Talk:Hummingbird

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Pook21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordanviv02. Peer reviewers: Cbutl37, Wmartin21, Glabor5.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A mistake in "Courtship Dives"
In that section, "pmid = 14556561" appears in plain text. I know its supposed to be some sort of reference, but I couldn't figure out how to fix it. 74.132.8.133 (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

- Seems the PMID was incorrectly entered. This is a 2020 replacement, containing summary information stating the threshold is 5+ Gz for blackout in pilots. In this reference citing a 1955 study, Clark says the threshold for pilot blackout is 7+ Gz. Zefr (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Audio file for humming section
I looked through Wikimedia Commons for a simple audio file to include with the humming section added today, but there is nothing there. If any enthusiasts following this article have a short audio file to contribute, please upload it to Commons, and notify here. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 17:17, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Recorded "humming" from a cell phone of a single calliope hummingbird from my balcony (closeup recording) - added to the article Humming section - and another from a group of 3 calliopes at 2 m distance. Both in Commons and here. Zefr (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Section: Lifespan makes no sense
In Lifespan the text states:
 * Due to their small size they are occasionally prey of chameleons, spiders, and insects, particularly praying mantises.

However, chameleons do not occur naturally in the americas, and hummingbirds don't occur naturally in Africa and Eurasia, where chameleons are found. None of the references provided say this and I propose to delete that statement. MFdeS (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Certainly a good critical point on chameleons. There are some vivid videos one can find of mantis predation on hummingbirds, as well as this review which reported numerous mantis attacks, now mentioned in the article. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 03:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022
— Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect summary of scientific paper
Hi there - I'm the lead author of the paper cited for hummingbirds using monoterpene volatiles to find flowers (Byers et al 2014), which was not what the paper found - we found that bumblebees were attracted to these volatiles (which are produced by the petals, not the nectar), but did not do any studies with hummingbirds and previous data suggests they do not have a very good sense of smell anyway. Could someone remove this sentence, please? I'd do it myself but that feels conflict-of-interest-y...? 80.189.6.106 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ - thanks. Zefr (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

archive this page
so many topics modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 15:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

✅. Zefr (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hummingbird migration into Hummingbird
This split into a separate article (not that it is handled as a split - it's just duplicated material) seems unnecessary. About half the material, "Locations", is copied straight from Hummingbird; the rest, the "Reasons" section plus the end of the lede, could be added to the source article without problem. - If a separate article were required, then Hummingbird would need to be edited down to a short summary and linked there. The current setup is unsuitable. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I support merging "Hummingbird migration" into "Hummingbird". Much of the information in "Hummingbird migration" duplicates the main article, and the additional information could easily be incorporated into the main article. I don't think an article on the migration of the North American species is necessary. - Aa77zz (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge we do not need a separate migration article. Catfurball (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge. The content of the "hummingbird migration" article can be stated more succinctly and readily merged into the main hummingbird article. Zefr (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I will edit down the migration section in the main Hummingbird page rather than have the Hummingbird migration moved into the main page. I feel hummingbird migration is notable enough to warrant its own page. I would rather have the migration page be revised and expanded, as opposed to merging into the main page. I don't have the time to increase it further, so hopefully some of you can increase and expand it with new facts and info. Anderswarr (talk) 13:25, 21 January 2023 (PT)
 * Errm... at present, given the material included in the new page, there is no case for making it a standalone article. Saying "I'm not going to expand it but we need a new page anyway" is not going to fly under these circumstances. The correct approach would be to wait until you have the time and material to make a solid split and then do it. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok....but why must I be the one to expand it? I mean, why don't you have the time to do so, or anyone else for that matter? I'm not an active Wikipedia artist, and don't have time to constantly add to pages. I would be delighted for anyone else to contribute to the page, but the fact that you think I should have sole or primary responsibility for this page alone is not rational. Anderswarr (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * the intention is to have, at any one point in time, the optimal setup to present the material. With the current amount of material, that setup is a single article. Possibly with more content we would be better off with a split, but for that the stuff needs to be present, or intended to be added very shortly. Otherwise we are sustaining a setup that may be ideal at some point in the future but until then only has downsides. So no, it's not your responsibility to expand this topic, but it is yours and everyone elses to maintain optimal article states, and that may mean putting off such shufflings-around of text until it yields an improvement. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge - no need for separate article.  Onel 5969  TT me 18:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Onel 5969  TT me 11:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, was just about to look into it. Cheers! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Chukchi Peninsula or Autonomous Okrug?
This article states that the rufous hummingbird has been sighted in the Chukchi Peninsula, but Big_Diomede suggests that it should be on the island, which is part of the Chukotka Autonomous Okrug but not part of the Peninsula. The article refers to BOW, which I am not subscribed to. Could anyone verify this information? ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race(talk・contribs) 00:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I cannot see a mention of the Chukchi Peninsula in the Cornell BOW text here (Susan Healy and William A. Calder Version: 1.0 — Published March 4, 2020 Text last updated September 1, 2006). The Distribution section in the BOW article contains the text: "Coastal se. Alaska to 61° N, through Prince William Sound (unconfirmed report on St. Lawrence I. in the Bering Sea), s. Yukon, most of British Columbia but sporadic in northeast, ..."


 * The mention of the Chukchi Peninsula in the Wiki article was added in 6 Feb 2018 by an IP in this edit. The addition included a cite to the now defunct online edition of the Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW). The original cite to HBW Online has been changed to the BOW website mentioned above. Cornell BOW purchased the HBW Online data but BOW (then Birds of North America) would have already had an article on the rufous hummingbird. The original article in HBW Vol 5 p. 679 here (registration required) does not mention the Chukchi Peninsula.


 * Based on the above, I've removed the mention of the Chukchi Peninsula from the wiki article. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The article on the article of Big Diomede cites Newfield & Nielsen (1996) which includes the text: "Gibson notes that, for such tiny creature, hummingbirds are prodigious travelers. One rufous flew across the Pacific and ended up in Asia, landing on route on Russia's Big Diomede island." This report cannot be considered as reliable - the sighting needs confirmation. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree. Moreover, the reference does not include time. I don't know where the "1976" comes from. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race(talk・contribs) 14:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It was added in 14 March 2014 by Silvio1973. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race(talk・contribs) 14:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Superficially similar species - hummingbird hawk moth in Australia?
I note the reference to the hummingbird hawk moth which has been mistaken for the hummingbird is found ONLY in Eurasian. There is a similar moth found in Australia that has also been mistaken for a hummingbird. Following are some websites which mention the moth found in Australia which has been mistaken for a hummingbird:

https://www.sunshinecoast.qld.gov.au/Environment/Education-Resources-and-Events/Environment-Resources-and-Publications/Invertebrates/Hummingbird-hawk-moth

https://wildandpets.com/hummingbirds-in-australia/?expand_article=1

I personally saw one of these moths in Australia at dusk, and mistook it for a hummingbird even knowing we don't have hummingbirds here.

Tzali (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

"Avian Therapod Dinosaurs"
I have had very reasonable edits reverted twice. I am told to go to the talk page to discuss basic reasonable changes to a tiny sentence. I am directly lied to that this has been discussed at length, unless that is just referring to my single comment reply? Because it is literally not discussed here at all. And to top it off, the sentence contains a laughable and juvenile error that these editors are less interested in simply correcting than they are in exercising their power to revert edits (which we all have). It makes the article a farce, but sure, leave this obvious typo up. The fact that even this typo correction is not retained, or re-added manually, shows where the motivations of certain types lie.

So, let's discuss this. First, there is an obvious and laughable basic typo. It is properly spelled "theropod". Leave that if you like, to make a point or whatever, but it makes Wikipedia look shoddy. It is right at the start of the article, after the lede.

Second, this sentence is an abomination. The very phrase "avian theropod dinosaur" literally just means "bird", with an emphasis on their theropod and dinosaur affinities. All avians ARE theropods, and all theropods ARE dinosaurs, so it is also doubly redundant. It involves only a small number of words, sure, that's good, I guess. But I barely doubled the word count and provided a much more accurate and clear statement.

The real problem here is that it attempts to mash three statements together into one awkward, ambiguous, and unsightly phrase. These are: 1) That hummingbirds are the smallest birds (ever), 2) that birds are dinosaurs, and 3) that hummingbirds are the smallest of the dinosaurs (ever).

Although the second of these claims is by far the most ancillary, it is the ONLY one that has citations, and not only that, it has THREE separate ones. None of these even mention hummingbirds in any special respect (though two mention them in passing). Birds being dinosaurs is a highly tangential claim to anything discussed anywhere else in the article and certainly does not demand three separate sources. Claims like this in other articles, highly tangential and well-established, often go without citation at all.

The sources I provided are both DIRECTLY relevant, and both from reputable world-class authorities, to the question of small dinosaurs. The claim that hummingbirds are the smallest dinosaurs ever is really the one most in need of a source, and they are few and far between. If mine were inadequate, and there is no other adequate source, then this claim should not even be made in the article at all.

The very issue of dinosaurs to begin with is brought up randomly and needlessly. If it is brought up, these points must be clarified. Otherwise, it should not be brought up at all.

You owe it to Wikipedia to at least read this reply. I know it isn't as fun, easy, satisfying, and (somehow, sadly) fulfilling as just removing other people's edits in all of 5 seconds of very useful and important work, but it is incumbent upon you to continue engaging in what you have already engaged in with reasonable counterpoints. Otherwise, if you are not willing to put that subsequent work in, don't do the first, easier part.

Elmidae

Zefr

KettleMettle (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, cool it. The relevant discussion has largely happened at Talk:Bee hummingbird and other related pages. While I personally agree that the "smallest dinosaur" angle is mostly a party trick and is being ridden to death by some editors overly enchanted with the concept, there seems to be a general consensus that it's worth a mention, and wholesale removal will thus require consensus. So wait a few days for others to comment; civilization is unlikely to collapse in the meantime due to this content. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am concerned with the particular phrasing of the statement here. I am not opposed to simply any mention at all of hummingbirds as the smallest dinosaurs; in fact I think it is an interesting and relevant factoid. But it is largely tangential and unnecessary, and should only be included if it can be phrased in an accurate and coherent way. KettleMettle (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Three versions of text with/without sources have been presented. A revision combining versions 1 and 2 is possible (#4 below). Which version do editors prefer?

Version 1. Hummingbirds are the smallest known and smallest living avian theropod ( typo corrected ) dinosaurs.

Version 2. Hummingbirds include the smallest living birds, as well as the smallest birds ever known. Since birds comprise a lineage of theropod dinosaurs, and no smaller non-avian dinosaur is known, hummingbirds are also the smallest known dinosaurs ever to have existed.

Version 3. Hummingbirds are the smallest living birds.(unsourced)

Version 4. As the smallest bird in a lineage of theropod dinosaurs, hummingbirds are the smallest known and smallest living dinosaurs.


 * Version 4. Zefr (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Version 4. In version 3, the ref is not unsourced, but is the Britannica ref, which is for the whole paragraph. With intervening references, the Britannica ref should be repeated, for the "smallest bird" claim. I will concede to this as a reasonable compromise; I think the phrasing of ". . . bird in a lineage of . . ." is imperfect, but as I said, it is difficult to accurately and concisely convey these three ideas at once. For what it is worth, the two references do not explicitly say that hummingbirds are the smallest known dinosaurs, or even that they are the smallest birds (Britannica ref should go here). I appreciate the time and effort in responding and constructively furthering the discussion. KettleMettle (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2024 (UTC)