Talk:Kiwi (bird)

Time for some development..

This page has an evident history of near criminal neglect! To have the article on NZ's most recognizable and well known bird species, an article which is rated "top" for importance under WP:NZ, no less, at "B class" for so many years is quite insane. Expect this all to change very soon with a brave new collab being spearheaded by 4 WP:Bird stalwarts!Kotare (talk) 09:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It needs a good copyedit. I just had a look at the Biology section. These are just notes to consider for future editing -

• The evolution subsection is confusing - hard to know whether the Oxford DNA studies are different to the "recent DNA studies" mentioned in the first sentence - if the same, why are cassowaries not mentioned with the Oxford results etc.
• Also, the possessive form "kiwi's" implies a singular when the rest of the article uses the plural (because it is a genus). Needs rewording to avoid this "of kiwi" or "kiwi are..." perhaps.
• This wide-sweeping claim is unreferenced: "Before the arrival of humans in the 13th century or earlier, New Zealand's only endemic mammals were three species of bat, and the ecological niches that in other parts of the world were filled by creatures as diverse as horses, wolves and mice were taken up by birds (and, to a lesser extent, reptiles)." As well as unreferenced, what birds acted like wolves? Did the Haast's Eagle hunt in packs and howl at the moon? What birds were horses - herbivores living in great herds on the grasslands? etc. I'm overstating it maybe, but it's a lot to say without a source to blame it on. Kahuroa (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Is it accurate to say that "New Zealand's only endemic mammals were three species of bat". Aren't Maui's dolphins and hector's dolphins mammals? Needs to say something like "apart from marine mammals".
• Re: "it is able to lay eggs that are about six times the size of a chicken's egg" - makes me wonder whether that was originally said of one species, unless the eggs of all species are exactly the same size? Kahuroa (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okarito Discovery Year

Finding a (supposed) conflict on the year of the Okarito (Rowi) Kiwi's discovery. On this page it says 1994 and cites The New Zealand DOC's website, while the actual Okarito article claims 2003 and cites a 2003 publication. (Bregenz) —Preceding undated comment added 05:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Plural

It is my understanding that as a Māori word, the plural of "kiwi" is "kiwi", not "kiwis". However, I am aware that the kiwis form occurs more commonly than, for example, the incorrect plural "Maoris". Some dictionaries give kiwis as a plural, e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Kiwi. On the other hand, I think it is correct to call a group of New Zealanders "kiwis". It appears the article does not address this, and although it says at one point "Kiwi are ..." it also uses "kiwis" at least twice. Should we add a sentence or two explaining this, and make the usage in the article consistent?-gadfium 18:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there is an explanation of pluralisation in Kiwi (people) which fits my understanding.-gadfium 18:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is also that that Kiwis (the people) takes the -s plural but kiwi (the bird) does not. The meaning "New Zealander" is something that is peculiar to English and has been around so long that it's right to regard it as an English word, whereas the bird name is the original Māori meaning and follows the example of the many plants and animals that have retained or regained their Māori names and are increasingly spelt without the -s in the plural. The article should be consistent but it's easy to miss one or two. A footnote might be helpful. Kahuroa (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

This bird name is also well absorbed into English, and such words do eventually acquire an English plural: we don't describe two small Welsh dogs as "corgŵn" just because corgi was originally a Welsh word. Similarly nowadays most people will say "appendixes" not "appendices". The language of origin of a word has limited effect on its treatment once properly absorbed into English.

Having said that, English itself has a large number of words where the plural is the same as the singular. Most of these are quarry animals (or former quarry animals) such as deer, antelope, sheep (one of the few non-quarry examples), mackerel, salmon, grouse, wigeon, snipe, woodcock etc. A bird name with an identical plural does therefore sit happily in English and so is less likely to acquire an "s" plural.

As with so many things in WP, what we should be doing here is following the most widespread usage for the variety of English in which the article is written. We can't try to say what is the "correct" usage: we are descriptive, not prescriptive. If the article is in New Zealand English (which by rights it ought to be), then we should go with whatever is usual in that. If it's written in British English I think "kiwis" would be more usual. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

News media should be a good indication of accepted use. The New Zealand Herald is NZ's largest newspaper and uses the s-less plural eg, (dozens of brown kiwi) and (it's endangering kiwi) and headline: Kiwi safe after fires. Rival Fairfax news site Stuff also uses the s-less plural: (two adult kiwi, also headline) (19 kiwi now living wild) - I think that's NZ's most popular news site. TVNZ uses the s-less plural here. But this page has at least four non-s plurals and one s-plural, suggesting they prefer the s-less form but the s-form still slips through. Kahuroa (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive wiki linking

Link to articles where further explanation of a term may be useful to the average reader. Links to articles on cats, dogs and eggs are totally unnecessary. A link to "domestic chicken", when a chicken is been used for size comparison only, is ridiculous - either comparing to a domestic chicken is useful because practically everyone knows what you are talking about, or the comparison is not useful so change the comparison to something more meaningful. Assume the reader has some experience of the language and links to common terms such as "sense of smell" and "beak" are superfluous and make it more difficult to spot the significant links. See Wiki linking article. --Tony Wills (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why links should be removed - "they are unnecessary" is not sufficient justification when "they are useful" also applies. I do not find the article to be cluttered with links in the way you suggest. Samsara (FA • FP) 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were an experienced editor, please forgive me if you know all this and are trying to make some other point: Please read carefully Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking, in particular note under section "What generally should not be linked"

 * everyday English words that are expected to be understood in the context;

• Reading an article that has lots of extraneous wikilinks is like reading one of those spam pages where every keyword is linked to some irrelevant article trying to sell you something, after a while you just have to assume that all the links in the article are irrelevant. Wikilinks are useful if they link to more information about unusual words or about a specialized meaning being used in the article - eg one would not normally link everyday English words like "vulnerable", but in the context of this article it is a specialized usage - an internationally recognized population health status. This article is about Kiwis, references to "dogs" and "cats" and even "eggs" are using those terms with their standard English language meanings, general articles about those topics have no relevance to the content of this article.
• Please explain how an article about Kiwi is helped by a link to an article about dogs or cats ? What might be useful is a link to an article about predation of New Zealand wildlife in general by these mammals - something relevant to the topic. It is absurd to wikilink a word just because there happens to be a wikipedia article by that name. If that is a useful idea, then get a bot to make those mechanical connections and wire up every article in a tight mesh rather than a random linkage based on editors' knowledge of other articles.
• I am not sure about your edit-summary comment about making a size-comparison diagram with a chicken, if the size comparison is 1:1 then a diagram is fairly redundant. Are you really suggesting that the average reader is not going to know what a domestic chicken is, and roughly what size it is? Is there a wiki tool that records the number of times a wikilink is clicked upon? Domestic chickens have absolutely no relevance to this article, the reference to domestic chickens is only for size comparison, the article about chickens does not give any definitive scale information about chickens either (and for some reason does not have a comparison and link back to the Kiwi article to give people an idea of how big a chicken is ;-). Yes it would be good to have a silhouette scale showing the size of the various kiwis, but my inability to draw one does not mean that we should not clean up this article in the mean time.
• Finally: The rule of thumb that says to only link the first occurrence of a term is not a dogmatic directive, the idea is to link with the introduction of a novel term that might need further explanation, but in some cases the first passing reference may not be the best one to wiki-link.
• Please stop defending the status-quo of the article and help me improve it. Make the article succinct, illustrations informative, facts refer to sources, and the links expansive.
• I do applaud your link to three species of bat, that is the sort of link that may be useful, relevant to the article, not just there to define what a "bat" is. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Transferred from User talk:Samsara:

Hi Samsara, I see you are quite an experienced editor :-) That leaves me even more perplexed about why we are having a small revert war about wiki-links on the Kiwi page. It is even more perplexing that you don't appear to have edited that page previously, so I can't assume there is a personal connection to the content. Am I missing something ?, where does the need to link to common English language terms come from? how is the article improved by having them? As far as I can see a lot of those sort of wiki links were created in bygone years in an era when newbies linked every other keyword. I don't appreciate feeling I'm wading through treacle to even make minor improvements to an article. I seek enlightenment on the subject :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed your changes, and most of them look okay. Finding and using the link to the list of invasive species was a constructive change, which is what I was referring to earlier, so that's great. I'm not entirely convinced that, given that the article is just a list, it really replaces the useful sections of those more specific articles - it could lead users to having to click twice rather than once, and I changed the way it was wikilinked, because readers may not have been taken where they were expecting to go. To be clear: I looked at the cat article, and it has sections that are clearly relevant to cats being a threat to some other species in areas where it has been newly introduced. The dog article doesn't seem to have been developed in the same way, which will need resolving at some point in the future. I agree that stoat and ferret should be linked. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As a general comment, I've always considered repeat wikilinking to be permissible where the original link is a long way up the page. The case for this would be strongest in cases where the link is reused in a new context, or where new interest is added to it that was not previously apparent, or in image captions. So to me, it's a balance of various factors, not a rigid rule. Samsara (FA • FP) 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The specifics of repeat wiki-links are a trivial matter to my mind, yes get rid of most of them, and yes there are sometimes reasons to have duplicates. I think we basically agree and I aren't very fussed about exactly which are retained. I am much more concerned on whether a particular word should be linked at all.

I consider deleting irrelevant links as very constructive. I am constantly frustrated when reading articles/stories etc online and finding for instance a link in the middle of an endangered species article called breeding programs. I think that's interesting, I wonder what breeding programs exist for species XXX, and follow the link to find nothing but a general article on the subject - a waste of time in the context. The words "breeding program" can reasonably be understood by someone with an average English reading ability.

I'm sure this has been re-hashed many times over the years, but there is perhaps three types of destinations for wiki links

1. ) To define technical terms or novel uses of a word, the meaning of which is different in the context of a particular article than it is in general usage (one may ask why the term isn't simply expanded in the article for the presumed general readership instead of making them look it up) - in that case a link to a wiki-dictionary article may be appropriate, the wiki-dictionary article probably links back to a wikipedia article on the subject too. Maybe a future revision of wikimedia software could show the definition when you hover over a link to wiki-dictionary entries. This maybe also applies to links to place-names, if I'm reading about kiwi, a link to South Island is very general and has nothing much to do with the subject, maybe a hover tip that says "South Island, New Zealand" would be useful.
2. ) For further reading on a tangential subject - if you are interested in kiwi and their conservation, maybe you are interested in recovery programs for other species too, including race-horses :-P. If it wouldn't rate as a see-also article, it shouldn't rate as a wiki-linked article.
3. ) To expand upon the article at hand. It is pleasurable when reading an article to have links to expanded information pertaining to the subject. In general a wiki-link to an article that is generalist is actually doing a dis-service to the reader. If an article about cats has a section on their effect on invasive species, by all means link to that subsection. The link should be more that cats, it should be cats are a threat to kiwi or cat ecological effects etc, anything less is a huge waste of time. I sometimes wonder whether wikipedia editors actually use wikipedia as a knowledge source and go to it on a regular basis when seeking information - most commonly when I edit a wikipedia article it is because after seeking some information and located the wikipedia article, I find it wanting.

It is incumbent upon those who add wiki-links to show that they are useful and expansive to the content of the article, not a vague statement that they are are thought to be "useful". </soapbox> --Tony Wills (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have reviewed your latest review of my edits and "most of them look okay" I thank you for the improvements :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Zoos

In the Zoos section, there's this, "As of 2007 only 13 zoos outside New Zealand hold kiwi.[23] The Frankfurt Zoo has 12, the Berlin Zoo has seven, Walsrode Bird Park has one, the Washington Zoo has three, the Avifauna Bird Park in the Netherlands has three, the San Diego Zoo has five, the San Diego Zoo Safari Park has one, the National Zoo in Washington, DC has five, the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute has one, and the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium has three." Isn't the Washington Zoo and the National Zoo in Washington, DC one and the same zoo? They link to the same zoo page in Wikipedia.Jtyroler (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Zoo New England's Franklin Park Zoo has Northern Brown Kiwi. http://www.zoonewengland.org/franklin-park-zoo/our-animals/birds/northern-brown-kiwi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.133.119 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Placement of etymology

In my experience of wikipedia, the vast majority of animal articles have the Etymology section either within the lead section, or the second section. Should the Etymology section be moved?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2014

Suvrat Bhardwaj (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2014

Please add The Cape Sanctuary at Cape Kidnappers in Hawke's Bay under the sanctuaries sections. Quite a big one to be missing out on.

"Cape Sanctuary is the largest privately owned and funded wildlife restoration project of its kind in New Zealand. " http://www.haumoana.com/pages/capesanctuary.html Jms101 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your contribution. Please double-check and comment on whether the edit fulfils your idea. If you have further third party reliable sources, please let us know. Samsara (FA • FP) 02:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

excessive "or"

The article reads:

... they are gathered from birds that die naturally or through road accidents or predation, or from captive birds.

Maybe a comma would be better. 85.193.194.118 (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that's clumsy writing. Can you suggest a better wording? I don't think substituting a comma for the first or second "or" would be quite grammatical.-gadfium 20:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, English itself, as any natural language, is far from being perfect so maybe the existing wording is the best possible one. ;-)
85.193.194.118 (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

French page

I noticed that there was no "Français" link in the sidebar. Surprised, I checked the French version of the Web site, and it seems that it does have a page on kiwis. Shouldn't that be added? -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem because the Dutch and Polish-language Wikipedia's have articles on both "Kiwi" and "Apteryx", resulting to two sets of links, and the French article is connected to the other set. This needs to be resolved in Wikidata.-gadfium 20:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2016

The spelling of the title as well as the first line of the article has to be corrected. The first letter of 'kiwi' has to be 'small k' and the plural is also 'kiwi' not "Kiwis" or "kiwis".

currently it is shown as -"Kiwi (pronounced /kiːwiː/) or kiwis are flightless birds native to New Zealand,"

It has to be corrected to - "kiwi (pronounced /kiːwiː/) or kiwi(pluralised) are flightless birds native to New Zealand,"

Spelling of the word Kiwi, when used to describe the people, is often capitalised, and takes the plural form Kiwis. The bird's name is spelt with a lower-case k and, being a word of Māori origin, normally stays as kiwi when pluralised. Thus, two Kiwis refers to two people, whereas two kiwi refers to two birds. This linguistic nicety is well exemplified by the BNZ Save the Kiwi Conservation Trust, which uses the slogan "Kiwis saving kiwi".

Kranthiomkar (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: (1) The first letter of a sentence is almost always capitalized per English sentence case. (2) Please provide a reliable source regarding the pluralization of kiwi. Note that Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources. A quick search shows "kiwi" as plural here but dictionaries show it was "kiwis" ([1], [2]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2017

Kiwi Birds eat Kiwifruits native to New Zealand. This is how they got their name OPmedic (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Question: Do you have a reliable source to support the statement? DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect. The kiwifruit was only named that after 1962. See Kiwifruit.-gadfium 20:55, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Before the renaming they were called Chinese gooseberries. Koro Neil (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kiwi. 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/20150118013340/http://www.naturespace.org.nz/history/history-of-cape-sanctuary to http://www.naturespace.org.nz/history/history-of-cape-sanctuary
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705001243/http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/about-the-bird/kiwi-a-maori/kiwi-a-maori.html to http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/about-the-bird/kiwi-a-maori/kiwi-a-maori.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kiwi. 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/20080608222703/http://www.teara.govt.nz/TheBush/NativeBirdsAndBats/Kiwi/en to http://www.teara.govt.nz/TheBush/NativeBirdsAndBats/Kiwi/en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402115711/http://www.taranakikiwi.org.nz/index.php?page=pests-and-threats to http://www.taranakikiwi.org.nz/index.php?page=pests-and-threats
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111202073649/http://www.1080facts.co.nz/1080_case_studies to http://www.1080facts.co.nz/1080_case_studies

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kiwi. 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/20140319191927/http://www.canterburymuseum.com/news/76/did-small-kiwi-fly-from-australia to http://www.canterburymuseum.com/news/76/did-small-kiwi-fly-from-australia
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110924103747/http://www.savethekiwi.org/ to http://savethekiwi.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903145411/http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/bnz-save-the-kiwi/operation-nest-egg/operation-nest-egg.html to http://www.savethekiwi.org.nz/bnz-save-the-kiwi/operation-nest-egg/operation-nest-egg.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929224245/http://www.feral.org.au/survival-of-brown-kiwi-exposed-to-1080-poison-used-for-control-of-brushtail-possums-in-northland-new-zealand-2/ to http://www.feral.org.au/survival-of-brown-kiwi-exposed-to-1080-poison-used-for-control-of-brushtail-possums-in-northland-new-zealand-2

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Largest eggs in relation to body size?

According to kiwisforkiwi.org, kiwis do not actually have the largest eggs in proportion to body size, and some small seabirds have eggs that can weigh up to 30% of their body weight. The site has no reason to lie or make this up, but I can't find any sources that confirm their claim. I do not have any experience with this kind of thing, so I'm hoping some people that know what they're doing can figure this out.

https://www.kiwisforkiwi.org/about-kiwi/kiwi-facts-characteristics/kiwi-myths/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.1.196 (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, looks like they're right:

• ...storm petrel produces an egg that is up to 29% of the female’s body weight, the highest ratio...
• ...≤25% of adult body mass.., European Storm-Petrel

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs) 12 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, not even the referenced article made this claim. The article says: "a kiwi's eggs [...] are one of the largest in proportion to body size of any bird in the world". So I've just gone ahead and changed the corresponding sentence in the Wikipedia page. Ross Finlayson (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

This sentence:

> There are five recognised species, two of which are currently endangered, another two of which are vulnerable, and one of which is near-threatened.

Is inconsistent with the status on the individual pages. After looking at the IUCN Red List, the individual species articles are correct and this sentence should be updated to:

"There are five recognised species, four of which are vulnerable, and one of which is near-threatened." ChristopheBiocca (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed, two species were recently downlisted due to conservation successes. I'm heading out but will fix this later if no one else does. Good catch. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• fixed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Umimmak (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 2018-11-3

The link to ectoparasites at the end of the Behaviour and ecology section was redirected to parasitism in 2007. There is no section in Parasitism for ectoparasites. A more helpful link would be to Ectoparasitic_infestation - explains the term. I request this change:

[[Lice]] in the genus ''[[Apterygon]]''<ref name=Clay1960/><ref name=Tandan1972/><ref name=Palma2004/> and in the subgenus ''[[Rallicola]]'' (''Aptericola'')<ref name=Harrison1915/><ref name=Clay1972/> are exclusively [[ectoparasites]] of kiwi species.<ref name=Palma2017/>

to

[[Lice]] in the genus ''[[Apterygon]]''<ref name=Clay1960/><ref name=Tandan1972/><ref name=Palma2004/> and in the subgenus ''[[Rallicola]]'' (''Aptericola'')<ref name=Harrison1915/><ref name=Clay1972/> are exclusively [[Ectoparasitic_infestation|ectoparasites]] of kiwi species.<ref name=Palma2017/>

-173.24.113.190 (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

The issue isn't with the present article, but rather the fact we have ectoparasite redirecting to parasitism when perhaps it should go to Ectoparasitic infestation as you suggest or to Parasitic nutrition#Extoparasitism (or as some instances get pipelinked to I see to List of parasitic organisms#Ectoparasites). But this isn't about the article kiwi, but rather the redirect and where the information on ectoparasites should be consolidated since there isn't a dedicated article. I'm not sure where that discussion should happen though. Perhaps the talk page for parasitism as that is its present target? Or WP:ECOLOGY/WP:MEDICINE? Umimmak (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Fruit

I think more people search for the fruit than for the animal. I understand you named it "kiwifruit" to avoid parentheses in the title, while using the scientific name Apteryx like some languages do seems even more obscure. However, the current state is quite artificial since the word "kiwifruit" is rarely uttered. --2001:16B8:3167:7600:B0BD:A371:1DC2:23B4 (talk) 00:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Kiwifruit is the only name used in New Zealand for the fruit, and is used here often; I understand the same is roughly true in Australia. 'Kiwi' is used only of the bird, of New Zealanders, or of things pertaining to New Zealand. The words kiwi and kiwifruit both originated in New Zealand, and our usage takes precedence. Koro Neil (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"Civi" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Civi. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kiwifruit which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. I see a weak consensus that the bird is not "much more likely than any other single topic" and does not have "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" (WP:PTOPIC). The pageviews show no primary usage, and "being first" is not the be-all, end-all regarding long-term significance. There is also an WP:ENGVAR angle to consider, which affects how much of the traffic on each page is actually for the term "Kiwi". I will retain the special redirects on the disambiguation page for tracking purposes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• Kiwi → Kiwi (bird)
• Kiwi (disambiguation) → Kiwi

– A similar request was opposed recently, but some users suggested that this request is better than the previous one. Momo824 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The bird is the primary topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. No primary topic. Steel1943 (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The bird is the primary topic.-gadfium 21:13, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. One of the main objections in the other discussion was that the bird is the primary topic. All other instances are named for bird, and this article receives the most hits. There is no rationale provided for this move. --Hazhk (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are times and situations when Wikipedia guidance says (admits) that strict adherence to Wikipedia's norms should be questioned and maybe not adheared to strictly, and this is one of them. Kiwi (Bird) is like creating a page Bald Eagle (Bird). Kiwi are a taonga (a treasure) with much mana felt by many who take on this bird's name as a description of themselves. There is no need for (Bird) if Kiwifruit is left as Kiwifruit which it is I believe. Other uses of Kiwi the money, the people, all derive from the Bird - I am satisfied in my own mind that this is the natural place someone searching for Kiwi would be happy arriving at.Andrewgprout (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The bird is the primary topic. The fruit was named after the bird for marketing reasons. JIP | Talk 13:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As per the previous RM, the bird is the primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. The fruit may have been named after the bird, like Boston was named after a predecessor city, but the bird isn't available in supermarkets all over the world, and average people are therefore likely to have substantially greater experience with the fruit under that name. BD2412 T 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support per nominator stated above. In most people outside Australia and New Zealand, any people that tells "Kiwi" would be about the fruit than the bird, it was different than in early 20th century ago. 114.125.251.64 (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. any people outside AU and NZ thinks "kiwi" would be more known about the fruit than the bird despite have long-term significance for the bird. 36.77.92.59 (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Like many before have said, kiwi more common than kiwifruit outside AU and NZ. When people in the UK (where I live) talk about kiwis, they are usually referring to either the fruit or New Zealanders. --Angerey (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not my experience in the UK. It refers to New Zealanders, certainly, but the fruit is usually kiwifruit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As others have said, the bird is the primary topic from which the other uses (the fruit and the demonym) were derived. Turnagra (talk) 10:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Support because majority people outside Australia and NZ call the fruit just as "kiwi" not about the bird that is unique to New Zealand. People in US, UK, Canada when talking about Kiwi, they thought to be about the fruit that originated in China but grown in NZ. 182.1.58.45 (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know about the other countries, but I can assure you that when talking about kiwis people in the UK usually mean either the birds or the nickname for New Zealanders. We'd say "kiwifruit" if we meant the fruit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would also point out that the poor English in this IP support is suspiciously similar to the poor English in the other two IP supports above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
    • They also both appear to be accounts which haven't contributed prior to commenting on this discussion. Turnagra (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrewgprout especially, but arguments from others as well. I am concerned that after a similar request was closed not moved on 11 August, when filing this request on the same day @Momo824: said "some users suggested that this request is better than the previous one." Who are the "some users" and where did they make their suggestions? How did they see the request before it was filed? Moriori (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
  • On the previous discussion, two users said they "Support 2 and 3, oppose 1", and the user who closed the discussion said, "no prejudice against a new proposal for just 2 and 3". Momo824 (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per BD2412 and WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY Being the original source of the name is also not determinative.. Also adding the fruit to the pageview analysis posted by User:Hazhk above shows that there is no winner in usage either. Iffy★Chat -- 18:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY because that is not clear whether it is primary redirect. 110.137.165.233 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. The bird topic has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic and is therefore primary topic for "Kiwi" with respect to long-term significance, IMO. On a side note, it is interesting that this discussion has drawn four IP editors (whose IPs are all apparently in the same country) who have few other edits, and three of the four have tagged articles with which variety of English to use. Such tagging is ok, even if done as a team. Just noting. Nurg (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support No primary topic per page views. Yes Kiwifruit is included, appropriately, because it is widely called “kiwi”. Most people searching with “kiwi” are NOT looking for the bird. So it’s not the primary topic. Being the namesake of other uses including the fruit is irrelevant. What’s relevant is what topic people are seeking when they search with “kiwi”. And that’s not the bird. If anything it’s the fruit. But that’s for another discussion. —В²C ☎ 23:48, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support while I do put weight on being named after in this case I agree the fruit is much better known (as demonstrated by the views) and when I Google kiwi all the results are for the fruit, Images also shows only the fruit but Books is split. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This requested move for me is very interesting because there are very substantial supporters and opposers who take to RM from "Kiwi" to "Kiwi (bird)" (including four IPs that are take similar side). I don't want to support or oppose this move but I have my opinion about this Kiwi. Kiwi is national bird of New Zealand and is endangered bird that needs to be protected in the country. Because this, many New Zealanders take themselves as "Kiwi" as a nickename, you know that New Zealand dollar sometimes called "Kiwi" as the nickname of the currency because what NZ call that. On the other hand, there are many people outside Australia and NZ that actually don't know what is the Kiwi about. In UK, US, Canada and other English-speaking countries (unless you're from Australia and New Zealand) when they talk about Kiwi they will more known as a fruit rather than bird. It is ironic because the fruit that become one of NZ best commodity exports originated from China and only renamed it as Kiwifruit in 1960s due to Cold War, so what happens next? In 21st century, people around the world call this fruit just as plain Kiwi, whereas people in Australia and NZ continue to call it as Kiwifruit in order to distinguish from the Kiwi (bird) as this is the original name of the bird. IMO, from that long comment like this, this bird should be have long term significance than the fruit because the fruit that foreigners called is derived from bird and foreigners only call the fruit as just plain "Kiwi" in last 20th century even Google search "Kiwi" now have lot of links more to the fruit than the bird. 180.254.161.72 (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It’s important to remember that we don’t evangelize what we think users should know. We facilitate their searches for whatever they’re looking for, without judgment of their preferences. —В²C ☎ 05:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
• Weak "No Primary Topic". Scholastically, and in terms of first use, the Kiwi bird wins. It was the first thing to be names Kiwi and the other contenders are derivative. The very old, very strong and very popular demonym derives from this uniquely New Zealandish bird. Subsequently, Kiwi became an identifier for many things New Zealand, including brands, and including the rebranding of the Chinese gooseberry to the kiwi fruit. This last one is a bit funny as it is now native, but it was big in NZ at the time. I'm pushed to "no primary topic" because this Chinese gooseberry, which is not from NZ, is well known to many as kiwi, and as the only thing they know as kiwi. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I find the situation very analogous to a Genericized trademark. Reading https://time.com/4662293/kiwifruit-chinese-gooseberry-new-zealand-history-fruit/, I read that the NZers in attempting to hijack a popular exotic fruit diluted, lost, their ownership of the term "kiwi". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Support. there is not clear primary topic as both of them had significance of each other. In academic sources, Kiwi is refer to NZ native bird which is become nickname of New Zealanders or a nickname for NZ Dollar, this argument also heard in Australia. In the history of the country, Kiwi become more associated with any term that originated or produuced in New Zealand when the nickname derivates from the name of bird. But in contemporary usage, Kiwi more often refers to a fruit which the original name is Chinese Gooseberry, even in Google search if type Kiwi it will search more as a fruit than a bird despite the fruit name derivated from bird’s name that only used for marketing reasons. 180.244.191.60 (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2020 (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.

"Kiwis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kiwis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 26#Kiwis until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

This page provides no real support for the phylogenetic trees shown. The citation links to a 12 year old page made by a student that has no legitimate references. Other links to phylogenetic info do not work. 24.206.152.74 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Rename ASAP, plus associated other fixes,

In Archive 1 there is a discussion about renaming this article to what it is now called, I believe it was originally Kiwi which makes most sense 99% of the time and should be renamed soonest back to just that, have a pointer to dab page, fix interwiki links, rename dab page etc. anything else is just plain wrong on many levels. Quick vote for any watchers, lets sort this quicklyThe Original Filfi (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2021

The average life expectancy for females and males held in captivity is 12 and 18 years, with maximum longevity of 33 and 28 years. Azs7281 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Add under "Status and conservation" > Between "Operation Nest Egg" and "1080 poison"

National Kiwi Charity

Kiwis for kiwi is a national kiwi charity that supports the national Kiwi Recovery Programme in partnership with the Department of Conservation. The national charity focuses on working with community and Māori-led kiwi conservation groups supporting kiwi saving efforts such as: predator control and monitoring, research, advocacy, habitat protection, Operation Nest Egg, Kōhanga kiwi, and Kiwi aversion training for dogs. 73.65.61.89 (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. That's a close paraphrase of the charity's website at [3]. You are welcome to rewrite it in your own words, and include a reference to a third-party rather than embedded links to the charity.-gadfium 02:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Smallest living ratite

[I'm not sure where to add this to the discussion, but the kiwi is NOT the smallest ratite! Tinamous are all ratites. In fact, the extinct Moa are more closely related to tinamous than than to kiwi. The kiwi is, however, the smallest living FLIGHTLESS ratite. Please correct.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.23.165.52 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022

I would like to add: Due to the flightless nature of the kiwi, it makes its home in burrows dug in the ground as opposed to nests in trees like many other birds. Kiwis use their strong feet and claws to dig these burrows, and often dig multiple burrows within their territories. Burrows that will be used as nests, called nest burrows, are dug early in the breeding season so that the entrances can become camouflaged by the plants that will grow around the entrance. My source is the San Diego Zoo's page on Kiwis. Which can easily be found online. I would like to add it here (see example below) The kiwi's mostly nocturnal habits may be a result of habitat intrusion by predators, including humans. In areas of New Zealand where introduced predators have been removed, such as sanctuaries, kiwi are often seen in daylight. They prefer subtropical and temperate podocarp and beech forests, but they are being forced to adapt to different habitat, such as sub-alpine scrub, tussock grassland, and the mountains.[26] Due to the flightless nature of the kiwi, it makes its home in burrows dug in the ground as opposed to nests in trees like many other birds. Kiwis use their strong feet and claws to dig these burrows, and often dig multiple burrows within their territories. Burrows that will be used as nests, called nest burrows, are dug early in the breeding season so that the entrances can become camouflaged by the plants that will grow around the entrance. Kiwi have a highly developed sense of smell, unusual in a bird, and are the only birds with nostrils at the end of their long beaks. I am suggesting adding this because currently there isn't any information about kiwi burrows on the main kiwi page. However, on the great spotted kiwi page it does talk about the burrows. Since these burrows are not specific to just one type of kiwi, and are used/made by all kiwis I think it would be useful information to have on this page. Strawberrywatermelon (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – dudhhr ^talk _contribs (he/they) 17:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Is kiwi a kiwi?

I suggest that the endemic kiwi, can be understood, as the real kiwi, and that the other kiwi are not the real kiwi 147.210.85.232 (talk) 10:07, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Popular Culture References

This video is the most familiar Kiwi to North American audicences. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpSZa00-3eM

6,021,919 views Dec 20, 2006 Kiwi Mad World Version edited by blueinferno Music: Gary Jules - Mad World

I have no idea how this would be added. Especially as it's been uploaded multiple times to YT (I think it predates YT) and each has millions of views. 157.98.120.194 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)