Talk:Bee hummingbird

message: 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 '77 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Body temperature 

message: 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)
thread_title:  photographs ? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Phylum? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wording too poetic? 

message: The article included two identical reference to 
* 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.
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.
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)
thread_title:  ''El Pitirre'' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A misleading claim about the size of a bee in comparison to the Bee Hummingbird 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  - 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 : .  Zefr (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: One more check before I upload it to Wiki! Is this better?  -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

text: The hand should be to scale. Most sources I found list the average adult male hand at about . 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)
replies: text: All looks good. Well done on creating a useful image. Zefr (talk) 04:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Added to the Description gallery, with thanks again! Zefr (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Size comparison diagram

message: 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)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dinosaur flip-flopping 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: ”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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, yes, it seems time. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Smallest known dinosaur placement below the lead

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, it did let me see that page yesterday, but it no longer does today! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: 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)
thread_title:  Plausibility of under 2 grammes claims 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Diet table