Wikipedia

Talk:List of largest birds

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Ostrich2Emperor in topic Species not on the list OF largest birds in history
Learn more about this page

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on List of largest birds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of largest birds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of largest birds. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)Reply


This article states "The last of the elephant birds became extinct about 300 years ago" while the article on the elephant bird sates "They became extinct, perhaps around 1000-1200 AD". I assume someone missed a '0'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.247.215 (talk) 15:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Error in or badly described fact. edit

In this sentence: The southern cassowary (Casuarius casuarious) from Australia and Papua New Guinea 9.8 to 19 cm (3.9 to 7.5 in).[8]

It is unclear what the measurement given refers to, and from the surrounding sentences one is led to presume height. However, this measurement is definitely not the average height of these birds. In the Southern Cassowary article the height is listed as 1.5 - 1.8m, and the measurement 9.8 to 19cm is given for beak length.

Not sure why passenger pigeon is listed here edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section "Columbiiformes", there's this (footnote excluded):

"The passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratoritus) of North America. The average weight of these pigeons was 340–400 g (12–14 oz) and, per John James Audubon's account, length was 42 cm (17 in) in males and 38 cm (15 in) in females."

The first group of words isn't a complete sentence, and I'm not sure that the passenger pigeon was the largest pigeon in any category. Could anyone please help me on this? (Note: Edited to include Latin name of passenger pigeon in italics.)--75.170.93.109 (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sylviornis as largest member of Galliformes edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the section "Galliformes", there's this:

"A prehistoric, flightless family, sometimes called (incorrectly) 'giant megapodes' (Sylviornis) of New Caledonia were the most massive galliformes ever, up to 1.7 m (5.6 ft) long and weighing up to about 40 kg (88 lb)."

According to the Wikipedia article Pangalliformes, Sylviornis was actually a stem-galliforme, so I'm not sure if this was correct to write. (Note: Edited to include link to section.) (Note: Further edited to have genus name in italics in quoted sentence. Sorry about all this.)--75.170.93.109 (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Found seemingly extraneous entry in "Procellariiformes" edit

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

After the first entry mentioning the wandering albatross in this section, there's this, two entries later:

"The wandering albatross can travel 6,000 kilometres in 12 days. Their long wingspan help them to travel easily for several hours without flapping."

Could anyone please tell me if this should be removed?--75.170.93.109 (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Eurasian black vulture edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Manwë986: seeing as you still don't know how, I guess I will have to do this again.

  • The Eurasian black vulture is on this page, in the appropriate list, and has an image here because it is generally considered the largest of the Accipitriformes sensu strictu. I'm not copying over all the reliable references from Cinereous vulture#Description - they are there for you to look up (and one is given in this article). If you personally "don't care about that", that is your personal problem; solve it outside Wikipedia.
  • Whether the illustration here should thus be of a black vulture or of an Andean condor is a matter of discussion. Either would be fine by me. What is not acceptable is removing the image with a non-comment like "unwanted information", which is hopelessly inadequate or deliberately misleading.
  • If you remove the image once more without discussion being concluded here, I will give you a formal warning for edit-warring. If you still don't get it after that, I will, as indicated, report your ass at WP:3RR. It is utterly amazing to me that after having been warned about this in half a dozen different venues (that I am aware off) you are still incapable of understanding WP:BRD and think that posturing in edit summaries is the way to communicate. I've run out of patience with your poor behaviour some time ago and will henceforth take the straightest path available to getting your fingers smacked when I see you being disruptive again. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I see that you're still insulting me. It is I who had enough of your vulgar language and unreasonable attitude. I already told you that the dubious arguments are getting out of nowhere. The arguments about andean condor being the largest bird of prey, and the relationship between the New World Vultures and other birds of prey. And there were reliable sources supporting each of them. The reason I removed the image is because although the black vulture is the largest Old World bird of prey, it's not the overall largest in the world (Both New and Old worlds). And the order Cathartiformes (which includes the New World vultures) is classified by most taxonomic authorities in the order Accipitriformes. Also, the information within cinerous vulture stated that it is one of the two largest Old World vultures, alongside Himalayan vulture. As I said earlier: The people, ecologists, and scientists had been arguing about these for years, and they are getting out of nowhere.

Since you insisted that image stays there, so be it. Then I will add another image: The image of andean condor. And I will also include the reliable source indicates that it is the overall largest bird of prey in the world. You can check them out once I'm done.--Manwë986 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can't quite parse what this "getting out of nowhere" phrase is supposed to denote, but having both condor and vulture as illustrations looks fine to me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It should be "getting out of hand", if it's simpler to understand, and it's referring to the arguments which the people, ecologists, and scientists were having for years.--Manwë986 (talk) 05:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Kite edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The red kite is larger than the black kite, especially as it has a much bigger wingspan - according to Wikipedia's own article about the red and black kite!!!. 62.198.132.120 (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Species not on the list OF largest birds in history edit

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All species on this list have body mass of over 100 kg (220 lb)

  • Aepyornis hildebrandti
  • Mullerornis modestus
  • Gargantuavis philoinos
  • Dromornis australis
  • Dromornis planei
  • Ilbandornis lawsoni
  • Ilbandornis woodburnei

Ostrich2Emperor (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_birds&oldid=1203553300"