Content deleted Content added
m Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 4 WikiProject templates. Merge {{VA}} into {{WPBS}}. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Indonesia}}, {{WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles}}, {{WikiProject Southeast Asia}}, {{WikiProject Vietnam}}. |
→Python reticulatus length: Reply |
||
Line 495:
::::Since Guinness is not a scientific journal and don't publish there methods, I have no idea. That's what makes them unreliable and unsuitable for a topic like this. They have unknown, unverified, undocumented methodology which is as much tabloid as source. [[User:HCA|HCA]] ([[User talk:HCA|talk]]) 14:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
:::'Dwarf' and 'SuperDwarf' island localities are real and are likely genetically distinct. There are many well-fed, 15+ year-old adults under 7ft. Everyone needs to reserve their 'doubts' and only speak about what they KNOW. [[Special:Contributions/68.112.217.71|68.112.217.71]] ([[User talk:68.112.217.71|talk]]) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
It may also be worth keeping in mind that the maximum length is really not such useful information. If someone looks for the maximum height and maximum weight for ''[[homo sapiens]]'', they would find a few extremely large outliers, but those outliers are unhealthy people who aren't really proper representatives of their species. [[List of the heaviest people|Very heavy]] and [[List of tallest people|very tall]] people have serious health problems and generally achieve that status ''because'' some part of their metabolic system is not functioning properly. A more reasonable and interesting question, from the perspective of encyclopedic knowledge, is what is an estimated length for the 90th or 95th or 99th percentile (if it is possible to obtain an answer to that question) – not just what is the most freakishly huge single individual that has ever been encountered. —[[User:BarrelProof|BarrelProof]] ([[User talk:BarrelProof|talk]]) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
| |||