Talk:Palaeeudyptinae
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Palaeeudyptinae is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
Palaeeudyptinae is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
[edit] Merge request
Redirected merge-to here. I think the article Giant Penguin should redirect here, but either source it or scrap it. 15-ft penguins. In Florida. 1948. Yeah right. I think we have a certain hoax candidate. (That is not to say that it did not happen. Only it wasn't a giant penguin, but a hoax. The entire thing is completely ludicrous and whoever dares call that "cryptozoology" gives that science a bad name it does not deserve. Get actual.) At any rate, the "Giant Penguin" article is completely unscientific. There were some 15 species of more or less "giant" prehistoric pengins, and nearly 10 of them were indeed fairly huge... a single entity which is "the giant penguin" never existed, there was a whole bunch of 'em. Dysmorodrepanis 04:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
- What would be the point in merging it. It's not doing anyone any harm as it is. Dixonsej
-
- It's misleading. The actual giant penguins have an entry for themselves. I can see your point, in fact I was not at all sure whether a merge would be wise. But as it presently stands, the content of this article is little more than one long trivia bit about palaeeudyptines. Somehow the two articles need to be better connected. If you have a cool idea, fire away! Dysmorodrepanis 17:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
