Talk:Peregrine falcon

Merge from Shaheen Falcon

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as no consensus to merge. Safiel (talk) 05:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

---

Extended content

The benefit of splitting one subspecies as a separate article is negligible. Apart from the description the only way in which it differs is in a bigger cultural element, which could be easily included in the main species article. Shyamal (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC) Support There doesn't seem to be a case for it being a potential different species, so merge per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC) Very weak oppose It's already got the longest description of a subspecies in Peregrin Falcon, and merging new info from when this proposal was made would probably double that length. I also just added a bit more, not to complicate the issue, but just as I stumbled across information trying to verify some of the basic facts in the subspecies article. (It has some verifiability issues). It could also stand to have some info added on the different types of the subspecies, which are geographically separated and morphologically distinct; 19th century drawings of at least two types exist in Commmons. While it wouldn't affect my opinion on splitting or merging, older sources I read (2002-2007) suggested the taxonomy was still controversial. Agyle (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC) The trouble is that there are several subspecies of F. peregrinus and in terms of article structure it is unwarranted to fork just one subspecies peregrinator. While Wikipedia has a rule on automatic notability for species, there is no such provision for subspecies. A lot of the description here could well apply to other subspecies. This fork is actually quite unreliable. That claim that peregrinator is migratory is only supported by that Forktail paper which is an unreliable source that contradicts all the reliable sources of regional avifauna (see for instance Ali & Ripley's Handbook) and it seems more like an oversight. The only real classification debate is whether pelegrinoides should be separated or not and it would seem like there is little doubt that they all form a tight species complex that makes it problematic only if the falconry classification is considered. This article is actually a lot like the Pukeko fork from the Purple Swamphen except that that attempts to be distinct as something dealing purely with cultural association. Forks like these tend to gather nationalistic trash, in fact the reason I saw this was because of an Indian newspaper which carried a picture captioned "national heritage bird of Pakistan" - just one bit of misinformation that would never have been allowed if it had been inserted into Peregrine Falcon... and now proliferating on the web. Shyamal (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC) I think what warrants the split is that the amount of coverage in Shaheen Falcon would seem disproportionately long in Peregrine Falcon. If you think Shaheen Falcon fails to meet notability standards for an article, that's another question; I think it meets WP:GNG. These are just subjective opinions though. Regarding misinformation lasting longer in Shaheen Falcon than it might in Peregrine Falcon due to fewer followers, I wouldn't consider that in a split or merge decision. I'll reply to discussion of Shaheen Falcon content on its Talk page. Agyle (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I did not notice that it was your addition. The section on peregrinator in Peregrine Falcon correctly notes it as resident. In general the temperate zone populations are migratory. Most of the length of the Shaheen article would go away either because it is uncited or because it is common information that works across subspecies and probably already mentioned. Shyamal (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2014 (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.

389 km/h !!!!!

I don't understand why are here accepted jokes such a '389km/h' launched in tv programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.198.15 (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a joke, it's according to the cited source. 242 mph = 389 km/h (largely due to free fall acceleration, I think). Brandmeister^talk 14:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If it is no scientific, it is a fraudulent JOKE, of course very welcome in TV programs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.119.216 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It is scientific, not fraudulent, not a joke. It's been measured. So don't troll. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peregrine falcon. 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/20110614100455/http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/nestcamSF.htm to http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/nestcamSF.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150502230041/http://upp.hawkandowl.org/norwich-peregrines/norwich-cathedral-peregrine-live-web-cam-2015/ to http://upp.hawkandowl.org/norwich-peregrines/norwich-cathedral-peregrine-live-web-cam-2015/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 15:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peregrine falcon. 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/20110808213721/http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/captive_breeding.htm to http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/captive_breeding.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peregrine falcon. 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/20160623011828/http://www.ttbook.org/book/werner-herzogs-required-reading-peregrine to http://www.ttbook.org/book/werner-herzogs-required-reading-peregrine
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706164645/http://www.arcticraptors.ca/ to http://www.arcticraptors.ca/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 03:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peregrine falcon. 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/20170908020348/http://kabotarnews.com/peregrine-falcon/ to http://kabotarnews.com/peregrine-falcon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:14, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible resource

Just became aware of this paper Intraspecific evolutionary relationships among peregrine falcons in western North American high latitudes that may be of some use here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Prairie-Peregrine-Hierofalcon

The Prairie falcon can be(?) closer to the Peregrine than to the Hierofalcons, but the Peregrine is closer to the Hierofalcons than to the Prairie falcon (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331118392_Phylogeny_of_Falconidae_and_phylogeography_of_Peregrine_Falcons and https://sciendo.com/downloadpdf/journals/orhu/26/2/article-p27.xml).83.132.96.185 (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wrong image

The first image is NOT of a peregrine falcon.

Fastest visual processing claim was wrong

The introduction previously said "According to one study, it has the fastest visual processing speed of any animal tested so far, and can register discrete changes up to 129 Hz", citing a News Nation article. However, their source is this study, which doesn't say that at all. They only measured 3 species of falcons, and found the peregrine falcon to have the fastest flicker fusion frequency of those three species. They then compared those numbers to others in the ornithology literature, where several smaller birds had even faster vision (see figure 3 for example), including 138.2 Hz for the pied flycatcher. They note that generally smaller animals and animals with higher metabolic rate have faster vision. According to Vogel 1956, houseflies have a flicker fusion frequency around 270 Hz, much higher than the peregrine falcon. I have therefore removed this claim and reworded the section. Amaurea (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 2007 ID Proof Rev.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible additional information about eggs?

Watching the Berkeley peregrines with fascination, but I wanted to know two facts. What are the typical period of laying of eggs (time from 1st to last) , and what is the typical period of hatching (time from 1st to last). Hopefully someone can access that information or point me to it. I'll be happy to add it to the article. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 17:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Spoken article

I've decided to record a spoken article of this page. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 19:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

240, not 200.

The information on the peregrine falcon says that they can stoop at 200 miles per hour. I learned the fastest speed recorded was 242. Can you please change it? EAGLITIZED (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:SOURCE? Mr Fink (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

The article already mentions that 242 mph recording, both in the main text and the lede. The general estimate of over 200mph is stated and then recording of the higher value is mentioned in both places, with references. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)