This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cetaceans on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Perhaps there should be an asterisk attached to the longest animal ever title owned by the Blue Whale. The new gigantic plant eating dinosaurs being discovered in Argentina are from the late Mesozoic and a new one larger than Argentinosaurus has been discovered in Chubut Province that is being estimated at 40 meters in length. So even if the estimate is reduced as frequently happens, the length title is at least uncertain at this point. The weight title remains safely with the Sulphurbottem, as the estimates on that are almost double that of the new dinos. source: NBC News; 5/17/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Where in the article is that claim made? CMD (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I was doing research on the 52 Hertz whale and on the page pertaining to that there was an audio file of the 52 Hertz whales song. Then I went to the Blue whale page, to hear the difference in the songs of these two whales as a comparison of how off pitch 52 was compared to a regular whale, and I started listening to the audio files on the page and realized that the 2nd song is the same as the 52 hertz one. I'm just not so entirely sure that's right, because 52s song is on a frequency that Blue whales cant achieve and they don't even have a species for labeled for him yet, so classifying that information under Blue whales just kinda seemed a bit off for me. But I'm not quite a marine biologist yet, so hey, I may be mistaken. Jarrett Wilson (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
This statement "As of 2014, the Californian blue whale population has rebounded to nearly its pre-hunting population." is supported by a citation to a link to an article "California Blue Whales Bounce Back From Whaling" from iflscience.com website. The factual basis for the story are based on a Marine Mammal Science study, published and available online, along with a press release. My question is whether it is best to cite; a) the ifls article, b) the press release from the University of Washington who published the study, or the study itself, which while the original source supporting the fact, is certainly a more difficult read to discern its support of the fact. I'm not experienced in the rules of citation to know. JoeJJC (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Press releases are the least preferred. The study is good, but it is primary source, and primary sources may contradict each other as new studies are produced, etc. The website is a report about the study, and probably is as good as the press release. (I haven't looked.) To be safe, cite them all. Then folks of differening education and interest levels can easily find what they prefer to validate the article. - UtherSRG(talk) 16:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)