Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Can someone check if Kaka has a macron? Onco p53 09:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bonza, so it does (actually two). Is there a complelling reason why this article should not use kākā exclusively? Onco_p53 02:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, this is the English Wikipedia, so it should reflect English usage, not Māori. We have an article for Tui (bird) and not for Tūī, for instance. See the discussion at Wikipedia:New_Zealand_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_1#Should_Articles_Be_Using_Macrons. Maybe I've been reading the wrong books, but I haven't seen many English language texts that use the macrons. So I believe the article should say Kaka, not Kākā. -- Avenue 11:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That link you gave resolved nothing. Try this instead. Moriori 19:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your link resolved something else - that the word Māori should be spelt with the macron (which I agree with). That's very different from saying that every English word borrowed from Māori should be spelt with macrons. In the discussions at both my link and yours, the argument that our English Wikipedia articles should reflect usual English usage, not Māori, seemed to feature strongly. I think this supports my position. -- Avenue 00:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, Like Māori, Kākā is NOT an "English word borrowed from Māori". Secondly, your "reflect usual English usage" isn't supported by the actual votes. Moriori 03:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, it's the local version of a Polynesian term meaning "parrot", or more properly "the most notable parrot around" if there were several. Just like "weka" or "veka" means "the local Gallirallus species". Dysmorodrepanis 19:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Assuming you mean the votes at the link you gave above, you are wrong on both counts. I'll quote from the first "Oppose" vote (i.e. a vote for spelling it as Māori, i.e. using the macron): "My English dictionary (The New Zealand Oxford Paperback Dictionary) shows it as Māori." I read that comment as confirming that Māori is an English word, and that the writers of that dictionary believe it should be spelt with a macron. There are several other votes with comments making the same general point, that Māori is now the accepted NZ English spelling.
And it is a loanword, borrowed from te reo Māori. My copy of Orsman's The New Zealand Dictionary explains that the word "Maori" comes from māori, meaning normal or ordinary. Incidentally, this dictionary spells the English word "Maori" without a macron, and it was published in 1994, so the change in the accepted spelling is quite recent. -- Avenue 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you serious?. The votes at the link I gave you were eleven against and four for changing Māori language to Maori language. Moriori 09:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comments I referred to above were from those voting against changing Māori language to Maori language, i.e. they were part of the majority. And the reason they gave for their vote is the same as my reason for preferring Kaka over Kākā; that they believed this was currently the most accepted spelling for the word in NZ English. Not that it is the correct spelling in the Māori language; that's not an appropriate test for English Wikipedia articles. Please, give this some thought and decide whether you agree with the reason they gave for their votes. -- Avenue 12:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument doesn’t work for my vote. I vote for kākā for the same reasons I vote for Māori. Barefootguru 18:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you are being consistent; the reasoning you gave ("Māori is the form NZ is moving toward and is recommended by the Māori Language Commission") would argue for kākā. But your reasoning was queried, and you were the only person who gave that reason. So while you were part of the majority vote, I don't believe that the reason for your vote was part of the consensus. And I strongly disagree with your argument. We should reflect current NZ English usage here, not some idealised future version promoted by the MLC. -- Avenue 23:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Current NZ English usage would have us using a mixture of UK and American spellings, misplaced apostrophes, and more. I’d rather use an authoritative source. Barefootguru 05:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you accept "typical current NZ English usage in reputable publications"? It's more of a mouthful than "current NZ English usage", but it is closer to what I meant.
The problem with using "an authoritative source" for macron usage is that some authoritative sources use them, and some don't. For example, in The New Zealand Oxford Dictionary, by Tony Deverson (Oxford University Press 2004, Oxford Reference Online, Oxford University Press, accessed 17 February 2006), I see that both Maori and kaka are spelt without macrons. In contrast, one of the comments given at Moriori's link mentioned a spelling of "Māori" from a similar source. -- Avenue 11:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that this general topic has been raised again on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand, how about we continue the debate there and come back to this article once it's been resolved? -- Avenue 01:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CITES status[edit]

Does anyone know (or know how to find out) whether the kaka is listed on CITES as 'endangered' or as 'vulnerable'? Currently the info-box says one thing and the text says another - neither with any external reference. - Bobathon (talk) 09:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endemic to native forests?[edit]

Given that they visit areas outside native forests, "endemic to the native forests of New Zealand" seems misleading. Nurg (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signifcance of wasps[edit]

The article says kaka have quite a varied diet, so the final paragraph either needs some serious sourcing/elucidation, or deletion. It says:

"Research has shown that honeydew is very important for breeding birds, especially those breeding in southern beech forests. The difficult nature of controlling the wasps makes the New Zealand Kaka's future very uncertain."

Moriori (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed that. The heading for that section is "Competition" and, besides not making sense, that statement doesn't seem to be about competition. Agree it should be deleted and information about competition should be added. (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)EricReply[reply]

100 million years is too long[edit]

I was skeptical of the time period of when the Kaka was separated from other parrots and researched a little: Parrot says that their time period starts in the Eocene Epoch, about 56 million years ago, half of the time that the Click4Biology source gives. Perhaps a better time period might be the cenozoic breakup of Gondwana 55 million years ago? (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 6 October 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Zealand kakaKākā – Proposing move to add macrons. Kākā is almost certainly the common name for the bird per recent sources. In this instance, the macrons are more important than usual as well, given that Kaka (without macrons) has an unfortunate other meaning, as a local council who named a street after the bird without using macrons found out. The "New Zealand" is also almost always omitted from the bird's name, given that New Zealand is the only place where extant kākā can be found. While this is different to the name listed by the IOC, WP:BIRDS naming conventions state that the article name can differ from this if there is proof that another name is more common, as was the case with Kererū vs. "New Zealand pigeon". Given that almost all major media outlets now use the macron (Stuff / NZ Herald / RNZ / Newshub / The Spinoff) and even international sources such as Nature and ScienceDaily use the macron, we should be reflecting this. Turnagra (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - Ngrams shows kākā to be the WP:COMMONNAME over "New Zealand kaka" in recent years. (To be fully transparent: "kaka" on its own easily surpasses either, but I omitted it from the graph because the term has dozens of meanings cross-linguistically.) This species would also be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for kākā, since the only other species with kākā in the name (the Norfolk kaka and Chatham kaka) are both extinct. ModernDayTrilobite (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - use of macrons. Also per preceding commenter who puts it better than I could. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, widely used and much better than a title of "New Zealand kaka" which is rarely used.-gadfium 07:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, as the use of macrons for New Zealand species with Māori loanword names in New Zealand English has been established in several other proposals (see discussions there):
  1. Kōwhai
  2. Wētā (see Talk)
  3. South Island takahē
  4. Kākāriki
  5. Kōkako
  6. Katipō (see Talk)
  7. Kererū (see Talk)
  8. Tūī (see Talk)

Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Count The Eggs[edit]

The picture in the Breeding section says that there are two eggs in the picture, I'm not an expert, but I see six eggs. Which are the Kākā and what are the remaining four, or is the caption wrong? Last1in (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 12 June 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages not moved to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

– The International Ornithological Congress (IOC) provides a list of recommended English names for all bird species, including species that have become extinct since the early 1500s. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Naming, "The IOC names have been used in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles (including their titles), in lower case except where parts of the name refer to a proper noun (e.g. New Zealand scaup)." Columbianmammoth (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These proposed page moves would restore the IOC names for these two species with some minor tweaks. As instructed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Naming, I have altered the capitalisation. I also use diacritics on the words "kākā" and "takahē". Although the IOC persuasively defends its positions on capitalisation and diacritics, the current norms of the English Wikipedia are deeply entrenched. This is a conversation for another time. The issue that I want to focus on is including the geographical modifiers “New Zealand” and “South Island,” respectively. Relatively recent moves for these two pages eliminated the geographical modifiers. I strongly disagree with these page moves.

The IOC’s 2nd principle of English names reads, "UNIQUE NAME: The name of each taxon must be different from the names of all other (Bird) taxa. This principle generated the corollary that where two or more taxa had basically the same name, modifiers would have to be added to distinguish them. Thus three 'Black Ducks' had to be named American, African, and Pacific and two 'White Ibises' American and Australian. A related rule is that the full name of one species should not be included in the longer name of another species. This rule prohibited a pair of names like Black-headed Gull and Great Black-headed Gull, forcing the initial adoption of Common Black-headed Gull. Adoption of Pallas’s Gull for I. ichthyaetus in response to good feedback allowed us to drop ‘Common’ and return to the preferred traditional English name." The IOC’s list includes separate entries for the "North Island Takahe" and "South Island Takahe" (see Finfoots, flufftails, rails, trumpeters, cranes, Limpkin). The list also includes separate entries for the "New Zealand Kaka" and "Norfolk Kaka" (see Parrots, cockatoos). The English Wikipedia also includes a page for the Chatham kākā. Although the Chatham kākā became extinct after the early 1500s, I assume that the IOC overlooked the Chatham kākā either because it was described relatively recently (in 2014) or because it is only known from subfossil remains.

According to the IOC’s principle quoted in full above, it is unacceptable to title the page for the South Island takahē as just "Takahē" and the page for the "New Zealand kākā" as just "Kākā". Admittedly, the South Island takahē is the only surviving takahē and the New Zealand kākā is the only surviving kākā. The North Island takahē was last seen in 1894, the Norfolk kākā was last seen in 1851, and the Chatham kākā disappeared before European settlement. Since these species are extinct, many reliable sources feel free to use the abbreviated names “takahē” and “kākā” when referring to the living species, as pointed out in the previous move discussions. Indeed, I am aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds#Naming says, "Wikipedia bird article titles may diverge from the IOC list when the most common name in reliable sources is different from the IOC name." However, the argument from the previous move discussions seems much less convincing when viewed in light of the IOC’s 2nd principle quoted in full above. Many species that have modifiers in their recommended English names are usually referred to without the modifiers in the common vernacular. When speaking of the New Zealand rock wren, most Kiwis simply say "rock wren". Similarly, when speaking of the American robin, most North Americans say "robin". In fact, in my experience, most North American non-experts are completely unaware that numerous other bird species are called "robins" (see Robin (disambiguation)). However, this vernacular usage doesn’t change the fact that the IOC and Wikipedia need to use unambiguous names. Does the fact that the North Island takahē, Norfolk kākā, and Chatham kākā are extinct make the case of the South Island takahē and New Zealand kākā significantly different from the New Zealand rock wren and American robin examples? No, I don’t think that recent extinction makes a significant difference. Treating recently extinct species like they never existed is kind of rude. This behaviour adds insult to injury by disrespecting species that humanity eradicated.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, I see no evidence that including the geographical modifiers would make these pages harder to find. The worst-case scenario is that English Wikipedia users will discover that other takahē and kākā species existed in recent history before quickly navigating to the correct page.

What should we include under the links Kākā and Takahē? For inspiration, I would look at the page Purple swamphen. This page merely lists the six species that used to be collectively known as the "purple swamphen". In that way, this page functions much like a disambiguation page. I know for sure that Takahē used to host a similar page that was deleted relatively recently. This page should be restored by someone with that ability. I’m not sure if a similar page for Kākā ever existed in the past, but one could easily be created.

Edit: In response to constructive criticism, I believe that turning Kākā and Takahē into redirect pages leading to New Zealand kākā and South Island takahē, respectively, would be a good choice. Almost all users who type in the abbreviated name are looking for the living species, not the recently extinct species that share the same name. With the help of redirects, the post-move pages for the living species would be just as easy to find as they are today. The article for the New Zealand kākā already has a hatnote mentioning the Norfolk kākā and Chatham kākā. The article for the South Island takahē already has a hatnote mentioning the North Island takahē. These pages would also be just as easy to find as they are today.

Edit: Talk:Takahē#Requested move 14 April 2022 provides a long list of sources that supposedly demonstrate that the name "takahē" (without “South Island”) is widely recognized as the correct English name for the species. Upon close examination, this list is not as impressive as it first seems. Two of the most credible sources on this list are Takahē: NZ native land birds ( and Takahē ( These two sources actually make use of the full name "South Island takahē" alongside the abbreviated name. Takahē: NZ native land birds ( says, “The flightless takahē (South Island takahē; Porphyrio hochstetteri), is the world’s largest living rail”. Takahē ( says, “English name: South Island takahē” and “Māori name: Takahē”. Many of the other sources provided in Talk:Takahē#Requested move 14 April 2022 serve to inflate the length of the list and aren’t credible sources for nomenclature. Takahe - the bird that came back from the dead | New Zealand Geographic ( was written in 1999. Many of the names used in this article are now considered outdated. For example, the "South Island thrush" is now the "South Island piopio," the "Stephens Island wren" is now "Lyall's wren," and the "Auckland Islands merganser" is now the "New Zealand merganser". This article is not an authority on correct nomenclature. The article Saving the takahē - Wilderness Magazine is from 2018, but it uses a scientific name that was already considered outdated when it was published, namely "Notornis mantelli". The use of this particular scientific name implies that this article does not recognize the North Island takahē (Porphyrio mantelli) and South Island takahē (Porphyrio hochstetteri) as separate species. This same criticism applies to several other sources. Many of the journal articles grouped under takahē - Google Scholar are also outdated. Three credible sources that Talk:Takahē#Requested move 14 April 2022 does not mention are South Island takahe |Takahē | New Zealand Birds Online (, the NZTCS, and the IUCN Red List, which all use the full name "South Island takahē". In summary, a plurality of credible sources supports the IOC’s view that "South Island takahē" with the geographical modifier is the full English name for the species. "Takahē" is an abbreviated name comparable to "rock wren" or "robin".

As for the New Zealand kākā, the sources and discussion at Talk:Kākā#Requested move 6 October 2021 primarily focus on demonstrating that the diacritics should be included. I feel comfortable tolerating the diacritics if it makes other people happy. I focus on restoring the geographical modifier "New Zealand" that the IOC uses. The IUCN Red List also uses the full name "New Zealand Kaka". New Zealand Birds Online only says "Kaka". However, this source also favours the abbreviated name "rock wren" for the New Zealand rock wren. The English Wikipedia, the IOC, and the IUCN Red List include the modifier "New Zealand" for the New Zealand rock wren. This suggests that New Zealand Birds Online has a pattern of avoiding the modifier "New Zealand". This makes sense for a regional source but not a global encyclopaedia. Columbianmammoth (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Oppose while I appreciate the need for IOC to have distinct names for every single species, I feel like this is pretty well covered by the passage you quoted in WP:Birds' naming conventions. Both birds are almost exclusively and unambiguously referred to as their current titles in modern usage (see the various sources provided in each respective move request). I also note your argument that you don't think this would make them harder to find, only to contradict that by pointing out that users would arrive at the wrong page and have to navigate through it to get to the bird they were actually after. Surely that's the textbook definition of making it harder to find? Turnagra (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Comment. Thanks for your comment. You make some good points. I edited my original post to respond to some of your concerns. I now recognize that using Kākā and Takahē as redirect pages is better than my original idea. I also added more information to show flaws in the sources you use in Talk:Kākā#Requested move 6 October 2021 and Talk:Takahē#Requested move 14 April 2022 to argue that the abbreviated titles are unambiguous. Columbianmammoth (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose WP:COMMONNAME YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.