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

how about Forpus!?

I think Forpus is another name for parrotlet! there is a page already and a lot better than this one about forpus, should not parrotlet just redirect to forpus? XP_2600 (talk) 20:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


There is research that might be summarized here. E.g. Karl Berg


I do not see a reason to have articles for both

Pacific Parrotlet and redirecting to Parrotlet (merging contents as appropriate)? Ljosa 16:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

I dissagree, for example that is the same as saying that the lovebird article and each of the individual species articles should be merged, this is an individual species, not the generalistic genus article. Most species have a genus article and a species article, not all the information clutered together. The genus article should have general info. and link to a more informative species article. Brewster 00:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that there should be a separate page for the wild Pacific Parrotlet, with scientific information and conservation status, etc, with a link to the Parrotlet page which has the information about the domesticated varieties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbgrebe (talkcontribs) 23:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are different. Parrotlet is a name of several groups and the Pacific Parrotlet is one species. If there is excess duplication it could be removed, but there should be two different pages. I will remove the merge tags. Snowman (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many Sections Purely Opinion Based

"Parrot species (including parrotlets) are herbivores" "High levels of proteins (most particularly animal proteins) is unhealthy for Parrotlets and any other Parrot species living under any alternate conditions (i.e. non-breeding, pets)."

These unilateral declarations do not take into account that there are naturally carnivorous parrots (most notably the kea). Not necessarily commonly kept as pets, but in the interest of strictest accuracy, this is best addressed. (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


While nothing at all in this article is referenced, statements made in the Speech and training, Demeanor, and Pellets section sound completely contrived. In speech and training it asserts:

"They can learn more than 10–15 words and can "whistle" songs well."

This based merely on what one person's bird knows. I doubt there are studies on how many words a certain bird learns but this is a completely contrived assertion.

"They have about the same speaking and whistling capabilities of a cockatiel."

This may be true but needs citation.

"They are also very good learners for commands such as "step up", "kiss-kiss", "step down", and other small commands."

What are small commands? What is to say they are not good at learning other things? Once again is this based merely on one person's experience?

"Some parrotlets can learn advanced tricks, but not as advanced as a Macaw or an African Grey Parrot."

Who is to say that only some parrotlets can learn advanced tricks and not others? Who has demonstrated that a parrotlet cannot engage in learning that a Macaw or African Grey is capable of? These are wild assertions.

"Having the ability to speak does not necessarily mean a bird will speak; it depends on the specific bird's personality."

This is probably true but it isn't based on anything.

The demeanor section sounds entirely like opinion as well:

"These feisty little birds should not be overlooked in favor of more widely known types of birds; any Parrotlet owner will tell you that these birds possess all the intelligence and attitude of the largest of macaws."

Wikipedia does not need to know what "any Parrotlet owner will tell you" but fact. This does not belong in wikipedia at all unless it is citing a book about parrotlets.

"These birds are fairly quiet companions, making them ideal for those who live in apartments or condominiums. Males are more likely to talk than female parrotlets."

These may be true but need citation.

The Pellets section does not make any sense and also sounds contrived/opinionated:

"Most Avian Vets & knowledged Aviculturists agree that pellets should represent between 30 to 50% of any Parrot's total daily diet. The % varies depending on various aspects such as ; - particular species (Afro-Asian Ringnecked Parakeets, African Greys, Amazons, Cockatoos, Conures, Grass Parakeets, Lories, Lovebirds, Macaws, Parrotlets, Pionus...), - lifestyles (pet &/or breeder), - developpement stages (growing chick, juvenile, adult...), - in &/or outs of breeding seasons...

Tropical species such as Amazons, Conures, King Parrots, Macaws, Parrotlets.. . should be offered diets where pellets represent a greater part and about 1/2 to 2/3 of their daily diets."

This stuff doesn't make sense. If "most Avian Vets & knowledged Aviculturists agree" then it should be easy to cite them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fifteen99 (talkcontribs) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Some parts of the article are weakly written even when they fail to be untrue. --4096 tavua (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping them alone

I think that it is absolutely unacceptable te keep higly social species like parrotlets alone. 2A02:A444:87C9:1:B0EC:E5A4:F099:DF1D (talk) 08:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]