Talk:Kākāpō/Archive 1

Archive 1

Placenames

I have changed the first instance of the Codfish and Chalky Is placenames to the official names (see LINZ http://www.linz.govt.nz/rcs/linz/pub/web/root/core/placenames/index.jsp ) and subsequently used the shorter form of the official name for Codfish. Nurg 05:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Old stuff at top of page

I've put most of the information I know about Kakapo on this page. It may seem like a trivial topic to some, but I think they are wonderful animals in dire need of protection. I hope I have maintained neutrality in my contribution, please let me know what you think. Eudyptes

Good work. But do they really create nests, for sleeping and rearing young, high in trees? You could have knocked me over with a kakapo's soft feather when I read that. Nurg 08:57, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've seen pictures of nests in the bottoms of trees, in hollow spaces under the trunk. I've also read discriptions of them living and sleeping higher up. Most of the pictures of nests I've seen can't be placed high or low. Eudyptes 13:19 UTC 18 July 2004

I've been bold and changed the bit about rearing young high in trees. My next question is, can a Polynesian rat really kill an adult kakapo? Can even a black rat kill an adult? I'm sure they can kill chicks, but adults?

Also, is it correct to talk of birds being born? Shouldn't that be hatched? Nurg 08:18, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good idea about the nesting. I think you're right to be cautious. The Kakapo recovery programme indicates that kiore can kill both adults and eggs, though I'm sure eggs are more vulnerable. Remember that Kakapo don't really have the fighting instinct, they just tend to freeze, rather than fight or flee. As for birds being born, I guess it is more lexically correct to say that they are hatched. I was probably just thinking about the way humans' lives are listed with at birth and death date and I didn't think to change it. By all means, change it if you want, but it doesn't matter to me. Eudyptes 15:42 UTC 19 July 2004

I changed the intro because it was getting clumsy with too many isolated facts. Eudyptes 03:13 UTC 31 July 2004

Comments

• I think this is a well-written and interesting article; good work! It might be worth putting this up as a Featured Article candidate. Some other thoughts: 1) In the "Physical characteristics" section, there seemed to be a number of short sentences which read a bit stilted; could these be tweaked slightly so that the wording flows better? 2) In the breeding section, we suddenly have the sentence, "Consequently, once eggs have been laid in a nest, a nightly watch is instituted to help ensure their safety."; this is the first mention of conservation and is a bit surprising here (though of course relevant); could it be mentioned earlier somehow that nesting is now supervised? 3) The list of all Kakapo seems slightly cumbersome (to me); maybe it could be compressed somehow, or split off into a List of Kakapo? It could be fine, it's just what occurred to me. 4) If there's any way some more photos could be obtained, it would be superb (though clearly this may not be a simple matter for a critically endangered species!) — Matt 02:15, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • One more thing: 5) "While the Kakapo once had a wide range on the main islands, now only two small islands support the entire population: Te Kakahu o Tamatea (Chalky Island) and Whenua Hou (Codfish Island)" — since we don't have articles on these islands...could we mention where abouts in New Zealand they are located, and roughly how big the islands are? — Matt 02:21, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for the input, I think you were right about many things. I addressed concerns 1 though 3 and 5, but I'm not sure how to find pictures of Kakapo that are available in the public domain. It's easy to find them with a Google image search, but I don't want to take them unfairly. Do you know how/when/if it's ok to take a picture off the internet? Eudyptes 20:14 UTC 7 Aug 2004

I think it is definatly a good idea to put this up for a featured article cantidate. If we can bring more attention to these animals they could get an even better supporting plan and recover faster! Blu Pickles 01:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It already is a featured article. In fact, it has already been the article of the day one time. —msikma (user, talk)

Distance of boom

“The booms can often be heard for up to 16 km”. When the kakapo is using a telephone maybe. Sorry but I can’t believe that statement. I need a reputable reference to consider swallowing that. Here’s some references: Best & Powlesland (1985) “at least 1 km on still nights”; Merton (1985) 5 km; Veitch in Cemmick & Veitch (1987) 7 km; Butler (1989) 5 km. I consider those reputable sources – with the exception of Butler they are all experienced kakapo scientists or field workers. The kakaporecovery.org.nz and DoC websites both say 5 km. Temple & Gaskin (2000), though a lightweight work, is interesting because it says at least a km and up to 5 km down wind. The sources that give 5 or 7 km do not mention wind. Sources that do mention wind, give 1 km without wind assistance. My conclusion is 1 km without wind, 5 km with wind assistance and 7 km in a very strong wind! Nurg 10:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Diverge some sections?

Don't get me wrong, I love this article. It's first expansion was my pet project. I think all the new information is great, but I think the length is keeping it from being featured on the main page. I was wondering what you all might think about diverging some of the content under "History and Decline" and "Recovery" into a separate article. What do you (all) think?

Style problems

There are far too many sentences that begin with prepositional phrases, including paragraphs that consist solely of "In 1954... In 1955... In 1956... etc". — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-23 00:40

Copyvio vs. Fair use?

This article is extensively paraphrased from the Kakapo Recovery Programme webpage. I think it's probably little enough to be under fair use rather than a copyvio, but we might want to spend some time marking more clearly what is directly quoted from them. Any thoughts? --zandperl 00:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Real Word?

Under "Physical description, 4th paragraph" the word "chemosignal" is used. As I had never come across this word I searched for it, Wikipedia didn't have a topic on it, wiktionary didn't have a topic on it, so believing that this may just be an uncommon topic I used two reputable dictionaries to find a deffinition of the word. Neither Cambridge Dictionary nor Oxford Dictionary had an entry under the heading "chemosignal". Could someone (perferrably the person who used the word) confirm it's validity as a word, if it isn't infact a word I will re-write that sentence. -- Faded_Mantis 10:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"Chemosignals are substances that while not necessarily perceived as odors, nonetheless have an impact on mood and menstrual cycles when absorbed through the nose" according to this article. Moriori 23:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The term is used widely in scientific literature see this PubMed search, they're kind of like pheromones, but are more specifically related to sex and reproduction.--nixie 23:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks thats what I was looking for, I wasn't fully sure on the word thats why I didn't start editing it out straight away...looks like I also need a specialist dictionary :) -- Faded_Mantis 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Good work

Just wanted to say thankyou to everyone who contributed to this article as I enjoyed it very much so. I read about Kakapo previously in a book by Douglas Adams and found both the book and this enjoyable to read. Bawolff 00:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll second that! --M@rēino 00:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here. I was particularly interested to read the bit about them parachuting safely, since Adams, possibly letting whimsy override accuracy, portrayed this as the bird having forgotten it can't fly. This version makes more sense 8-). Daibhid C 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic

National Geographic Magazine ran an article on animals in New Zealand a few years (2 or 3) ago and had quite a bit on the Kakapo. It mentioned that the bird is the largest and heaviest parrot yet inexplicably omitted any information on how large they get or their weight. Oops!

(Then there was their article on Frankincense where they forgot to include a picture of the tree it's collected from.)

I can top that. In revision of Adolf Hitler article, the introduction never mentioned "World War II" (...only on Wikipedia). Raul654 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Should Frankincense actually include a picture of the tree? I'm skeptical because if someone wants to know about the tree they could visit the tree article (not that the picture is very good, but anyway) Nil Einne 10:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

HUh

Cool kokapo. though i always thought that it was spelled Cockapoo, or is this a different animal?

That's one of those ridiculous 'designer dog' breeds. Cocker spaniel/poodle mutt. --Sparky Lurkdragon 20:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Yea. When you can't spell it looking on google for pictures you end up with a bunch of dogs instead of New Zealand parrots... ^_^

Blu Pickles 16:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many links

Too many links, don't you think? Why does every word have to be linked. Umm... I guess they changed this back. Weird.

Lek

I thought Lek referred to the behavior, not the location? Lek denotes pleasurable and less rule-bound games and activities, according to the article. So the birds have a lek breeding system not because they gather in areas called leks, but because they gather and engage in lek behavior (mating displays, struggles for dominance, whatever). YggdrasilsRoot 17:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The Lek is the behavior... I thought? Of the mating? EH???? Someone clarify please.

Blu Pickles 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo Caption

the caption of one of these images used to be "Photo of a mature Kakapo on Codfish Island". at the time i took this photo, pura was about 1 year old. since the earliest signs of reproductory behaviour are seen around 5 years of age (see last paragraph of "reproduction"), i don't think this one should be described as being an adult. i'm not sure how much difference there is to a mature kakapo, but there might be one! if you disagree, feel free to change it back. --Mnolf 11:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wings "break" fall

Under Physical Description it says that the bird's wings "break" its fall, like the bird lands on its wings as a cushion. I changed this to "brake" (slow down).

That's incorrect, actually. A fall is "broken" by something. Dictionary.com describes this too: "18. To lessen the force or effect of: break a fall." function msikma(const U, T : Float) : Float { to my page. } ; 20:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

kakapo size

does someone can paint a picture like image:Right whale size.png - but for the kakapo? thanks, 88.155.133.223 09:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if a comparison image is really worth it. For whales it makes sense because they are so huge. Kakapos may be large birds but i tmight be easier for people to just look at the size and weight text. chris_huh 16:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, thanks. 88.155.133.223 17:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made one anyway, dunno if you want to use it, it is Image:Kakapo_size_comparison.png. chris_huh 21:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Bulk changes in the Conservation section

In attempt to save this page from de-featured, I have trimmed the section quite markedly. Disscussion is here: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kakapo. — Indon (reply) — 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sites

I'm not sure the 4 locations quoted in the 1994 article are current; the recovery site quotes 2. I've emailed the NZ DOC to clarify, but for the time being the more current and official source is probably more accurate. --Peta 07:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay. I'll try to find more recent sources from 2006 special issues of Notornis. — Indon (reply) — 08:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Updated based on Powlesland (2006). — Indon (reply) — 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Section on place of the kakapo in maori culture

I'm kinda surprised there isn't one yet, considering that this is a featured article. I've just acquired some brilliant references which have alot of information in this area so expect to see some major ( but meticulously referenced using footnotes) additions to this article soon. Kotare 20:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

During Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kakapo (it's still running), reviewers concerned about the size of Conservation section. I have trimmed the section to save this page as Featured Article. How about creating a new page about it? Then in the Human impacts section, you could make a small summary and point the article with {{see also}} template. I'm afraid if there are major additions to this article not directly related to the subject (about the Kakapo species), then this article will get too large. — Indon (reply) — 09:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I'll do that (create a new page about it ), after all, there is a seperate page with a list of all the presently alive individual, named kakapo, so another page with additional info. on the species would make sense and as you say, there is a risk of this article getting too big and losing its featured status. Thanks for your helpful and constructive reply. Kotare 17:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it might fit into the article just fine. We can see if it does after you've made the new page. Afterall, it directly concerns the Kakapo, so I think that perhaps it will be a good addition. The article isn't all that large right now, anyway. —msikma (user, talk) 20:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK thats a thought, at any rate I'll take the steps suggested by Indon above for now and then we can see take stock and see whether it might be a good addition to the main Kakapo article itself. Kotare 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have made the article, I'll come check around to see if I can help out. Let us know... :) —msikma (user, talk) 08:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, the article is up>Place of the Kakapo in Maori culture . There is quite alot there - some of it is bloody fascinating, especially the accounts of kakapo preserving berries in pools for future use and the fact that they seem to make good pets. I guess the new content in this article could be integrated into the main Kakapo article but possibly this would require drastic pruning if the Kakapo article is to retain its featured status( though personally I don't know). I don't mind them being seperate articles; if thats what we decide to do I guess the main kakapo page can be linked to it using the templates that Indon suggested. Thanks to both of you for your help, Cheers Kotare 09:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If that is all about, then I think merging it with the main Kakapo article doesn't harm the main article. A reviewer in Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Kakapo even suggested to add two sections about culture and the origin of the name. I think the best way is to add a new Culture section in this article and merge the new article as subsections of it. Hope it helps. — Indon (reply) — 09:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a nice article that will fit into the main article without a problem. I'll give it a bit of a copyedit later, and then I'll merge it if that hasn't already been done by then. —msikma (user, talk) 15:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I've done some basic copyediting on that new article, but I think that it needs more work before it should be merged. The style of the writing is different, and needs to be altered to have a bit more native English flow. Then there's still a bit of wikification and reference formatting to be done. —msikma (user, talk) 19:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Righto, I've made some final additions of new bits of info to the Place of the Kakapo in Maori culture article as well as beefing up the referencing and adding some internal links. Perhaps my wording could be simplified in some places, whatever, as long as its in the best interests of the article- my only concern is that the basic information which I've spent hours accessing from books and websites is preserved. If someone merges it now, the large number of users monitoring the kakapo article itself will probably divert their attention to any problems with this new section and make appropriate edits- it should kind of take care of itself.. focussing on sorting out any issues the article has ( if any ) now and then merging it might take longer. If its merged, it may well be easier just have the section heading as " Kakapo in maori culture" rather than "Place of the kakapo in maori culture".. my original name for that article is probably a bit wordy. Kotare 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Possible merge of articles "Kākāpō in Māori culture" into "Kakapo"

Given the comments of Mskima and Indon above and the recommendations of one of the featured article reviewers that a section on culture relating to this bird be included in the main Kakapo article, I think the best course will be to merge the "Kākāpō in Māori culture" article into this one - Does anyone disagree with this?? ( thoughts? issues?) Kotare 03:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Would it require adding inflections to this article? This article is one of the few New Zealand bird articles where we use a Maori loanword without using them.

Setriously though, perhaps it would be better to create an article Birds in Māori culture and merge it there? Many birds were very important, like the Hawakai (snipes) and the like. It would be a usefule article that could be linked to in the various birds species articles. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Making one article to contain information about birds in Māori culture does seem like it may be the best idea. That way, it would be one rather large and informative article that could be referred to from this article (rather than merged). E.g.

=== Kakapo in Māori culture ===
<Explain significance of birds to the Maori in general, then explain the position of the Kakapo in Maori culture.>
:Further information: Birds in Māori culture

I think that this would be the most valuable option to a couple of articles. —msikma (user, talk) 06:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought this was a good idea at first .. But the "Kākāpō in Māori culture" article contains information which is very specific towards the kakapo and I can only see it having a place under a "Kakakpo" heading in such an article. To organise the information in such an article you'd want individual sections for a large number of other NZ native birds with prominent places in maori culture - ( Huia, Hakawai, Kokako etc etc).. I think there's just too much information in this area for it to all be lumped into one page ( Very little info in this area is actually up on wikipedia now but this is talking long term in working towards getting all that information onto wikipedia). I think the best place for information specific to a individual NZ bird species, as regards their place in maori culture, is the original article for that species. More general info. as regards Birds in Māori culture could be put in the new article proposed- if you look closely there is just so much information on the place of birds in maori culture.. I guess I'm questioning whether its realistic to try and fit it all on one page.Kotare 07:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hey, can we please continue the discussion to work out what to do? (Did i say somethning wrong?!) Kotare 02:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I just wasn't bothered enough one way or the other - new article or merging - either works. The only reason for keeping them separate is if there is a species that has too many legends it could swamp the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh mint. Just being cautious seeing as this is a featured article. I'm going to merge it now. Kotare 07:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's never really a reason to not be bold and just make certain changes, but I do think that the article could have had a bit more copyediting before merging. For example, it uses "Kākāpō" whereas this article uses the plain English "Kakapo". I'll try to see if I can integrate it a bit better. —msikma (user, talk) 08:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions over reverted edit

Msikma; You have done alot of very good work on wikipedia and for this page itself.. however: looking back to when you reverted my edit at the beginning of the "ecology and behaviour" section, i think that was unfair; its not a matter of opinion as to which passage is better written, the previous passage which you revived simply doesn't make sense, here is what is there now:

" and it seems that Kakapo have adapted to fill the niches that mammals occupy in other parts of the world"

- organisms do not occupy multiple ecological niches, they occupy only one each and this also suggests that kakapo have evolved not only to occupy multiple ecological niches but that they occupy those of all mammals in other parts of the world. My edit clarifed all this:

"and it seems that the Kakapo - like many species of New Zealand bird- has evolved to occupy an ecological niche which elsewhere in the world is filled by various species of mammal".

I also don't see whats wrong with specifiying "ecological niche" as if you simply say "niche" anyone without a decent biology education will not know what you are talking about and finally I'm pretty sure "evolve" is actually the right word .Evolve: "..to develop by natural processes" ( Oxford dictionary), the word "adapted" suggests some brief changes to situation, not the cumulative result of thousands of years of natural selection.

If you've read this please give feed back so this matter can be resolved. Kotare 01:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't very much understand the edit that you made and thought that it was simply a rewrite of the old sentence with the exception of the word "evolve", which I thought could exclusively be used for physical changes that warrant a new species. I don't have a biology degree, so I guess that it's easy to be wrong then. :-) Sorry for that, I'll put back in the revised sentence you made. —msikma (user, talk) 07:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, yeah no worries dude :)Kotare 08:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Last issues

I felt this was within criteria and that with Indon working it could be kept ("Kakapo are able to run at a fair speed" was the one throw-away line that definitely needed changing). As for the remainder:

• "...but feral cats were present. It was apparent that cats killed Kakapo with a predation rate of 56% per annum.[26] At this rate, the birds could not have survived in the 100 years after the first introduction of cats to the island. It turned out that the cats had learned how to kill the birds." What is this trying to say? That they learned to kill them, but late enough in the game that they weren't all wiped out? That the cats arrived later? I inserted a buried question on this one.
• I did not find the image issue an FA deal-breaker—unless for some weird reason a four or seven foot human being was chosen, a viewer can broadly grasp the size of the bird. User:Chris huh is editing still if someone would like to post him a note.
• There's a buried concern that "we can tell the sympathy is with the Kakapo" in the human impact section. I don't find this particularly egregious either, but we might want to source "From at least the 1870s, collectors knew the Kakapo population was declining; their prime concern was to collect as many as possible before they became extinct", as it's generalization.

Otherwise, bang-up work from many. Marskell 13:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

First issue is resolved. The statements were directly taken from the source that the article says that feral cats arrived around 1882 in the island. A survey indicated that the predation rate is 58% per annum, which means that by 1982 there shouldn't be Kakapo left in the island. So it is concluded that the cats learned how to kill the bird, because Kakapo were still available in 1982. I have reworded the paragraph to avoid this confusion by saying that a measure was taken due to high predation rate in the island, which were the intensive cat control & moving all remaining Kakapo to another islands. Hope it suffices. — Indon (reply) — 13:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Second issue is temporarily resolved by hidding it. I don't know whether size comparison is necessary for this article, as Kakapo is a parrot then it should be common for readers for its size. — Indon (reply) — 13:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I never really saw the point of the Kakapo size comparison image. Compared to the "average human"? How tall is the average human? Is the comparison in the picture truly scientific, or simply illustrative? It seemed like just a picture used to spice up the page a little, but it didn't look that good anyway. It's better off not being in the article. If possible, it may be replaced with a photo of a Kakapo compared to some object in the future, as it seems there are a few people here who have been able to make free photos of them. —msikma (user, talk) 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. That's why I hid the picture. — Indon (reply) — 09:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In Maori culture

I have renamed the section written by Kotare "In Maori culture" (the original Māori, has been simplified to Maori for ease of reading, as it appears multiple times in the article, much like the word Kakapo itself) and given it a bit of a copyedit. I've commented out two sections, one because I feel it's not really important enough for inclusion (the Kakapo legend--it's very interesting, and I enjoyed reading it, but I think that it's not necessary to understand the place of Kakapo in Maori culture; it should have some sort of importance to the subject matter), and another part because it was a little ambiguous. I'm still not entirely happy about the section. It needs a few more modifications. Here's what I think should be done:

• Some claims about the Maori culture aren't explained very well. For example, Kakapo were sometimes killed for breaking into storages of fern root. This is mentioned in just one sentence, which fails to explain the least of context. What kind of storage was it? What is "fern root"? How did their breaking in cause moisture to appear? Explaining some of these things would make it much more obvious what the article is trying to explain. It also should convey exactly why this is important enough to mention. Perhaps lots of other animals broke into such storages; why is it necessary that we mention the Kakapo's doing so?
• Some claims use "weasel words". While there's a valid source for every claim, uninteresting or dubious language is sometimes used. "It has been said that", or "some have noted that" could usually be rewritten to something much more decisive. An encyclopedia should contain valid and verifiable information; if it does, there is no need to use "careful" language. This is mostly a matter of copyediting.
• I think it is too specific. The abstract of the article (at the top) mentions this: "The conservation of the Kakapo has made the species well known. Many books and documentaries detailing the plight of the Kakapo have been produced in recent years." - why not write about these things as well? The section as it is right now could later be a part of a bigger "In culture" section, which also explains how the Kakapo has also been featured in modern culture in recent years.

Most of these things can be fixed up relatively easily, I think. The section is pretty good, but it kind of lacks the strong and stable prose that the rest of the article has at this moment. —msikma (user, talk) 09:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reversed some of the changes you made to restore the accepted spelling in NZ articles, and also to restore direct links to some of the articles linked. I will leave it to Kotare and others to address the other points you mention Kahuroa 11:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do we need to write "Māori", when we can also simplify it to "Maori"? The name of the Kakapo has also been simplified. I believe that, for reader clarity, it's probably the best idea to use the simplified version, unless a certain word appears only once or twice in the text (I left "Hāngi" intact, for example). It seems that on the Internet, most sources use the non-accented version as well. —msikma (user, talk) 16:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I live in New Zealand and hardly ever see the inflected versions of Maroi words. I've never quite been able to establish why we use them on Wikipedia for the English language wiki (when using English words derived from Maori, as opposed to a strictly Maori word). I agree they should be avoided for Kakapo, Maori, Kaka, Kereru, but good luck getting anywhere with that. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more a matter of clarity. I'm not sure if there's anything in the MOS about it. I'll check it out later. But generally, it might be a bit easier on the reader to use simplified versions of a word if they are widespread and will be used in the article a lot of times. "Maori", without accents, is a pretty established word in itself, I believe. It's not such a big deal anyway. —msikma (user, talk) 20:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some digging, and this appears to be the relevant page: Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English). —msikma (user, talk) 20:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

For why we use the spelling Māori, see Talk:Māori language#Requested move. Kahuroa 21:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, if this is typical NZ spelling, then I guess that's definitely a reason to keep on using the accented Māori. But, then why are we using "Kakapo" instead of "Kākāpō"? Is it because the word "Kakapo" is extremely widespread and even used on the official NZ website? —msikma (user, talk) 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not as typical as some suggest (particularly in that poll you cited). The arguments made in that discussion are rather fatuous. My morning copy of the Dominion Post doesn't use them, nor does the New Zealand Herald, DOC, journal articles by the Royal Society of New Zealand or Notornis. Moreover,and this is the kicker for me, one of the votes —Māori is the form NZ is moving toward and is recommended by the Māori Language Commission: 'It is especially important that the distinction – between long and short vowel length be marked – in the same way, all of the time. The Commission believes that the macron is the most efficient means of marking long vowel length, and advocates the use of this marker in all but a handful of cases' [1], misses the boat completely. The first sentence, the first, states, clear as day, The following is a set of writing conventions that the Mäori Language Commission recommends be observed by writers and editors of Mäori language texts. . Maori language texts. Not English texts. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Partly because Māori is a lot more common in article titles than Kākāpō... let sleeping Kākāpō lie and all that. Hope no one reopens this can of worms, but whatever Kahuroa 22:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally think that we should follow with whatever is more common in NZ spelling. If what Sabine's Sunbird says is true, then maybe the unaccented Maori is better—but that's something that should be requested in some kind of process. At this point, it's probably best to keep on using the accented Māori and the unaccented Kakapo. —msikma (user, talk) 19:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The conventions for article titles are spelled out at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)#Māori words which would appear to apply here. Kahuroa 19:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't that Māori isn't used, it's that Maori is also used here as commonly as Māori. I was rather getting the wrong end of the stick though, it wasn't the macrons on Māori that was bothering me, it was the idea that Kakapo would be changed. I never see Kakapo macroned. Is macroned a word? It is now. Anyway, best to leave Māori alone. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

While there are some interesting points being given here, I'd argue there are more important things at hand. :) I'll see if I can expand the "Culture" section a bit more with some views from outside of the Maori culture. —msikma (user, talk) 21:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry this discussion was my fault - I should have linked to the convention when I changed Maori back to Māori. Kahuroa 00:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes/reverted edits to "in Maori culture" section

I have just reverted some edits to the “(Kakapo) In Māori culture” section and made some other changes, I don’t want to annoy anyone, so here are my justifications:

1. Reverted :“As the Kakapo were generally considered to be good nourishment” to “As the meat of Kakapo was considered to be good eating” - this is more specific, makes it clear that the meat is what was valued and the maori considered it good eating/delicious, acknowledging it’s nutritional value is something different.

2. For hunting for food and clothing section:

• reverted “As well as eating the birds they killed” to As well as eating the meat of the Kakapo they killed” because this makes it clear what part of the bird was eaten ( they didn’t eat the whole bird, beak and all)
• Reverted deletion of (referenced) text detailing how many feathers were needed to make one Kakapo cloak – this is important because it suggests that many kakapo would have to have been hunted to make one such a garment and also that they took an immense amount of work to create.
• Reverted deletion of (referenced) text talking about why they were considered valuable ( beauty and warmth) and reverted deltion of the proverb related to the value of these cloaks – all this info effectively serves to explain the importance of this kakapo product in maori culture and thus the importance of the Kakapo in Maori culture in general.

3. Hungry Kakapo were not "reportedly hunted for being a nuisance when breaking into maori food stores", they were reported as being a nuisance for doing so. In the first incarnation of this section I had suggested this might be a reason for them being hunted but this was just my speculation and shouldn’t have been put it- my bad, sorry.

This article is looking fantastic now, there's some research about to begin on what the chemical cues for kakapo breeding are which could provide interesting additional material for it in future.Kotare 07:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the things that I had removed earlier were due to the fact they seemed a bit too in-depth to be encyclopedic. I do understand your comments, though, and think that it's okay to leave the information in. I've given the section a bit of a copyedit, and I think it's pretty much done. But it would still be nice if the points that I mentioned earlier could be looked into, to some degree (some parts could be explained a bit more thoroughly--there's a bit high "cited fact to lecture" ratio) to make the whole a bit easier to read and to ensure that the reader cannot have any remaining questions afterwards. Also, it would be best if we could explain the culture of the Kakapo from a bit more generic point of view, since it has also become modestly popular in modern times. There are also still some weasel words which may need to be removed in the long term. Anyway, I think that the information that is there right now is great. —msikma (user, talk) 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did remove one part about the Kakapo breaking into food storages. I think it should be added back in, but I don't know where to put it (I removed it because it seemed a bit out of place, being the only sentence about Kakapo being a nuisance among a text that was only about them as being used as food and them being used for clothing). Maybe there are some other examples you can give of the Kakapo being annoying to the Maori? That way, it would be more well-placed. —msikma (user, talk) 20:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Islands

There were 4 islands, and 2 of them were wrong. So I fixed it up. ^_^ Your welcome everyone!

Blu Pickles 16:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder, though: the original version had a reference. You did not change it. So that means that the reference that was cited for the wrongful information in reality contains the correct information? If not, what is your source for stating that it was wrong? Some explanation would be nice. —msikma (user, talk) 18:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Heather's egg

would it be possible to add details about the egg that Heather laid? In epilogue of the book Last Chance to See, it is stated that a female Kakapo named Heather laid an egg, which was a very good sign. However, I seem to recall reading in a New Scientist article a few years later that the egg did not hatch. I'm afraid I do not have the magazine anymore, so I cannot post any references. However, does someone have the information to hand? If so, could it be added, as I am sure this would be noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article? StephenBuxton 12:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving the page

Greetings. Sort of new to Wikipedia here. I created a redirect to Kakapo parrot recently and then noticed that the page was moved to Kakapo. I tried looking through the edit history to find out when this happenened but couldn't find it. Anyone know when this happened, or how i could find out when it happened? ihatefile007 (talk) 07:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. This page has always been titled "Kakapo", according to the logs. You created a redirect to it from "Kakapo parrot" in June, and no one else has edited or otherwise changed that redirect.-gadfium 09:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, you're correct. Sorry for the confusion. ihatefile007 (talk) 08:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This article is listed at Wikipedia:Featured articles/Cleanup listing as being one of our most problematic featured articles: unless there is an effort to clean it up, it should be submitted to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have notified WikiProject:Birds on their talk page, so hopefully the page will get a bit of a clean up . Snowman (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, went through it and cleaned up. let me know nif I missed anything. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unclear Sentence

The sentence: "This long delay before they start to reproduce leaves plenty of time to perpetuate the species." is unclear and possibly contradictory. The surrounding sentences do not clear it up.

It seems unclear to me too, and unnecessary. I've deleted it. -- Avenue (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Numbers

Does someone know where to find the total number of kakapo's for a specific year, so that I can redo the population diagram? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a single source, but I think we have compiled enough information here to extend the graph to the present. -- Avenue (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So. lets make a list then:

• 1986: 22 ?
• 1987:
• 1988:
• 1989:
• 1990:
• 1991: 50 ?
• 1992: 49 ?
• 1993: 49 ?
• 1994: 48 ?
• 1995: 49 ?
• 1996: 51 ?
• 1997: 53 ?
• 1998: 54 ?
• 1999: 61 ?
• 2000: 61 ?
• 2001: 61 ?
• 2002: 86
• 2003: 86
• 2004: 86
• 2005: 86
• 2006: 86
• 2007: 86
• 2008: 90
• 2009: 125

-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added figures from the existing chart ([2]). It is difficult to be sure of the exact figures from the graph, but I think these are probably within one of the intended figure. It would be good to track down a source for these numbers.

Also, before we go much further, there are some issues I think would be worth clarifying first.

1. Are we talking about populations at the end of the calendar year? (The figure of 90 shown above for 2008 suggests so; the figure was higher from April to late October.) This seems sensible, given that chicks usually hatch around late summer.
2. Do the counts only include birds transplanted off the main islands? That's the only sensible interpretation I can think of for the 1986 figure of around 22 birds, given that 30 birds were taken off to Codfish Island between 1987 and 1992 (and another 31 had been transplanted before 1986). Is this appropriate, or should we include estimates of the remaining wild population?
3. How should we indicate uncertainty about the population? For instance, the table at the beginning of the Kakapo recovery plan section shows that 41–55 transplanted birds survived as of November 1992. Plotting just a single number seems misleading here. This is not just ancient history; one of these birds was only rediscovered in March 2009.

Can anyone see any other difficulties? -- Avenue (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

kakaporecovery.org.nz has a good chart here (bottom of page): [3] XLerate (talk) 13:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. That takes care of my second point. -- Avenue (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then i will make an upodated grph for wikipedia this weekend.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 22:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't let me slow you down — anything based on that chart will be vastly better than what we have now. But my third point is still unanswered, and I think it needs to be addressed somehow. The Stewart Is kakapo population, when it was found in 1977, apparently numbered "about 200" birds,[4] but the kakaporecovery.org.nz chart only shows 150. The only indication of uncertainty there is the "greater than" sign preceding the total, and these don't appear from 1983 on. It seems quite misleading to me. It needs a strong caveat at least, e.g. "Except in recent years, these numbers are very imprecise." -- Avenue (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I have made the new image, and indicated that the first years are minimum numbers. I added also red arrows to show breeding years. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the new plot - that's a big improvement. But the numbers for the first years are not minimums, as far as I can tell. For instance, Powlesland et al (2006) put the 1977 Kakapo population on Stewart Is at 100–200, but the kakaporecovery.org.nz chart shows around 150. The uncertainty remains substantial later, too; e.g. the 41–55 surviving transplanted birds in 1992. So I've changed the caveat accordingly. -- Avenue (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

There were 120 kakapo as of January 2011. (Source : http://www.kakaporecovery.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=57&Itemid=430) Let's hope the eight females that nested this Febuary bring numbers up with healthy chicks. There are 10 eggs still alive according to the Kakapo Nesting Table. Correjon (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

To any who have edited this article:

I just saw a clip of Stephen Fry and a Kakapo on the BBC website, and I came here to find out more as I'd never heard of a Kakapo before. Thought I'd say well done to whoever has edited this article as it was very informative. These are quite extraordinary creatures, so sad they're endangered. 86.155.7.149 (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

External link?

Is this worth putting in - 860,000+ hits on Youtube in a fortnight - the now infamous clip of zoologist Mark Carwardine's encounter with a kakapo, with Stephen Fry? The Youtube BBC video 81.156.175.199 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the BBC page with a link to the clip BBC page. The event has already been parodied on a TV show in the UK (Harry Hill's TV Burp) - here's the Youtube link [5]. 81.156.175.199 (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't give any significant information about kakapo, so I would say not.-gadfium 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it warrants a mention. The bird became internationally known because of that video. --68.95.129.174 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Internet fame is not the same as "internationally known," though it's only a matter of time before this article, like almost every other wikipedia page, has an "In popular culture" section. tildetildetildetilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.84.96 (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bass mating calls?

Douglas Adams said that the bass sound the male kakapo makes while mating makes it nearly impossible for the female to find him. Is it true? 67.243.7.245 (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Doubt it. His mate Cawardine said that the bass range was effective because it wasn't used by any of the other birds in the forest whose calls fill the rest of the sound spectrum. Kahuroa (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

E haere rā Richard Henry

At the age of (?) the last surviving Fiordland Kakapo died today. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox image

Wouldn't a picture of a whole animal be better than just a head? FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe, if it was of similar quality. However none of the photos in commons:Category:Strigops habroptila seem nearly as good as the current one. --Avenue (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll watch Flickr and see if a good one comes up.[6] This one is pretty nice, but not taxobox material: [7] Maybe for another section? Ah, turns out it is probably "flickrwashing", that picture. FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

• The extreme close up still seems strange for the taxobox. None of these images that would be more appropriate?[8] FunkMonk (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I replaced the taxobox image long ago with a photo that, though low-res, shows an entire bird. Looks much better at thumb size, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sections

As far as I can see the "Appearance" and "Endangered status" sections grew out of the lead section which was split up. I've now expanded the lead to summarise the article. But I think "Appearance" should be merged into "Description" and "Endangered status" into "Conservation". Any comments? --Tony Wills (talk) 10:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - this edit was unneeded. The lead you've made is still really short - check the other bird FAs. This should be reverted. The appearance is a summary containing material from several segments. I will rejig. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Arrghhh! The lead is now totally overblown. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead is meant to be a summary of the important points of the article, to quote: it should ... "stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". We want something to encourage people to read on and find out the details.

It does not need extended description, details about lots of books and films etc. It is a summary, two paragraphs should be quite enough. Rather than revert to expansive material that someone broke into two separate sections, we need to take the opportunity to redo it from scratch (which was basically where it was when I started expanding it again. I am inclined to revert back to the minimal version and expand it carefully. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you end up with the two nothing sections that were summaries of points following. Best is to trim backwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually there is material on Douglas Adams and TV stuff which can be moved out of lead and into media section at bottom. Will do later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed :-)

I see what you mean about other bird FAs, there does seem to be a bit of a formular approach. Personally I see no reason for an illustrated encyclopedia to have a text description in the lead, there is almost always a photo to the right. It is enough to say a small, large, thin, fat, brightly coloured, dull, cryptic ... species of parrot, gull, etc and leave the description including size-range, plummage etc where it belongs - to me that is all stuffing (just pads it out with facts and figures), certainly nothing inviting me to read on.

Every sentence in the lead can be parred down to its essentials: interesting because of various traits, plight due to human actions, long history of attempted conservation but nothing successful and now at a critical stage, celebrity species. Don't need or want details of anatomy, islands, or every documentary in the lead section.

I would also tend not to try and reference everything in the lead, everything should be supported by the body of the article and references would just duplicate the detailed references there. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree - I just moved the media chunk out - looks better already. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I would like to ask why the sub-section "In the media" was categorized in the section"In Māori culture" in which they have no relationship with each other. Shouldn't the title of this section changed into "Culture", and then we have two sub-sections named "Use for food and clothing in Māori culture"/"In Māori culture" and "In the media"?--Lokionly (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Any reason why there is no separate habitat/distribution section? FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi. An introduction being the summary/abstract of the article must contain information, which appear in the main article. These info appear in summary, but not in the article: "...has a low basal metabolic rate", "and is the only parrot to have a polygynous lek breeding system", "It is also possibly one of the world's longest-living birds", "...with accretion of thermodynamic efficiency...". Most of them do not have the source. It's big deficiency as the featured article. D kuba (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Why is "Kakapo" capitalised throughout the article? Common names of animal species aren't normally capitalised, and this doesn't seem to be one that's named after a person or a place. — Smjg (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Common names of bird species usually are capitalised. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds. --Avenue (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that that article now says:

"...used to be capitalised to differentiate it from more general terms but following discussions, it has been decided that capitals will be used only for parts of the name that are proper nouns..." Snori (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead links

hi,

most of Kakapo Recovery Program site links are dead. For example "Up Close & Personal". Could someone fix it? Thanks a lot. Greets. D kuba (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they reorganised their website. I've updated several links, and in one case added an archive link for an item which I couldn't find on their current website. Let me know here if I've missed any.-gadfium 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks for your contribution, but now there (ref 4: Tape and glue help secure kakapo hatching) are no information about chicks from Codfish Island, which is linked from this: "More than twenty of the 34 chicks had to be hand-reared because of a shortage of food on Codfish Island.[4]". D kuba (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I found it. D kuba (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Translocations

Where moved kakapo from Maud Island? Island is appearing in "Kakapo recovery plan" section, but the introduction don't mentions Maud Island: "As of April 2012, surviving Kakapo are kept on three predator-free islands, Codfish (Whenua Hou), Anchor and Little Barrier islands, where they are closely monitored". D kuba (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

New Zealand English

I have just added the {{New Zealand English}} banner to the talk page. I thought that it was there already, and I've been reverting English variation changes from the article probably for a few months now. This makes sense to me but I realize there isn't actually a consensus to use this particular variation. If anyone disagrees, feel free to discuss. Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Sexual Dimorphism

When viewing articles about a species that is sexually dimorphic, there is usually at least one image of each gender. Moreover, most images will indicate the gender of the bird, except in the case of juveniles who have not yet acquired gender specific traits. Are all the images in this article of males? If not, which ones are female? If there isn't a picture of a female, does someone have a picture or drawing? Ileanadu (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the image details, the bird in the lead image is a male kakapo, the others don't say. Ivanvector (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Parasites

I noticed this article about the kakapo tapeworm. I was wondering whether there ought to be a mention of it in the article. Ambrosia10 (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Is inclusion of a certain meme relevant?

I must admit that I am somewhat relieved that Party Parrot is not in this article, but there could be a discussion here about it in case that meme takes off. Actually, I don't want to internetify a featured article with memes and get banned. I kinda hoped that Party Parrot was already included. Meltingwood ^meow 13:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Memes aren't usually included mostly because they usually blow over and are soon forgotten by everyone beyond a handful of diehard fans, and because there are very few relevant and reliable sources documenting the relevance and or importance of particular memes.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kakapo. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/link.asp?id=p5v74428x53j0883
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040922044514/http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjz/1995/69.pdf to http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjz/1995/69.pdf

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) 16:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kakapo. 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/20070212012141/http://www.anotherchancetosee.com/2006/08/kakapo-parrots-86-names.html to http://www.anotherchancetosee.com/2006/08/kakapo-parrots-86-names.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140317092202/http://www.gapfiller.org.nz/journey-a-new-work-by-sayraphim-lothian-with-support-from-gap-filler/ to http://www.gapfiller.org.nz/journey-a-new-work-by-sayraphim-lothian-with-support-from-gap-filler/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tourismnewzealand.com/news-and-features/latest-news/2010/01/prime-minister-appoints-'spokesbird'-for-conservation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110154242/http://www.kakaporecovery.org.nz///then/recoveryplan.pdf to http://www.kakaporecovery.org.nz/then/recoveryplan.pdf

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) 11:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Merzbow's “Kakapo” album

I don't know if such an information has its place in this article, but the noise artiste Merzbow has a “Kakapo” album (with an already existing Wikipedia article). Furthermore, “all profits from the release will be donated to the Kakapo Recovery program”. (That's my first or second time editing a talk page; sorry if I mess up.) --90.53.222.40 (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact that it is named after the animal isn't really notable here in itself, but the donation angle could be. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kakapo. 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/20060720125029/http://www.nzgeographic.co.nz/ to http://www.nzgeographic.co.nz/

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) 12:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)