White stork is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles
This article uses shortened footnotes to avoid duplication of information for unique though largely identical footnotes. In cases where footnotes refer to the same source but different pages, the full citation is placed in the Works cited section and a short footnote with page number is used next to the passage to be footnoted.
Further information
Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, please continue to maintain the same style of use when adding citations using the {{sfn}}, {{harvnb}} and <ref> syntax. Footnotes will be altered to fit this article's style if they do not conform to the following rule: If a source has multiple footnotes to different pages or footnotes to the same source are unique in other ways such as due to quotations or annotations specific to a particular footnote, then the full citation for the source is to be included in the Works cited section, and use Template:sfn or similar template to make the footnote to the particular page, or indicate the quotation, annotation or other unique information particular to the footnote. See the article for usage examples. If you have any problems, please ask on the talk page and someone will be happy to help you. Thank you.
Thank you Brian, it's always better to have photos, jimfbleak 07:45 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The page could really use some references. Especially the claim "Approximately 13,000 White Stork pairs bred in Lithuania, the fifth largest population and highest known density of this species in the world." needs a verifiable source. DLX 21:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The data of number of breeding storks in The Netherlands is outdated, according to the Dutch Centre of Field Ornithology (www.sovon.nl) there are roughly 350 breeding pairs. 145.97.215.13 (talk)
Can you find an appropriate reference? Only one I could find quickly was 273 breeding pairs in 1998 . If you have appropriate source, please update article and add link to the source as well. DLX 18:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I can't give a reference but having just seen more storks in a single field than wikipedia says are in the whole of nl, I can certainly say that the cirrenb figure is wrong and needs removing if noone can improve on it.--94.157.243.176 (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I think it says something about the quality of this page that the data has not been updated in 15 years.(2A02:A440:948D:1:C1C8:9D22:E0CC:C32A (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC))
Well 2A02:A440:948D:1:C1C8:9D22:E0CC:C32A, you can complain about it, or you can provide a reference and update it! I suppose it's easier to just complain. MeegsC (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Neusiedlersee (New Settlers Lake) in Burgenland, Austria has a sizable white stork community. In fact many of the cities surrounding this lake RELY on the nesting storks for tourism. It would be nice to see Austria included as one of the european countries that 'hosts' the migrating and nesting storks. Sadly I am just a visitor to the region at the moment, so I cannot provide numbers or cites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belindalibrarian (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
-- Kim van der Lindeat venus 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Very high visibility bird (responsible for bringing babies in much of Europe!), with considerable published research and article in rather poor shape. Shyamal (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
And I want to add, the baby-stork story has more truth to it then people think, not that they bring babies, but that storks are generally more common in areas that also carry larger families. This is because of a correlation between the fertility of the ground that makes both higher stock populations and bigger families possible. -- Kim van der Lindeat venus 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
File:Ciconia_ciconia_(aka).jpg
Should we replace the current taxobox pic (which is an immature bird, as the dusky tip on the bill and duller legs indicate) with a picture of an adult? Or is that not important? There's a pretty good pic of an adult (see right), but it's a captive bird with the requisite band. MeegsC | Talk 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The new infobox image is a clear image of a zoo bird. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
In the infobox, why is 'migration routes' larger than the other items in the legend? —focus 17:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Don't know, not sure how to fix either colour
I've checked the licensing of all the images and tweaked the captions where necessary
I've had a couple of runs through the refs, added one for arrow-stork, but taken two dead links out and replaced with cite tags. I've tidied up the refs to be of consistent style (no full stop after initials, abstracts linked only from doi/pmid, one subscription only tag added etc) The journals aren't all spelt out in full
Not sure that the Ukrainian and Polish refs in last section bear close scrutiny
Hi,
Found some refs but too busy to do anything with them anytime soon. Perhaps someone would like to trawl them for linking the White Stork back to Pythagoras etc.
It seems that past versions of this article had referenced facts which can be retrieved as also the past and present versions of Mythology in Stork. AshLin (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And a couple of images that need more background for inclusion. Shyamal (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Pygmies fighting storks (?)
Storks taking care of their parents
(Needs license check)
The Hans Christian Anderson illustration can be included, since it can go on the English Wikipedia, though not on Commons; I've nominated it for deletion on Commons. —innotata 00:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Might the one on the left refer to cranes? (I remember reading in a book on bird names about battles between cranes and pygmies recurring in ancient literature.) —innotata 00:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
That's book 3 of the Iliad. One translation is at s:The Iliad (Murray)/Book III. You're right, though; it's cranes, not storks. Ucucha 20:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I'd say yes. That's what most non-birding Americans are referring to when they say "buzzard". Just wondering if that would be considered "OR" by the OR police. It might be worth a footnote, with a reference. MeegsC | Talk 14:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't see fixing a disamb as OR, but I take your point. Added ref for name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Apart from the lead, which I assume will come last, I think the content is now pretty comprehensive. Is anything missing? We don't have any predators, but I suspect a bird this big has few natural enemies, nice if we could get a source that says that.
I think I have a source for that. I can still think of a few things we could add:
Territoriality? Site fidelity, etc. (apparently, this is more important than mate)
Social behaviours, including courtship.
The cultural section is completely Euro-centric. Is there nothing from India or Africa?
Probably incomplete as per European culture is concerned too. AshLin (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Although we don't want this section to get too unwieldy, or might need to hive off as separate article. Islam is not primarily a European religion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I guess also trying to enusre general stork material goes to that page, and just keep cultural material specific to the species here. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Ditto for the population and conservation section.
We should put a hidden message in the "External links" section, telling people NOT to add nestcams to the article. MeegsC | Talk 18:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC) Done
I think the map legend looks strange, with the long red line. Is there any way to make it the same length as the color boxes? —focus 20:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
It can be included in the map if need be, but I think in recent times the de facto norm has been to have external legends, one option is to skip the red line and caption the map appropriately. Shyamal (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying we should have the legend in the image, just that the red line is a bit long and it looks somewhat strange. —focus 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
After muddling with the legend template I think the problem is that the line is made to appear at mid height by altering the font size and that means that alignment is not scale free. The only way seems to be to us a table to align the legend and text blocks but I have posted a fix request for the legend alignment.
Breeding range
Winter range
–––
Migration routes
There are long term population charts for some sites and it may be nice to have one to illustrate population changes and the country estimates would perhaps be nicer in a table. Shyamal (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a go at making the population data into a table when I get time. —focus 02:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, a table with the populations and population trends for each country would be pretty long. Perhaps there's a better way. Is the population for every country necessary to include in the prose? —focus 14:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
would agree with a trim, perhaps to totals of the western and eastern population from the most recent "International White Stork census". Is the Alsace-Lorraine decline particularly important? Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
No more than any other decline. It looks like someone added the information after reading a newspaper article. MeegsC | Talk 13:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure where to put the art pictures showing storks, especially as one is very tall. I have put them in a gallery at the bottom of the page for the moment temporally, and put relevant photographs with the text. Comments welcome on any of the illustrations. The tall picture could be sized with an image width of about 100 to 120 px, which is smaller than for a normal shaped image, and put in the text. Snowman (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I think that the images should be removed altogether, or somehow incorporated into the article. I like the idea of making the tall painting smaller. Care to try it? —focus 03:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Birds of the Western Palearctic says that the storks are "highly gregarious" in their wintering quarters (as well as on migration and at concentrations of food), congregating in flocks of "hundreds or even thousands". Most of Europe's White Storks overwinter in savanna from Kenya and Uganda south to the Cape Province of South Africa.
I have placed the image on the page, but I have not got the image placement right yet and the caption could be better. The text needs a bit more detail about the flocking behaviour in the article. Do they gather to feed or roost or both? Presumably they are wading in the water shown in the image looking for food? Are these water pools/lakes a source of food? and if so what food is found there? Snowman (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the feeding section, frogs are a major food item Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, the photographer disturbed the flock, because all of them look like they are walking away from the camera, and it does do not look like they are looking for food. Snowman (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I've tidied migration. The original text gave the impression that one reason storks crossed at the Bosphorus and Gibraltar was to avoid the desert. In fact, soaring birds cross there to minimise the distance over the thermal-free Med. Many non-soaring birds cross the Med and Sahara on a broad front, and if the map is correct, North African storks also cross the desert Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Migrating birds are also seen on Cyprus, in the middle of the Mediterranean. It is a rare breeding bird there. From book; "Breeding Birds of Cyprus". There is not much detail in my book, and other books could be a better reference, if it is important. Snowman (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Some birds go astray, like those turning up in the UK, and especially the Madeira vagrant, so it's not surprising that some migrants turn up on Med islands, and even stay to breed. I don't think you need much detail, since it's pretty minor compared to the huge numbers through the Bosphorus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
A distribution section should probably be included, most of the information in the conservation status can be difficult to understand without historic distribution information. Have added a record of breeding from Scotland 1416 but this needs to move into a more comprehensive distribution section. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
asiatica seems to have a deficit - would someone with access to - Ming Ma and Cai Dai. 2002. The fate of the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia asiatica) in Xinjiang, China. Abstract Volume. 23rd International Ornithological Congress, Beijing, August 11-17,2002, p.352 - add more? Shyamal (talk) 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The month's almost over, so I'm wondering what else needs to be done on this article. Perhaps it should be taken to GA nominations? —focus 23:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
This species will have loads of material - I guess the first thing to think of is there anything else a layperson might want to know about it which is currently missing? (i.e. comprehensiveness) Once done, then checking refs and copyedit and nominate at GAN. Anyone is welcome to jot their opinions below: Casliber (talk·contribs) 11:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty good, not far off GA, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Who is going to take it to GAN? Main editors are MeegsC (90), Jimfbleak (83), Snowmanradio (57), Shyamal (52), Focus (35), Casliber (16). Meegs is the obvious nominator, I can't do it anyway because of forthcomming RL commitments that will lead to an extended wikibreak Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that the article seems not far off GA, but there may be omissions and MoS issues. I have been mainly concentrating on some MoS formatting, illustrations, and captions. I have not got the necessary books or easy library access to take it to GAN. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
It is easy to make it a multiple-nominator GA of the top four or five contributors as it is a collaboration. Can anyone see some obvious bits missing? Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Can it be nominated by unspecified collaborators and mention "WP Birds collaboration of the month" instead of users names? Snowman (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why we wouldn't be able to do that, but it will be listed on WP:GAN as the user who added the template to the talk page, since it's updated by a bot.—focus 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Look it doesn't matter as we can easily fiddle around to add some nominators. The problem with labelling the nominator "WP Birds collaboration of the month" is it is unclear to a reviewer (I guess) who is going to respond to issues raised. It's no big deal though. Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree, one nom, MeegsC if willing, if not I'd suggest Cas — although a relatively minor contributor to this article, he has bags of experience at GAN and FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy to take it to GAN, but I too may be unreachable for a while in Jan-Feb. I've got 4 weeks of field work coming up, and will be in areas with unreliable internet access. Will there be others who can help if I'm not responding? MeegsC | Talk 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Great - what I was suggesting is that a few editors are listed (actually it doesn't matter really as no-one is keeping tabs) - I'll be around to help out with issues addressed, and some other editors will chip in too I guess. Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
update - I added us all - I am sure any/all of us will try to fix problems - we're all active and chipping in. Casliber (talk·contribs) 09:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
In the behavior section, where it lists Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine as making up the Levant, Palestine currently links to here, which mainly describes to the historical usage of the word 'Palestine'. This definition includes Israel, and much of Syria and Lebanon, so those countries could technically be removed from the list. Otherwise, Palestine should link to Palestinian territories or State of Palestine. I wanted to check in here before changing it, because this could be inaccurate or potentially controversial. —focus 15:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Added a note from HBW Shyamal (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Taxonomy and etymology
"The White Stork was one of the many species originally described by Linnaeus in his 18th century work, Systema Naturae, where it was given the binomial name of Ardea ciconia." - shouldn't this be when (i.e., 18th century) it was given the binomial name?Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking here. It was given its binomial name by Linnaeus in that work. Are you asking for the specific year to be mentioned in the sentence? MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC...Actually that sentence is fine. Where refers to his work - when I first read it I was looking at 18th century and thinking that it should say when. This is my first review - so bear with me. I'll try to be more careful as I move along.Thompsma (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely no problem! Just want to be sure we understand where things are unclear, so we can improve them. I think I'm safe in saying we're very happy for the review, trust me! :) MeegsC | Talk 04:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The preceding sentence cites Linnaeus' (1758) original work, but I doubt that is where the information for that sentence actually came from. Is there a more appropriate citation that describes this part of the history?Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) - I changed the position of the citation, so this is fixed.Thompsma (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure it is! Are you asking for a more recent reference saying that's where it came from? MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm probably quibbling over too insignificant of a point here, but the footnote should go right after Systema Naturae:
Some information on the evolution of this species could be included as well - perhaps here: or . Taxonomy and evolution is a more common sub-heading that I have seen - etymology usually goes with taxonomy.Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Good idea! MeegsC | Talk 00:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Though on second thought, I'm wondering if this might be more appropriate at the stork article; there is nothing in either of the articles you listed that is specific to this species, only to the family as a whole. MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think a sentence or two could be added that would tell the reader something that is evolutionary unique about this species.Thompsma (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but that might be tough to find. The two articles you linked to talk about storks in general rather than the White Stork. We'll have a look to see if more specific information is available... MeegsC | Talk 04:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi MeegsC, we only need two or three sentences explaining its closest relatives and based on the information in here (Ericson et al., 2006) we can say that storks are evolutionarily related to pelicans, the shoebill, the hamerkop, herons, ibises, penguins, and loons, which is designated as an aquatic/semi-aquatic group. This aquatic group branched off from the terrestrial and arboreal groups in the Paleocene. In the Tree of Life (TOL) web project (http://tolweb.org/%27Water_Birds%27/123207) you can see some of the birds listed from the "aquatic/semi-aquatic group" from (Ericson et al., 2006) are named "water birds" in the TOL, just different naming conventions. The storks, Ciconiiformes branched off from their sister group, the Pelecaniformes some time after the Paleocene, but Watanabe et al. (2006) found evidence of close affiliation with penguins (Sphenisciformes); the Watanabe et al. (2006) study, however, did not include representatives from Pelecaniformes so the TOL is more reliable in this regard. The closest living relative of Ciconia ciconia is the Oriental Stork C. boyciana and the TOL provides the following citations:
Boles, W. E. 2005. A review of the Australian fossil storks of the genus Ciconia (Aves: Ciconiidae), with the description of a new species. Records of the Australian Museum 57(2):165-178.
Slikas, B. 1997. Phylogeny of the avian family Ciconiidae (storks) based on cytochrome b sequences and DNA-DNA hybridization distances. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 8: 275-300.
The Boles (2005) paper is available online (linked above) and it contains a treasure trove of information that is specific to Ciconia ciconia. This paper says that Ciconia ciconia fossils are possibly found in Miocene deposits of Kenya. Hope this helps!!Thompsma (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I took a closer read of the fossil article and note that the Kenyan fossil that is similar to C. ciconia - but they did not say it was this species: "Although the two living species of Ciconia that fall within the size range of our material, the White Stork (Ciconia ciconia) and the Black Stork (C. nigra), are strikingly different in their external appearance they are very similar osteologically. Hence, with the exception of some characteristic elements (see above), separation of the two on morphological grounds is often impossible." However, the paper gives the following reference regarding C. ciconia: "Further material indistinguishable from the extant White Stork, Ciconia ciconia, is also known from the Middle Miocene of Maboko Island (Andrews et al., 1981)."Thompsma (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
This is good. I can get got fulltext of Slikas, which looks like it contradicts our existing 1984 ref on closest relative. Will read tonight hopefully done and added. Now for Added other fossil studyCasliber (talk·contribs) 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
NB: I think the scope and scale of the article is such that discussing pelicans and hammerkops etc. is at a much higher level (stork family etc.)Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
@Casliber...yes, the scope and scale should be kept in focus - I added the extra information about evolution in here for context so that editors could pick, choose, and distill the appropriate information. The section now reads quite well - thanks!!Thompsma (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
The etymology links to the Meriam-Webster online dictionary, which I suppose will suffice. I wonder if there is a better citation - perhaps ??Thompsma (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC) - Looks like Casliber put in a more appropriate citation.Thompsma (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have the longer OED...as soon as I can find some batteries for the magnifying glass...updated Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
"The stork family contains six genera in three major groups: ...": what is "major groups". Is this sub-family, tribe, or what? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure it has an official rank as such. I changed "major" to "broad" and will hunt to see if they are labelled tribe or subfamilies. I don't have Handbook of the Birds of the World which is where it comes from. I will recover Slikas 1997 thoughCasliber (talk·contribs) 13:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
"It was moved to the new genus Ciconia ..."; why was there a need to move the genus? Snowman (talk) 10:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Because if you look at the Aves in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae, you'll see that Linnaeus lumped all sorts of herons, cranes and storks together in a genus Ardea. The genus Ciconia was erected by Mathurin Jacques Brisson, and I think it was Ornithologia sive Synopsis methodica sistens avium divisionem in ordines, sectiones, genera, species, ipsarumque varietates. There is a free download for looking if anyone is good at french to check. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
If this was new genus, then was is a split rather than a move? Snowman (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, reclassified - the species is what's being moved, so it is not being split. Changed to "reclassified" as it is the exact (although longer) word.Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
If there was not a split, then were other storks reclassified with it to keep a group of storks together? Snowman (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes - I think origianlly only the white and black storks were known to Linnaeus, hence Brisson moved them together to a new genus (he did a few rearrangements and created new genera).Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Should the old name "Ardea ciconia" be listed as a synonym in the infobox?Snowman (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a pretty antiquated one..maybe. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Is that a yes or a no?Snowman (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The 7th Basic Ornithology Course, Pune run by Ela Foundation and Abasaheb Garware College of Arts and Sciences has committed to improving bird articles on occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of Wikipedia. This is an experimental venture on behalf of the course. For more details about the project see this page. The edits of the Wikipedia article on White Stork by User:AshLin on 7th January from 17:53 to 18:26 have been carried out in conjunction with the Ornithology Course .
For any observations as regards the editing of White Stork by the course, please post on this page. Other queries may be put forth here.
I have examined the Pande et al. reference and it does not identify the subspecies. Ali & Ripley -Handbook 2nd Ed and Rasmussen both indicate that both asiatica and nominate populations are involved with the former probably being more prominent in the past. Only two German ring recoveries are mentioned in the Handbook while Whitehead notes that he saw large flocks of up to 200 birds flying north through the Kurram Valley - which are unlikely to have been anything other than asiatica. Have made the changes accordingly. Shyamal (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is this bird in WikiProject Egypt? According to the map the stork doesn't even have a population there. Plus, this means that every other country WikiProject in that area should be here. Focus (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
It was added by a bot in 2009. No idea what it based that on, since other species that occur in the country don't show the project banner. You could check with someone from the project, I suppose... MeegsC | Talk 17:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that it is because the stork was a hieroglyph in ancient Egypt and was important to the ancient Egyptians. Perhaps this should be included in the article. I think it was written in the article. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that's there in the Cultural associations section. Focus (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
But is it important enough? Many cultures have associations with animals, but they are rarely important. I added to that section on storks in Slavic mythology, but despite the brief mentions of various Slavic countries I'd not add this article to those wikiprojects. I'd support removing Egypt WikiProject from that page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I attended a lecture on Ethno-ornithology by Dr Suruchi Pande yesterday and a passing reference in the overview to the perergrine falcon and stork in Pharoanic culture were mentioned. Its obvious that storks extended to Egypt in antiquity and it formed part of their cultural symbolism. Anyway, if you want to remove a WikiProject Banner, I would recommend that you discuss it on their talk page for concurrence, as they may not realise that the banner deletion is taking place. AshLin (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The Sibley Guide to Bird Life and Behaviour. London: Christopher Helm. p.575. ISBN0713662506. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)
Animal tool use: current definitions and an updated comprehensive catalog Authors: Bentley-Condit, Vicki K.1; Smith, E.O.2 Source: Behaviour, Volume 147, Number 2, 2010 , pp. 185-32A(-152)
In the review pages I suggested that this article needs to be re-organized with the sub-headings to be more in tune with other animal articles that are featured on wikipedia. The following organization was proposed and generally accepted:
* 1 Description
2 Taxonomy and evolution
3 Ecology
3.1 Distribution
3.1.1 Habitat
3.1.2 Migration
3.2 Behaviour
3.3 Feeding
3.4 Breeding
3.5 Parasitology
4 Conservation Status
Is someone willing to take the lead on this? If not, I can do it - but it would be nice, as the reviewer, if I maintain arms length from making any significant contributions to the article that this would entail.Thompsma (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
The article is already mostly in that structure, and anything further may be too much too soon. The Ecology section is not used like that on WP:Birds, and I am not keen on the level four headings on the listing above. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles and see level three heading on "Article sections". Snowman (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ooops...I copied the wrong list!!
1. Taxonomy and evolution
2. Description
3. Distribution and habitat
3.1 Migration
4. Behaviour and ecology
4.1 Breeding
4.2 Food and feeding
4.3 Parasites and predators
5. Conservation
6. Cultural associationsThompsma (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What a mess that accidental wrong listing seems to be. The discussion above on sub-heading has been superseded by discussion in GA1. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes...sorry for the mistake. I wasn't sure if I should post this in both locations, because it is also of a more general nature to the structure and arrangement of the article.Thompsma (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I was musing on this - unfortunately there is no clear front-runner as far as choice. I was thinking of an adult stork facing to the left (into the article) and showing the plumage clearly. I guess my preference is for the first one slightly over the third one, but not by much. It'd be good to find a better one. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
this one is good in that one can see all the plumage, and there is a nest in the background as a bonus, but the feathers are ruffled which makes it look a little untidy I guess
this one was being used. You can't see the distinctive wing plumage in this one unfortunately
this one is promising, but is taken in a zoo, which is not ideal
this one is also in a zoo, and quality is not great
I slightly prefer the third over the first. The third one has a less "busy" background - while I agree that the nest is a nice aesthetic touch, in this case it distracts the eye from the bird itself. Being taken in a zoo is perhaps a slight detriment, but I feel it's evened out by the fact that the first photo has a leg-tag on the bird - so neither one is exactly entirely "natural". As far as the second and fourth are concerned, the second suffers from being a head-on shot (images taken in profile or three-quarters are much better for identification when non-human animals are concerned) along with having a tag just like #1, negating whatever "in the wild" authenticity it may otherwise possess. The fourth is slightly out of focus, with somewhat distracting lighting (it has the "5PM on a summer evening and everything's turning yellow" look to it, along with the pretty but distracting dots of sun coming through what I assume to be gaps in the trees above) - there's really nothing offered in #4 that #3 doesn't do as good or better. #3 and #1 are top, with a sizable dropoff between those and #4, with #2 unfortunately last in my book. Badger Drink (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Number 3, I think. As Snowman pointed out (weeks ago, when it was in the article), number 1's wings may have been clipped, as the flight feathers don't appear to be full length. The presence of the nest isn't really a "bonus", since we have multiple nice shots of the nest. I agree with Badger Drink about numbers 2 and 4. And I agree with Casliber that it would be great to get a good shot taken in the wild! MeegsC | Talk 14:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the first is a little over-exposed, and while the composition is good (and the nest is a nice touch) the ruffled feathers aren't ideal. I think my preference is very slightly for the third, with the first second. The other two aren't really there as has already been said. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be a definite preference for #3, so I've stuck that in. That image could do with a bit of a crop. Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I think that image 3 does not need cropping. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
It's borderline, but I could understand doing a bit of cropping - nothing too tight, but reducing some of the dead space on the left/right would devote maximum space to the bird when thumbnailed, and the distance between the top of the bird and top of the frame is about twice that as the bottom of the bird and the bottom of the frame. I'll give it a shot storkly- er, shortly. Badger Drink (talk) 22:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Cropped vs. Uncropped
original image
quick and dirty crop-job
As promised/threatened... notice how much more detail comes through in thumbnails, thanks to the cropping. I think a bit more can be shaved off the bottom (or a bit more left on at the top), but it'll have to wait for now. Badger Drink (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I think the cropping is a definite net positive, especially for a taxobox image. I thought the stork got a little lost in the uncropped version. Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed the qualifier "wading" from the lead because it is misleading. The storks do not wade much and the term "wading bird" on Wikipedia redirects to Wader, which the stork is not. Maias (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
A comment on the lead - there is a large section on "threats", almost the entire third paragraph on the lead. It seems unbalanced, the species overall is not threatened, but this is not mentioned! Yes the species has some regional declines and suffers some human mortality, but it is not "threatened".
I have tried rejigging it, as I agree it looked like was threatened from how it was written..Casliber (talk·contribs) 05:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Younger birds - wouldn't this be better merged with the overall description (which isn't long) and the bit about age moved to breeding? Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 02:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I added material on breeding age and lifespan to the breeding section and renamed it "breeding and lifespan" - not ideal but seems to be the best place for it. Finding a good place for one or two sentences on longevity is always a problem I find...Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Biologically speaking lifespan and breeding are treated as related as they are both aspects of life-history. I'm not sure the section needed renaming though. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 04:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
There is some redundancy about historical declines in Europe, which seems to be mentioned in the lead and under both distribution and conservation.
I agree it'd be nice to streamline here. Material in the lead by definition appears elsewhere in more detail in the article. This leaves us with trying to streamline the distribution and conservation sections. Looking at it, I am feeling a little uncertain how to proceed with this - I am tentatively thinking that paragraph 2 in the conservation section could be moved to the first paragraph of the distribution section - this might allow for a little streamlining. Is this what you had in mind?Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Having had another look at it I think it is probably unnecessary to change anything there. Some minor, unobtrusive, redundancy may not be a bad thing as an article grows in size and takes longer to read. I do know what you mean about para 2 in Conservation - it is about demographics rather than strictly conservation - but it could go in either place. Two possibilities - switch the second and third paras in Conservation, and change the header to "Conservation and population" (or similar), or (as you posit) move the second to "Distribution". Then what... put a level 2 header in the expanded "Distribution" for "Habitat"? Or maybe just leave all as is; tweaking in one place can have seismic effects elsewhere. Maias (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the Migration section could be upgraded to a first-level header - I know it is related to distribution but there are some quite distinct issues involved. Maias (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I can see the reasoning in that, although I do like articles to have a mix of level 1 and 2 headers. I'll bow to consensus to that as that is a pretty quick and easy fix.Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Part of the reason for my suggestion was that it would also upgrade the level 3 headers (under Migration) to level 2, rather than leaving them as the only level 3 headers in the article. However, I do not think it makes a huge amount of difference either way. Maias (talk) 05:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Casliber asked me to drop by. The refs needs some tidying up. I've gone through the first column only, but suspect there will be similar issues with the second column that could be pre-emptively cleaned up. I'll be back with comments on the content later. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
note how in ref #4 there's a fullstop after the middle initial of the second author before the year, but this fullstop is missing in ref #9; need to check throughout to make consistent
got ref 9, will keep checking.Casliber (talk·contribs) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
there's a mixture of title case and sentence case in article titles
working on converting all to title case (alot of them!!) think I got 'em all...Casliber (talk·contribs) 02:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
ref #12 - the "b" of cytochrome b needs to be italicized
added link to article pdf instead. MeegsC | Talk 14:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
ref #47 "Alexander, R Mcneill" fullstop after the R (there's other examples of this throughout, I'll stop mentioning them now), and check to see if that should be a capital N
got this one - will look for othersCasliber (talk·contribs) 09:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
refs #49-51: all of a sudden the years are given in parentheses, contrary to prior instances
Can you confirm that country adjectives should be capitalised in Dutch? Library of Congress uses lc. I know some languages like French use lc for adjectives (francais, not Francais), but I don't speak dutch Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I've capped it for now on a strong hunch based on Google search and knowledge of a cognate language, German. I'll ask Ucucha when he gets back to verify. Sasata (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
While looking up which works of Ovid the stork appears in (I think it is here when Antigone of Troy is turned into a stork by Juno in Metamorphoses, though I failed to locate the works of Horace the stork appears in), I came across this reference which may be useful: Thomas, Richard F. 1988. Vergil's "White Bird" and the Alexandrian reference (G. 2. 319-20). Classical Philology 83(3): 214-217. doi:10.1086/367107. That is available online here. Also, there seems to be some sort of link with the Thracian land of Cicones, though I'm not clear what exactly. Obviously that last bit can't be taken further without a source, and may be more appropriate for the Ciconia article. Carcharoth (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Came across this article this morning and thought I would post the information here: http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2012/02/rubber-worms/ - White storks confuse rubber bands for worms. Not a good part of their diet. This information could be entered into the conservation section.Thompsma (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Wow - yes fascinating and important - reminds me of sea turtles and their mistaking of plastic bags for jellyfish....Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
This sentence is unclear:
"A succession of pairs have been observed occupying a nest for a few days before moving on, the reason for which is unclear."
In the source we can read: "The first pair occupied the nest for 5-8 days, the second pair for one day, and probably only the third pair remained at the nest to actually breed" (here).
It didn't mention that the pairs, who occupying a nest for a few days are move on the nest. Please check out this note. 193.200.82.28 (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC) kuba
I have attempted a rewrite based on a re-reading of the paper. Hope it is clearer. Shyamal (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
now it looks better, thanks, 193.200.82.28 (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) kuba
Spaar, Reto; Bruderer, Bruno (1996).
I found similar text the same authors: "Migration by Flapping or Soaring: Flight Strategies of Marsh, Montagu's and Pallid Harriers in Southern Israel" (text here), but i can't find there information about energetic difference beetwen flapping and soaring flight. Could anyone help? D kuba (talk) 15:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
"Poles, Lithuanians and Ukrainians believe that storks bring harmony to a family on whose property they nest" - cited source didn't mention the Poles and Lithuanians, only "Ukrainian and other European folk". Anybody knows other, reliable source? D kuba (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, that link: Naturschutzbund Deutschland (NABU) is dead. It is very important source. Anyone knows other site/source for this paragraph? D kuba (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
The German plural of "Pfeilstorch" is "Pfeilstörche"; this should be used in an English language context too. However, when I corrected it, the link to the Wiki-Article "Pfeilstorch" didn't work anymore. Maybe someone more familiar with the technical aspects of WP could correct it.
--62.46.241.243 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Despite being ungrammatical in German, it seems like English users would be happy to make it Pfeilstorchs! Have made the correction suggested though. Shyamal (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The range map at the top doesn't seem to square with the breeding census map in the conservation area, based upon which a number of countries should be at least hash shaded in green to indicate minor breeding populations, no? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on White stork. 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.
I have just modified 6 external links on White stork. 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.
I have just modified one external link on White stork. 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.
I came here to learn the average lifespan, but could not find it on the page. Maximum lifespans were given but I didn't find average/common.foobar (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Haven't been able to find it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys, I found a youtube channel with educational videos about birds, one of them is about White Stork, here it is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dfs3T1Nd40E
Great recording, and useful facts about the bird. Maybe we can add it to wikipedia page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.barkan (talk • contribs) 10:30, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
in the White_stork#Cultural_associations section I think it might be nice to talk about the first Russian postage stamp for PostEurop, dated 1995, when the theme was "peace and freedom"; shows the white stork:
The White Stork – An International Symbol of Peace?
gmgreencity.com/the-white-stork/
and that on the PostEurop stamps of 2019, when the theme was "national bird", the white stork was on the postage stamps of Belarus and Ukraine:
who knows if making these things better known, through wikipedia, could also help these peoples to see again each other as friends, with the same aspirations for peace and freedom (next year, 2023, the theme of European emissions will be "PEACE - the highest value of humanity" www.posteurop.org/EUROPA%20Stamps )
--151.44.32.191 (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
The white stork (Ciconia ciconia) is a large bird in the stork family, Ciconiidae. Its plumage is mainly white, with black on its wings. Adults have long red legs and long pointed red beaks, and measure on average 100 to 115 centimetres (39 to 45 inches) from the beak tip to the end of the tail, with a wingspan of 155 to 215 centimetres (61 to 85 inches). It is a long-distance migrant, wintering in Africa from tropical sub-Saharan Africa to as far south as South Africa, or on the Indian subcontinent. A carnivore, it eats a wide range of animal prey, including insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, small mammals, and small birds. This white stork in flight was photographed in Andalusia, Spain, carrying a piece of plastic. It is fitted with a wildlife transmitter on its back.