Talk:Pheasant

Untitled

Text of dispute

Please do not Americanise my spelling, particularly in an article about an Old World topic. 19:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have 20,028 edits, you have 3 according to your contributions, so I can see you're the expert on editing! This article was started using British English, and all pheasants are of Old World origin, with one, maybe two, introduced to North America.

I cannot see on what basis you can justify Americanising this article, and I suggest that before you have the arrogance to do so again you learn the conventions about editing Wikipedia. Can you imagine the response I would get if, say, I changed the Gray Catbird article to Grey Catbird (British English) on the basis that it has occurred in the UK? jimfbleak 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am going to ask, in view of your persistence in vandalising this article, either that the page is protected or that you are blocked from editing. I won’t take either step myself, since I am involved in this dispute. Incidentally, blanking your talk page doesn’t lose the edits, as you should know, jimfbleak 05:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I have reviewed many of the edits on the original article as well as this talk page, and I find no justification whatsoever for altering the article. It may have started by some well-meaning American who honestly felt that "characterised" was a misspelling of "characterized" (I admit I didn't look that far back). Regardless of how the war began, the article should be left in in the current dialect, Ye Olde Englishe (just teasing), and if the Americanizer (see, it's my native dialect too) continues to 'correct' the spelling of words that are already spelled correctly, it is my opinion he should be dealt with as a vandal by WikiAdmins. Let's hope this ends the problem. I will remove the request for a third opinion. Aumakua 19:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Useful Articles

<begin tongue-in-cheek-rant>

What the devil is the use of a page on pheasants, talking about their sexual dimorphisms and beautiful plumage, when there's nothing about how to cook the damn things? I mean, what's the point of being a pheasant if not for me to eat it? Here we have a perfectly good resource on Pheasants, with narry a word about roastin', or sauteein', or fricaseein', or stuffin', or orange sauce, or cream, or pheasant au vin, or pheasant en croute... What, I ask, is the point?

<end tongue-in-cheek-rant>

I'll tuck into a pheasant with relish - but the pseudo-rant refers only to one species, not the whole family jimfbleak 05:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a fair cop

uncited sentence moved to talk page

The following was removed from the article:

In many countries pheasant species are hunted, often illegally,{{Fact|date=October 2007}} as [[game (food)|game]], and several species are threatened by this and other human activities such as illegal logging and habitat loss.

This may or may not be true (it is certainly not true for at least some species), but it is extraordinary, and should be cited. Consequently, I moved it here to the talk page for others to find sources and/or disagree. TableManners (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Monals

How come the Monals/Lophophorus are not listed under the list of species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.219.53 (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actual usage in USA

AFAIK, in the USA, the term "Ring-necked pheasant" refers to Phasianus colchicus, and Phasianus colchicus is generally known as the Ring-necked pheasant.
E.g.:

• American Heritage Dictionary - http://bartleby.com/61/33/R0253300.html
• Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary - http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/ring-necked%20pheasant
• Natural Resources Conservation Service / United States Department of Agriculture (government) site - http://www.mt.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/ecs/biology/technotes/biotechnoteMT11.html
• U.S. Geological Survey (government) site - http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/id/framlst/i3091id.html
• Interagency Ecological Program (government) site - http://www.iep.ca.gov/suisun_eco_workgroup/workplan/report/wildlife/pheasant.html
  -- Our articles should reflect this standard usage. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a note on US usage, but bear in mind that Common Pheasant states that ' "Ring-necked Pheasant" is a collective name for a number of subspecies and their crossbreeds. ', which means they are inevitable just going to use P.colchicus unless they are referring to a specific subspecies. PJTraill (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to other Pheasant articles

What is the relationship between this article and Phasianidae? If this article should not be merged with Phasianidae, it should at least link to it and explain the difference in scope between the articles. It is also unclear to me if the Category:Phasianidae is appropriate. PJTraill (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Native to?

I hope the English version spat of ten years ago was resolved in favor of American shpelling. Just joking, I'm irrationally American on this subject, and W-pedia was founded in the US, but we have to be fair to that minority of English speakers across the Pond who insist on archaic misspellings. That said, this article says NOTHING about the geographic origins of the various pheasant species. Whilst this is forgivable, it is an enormous oversight. Tapered (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I liked these jokes too: minority of English speakers across the Pond— pretending "dumb American" feigned ignorance of the fact that the large majority of English-speakers live outside North America in dozens of countries across Africa, Asia the Caribbean and Australasia, rather than just the UK and Ireland, and all use BE spelling. Also, many US spellings and usages are more archaic than the BE versions, such as "gotten", which I'm sure you realise. I must admit I've not seen "shpelling" before though, so we obviously still have something to learn from our magnanimous US cousins.

The distribution of the various pheasant species is covered in their own articles, necessary clutter here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Pheasant as game

I think that an interesting addition to this article could discuss the history of pheasants as a game bird. Pheasants are a commonly hunted game animal and even stocked in regions of North America. An inclusion of the game history of pheasants would be an interesting addition.

Alecthefruitbat (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Alecthefruitbat, see Common pheasant Jimfbleak (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Jimfbleak Thank you!

--Alecthefruitbat (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Phasianinae

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.

To not merge due to differences in scope. Klbrain (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Both of these are pretty much the same page with little differences --Cs california (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose the merger of this article into Phasianinae because the two articles do not have the same scope. This article is about pheasants, but not about tragopans, junglefowl, peafowl and other similar birds that are members of Phasianinae. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose it makes no sense to merge these two articles.Catfurball (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Phasianinae concerns all phasianid genera in that subfamily, which includes birds not traditionally thought of as pheasants, i.e., peafowl and junglefowl, wherease "Pheasants" only concerns those genera that are traditionally thought of as "pheasants."--Mr Fink (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I thought peafowl, junglefowl, and tragopans are pheasants? Who said they aren't?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Taxonomically yes, but, colloquially no, not at all. I mean, try getting people to take you or your cuisine seriously when you insist that your chicken is pheasant.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2020 (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.

...

Why is there no link to the German article?

See here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasan 2A02:908:2813:F180:1445:F70A:B2BE:4B74 (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 2A02:908:2813:F180:F0A9:CF19:367D:593D (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)