Talk:Canada goose

Plural?

Would the plural of Canada Goose not be Canadian Geese? My roommate who studies ornithology says it’s not but the grammar is confusing me. Help? 4.18.201.154 (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There's no reason why the plural would be "Canadian". The plural of Canada Goose is Canada Geese. Aythya affinis (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@4.18.201.154 Yes, the so-called "Canada Goose" is usually referred to as Canadian Geese in the Northeastern United States. That is the popular and common name for the bird. If you refer to the bird as a Canada Goose you will likely either be corrected or receive blank stares. No one refers to it as the Canada Goose, especially since the birds are rarely seen singularly. In fact, I've never heard it referred to as the Canada Goose except for here on Wikipedia.Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never heard it referred to a Canadian Geese except for here. I am in Canada, however. Here is a National Geographic article calling it the "Canada Goose" -- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/birds/facts/canada-goose. 65.93.52.199 (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I live in California where these birds are commonplace, and here people say "Canada goose" or "Canada geese". Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Stevenmitchell, I lived for decades in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and it was always "Canada goose" and "Canada geese" there, so presumably it must depend on where in the northeastern US you live. MeegsC (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mars134340 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mars134340 (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• A typical group of Canadian Geese.jpg
• Clarksville-3.webp

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move of Canada Goose (clothing)

An editor has requested that Canada Goose (clothing) be moved to Canada Goose, over the current redirect which currently targets this article. Since the subjects are related you are invited to participate in the move discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Canada Goose (clothing) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Not a 'wild' goose

Hi all, my edit to remove the leading description of Canada Goose as a 'wild' bird (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canada_goose&oldid=1265808197) was reverted, and I have thus far not been able to induce the person who reverted it to engage with my reasoning or explain the reason for reversion beyond the 'long-standingness' of the previous descriptor, so I hope that this talk thread can help us to collectively solve the issue amongst those interested in the topic. I don't want to be truculent, but I can't help but feel that this is quite a lot of work to make a simple change I consider to be a small, clear, and sensible change (most of the following reasons were described in the edit summary) that has not actually been countered with any substantial reason (is this normal?), but I will just be happy to hopefully make the change :-)

The reasons I think that the Canada Goose should not be described as a 'wild' bird in the leading sentence of the Wikipedia article:

1. It is not typical to describe species on Wikipedia using the term 'wild.' Some examples from similar species include cackling goose, barnacle goose, coscoroba swan. As far as I can tell, no goose is described in this way, though my search abilities are perhaps lacking.

2. 'Wild' is an ambiguous term.

2a) Species may be de facto domesticated (as in the case of the cat), however individuals and populations in otherwise undomesticated species may be domesticated (usually to a limited extent). In the case of Canada Goose, this account from Audubon refers to the raising of 'domesticated' animals: https://www.audubon.org/birds-of-america/canada-goose .

2b) A domesticated, non-wild, or captive Canada Goose, does not cease to be a Canada Goose. Therefore, it is not a defining feature of the species.

2c) Use of the term 'wild' or 'wildlife' is fraught as it pertains to animals that were/are kept for game and were introduced to/live in human environments, as is discussed by the Wildlife article. In the case of the Canada Goose, these birds were introduced to many of the habitats in which they now live.

3. Domestication/wildness is not binary, even on a species-wide level. As it happens, this is especially true for the Canada Goose, which is heavily adapted to human environments (as is described well in the Canada Goose article itself). They could easily be considered 'less wild' than many other species - certainly more so than those examples given above of other geese, which are not described as 'wild' on Wikipedia.

Therefore, I propose that we do not describe the Canada Goose as a 'wild' goose. Appreciate any input and discussion on this issue :)

TallUntidyGothGF (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the comment about me. I explained my reasoning, and I had to repeatedly ask you to bring this minor issue to the article's talk page before you did so.

The description as a type of "wild" goose is the long-standing (more than 15 years) lead. I'm not aware that there has been any previous concern over this description. An IP attempted to change it to "domestic or wild" and was reverted by user:UtherSRG. You then removed the description entirely with and edit summary that your believed "they can be domesticated". I restored it with an edit summary pointing out that "wild" was the long-standing description and that any editor beliefs were irrelevant. At that point you should have followed WP:BRD and started a discussion here with your other reasons for wanting to remove "wild". Instead you restored your edit, with justifications in the edit summary. I undid you and explained WP:BRD on your talk page. Instead of opening the talk page discussion you took it at length to my talk page, more than once.

Whether other articles use the term is not a very strong argument. Yes there are many articles that do not use the description "wild" for non-domesticated species, but there are also some that do use it. House mouse is one.

You make the point that the Canada Goose is heavily adapted to human environments. I think that's an overstatement. While there are populations of Canada Geese that inhabit urban areas, that does not mean that the species as a whole has heavily adapted to human environments. It's not listed as domesticated, or tamed, or partially domesticated, or widely captive-bred in List of domesticated animals. And doesn't it make sense to specify that an animal that is frequently associated with human environments is still a wild animal? The house mouse is much more adapted to to human environments than the Canada Goose, but is still a wild animal. The third sentence in the lead to House mouse makes a point of it with "Although a wild animal, the house mouse has benefited significantly from associating with human habitation to the point that truly wild populations are significantly less common than the semi-tame populations near human activity."

I'm fine with removing the "wild" if other editors think that is the way to go, but I see some use in keeping it, and since that is the very long-standing version it should remain unless there is consensus to change it. Meters (talk) 01:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I apologise that you feel I approached this in the wrong way. Your message on my talk page indicated that I should post on your talk page if I felt you had made a mistake or had questions, and my reading of the BRD documentation you linked indicated that discussing the topic with the reverter directly was the right thing to do, and I felt you were not being forthcoming with discussing the content. I really don't want to discuss this any further now that we can actually discuss the content issue here - that's really all I wanted, so please let's leave that part of the discussion behind.

• On similarity to other Wikipedia pages:

I think those comparisons are only not a strong argument if there is a distinguishing feature that makes the terminology more applicable to the subject of this article.

• On adaptation of the Canada Goose to human environments:

The Canada Goose page describes its heavy adaptation to human environments: 'Extremely adept at living in human-altered areas, Canada geese have established breeding colonies in urban and cultivated habitats, which provide food and few natural predators. The success of this common park species has led to it often being considered a pest species because of its excrement, its depredation of crops, its noise, its aggressive territorial behavior toward both humans and other animals, and its habit of stalking and begging for food, the latter a result of humans disobeying artificial feeding policies toward wild animals.' and later 'Semi-tame feral birds are common in parks'

I think [[House mouse]] is a good example of a species with a similarly complex domestication and wildness status. Perhaps we could adopt a similar strategy here:

1. Remove the 'is a wild goose' phrase
2. Adapt the above-quoted 'extremely adept [...]' paragraph in the article to include a note that it is nevertheless still considered overall a wild animal

I think this satisfies the removal of it as a distinguishing/defining/leading feature of this particular species, while also acknowledging that it does remain, overall, 'wild' in spite of its adaptations to human environments. What do you think?

(I think there are still open questions, e.g. our definition of Wildness as being non-introduced causes inconsistencies for canada goose and many other species, but I think that is a much larger discussion)

TallUntidyGothGF (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

You are the one who started off by discussing my actions rather then the edit content. Please stop doing that. I explained my undo in my edit summary, I explained myself on your talk page, I responded on my talk page. It does not matter if you did not believe I was "being forthcoming" Just drop it.

The canned template saying If you think the template was left in error or you have questions about it then you can ask on the user's talk page, is just that, a canned template, but I made the issue clearer with my addition to the template: Per WP:BRD if you wish to change the long-standing description and your change has been undone you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page and attempt to reach a consensus rather than continuing to restore your edit. It should not take multiple rounds of user talk page posts before an editor takes a contestested edit to the talk page.

There's a difference between an animal that is adept at living in human environments and an animal species that has adapted to such an environment. As I said While there are populations of Canada Geese that inhabit urban areas, that does not mean that the species as a whole has heavily adapted to human environments. Similarly there are populations of raccoons, coyotes, foxes, skunks, snowshoe hares etc. that are very adept at living in urban environments, but there are many that do not live in urban environments. The house mouse, on the other hand, is so tightly associated with humans that the association is even part of the common name, so I don't think that we should model this article's lead after the house mouse lead. I'm concerned that that trying to move the wild mention to more closely copy that in the house mouse article ("while still a wild animal...") will unduly emphasize or imply that the species as a whole is associated with human environments.

I've already said I will happily accept removing "wild" if that's what other editors think should be done, so let's just wait for others to respond. Meters (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Skipping all the kerfuffle above - I would be in favour of removing the "wild". I hadn't noticed it before, but the edit & revert in question made me realize that it does read oddly and out of tune with how we usually phrase these lede sentences. Not a big thing either way, however. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Either just drop "wild" or use "species of goose" as that seems to be more standard. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)