Talk:Largest organisms

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.

ALSO SINCE WHEN WAS 1,000 SQUARE CENTIMETERS = 1 SQUARE FOOT ... ??? So 1 Square meter = 1 Square foot... Hope america dies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.23.247.178 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

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).

Ruined

What moron ruined this page !! Its all trash now its unusable revert it immeadeatly 98.250.4.115 (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok i agree Irishfrisian (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Concensus was reached here [[2]]. Further more, I do not appreciate being called a moron or a vandal. Such terms in the circumstances are regarded as wp:uncivil Op47 (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge

This article is unusable in its current form its a giant hassle and a nightmare to switch between the pages it was fine the way it was now its just a mess a single conclusive list was the goal of this page and if people think its too long they can make pages about the classes but they shouldn't destroy this one it was probably the single most destructive edit i have ever seen on wikipedia it is unacceptable Irishfrisian (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your hyperbole isn't very convincing: among other things, the "single most destructive edit" would actually be summarily deleting the page, not trying to transfer material from this page to related daughter pages.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Mr Fink. This article is a big mess and should probably be rewritten from scratch. Splitting the article into subpages is spreading the problem, merging the mess again is restoring it. Any clean-up is WP:IMPROVE --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So, rather than keep the mess or even splitting the page, or point blaming fingers, we need to start brainstorming about how to rewrite the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

if you want to improve the article merge it it is far easier to fix a single article than it is to maintain multiple articles all splitting the article did was to isolate the pages meaning some of them will be completely ignored i was trying to improve the article until you made my job exponentially harder and i now would have to juggle multiple articles as will users who will have to pull up multiple articles on multiple tabs the information in this article has been made much less accessible Irishfrisian (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if this offends you Irishfrisian, but the last time you edited this article before I made the split was 15 months ago. Unless an entry has been placed under the wrong section then I hardly see how splitting the article interferes with improving it. On the other hand, at least on my computer, the sheer size of the article is having a severe impact on the performance to the point that editing the article is virtually impossible. I am sorry, but the overwhelming majority of editors wished to split the article. Being naturaly lazy, I opposed splitting at first and do not split articles lightly. I could not say anything to the overwhelming majority to deny the concensus to split. You have not said anything either. When you can say something that could close that discussion with a "concensus is not to split" then I will happily listen. Until then I would rather be building an encylopedia rather than arguing about a clear cut decision. Op47 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I gave you numerous reasons not to split all of which you ignored as a "personal attack" and heres another reason the constant loading and unloading of articles that i have to do now causes my computer to crash or how about the fact that the branch articles you created are considered to be lower importance than the main article and therefore will be overlooked and ignored if you want proof just look at how the articles are classed the main folly of your actions is that they assume that the viewer of this article knows what their looking for Irishfrisian (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Reasons? Reasons you and your IP alias gave like "it's a nightmare," or "you'll be banned for your vandalism"?--Mr Fink (talk) 22:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, Irishfrisian, is it at all possible if you can find some way to propose ways to fix this page that do not revolve around incessantly castigating and threatening Op47 for having dared to make edits that offended your very soul?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the page to prevent the current edit warring. Please resolve this discussion before continuing to revert the article. Kuru (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kuru. It would be very helpful if we were to have actual proposals of how to improve the page, rather than have personal attacks, or hyberbolic lamentations.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Ive been trying to improve this page by reverting you're destructive edits the biggest problem with this page is that it has been fragmented i recommend you stop ignoring my valid arguments your part of the problem not the solution all you've done is scatter the mess and creat more isolated pages which will be neglected I've been trying to reason with you i'm the one who gave arguments to support my point while you haven't given a single reason to support yours do you have any idea how much of a massive inconvenience it is to load and unload so many pages 98.250.4.115 (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)