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 Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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 Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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 Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.
Here's another one. Curiously it says "Experts have pinned down the weapons manufacture to a New England factory in about 1880 and say it was rendered obsolete by a less bulky darting gun a few years later", somewhat contradictory to the 1890 dating in the article. --Anshelm '77 22:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In May of 2007, a 50-ton specimen caught and harvested off the Alaskan coast was discovered to have the head of an explosive harpoon embedded deep under the blubber of its neck. Examination determined the 3 1/2-inch arrow-shaped projectile was manufactured in New Bedford, Massachusetts, a major whaling center, around 1890. This proof that it survived a similar hunt more than a century ago indicated to researchers that the whale's age was between 115 and 130 years old.
LABarr writes "AP and CNN are carrying a story that has forced scientists to re-evaluate the longevity of mammals. A bowhead whale caught off the Alaskan coast last month had a weapon fragment embedded in its neck that showed it survived a similar hunt over a century ago. 'Embedded deep under its blubber was a 3½-inch arrow-shaped projectile that has given researchers insight into the whale's age, estimated between 115 and 130 years old. The bomb lance fragment, lodged in a bone between the whale's neck and shoulder blade, was likely manufactured in New Bedford, on the southeast coast of Massachusetts, a major whaling center at that time. It was probably shot at the whale from a heavy shoulder gun around 1890.' "
They're not the same text, but it's pretty clear that either they had a common ancestor, or one was directly based on the phrases from the other. -Harmil 20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It's most likely this is because they were both derived from a news agency report.. EasyTarget (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
of the populations listed in the Population Status section of the article only one is "conservation dependent" with all other populations in worse shape. Why is the conservation status in the infobox then listed as conservation dependent instead of vulnerable or endangered?--Ibis3 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Six years later I have the same question. Unfortunately the source link is broken. I'm going to change the "least concern" to "vulnerable" so that the article is consistent in and of itself. However, someone needs to find a new source because these could all be inaccurate. --Trakon (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Belaying the change regarding my last comment. The source link is broken for those listed Conservation section. But the Redlist source is current for "least concern" status. --Trakon (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to ski behind one of these monsters? I mean, can they be trained like the dolphins at Sea World? Seems like it would be a "greener" way to ski than running a high-powered motorboat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Everybody knows that one can only ski on slopes. But there's no steep lakes or seas on Earth. Thus waterskiing is a physical absurdity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 21:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The large tail fin would cause a great deal of choppy water behind them. Plus, it's a slow swimmer and for water skiing you need a reasonably fast and steady tug forward, or you'll sink. Strausszek (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move Pages Ronhjones (Talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually, that article should probably be split anyway, as the two subspecies are separate species according to MSW 3. As for the capitalization, EDGE agrees with you, as do mostsources on Google Scholar. Ucucha 04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I had actually attempted to retract my capitalization suggestion after doing some searching for myself. I didn't quite get as far as hitting the "submit" button on my strikeouts before I was distracted by business matters (which tend to generate much better cash flow than the time I volunteer on Wikipedia does), and never made it back until now. Anyway, my perception is that general usage seems to be about 50/50 on whether to capitalize the "River" part of that/those species name/names so I'll defer on the matter and let the experts sort it out. I still remain in support of the overall transition to sentence case in article titles and bodies; this comment only relates to that one article I mentioned before. Neil916 (Talk) 07:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Support per reasonable wikiproject naming convention. Jafeluv (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Support We just went through this for Killer whale so best to standardize and be done with it.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Insufficiently justified change to existing practice. Killer Whale should be moved back. Gimmetrow 16:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
What would you consider sufficient justification? Ucucha 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
At this point, a thorough examination of relevent academic discussions specifically about capitalisation would be a start. But a requested move using as a basis the claim that "this is how literature does it", that my first check of the literature finds contrary, doesn't make me supportive. Nor does the way this process has been handled - my objection at WP:CETA was moved and hidden by the editor who initiated this proposal. There has been no response to the issues raised. This move would be a major change to existing practice that affects a lot of articles - some of which have already been "moved" prior to resolution - being discussed on the talk page of one article. Given all this, my bar for sufficient justification is pretty high. Gimmetrow 21:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
"that my first check of the literature finds contrary," I encourage you to read the discussion in its entirety. We've spent quite a bit of time on this.
"my objection at WP:CETA was moved and hidden" Your objection was indeed moved (with a descriptive edit summary) from the Rationale section down to the Comments section but in no way hidden and I resent the accusation.
"There has been no response to the issues raised." The issue had already been raised and resolved nearly seven weeks before you posted your comment. I'm sorry, but if you cannot be bothered to read the discussion through, you cannot demand others spend their time answering every little problem you have.
"major change to existing practice" Existing practice on Wikipedia is irrelevant. This project does not set standards.
"...prior to resolution" We've spent a good deal of time over the last couple of months getting to the bottom of existing practice in relevant literature. Having reached the conclusion that the literature overwhelmingly uses sentence case, we cast a wide net (I personally tagged every single cetacean species talk page) to get comments from the community should they have any arguments that we had missed. None came up so we made a test case on a prominent page and are now going through official channels rather than having the administrators active on WP:CETA move them. If you're insinuating that we're somehow bypassing the community on this, I suggest you take the time to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans#Capitalisation. --Swift (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Per this response, I reassert opposition. I have read the WP:CETA discussion. My concern was not addressed anywhere - precisely why I made a comment. My comment is still not addressed. And now I have no idea where the appropriate venue is for discussion - is it here, or at WP:CETA, or was it at Killer Whale and now a fait accompli? And this project most certainly sets standards for this project. Gimmetrow 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It is true that the cetacean section of MSW 3 mostly uses title case (also note the account of Indopacetus pacificus); as I had already said, Swift's earlier comment was incorrect. (Incidentally, there are a few places in other chapters of MSW 3 where sentence case is used, as Aranae noted somewhere.) However, we shouldn't be relying solely on one source, and I think the WT:CETA discussion has made it clear that the rest of the literature mostly uses sentence case, at least in prose. Ucucha 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong oppose "North Pacific right whale"? "Southern right whale"? "Bryde's whale"? "Antarctic minke whale"? ??? What the hell? Since when is the Right not capitalized?? And "Bryde's" etc all the other possessive forms require that it be capitalized. Or do you call it "Bryde's" as a bare possessive??? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
See : most of the scientific community appears to disagree with you about the capitalization of "right". Same for Antarctic minke whale and Bryde's whale. I am not sure where your assertion that possessive forms require capitalization comes from; it is evidently not a view shared by many reliable sources. Ucucha 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Your input would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans#Capitalisation. Please read what has been written and feel free to add to the discussion if you think that we are making a mistake. I think that a lot of time has appropriately been spent making sure that we're getting it right, and if we're making a mistake, please speak up and point us in the right direction. Neil916 (Talk) 07:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Additional comment/clarification request. Sorry, what is a "bare possessive"? It's been many, many moons since I've taken any kind of English grammar classes, so please forgive my ignorance. If I try to read into the context of your statement, I believe that the convention is for the "B" in Bryde's whale to be in title case, regardless of its location in a sentence, since it was named after Johan Bryde, who helped set up the first whaling station in Durban, South Africa in 1908. On the other hand, the right whale, supposedly named because it was the "right" whale to hunt because it floated to the surface when it died (rather than sinking to the ocean bottom) would not be capitalized unless it happened to be the first word of a sentence. Am I understanding your question/opposition correctly? Neil916 (Talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment I don't have a dog in this hunt (as they say) but in the past I have heard from a couple of people working among the San Juan Islands/Gulf Islands that in the case of Killer Whale, the "K" and "W" were capitalized because an orca is actually a dolphin, not a whale, and using capitals reflect that its a proper name consisting of the two words together. Other examples include American Buffalo (which really isn't a buffalo) I tried to do an internet search to justify this imprssion but was unsuccessful, and I don't really care which way this move request goes, but obviously I cared enough to mention this possible explanation for the use of capitals. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
"Killer whale" (with either capitalization) is certainly not a proper name. A proper name is a word referring to a specific unique thing, instead of a type or class of things. Keiko is a unique killer whale, so "Keiko" is a proper name, but "killer whale" is still a common name since it describes a type of animal, not a specific animal. Jafeluv (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
conservation status of LC conflicts with the threat status detailed in the article
conservation status of LC in the header conflicts with the threat status detailed in the article
CITES only blindly follows the IWC and lists all whales that have been hunted. Stupid, really. SHFW70 (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
The fin whale is the second largest whale. According to Lockyer's formula, the average weight of an 85 foot fin whale would be 100.4 tonnes, or 110.7 tons. This is the average weight throughout all seasons. In his other paper, "growth and energy budgets of large baleen whales from the southern hemisphere," he calculates that blue and fin whales gain half of their body weight during the feeding months. (a blue whale entering the antarctic weighing 100 tons would leave weighing 150 tons) The average weight would be 5/6 of the "fattened" weight. Therefore an 85 foot fin whale would weigh 132.8 tons at the end of the feeding season, larger than any right or bowhead whale.MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)