Talk:Great auk

message: http://www.igespar.pt/media/uploads/revistaportuguesadearqueologia/11.2/17_18/18_p.361-370.pdf
Appearently, its range extended far south than in the article, up to Porto Santo. Given that this paper is still considered reliable, this should still deserve a mention  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoyangopterus (talk • contribs) 09:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: South Iberian fossils

message: I've seen several references that put the Great Auk in the Laridae family of the Ciconiiformes. Any thoughts? - UtherSRG 15:42, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Only Sibley-Ahlquist taxonomy as adopted by the AOU goes for this radical scheme, the rest of the world uses Charadriiformes. Surely it should be Alcidae rather than the gulls, Laridae, anyway? jimfbleak 17:32, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see about twice as many lisings as Alcidae than for Laridae, and the family issue was more of my concern than the old S-A tax. - UtherSRG 17:41, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Some confusion might have arisen from the fact that all Auks are now placed in the Lari suborder. Family's still Alcidae tho. Will add to the evolution section of Auks on that. Dysmorodrepanis 22:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: It's remarkable that English-speaking people with no knowledge of Gaelic keep assuming that Gaelic speakers must be using a Norwegian or Germanic name for the bird.  geir=spear, applied to a bird with a beak that looks nothing like a spear is weak. The bird was extirpated from most of the British isles because of commercial exploitation for its feathers and its rendered-down fat. Rendered fat, or tallow, is "geir" in Gaelic. See online: A Gaelic Dictionary in Two parts by Robert Archibald Armstrong.  Google translate also gives gwêr as Welsh for tallow or wax. (Tallow, meat, feathers and eggs were the four products for which the bird became over-exploited in the first place.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.165.233 (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said much the same below already, and the danger here is that it's a constructed etymology. The similarity of the Norse and the Gaelic is hardly a coincidence (fowl and fugl are certainly connected), and there's no reason to criticise the spear-wielding Norse of a millennium ago for noticing correctly that the bird had a large sharp beak. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: And in any case, we can only do what the sources say. Ancient Scandinavians hardly used Gaelic loanwords for native birds in their own countries, and fowl is clearly of Germanic origin, so "garefowl" is hardly a native Gaelic word. I have a cousin called Thorgeir, by the way, it is a pretty common word. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: more on etymology: garefowl & geirfugl

message: How (and why) was the last pair killed?  Looks like there's probably documentary evidence of it since the date is known.  Tempshill 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The last great auks were killed to be mounted as collectors' specimens. They looked impressive in a glass case (though not as impressive as in real life, I daresay) and their increasing rarity made them ever more collectable. Since they couldn't fly or run fast they were easy to kill with a club. The story goes that the last one killed in Britain (on St Kilda in 1840) was clubbed to death because it was thought to be a witch. I don't know if it's true but it seems sadly credible. Flapdragon 10:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I heard this story too, that the last great auks were killed to be mounted as collectors' specimens. Is there a reference to it somewhere?Kuifjeenbobbie 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The last pair were strangled to death. Their skins were sold, and their current whereabouts are unknown. Their internal organs remain, preserved in alcohol at the University of CopenhagenMHDIV  ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 13:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morbid curiosity 

message: This tale feeds off the trope of the Gael as savage-primitive, used as advertising spin/sensationalism.
The Witch of St Kilda 1840 is a pencilled-in title or note on a colour illustration of what was allegedly the last bird caught in the British Isles; done in a handwriting style of a later era, and probably added when the illustration was offered for sale. 
First, the "witch" tale is only credible to people who unquestioningly accept ignorant-savage cliches about inhabitants of remote Scottish islands. The St Kildans were still seeing this bird in the 19th century, so even those personally unfamiliar with it in 1840 still knew its name.  The St Kildans told English-speaking visitors that they knew the bird as a "geir" fowl:  this is a word in both Irish & Scottish Gaelic meaning tallow or fat/grease. (See Robert Archibald Armstrong's A Gaelic Dictionary in Two Parts). Tallow and feathers were the products for which the bird was commercially over-exploited.
Secondly, any St Kildan (and most natives of Scotland's islands today) can immediately see that a great auk looks almost exactly like its closest relative the razorbill, (alca torda). The differences are (a) scale and (b) a single detail of summer plumage. Razorbills are still a common sight.
Thirdly, other writers report the St Kildans as saying they regarded the garefowl as the "king of the seabirds".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.165.233 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: killed as a witch - lacks credibility:probably a sales pitch for an illustration 

message: On the 3rd of June 1844 off the coast of Iceland, three fishermen discovered the last two living Great Auks. They were a breeding pair with a single egg. Jon Brandsson and Sigourer Iselffson clubbed the adult birds to death, while Ketil Ketilsson smashed the egg with his boot.
Reverted this copyvio morsel with its unlikely-sounding and unattributed detail contradicted on other websites. Flapdragon 00:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ketilsson the egg-murderer 

message: The recently added photographs by user messybeast are incredibly good.  I have put them in a wiki table.Snowman 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I've heard about the story of the the last two: "They were incubating an egg, and tried to escape when they saw the sailors. One was caught on land, but the other managed to escape to the sea. Even so, it got briefly stuck between rocks, and was captured as it struggled free. Both were killed via clubbing. The egg was smashed under some guy's boot." Is this true? Dora Nichov 07:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.  Flapdragon 14:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's back in the article.  Tempshill (talk) 05:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fate Of The Last

message: Are Great Auks Penguins in the same sense as Southern Hemisphere Penguins, are they related?
OR are they both called penguins but due to appearance? Either way the article should speculate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.142.68.229 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related to south pole bretheren?

message: A specimen skin of The Great Auk has been kept in a safe, along with a skin of the also extinct labrador Duck, at the ROM. (Royal Ontario Museum)in Toronto. Both specimens have been in the safe for so long now that any individual who had the combination to the safe have long since passed. At present, no one knows the condition of the skins as the safe has not been opened in more than 80 years. 66.207.199.34 20:37, 2 February 2007
A likely story. Flapdragon 13:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Ontario Spoof/Myth 

message: In the current versions of the French and English articles (at least), the extinction date is said to be 3rd July 1844, but in other articles (including the German and the Korean ones at least, as well as a number of "google results"), they say 3rd June 1844. Unless reliable evidence is provided, I think the article could have no precise date at all concerning the killing of the last specimen and still be good :). --Eiku (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction month 

message: Will the anonymous person posting from 125.164... please first show some evidence that the great auk was found in the USA before yet again adding the category "Extinct animals of the United States". Thanks. Flapdragon 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't do that, but... would the AOU's official opinion be enough? ;-)
Seems fair enough! Thanks. Flapdragon (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct animals of the United States 

message: Would the Great Auk be defined as megafauna? --Maurice45 (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NO!  unless you saw it  like the overfed dodos in captivity. -
Floating Disembodied Head of Mario (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Megafauna 

message: I would like to put it up for consideration to add the fishing industry as a major cause of the extinction of this wonderful bird. It is mentioned in several books that I have read that there was a deliberate effort to eliminate this bird since it was providing too much competition for fishermen..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.195.157 (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction causes 

message: The Great Auk was mentioned in Popular webcomic Questionable Content Kilshin (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned in all sorts of places. But this article does not need to catalogue them all. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 13:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that's what a popular culture section is about. Kilshin (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture 

message: Redo refs 24 on down. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: Under "Relationship with humans," the last sentence says "Later, European sailors utilized the auks as a navigational beaker..." Should "beaker" (which makes no sense) be "beacon" (which is obviously what was meant)? Paulburnett (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be the right correction. Now fixed. Shyamal (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beaker? 

message: Suckish~ Why nobody put whether it's solitary or group? AIYO~
Just in case anyone wants to address this. (Msrasnw (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In Distribution, it mentions that the auk breeds in large colonies, while in Ecology and behavior, it points out that it migrates south for the winter in pairs or small groups. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A user wrote this on the article page - moved here to tidy up 

message: Just an admonition: I hope you realize that the FAC criteria are very different from the GA criteria. Passing as a GA in no way endorses the quality as being at the FAC level.  Xtzou (Talk) 00:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know. Is there anything you've noticed that would stop a FAC? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC nomination 

message: 9] Spanish and Portuguese sailors called the bird pingüinos, which means "fat bird"
I'm not aware of any usage of "pingüino" as "fat bird" in Spanish. My impression is that the word is a (more or lest) recent loan word from English. To back this, think that when the Spanish first visited the Falklands in the 16th century they called them "Islas de los Patos" ("Duck islands") presumably for lack of a better word to describe the native penguins.--Menah the Great (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish and Portuguese 

message: After reading "Great Auk" (Fuller, 2002) and "Who Killed he Great Auk?" (Gaskell, 2001), it appears to me that this article takes many dubious claims and old descriptions of appearance and behaviour at face value. It is stated that a human body has been found covered in auk skins, but in reality only 200 beaks were preserved surrounding it, that they were attached to a cloak is simply inferred. What is the statement that they were preyed on by orcas and polar bears based on, how can this ever be proven? And nothing is known of the appearance of the chicks, other than a single description saying they were gray and downy. It can of course be inferred that they looked like this, but isn't it safer to state that nothing is known? Also, it is unknown whether the grooves on the beaks were actually white, since only some remains have this feature, and it is unknown if it is simply paint or not. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I had come across a snippet of the 2002 version  of The Birds of North America in my quick google search and it only stated that polar bears, killer whales, and sea eagles "probably preyed on Great Auks" (p. 38). I find that very dubious. Shall I put that tag back? Perhaps for all three species? SaberToothedWhale (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It could at least be removed from the intro. In the article body itself, we could maybe write "it is claimed by x that x, x and x preyed on the great auk" or some such. Also, all we know about its behaviour is from old, unreliable accounts by fishermen and similar, not by "modern" naturalists, who did not observe live birds. Therefore, most books take the accounts with a grain of salt, but this article appears to take them as fact. In fact, the article may gain from the inclusion of actual quotes from the people who saw it, which are all in the public domain. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, all info in the reproduction section is based on very few contemporary accounts, we need to give reference to who made these observations and how reliable they were. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious claims 

message: Currently the first line of the intro reads:
:The Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis), formerly of the genus Alca, was a large, flightless alcid that became extinct in the mid-19th century.
"that became extinct in the mid-19th century." Surely "that was hunted to extinction in the mid-19th century." would be the most pertinent description regarding this creature. 
At present the title suggests that it simply became "extinct"; thus it "ceased to exist". The purpose of the introductory line is to give a practical and concise précis (summation) of the entire article. This does not. Particularly as several introductory paragraphs go on to to give much details regarding the human cause for this species' extinction.109.155.75.86 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else has done this.Doug (at Wiki) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Done! Doug (at Wiki) 16:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologist article 

message: I don't have the Cokinos source but isarukitsck looks very dubious spelling. I've checked the Inuktitut dictionary by the Nunavut Dept of Culture  which lists appaq and the interwiki to Kalaallisut (Greenlandic) has apparluk - but both are actually not the Great Auk, so for starters the interwiki is wrong. The Nunavut dictionary gives isaruq for wing, I'm still looking for that strange ending. In any case, isarukitsck as a spelling is at least out of date. Does anyone have a more up to date source with an up to date spelling? Akerbeltz (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inuit names 

message: Struck me that all depictions show the auk in profile. So as a little service for those who may care, here are some pictures I took of the Zoological Museum of Copenhagen summer specimen which shows it from the front and in semi profile, no room for the images in the article though, unless it is expanded further. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auk from the front 

message: They don't show up, seems there is some template error? FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonym dates 

message: In reading the article, Europeans and Neanderthals are depicted as barbarous predators, murdering the birds and smashing the eggs at every opportunity.  In contrast, Native Americans are said to "coexist" with the birds making them a significant part of their culture.  Why, one burial had the beaks of 200 birds in it... wait... 200 bird beaks do not 'coexist' with the Native American burial.  Rather, the birds were SLAUGHTERED by the Native Americans for ceremonial purposes.  200 for just one burial?  No wonder they went extinct in North America!  I believe the tone should reflect facts, not the Fantasy that the North American natives (who migrated from Asia and slaughtered most of the remaining Megafauna) coexisted peacefully with nature. --Winged Brick (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prejudiced tone in article 

message: This is from 2 years ago, but could somebody see if this is fake or not?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was published on 1st April, so it has to be genuine. Shyamal (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How the heck did I not notice that? Oh well.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Take a look at this 

message: " molecular data are compatible with either view," Alternative views have not been presented.--Wetman (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article needs a cladogram. How many genetic studies have been published that include this bird? After all, the arbitrary rank is meaningless, what matters is its position on the cladogram. And another thing, the intro is huge compared to the article length, should probably be shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  No alternatives 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Great auk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090209223346/http://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk:80/default.asp?Document=300.40.20&Image=577&gst= to http://www.museums.norfolk.gov.uk/default.asp?Document=300.40.20&Image=577&gst=
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On the map in the beginning, nine former breeding sites for the great auk are given (St. Kilda, Papa Westray in the Orkney Islands, the Faroe Islands (most probably Fugloy), Geirfuglasker in the Vestmannaeyjar, Geifuglasker (before 1830) and Eldey (after 1835) in the Fuglasker (off Reykjanes), "southernmost Greenland" (a bit misplaced, should be close to Frederikshåb = Paamiut, on south-western Greenland), Funk Island, Penguin Islands off Cape la Hune (south of Newfoundland) and Rochers aux Oiseaux (Bird Rocks) in the Gulf of St. Lawrence). However, under "Distribution and habitat", only five of these nine (or maybe ten, if Geirfuglasker and Eldey are counted as two) known former breeding colonies are given (St. Kilda, Papa Westray, Eldey, Funk Island and Rochers aux Oiseaux), but, as a surprise to the reader, "Grímsey Island" (at the north of Iceland) is also given. As far as I have been able to find in the extensive scientific literature, Grímsey was never known as a breeding site of the great auk, but if I am wrong, please give some good reference to the place of publication of this locality. Maybe it can not be said that the localities of the former breeding colonies of the great auk in the Faroe Islands and at Greenland "are known", but the two different islets called Geirfuglasker off south-western Iceland should be mentioned in the text, as Penguin Islands south of Newfoundland (compare Montevecchi W.A. & Kirk, D.A. 1996: Great Auk. -- The Birds of North America, No. 260). Much more probable (but not "known") breeding sites than "Cape Cod" include Calf of Man, Streymoy and Svínoy among the Faroe Islands, the islets Hvalbakur and Tvisker off south-eastern Iceland, the vicinity of Holsteinsborg = Sisimiut on south-western Greenland, Penguin Islands off Cape Freels (eastern Newfoundland) and some island off Cape Breton in Nova Scotia, possibly Portnova Islands. Also, the text at the photograph of Stac an Armin gives it as "one locality where the great auk used to breed"; as far as I have been able to find out, the exact place in St. Kilda where the great auks were breeding is not known, but Hirta (or possiby Soay) are much more probable than Stac an Armin. The German version of Wikipedia has a much better representation of the known former breeding sites; compare also the Faroese one. /Erik Ljungstrand (Sweden)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.241.158.201 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former distribution of the great auk 

message: Wasn't the great auk discovered June 2015 to be not quite extinct...  Schissel | Sound the Note! 22:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, according to what? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct?? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Great auk. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602061258/http://www.the-index.org/cgi-bin/story.php?story=1014quizbowlkmo to http://www.the-index.org/cgi-bin/story.php?story=1014quizbowlkmo
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In this edit, ,  changed the lede description of the extinction event to the dates 2nd-5t of June 1844, based on an 1861 source. In the main article, we have 3 July 1844 (which is the date that is generally kicked around in tertiary+ sources) based on a 2007 source. I don't have access to either source, but date usage within the article should at least be consistent. Does someone have the capability to check? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All the sources I have at my disposal ("The Doomsday Book of Animals," by David Day, "Extinct Birds" by Errol Fuller, and "A Gap in Nature" by Tim Flannery) all say 3rd June, 1844 was when the last living great auk was seen.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

text: , leaving aside the issue of style in the lede (that's easily dealt with) - be aware that Wikipedia sometimes gets caught in the quandary of "true" versus "published". If a dozen reliable sources say date X, and you say date Y, then it's date X we will be using, based on preponderance of sources; even if yours is unimpeachable scholarship :)  Basically, your interpretation would have to gain some currency and see some secondary use by others before Wikipedia should report it in favour of the established one, barring exceptional factual circumstances. (Maybe those are present here - if you clearly show that someone swapped July for June somewhere along the way?) - That being said, do you have any idea why a wrong date would have been in use for all that time? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:39, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sheesh - next time, I should read before I type. Checked three sources now, all say JUNE - which is actually what Apokryltaros also says above. It appears the July date in the text body is plain wrong. No idea whether the named source contains the error, though. How about correcting the date there, and swapping in 's source instead? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Elmidae, it seems you already have enough material to make the switch: go for it, and add Jess's source, formatted like the others. Drmies (talk) 12:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Right, sorted. Heh - Issue 3 of Ibis, 1861. Venerable journal :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Oops. Well, I gather there was no outcry of garefowl mavens at the time... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A year later, but FYI the Audubon Society has 3 July as the extinction date. —howcheng  {chat} 07:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinction date 

message: Can someone explain why there is a grammatical precedence to use "was" instead of "is," even though saying "was a flightless seabird" creates the implication that it is no longer a flightless seabird and or that the taxon is no longer valid?  I mean, the fact that it's dead doesn't change the fact that it still remains a flightless seabird, but, I was repeatedly told by an IP-hopping editor that an artist, like myself, isn't apparently certified to know anything about English grammar.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought "is an extinct flightless seabird" was an accurate, adequate and unambiguous statement describing the Great auk and its current situation, but it's apparently not because I'm an artist, and artists' judgements concerning grammar are apparently magically invalid.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, don't pay those edit summaries too much attention. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How could "is an extinct flightless seabird" apply if the word extinct no longer applies? (Or did I miss something?) Schissel | Sound the Note! 11:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks , sagacious advice :) Well, I took a little survey of the more prominent recently extinct species, and our usage is actually less consistent than I'd thought. Haast's eagle, Tarpan, Quagga, Steller's sea cow, Rocky Mountain locust and Passenger pigeon use "is"; Carolina parakeet, Moa, and Thylacine use "was/were". Admittedly, Thylacine's first sentence is "was the largest known carnivorous marsupial of modern times", which would be misleading to have in present tense. - So, going by usage alone, "is" seems to be preferred although by no means cast in stone. I'd suggest that preferred is a good enough reason not to push past tense into the lede against multiple disapproval. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:38, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

text: *Elmidae, I think it may be worth your while to ask a few of the FA dinosaurs, if they still roam the earth, and maybe drop a note on the FA project talk page? It's not the first time I see an edit war break out over this. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

text: This one is more auk-ward. More seriously, the first three featured articles I looked at for extinct species use was: "The dire wolf was about the same size...", "The woolly mammoth was roughly...", "the dodo was about..."  Jonathunder (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an unrelated issue. We are talking about the first sentence of the intro. Is a species vs was a species. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. And there we see is: "The dodo (Raphus cucullatus) is an extinct flightless bird", for example. Jonathunder (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Is" Versus "Was" 

message: The article opens with: "The great auk (Pinguinus impennis) is a species of flightless alcid that became extinct in the mid-19th century."
The passive "became extinct" makes it seem as if the cause is unknown, controversial, or there were multiple causes. It was hunted to extinction.
:But that is already explained at the end of the intro. We don't need to repeat ourselves. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passive "became extinct" vs "was hunted to extinction" 

message: As mentioned in several comments above, our map doesn't show the full range of the Great auk.
In particular, it doesn't include:
* The known Iberian Peninsula range http://www.patrimoniocultural.gov.pt/media/uploads/revistaportuguesadearqueologia/11.2/17_18/18_p.361-370.pdf
* Florida: "In prehistoric times, great auks (Pinguinus impennis) were abundant throughout much of the North Atlantic, from Florida to Labrador and from the Mediterranean to northern Norway, with a population possibly in the millions." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14219273.900-how-collectors-killed-one-hundred-and-fifty-years-ago-nextweek-the-last-two-great-auks-ever-seen-were-killed-at-their-breeding-colonyon-a-tiny-island-off-the-coast-of-iceland-tim-birkhead-chronicles-thebirds-fate.html 
IUCN shows these areas on the other hand: https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/22694856/93472944
Even our lead says: "When not breeding, they spent their time foraging in the waters of the North Atlantic, ranging as far south as northern Spain and along the coastlines of Canada, Greenland, Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Norway, Ireland, and Great Britain." and the article says: "Archeological excavations have found great auk remains in New England and Southern Spain. Great auk bones have been found as far south as Florida"
The map and the text should match. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps  could update their map? FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shyamal (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot @Shyamal! By the way, as you probably already know, IUCN's spatial data can be freely reused: :Commons:Template:IUCN map permission. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I prefer to use it like any other source and combine with others, and IUCN maps can and do sometimes have errors. Shyamal (talk) 11:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, thanks. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I once grouped them into paragraphs, but evidently someone split them up again... I'm not sure all those appearances are really notable enough either. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:URFA/2020]]