Talk:Common starling

Pictures

Poor picture layout at present, but I expect that the entry will expand a improved it eventually. But then, it's not much of a picture. These things are everywhere, so I'll doubtless get a better one to replace it with before too long.

Also, should this species be entered as Common Starling? My texts all list it that way. Tannin 10:33 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Most modern American bird books I see call it the European Starling. I don't know which name is more common in the bird's native homeland, but I'm guessing that European Starling is the most common name in the United States. --Evice 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Another picture is available at Image:Common-Starling.jpg RedWolf 23:23, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Something I have always wondered at...

Hi,

I live in New York City and despite this I have a keen interest in wildlife. Starlings are fairly common around here and as I read up on them I came to a question: If the UK is losing its starling population, and the U.S. has too many, then why not round up a large amount of them and send them back to where they came from? I am no expert, but I imagine there are other European countries that might want them as well.

--MK 06:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)shadowcat60

drug manufacturer who wanted every bird found in Shakespeare

'European starlings have a way of appearing in unexpected places — the United States, for example, where they are not native but owe their origin to a brief reference in Shakespeare’s “Henry IV, Part 1.” In 1890, a drug manufacturer who wanted every bird found in Shakespeare to live in America released 60 starlings in Central Park. After spending a few years nesting modestly under the eaves of the American Museum of Natural History, they went from a poetic fancy to a menacing majority; there are now upward of 200 million birds across North America, where they thrive at the expense of other cavity nesters like bluebirds and woodpeckers, eat an abundance of grain — as well as harmful insects — and occasionally bring down airplanes.' Flight Patterns, By JONATHAN ROSEN, NYT April 22, 2007 [1]-69.87.200.81 14:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

How they take over.

My dad told me about how the Starlings are taking over and threatening local bird populations. He said that they lay an egg in another bird's nest. The mother bird takes care of it until it hatches. The baby bird drives out/kills the other babies, but the mother bird continues to take care of the starling. There's probably a name for this technique. I think it should be included (by someone who can explain it easily). (sorry I don't know how to sign posts) KannD86 01:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)kannd86 9:47pm May 8, 2007

unfortunately the above refers to the Common Cuckoo not the starling. jimfbleak 05:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you live in North America, your dad was probably talking about the Brown-headed Cowbird, another dark bird that is a brood parasite. MeegsC | Talk 08:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

--71.101.189.25 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)a.s--71.101.189.25 (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I agree with meegsC. Also Starlings dont affect crop populations adversly they only eat harmfull insects you blackbirds do it starlings get blamed for it trust me ive had pet ones they dont eat many plants they eat a huge ariety of insects

Omnivorous

I think that the comment that Starlings are omnivorous is not accurate enough. Starlings may eat everything at some point in time but they seem to prefer insects to anything else...many a time I have watched Starlings completely ignore starchy food-sources to focus exclusively on protein-rich insect foods! Is there any way we could expand this comment to be more accurate? For example, shouldn't this page contain enough information to discuss how Starlings' diet differs from other "omnivorous" birds such as, say, the common grackle? Cazort (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Having tried unsuccessfully to trap the starlings in ourarea, I concur with Cazort, although of course this is OR. My observations over nearly 40 years suggest that starlings are omnivorous most of the time. However, when they are parents and feeding young, they bring them exclusively insects, as said above. Old_Wombat (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Vocalizations

This page desperately needs a vocalizations section! There's hardly anything said about these on this page, and it's one of the most interesting and important aspects of this species, and relates to virtually all the different sections, and has been studied extensively. Cazort (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Pity that my inlaws aren't in the area of Kentucky that is currently infested with a large flock, else I'd have them get some call samples for the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Starlings as pets/Picture

I have a pet starling but whenever I add something on them being pets it get deleted I might be wording it incorectly. So could someone create it a good site is www.starlingtalk.com. Also I think I could supply a good picture. Also there talking abilities (better than African Greys) isnt realy talked about. --71.101.199.250 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to have proper references for what you add, otherwise it's WP:OR jimfbleak (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Taking in a Juvinile European Starling

A starling had been going in our garage, then i got it out. It turned out to be very nice, and it really likes me. here are some tips. Try to make a connection Be KIND carry it around, show it to ppl. eventually take it in a pet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.37.186 (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Or wring its neck, blanch it and pull the feathers, then cook it for a snack. This is an encyclopedia article, not a place to post tips on how to harbor and capture an invasive species. That said, if you wish to record audio of the bird calls and upload them, they'd be welcome for the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Starlicide

THere is now a starling-specific poison, described in Wiki here: Starlicide . Isn't that worth a link from this page? 58.167.64.35 (talk) 12:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

FA push comments

• I've rewritten "in culture" as proper referenced prose, I'm sure we can add to it later
• I have a list of 15 more parasites, I'll add at least some later
• Subspecies rewritten, but some problems

• The para about Fair Isle and Hebridean starlings is not in Vaurie or Freare, may be in Svensson or the CD-rom, but I don't have these. I'll search BB.
• Svensson needs page numbers, although it could be replaced unless it's the source for the above.
• I'm also inclined to replace the CD-rom ref unless you have this item.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume we are using British English, this being a largely European bird? My spellchecker points out American spellings and I intend to alter these words as I come across them.

What about capitalisation? Should Starling be capitalised wherever it occurs? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, definitely BE, it's not native to NAm. My inclination would be to lc "starling", but I don't know whether that's MoS, normal practice or whatever. I suppose that as long as we are consistent, it doesn't much matter. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My inclination is lower case "starling" too. It's WikiProject Birds which states "The common name of a species is always capitalised to differentiate it from more general terms. The phrase "in Australia there are many Common Starlings" indicates a large number of Sturnus vulgaris. In contrast, the phrase "in Australia there are many common starlings" indicates several different types of starling." Shall we conform to this handy rule, specially set out for starlings? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• One book which is at my uni library is Introduced Birds of the World by John A. Long - this book is terrific in cataloguing what has been introduced where and when comprehensively. I'll try and re-borrow this next time I am nearby (would have been tomorrow but no work as it is a holiday :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• I'd make the introductions a subsection of distribution and habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Have you thought about adding something about the Common Starling when kept as a pet? See http://www.starlingtalk.com/petstarlings.htm and http://www.starlingcentral.net/petstarlings.htm , http://www.starlings.info/ , etc... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, lol, sounds excellent to me. I assume you got the pdf, let me know if any problems

@Casliber, the book sounds good, I've got a book on naturalised birds but only for Britain. The suggested reorganisation of introductions makes sense to me, subject to Cwmhiraeth's agreement

I agree. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kurt, we are still building the article, so apart from adding parasites, we haven't really checked yet what else is needed. The current "In culture" text largely concerns tame birds and would lead naturally into pets assuming that we can find FA standard sources (haven't checked yours yet). Currently we are still trying to sort out the existing material, but I'm sure there's enough out there to justify the addition. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

And a happy new year to all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Under "parasites" I've also included a couple of diseases that affect starlings. They have also been implicated in the US in spreading diseases to farm animals, my feeling is that is best left under the Introductions. What about histoplasmosis, currently under parasites, could be in NAm though? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There are currently several dating methods used in the article for the retrieval of information. I favour "Retrieved 2012-12-30." which is what results from using cite web "accessed=2012-12-30". Any views? There is quite a bit of work needed on the referencing. By the way, the subspecies table is good but on my screen the 2 subspecies images push the table down so there is a large area of blank space to the left of the images. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

So far I've not added any new web refs (I think) so I'm happy to go with you on that. Of the sections I've been working on, "Predators and parasites" is fully reffed, doesn't need much more text, "In culture" is fully reffed but needs expansion, "Taxonomy" probably has enough text. If we can't source the Fair Isle bit, we will have to dump it, at which stage I'll replace the two contentious refs.

I'm not seeing what you are seeing with the table. When we have a proper lead, it will push it down anyway. We need to rationalise the images at some stage, so why not remove the offending images for now, or set up a temporary gallery until the text is nearly complete and we can position them better? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I find I had changed the size of the text on my screen and now that I have returned it to its original size, the images no longer cause a problem. I received the pdf file, thank you.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reffed the Fair Isle stuff now, and removed the Svennson and CD-ROM refs. This leaves a couple of other sentences unreffed, but it's straightforward stuff that can doubtless be sourced to one or other of the Feare sources when we get that far. Speaking of which, the pdf mentions introductions to Fiji and Jamaica. A couple of other organisational thoughts

• Are you OK to follow Casliber's suggestion of making introductions a subsection of Distribution and habitat, seems to make sense?

• Yes

• I'm inclined to put predation by humans under status, as an (unimportant) threat, but it could go under Predators. What do you think?

• Do what you like. Are humans predators of starlings?

• It's clear that for various reasons there are control programmes on some populations. My thinking is that it would be neater to group these altogether under Status (subsection?) especially as not all the affected areas are introductions (Azores at least). Otherwise it will look bitty with the various programmes spread through the text.

• Let's try it. We can always change it later if we choose.

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the last paragraph of Predators and parasites it mentions Histoplasma capsulatum. My more neutral source states "Although health risks from birds are often exaggerated, large populations of roosting starlings may present risks of disease to people nearby. The most serious health risks are from disease organisms growing in accumulations of starling droppings, feathers, and debris under a roost. This is most likely to occur if roosts have been active for years." I think this fungal pathogen is not choosy about what species of bird droppings provides its growth medium and would leave out the article's libellous statement entirely.

• Well, it's reffed to Feare, so hardly a biased source. I think it's a particular problem with the starling because not only does it form huge roosts, but does so in urban areas. If you think I've expressed it badly, please tweak as you think fit. I'm a bit wary about not mentioning it, since an American reviewer might well query its absence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• I have added an extra paragraph to the North America section but you are welcome to remove it if you think it inappropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

• Looks OK to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll make the structural changes above, and try to produce something coherent on controls Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a view on commas? I don't care for the second comma, called an Oxford comma I believe, in such a phrase as "...A, B, and C." but am prepared to adopt it if you prefer it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't like it either. FYI, I've moved the US and WA control stuff to the new section, rewritten WA control since prev sources dead, will check US too. We need a bit on the benefits and problems of starlings, any thoughts where it should go? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I've taken out the pov from problems, also taken out unverified or unverifiable problems, will replace those I can find sources for. Population of birds in US is 140 million or 150 million (both RS sourced) choose one or put 140–150 with both refs? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Section break for ease of editing

I have added some statistics from BirdLife International. I cannot believe that this source was not previously used but I cannot find it among the list of references. Can I use the range map to derive the residency/migratory status of different populations? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

there's a fair bit of overlap with the IUCN source, so that's probably why. Did you notice this link on the BirdLife page, Don't know if it's useful. I can't see why you can't use the map for migration, the Western Palaearctic part (i.e. most of it) is virtually identical to that in Birds of the Western Palaearctic anyway. I read something about some NAm birds establishing migration patterns (like some Canada Geese here), not sure if it was in the pdf I sent you, I'll check later. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:08, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The figure of 140-150 million birds you mentioned ifor North America is half my total population of 310 million! All these figures are estimates and are made at different dates and it is unsurprising that there are inconsistencies. The 310 million figure is referenced to (Rich et al. 2004), a source I think we have not currently got. There is further information on this page. I saw the page you mention above, but all the figures are at least 10 years out of date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose that we move the "Distribution and habitat" section to immediately before "Status". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Content

How are we doing in terms of content? There's far more stuff out there than we can use (at least a dozen more parasites), although there are some notable gaps — very little myth/legend except the Mabinogion. I'm happy in terms of content with the sections I've been working on, unless you spot anything important that should go in, but I've scarcely looked at Description or any of the Behaviour sections. We should be able to source anything that we need to, either from Freare, JSTOR (I've got one of the free accounts) or elsewhere.

I have the Introduced birds of the world book by John A. Long now - in North America it gives dates of when it reached particular states in its advancement across the continent. I am happy to add this if you both are not worried that that is going into too much detail. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! Some more specific information on the bird's advance across America would be good. We have not yet discussed content much but have been going about improving the article piecemeal. Culture/myth/legend is not my favourite pastime but I did add a bit about Mozart! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Cas, I think that's fine as long as it a selection and not every state. I imagine something like "reached Florida in ... California in ... Washington in ..." would fit the bill, but I'll leave that to your discretion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth, yes, it needed that to give a bit more substance to that section. I'm surprise in a way that there isn't more starling legend, given the bucketfuls for ravens, robins and wrens, but my searches keep taking me back back to Branwen Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Images

I've removed some repetitive or low quality images, added a mite and a tune, removed forced image sizes and right-aligned for now. feel free to revert anything you don't like. There's room for more images, nice if they are not all starlings (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added "upright" to the two subspecies image parameters and they now look better on my screen. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Could we have another image under taxonomy instead of duplicating the taxobox one? Plenty of unused photos tom go around, so it feels like a waste. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Introductions

Did the birds arriving by ship in South America do so by accident or by intent? ie, did they travel there of their own accord or were they introduced? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question. I've added a source which says "introduced", which deals with that specific issue, but I'm not sure if the sources actually always distinguish between deliberate introduction (like the US) and ship-borne self-introduction. The sources aren't always clear either. One made the obviously incorrect claim that starlings colonised Florida from the Bahamas, contradicting all other sources, and there is some vagueness about Jamaica. The birds arrived by ship, but some sources call this an introduction, others natural colonisation.

The article is massively overlinked, but no point running the script until we are nearly finished. We do need to decide at some stage whether to link countries or not. My preference is to follow FAC practice and not link, but I don't much mind either way Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with linking place names is to know what limits to set. Faeroe Islands, Merseyside, Northern Ireland, Bahamas, Low Countries, Iberian Peninsula ... etc. All or none? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My normal practice is not to link countries or continents, but to link everything else. I've sometimes deviated from that for articles like Brazza's Martin, where the countries are all unfamiliar to Brits and Yanks, so I'm not a purist. In your list, I'd link all but Bahamas, which is a sovereign country. As long as we do the same, I don't think it matters. We have to link items that aren't countries or continents, so the only issue is whether to link those too (comments at FAC go both ways) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Formatting references

In the small number of FACs that I have been involved in, great emphasis seems to be placed on correctly formatted references. I have just been reformatting references from different sections including Predators and Parasites. I had thought I was dealing with "prehistoric" references but I now realise that you are creating references in a format that I had been told not to use. In particular, I was told that the use of "coauthors" was deprecated and should be replaced by "last1, first1, last2, first2" etc. I also noticed you were not adding dois, jstor etc. Perhaps you intended to do it later? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I wondered what was going on. All I can say is that I've used the coauthor parameter for 40+ FACs, and no one has ever commented on that usage. It's important that the references look consistent, but afaik the only prohibition is mixing cite/citation template sets. It's perfectly acceptable not to use templates at all, but that makes errors and inconsistencies more likely. If you look at the first text here, you'll see why I prefer the simpler method. However, it's not a big deal, so just let me know if you want me to use your preferred style in future. I think the references looks identical either way.

doi — if I see a doi on the page I'm consulting, I put it in, otherwise I wait until I'm pretty well finished and run the citation bot to add any relevant doi, pmid or whatever.

I have to admit I'm not sure how the jstor parameter works. Do I just put jstor = followed by the whole of the url from the jstor page? I'm not sure the bot does this.

I had a run through the refs and cited texts myself yesterday, I think that they are consistently formatted, but I was going to ask you to take a look anyway, so you have anticipated that request. One pair of eyes is rarely sufficient to make it Nikkimaria-proof

I think I said that I'd be on holiday soon, that will be for three weeks from 30th, snow at Heathrow permitting.

Apropos of nothing, five waxwings in the very snowy garden today!

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a clever bot that could add dois etc. As for the other thing, if someone says that something should be done one way rather than another, I usually accept it because I know I am relatively inexperienced and they are likely to be right. I will carry on looking at the refs in detail.

How nice to see waxwings. I saw a gathering of hundreds of starlings today, the biggest "murmuration" I had seen all winter. And I had a near miss when driving and glancing sidewards at a flock of about 100 geese. Bird watching and driving don't really mix. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Tell me about it! Yet I can't resist a peek. I've churned up "Status" a bit. One of the references was to Holloway's book which lacked a page range, and I guess neither of us is likely to have. It's a bird history of Britain, so the text was very UK-centric. I've also made it more chronological, but it still needs some work I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The author for [36] should perhaps read differently - Hawkins, P, Morton, DB, Cameron, D, Cuthill, I, Francis, R, Freire, R, Gosler, A, Healy, S, Hudson, A, Inglis, I, Kirkwood, J, Lawton, M, Monaghan, P, Sherwin, C, and Townsend, P. See http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/9338/ and http://www.bristol.ac.uk/biology/research/behaviour/centre/publications.html Shyamal (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that suggestion. Having input all the 16 author names into the template, I see it has substituted "et al" for the last 8! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say that your labour was not entirely wasted because it might help users of Zotero or other bibliographic tools - and then discovered that support for these scholarly tools has just been knocked out... Shyamal (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think coauthors = has a limit, see first text here (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Iris colour differences between the sexes

http://blx1.bto.org/pdf/ringmigration/22_4/smith.pdf mentions that there is an iris colour difference which separated the sexes in about 98% of studied cases. The article however does not describe the specific colour difference though, perhaps it is available in the references mentioned (not available to me) Shyamal (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for that, I can access the BB paper (fwiw, all except the last few years of BB are free to read on line anyway) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon

Maybe in the Science and culture section you can add that there are two fictional "species" of Pokemon: Starly and Staravia, named "Starling Pokemon".--MJ for U (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

List of the world's 100 worst invasive species

The Common Starling has been included in the IUCN List of the world's 100 worst invasive species. Possibly something worth mentioning in this article's Benefits and problems section? -- Arjuno (talk 14:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We went to quite a lot of trouble to get a semblance of balance to this section, but perhaps it could go at the end of the second para of the section. Since this is an FA, you will need a proper ref as well as the wikilink Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Done -- Arjuno (talk 15:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Toulouse - Sturnus vulgaris - 2012-02-26 - 3.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Toulouse - Sturnus vulgaris - 2012-02-26 - 3.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 17, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-04-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The common starling (Sturnus vulgaris) is a medium-sized passerine bird in the starling family, Sturnidae, which is found through much of the world. Measuring about 20 cm (8 in) in length, these starlings are a noisy bird in communal roosts and other gregarious situations. This species is omnivorous, taking a wide range of invertebrates, as well as seeds and fruit.Photograph: Pierre Selim

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Common starling, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleanliness of nest

The breeding section states that after 6 days the adults cease removing droppings. This seems to be incompatible with the statement at the end of the paragraph that "the nest is kept clean and the chicks' faecal sacs are removed by the adults." I'm confused. Are the faecal sacs only removed for the first 6 days? If so then the faecal sacs need to be mentioned earlier. Aa77zz (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about starlings but in some species once the chicks are old enough they dump over the side of the nest and the parent's don't need to remove the faecal sac. Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

mentioning central america in section about north amerca

Why do people keep reverting the sentence mentioning central america. I changed it to north american border because its confusing to mention central america in a section about north america. If you want to mention central america write a seperate article or make it clear that you mean the border if its under north america. It is misleading. 209.6.197.188 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted your good faith edit. The continent of North America includes all of central America and the Caribbean, although many Americans like to think it's only the English speaking bits that count Jimfbleak - talk to me? 04:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How to align images?

I am a new editor. The suggestion is the images under subspecies is in one column, how can you align the images horizontally, so that the images don't take up so much space. I am sure this is an easy fix, just that I don't really know, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leohay (talk • contribs) 00:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Common starling. 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/20100324114958/http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-sugarbirds.html to http://www.worldbirdnames.org/n-sugarbirds.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/State-Government-commits-400000-to-help-eradicate-starlings-Redman.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/EuropeanStarlings.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 00:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Common starling. 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/20131203012743/http://www.wildlifebc.org/UserFiles/File/Raccoon6.1.pdf to http://www.wildlifebc.org/UserFiles/File/Raccoon6.1.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/State-Government-commits-400000-to-help-eradicate-starlings-Redman.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://icwdm.org/handbook/birds/EuropeanStarlings.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common starling. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://ardeajournal.natuurinfo.nl/ardeapdf/a69-001-067.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://82.98.164.11/files/1252.pdf
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6DV8VCSa4?url=http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/State-Government-commits-400000-to-help-eradicate-starlings-Redman.aspx to http://www.nationalswa.com/News/MediaReleases/tabid/83/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/42/State-Government-commits-400000-to-help-eradicate-starlings-Redman.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common starling. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://peer.ccsd.cnrs.fr/docs/00/53/52/48/PDF/PEER_stage2_10.1007%252Fs10344-009-0316-x.pdf
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EpzSZk5H?url=http://la.rsmjournals.com/content/35/suppl_1/120.full.pdf to http://la.rsmjournals.com/content/35/suppl_1/120.full.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common starling. 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/20130514220204/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/pest-animal-strategy.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/pest-animal-strategy.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.feral.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/VPC2005.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common starling. 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/20130201031243/http://lib.colostate.edu/research/agnic/starlings.html to http://lib.colostate.edu/research/agnic/starlings.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common starling. 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/20061213073506/http://www.davidnorman.org.uk/MRG/migration_of_starling.htm to http://www.davidnorman.org.uk/MRG/migration_of_starling.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Name?

Isn't the official name, as standardized by the AOU and ABA, European Starling?Aythya affinis (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to put much stock in "official" names, instead using names that are in common usage. For birds, article titles mostly are standardised to the IOC bird list (which uses Common Starling) although there are plenty of exceptions. For this species, the English name "European Starling" is mostly used in North America whereas "Common Starling" is used in Australia, New Zealand and Europe. On a quick search I'm not totally sure what name is used in South Africa or by English-speakers in South America. So long story short either name is acceptable on Wikipedia and there is no particular reason to change from the existing "Common Starling" for this article title.Somatochlora (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Distribution map innaccurate?

The map seems to indicate distribution for breeding population (Northern hemisphere). Internet sources tell that non-breeding distribution extends to coasts in Northern China, occasionally Japan, in the east, and further south. 87.94.136.64 (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)