Talk:Common ostrich

Speed

can run for a long time at a speed of 55 km/h (34 mph) or even up to about 70 km/h (43 mph) -- yes, both have sources, but either one is correct or the other. Which is it? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I have clarified that the higher speed is for short bursts (the other is for periods like 30 minutes).Elroch (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• چرم شترمرغ.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Arsinoe II statue

The reference linked to the comment about the statue of Arsinoe II doesn't appear to mention her likeness riding an ostrich anywhere in the text -- it just describes a statue of her head. Is the ostrich statue mentioned elsewhere in the journal? 73.241.224.141 (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Living dinosaur" removal

The article describes ostriches as the "largest living dinosaur", referencing an offhanded remark from a 2017 Physics World article, "Consider the ostrich, the largest living dinosaur." Birds are sometimes called "living dinosaurs" because birds share some important anatomical features with some dinosaurs. But to say an ostrich is the "largest living dinosaur" is misleading because it suggests the modern common ostrich was a contemporary of dinosaurs over 65 mya. Ostriches emerged around 15 mya. If "largest living dinosaur" does not mean to imply ostriches were contemporaries of ancient dinosaurs, then it only means that birds are "living dinosaurs", and the ostrich is the largest bird, in which case the phrase would be redundant. Given edit comments, it looks like this issue has been discussed, but not on the talk page. DidgeGuy (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Oooh, let me hazard a guess who felt compelled to insert that one... yep, called it . Well, after the embarassing song-and-dance at bee hummingbird I feel little inclined to spend another few weeks challenging that editor's peculiar hobby of hitting readers over the head with the smallest/largest/whatever bird-is-dinosaur mallet, so I'll register my agreement that this has no business being in the lede, and leave it at that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep, just saw this, and from the above I should have been pinged back in 2024 (note that this being in the lead since then and before makes it a stable long-term mention). The fact that the common ostrich is the largest living dinosaur is both undisputed and encyclopedically accurate, and its importance to the topic is real and sourced (i.e. sourced directly and sourced per all sources which mention that birds are dinosaurs combined with sources that list the common ostrich as the largest living bird). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  There is no need to discuss this stupid issue again. There was an extensive RFC at Talk:Bee_hummingbird#Again that dinosaur thing in the lede... that "smallest dinosaur" does not belong in that lead, you were the only one disagreeing. The case is even weaker here, because it is not the largest dinosaur, only the largest living. We do not need to have a discussion about whether the first sentence of peregrine falcon should say "fastest dinosaur", that emperor penguin is the "deepest-diving dinosaur", that red-billed quelea is the "most abundant dinosaur". Unless you actually have new arguments (hard to believe after you made *eight* top-level comments in the bee hummingbird rfc), please stop.Somatochlora (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Excuse me? This is an open discussion that I've just become aware of and commenting within it is still allowed. The fact is both accurate and lead worthy. It could be mentioned later in the lead, but not much later, and is surely a defining descriptor. The Bee hummingbird lead needs to be revisited at some point, note that the main objections are that coming upon the fact too quickly would give readers the heebie-jeebies, or send them spiraling or something, which no, it has been proven by its inclusion in the Bird lead that it has not. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  You added this fact to the first sentence on 5 February 2026:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_ostrich&diff=prev&oldid=1336737832

  Since then it has been removed six times:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_ostrich&diff=prev&oldid=1349260760

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_ostrich&diff=prev&oldid=1345707575

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_ostrich&diff=prev&oldid=1343448660

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_ostrich&diff=prev&oldid=1343345651

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_ostrich&diff=prev&oldid=1338491561

  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_ostrich&diff=prev&oldid=1336743423

  Stable and long-term since 2024 does not seem like an honest description. Somatochlora (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Somatochlora, do I have to go through those reversals? Please read them in context. None had a valid reason for removal, and each one was called out to give a valid reason and none did. The largest living dinosaur fact has been in the lead much longer than 2026. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep - I see no reason this should be removed. The fact that birds are in the dinosauria clade, and that more and more often relevant discussions include the terms like "avian dinosaurs" or "non-avian dinosaurs" makes the inclusion of such notions acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:46, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I don't object to it being included in the article or farther down this long lead even if it seems kind of like irrelevant trivia. I don't think it makes any sense to have it in the first sentence of the article. "Largest living bird" and "largest living dinosaur" are exact synonyms, why would they both be included in the first sentence? Somatochlora (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  I'm inclined to agree that it has no buisiness being in the first sentence, especially if "largest bird" is also included. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Keep as is. Synonymous appositive is a grammatically tidy way to present this info. Writing "the largest living species of bird and thus the largest living dinosaur" does not overly hamper the flow of the simple clause where it appears. Calling them "theropods and avian dinosaurs" instead would be distracting to a sizable set of readers. Birds are theropods, demonstrably related to more prototypical species such as T. rex. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

  Where does this end? Should we also note that this species is the largest living theropod and the largest living avialan? Should passeriformes note that it is the largest living order of dinosaurs? Should we note that budgies are the most popular pet dinosaur? Does list of birds of Ontario need to specify that it is also a list of living dinosaurs? I just do not see how this isn't irrelevant trivia. The fact that birds are dinosaurs is not important information on a page about specific living birds. Readers interested in the evolutionary history of birds can read one of the great pages dedicated to that topic. Somatochlora (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody is suggesting expanding into any of that. Only that the largest living dinosaur (common ostrich), the largest known dinosaur (Argentinosaurus), and the smallest known dinosaur (bee hummingbird) should be lead worthy defining characteristics. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  First, it is bizarre that you are arguing based on a principle that has already been tested by RFC and roundly rejected.

  Second, on what basis are you making this editorial decision? It certainly isn't based on secondary sources.

  • Birds of the World does not mention dinosaurs either in the article about the ostrich family or in the article about this species
  • Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention dinosaurs in their ostrich article
  • Can't google "ostrich" and "dinosaur" because that term is used for another group, but the top results on Google for "largest living dinosaur", are, besides this page and pages that are copying text from this page, 2 Reddit posts, a Medium post that appears to be AI written, a promotional page for a German natural history museum, an Instagram post, and the only halfway useful source is this article from a physics magazine that passingly refers to ostrichs: https://physicsworld.com/a/deducing-how-dinosaurs-moved/
  • On Google Scholar, we have two more results: an article about birds mentioned in heavy metal music, and finally a single useful source, a research article about dinosaur mechanics that uses ostrichs as a modern proxy.

  This is maybe enough evidence to refer to ostrichs as the largest living dinosaur somewhere in the text, although I still think this is irrelevant trivia. But secondary sources barely think this is worth mentioning. It is ludicrous to suggest that this should be in the first sentence!

  I'm not telling you anything you don't know. You are well aware of how that RFC went, as you continue to include pointless comments about it in edit summaries on that page. You were well aware of the state of the secondary sources, having originally used that magazine article to include it on this page. How can you possibly have thought it was appropriate to add this to the first sentence of this article? Somatochlora (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  Good points, and I've said that it should probably be elsewhere in this lead. I added it up-front because I think that the largest living dinosaur is defining enough for the lead paragraph. As for the bee hummingbird, that's a different case entirely, and should be revisited, as it is not only the smallest living dinosaur but, importantly, the smallest known dinosaur ever discovered. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

  The placement of "smallest living dinosaur" in that lede was roundly rejected only 4 years ago. Probably best to leave it that way, I don't think anything has changed that would have the perspective of editors change accordingly. The Morrison Man (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I have come here from the discussion at Talk:Bird. I am even less keen on the use of dinosaur in the first sentence here than I was there. In addition to Somatochlora's comments above, I note:

1. The word dinosaur does not appear anywhere else in the body of the article. If being a dinosaur isn't otherwise important enough to mention, this suggests that it doesn't belong in the first sentence.
2. The words "living dinosaur" link to Origin of birds. This feels like a MOS:FORCELINK situation, asking readers to refer to that article to understand the sentence. If it is important to discuss ostriches' status as largest living dinosaur then that should be explained in sufficient detail within this article. Mgp28 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

PS: This isn't a plea for someone to add paragraphs about ostriches being dinosaurs. It's more an observation that if the fact belonged in the first sentence, I would have expected such a paragraph to exist already. Mgp28 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, this data is now included in the body of the article and the lead mention summarizes that data. Have moved the information further down into the lead, which is what the consensus here shows. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:59, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Randy, can you please explain what Wikipedia policy justifies inclusion of a fact in the lead section of an article when:

• Nobody has provided a secondary source about the topic of the article (i.e. a book, paper, article etc. that is about ostriches) that even mentions that fact
• The only sources at all that mention that fact are a passing reference in an article in a magazine of an unrelated field, and a PHD thesis in a semi-related field
• A previous RFC on *this exact question* on a different page has already reached a near-unanimous consensus on it removal

I'd previously suggested included it further down the lead before reviewing the sources. But after doing so it is very clear that this is not lead-worthy material. Somatochlora (talk) 12:54, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

If there is any consensus here to remove from the first sentence, and that can be argued, keeping the information in the lead is agreed to by the community. The fact that this is the largest living dinosaur is clearly defining. It doesn't have to be sourced, as common ostrich equals largest living bird and bird equals dinosaur. See WP:BLUESKY. Thanks for adding the data to the body of the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLUESKY is irrelevant, I'm not arguing that the sourcing is inadequate. I'm questioning why we would make the editorial decision to include it in the lead when the body of sources think this fact is basically unworthy of mentioning at all? Somatochlora (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

BLUESKY is very relevant, always has been. As for your question, because Wikipedia is the world's largest and finest encyclopedia and covers defining information in the lead. Please read this discussion again, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEADREL, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.". Does article about dinosaur mechanics in a physics magazine, and a PHD thesis about dinosaurs seem to you enough emphasis to include it in the lead section, when well-sourced information on this page like subspecies, physiology, conservation status, or predators are not even mentioned in the lead? Somatochlora (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Reliable sources by the ton mention that birds are dinosaurs, and also agree that the common ostrich is the largest bird. Do you contest either of those facts? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

It is possible that sword-billed hummingbird could note that it has the longest bill relative to its body of any living dinosaur, or that white-throated sparrow could note that it's one of the most common dinosaurs in North America. These are perfectly factual statements that we don't include because no sources emphasise these facts as important. There are also essentially no sources that emphasise the ostrich's status as the largest living dinosaur as important. I understand that you feel that this is important, but the determination is instead based on the emphasis in published reliable sources, per the Manual of Style. Again, does an article about dinosaur mechanics in a physics magazine, and a PHD thesis about dinosaurs seem to you enough emphasis to include it in the lead section, when topics that are far, far more prominent in the sources available about ostriches cannot be included in the lead for reasons of space? Somatochlora (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please note that I would not suggest this on any individual bird articles except the largest living and smallest known dinosaur. Wikipedia divides dinosaurs into two descriptors, avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs. The largest living dinosaur, the ostrich, is fine to mention in the lead (and per this discussion there is arguably consensus for leaving it in the first sentence and at least consensus for the leaving it in the lead) but I've agreed that it could be moved further down the lead and still serve the defining purpose. Changing the scope of the discussion at this point disregards what has already gained support, keeping it in the lead. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not interested in what has already been in the scope of the discussion. I am interested in hearing your answer as to how a passing mention in an article about dinosaur mechanics in a physics magazine and a PHD thesis about dinosaurs are sufficient emphasis in secondary sources, per the MoS, to justify inclusion of this fact in the lead when topics that are far, far more prominent in the sources available about ostriches cannot be included in the lead for reasons of space? Somatochlora (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

So because sources mention that a) birds are dinosaurs and b) the common ostrich is the largest bird, the fact that the common ostrich is the largest living dinosaur somehow has enough weight? Almost seems like a WP:SYNTH situation. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

You can also call it commonsense. In either case it's been in the lead long term, for several years, and is mentioned in the body of the article. Note that Madame Berthe's mouse lemur (Microcebus berthae) or Berthe's mouse lemur is the smallest of the mouse lemurs and the smallest primate in the world has first sentence mention, and that's the only article I've looked at. There is nothing unusual about largest-smallest size appearing in the lead of a lifeforms article. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Which is true, ostrich would still be listed as the largest bird, it should also be noted that both groups in your example are extant. As for it being in the lead for several years, an above comment by Somatochlora names you as the person who added the fact to the first sentence of the lede in February of this year, after which it has been reverted numerous times. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after reading Plantdrew's comment below, listing the ostrich as the "largest living bird" indeed would also be inaccurate. That's a good catch. Though I do believe it is the heaviest, there are other measures by which other birds are larger. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Here's an experiment for you:

• Google "Madame Berthe's mouse lemur" and see what the first few secondary sources say about their size among primates.
• Now Google "Ostrich" and see what the first few secondary sources say about their size among birds.
• Now Google "Ostrich" and see what the first few secondary sources say about their size among dinosaurs.

Do you notice anything? Somatochlora (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I think this is worse than before. At least the statement was previously in a sentence about size. Now it is mixed into a sentence about ostriches being Struthioniformes. If statements about size with respect to dinosaurs were sufficiently important to put in the lead, it should be stated properly not put as an aside in an unrelated sentence. Nothing in this discussion has persuaded me that dinosaurs need to be mentioned so early in the article and I think the paragraph at the end of Common ostrich § Description is reasonable and sufficient. Mgp28 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Omit "Largest living bird" is in the first sentence. We don't need "largest living dinosaur" as well, awkwardly shoehorned into a sentence in the second paragraph. Per List of largest birds, the wing span of albatrosses is greater than the height of an ostrich so by one measure ostriches aren't the largest birds. Plantdrew (talk) 15:30, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Interesting take. So are you saying that 'largest living bird' is incorrect? A few pages would have to be changed if that is the case. If true, then I'd agree that the dinosaur descriptor is incorrect, but if not then it still is defining. Is there a better position in the lead to place the few words? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't know exactly which part of the Wikipedia guidelines you are referring to by "defining" as it mostly just talks about categories, but the clearest definition I see is here, "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic ". Do you believe that reliable sources common and consistently refer to this species as the largest living dinosaur? Somatochlora (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

• Remove. This is not something that is commonly stated by secondary sources on the topic. Mentioning this feels arbitrary when the ostrich is also the largest living coelurosaur, theropod, avemetatarsalian and so forth. Mentioning this (in addition to "largest bird") implies that there are living dinosaurs other than birds, which is not the case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

As an aside on the albatross comparison, Ostrich is still the largest, as 'largest' is generally taken to mean overall size, i.e., weight-based. For Snowy Albatross to "win", you'd generally have to specify 'longest', rather than 'largest' - MPF (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, no, you'd have to specify wingspan. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It might be an idea to actually keep engaging with eachother on here instead of starting an edit war on the page itself. There's still a few open questions in the discussion here that could help us come to a consensus.The Morrison Man (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

The Morrison Man, okay, let's take it out of the lead. Somatochlora has been following me around about this for some reason, maybe a bird bit him once as a child or something, I don't know what the problem is. Remember Sheldon Cooper was afraid of birds and then, once getting to know one, loved it. To me it seems the largest extant dinosaur is a very encyclopedic point and fact, has been in the lead for years, and I have no understanding why anyone would oppose it as a mention somewhere in the lead. Note the amount of editors saying, in various ways, that finding that out will confuse readers, which I find just about the strangest argument for the world's "best" encyclopedia. The bee hummingbird, on the other wing, has a much better resume, being the smallest known dinosaur (I'll get back to that to give in another go in late Summer or fall). Thanks for your attention here. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:36, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Speaking for a moment here on behalf of Somatochlora (feel free to correct me if I've interpreted this wrong), the problem to me would seem that you've left a number of critical questions on this talk page, inquiring into what your basis is for considering this a "very encyclopedic point and fact". Most prominently Somatochlora's comments about the two sources that can be found that mention the fact and their relevance, the question about guideline specifics, and the chain about the Madame Berthe's mouse lemur example. I must also say a glance of this page does not show me anyone, outside of maybe the opening statement, arguing that its inclusing would confuse readers. As a final note, your edit summary on the article feels a little in poor taste. Those involved in the discussion here have stated the reasons why they dont feel the inclusion is warranted, so by all accounts you have here a pretty good "idea why".

Aside from the stuff concerning this talk page, you should by all accounts feel free to open another discussion on the bee hummingbird talkpage about the inclusion of "smallest known dinosaur", if you think that editor opinion will have changed enough in the past 4 years to justify its inclusion. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi The Morrison Man. Commonsense, combined with WP:BLUESKY, are the factors I argued and understand from my viewpoint. Bird equals dinosaur, common ostrich is the largest bird. As for the Bee hummingbird decision, let's give it some time in between these discussions, dinosaur fatigue from the editors. Maybe in September? And I would also propose that "the bee hummingbird is the smallest known dinosaur" be added to the sentence or paragraph at Birds lead. That's an important encyclopedic fact, that the smallest known dinosaur is alive. Until September, look to the skies! (or at least the birdfeeder). Have you read the May Scientific American? A nice article on birds as dinosaurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Can't say I've seen it around yet, but I'll go have a look! The Morrison Man (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

You are currently in the position of having had your opinion on an issue resoundingly rejected in two separate RFCs four years apart, including by many commenters who are professionals in the scientific field in question. You are saying that you still don’t understand why anybody would disagree with your opinion. Does immediately continuing to push your opinion on other pages and planning how you are going to challenge one of those RFCs seem like a reasonable response to this situation? Somatochlora (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks. But some time in between? See above where I suggest September for the bee hummingbird discussion, which would just ask to move an already included paragraph below to become a second paragraph in an extremely short lead. If you really focus on it and similar "size" articles on Wikipedia you may even see the commonsense of doing so. Have you read the May Scientific American? A nice article about birds as dinosaurs. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Updated lead

Lets stop just reverting Augmented. Explain why you think an Ostrich isnt a dinosaur. Wikifried Steak (talk) 07:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

The options are listed at WP:DR. They do not include trolling. The bird/dinosaur issue has recently flared up and the only reasonable for it to be handled is with an WP:RFC. If wanted, post a draft of a question for an RfC in order to get consensus on what the issue is, and whether the question would resolve it. Would someone please notify me if I miss more edit warring, or sniping, or new users. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Greetings,

I am going by standard classifications available in any subject specific textbook.

Hope that clears it up, Augmented Seventh (talk) 08:43, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone is saying any bird isn't a dinosaur. However, it is more specific to say "bird"; all birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, Ostrichii are dinosaurs. Dino Dinoson (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2026 (UTC)—  Blocked sockpuppet.

The list of analogous comparisons quickly becomes tiresome, as well-noted elsewhere.

Humans are the most talkative molecules, Augmented Seventh (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)