Talk:Kentish plover

Article name

In light of: (1) the bird's no longer breeding in Kent, as the article notes, (2) the widespread distribution of the species, and (3) the multiple common names given, among other factors, should the name of the article be changed (presumably to the scientific name)? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No, all bird species articles are written under the English name. It doesn't matter that the bird doesn't breed in Kent. the Dartford Warbler doesn't breed in Dartford, and the Turkey has never bred as a wild bird within 10,000 kilometres of the country for which it is named.

There aren't multiple common names; it's Kentish in Europe, Africa and Asia, Snowy in the Americas. Snowy isn't acceptable since articles stay in the variety of English in which they were first written - and it isn't made of snow (: jimfbleak (talk) 14:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Did it originally come from the UK then? I'm a bit confused by the statement "this species no longer breeds in Kent, or even Great Britain" followed by "it breeds in most subtropical and tropical parts of the world" Climate change there may be but I don't think Kent could be considered tropical or subtropical in the past few thousand years 129.11.76.216 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hundreds of pairs bred in Kent and Sussex 150 years ago, but regular breeding ceased about 1931, and regular nesting on the Channel Islands ceased in 1975. The last UK record of a nesting pair was in Lincolnshire in 1979. Warm temperate probably better than subtropical jimfbleak (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears that the Kentish Plover and Western Snowy Plover are genetically distinctly different and it has been proposed they be recognized as separate species: http://www.bath.ac.uk/bio-sci/biodiversity-lab/publications/kupper_auk_2009.pdf --—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Body

Current information based on research and literature is rather lacking and needs to be updated. Additionally, all infoprmation on the Snowy plover populations in the US is false and lacking.
Info to add:
Current distribution
Current listing status (T&E)
Recreational disturbance issues
Habitat loss due to coastal development (world wide)
Coatal engineering projects
Climate change and coastal impacts
Snowy plover girl (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradict

Text: "This bird has six geographical races".

Taxobox lists 3.

I was too lazy to look it up on the quick back then ;-) but basicallly, this article too needs a solid secondary WP:RS as groundwork. If you check the sourcecode you'll note that there are a lot of primary souces waiting; while "hard science" PS data is OK if it's mainstream, it still shouldn't stand on its own but complement a secondary source. In this case the RS to choose is probably Shorebirds and/or HBW. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The matter is touched on in the paper cited at the end of the paragraph. It says subspecies rather than races. William Avery (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Common Snipe which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Photo showed wrong species

It caught my eye when we googled some Kentish Plover photos to help some friends with ID that a prominent result shows a photo that does not look like a Kentish plover at all and to my surprise, this link led to Wikipedia. I discussed it with some other birders on birdforum.net and the consensus seems to be that it was a Lesser Sand Plover, a species common in the area from which the photo comes according to Commons. Sadly I do not have a very nice photo of a Kentish Plover myself to provide, but I think no photo is better than a misleading one, seeing how this photo has already spread over the internet, presumably from here.Opisska (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

"Illegal to be photographed in Poland"

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: this really takes the cake. By your inventive reading, it is not only illegal to photograph the species in Poland, it is illegal to observe it! With all respect to the mind-controlling powers of the Polish government, that is as simply ludicrous misreading. Some basic common sense should tell you that this passage states does not state that there is an interdict on photography and observation because these practices disturb or crowd the animals, but instead an interdict on photography and observation practices that disturb or crowd the animals. Which is an entirely different and entirely commonplace regulation that differs not a pip from that of the US, UK, or France, to name a few. And then you add this: That is further supported by the fact that practically no photograph of the Kentish plover has been taken in Poland, even though it is well within its range. Head meet desk.

Rather than slug it out about a Google translation (which supports MY interpretation, BTW), I'll ask the interpretation of a couple editors that I know speak Polish. @Piotrus and Darwinek: could I please ask either of you for your interpretation of the following passage: W stosunku do dziko występujących zwierząt, oznaczonych symbolem (3) w załączniku nr 1 do rozporządzenia, wprowadza się dodatkowo zakaz fotografowania, filmowania lub obserwacji, mogących powodować ich płoszenie lub niepokojenie.

--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty simple - you have to photograph (observe, film) in a way that will not disturb the animals. It is not a blanked ban on all photography-like actions, just on the ones that disturb the animals. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. It's a relief to know that the Policja is not actually lurking around wetlands, waiting to nab anyone who looks in the direction of a bird. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Piotrus. It's really not a rocket science. - Darwinek (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you as well! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We shall see about it The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It seems that it has been resolved. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)