Talk:Pavo (bird)

Birds Stub‑class

Pavo (bird) is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Merge?

I think that a merge with Peafowl would be a good idea. Frankyboy5 08:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holler! I agree. They talk about the same thing. What's the template for that? Arthurian Legend (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is supposed to be different about them? Richard001 (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peafowl originally included the Congo Peafowl, which isn't Pavo. Without that species, they should be merged. I'd normally suggest merging to the English name per policy, but in this case there's so much confusion with Indian Peafowl that Pavo might be better jimfbleak (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed above this article used to include Afropavo but whoever wrote that this is kept out needs to explain this here. I guess Peafowl can continue to represent the folk taxonomic concept even if Afropavo was completely unrelated to Pavo. There was also a fossil form mentioned in the past. Not sure how these changes happened, the article is still quite unreferenced and there is a lot of duplication of content which could be cut out. Shyamal (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shyamal, could you link to a diff (past version) of Peafowl that contains the missing content you're describing? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried looking at the history - it is quite a bit to go through. [1] has Afropavo in the taxobox, but I thought there was some text as well. Shyamal (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is great confusion over the actual name of the Peafowl, with many people assuming that the common name of the species is "Peacock". Other species of Pavo are nowhere nearly as well known, nor is there universal agreement on exactly which birds fit its nomenclature.

The question arises, why throw the Peafowl into a place of greater confusion than the disambiguation currently in force provides?

Any solution that is clear in its communication is fine. Strong cross referencing to Pavo is already in place.

76.248.232.156 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)P. iNova[reply]

Any ordinary high school student having taken a couple years of Classical Latin knows that "pavus" is the ordinary word for the ordinary, run-of-the-mill turkey. The main article could be improved by including a tree listing what the species belong to the genus are. Although turkeys do not ordinarily cross with peacocks, perhaps there has been progress along those lines with genetic engineering - to make our world a better and more beautiful one. 198.177.27.20 (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual dimorphism and the females of the genus

It is pretty clear that the plumage of the male peacock is spectacular. But that might be an extreme example. I'm more curious about the females. Are all the females of this genus so much less distinct in plumage that they are confused with each other?

The main article would be improved if pictures were included of females juxtaposed to males. On the other hand, if they cannot be distinguished from each other by appearance alone, then that should be mentioned in the article somewhere. 198.177.27.20 (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]