Talk:Bee hummingbird

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Keh18022. Peer reviewers: CooperOfford, FungiFish2020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Muzizimu.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
The Bee Hummingbird is one of the smallest birds in the world. It ways 1.8 grams, which is less than a penny. Its origin is Cuba,where it is called the "zunzuncito".


 * I think it actually is the smallest bird species. Although I seem to recall slight confusion as males and females are different size with one of them being smaller then same gender members of another species.(Or something) Still on average I think they're the smallest.--T. Anthony 14:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * When you say "penny" do you mean an American penny? Assuming that this is what was meant I added it to the article. Canadian pennies have the same mass so I'll add this too. Jimp 04:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It is the smallest bird indeed. From various sources (of various credibility) I've come up with a range of 5.0–6.3 cm (1.97–2.48 in) in total length, and 1.2–2.5 g (0.68–1.41 dr) in weight. For wingspan I've only seen a claim of "less than four inches (c. 10 cm)". The average male is 5.7 cm (2.24 in) long, weighing 1.6 g (0.90 dr); the female is larger (not sure about the average, one source suggested a weight of 2.1 g/1.19 dr).


 * It's compared with the size of a bee. I don't know what kind of bees do you have around, but a 5 cm bee would be a monster. Somebody should check those sizes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.60.14 (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dear 86.120.60.14


 * Please do at least a small modicum of research before you interject with "Somebody should check those sizes".


 * Note that within wikipedia, there is an answer to percieved need to check bee sizes. To wit, the world's largest bee is the Megachile pluto, also known as Wallace's giant bee, whose females may reach a length of 38 mm (1.5 in). (These bees exist, but they just aren't "around".)


 * If you would have read further down on this talk page you would have come upon a section entitled "A misleading claim about the size of a bee in comparison to the Bee Hummingbird". This addresses your conundrum to a small degree.


 * Osomite (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

As for the smallest warm-blooded animal it's a close call with the Etruscan Pygmy Shrew, the smallest mammal at 1.2–2.7 g (0.68–1.52 dr). But I've seen tha average for this species given at 2.2 g (1.24 dr), making it slightly larger than the Bee Hummingbird. Note that the Bumblebee Bat is often credited as the smallest mammal, but it is a little heavier than the Etruscan Pygmy Shrew at 1.5–3.0 g (0.85–1.69 dr); it has a smaller body than the shrew (2.9–3.3 cm/1.14–1.30 in versus 3.6–5.3 cm/1.42–2.09 in), but weighs more because of its wings – naturally the mass of the whole animal must be considered for this comparison. Don't you think that objects of dramatically different density (like coins) are a poor choise for comparison? --Anshelm &#39;77 18:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Update: "Female M. helenae tend to be slightly larger than males. Males grow to be 5.51 cm long and weigh 1.95 g, on average, while females grow to be 6.12 cm long and weigh 2.6 g, on average. This small species is very compact and agile with an average wingspan of 3.25 cm." –this from the Animal Diversity Web; though that wingspan is certainly wrong, as only birds with disproportionally long tails have total lengths greater than their wingspans. This must refer to its wing length, the length of the hand, a rather common mistake. --Anshelm &#39;77 23:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Body temperature
A body temperature of over 40 °C (104 °F) is actually quite common among birds. The highest body temperature for a bird that I'm aware of is 44.7 °C (112.5 °F) of the White-throated Needletail. --Anshelm &#39;77 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

photographs ?
surely the smallest bird in the world deserves being represented by a photograph. I beg your pardon, but it isn't the smallest bird in the world.

There is a hummingbird here in Cebu, Philippines which is only about 1 inch long. I have seen several of them in the Tayud/Silot area and even on my property here. It is either black or dark brown, but I couldn't tell as I was afraid to try to touch one for fear of injuring or killing it. I will try to remember to take my camera out sometime so I can get a video of one in flight around the flowers. They are a bit rare, but do sometimes go into some small wild flowers here.

I agree. Here is a pretty good picture, but I don't know how pictures are done on wikipedia, with copyrights and all that. -Liz 7/16/06

Non expert Outsiders review of this article: The article seems a bit anecdotal and could benefit greatly if the authors had a look at the way some other articles on fauna are broken down. If I knew how to add the tag I would tag this article as being in need of attention from an expert, not just on the bird, but also on the presentation of scientific material. I hope this criticism does not sound too harsh. I really appreciate all the work that authors contribute to Wikipedia, and it is a lovely bird.

As one other author remarked, it is too important a bird. It deserves some serious in-depth attention. It is also always nice to show the folks in the ivory towers of the encyclopaedia britanica that we are better than them.

Many thanks.

Elliott. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.232.112.58 (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Phylum?
This word needs some explanation. I'm guessing that it refers to the top of the head or "cap". Anyone help? Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC) wow this is neat.

Wording too poetic?
I've got a bit of an issue with the wording "The brilliant, iridescent colors of the bee hummingbird's feathers make the bird seem like a tiny jewel". This seems a bit too poetic for an encyclopedia, but I'd rather get others' input on it first. It seems to me that something like "The feathers of the Bee hummingbird are bright and iridescent". 50.196.48.211 (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

El Pitirre
The article included two identical reference to Except for Wikipedia quoting the article title and putting the journal in italics, this reference appears exactly this way in the paper This title is wrong, because in proper Spanish it would be "Estudio preliminar de la conducta reproductiva de Mellisuga helenae (Aves, Apodiformes) en condiciones naturales" (errors bolded by me). The article is available behind a $29.95 paywall at (error bolded by me). It's not clear from the purchasing page if the article comes with an English translation.
 * Martínez García, O., L. Bacallao Mesa, & E. Nieves Lorenzo. 1998. "Estudio preliminary de la conducta reproductive de Mellisuga helenae (Aves, Apodiformes) en condiciones naturals". El Pitirre 11: 102–106.

These references were inserted on 14 April 2015 by Acarino, who edited this article 15 times that day, and as of today, has made no other edits to Wikipedia. The article already included another reference to the journal El Pitirre, which seems to be a real journal, named for the common English and Spanish name for the gray kingbird (Tyrannus dominicensis). Given that Acarino was careless in entering the correct article title, one might regard all of Acarino's edits with skepticism. Someone should read the two El Pitirre articles and check this article for accuracy. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A misleading claim about the size of a bee in comparison to the Bee Hummingbird
The following sentence, contained in the opening paragraph of the Description, makes the claim: "As its name suggests, it is scarcely larger than a bee. Like all hummingbirds, it is a swift, strong flier."

"As its name suggests" is clearly anecdotal and lacks support. Did the rhinoceros beetle get its name because it was scarcely smaller than a rhinoceros?

Additionally, this statement concerning the size of the biggest bee compared to the Bee Hummingbird isn't accurate.

The world's largest bee is the Megachile pluto, also known as Wallace's giant bee, whose females may reach a length of 38 mm (1.5 in). The size of the Bee Hummingbird, whose females have a length of 55 cm (2.2 in).

To state that the Bee Hummingbird is "scarcely larger than a bee" is not an apt comparison. The ratio 55:38 = 1.45:1. The Bee Hummingbird is almost "half again" as large as the Magchile pluto.

This sentence should be replaced with a new sentence that accurately compares the size of the Bee Hummingbird to the size of the Magchile pluto. The phrase about it being "a swift, strong flier" should be deleted or moved to somewhere else in the article.

If there are no objections, and as time goes by, unless some "bee" or "hummingbird" expert wishes to undertake this correction, I will return and make the change I have suggested.Osomite (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Size comparison diagram
Hello! I generally edit paleontology-related articles for WP:DINO. Last year I created a size comparison chart for the extinct bird/lizard, Oculudentavis, featuring a bee hummingbird. Now that there is a diagram with only the bird, would it be useful to add to the article? And, since extant avians aren't exactly my specialty, is the size accurate, or should I change it? Thanks in advance! -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could you make the scale in 2 cm increments with a clear background, and move it just below the bird? Zefr (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what you meant by your request. Before I upload anything I want to make sure the diagram is satisfactory. Here is a link to the image, based on what I guessed by your comments: The grid in the background is in 2-centimeter increments, the scale is closer to the bird, and it will have a transparent background when uploaded to Wiki. Any other comments? -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The text gives the bird's length as between 2.2 and 2.4 inches, so is that ratio consistent with the image? Randy Kryn (talk) 03:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - from a general view using the 10 cm scale, the bird looks about 6-7 cm long from tail to beak, but the background grid of 2 cm squares was too faint for me to initially detect, and seems inconsistent with the bar scale. The background grid makes the bird seem to be 3-4 cm in length (6.1 cm stated in article). My comment above referred to having only a narrow scale bar in 2 cm increments - no background grid needed - right below the bird. Thanks for the work - a worthwhile task. Note to : 2.4 in. Zefr (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, that makes sense. In your first comment, I assumed you were talking about background transparency of the graphic, as opposed to removing the grid as a whole. As soon as I get some free time, I will update the chart. Thank you for the input. -SlvrHwk (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One more check before I upload it to Wiki! Is this better? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I like it, with one further request: is the hand to scale, and can the fingers be entirely within the image? It's relatable to hold up a hand, then visualize the bird size (as in the image here on talk). Thanks again! Zefr (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The hand should be to scale. Most sources I found list the average adult male hand at about 7.6 in. This is what is shown in the diagram. Are the fingers not completely shown in the image linked above? If not, it must be some error in the upload that is not showing up on my screen. Or am I misunderstanding you again? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All looks good. Well done on creating a useful image. Zefr (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The updated file is now on Wiki. Thanks for all of the helpful input, and I'm sorry for the embarrassing misunderstandings on my part! If anyone has any more ideas, feel free to let me know. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added to the Description gallery, with thanks again! Zefr (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Bee hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae) immature male.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 15, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-10-15. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Dinosaur flip-flopping
When this became the picture of the day, people (myself included) kept flip-flopping whether or not the Bee Hummingbird is the smallest dinosaur. Much to my chagrin, that is actually true. Please do not mess with the article, as dinosaurs are not technically extinct. Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Again that dinosaur thing in the lede...
Can we have a bit more of a show of hand about whether the "smallest known dinosaur" note belongs in the lede? This has been pushed by ever since they first added it in July 2020. To my mind this is about as much lede material as adding "fastest known dinosaur" to Peregrine falcon - true but an affectation. It's fine in the article body, but in the lede it's a party trick, in the service of the hobbyhorse of hitting people over the head with the fact that Bird Are Dinosaurs! as frequently as possible. This note should be kept out of the lede. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I don't really care about what any Nature article does or doesn't state - that is a sidetrack. That's relevant for whether it can be used in the article body. What I'm concerned with here is the editorial decision to drag the statement into the lede, making it out to be one of the cardinal facts about the species rather than merely a neat corollary to being the smallest bird. The lede is not for "cool facts", it's for summarizing the major points of the article. This isn't one. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a corollary to 'smallest bird'. The smallest dinosaur yet discovered could have easily been a long-extinct fossilized non-avian breed and not a living avian. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's more likely to confuse that enlighten. It's certainly not one of the most important things about the bird that needs stating in the lede. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 18:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary. It's true that the bee humming bird is a dinosaur, but it's also true that it is a fish. I am a fish; so are you and a so is a T. rex and a blue whale. We are descended through many clades, but it's not an appropriate label for the lead of an article. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 18:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Unsourced - delete if not supported. Well stated,, and I agree with the other conclusions, as much as it's fun to think and call a bee hummingbird the smallest dinosaur. Perhaps more to the point of WP:SCIRS and WP:V, the Nature article (retracted for a benign, logical reason, not because of anything ominous in science reporting about dinosaur/bird size) never said the "bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur," and the claim in the ScienceNews source is the author's choice of words for what is obvious. The challenged statement in the article is an affectation and does not belong in the lede. We don't even have a precise source to support stating what we know, indicating a WP:OR position (the bee hummingbird is the smallest bird, so must be the smallest known dinosaur). Zefr (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Due respect,, but what WP:SCIRS source says the "bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur"? Not the Nature article and the ScienceNews article is intended to report on the Nature article, with the author making the statement without a source. We need a strong SCIRS source to justify having the statement in the lede; it is not further discussed or supported elsewhere in the article now. Btw, I interpret "show of hands" as WP:CON, so this discussion is justified for consensus. Zefr (talk) 20:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep it as very lead relevant and shouldn't be decided by a 'show of hands'. It was added by and maintained by myself,, and , and included on the front page when the Bee hummingbird was the feature picture in mid-October. The sources are good, and they mention that the Bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur. The fact that the smallest known dinosaur in history is still alive and only found on one island (Cuba) is probably as encyclopedic as Wikipedia can get, given the importance of dinosaurs and species conservation. As to this confusing readers, it hasn't so far, not even when it was featured on the front page. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Omit; not supported by the Nature article, and the ScienceNews source uses qualifications ("Mesozoic dinosaur" "only dinosaurs still living today"), which make it clear that the ScienceNews author is aware that they aren't using "dinosaur" in the ordinary sense of the word. Per SchreiberBike, bee hummingbirds could also be considered the smallest fish capable of flight (although Kitti's hog-nosed bat is a close contender for that), but that's not the ordinary meaning of fish. Plantdrew (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Supported by the Nature article. The article language seems a main point of contention. When the authors incorrectly assumed that their specimen was a dinosaur they stated: "The find appears to represent the smallest known dinosaur of the Mesozoic era, rivalling the bee hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae)—the smallest living bird—in size." which infers that another dinosaur had been found which was the same size as the bee hummingbird. It wasn't. As for the humans-are-fish thing, may I point out that fish are not categorized into two categories: Non-mobile fish and Mobile-fish. Dinosaurs, on the other hand, are either Avian or Non-avian, per Wikipedia's dinosaur page. Seem to be a few straw dinos being included in this discussion. Either being the smallest known dinosaur is relevant or it isn't. Seems pretty relevant to a fish like me. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * More aspects, fish and chips. Maraapunisaurus, the largest known dinosaur, includes size information in its lead paragraph (what's good for the largest dinosaur is good for the smallest, no?). And the use of fish constitutes a red herring in this discussion, and is blown out of the water by its own comparison. Humans evolved from fish, yes, but had to take the long way around to get there (and took even longer to cannibalize themselves for profit). Birds, on the other fin, came prepackaged as dinosaurs and continue as dinosaurs. Big difference. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Does the fact confuse readers? They seem fine with it. At least nobody has complained. During the extremely well-viewed last 60 days, including nearly 10,000 views on the day that the 'smallest dinosaur' wording prominently appeared on the main page in the description of the featured picture, crickets. Not one reader has asked about it on this talk page, and if the confusion was so widespread as to reign confusion upon a good percentage of its Wikipedia readers you'd think at least one would have come to this talk page. What more likely happened, if a reader was curious then they probably clicked on the dinosaur link, where the two types of dinosaurs, avian and non-avian, receive adequate attention in the lead paragraph that any confusion clears up. One reason, since it looks like I'm being left alone, to go over the objections point-by-point rests on the biased title of this discussion. Not really a neutrally voiced title, and by setting a tone followed by the first few respondents, it seems fair that their reasoning for wanting to remove an adequate statement of fact receive detailed answers. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Corollary? This is a major point towards its removal. But no, as mentioned above, "smallest known dinosaur" is not a corollary to 'smallest bird'. The smallest dinosaur yet discovered could have easily been a long-extinct fossilized non-avian breed and not a living Cuban avian. An aside, "smallest known" could be linked to Dinosaur size, which I'll add and which could further explain the factual content. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To briefly respond to the above: yes, the Nature article does make the exact statement (Discussion, second sentence). That's beside the point when considering whether the statement belongs in the lede. No, this is not parallel to Maraapunisaurus or similar fossil species whose status as dinosaurs is the main criterion; "birds are dinosaurs" is true but of distinctly secondary importance for all bird articles as opposed to dinosaur articles. No, it is of no account whether a Picture Of The Day hook worked well as clickbait - we don't phrase ledes to lure readers (and we don't expect them to leave comments about how they were or were not confused by the hook). Summary, I remain unconvinced. But suggest leaving this open for a while yet, some further assessments would be useful. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying that the descriptor 'largest dinosaur' is okay in the largest dinosaur's lead because it's a dinosaur, and then implying that the smallest dinosaur shouldn't include that reasonable descriptor because it's not familiar as a dinosaur, even though it is the smallest dinosaur, gives the mind an "is" "is" turnabout workout. Then what does "phrase leads to lure readers" have to do with this page or how the feature summary was worded, since it consisted of statements of facts and certainly not designed as reader bait. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apart from the obvious that being a small dinosaur is not a an important feature of hummingbirds (it doesn't help understand them) and has no place in the lede, the statement is not unequivocally correct. Dinosaurs, the colloquial term, can be used for the extinct animals to the exclusion of birds and this is probably the common usage, in which case hummingbirds are not small dinosaurs. What can be said is that birds and hummingbirds belong to the clade Dinosauria. This is beyond question and is why some people use dinosaurs more inclusively and why the term non-avian dinosaurs was introduced. I've never heard the latter used in real life. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't work as a point in this case, nor does your repeated assertion that readers would be confused. Birds are factually dinosaurs including as used in Wikipedia. This is the smallest known dinosaur including those from the fossil record. The point you make belongs on the bird talk page and not here. The largest known dinosaur appropriately carries that descriptor in its lead, and the smallest does as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * - not to jump into a show of hands, but I have to say as an editor with some but not much understanding of taxonomy who just drove by this article, I assume, as it is presented with no other explanation elsewhere, that it was some content addition placed by an IP editor no-one had got round to removing yet. It isn't explained at all within the article - there's no link to an article specifically discussing the taxonomic specification of many modern bird species, and though it's true that both birds and reptiles descend from dinosaurs and seem to be part of that group, I don't think I've seen this as part of any other article, which is what first lead me to confusion.
 * Either I'm missing an existing "extant dinosaurs" article, or this is just a weird 'technically-yes' fact irregularly applied to this, and maybe other articles, which, though true, doesn't actually seem to lend much to it. Unless it's explained further, and actually has a place in the general style of bird and reptile articles, I don't think it lends anything - I just think it confuses.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) (&#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me!) 17:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a well written description of your experience. I don't see how this fits WP:CONFUSE as readers are linked to the leads of the birds and dinosaur pages, which explain well that birds are a type of dinosaur, and then there is also a link within the lead sentence to Dinosaur size which also adequately covers the concern (links are natural article extensions, and WP:CONFUSE asks us to "Add a link to an unfamiliar topic", so luckily the vandal IP left us a good link series). And a good idea, maybe a sentence or two in the body text can further focus on this pertinent encyclopedic fact that we have here the smallest known dinosaur, to me as describing as the fact that it's the smallest known bird, which nobody is arguing should be removed from the lead. The smallest known dinosaur could just as easily be a smaller non-avian that pops up in a fossil bed somewhere, and if and when it does then the descriptor on this page should be removed because yes, second-smallest dinosaur would probably not be lead worthy (just as the second smallest bird probably doesn't mention that fact in its lead paragraph, if at all). Randy Kryn (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove two different issues here. One, a page on a bird species should not assume that its readers are familiar with the evolutionary history of birds. If someone doesn't already know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, this page would be very confusing and does not explain itself. And an explanation of this would be undue for the lead, could easily be included in the body. Second, the definition of dinosaur that includes birds is certainly not the definition in use in popular culture. Again, this needs explanation, it shouldn't just be dropped in. And this explanation would be very undue in the lead of this article. It is not such an important fact that it needs to be included in the first few sentences.Somatochlora (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just saw this and your good faith removal of the information. No issues here, I've addressed the "confusion, where am I?" issue in the text above (links already cover the false issue, which are suggested by WP:CONFUSE as a way to resolve it: "Add a link to an unfamiliar topic") and the "people don't know birds are dinosaurs" issue is tangential to the factual information involved. The edit summary for the removal mentioned the "vote" numbers here, which has nothing to do with how discussions are decided. All arguments for removal have been refuted multiple times. If the fact that this is the smallest bird is removed from the lead by consensus then I can see removing the dinosaur fact, which is an entirely different matter, but including only the one and not the other is inconsistent with encyclopedic coverage. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Can someone make a closing request at WP:CR, thanks. I can't work my way through the coding involved. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Amazing. We are now camping out in straight stonewalling territory. I put in a WP:CR request. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:43, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussions are not closed by show of hands, as your comment and biased close request seem to indicate, but on the factors brought up, discussed, and in this case, refuted one by one. Camping out in logic and common sense a more apt description. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Randy, You are right that it is not a show of hands, but the many words you have written have persuaded no one but yourself that dinosaurs belong in the lead. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 01:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Although few have commented here, my many words were needed because editors kept coming up with similar but incorrect points, such as the main oft repeated concern that readers are confused, bewildered, and betwixt themselves to find out that this is the smallest known dinosaur (fainting salts provided at the giftshop). This major point for removal is of course not backed by any policy or guideline, and WP:CONFUSE refutes it by recommending a solution already in place - providing adequate explanatory links to Bird, Dinosaur size , and Dinosaur. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove. Birds are only dinosaurs within one particular school of cladistic thought, which is not that of the average reader, so this material is simply confusing, and verges on intentionally confusing, i.e. WP:POINT.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To describe the fact that birds are members of Dinosauria as "one particular school of cladistic thought" is pretty blatantly untrue, it is consensus only opposed by fringe pseudoscience.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 21:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that the English word “dinosaur” is not necessarily a synonym of the clade Dinosauria (outside of paleontological contexts). This has been pointed out to Randy Kryn many times on different pages and he does not seem interested in hearing it.Somatochlora (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We need to follow the definition provided in our dinosaur article, everything else would be confusing to the reader imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The least confusing thing would be to explain how the word is being used in contexts where it might otherwise be confusing - preferably without implying that other usages are somehow incorrect. It seems clear to me that there are many articles where the cladistic definition is more appropriate (e.g. Archaeopteryx) and many articles where the non-avian definition is more appropriate (e.g. Jurassic Park (film) and an article about a modern bird seems near the line to me.Somatochlora (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Remove - worthy of article, not worthy of lede. While its factual nature is not in dispute this fact is of little importance in the grand scheme of information about this taxon, compared to status as the smallest bird being its claim to fame, so to speak. As far as sources go the Nature paper only states it is the smallest known bird and hardly even makes an implication that this means it's the smallest known dinosaur, though the intended audience obviously knows this. The news article, for its part, does clearly identify it as a dinosaur, but not the smallest; it just says it's the smallest among the modern birds.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 21:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove. Choosing a group more inclusive than "birds" seems arbitrary to me. If it is the smallest known dinosaur, it could possibly be the smallest known archosaur as well, so why choose Dinosauria and not Archosauria? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with Jens. "Smallest bird" is certainly the more useful qualifier for this article. It does not require an undue amount of background context (hummingbirds are obviously birds). Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, and over and over, editors bring up the issue of "confusing" as if our readers were fragile birds themselves, somehow scared to even read what to them is new information. Please everyone, read and study WP:CONFUSE and you'll find that links are specifically mentioned as a way to solve the concern. The sentence is linked to Bird, Dinosaur size (where the Bee hummingbird is imaged in the lead as the smallest known dinosaur), and Dinosaur. What in WP:CONFUSE overrides this? The smallest known dinosaur did not necessary have to be a bird, given the growing fossil record, it just happens that so far it is, and this pertinent fact is mentioned along with the 'smallest bird' descriptor. Given all that, what is the confusion? Randy Kryn (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Look, Randy, with few exceptions, there are few objections to including this language as a matter of fact. But it just doesn't belong in the lede. You'll note that WP:CONFUSE (which is not a policy page) also suggests shortening by the deletion of extraneous text, which in this case it is—we're taking a complete detour to introduce the fact that it's also a dinosaur and happens to be the smallest (which is really quite trivial in the grand scheme of things). Adding links is not a silver bullet that magically solves all issues of readability and comprehensibility.
 * And, again, just to emphasize that this really isn't that significant of a fact. The bee hummingbird is also the smallest avemetatarsalian and the smallest ornithodiran, and it's quite something that there are no pterosaurs smaller than it throughout the known fossil record. There's also the fact that sampling bias is very much a factor in determining this fact, and that small animals (as a whole, needless to say small adults) are generally not going to be preserved well. More stock can be put in the dinosaurs which are largest. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The language you refer to: "Delete extraneous rambling words (especially weasel words and/or peacock terms", has nothing to do with this issue. And thanks for pointing out that WP:CONFUSE is not a guideline or policy, and it should probably be ignored by everyone regarding this discussion (which would remove the backbone reasoning for not allowing the fact from the lede, a reasoning refuted by several of the solutions already applied which are provided in the information page). Beg to differ that smallest known dinosaur is a trivial fact while smallest bird is important (yes, there may be smaller examples which could arise in the fossil record, but they haven't as yet). Both are equally important and defining for this species. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Added a new source, Livescience, the opening quote from the section "The smallest dinosaur?" states "The current record-holder for the "smallest dinosaur" is actually a bird, the bee hummingbird (Mellisuga helenae)." Is Livescience a reputable source? Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The journalistic-award winning author of the article, Laura Geggel, has been cited 123 times on Wikipedia. That's not chickenfe... hummingbirdfeed. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Gentle Reader, OTC. (And yes, IF) The cite does not, in fact support the claim made in the article very well. First, it’s a retracted paper being referenced. Next, and more importantly, the claim about “BiRdz IZ DiNoSaurz!!!!!) links back through to far, far more nuanced descriptions. The fact that the source breathlessly reported retractable material suggests, strongly, that whatever the author’s merits are overall, this particular piece of writing is gee-whiz bullshit. Qwirkle (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It supports the fact that the bee hummingbird being the smallest known dinosaur verbatim and without qualification. Laura Gegge shows true professionalsm here by not taking the Nature article as the last word but was awaiting final results. The end result was that the skull being reported on turned out to be a lizard and not a dinosaur, so the bee hummingbird continues as the smallest known. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , could you please stop with the gasoline-throwing? I don't want this thing in the lede either, but random excisions while we are trying to formally get the discussion closed are anything but helpful. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The status quo was without. It should be up to the person wishing to make controversial changes to get consensus for the change. Repeatedly adding it back (way over the three revert limit) after it has been removed by several people is disruptive editing. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The status quo was with the "smallest known dinosaur" wording in the lead, which the article used when it was the main page's featured picture. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Smallest known dinosaur placement below the lead
Added a mention and source in a non-prominent location, seemingly allowed by the above discussion and close. Did you know that the Kitti's hog-nosed bat is the world's smallest mammal, the Paedocypris progenetica the smallest fish, or the Paedophryne amauensis the smallest vertebrate? I didn't, until I read it in their leads. Placing the smallest known dinosaur information lower on this page isn't quite the same thing as keeping it in the lead but at least alerts careful readers of the fact. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are claiming…as you are…that “descended from” exactly equals “the same as”, perhaps we should something elsewhere about the most intelligent bony fish. Einstein would obviously be a popular choice. Wikipedia claims to be about representing the current recieved ideas about the subjects it covers, and the idea that “birds are dinosaurs, full stop” isn’t in that category. Expert opinion ranges from “Hell, yeah!” through “Sorta, but…” to “No, not really”. This is not, however, an ongoing serious debate; it is rather an unimportant question that is only really taken seriously in the kind of gee-whiz bullshit sources that some wikiteurs are far too fond of. Qwirkle (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Qwirkle. Birds are not descended from dinosaurs, they were and are dinosaurs from the get-go. Not according to me but to the evidence and experts (I am not an expert or a professional in the field). This seems very well accepted, and Wikipedia, reflecting this, calls birds avian dinosaurs. Please see and discuss your concern at Bird and Dinosaur to start with, which is where the issue should be addressed if you believe a site-wide encyclopedic change is warranted. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. As long as experts still use the terms both appositionally and oppositionally - as a simple glance at the literature will show they do- then it isn’t quite that simple. More importantly, though, it is entirely possible for a detailed article to contain a statement, supported, nuanced, and with appropriate caveats, that is nonetheless undue as a clipped, bald assertion of fact elsewhere. Qwirkle (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. For the record, I am fine with it being in the article body with a bit of context, because there exist reputable sources that can be cited to this effect. But as long as it's not in the lede I'm not much invested either way. So excusing myself from this rematch. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ”With a bit of context” would be the operative phrase…and at some point that can become WP:UNDUE. Qwirkle (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the wording added in a non-prominent paragraph and then reverted. What do you find objectionable and what would you add for context (seems brief and straightforward to me): "The bee hummingbird is also the smallest known dinosaur[7] as no smaller bird or non-avian dinosaur has been found in the fossil record." Randy Kryn (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the simple sentence again after no response why it shouldn't be here, and Qwirkle reverted again saying to wait for more response. Don't know how long they want to draw out the wait. Days turn into weeks. Weeks turn into waiting for Godot. Will he arrive? Randy Kryn (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * He who claims that birds are not dinosaurs, is not an expert. Please insert this simple uncontested fact about the bee hummingbird.--MWAK (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, it seems time. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Insufficient evidence for the "smallest dinosaur" connection
The Livescience source used to state the bee hummingbird connection as evidence for a small dinosaur was retracted in July 2020. We have no WP:SCIRS source to state that the bee hummingbird is a living dinosaur. I made this edit to remove the dinosaur connection from the lede, and to indicate the need for SCIRS. Zefr (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Retraction of the original paper in Nature. Zefr (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This was gone over at length in the earlier discussion. If I recall the retraction was that the specimen in question was a lizard and not an avian dinosaur, so the claim that the specimen equaled the bee hummingbird as the smallest known dinosaur was what was retracted. Please read the paper and then its retraction, thanks. The bee hummingbird continues to be the smallest known dinosaur, avian or non-avian, which certainly seems lead-worthy to some editors. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I renewed this talk topic today because this edit to the lede had been made yesterday by . An IP and I reverted that edit.
 * Concerning the statement, The bee hummingbird continues to be the smallest known dinosaur, avian or non-avian, this 2015 review indirectly connects the bee hummingbird (Introduction) as the smallest bird descendant of dinosaurs. Is there a better, more direct source? Zefr (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The bee hummingbird is not a descendant of dinosaurs, it is a dinosaur, the smallest known. No smaller avian or non-avian dinosaur has been found and historically recorded. Seems an important and apt descriptor for the lead but other editors have objected to its placement there, and I still don't understand why but it has been said that it would confuse readers (seems an unusual reason not to include something in an encyclopedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For a more direct source, it's a bit like looking for a source that says that, for example, humans are the smartest apes, while also stating this makes them the smartest eukaryotes. Humans are, by definition are apes and eukaryotes, just like how the bee hummingbirds are hummingbirds, birds, dinosaurs, and archosaurs. Circling back, any source stating that the bee hummingbird is, in fact, a bird, should do fine Puffin Crazy (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It really isn't equivalent, however, because the claim that humans are the smartest eukaryote appears nowhere on the human page. If this animal has been identified in other sources as being notable for being the smallest dinosaur, then we should include the information, but if that novel approach has not been taken it would be just as WP:ASTONISHing to say that it was the smallest archosaur without a source. Our job is not to identify literally every possible superlative that something could have. Our job is to identify the superlatives that other reliable sources say about a topic. In this instance, I think Wikipedia is out on a novel limb since the source used to claim that this animal is the smallest dinosaur does not mention the animal at all thus requiring, at minimum, a WP:SYNTHesis of ideas to make the claim. Sure, WP:COMMONSENSE prevails in saying that this is the smallest dinosaur known, but it is not Wikipedia's place to make that statement as directly as it is made here. Agree also with Tryptofish's point below about the term "smallest dinosaur" having enough ambiguity for it to be editorially inadvisable to state this sort of thing in WP voice. jps (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I just became aware of this page, and I think we have to be careful with the language that we use. Did an editor here just say that multicellular organisms are the smallest eukaryotes? I've read all of the discussions on this talk page, and I've read the source cited for the statement, and I'm not sold on flat-out calling it a dinosaur anywhere on the page. We shouldn't be treating dinosaurs as a single thing, because our page on them doesn't. "The dinosaur in your backyard" is a catchy way of explaining the evolutionary progression, but avian dinosaurs are not what the average reader will think of when we say "dinosaur". I respect the sourcing that treats birds as present-day avian dinosaurs, but I also feel that it is encyclopedic to make this edit: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Following jps' astute comment above mine, I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that we should include this superlative at all. We have reliable sourcing that this species is the smallest bird. That's important to say, and it's enough. I'm going to wait a few days to allow other editors the opportunity to find better sourcing, but if that isn't forthcoming, I'm going to remove the passage. It's the smallest bird, and birds descended from dinosaurs, and there is a terminology in which birds are a living branch of dinosaurs. Big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Birds are not descended from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs. All relevant Wikipedia pages agree with the descriptor. Comparing other things, like humans and fish, is a distraction and not a good one. Birds were dinosaurs at their start and have remained so, they are the most successful dinosaur at close to 11,000 species. The bee hummingbird in particular is the smallest known dinosaur, and just so happens to also be the smallest living dinosaur. That's why the present wording seems fine - no smaller dinosaur has been discovered, fossilized or on the wing. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note to concerning your revision today - see the first sentence of this thread above: the Xing article in Nature was retracted. Zefr (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I know it was, and I have "(retracted)" in the citation. However, I examined the reasons for the retraction, and the content that I have cited to it was not retracted. The problem leading to the retraction was that there were concerns about the type specimen of the fossil reptile. For that reason, I wrote "may have included species in the genus Oculudentavis", and not "did include". Readers who follow the blue link to that genus will find a "Scientific criticism" section that describes the retraction. I still think it's useful to cite the source, because I would rather present the superlative as an attributed quotation, than to say it in Wikipedia's voice. And since we are unlikely to get consensus to remove the content entirely, I'd rather it be written in a nuanced way, instead of just making a blanket superlative that will be confusing to non-expert readers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Or we can wait for/find a firm source. I don't think a retracted publication can stand as WP:RS. May be a topic for WP:RSN. Zefr (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as I see it, we either need a source that specifically names the bee hummingbird as the smallest dinosaur, or we have to remove the paragraph entirely. We cannot say in WP voice that the bee hummingbird is the smallest dinosaur without a source that says so explicitly. I'm good either way, but it looks to me like complete removal will result in a bigger dispute. But I'll happily add a "better source needed" tag. I'll do that now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was also struck by the fact that the authors of the Nature paper considered the extinct species to "rival" the bee hummingbird in size, leaving open the possibility that the bee hummingbird isn't really the smallest. That's why I used two quotes instead of one. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's also striking that a Google search for "smallest dinosaur" returns lots of links about the extinct species, and not the hummingbird: . --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Source
This article in The Auk cites "Norell et al. 1995" for this fact which was a popsci-level book published for the benefit of the American Museum of Natural History. The book was reprinted in 2000 and while Google Books won't let me determine the page number, the engine confirms that the sentence "The smallest dinosaur is the bee hummingbird, Mellisuga helenae, found only on Cuba." is contained therein. Perhaps someone can figure out how to verify the page and source? This is probably better than using a retracted paper as a source. jps (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I went to the link you gave from Google Books, and I found the quoted passage on page 25, so that's it. (I found it by looking at the TOC for the section on the smallest dinosaur.) I agree that this is a better source to use, even though it is, indeed, very popsci. I'm going to be away from editing for a few days, but it would be fine with me for someone to change the page with this source. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's nice that Google would let you look at page 25. It would not let me look that far into the book. Ah, the peculiarities of data protection by Alphabet. Anyway, glad we could get this sorted. jps (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it did let me see that page yesterday, but it no longer does today! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Plausibility of under 2 grammes claims
Sorry, but this sounds ludicrous. A tea bag is 1.5 to 2 grammes, depending on the brand, and definitely less than 5.5 centimetres.

Now you are telling me that something larger than a tea bag -- that is a living creature at that, containing food and oxygen and carbon-dioxide in lungs -- weighs less than the tea bag?! I simply find that hard to believe.

How are these birds even weighed? Alive or dead? This all sounds pretty off to me. I'd say at 5.5 cm it would be 7-8 grammes minimum, and maybe even 11-12.


 * I don't know the history of weighing this species in particular. But there is lots of history of banding common North American hummingbirds and part of that process does involve weighing them, so we have really good data there. For example, two common species, ruby-throated and rufous Hummingbird, are both about 3-4 g and 8 cm long. Scaling that down to the bee hummingbird which is smaller, the provided weight seems very plausible. Unlike a tea bag, hummingbirds have evolved low body-weight to allow easy flight. Somatochlora (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
— Assignment last updated by JDav39 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Diet table
Hi thank you for your recent contributions to this page. I noticed that you converted the list of plants it visits into a large table. This is quite distracting as it drives the focus away from the article's actual topic. If this was on a page specifically focused on hummingbird diets or plant/hummingbird reactions, this might be reasonable, but here it is somewhat irrelevant. It would be helpful if you labeled the flower in that section's image, though (Hamelia patens). Keep up the good work and happy editing, -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)