Talk:Blue duck

Gay Ducks/UK Extinction

Probably should use something from this source. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/4962394/Blue-Ducks-likely-to-die-out-in-UK-after-male-birds-get-together.html 12.29.46.19 (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No such article. Is this the same blue duck ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.124.34 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand Fairy Tern which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:15, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:New Zealand fairy tern which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy is selfcontradictory

Intro puts it in shelduck family. Taxonomy subsection says that it is no longer so classified. Which is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.124.34 (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Righto, tried to clear that up a little. Taxobox now says Anatinae, which seems to be the most recent state.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2022

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: Not Moved based on no clear consensus to do so. Mike Cline (talk) 11:56, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Blue duck → WhioWhio – This bird is increasingly being referred to as a "Whio" in New Zealand, particularly in the NGO space, when compared to the current name. Sources which use the name Blue Duck often do so alongside the name Whio, while people referring to the bird as a Whio are less likely to refer to the name Blue duck. Turnagra (talk) 07:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support per Google Scholar, which shows three times the use for whio as it does for blue duck. Searches on Google News are not useful, as they mostly turn up unrelated results for both terms. BilledMammal (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment from a quick look at the scholar links it seems that not all the references about either name are to the duck so probably need a deeper analysis. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
    • That's a good point; I just looked at the first few and assumed the rest were also on topic. Unfortunately, ngrams has the same issue - almost all of the results are going to be for something different - using wildcards suggests that most "whio" results are actually "who", either due to a misspelling or an issue with scanning. Blue duck is slightly better, with at least three of the most common results being related to this bird. I'll have to look into it further. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• How are you controlling for non-relevant uses of either phrase in your ngrams search? Turnagra (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per common name (in New Zealand English, which I will readily concede is the only variety that matters here). The sources used in the sentence that says that "whio" is the common term in NZ English actually show the opposite. The Google searches and Ngrams cited in this move request are highly problematic and ought to be discounted on both ends. Red Slash 19:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Red Slash. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME in New Zealand English. I checked the $10 note in my wallet and under the image of the bird in question it said WHIO; the term BLUE DUCK was nowhere to be seen. Looking at recent reliable news sources in New Zealand, examples of the use of whio as the common name for the bird include: and from Stuff; and from The New Zealand Herald; from New Zealand Geographic magazine; from the Otago Daily Times; from 1 News; from RNZ; from Newshub. Even that most conservative of organisations, Federated Farmers, uses whio . Paora (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2022 (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.

Post-move contribution

Post-move contribution. Was reading this New Zealand Herald (largest NZ newspaper by circulation) article from May 2022 and it doesn't even give the English name any longer. So I came here to check whether a move to whio has already been considered. Schwede66 09:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Probable AI generated content

Hi - I added the AI generated tag here, as the edits by Corpriest display many indicators of AI output and do not appear thoroughly reviewed; thus, they need review for accuracy, tone, source-to-text integrity, etc. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh yuck. Well baked in by now too :(( --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I did a thorough cleanup on the AI generated sections (foraging, territoriality and mating) while also carefully adding the references. That editor made those edits recklessly as I don't think I worked in any article this much before but I hope that was worth it. Here's the sandbox link. Also I'm planning to add some photos and do a reassessment. Happy editing. Sddarealone (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Nice. Some of the remaining content looks somewhat flowery but I recently found an article that also made me think this but was written long before chatgpt so that isn't always a perfect guide. I'll poke around this weekend, but thanks for your help. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:34, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

It's my pleasure. :) Sddarealone (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue duck/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sddarealone (talk · contribs) 19:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Blue Rider (talk · contribs) 23:37, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Stability

• Last edit on June 14th; no edit war in place.

Media

• Hymenolaemus malacorhynchus, Gmelin. Whistling of Mountain Duck. "Wio."'s caption needs a citation;
• Not sure Whio_pair_Iris_Burn_Stevage.jpg is relevant as the ducks can be barely seen.
• All other media is relevant and free or tagged.

Copyvio

• Earwig's Copyvio Dectector points to 29,6%, that is, violation unlikely;
• Earwig points to WP:CLOP issues with Vulkaner's article, this is because it uses Wikipedia as a source, thus making it WP:CIRCULAR.

@The Blue Rider, thanks for starting the review of my GAN. Now coming to your preliminary findings, I see that the media image has a citation in caption and I will quote the source text here as well as the link.

Hymenoltemus malacorhynchus, Gmelin. Whistling or Mountain Duck. “ Wio.” (Case VIII. Nos. 9 and 10 : male and female.) Reference -https://archive.org/details/classifiedlistm00bull/page/54/mode/2up?q=blue+duck

I changed the second image to a better one. Also I fixed the WP:CIRCULAR text from vulkaner by replacing it with other reliable sources. Sddarealone (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Diet Section

The diet section is phrased as if it relies entirely on one primary source. "Red" links to scientific names should be removed if there is a suitable common name to improve readability. Riverskip (talk) 07:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I do not see a problem of a paragraph relying on two *secondary* sources; also, red links are allowed. Feel free to dismiss this feedback, Sddarealone. The Blue Rider 12:13, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Exactly. I still added a new source if the Elsevier paper wasn't enough but information is to be unchanged as they are correct. I have access to the Elsevier source and here's a quote. Note that fecal droppings was collected to observe the duck's diet.

Diet of blue ducks - A total of 63 faecal samples was collected, from which approximately 7500 fragments comprising 3835 individual prey were identified. Blue ducks consumed prey in all categories. Chironomidae and cased caddisfly larvae occurred in the majority of samples; Hydrobiosidae and Aphrophila neozelandica (Diptera: Tipulidae) larvae were also frequently ingested, and diet varied between months Sddarealone (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Adding tribe to speciesbox

Acc to the article about the tribe Tadornini, Hymenolaimus is in that tribe. Anyone know how to make "Tadornini" appear in the speciesbox immediately above the genus? Nurg (talk) 01:23, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

PS. I thought this was the main Talk page, but I guess this comment is ok here?? Nurg (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nurg: I fixed the transclusion issue, now the talk page comments shouldn't go to GA review. As for the speciesbox issue, it seems to be automated so it can't be manually updated as I tried to include the subfamily of Blue duck, Tadorninae but to no avail. Sddarealone (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I figured it out. I edited Template:Taxonomy/Hymenolaimus, then added display_parent param to the speciesbox in the article. Nurg (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Good to know but the edit appears to have been reverted as the taxonomic classification of ducks seems to be unclear. I was reading more on here and found that the Blue duck sp. seems to be altering between perching (diving) and dabbling ducks (surface) as it uses both the methods to forage. This might create the confusion of the tribe to which they really belong to. Tagging @MPF for confirmation of the same. Sddarealone (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone @Nurg Thanks for the tag! Unfortunately, Livezey's paper, now 40 years old, is long out of date; his classification is not even remotely matched by modern genetic studies. See Buckner et al. 2018; available through the Wikipedia Library if you have access to that. I'll tackle the Tadornini page at some point, but it's a huge task rearranging everything there. I added the details of its current relationships at Blue duck#Taxonomy, 2nd paragraph. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks very much MPF and Sddarealone. I have added a tag re need for update to Tadornini and a comment & the Buckner ref to Talk:Tadornini. Nurg (talk) 03:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nurg thanks! I didn't know about that tag, very useful 👍 - MPF (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

References

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blue duck/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sddarealone (talk · contribs) 19:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi there!

• You would need to drastically expand the lead (so that it properly summarizes the article), then remove the maintainance template.

• The pinkish-white bill has fleshy flaps of skin hanging from the sides of its tip. The beak is green at hatching and develops its final colour eight hours later. – Does not have a source.

• According to the IUCN, the blue duck is endangered due to its highly fragmented and shrinking population, and it is listed as Nationally Endangered in the New Zealand Threat Classification System. – Where is the cited source saying that it is listed Nationally Endangered in the New Zealand Threat Classification System? Maybe I overlook it.

• The blue duck is affected by threats which include predators both natural and introduced e.g., weka (natural), stoats (introduced) etc., man-made actions, environmental and weather conditions – needs rewrite (for example, grammar is off, "e.g." and "etc." are mutually redundant). "Man-made actions" is too unspecific (introducing those predators is also a man-made action".

• Early recovery efforts by scientists, field workers and volunteers have been summarised in a project sponsored by Genesis Energy – Why is it relevant that this company sponsored a project that provided a summary of efforts? Tell us more about those early efforts, not who sponsored the summary of it.

• Did you know that in the IUCN source ), you get a lot more information by expanding the respective sections (e.g., click on "threats in detail")? That should help to further develop the article.

• Article seems to be missing some basic information. For example, color of tip of beak (and the beak could be better described), iris color, color of legs, shape and color of eggs, anything about the nest

• highlighting male-male competition's role in shaping blue duck social dynamics – this nonsense is a clear sign of AI writing. After reading this, I checked the article history and saw that you attempted to clean-up an AI-generated article, which is commendable. However, this shows that the clean-up was not throughout. No offense, but it is incredibly difficult to clean-up AI stuff; in fact, if I were you, I would simply have deleted it all, and write from scratch. No reviewer want's to read AI-generated articles, and hard-to-spot source-text integrity issues are to be expected. Sorry for that, but I have to quick-fail this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2026 (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.

Next steps

Perhaps an approach to cleaning this article is to roll it back to before the AI was injected and then work back in any updates that happened post if they are good? Scortched earth? Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I might agree with most of the points made in the previous review but I simply cannot agree with the last point for the subject being made here. In post breeding season, Blue duck males to defend it's territory clearly fights off intruders (who fight to take more territory) which are specifically male. This is because the female duck stays put nurturing its young. So the male-male competition point is actually correct (and not wrong just because its AI generated). I can provide few quotations below from the sources I had already cited. But first the sources,

Eldridge, J. L. (1986). Territoriality in a river specialist: the Blue Duck. Wildfowl, 37, 123–135.

Williams, M. (1991). Social and demographic characteristics of Blue Duck Hymenolaimus malacorhynchos.

The most intense type of confrontation resulted in violence (rank equals to 4) between territorial males and* intruders. An attack was often preceded by display (Head-low flight, Upright, Head-bobbing, and vocalisations) and intruder assumed an aggressive Upright stance. (See fight description in Case Histories and Fig. 1). *typo

Fig. 1 caption - Aggressive confrontations occasionally escalated into combat in the Blue territory. The male participants pummel each other with wings armed by bony spurs as the territorial female watches; Here, blue territory is the territory occupied by the duck pair marked as blue color. Two other pairs were also observed in the study and marked with green and red colors respectively.

Case study quote - The fights lasted two to four minutes and in all five fights, the Blue (pair marker) male appeared the loser; he tired and was driven deeper in the water and broke from the fight first. With each fight, the downriver male (intruder) claimed more territory but did not completely displace the Blue male. By the end of the study Blue female was still returning in the evenings to Blue male but she was spending most of the day with the downriver male. Note that the same behaviour is also observed in the other pairs.

One more point in interaction summary - All of the intruding adults appeared to be males and the territorial male was most active in the confrontation.

Post breeding - During the post-breeding period when broods were dispersing and pairs moulting, territorial defence appeared closely tied to the food resource both in space and time. and established territo­rial pairs were always at risk from challenges by non-resident birds or bereaved neighbour.

With a major review error I flagged, I don't think that scorched earth would be the right way to proceed especially when more cleanup (and for correct reasons) can be done. Thanks. Sddarealone (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove the AI Tag from this article without discussing it here first. Jens acknowledged you had done a clean up, but they also said the clean had missed AI content and the article needs to be reviewed in that light. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:21, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree but I want to know what remaining content anywhere in the article seems to be wrong on the grounds of being AI generated except for the debunked "male-male competition nonsense" point. As far as I know, only these three sections were tampered with AI namely foraging, territoriality and mating which were all cleaned up. If I'm missing anything else, kindly let me know. Sddarealone (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Hey, and sorry if I stepped on your toes here. Look again at the sentence Most aggressive confrontations (rank=4) involve territorial males defending their territories against foraging intruders, highlighting male-male competition's role in shaping blue duck social dynamics. The first part is about defending territories, the second about competition between males, which is not the same. The second part does not make any sense; what it is supposed to mean, what's the "information" here? It's AI crap, nothing more, and it is also not supported by any of the quotes you provide above. If such a sentence remains unchanged in the article, your clean-up clearly wasn't throughout. The use of AI to generate text is prohibited (WP:NOLLM), and that rule exist for a reason: subsequent cleanup that actually eliminates all erros often requires more work than writing the article from scratch.

I'm sure I could find you more examples, especially source-text integrity issues, but I don't want to invest my time reading and correcting AI stuff. I want to help actual human editors improving their own text. I hope you can understand that. For the next time, I would advice to use the "notes" field when nominating the article letting potential reviewers now that the article contains cleaned-up AI text. It also tells the reviewer that extra scrutiny in their source-text integrity checks are required, as AI makes unexpected errors that a human would never make, and such errors are incredibly hard to find if the reviewer isn't aware of the involvement of an AI. It is super important that reviewers know about any involvement of AI before they start reviewing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok, with that clarification I understood you were talking about the wording of the sentences which would need to be changed. The rewritten points something like "Male blue ducks in post-breeding season fend off other male intruder ducks to protect their territory" would be appropriate there. Also I will follow up your advice on using notes. I thought earlier it was only used for GAN pledges (QPQ) so I avoided it. I will work on the issues you raised above in future and do a re-nom. (Also don't worry. I accept your review was in AGF. It's all cool. :) Best regards, Sddarealone (talk) 08:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)