Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a24d12fb9c4aa140

Jump to content

Talk:Bufflehead

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Needsmoreritalin in topic Main image

Removed info

[edit]

I've removed the following sentence, which has been awaiting a source since Feb. '07. The only source I can find on the web is a hunting website that lists no references.

About 70,000+ Buffleheads are killed yearly by duck hunters [citation needed], but this only comprises about 1% to 2% of waterfowl-hunting in North America and is strongly regulated.

If someone can find a reliable source, it can be added back in. MeegsC | Talk 18:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Distribution and habitat

[edit]

I think that some grammar changes should be made to this section

Valserian (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Human Consumption

[edit]

A section should be added relating to human consumption of this animal.

Valserian (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bufflehead. 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:

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) 07:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Main image

[edit]

The main image of the hen bufflehead is a solid image that is 17 years old, and was rated a Featured Picture and even a Picture of the Day. But technology has changed giving modern cameras better resolving power and I have a similar image that is significantly larger and more detailed and was just rated a Quality Image. Would this image improve the article?

Hen Bufflehead - 4,249 × 2,833 pixels

Needsmoreritalin (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I reverted your infobox image because I think the old photo does a better job as a thumbnail encyclopedia image than yours. To be clear, you took a fantastic shot of a buffle which is very difficult due to their coloration. This is not a competition of who has more pixels. As long as the resolution does not impede the informational value of the image, it is not an improvement to add an image just because it is a larger file. We are making thumbnails not billboards. I think that between these two images, the other image is much more useful for learning about buffleheads and what they look like. I think that some of your photos would be improved (as encyclopedia photos, not artistically) if they were cropped to have the image fill the field.

Polinova (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I undid your revision. The QI image has ben cropped to address your concern. Then it will be larger as a thumbnail. It is a naturally sharp image, the replacement is over sharpened and shows some artifacts. Its slightly overexposed too. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, it does look a lot better cropped. Nice work. Polinova (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Thanks!
If you are ever on the East Coast, let me know. I can tell you some great spots that I think you would enjoy. Needsmoreritalin (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply