This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 19:26, 11 November 2013 (Signing comment by 50.152.138.97 - "→Extinction of Giant Moa: new section"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 19:26, 11 November 2013 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 50.152.138.97 - "→Extinction of Giant Moa: new section")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Largest organisms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Correct errors Investigate the following:
|
 | A fact from Largest organisms appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 August 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
|
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Largest organisms article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 31 days |
Contradiction: Insects
The "Insects" section begins by claiming that a Giant Weta is the largest recorded insect at 71g (which is substantiated), and then claiming in the "Beetles" subsection that Hercules Beetles can exceed 85g (which is not substantiated). Also, in the "Grasshopper and allies" section it claims that Giant Wetas can exceed 75g. These are obvious contradictions.
Ant and Company
As the largest yhhyyhj byhj
largest reptile?
Pythons have been known to reach 20+ feet (record is something like 23 feet). That certainly deserves at least a mention...
Does anyone know what the scientific consensus is?
~ One the record length for a python is just a little over 32 feet and about 350 pounds although some sources such as books made by the Smithsonian museum say they can weigh 400 pounds.
Two the largest crocodile measured 23 feet long and weighed 3,000 pounds.
Flying Things
Added a bit about the largest birds that could fly, even if they're extinct. Having the largest bird alive today that can fly would be good.
Cymbospondylus was not the largest ichthyosaur
Cymbospondylus reached only lengths of about 10m, but Shonisaurus was about 15m, but there were even much larger ichthyosaurs, a recent find from Canada belonged to a 23m long ichthyosaur and isolated vertebras were found which belonged to ichthyosaurs of nearly 30m.
Many big-fish-stories and mistakes
I´ve seen that many of the "records" in the list of the biggest fishes are only big-fish-stories, many of them already easy to identify by completely false dimensions. There are false sizes of the wels catfish, the beluga sturgeon, the Arapaima, the giant morray (which is in fact heavier) and some more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.119.207 (talk • contribs)
Pig
I have removed this section:
- Pig. The world record for the heaviest pig so far is held by Big Bill, owned by Elias Buford Butler of Jackson, Tennessee. It was a Poland China breed of hog that tipped the scales at 2,552 lb. (1,157 kg.) in 1933. Bill was due to be exhibited at the Chicago World Fair when he broke a leg and had to be put down. At about this point in time, the trend in hog production began to shift to hogs that were much trimmer and very lean. For other pigs of notable size see List of pigs over 1000 pounds.
I did this because a pig is part of the order Artiodactyla & even the "monster hogs" are smaller than, say, a Hippo, Giraffe or a even a large bovid. Perhaps some of this pig text could be incorporated into the Artiodactyla section.
Largest wingspan?
The Andean Condor's wingspan to 320 centimetres (10.5 ft).
Reference
- Times Online: Boy, 11, shoots biggest hog in the backwoods
- Alberta Pork: This Business of Pork Production
- Bryce-Trainor, Matty (2001). Raptors of the World. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0-618-12762-3.
{{cite book}}: Unknown parameter|coauthors=ignored (|author=suggested) (help)
Size split?
Split - Article is over 200 kB, and should be split, starting with animals. Thoughts? Suggestions?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Support. I agree in that it should be split, into largest animals, largest plants and so on, extinct species should not be included, there's already an article for extinct animals mmm. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
- If this level of detail is needed then yes a split would be required, maybe we could get the size down by trying to reduce the details or maybe narrowing the entry criteria. For example, do we need a separate section describing elephant shrews? Op47 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. If we split, we would need to go to different pages, and that is bad for those whose internet connection isn't great. Maybe we could split it down into domains/kingdoms, but for now I'll disagree. IP.D (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. It makes sense to break up the article taxonomically. I do not think removing fossil species is a good idea because they tell us about a taxon's entire evolutionary history rather than just those species that survive in the present.
- Vertebrates comprise about two-thirds of the text, so any serious effort reduce the article to manageable size will have to break that taxon up into separate articles. Those with slow internet connections would still benefit from an introductory summary article that lists only the very largest plants, animals, and so on, and then links to respective articles about the largest organisms within each smaller taxon.
- Elephant shrews may seem obscure, but it's still useful information, and it's hard to justify excluding them while including charismatic groups like Felidae. They would be better listed in a Largest Mammals article than this one.Cephal-odd (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support. Not that we want to optimize for mobile users at the cost of standard browsers, but this is unreadable on a mobile platform (especially with such a slim table of contents), and really not that readable on a standard browser either; it also takes forever to load, which is costly on a slower connection. I do enjoy the fossil species - it is interesting to hear both the largest living and largest ever from an evolutionary point of view, so I support maintaining those. The current setup has a major focus on vertebrate animals - while being very slim in terms of coverage of plants and other groups (what is the largest palm? the largest gnetale? largest Lamiales, Orchidaceae? the section on mushroom fruiting bodies is hard to read, etc).
- Also agree on keeping all taxonomic groups - we hardly want to be looking at the charismatic megafauna solely - but again, splitting would help both readability and loading speed. If I want to read about the largest bird of prey, I don't want to have to wade through hundreds of lines of text about mammals. Even if nothing else, expanding the table of contents to include subgroups - not just orders - would be helpful for navigation. Perhaps having a series of links to subpages by phylum or order (hah, I know!) or tables similar to those under the Reptile heading (heaviest/longest/largest wingspan) rather than a discussion of each candidate species that is several lines long. Lakmiseiru (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Support in the main article only the largest organism of each class, then one article per class (e.g. mammalians). 78.54.93.191 (talk) 08:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support: Clearly it would be desirable to have largest lists for different classes of creatures Xabian40409 (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
'Mm
Oppose splitting it would make it even harder and more difficult to navagate instead of one page where someone could find all the answers splitting it would creat a fragmented list and force those who want to view the list as a whole to juggle numerous different pages and constantly switch between them, the list is really inteanded to be viewed as a whole and is a much better article as such Irishfrisian (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
And it also a split would make it very hard to compare organisms that aren't taxonomically close like the giant golden crowned flying fox and the eurasian eagle owl you would have to pull up two pages to compare them and if you have a bad internet connection it would be particularly hellish Irishfrisian (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I believe the above is a consensus to split (6 for 2 against with no policy reasons quoted). I intend to split this article into the following:
Leaving Fungi etc in this article.
Op47 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- Support 110.32.147.203 (talk) 09:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Extinction of Giant Moa
Largest Organisms (Birds) says Giant Moa went extinction 200 years ago. Misplaced Pages article on Giant Moa says it went extinct by 1500 A.D. Please correct mistaken entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.152.138.97 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- Start-Class Biology articles
- High-importance Biology articles
- WikiProject Biology articles
- Start-Class amphibian and reptile articles
- Low-importance amphibian and reptile articles
- Start-Class amphibian and reptile articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles articles
- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages Did you know articles