:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll get them tomorrow morning when I get in if no one else has. Sabine's Sunbird talk 09:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Reproduction section

The section give the months of the breeding season by region in Australia, and my reference(The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds... my one source) gives the months by region in the US. Is there a reference which has the times by latitude rather than region, or is there no rule of latitude? --Jude. 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also: the lifespan of the Osprey, and its predators, are under "Reproduction". Is that where it's supposed to be?

Yep, they are usually included together - since they are all part of what is known as life history (lifespan * number of offspring per year = total lifetime reproductive output); predation (causes of mortality) also play a part. Arguably you can have a section called life hstory or demographics as a subheading of breeding. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Documentary videos

Ospreys are so photogenic that there have been several documentary movies made about them. Would it be appropriate for this article to mention and link to those documentaries? VisitorTalk 15:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

GA

I can't review this, since I did a lot on it earlier, but I've copyedited and tweaked. A few points

1. Oz bit says its sedentary, but a winter visitor to Tasmania - needs rewording
2. osprey drowning either needs a cite or removal (there has been a hoax photo claiming to show that)
3. Conservation better as part of a status section with the addition of the usual IUCN status bit
4. More on persecution, perhaps the extinction in Scotland
5. something on culture and superstition - fish turn belly up in surrender - as referenced in Coriolanus. Are there any stamps?

Jimfbleak (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I've removed drowning, as uncited and known to be a target for hoaxes, also non-fish prey (uncited and imprecise - how large an alligator? Predators on ospreys seem plausible but uncited. What's the point of the remaining other references - I'd be inclined to lose them. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 13, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Since most of this is very small stuff that takes more time to explain than doing it myself, I'll do some copyediting myself before I pass the article. Most importantly, the initial sentence of the article doesn't state the obvious well enough. It delves right away in to detail without sticking to the basics. I'll try a different version, but even if that one isn't desirable to you there needs to be some kind of progress made here. The other thing I'll be working on is consolidating in to more readable paragraphs. To be visually and textually digestible, paragraphs should be an ideal length of 3-4 sentences. Obviously there are exceptions, but it's a good general rule to stick to.

2. Factually accurate?: Good work in this aspect, the article meets or exceeds the GA requirements for verification.

3. Broad in coverage?: Broad and concise.

4. Neutral point of view?: Gives fair treatment to all significant points of view.

5. Article stability? Not the subject of any recent or on-going edit wars.

6. Images?: All images have proper source and licensing info. However, I have one suggestion. The current lead is a Featured Picture on Commons, and it's pretty. But it's a little too far away at the standard taxobox size to be the most helpful to readers (our target here). I would suggest using Image:Osprey mg 9605.jpg (it previewed very well) or maybe Image:Osprey Morro Strand Beach.jpg. Let me know what you think.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky 04:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

• I've completed any edits I think should be made. Once I hear from the nominator/authors of the article that they are satisfied with my changes, then I'll promote the article. VanTucky 04:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work with the lead and I like the photo. I'm happy and Jim is still around somehwere and will likely comment soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been through again, and made a few final corrections and minor improvements (like stopping the sound link splitting across a line). I'm happy now for van Tucky to assess.

Not really relevant to GA, but is it worth adding Linnaeus's description of the Osprey F. cera pedibusque caeruleis, corpore supra fusco subtus albo, capite albido perhaps as a footnote? Jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. Can go in as quote in formatted cite text as there is a slot for it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't realise you could do that! Jimfbleak (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool eh? heeheehee. (Oh good, we can get this to GA and it will be one more for the Aussies....d'oh!! Sod these cosmopolitan birds...) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sod these cosmopolitan birds? Was that English? ;) VanTucky 20:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, a popular magazine ') cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• One important note: to my knowledge, it is not grammatically correct to capitalize osprey in every use. I am correcting this now. After that, I'll give the article another quick once-over and pass as GA. VanTucky 21:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles and WP:MOS common names for bird species are capitalised; any reason why tehy shouldn't be for osprey (except when referring to the osprey family)? Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of this special rule for bird names. Most animal pronouns are not capitalized in every usage, and doing so would contradict the usual rules of English grammar. However, I don't particularly care. I'll revert it. VanTucky 23:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixes made, so I promoted the article. Nice work, and congrats! VanTucky 21:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible picture of young Osprey in flight

Hi folks... After asking this same question in the Golden Eagle discussion and consequently reading a lot more about birds of prey I have come to the Osprey page, since it seems to be an Osprey: I am trying to find out what kind of bird of prey it is that nests on my property. Below is a link to two pictures, one of the bird sitting in the tree, one in flight. http://knoglinger.com/pics/ These pictures were taken on Vancouver Island, BC, Canada. My guess it is a young Osprey. I hope that the shot with the wings spread out will help. If it is indeed a young Osprey, I will take efforts to capture a few very good pictures of it. Chaosdna (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

not Osprey, different shape and proportions in flight, pale, eats only fish. This looks like a Buteo, tail looks vaguely red on flight pic, possibly adult dark morph western subspecies Red-tailed Hawk Jimfbleak (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Jimfbleak, you seem to be found where the bird articles are :P , I will still try to get a few better pictures. There are other raptors in the area too, the ubiquitous Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle and Ospreys. I was just surprised about the size of that suspected bird, for a Hawk it is very big imho.

Either way, thanks for your response. Chaosdna (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chaosdna. Yup, it's definitely a Red-tailed Hawk. And you're right—they are big, particularly the females. That lovely strawberry-blond tail is a great field mark for an adult bird, and you've captured it well on your second picture. How lucky you are to have this as a "yard bird"! MeegsC | Talk 18:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Metre vs Meter fight

I see edit reverts and reverts of reverts about the spelling of meter vs metre. I suggest we create consistency across the article by either spelling all units metre or meter: So, if consensus is on 'metre', then smaller units of distance mentioned in the article, such as centimeter should also be spelled 'centimetre'. I personally vote for the '*meter' option. This is a trivial point, but why should we engage in a revert war over one occurrence of this unit and not address the rest? Chaosdna (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It should follow whichever usage of English the rest of the article is in. Color, behaviour, pavement or sidewalk, whichever goy used first or whichever is used now, go with it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Is osprey capitalized throughout this article for a reason? If not, I'll come back and correct that.Lhynard (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is policy that bird species common names (not families of birds or mammals) be capitalized.[6] Dger (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.Lhynard (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bolding of the binomial

I'm interested in the removal of the bolding on Pandion haliaetus contrary to redirected name and WP:ToL general standards. The second removal today was accompanied by the edit summary "restore bird project standard". Can anyone supply a link to the WP:Birds page that covers this, I would like to know the reasoning for the choice. --Kevmin § 17:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's standard throughout the bird project including GAs and FAs, I can't remember the reasoning, but I'll link to this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo

Don't want to add a photo willy-nilly, but I grabbed this shot the other day if it will help this or a related article: File:Osprey platform.jpg. No big deal if you use it or not, just wanted to let you know it's there. Montanabw^(talk) 20:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Eastern Osprey

I am not quite sure why my revision about the new status of Pandion haliaetus cristatus has been removed. I provided a reference and the IOC has accepted the new status. If people do not agree, the issue could at least be discussed in the text. Dogo (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Needs a better distribution map

The osprey is native to Australia too, a fact neglected on the distribution map. Since my graphical skills are lacking, maybe someone would like to correct this. Peter Greenwell (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The map should show ospreys in Japan too. N p holmes (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added some areas you mention based on http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Osprey - only problem with that map is that it does not indicate whether the shaded areas are breeding or a wintering zones. Shyamal (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2018

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move any article to any particular title at this time, per the discussion below. It is possible that other merges or splits may be warranted, but that is outside the scope of this close. Dekimasuよ! 15:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Osprey → Western osprey – This article was split, following the recognition (Christidis & Boles, et al) of the australasian population as a species Pandion cristatus and the nomination of a common name Eastern osprey (IOC. [et al]?). The committee for bird names made english (IOC) changed the common name 'Osprey' to 'Western Osprey' in accordance with their rules of nomenclature. Articles on birds follow the IOC to avoid discord in the taxonomy, the trigger for 'splits', and the subproject WP:Birds adopts their common names. I would have finished this split myself, but I note an earlier move was reverted (@BD2412:) so I am bringing here. The user is correct that it would have a big impact, but some incoming links are probably wrong and this can be accommodated with a Set article index at osprey. cygnis insignis 08:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• Amended 08:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC) The current consensus is for a move of Pandion (bird) to osprey. cygnis insignis
• @Shyamal, Casliber, RileyBugz, Plantdrew, Jimfbleak, and MeegsC: excuse the mass ping, but you have all been tagged in before or proposed solutions. cygnis insignis 07:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
• This may not be so simple: there is a question of page history and other solutions have been proposed before: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Birds/Archive_70#Handling_of_splitting, but in any case current arrangements are half done. I have been working on correcting the article on the eastern population, and expanding it, so the potential for arrangement of content is somewhat different to a year ago, when this was last discussed. cygnis insignis 08:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Compare Ostrich. bd2412 T 12:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

    BD2412, A family with multiple well defined genera, although the treatment of extant species is similar. Are you proposing a move to the family or genus, that could work. cygnis insignis 14:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

    I am proposing that the supertopic Osprey reflect whatever is the next higher level of abstraction for the species making up the set of subtopics. bd2412 T 14:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

    BD2412, without a page history split, that would be ideal and is a solution in any case. We could ping those involve in the earlier discussion, what do you think? cygnis insignis 14:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

    I would agree that this would be an ideal solution. bd2412 T 03:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

    I agree - "Osprey" should be the name of the genus page (Pandion), and "Western osprey" is then the species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

    I'll add my agreement to that solution. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

    Sabine's Sunbird, would you like to do a history merge? it's good fun if you've never tried. cygnis insignis 08:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Agree - would also suggest similar handling at cattle egret Shyamal (talk) 08:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, on purely technical grounds. I agree that there is a mess here that needs sorting out, but I'm not convinced a page move is a necessary step in the solution. The edit history of this page is associated with the concept of there being a single living species in the genus Pandion, and the content of the page has not been significantly changed to reflect the concept of there being two living osprey species. The current title can be retained, with Pandion (bird) being merged to Osprey; the resulting article will continue to have edit history and page content mostly relevant to all of the living osprey species, with mentions of the extinct species. A new article should be started at western osprey. However, there are certainly incoming links to "osprey" that could be refined to point to the more precise articles on each living species. Plantdrew (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
• oppose All I can do is oppose my proposed solution at this stage, I think Plantdrew and others have untangled this: Pandion (bird) -> osprey and new article for Western osprey. Pointing out the bias and absurdity of these new common names is something I can only slip in as comment, this solution allows a clear path to improving content in the three articles. cygnis insignis 05:59, 26 December 2018 (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.

Feedback on this article as a user

While I'm an editor on wikipedia I'm also a user (like a lot of us). I don't have a great deal of knowledge about birds but I recently learned that we had ospreys in Australia. So I looked up osprey on wikipedia to learn more and was left confused by the content of the article. I didn't read it fully; like most users I did a quick scan of the article, mostly at the top. The thing that really confused me was the map which showed no distribution of the bird in Australia. It's at that point I left the article and went and did an internet search on 'Australian osprey' which did turn up some pages on websites specific to Australian birds and then, a bit further down in the search results (I used DuckDuckGo), was an entry for the wikipedia article on the Eastern osprey. Coming back to the main osprey article I clicked on the link to Pandion (bird) in the taxonomic section of the sidebar and that resolved some of my confusion, which has been now further unentagled by looking at this talk page and seeing that there is still some debate about how to treat ospreys on wikipedia. I don't want to join this debate, my knowledge base on this subject is too shallow, but I do want to note that as a user, my experience in using wikipedia to find out about ospreys in Australia was very much less than ideal. Oska (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

not a good article

The article is the residue of an untidy split, and I know it is incorrect because the things I was going to fix after two days of research was disrupted by lack of endorsement and vindictive behaviour that prompted to fix something elsewhere. cygnis insignis 23:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This link is NOT correct

'and the family listed in its traditional place as part of the order Falconiformes' Should be written as "and the family listed in its traditional place as part of the order Acciptriformes" im order to have behave the correct link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.0.2 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

The following discussion 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.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Osprey/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article is self contradictory. The lead and the taxobox assert that Australian populations are a different species, the eastern osprey. However, Australian populations are mentioned repeatedly throughout the article. With minimal changes (mainly to the lead and taxobox), the article could be recast to be about the genus of ospreys. That would also entail merging Pandion (bird) to osprey, and would leave Wikipedia without an article specifically about populations outside of Australia (western ospreys). A substantial effort would need to be made to properly recast the article to be only about western osprey; many sources used in the article don't recognize two different species, and can not be used to support statements that may not apply to western osprey alone. Plantdrew (talk) 21:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Are you ready to close this? AIRcorn (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

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.