Talk:Hummingbird

message: 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)
thread_title:  A mistake in "Courtship Dives" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Audio file for humming section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Section: Lifespan makes no sense 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: - thanks. Zefr (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect summary of scientific paper 

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

message: 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#Migration; 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#Migration 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Ah, was just about to look into it. Cheers! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Hummingbird migration]] into [[Hummingbird]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Superficially similar species - hummingbird hawk moth in Australia? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Avian Therapod Dinosaurs"