Talk:Largest organisms/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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) wikipedia: consensus further proves my point seeing that 1. Its not supposed to be a vote 2. I was one of only a few who voiced any concerns and 3. No one bothered to incorporate my concerns into the final "decision" the decision stands as invalid Irishfrisian (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

You've made no suggestions other than to edit war, while attacking other users for making "destructive edits." Your reliance on hyperbolic dysphemisms and clumsy wiki-lawyering does not endear you, and your incessant edit-warring solely because you "know best" makes you frustratingly impossible to work with. So, CAN YOU MAKE ACTUAL SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE ARTICLE OR NOT? I mean, the page history demonstrates that the only edits you've made to Largest organisms within the last year are edit warring to keep your preferred version, and nothing else.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I gave my suggestion merge this article and also it takes two to edit war again and again you refuse to address my concerns as is required by wikipedia: consensus and your constant belittling of me is not appreciated Irishfrisian (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia: polling is not a substitute for discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irishfrisian (talk • contribs) 14:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC) "While a poll may occasionally make it a lot easier for people to find a mutually agreeable position, in other cases it can undermine discussion and discourse. In the worst case, polls might cause participants not to civilly engage with the other voters, but merely instead to choose camps." "Polls might lead editors to expect that a majority will automatically win the argument, or that the result is permanently binding. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on What Wikipedia is not (a democracy), and what it is (a consensus)." "The purpose of a straw poll is to stimulate discussion and consensus. Editors should evaluate the explanations that the participants in a straw poll offer and see if those explanations help to develop their own opinions or suggest compromise. A few well-reasoned opinions may affect a discussion much more than several unexplained votes for a different course.""while we do vote on things, votes without reasonable accompanying rationales receive little consideration unless you also explain why you are voting the way you are. Votes without rationales sometimes are ignored."Irishfrisian (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Or, in other words, consensus doesn't count if it doesn't agree with your favorite version of the page, and it's everyone else's fault but yours that you're edit-warring to preserve your favorite version of the page, which conveniently lets you off of the hook for coming up with actual suggestions to improve the page.--Mr Fink (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge. If merged, this article will be ~273k bytes in size. According to WP:TOOBIG, an article of this size should almost certainly be divided. You have not provided a reason why this article should be the exception, instead you have supplied a selfish reason that contradicts the guideline.
I would also be unhappy about the constant merging and re-splitting. You may be sure that with the amount of support that this split had, there will be a lot of unhappy people if the article is now merged. Also when you merge articles, the sub articles need to be deleted and I note when you have tried to revert me, you have made no attempt to do this.
"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" This is contrary to my experience and it contradicts the guideline. A large article such as you are proposing would be slow to load and navigate due to overloading the browser. Quite apart from it is a larger haystack to look for a needle in.
"the constant loading and unloading of articles that i have to do now causes my computer to crash" frankly, I do not believe you. And in any case, what loading or unloading. The only editing you seem to do is to revert my edits.
"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" I am not sure how this is a requirement, and in any case, just where am I supposed to look?
"the main folly of your actions is that they assume that the viewer of this article knows what their looking for" so why should we penalise those users that do. In any case, I am not sure that there is a guideline that considers this a priority.
"I was one of only a few who voiced any concerns" Indeed, because most other people did not share your concerns or worked out that they were invalid concerns.
"it takes two to edit war again and again" Lets look at the facts, Apokryltaros/Mr fink has overturned your reversions 6 times. I have overturned them twice, Kolbasz and Jax0677 once each. That makes at least 4 people who do no agree with you.
I note that you have reverted this article again while I have been writing this (without any edit summary), which I think is just rude. I have formally opposed your suggestion that we merge these articles. I am going to revert you yet again, because you did not wait for concensus to be reached. Please do not revert until this suggestion to merge has been discussed. Op47 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Then there is the problem of how Irishfrisian routinely ignores consensus and suggestions if Irishfrisian does not approve of them (re:attempts to handwave away consensus by either lying that it agrees with the user or claiming that it's really "straw consensus," therefore doesn't count)--Mr Fink (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Closure of split discussion and Edit War

To whom it may concern and Irishfrisian especially,
If you have a problem with the way I closed the split discussion then you should not edit war, but rather you should ask for a review. Challenging a closing gives the details on how to do this. That article does recomend that you try discussing with the closer i.e. me. Irishfrisian, I consider [[1]] to be you discussing the matter with me. In case you have not worked it out, that has not convinced me that my closing of the discussion was in any way wrong. If you still have a problem then the link I have given would appear to be yor remedy rather than edit warring. Op47 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

No weight measurements for plant life?

To those who work with plant lefe, is it not possible to include measurements for the heaviest plant species? How much does a giant sequoia weigh? And a baobab? and the giant species of ficus? the largest cashew tree in the world? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Longest living animal does not equal longest extant animal

I don't know how to edit this, but the caption for the lion's head jellyfish on this article labels it as the "longest living animal." This implies that the jellyfish lives a long time, but really it just has very long tentacles (i.e. it is the longest animal that is still alive). Could someone please edit the caption to read "longest extant animal." 67.1.190.122 (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delyle (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

1 sq m = 10,000 sq cm. 1 ft = ~30 cm so 1 sq ft = ~1,000 sq cm. Obviously not exact, but close enough. 92.30.140.90 (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants more exact numbers, they're already posted at Conversion of units#Area: one square foot is 929.03 cm2, so yes, 1000 cm2 is a good approximation.  Unician ∇  18:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Nile Crocodile

Isn't the Nile Crocodile much heavier in terms of max weight than the Orinoco croc and the Black caiman, because it says the Nile croc reached a max weight of 1090 kg and the other two 1100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.254.44 (talk) 11:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Largest bird

May need an update with the description of Pelagornis sandersi. See:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/07/02/1320297111

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28164063

©Geni (talk) 03:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the wingspan is wider than Argentavis but Argentavis is still larger (more massive/heavier). Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Fungi vs Pando

The Fungi section, talking about the largest known fungus, reports that "the total weight of the colony may be as much as 605 tons[vague]. If this colony is considered a single organism, then it is the largest known organism in the world by area, and rivals the aspen grove "Pando" as the known organism with the highest living biomass." However, Pando's article reports that it weighs on the order of 6,000 tons, not 600. Is this a typo? Does the fungus really weigh 6,000 tons? A quick look at a couple of references for the fungus suggests not. Should this be changed? Kajabla (talk) 14:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Dreadnoughtus be added to the dinosaur section?

It's reported at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadnoughtus Bob Enyart, Denver KGOV radio host (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Depends... Dreadnoughtus isn't among the top 5 largest known dinosaurs, but it is the largest known from fairly complete remains. There are much larger dinosaurs known from fragmentary skeletons (see Dinosaur size). Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Gaur vs Salt Water Crocodile for #10 Spot

Salt water crocodiles have a potentially greater average weight, and much greater maximum weight than Gaurs. On the "largest terrestrial animal" table, the gaur holds the number ten spot, but should not it be replaced by the salt water crocodile? The main objection would be whether said crocodile can be considered "terrestrial", and the relevant page: Terrestrial animal is no help. Any thoughts? NathanielJS (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Largest organisms. 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 to let others know.

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 05:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 25 external links on Largest organisms. 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 23:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Size of whales

I am curious about the list of largest organisms here. They are all whales, but browsing the internet, I see many different rankings of the largest whales on earth. How do we know which is right? Why were these chosen for this article and how certain can we be that this is the "right" answer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.29.34 (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Largest organisms. 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) 16:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't forget Acetabularia!!!!

It and some of it's cousins are HUGE! The biggest single-celled organisms around!!!!Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Largest organisms. 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) 04:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

African vs. Asian elephants

Are Asian elephants really longer than African elephants (as stated in the table)? I have tried crosschecking this and it seems dubious to me - African elephants are supposed to be larger by virtually any measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.91.212.222 (talk) 14:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Added information about Thiomargarita Magnifica (Source CNN)

/* Bacteria */ The original text (which I have not changed) mentioned that Thiomargarita Magnifica grows to 1 cm in dia. I added the information (Source https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/23/world/worlds-largest-bacteria-magnifica-intl-scli-scn/index.html), that it can grow up to 2 cm in length. The added text was:

According to study coauthored by Jean-Marie Volland, a marine biologist and scientist at California's Laboratory for Research in Complex Systems, and an affiliate at the US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Thiomargarita magnifica can grow up to 2 centimeters long. Jainsh (talk) 01:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Plants Section Contradictory

"The largest organism in the world, according to mass, is the aspen tree whose colonies of clones can grow up to 8 kilometres (5 mi) long. The largest such colony is Pando, in the Fishlake National Forest in Utah. A form of flowering plant that far exceeds Pando as the largest organism on Earth in area and probably also mass, is the giant marine plant, Posidonia australis, living in Shark Bay, Australia."

The underlined statements contradict one another. Hylahyla (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Largest_organisms/Archive_2&oldid=1189656316"