Talk:Dodo

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2021 - Link Fix

The illustration which is credited to "Walter Paget", the Australian politician, should be credited to "Walter Paget (illustrator)". 67.231.66.125 (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Well-spotted, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatics would be more useful if it pointed to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_pneumaticity, seeing as the paragraph refers to skeletal pneumaticity and not industrial pneumatics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.143.236 (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A little late, but done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2023

Change “he did not mention if it were” to “he did not mention if it was” in the section “dodos transported abroad”. It should not be subjunctive as it is neither a conditional nor a result clause. 194.75.12.108 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done – small jars tc 12:16, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Unknown rationale for when citations are placed in "Sources" section

Are items placed in sources if they are notable or is there some other intended purpose for not leaving them unsorted in the references section? Any responses would be appreciated. J JMesserly (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I originally used the more regular, unsorted style as it's easier when I wrote the article, but someone changed it to the sorted style without asking, and then it became too hard to reverse. So if anyone can convert the citations to the original style, as was done at Rodrigues solitaire (discussion:[1]), that would be helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

If there is no objection after a few weeks for comment have passed, or some other style is agreed to, I would be happy to perform the work bringing it into the agreed on consistent style. J JMesserly (talk) 09:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be appreciated, there were no objections to it before because it was the original citation style, as can be seen in the GA version:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This appears non controversial and I see now was already discussed earlier (#Citation style consistency), so I am placing the respective banner notice above (to view, show Other talk page banners). If I got anything wrong in the wording in the template, or there are other issues or questions, please comment. Otherwise I will clean up the citations using this rule in the coming days. Subsections "Citations" and "Sources" will be removed and all non inline full citations will be moved back inline as was the case in the original citation style. J JMesserly (talk) 05:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Dodo de-extinction

You know how Colossal Biosciences is planning to de-extinct the dodo? Well, can someone edit the article to mention this? FreezingTNT2 (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not really of much significance, at this stage they're just seeking funding for it, and it'll take many years to approach even the possibility of doing it, if it ever even happens (what will lay this supposed dodo egg?). Likewise, folks have been talking about cloning mammoths for well over 20 years, and we haven't really gotten much closer. No reason at all to mention it before it is tangibly closer to the goal, now it's just science fiction. FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The De-extinction article has an inbound link and describes it vaguely. There are open source research papers describing the process envisioned. The basic idea is that you introduce the dodo dna to the closest dna relative, the Nicobar pigeon. You get a dodo-nicobar chick, then you iterate- moving the offspring closer and closer to the original dodo dna. Pretty dangerous tech if applied to human beings by autocratic governments, and I have no interest in communicating such information to a broad public. J JMesserly (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

And considering the size of the Nicobar pigeon in relation to the dodo (it's barely larger than a regular street pigeon), I'm not sure how it developing such a potentially large egg would even be feasible... Again, it's barely even science fiction yet, and they are just making bold claims to get funding. FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

FunkMonk & Hemiauchenia -- your handwaving notwithstanding, this is a serious project that is being recognized by serious science outlets such as MIT Technology Review, Scientific American, Smithsonian and the Audubon Society (scroll down to where the article talks about "PGCs"). There have been dozens of other mentions of this project in legitimate media outlets, which amply justifies a section on the goal of "de-extincting" the dodo. Bricology (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There have been tonnes of such speculative suggestions the last twenty years. The woolly mammoth should have been revived twenty times by now. Until there are any kinds of results, it should be relegated to the article about the general concept of deextinction. FunkMonk (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The only DNA we have of the dodo is a mitochondrial genome, which is far from enough to make de-extinction even remotely plausible. It's clearly been suggested based on its popularity, rather than on any practical basis. "de-extinction" coverage in the popular press tends to be hype based and treats the topic rather uncritically, while people who are actually familiar with ancient DNA (e.g. Beth Shapiro) are very critical of the concept. Per WP:ONEWAY, I do not think the promotional, speculative announcement of an unproven company should be included here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There isn't even a full nuclear genome sequence for the dodo, so it's little more than hot air. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not true, we have, indeed, sequenced the dodo's genome a while back, and it's being used in Colossal's dodo de-extinction project. FreezingTNT2 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Short footnote cleanup

As discussed, the article has been edited to bring short footnote usage back into conformance with the style established prior to achieving Featured status.

• Some additional cleanup edits may be performed as I proof read the new version to make sure I did not inadvertently damage any content.
• The passenger pigeon article used {{harvnb}} for short footnotes, this one used {{sfn}}. I left them as is. Do folks in wikiproject prefer one over the other? If there is a mix of harvnb and sfns, should I make them all the same? In these cases which is prefered? Anyway, I won't switch templates as part of this citation sweep of featured articles unless folks want me to. Comments?
• There was one source in the reference section which had no corresponding footnote. Don't know what you folks want to do with the following. I suppose the edit history could be scanned to find out when there was an sfn to it.
  • Richon, E.; Winters, R. (2014). "The intercultural dodo: a drawing from the School of Bundi, Rājasthān". Historical Biology. 28 (3): 1–8. doi:10.1080/08912963.2014.961450. S2CID 85387209.

J JMesserly (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no citations styles preferred by specific projects, it's more up to the individual writer. As for that citation, I remember it, but it was possibly removed again because a later source reidentified the dodo drawing discussed by it as not being contemporary, and therefore not really significant enough to mention. So it can just be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

My bad. I found where it belongs.J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ouch, there goes my memory... FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Other minor items:

• What does 71-71. 2 mean in the pages field of the following cite. I presume this is a typo?
  • Reinhardt, Johannes Theodor (1842–1843). "Nøjere oplysning om det i Kjøbenhavn fundne Drontehoved". Nat. Tidssk. Krøyer. IV.: 71–72. 2.

I overlooked this issue, I think you're right, and it seems you fixed it. And now I look at it, I should probably spell out the Danish abbreviation for "Nat. Tidssk". FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be best not to look too closely at the Dodo article until I make my proofing pass during the next 5 hours. There may be a number of further errors that I shall find.J JMesserly (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. I have finished my initial proofing pass of the changes, hand comparing them to the prior version. I don't see any more egregious errors and don't plan any heavy edits soon, but a second pair of eyes might pick up some errors I didn't weed out. A large number of the full citations are now directly viewable when the mouse hovers over them, and the reference section is restored to the typical form seen in most wikipedia articles.J JMesserly (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

“Its extinction was not immediately noticed, and some considered it to be a myth.” This line is ambiguous. What was considered a myth? The dodo or the fact it went extinct? Ghughes23 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Kind of both, but yes, the bird is meant. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done clarified. HouseBlaster^talk 04:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

I want to add to the Extinction section of the dodo bird. I would like to add,

Just to clarify, the dodo bird’s extinction wasn’t solely a result of human actions or competition for resources among other animals. Instead their disappearance is attributed to, “human breed, carelessness, and the contingencies of history.” <ref><ref> Bergman, J. (2005). The History of the Dodo Bird and the Cause of Its Extinction. Retrieved from https://www.christianscientific.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PSCF9-05Bergman.pdf ‌ Lenaleens (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: You're requesting to put "Just to clarify, the dodo bird’s extinction wasn’t solely a result of human actions or competition for resources among other animals. Instead their disappearance is attributed to, “human breed, carelessness, and the contingencies of history.”" somewhere in the article? No. It doesn't add anything, much less clarifies. I think you probably meant "greed", as that's what your source writes, but still it's not an explanation and we already have better. Cannolis (talk) 03:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

I assume "greed" is meant? Either way, none of this contradicts what is already in the article, but it's too hand-wavy to add with this wording. FunkMonk (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Height or length?

I found this discussion under a dodo skeletal on Deviantart:

https://www.deviantart.com/comments/1/880014648/4921009032

Is it really true that the 1 meter tall scaling is based on the length of the fully stretched bird at 97 cm (skull to tail) in "An Ecomorphological Review of the Dodo (Raphus cucullatus) and Solitaire (Pezophaps solitaria), Flightless Columbiformes of the Mascarene Islands"? Otodusm (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The user says "In actuality, the standing height was around 61 - 67 cm." without mentioning any source, and W:original research is a no go. So what we need before we can do anything is a reliable source which mentions another height. On a cursory glance, Hume's Extinct Birds says "Description Approximately 70–75cm (28–29in)." But this does not specify whether it refers to height or length. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Otodusm, you added the measurements I listed, but the source doesn't state anything about height, so we need to make the language less specific, as it could also refer to length. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I would say it probably refers to height based on this documentary, in which Hume says it probably stood about 2.5 feet tall (at 4:50): https://youtube.com/watch/FO9Lvc2Blus?si=lQ1xboCT5n2SdhDT Also, the the same height (70 cm for females and 90 cm in males) is added in the book for the Rogrigues solitaire as the height in Rodrigues solitaire, further suggesting it refers to height. Otodusm (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a size diagram? I know that we have [3] but that's obviously based on an inaccurate restoration. What would be the most accurate restoration to trace as a base? The Mansur painting maybe? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

While it probably is the height, that's not really how Wikipedia works, we need the source to say so specifically. As for the image, should be easy for someone able to edit SVGs to replace the dodo in the image with a more recent one. Here's a free one by Hume:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Dodo size comparison

@FunkMonk: Does the scaling on this look about right? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks nice to me, a shame the image I provided doesn't show the head in profile, then the known head-length could be used for cross-checking... FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

New Dodo bird template for user page

This user wishes the Dodo wasn't extinct.

I have created an Dodo template for user page. Everyone can use it. See page. Vartolu3566 (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Went Extinct

They Look Like They Should Not Be Extinct 2600:8807:1D03:A500:D19C:FD30:9663:77A1 (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Some people" believed they were a myth? Who?

The article twice claims that "some considered the bird to be a myth" and "many believed it a myth" without even a single source supporting that claim. That makes it an unsupported attribution. I've flagged this before, but the flags were removed without any citations added. Please do not do that. Claims like this are supposed either be supported with citations or removed. Thank you. -- HiEv 11:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The source is at the end of the paragraph:[5] There are more sources that could be added (a recent one[6]), and it wasn't a single person or persons that thought it was mythical, but a general belief. FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

dodo de-extinction program (again)

there are plans to re-create the dodo using genome sequencing. https://www.cnn.com/dodo-de-extinction-mauritius-spc-intl-scn/index.html Ap aravind (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Until there are any actual developments on this, there isn't really much to say about it. Belongs in a page about de-extinction rather than here, it's still extremely hypothetical. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There has been some progress on the project, and there are similar sections and mentions of revivals on pages for the moa and Steppe bison. I do not see why Colossal Biosciences cannot be mentioned on this page under a "possible revival" section similar to the two mentioned. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Because it's basically just promotion and spin at this point. There is no reason to mention it until there are actual results; there is nothing that could even lay a dodo egg. FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No "actual" progress has been made towards the moa, Xerces blue, and Steppe bison projects. Yet, a "possible revival" section or mentions of current projects and interest to revive them are still discussed on their pages. Colossal states that the domesticated chicken will be a surrogate species for the dodo. There is even a whole dedicated article about the revival of the woolly mammoth, so I do not see why a "possible revival" section is not allowed for this page.

Dodo | Reviving the Dodo Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 05:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

None of those pages are featured articles, so they are subject to more random edits and bad sources. At most, there could be a sentence stating some companies are trying to figure out if it's even possible, but it certainly doesn't warrant a section. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Your reasoning for why it should not be included in both this thread and the first one falls under the "I don't like it" fallacy. Peter Jackson, the director of The Lord of The Rings films donated to this project, and the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation is involved with this project. So, it is notable enough and would not label it a hypothetical. There is an entire section relating to research and the revival project of the thylacine on its page, and it is a featured article. May I mention again that the woolly mammoth, another featured article has both a lengthy section and entire page about the ongoing revival project? Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)