Talk:Emperor penguin

Featured article?

Does it still deserve to be called so? I see 2 [citation needed] tags, 1 [peacock term] tag and one [not in citation given] tag. Someone pls fix those, else supporting statements should be removed. I don't edit articles on wildlife, I just check how good they are. Kailash29792 (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I did much of the work on it many moons ago. The best thing about FA status is that it acts as an index point to measure future changes against. Will do so later today. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to hold up my hand for the offending lead sentence. Actually I have learnt better since to just let the facts speak for themselves. I have dealt with 2 tags and removed the peacock sentence. I can't see the other one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Its alright, i fixed the [not in citation] issue. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an informative article, although it lacks information about sexual dimorphism. I copy edited a section today, and I fear that a thorough copy editing is needed to preserve the featured-article status, particularly after having excised the hyphen in "heavily-studied". is a 00:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The last bit of the section (with the unformatted ref) is new I think. The section above it was all present tense apart from one perfect tense ("has shown") - I don't care whether it is present or past, as long as it is consistent. I did think perfect tense was alright with the present tense. I don't see a problem with "heavily-studied", but am not fussed whether there is a hyphen there or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Is not a, the article has comparative wieghts and reports that the plumage is similar, so I am not sure what you think is missing regarding sexual dimorphism....can you please elaborate? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Outdated "Relationship with humans" section

The "Relationship with humans" section is outdated. Emperor Penguins are kept in captivity in four places and three of those have bred it: SeaWorld San Diego (USA; by far the most succesful in breeding, see wiki article), Port of Nagoya Public Aquarium (Japan; kept but not bred yet), Wakayama Adventure World (Japan; incl. breeding) and Laohutan Ocean Park (China; incl. breeding). 62.107.210.43 (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Right, updated now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Breeding Location

"It almost always breeds on stable pack ice near the coast and up to 18 km (11 mi) offshore."

then later:

"The yearly reproductive cycle begins at the start of the Antarctic winter, in March and April, when all mature Emperor Penguins travel to colonial nesting areas, often walking 50 to 120 km (31 to 75 mi) inland from the edge of the pack ice."

Maybe showing my ignorance but I can't make much sense of these. Words like offshore and inland are unclear when there's ice off the coast. Nigej (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Dogs and penguins

When dogs were present in Antarctica, did they prey upon penguins? Dogs are by nature big-game killers.Pbrower2a (talk) 06:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Dogs were removed on the fear that that carried Canine Distemper or other diseases which might affect seals. Sadly the British Antarctic Survey dogs all died of typical dog diseases within a few years of their return presumably because they had spent generations in a isolated environment.

References

Claims in Antarctica

Is there any reason to call out the Taylor Glacier as being in the Australian Antarctic Territory instead of saying Victoria Land? Most countries don't recognize claims in Antarctica. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. Changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained phrasing/spelling changes

Eblackadder3, please explain why you have not been using edit summaries while editing this featured article for the past 9 months. I reverted the first edit you made in July because you added content without it being clear whether or not that was present in the listed source – do you understand what that means? Rhinopias (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Rhinopias: for posting. I'd seen some changes in passing but had not looked in depth until I saw the summary of the differences above. Some changes are improvements but most are adding redundant emotional words, repeating material that does not need repeating or (more worryingly) the changing of numbers without changing the source. I've gone through the article and reviewed all changes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

No, thank you for actually making the changes! Too daunting of a task for me right now. I've posted on Eblackadder3's talk page also (which they have never edited). If we do not receive a response from them and they continue to edit the article, we can suggest a block at ANI until they say they'll participate... Rhinopias (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Disappearance of the Halley Bay Colony

In 2016 the Halley Bay Colony essentially disappeared when bad weather destroyed the sea-ice the colony was on. This caused the chicks to drown and the adults to abandon the colony. The adults have not seemed to make an attempted to reestablish the colony and the ice did not reform in 2017 or 2018, but the Dawson-Lambton Colony has seen a rise in numbers since:

Amos, Jonathan (2019-04-25). "Thousands of penguin chicks wiped out". Retrieved 2019-04-25.

Should this be included? Should it have its own section? It seems relevant and important to me, but I have not edited the article because I'm not sure how/if it would best be included. Downfall Vision (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I have expanded on Jchevali's addition. I think it's appropriate here, as long as the section doesn't get too long/convoluted with examples that don't add much. Sentences could probably get reordered... Rhinopias (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I have uploaded a photo of the Halley Emperor colony in 1998,99 incase it proves to be of use

Halley Emperor Penguin colony

Just added that photo to the relevant section. Mtpaley (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Without a comparison image showing population size I don't think the image adds anything to the section. If Halley Bay didn't redirect to the research station, there could be content about the penguin colony and a photo there... Rhinopias (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Its a bird, it's a plane, it's (not) superman

I don't see anywhere in the lead or taxonomy, where I'd expect to find it, that an Emperor Penguin is a bird. I think most people know, but it's not patently obvious that it isn't for example, an aquatic mammal. That it is a bird is mentioned a few times under other sections, but what an animal is should be in the lead, eh? Sbalfour (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sbalfour:, don't you think saying it is a penguin is more exacting and informative? And saying both would be labouring the point I suspect....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Height

There are plenty of youtube videos that show the Emperor Penguins height is less than 3 feet. The article said something else. Any thoughts on a reliable reference for height? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Threatened

They are now threatened as of today, someone needs to come in and change it. Thanks. Flossingjonah (talk) 06:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the range map

For some reason, the range map in the speciesbox template displays as a link and not as an image. I commented it out because I can't figure out how to fix it. Michael7604 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Michael7604 Testing with using example.png displays OK, so this seems to be some kind of problem with File:Manchot empereur carte reparition.png itself. Note that it's just displaying as a link in the same way here, using the normal image syntax - perhaps there is something in it that is breaking the thumbnailer? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixed: It is caused by a bad PNG header, so you can easily fix it by downloading, opening in mspaint or paint.net, re-saving, and uploading as new version. Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#PNG_thumbnail_problem Michael7604 (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Temperature regulation

The sentence "although an individual can maintain its core temperature from 38.0 °C (100.4 °F) down to −47 °C (−53 °F)" seemed a little too extreme to me so I looked up the source, but couldn't find anything on maintaining core temperature in air temperatures of up to 38 degrees Celsius (please correct me if I'm wrong). Maybe the sentence is meant to be "although an individual can maintain its core temperature of 38.0 °C (100.4 °F) down to −47 °C (−53 °F)"? Replacing "from" with "of". 176.88.77.229 (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Size?

Lede:

"...reaching 100 cm (39 in) in length..."

Description:

"...110–120 cm (43–47 in) in length..."

So... which is it? -- 04:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC) DewiMorgan (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

4 citations needed but still featured status?

3 citations are needed in the description section, and a picture reference is needed in the infobox. I am unable to find the original three mentioned in the description section, but found multiple others mentioning them, so they’re out there. I can’t find a picture reference backing the range. If these sources can’t be found and footnoted, this article should be reassessed. Roast (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a range map available for download as a SHP file on the IUCN Red List assessment, which can then be converted into an image using the correct software. The JPG file of the range map is copyrighted by OpenStreetMap, but the data itself is not and can be used to create range maps with the CC-BY-SA licence, as seen in this range map for the ring-tailed lemur.

I hope this helps!

Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 12:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: The IUCN Press Release should be added to the article

After the IUCN Press Release, reliable sources across the globe are reporting that the Emperor Penguin has been reclassified to endangered status by the IUCN - see e.g. 1 2 3

Natg 19 rightfully added this to the article, given that is an important update which comes straight from the IUCN and is being reported on by reliable sources. However, he was reverted by UtherSRG on the basis that "we don't add press releases" to articles about animals. I don't understand that rationale - is there a Wikipedia policy which says that we can never cite to press releases, nor to reliable journalistic sources which report on those press releases, when discussing the status of an endangered species? If not, I see no basis for this removal and am seeking consensus to re-add it. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 00:54, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

• Press release was issued today. IUCN Red List itself hasn't been updated yet, but will be presumably very soon. Once it has been it can be updated here. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

  The press release seems to be a high quality source as it quotes penguin experts and the DG at the IUCN. But it would be prudent to wait on the update to the IUCN's list if that is expected soon. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:10, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The IUCN is a reliable source for this information, and there's high-quality coverage in other outlets too e.g. Guardian. There's no need to wait for the formal publication, the article should be updated now. That would also allow it to be posted in WP:ITN, which is currently being held up by the lack of update. However the new status should be incorporated properly, not just tacked on in a couple of sentences at the end of the 'conservation status' section. I've tagged that section as needing an update. Modest Genius ^talk 10:50, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is a perfect case in where we should utilize WP:IAR. The press release statement is literally by the IUCN itself, the same organization that manages the Red List. If they've said that the emperor penguin is now classified as endangered, the Red List is basically guaranteed to be updated to reflect this in the near future. I personally think we shouldn't wait for the formal change in the Red List itself (per Modest Genius) because of this reason. Had the statement been by someone else, I'd have suggested we wait, but because its the IUCN releasing this statement, I say we update this now. TwistedAxe [contact] 11:11, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

The information is not only available on the IUCN's official press release. It has also been published to the IUCN's pre-publication page. In my understanding, these articles are official and are awaiting publishing in the next update to the IUCN Red List.

As quoted in the site itself,

"Red List and Green Status assessments are usually published biannually, with new and updated assessments being associated with specific versions of the IUCN Red List. However, occasionally it is necessary to provide access to assessments that have been processed and accepted for publication in between Red List updates for use in rare and specific situations (e.g., legal cases, listings under international conventions, etc.). For these exceptional cases, accepted pre-publication assessments are made available below on a temporary basis."

I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. This and other IUCN assessments on the pre-publication page (such as for the southern elephant seal and Antarctic fur seal) only have not been published yet because thousands of updated assessments get published at a time in Red List updates, not a small number. The list gets updated only twice a year and the last update saw over 7000 assessments added.

Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Pre-publication materials are subject to change, as they are reviewed by various internal or external reviewers. While I don't expect the Red List status update to be significantly different than what's in the press release, we should only add a mention that the IUCN plans the status change in the body of the article, and leave the taxobox alone until the actual change in status occurs. The PR materials may not be 100% what later gets posted to the Red List. We shouldn't rush to publication. UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

From the IUCNs pre-publication page: "occasionally it is necessary to provide access to assessments that have been processed and accepted for publication in between Red List updates for use in rare and specific situations". If I am understanding this correctly, this means that the change has already been reviewed and gone through the standard assessment procedure. Taking into account that the IUCN Red List itself is only planned to update in July, still stating the emporor penguins now-outdated conservation status for the next 3 months until it releases would in my oppinion be pretty outragous, especially for a featured article. I believe we shoud use the press release as a source until then, seeing that it in all likelyhood would not be different from when the Red List is updated. VeryGoodMint (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Wait for the iucn official update to change the infobox, you can add mention of the status change in the body The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

I've again restored the "endangered" update. I'm not convinced the pre-publication is somehow unreliable and it seems most folks here agree. Toadspike [Talk] 22:46, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with keeping in the endangered update. There's no need for pedantry in this situation. If the organization in charge of the list says an animal is going on it, we can believe that. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 04:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand why there had to be a bit of an edit war over this. As I have mentioned previously, this unpublished IUCN assessment is only unpublished because large numbers of assessments are published at one time during the biannual update to the IUCN Red List.

Regardless of whether or not you agree that the Wikipedia page should be updated when the full Red List update comes out later this year, I think we can all agree that this is very saddening news. Some species and ecological communities are far more susceptible to anthropogenic climate change than others; the arctic and antarctic being some of the most severely affected. For a species as numerous as the emperor penguin to have a greater than 10% decrease in population in just 10 years and will likely fall to half the current population if things don't change for the better really goes to show how serious this is. Humanity must do better.

The very least we as Wikipedians can do is keep the general public informed of such news, since millions of people rely on this website every year. That is why we are here.

Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 04:41, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Opposed What is the rush? Wikipedia has no deadline. We do not need to rush to publication based off of a press release. I don't think the PR is unreliable overall, but small changes may be made before actual publication. Waiting is prudent. Anyone visiting the IUCN Red List website will see data that hasn't been updated, and may be confused as to why we say the IUCN is saying something different than what the website is saying. -

UtherSRG (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"I don't think the PR is unreliable overall": great, we could stop there. "... small changes may be made before actual publication": reversing this decision would not be a "small change," and something that unusual would absolutely be something the article would cover. "Anyone visiting the IUCN Red List website will see data that hasn't been updated ...": that's why Wikipedia articles have citations... Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:20, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The taxobox status should reflect what is currently on the IUCN website. The article body is a place for discussing the fact that the IUCN is in process to update the status. The details of the status - the population, the habitat loss, etc - these are what I expect would be subject to change. Perhaps even the rationale behind the status. IUCN's purpose in making a press release is to aid in conservation efforts. That's not a core feature of Wikipedia. Our core feature is promulgation of accurate and verifiable data. That's not done by using press releases and pre-publications - that's done by waiting for full publicaiton. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

"Our core feature is promulgation of accurate and verifiable data.": That's what we're doing by citing the confirmed plans to change its status. If you'd like it to be even more accurate, perhaps the infobox should indicate current status and IUCN's confirmed plans. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:45, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

That's much clutter. It's why I suggest current listed status in the taxobox, and a discussion of IUCN's plans in the article body. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

45%

Current phrasing is at least 'curious'. The actual phrasing in the OG article is "Using a Bayesian model-averaging approach, the probability that the global population decline projected by the ecological ensemble is greater than 50% by 2073 is 45%, supporting an IUCN status of Endangered." doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111037

Yeah, that sentence makes no sense. I'm guessing the 45% probability is for the actual population decline to be more than 50%, not the projection of the population decline. Otherwise, it sounds like "There is a 45% chance that the IUCN has projected a >50% population decline by 2073." It should probably read "Using a Bayesian model-averaging approach, the ecological ensemble projected a 45% chance that the global population decline is greater than 50% by 2073, supporting an IUCN status of Endangered." Nosferattus (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already fixed the wording. Nosferattus (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article currently says: At temperatures above 20 °C (68 °F), an emperor penguin may become agitated as its body temperature and metabolic rate rise to increase heat loss. If the goal is to increase heat loss, i.e. lower the body temperature, you obviously can't do that by raising your body temperature or increasing your metabolic rate. I'm guessing something got mangled here from the original source. I bet the original source says something like "At temperatures above 20 °C (68 °F), an emperor penguin may become agitated as its body temperature and metabolic rate rise. This agitation helps to increase heat loss." Nosferattus (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

The source for the sentence (page 110 of Tony Williams' The Penguins) says, "Similarly, at temperatures above 20 °C in Emperor Penguins and 25 °C in Little Penguins birds become restless and start to show signs of stress, their metabolic rate and body temperature increasing markedly. One method penguins use to thermoregulate under such conditions is to increase heat loss through respiration and evaporation from the skin surface."

Mentioning respiration could make the sentence clearer, although I think a better move would be to remove "to increase heat loss" from the first sentence and either mention respiration and evaporation in the next sentence, or make a new sentence in between the two. Shogeneral (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to rewrite the last part of the paragraph to make it less confusing. Nosferattus (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2026 (UTC)