Talk:List of largest primates

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it's sourced and encyclopedic and no one editor owns Wikipedia content. This is not a personal blog. --jengod (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Jengod Agree, and unwatch. See WP:AN. I cannot keep up with User:20 upper's errors any longer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Humans

Why does this list exclude humans specifically? ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) Destinyokhiria _{(talk / cont)} 12:45, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

---

List of largest non-human primates → List of largest primates – I never got an answer as to why humans are excluded. The article text doesn't say why humans are excluded. I checked the edit history there are no edit summaries explaining why humans are excluded. None of the other lists at Category:Lists of largest animals exclude a particular species from consideration. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 23:27, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: It might be difficult and seem somewhat silly to figure out what to put for the length, weight, native area, and range map for humans. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  What are "length" and "height" measuring? In some rows of the table in the article, length is very similar to height. In some cases, length is greater than height, while in other cases, height is greater than length. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

  With respect to humans, I think we can simply omit the map or include something like the map that is currently in the article or the population density map at Human. There must be plenty of reliable sources on typical ranges of human "size" and we should pick one and use it. We can continue to leave "length" blank for humans. Most readers have a decent grasp of the typical range of human size and where on the planet we live and won't be astonished if the table entries don't match exactly with some of what we report for other primates. The definitions of length vs. height should be clarified. This is all beyond the scope of RM but I'm responding just to say that there are viable solutions to these concerns that don't preclude listing humans or changing the title to accommodate humans. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support The list of largest NHPs is short enough to include humans as well. They're actually already included and it's one line. I don't see a reason to make it exclusively NHPs. It fits appropriately in the list but we should rename the list as requested. Abyssara 19:38, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Abyssara. I will not that humans are currently on the list, so the proposed title is more accurate to the present content. More importantly, humans should be included. Humans are, of course, primates and the size of other primates relative to humans is of great interest to readers. It is common practice on- and off-wiki to include comparisons between humans and very large animals or animals whose sizes are roughly in or near the range of humans. I appreciate BarrelProof's concerns, and will reply above, but I don't find these to be compelling reasons to exclude humans. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Myceteae: I don't think BarrelProof actually opposes the nomination. It was actually they who added the entry for humans to the list recently. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 01:05, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't think so. But it caught my eye and I thought I would respond in case others read it as having an air of opposition, and because I thought it might be helpful to other editors regardless. I appreciate @BarrelProof's thoughtful commentary and additions to the article. I confess I had not looked at the edit history nor read the thread below. Thanks to you both for your contributions. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I actually support the proposal at this point. I was trying to figure out if it would be difficult or seem silly to add humans, so I gave it a try, and it turned out to not be a problem —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2026 (UTC)at all.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Native area of humans

I think the native area of humans is worldwide, as there have been humans distributed worldwide for tens of thousands of years. Someone changed it to Africa, but I don't think the place of distant historical origin is the right choice here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

@BarrelProof: I've edited the entry while still reflecting the source so now it says "African origin with settlements worldwide". ―Howard • 🌽³³ 02:28, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Length and height

I think the length and height columns should be merged. When looking at the sources, I find no consistency on what these columns mean. They are usually about the same. Often a source says it's talking about the other column's measure. Many of the numbers are unsourced. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2026 (UTC)