 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
Taxobox Photo edit
I do not wish to engage in any dispute about the relative virtues of the photos in this article as photos. If LiquidGhoul wishes to consider his photo superior to mine then all power to him. However, the problems I have with his photo as an illustration for this article are, firstly, that the green colouration in the bird's plumage show that it has not completed it's progression from juvenile to adult plumage and, secondly, that labeling the image as a female may be inaccurate (while no expert, I know of no obvious sign that distinguishes male vs female rosellas). The photo in the taxobox is not typical of an adult of the species, which I think is a mistake in a reference work. I suspect the author of the caption may have confused age-based plumage differences with sex-based differences, resulting in a misleading caption - again not a great idea in a reference work. Mike Funnell 09:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- If you have a problem with the taxobox image containing a juvenile bird, state it is juvenile in the caption. The difference is only a small mottling of green, and that can be stated in the article. If a photo comes up which is cropped to just show the bird, the colours are well illustrated, it is in focus, and it is adult, then it can become the taxobox image, but at the moment, I don't like having a photo where the main subject is a feeder in the taxobox image. --liquidGhoul 12:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I changed the caption to include 'juvenile', and removed 'female' as it is pretty redundant. --liquidGhoul 12:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think, in any event the taxobox image should ideally show the scalloped pattern of feathers of an adult on its back and the full length of the parrot.
A Tasmanian Bird Watching group has picked up on a glaring inaccuracy in the geographical range map. It shows that the bird is found through out Tasmania when it is not found here at all. We feel that should be changed to the map that is used in the first citation in the reference list. As it is a picture and not just text I feel uneasy about editing it myself. But we would be happy for someone else to do it, please
RRedBreast (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Text accuracy edit
Adelaide Rosella.
You'll have to excuse my ignorance, here, but the piece is, well, wrong!
Somewhere (!) I have read that an original should be archived here before it is substantially edited, so what is below is the original...
Adelaide Rosella
The final race, P. elegans adelaidae of Adelaide and the surrounding area, was also thought to be a separate species, but is presently believed to have originated through interbreeding of the Crimson and Yellow Rosellas. Both of these still interbreed with the Adelaide Rosella where its range crosses theirs, and it exhibits variation in its plumage from dark orange-red in the south of its distribution to a pale orange-yellow in the north. Variants that are very close to the Yellow race are designated subadelaidae.
Although the ranges of the Crimson and Yellow forms overlap along the entirety of the Murray River, in this area they seem to prefer different habitats and do not interbreed.Latrodectus 14:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The crimson rosella does not occur in Tasmania. See http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/wildlife-management/animals-of-tasmania/birds/complete-list-of-tasmanian-birdsPlease remove all references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.162.173 (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
File:Platycercus elegans Wilsons Prom.jpg to appear as POTD soon edit
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Platycercus elegans Wilsons Prom.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 26, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-10-26. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 16:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
