Talk:Barn swallow

"In the film Monty Python and the Holy Grail, an open and hotly debated question is the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow, for both African and European swallows, and whether they can carry coconuts or not."

In the film, this isn't really "open and hotly debated". It's just more of a trivial thing. Also, the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow is only asked to King Arthur by the bridgekeeper of the bridge of death as the third question that was asked to him, and when Arthur asked the keeper whether this was a European of African swallow he was talking about, the bridgekeeper did not know. The question of whether they carry coconuts or not is discussed in the beginning of the film, and the velocity of an unladen swallow is not discussed in this part, but how the swallow maintains it is. No proposition for the velocity is ever mentioned in the movie. Just how much they flap their wings to do so. These are all details, but if you're putting details, you might as well make them accurate. Slartibartfast1992 20:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wot? A swallow carryin' a coconut? {PowerGamer6 (talk) 07:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)}Reply

Monty Python also had the swallow ridiculously heavy at 5 ounces (142 g). More in-depth processing of the subject here. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The link from Anshelm is broken. I am less interested in coconut conveyance than in speed. NotScintillating (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 19, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:   Decently well-written, but there are some persistent issues to be dealt with. Throughout, but especially in the lead, Breeding and In culture, there are too-small paragraphs. Having single-sentence paragraphs is poor grammar, and makes it very hard to read in an article of this length.

2. Factually accurate?:   Some of the references - 12-14, 22, 23 -are inappropriately formatted; simple urls are not enough information for proper verification. Author, publication date, retrieval info (i.e. any of the core info of the web template at WP:CIT) are all desirable. Something is also off with ref number 18.

3. Broad in coverage?:   I may have missed it, but I didn't see anything on what preys on swallows.

4. Neutral point of view?:   Fair representation of all significant views.

5. Article stability?   No edit wars, etc.

6. Images?:   Accounted for with license tags and fair-use rationales where necessary. I would suggest removing the gallery, as it takes up undue space and there are no images in Breeding otherwise.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— VanTucky ^Talk 00:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to the hold below rather than within the body of the review. Thank you!

I've definitely sorted images and predators, and tried to address the first two points -also fixed taxobox LC. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

After some more copyediting, and your previous edits, I think it's GA-class. I'll pass it shortly. VanTucky ^Talk 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well on the way to FA status. More nitpicks than anything else though will look at prose later.

• Needs all measurements with imperial equivalents.  Done

• To make the prose run better, I'd have the subspecies followed by "described by X in 18xx" with an inline ref rather than how it stands currently.  Done

• Although over most of this swallow's range the subspecies are not contentious, - try removing it as I think this clause is superfluous.  Done

I'll find some other stuff but very promising. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

PS: I flipped a clause to reduce commas - this can be done in some other places. Have you read Tony1's prose guide - link on my userpage and very worthwhile. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Would be good to have a reliable source for etymology of rustica. Shyamal (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

See my recent edit of the page. In those parts of Europe where English is spoken as the native language, this bird is never called the 'barn swallow' - that's the American English name for it. It is simply the swallow. There's no 'often' about it. 86.155.207.81 (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

However, the recent proposed standardization of English names for birds worldwide (Gill, Frank, and Wright, Minturn (2006), Birds of the World: Recommended English Names Princeton: Princeton, ISBN 978-0691128276) does away with the "The _____" approach (indeed, this was one of the big obstacles to the standardization effort). Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Our article on Cape Province, though Wikipedia can't be trusted, says that is was broken up in 1994. Perhaps saying "...the area encompassed by the former Cape Province of South Africa" or simply "...the former Cape Province of South Africa" would be better than what this article has now, "...the Cape Province of South Africa". Or maybe I'm wrong. Benjamin ^{Scrīptum est - Fecī} 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well the source cited for that fact was published in 1989, so it was the correct term then. I don't know what to replace it with. Graham87 04:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm somewhat sceptical of some of the 10 million km² ranges assigned by BirdLife International (Barn Swallow's entry here), as it appears to be their maximum for any species. The sole exception I've found so far is the Barn Owl, with 44 million km², though admittedly I haven't gone through all of the 9,821 extant species recognized by said organisation. Note that 10 million km² is about the size of Europe and less than 7 % of the world's land area; in other words a rather small range for a cosmopolitan species. Of my own books, only Raptors of the World (Ferguson-Lees et al. 2001) includes range area figures, with 60–70 million km² for the Black Kite, 54 million km² for the Peregrine Falcon and 30 million km² for the Northern Goshawk – all species that BirdLife International attributes with range areas no greater than 10 million km². Referring to alterante sources may therefore be advisable. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 14:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, just by looking at the article's distribution map you can see that its breeding range alone accounts for perhaps 80 % of Eurasia and North America's land area, with some more in northern Africa and South America, putting the grand total perhaps somewhere in the 50–60 million km² region. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

BirdLife International has since upgraded the figure to 51.7 million km² (34.8 % of the world's land area), which I have included in the article (feel free to add the reference if necessary; it's already 1st on the reference list). --Anshelm '77 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see this page is featured now and it doesn't even have a picture of an Estonian 500 kroon banknote that features a barn swallow. I think it should be added to the article. Good job gettng this article to featured status though! H2ppyme (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not entirely comfortable with one of the statements in the lead section: "in Northern Europe it is the only common species called a "swallow" rather than a "martin"".

Actually, there are others. In Swedish, for example:

• Barn Swallow = Ladusvala ("Barn Swallow")
• House Martin = Hussvala ("House Swallow")
• Sand Martin = Backsvala ("Brink Swallow")

LarRan (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, the meaning is clearly "in Northern Europe it is the only common species called a "swallow" rather than a "martin" in English", only that sounds slightly laboured. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

can a swallow live on seed if been raised by human? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.240.44 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

No jimfbleak (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tried to add information about the common name, which I believe is of historical interest, even though it is not perhaps the most crucial thing about the barn swallow. The information I provided was removed with the comment "rm good faith but unsourced/parochial/irrelevant". It certainly isn't parochial. Common names of birds is a field of inquiry that has generated many books and articles, so I am hardly alone in considering it interesting, so I don't know that I'd say it is irrelevant. As for unsourced - well, I provided one source from 1789, and the OED Online (ie OED 2nd ed 1989 for this entry) has its earliest citation from 1851.

So, what am I not getting? Is it that the information isn't quoted from some other singular source in total? ie does it constitute original research?WikiLambo (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Barn Swallow is a featured article, and as such everything should have a reference.

1. What's a calque -unexplained and unlinked?
2. Need a fully referenced source to support The earliest reference to the name comes from Gilbert White...
3. The swallow, though called the chimney-swallow, by no means builds altogther in chimnies, but often within barns and out-houses against the rafters. In Sweden she builds in barns, and is called ladu swala, the barn-swallow. It occurs to me that this might be a quote from White, if so that's not clear, needs an accurate rendition without typos, and a ref including page number (note that there is an existing ref for the book in the next section). If it's not a quote it's pointless, if it is a quote only has a point if can be confirmed as earliest ref.
4. White calls it chimney swallow, not barn swallow, so hardly first example of the latter. jimfbleak (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

jimfbleak (talk) 06:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your prompt reply jimfbleak. I am not a seasoned Wikipedian and so perhaps it was my fault for not using a sandbox. I was in the process of editing again when you deleted my additions and there was an edit conflict.

1. Calque can be linked to the Wiki on it.
2. Yes it is a quotation from White and I was going to add the reference for the quotation from White, page numbers and all. In that quote he uses barn-swallow, not as a native English word, but as a translation of the Swedish. However, as the Wiki for The Natural History of Selborne says "first published in 1789. It has been continuously in print since then, with nearly 300 editions up to ... 2007" so his usage there would have been frequently read. It has since become the popular common name and chimney swallow is now obsolete (or perhaps also regional)
3. altogther is indeed a typo, mea culpa. However, chimnies is not, it is a valid 18th plural form and is so in the original text.
4. There can never be a source that states "the earliest reference" to any word. The OED, and historical lexicographers in general, are aware that antedatings are, in almost all cases, possible for any word. The best we can say is "the earliest reference so far adduced" - though this is cumbersome, and "the earliest reference" for all intents and purposes means the same thing, at least to lexicographers. But, perhaps it would be better to say "The earliest example in the Oxford English Dictionary dates from 1851, though an earlier example of the collocation is to be found in Gilbert White's ...." etc.

However, I fear that perhaps all of this still does not match up the standards required by featured articles. Is that right?WikiLambo (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have that picture from Thailand taken recently. From my field guide it looked to be a Barn Swallow (my guide agreed). However, it is considerably greyer than the images here. Is this a different species, subspecies? I don't suspect that it is a juvenile - there were quite a few like this. JJ Harrison (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I suppose you have already checked against Hirundo tahitica. (see this) Nice pictures. Shyamal (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I suppose it must be a juvenile of one or the other. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have a problem with this section in the article: "This genus of blue-backed swallows is sometimes called the "barn swallows."[2][3] The Oxford English Dictionary dates the English common name "barn swallow" to 1851, though an earlier instance of the collocation in an English-language context is in Gilbert White's popular book The Natural History of Selborne, originally published in 1789: The swallow, though called the chimney-swallow, by no means builds altogether in chimnies [sic], but often within barns and out-houses against the rafters... In Sweden she builds in barns, and is called ladu swala, the barn-swallow.[12] This suggests that the English name may be a calque on the Swedish term."

"Barn swallow" is a relatively modern name for this bird, as shown in the section quoted above. The much older name for this bird, although not its internationally recognised one, is simply "swallow". "Swallow" is derived from an Old English word, swealwe (ref Shorter OED Vol 2). The "barn swallow" was called simply the "swallow" in the UK from the mid 5th century AD onwards, and it still is. Nobody calls it the "barn swallow" here in the UK: it was and still is the only swallow known in the region and so a qualifier such as "barn" was and is unnecessary.

As the English language spread across the world and naturalists recorded other swallows, qualifiers became necessary. But you cannot write away the fact that the "barn swallow" is the original "swallow". It is the swallow after which the original Swallowtail butterfly is named. Why have a lengthy section about the calque to the Swedish term, and ignore the original etymology of the word "swallow", and have no explanation about how this swallow, Hirundo rustica, gave its name to all other swallows described in science? 86.133.212.121 (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Good point. We can certainly add the derivation of "swallow" in. I have done similarly at White Stork and Common Raven. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Since it has been mentioned, the name-relation between the bird and the butterfly could be added/referenced somewhere, as indeed not only that butterfly but the entire family (Papilionidae) have, subsequently, been commonly called swallowtails. Atreyiu (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't see where either the butterfly or the term "swallowtail" have been mentioned in the text. May be worth adding, but you will need a independent verifiable source since this is a featured article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

As a featured article, this page exemplifies a well-organized page, adequately filled with relevant details. To begin, the page has an easily accessible table of contents, as well as article section titles aligning with those recommended by WikiProject Birds. Its description section accurately identifies the barn swallows’ characteristics of sexual dimorphism, the barn swallows’ coloring but more uniquely the tail length. The breeding section of the page is very thorough and well written. Although the extra-mating is established, the article could be improved by including the role of males’ tail length, a sexual ornament, in gaining extra-mates. Despite, the absence of this detail, the reader accurately and adequately understands breeding behavior of the barn swallows. Its strong rating emphasizes the quality of this page.

That will result in the following banner (and make the articles easy to track):

The article says the paragraph "It is believed that the barn swallow began attaching its nest to Native American habitations in the early 19th century, ..."

I don't know much about birds, but does that mean barn swallows did not attach their nests to "Native American habitations" before the 19th century or that the birds preferred to attach to "Native American habitations" instead of European American habitations? Input from someone who knows the source would be helpful. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 20:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Cyberbot II has detected links on Barn swallow which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SWALLOW/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Dger (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

If it has blacklisted links, shouldn't it be demoted from FA status? TVShowFan122 (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not now. Dger (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cyberbot II has detected links on Barn swallow which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://web.archive.org/web/20071117224841/http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SWALLOW/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.bible-history.com/isbe/S/SWALLOW/

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Dger (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to presume in an article this mature, but I took a photo today of a barn swallow in flight that I think might make a good addition. I realize it's not a featured-quality photo, but I think it's a more than decent one, and I don't see anything like it in the article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Although a little late, I support Jmabel's suggestion, as there is still no decent photo of a flying swallow in the article. -- jw (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article says .. not endangered, although there may be local population declines due to specific threats .. .

I feel that the above is a serious understatement: I believe that the Swallow is in decline, for many reasons (as are many other animal species). The above sentence should be improved; I hesitate to do this until I (or some other good person) find(s) a good reference.

The European Commission gives one example [1] quoting 42% decline in France between 1989 and 2017. Others such as RSPB quote 40 or 50% decline since 1970.
- are these valid references? Others must also exist.

... Wikipedians please help. jw (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is confusing and contradictory information in this article:

• at the top, range is 251 million km²
• and later, in the status section, the estimated global extent is 51 700 000 km²

I would add that the implied accuracies of   251   and   51.7   million km² are ridiculous and these should be rounded off. I would suggest saying 50 million and 250 million.

Who can resolve the above ?
(I'm sorry, I can't as I don't have access to the relevant references). -- jw (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

jw as it happens, I started tidying up this article yesterday, but I missed that, I'll have a look later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

jw, the 251000000 is correct, looks as if the initial 2 was omitted or lost. The trouble with rounding off is that the convert template will ensure that the US figure isn't a round number (and if you remove the template, someone will restore it) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

User:Jimfbleak I suggest we need to say about 250,000,000 km² (97,000,000 sq mi) but not having access to the source I hesitate to make the modif. --jw (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

jw, fine, I've done that. For a bird as common as the swallow, a million km² either way is nothing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

  This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article has been continuously updated, remains fully and appropriately referenced, and at most only needs a final polish if it's rerun at TFA at some point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article claims: The barn swallow is the national bird of Austria and Estonia.[

While the Estonian article claims that it was Austria's national bird only from 1962 to 1964.

Suitsupääsuke on Eesti ja oli aastatel 1962–1964 Austria rahvuslind. (The barn swallow is Estonias, and was in the years 1962-1964, Austria's national bird)

I did not find anything in the German wikipedia but I found this article which was apparently released by birdlife Austria https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/VOSCHOE_038_0022-0023.pdf which supports Estonian Wikipedia's claim that the barn swallow was Austria's national bird only in 1962 to 1964 and was then replaced with the Silberreiher (Great egret?) 2001:1530:1011:180B:C2DD:280:AFB3:2 (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply