This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Birds Low‑importance Alexandrine parakeet is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. WikiProject Birds To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more) Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more) Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more) Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more) NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more) Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more) Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more) Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more) Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more) Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles. More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo. Southeast Asia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. South Asia This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I red that this species is now introduced into Europe,is this true?Mweites (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there are feral populations, not sure if any are self-sustaining yet Jimfbleak (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Based on the maintenance templates on this article that I found on WP:BIRDS, I did some copy-editing of the article. There was (and largely still is) a huuuge amount of information on capitivity with opinions and recommendations on "HOW TO" keep these birds in cages, exhaustive information on different types of diet in capitivity with absolutely no sources cited. I have trimmed these and re-written bits of these. I hope the editor who put it in will take note of the requirements to provide in-text citations for these if they want to add it back. Also, maintain a tone of an encyclopedia and not that of a "HOW TO keep parakeets" manual. prashanthns (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 May 2011 I reverted the article to the state it was on 30 April 2011. On 2 May 2011 a huge edit messed up spelling, number formats, and much else. Many edits have been made since then attempting to clean it up. The edit on 2 May 2011 essentially added information on how to care for these birds, and that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. This used to be a professional-looking article, and now it is again. I would apologize for what might look like a heavy-handed reversion, but I see no one who deserves such an apology, and I see no better way to fix this mess. Chris the speller ^yack 18:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as though that IP user actually reverted the article to a very broken version from a couple of years back (or may have or edited+saved an old version). You did the right thing, as far as I'm concerned. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the article now. I have removed all the dubious and copy-pasted content. I have clarified the confusing content, fixed grammatical mistakes, added proper references and divided it into different sections. Achat1999 (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I brought a related species, Newton's parakeet, to FA status some years ago, perhaps you can look at its structure for a precedent. Also note that a cladogram could be added, based on the same study as the one used in Seychelles parakeet. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As of Sept 1, 2012, the page is horrendously written: presumably edited by someone with a very limited grasp on English grammar and spelling. Additionally, it contains a great deal of superfluous nonsense regarding the required gauge of wire to be used in breeding cages. I will attempt some edits, but don't have enough time to "fix" this doozy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.235.122 (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked this page (May 2016) to get some more information on the Alexandrine parakeet having seen them in Tehran. The sections on captivity and aviculture are rubbish. They repeat information from elsewhere, are full of unreferenced statements, and are extremely badly written ('[they] are loving of food'). As this issue has been going for over 7 years with no resolution - the sections fall way below the standard set by the bird pages in Wikipedia, I think the best solution is to just delete them and if someone wants to add them back they can undertake the task of rewriting them properly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.158.162.164 (talk) 16:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User, I've no idea about it, but If you've explained this on Edit summary then I wouldn't have reverted your edit! Pranish|^Message 16:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we keep the images of captive birds in the Gallery section? Two out of three images in the main section are that of captive birds so is it suitable to include more images of captive birds in the Gallery? Achat1999 (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries are discouraged, see WP:Galleries. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So I should remove it? Achat1999 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, images should be incorporated into relevant sections instead. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I have incorporated good-quality images into relevant sections. Achat1999 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Achat1999 Not agreed, location isn't really important unless there is a location specific encyclopedic value, such as difference in plumage, behaviour, nuisance value etc. AshLin (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the article is plagued by low quality, low value images and some of the article images and entire gallery needs to be deleted. See Eurasian tree sparrow to see how images shoud be in a Featured Article. AshLin (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My 2c - we don't use galleries. Regarding location, it is sometimes useful, especially if it helps determine subspecies. And noting subspecies where possible is good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will remove it then. Achat1999 (talk) 03:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is much better now, Achat1999 :) AshLin (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@YorkshireExpat and The Great Mule of Eupatoria: We need to figure out what the correct answer is. I don't know how this taxo stuff works. The IUCN page does say Palaeornis. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Invasive Spices and The Great Mule of Eupatoria: My preference would be to work with the IOC Master Lists. I mainly reverted the changes because they were causing errors in the {{Speciesbox}} but agree this needs deeper investigation. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Psittacula it appears that Palaeornis comes from an alternative taxonomy that has been suggested and that the IUCN follow this taxonomy. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia generally uses the IOC taxonomy for bird names. I'll start a thread at WP:BIRDS for more eyes on this... --Iloveparrots (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]