Talk:Blue whale/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Threats Other than Hunting

"With global warming causing glaciers and permafrost to melt rapidly...." This is ridiculous and based on flawed and often fraudulent science. There is no evidence the atmosphere or oceans are warming. And no evidence that the polar ice caps or glaciers are melting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.64.186.89 (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, hey random ip address. Provide multiple, peer-reviewed sources to support such an idiotic, over-simplified statement or GTFO! :p SaberToothedWhale (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Fewer, not smaller?

Article mentions smaller, which is more about individual size. If we are talking populations, then grammatically we should say fewer, or lesser. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Oil and economics

I assume blue whales were hunted for their oil, used to fill lamps. Does anyone know how many barrels of oil a typical blue whale would produce and what would be the price in modern dollars and cents? Even the History of whaling article doesn't say much on the ecomonics of whaling, both in the sailing- and factory- ship eras: how much oil per whale, how many whales to fill a ship, etc. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're thinking open-boat whaling. In the modern era whales, including blues, were taken mostly for soap and margarine. Blue whales caught off California averaged 50 bbls (1930), those caught off Alaska 75 bbls (1931), and those caught off South Georgia 70-80 bbls (1909-17). The rest would take a bit of research to figure out, though I know during the peak of antarctic whaling (mid-1950s-early 1960s), each factory ship could take several hundred blue and over a thousand fin whales each season. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Summer Feeding Times

I noticed that the Blue Whale article did not include that there is a feeding and fasting season. I hope this works, or someone gets in contact with me to let me know what I need to change. It's my very first try. Thanks for your help and here is what I want to be added:

During their feeding season Blue whales consume 2 to 4 tons of krill daily. Feeding season occurs during the polar summer months, and for the remaining 6 to 8 months of the year these whales fast and live off of blubber accumulated during the summer.

Note: I take "Polar summer months" to mean that Northern hemisphere blue whale populations feed during the Northern summer and Southern hemisphere whale populations feed during the Southern summer months.

Sources:

SHFW70 (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)Raven Moondancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven Moondancer (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't in the article because it is now known not all blue whales show such strict feeding strategies. For example, blue whales have been detected off Antarctica year-round. And you can't say "polar" because there are plenty of populations that never reach polar latitudes (pygmy blues, blues off California and Baja, etc.). Had you read the feeding section you would've also seen that is already includes information on the amount of prey consumed daily. SHFW70 (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 January 2013

I want to upload this Tail Fluke picture taken in Indian Ocean from Mirissa, Sri Lanka

Tail Fluke in Indian Ocean, Mirissa, Sri Lanka

Arvindkumarn (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Arvindkumarn (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice picture. Technically it is already "uploaded", but I suspect what you are really asking is for the picture to be included on this article. This article already has a great deal of images on blue whales; I am reluctant to add more images as a great deal more would clutter a featured article.
I am going to leave this edit request open for other users to weigh in; perhaps others will disagree with me, or can suggest another appropriate article or articles that this image can be used on. Perhaps it can be used on the blue whale article on another language's Wikipedia – if you speak a language other than English maybe you can try Wikipedia in that language. If you look at the left sidebar of the article, you will see direct links to the blue whale article in every Wikipedia where such an article exists (you may need to expand the "Languages" link). Also, you can request help at WikiProject Cetaceans; their banner is linked from the top of this talk page. Best of luck, —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
It's taken at a bad angle, so you call barely even tell it's a blue. Don't really think it needs to be added to any article to be honest. SHFW70 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Thanks Arvindkumarn, but there are better photos already in the article. Readers will still be able to access your photo through the link to Wikimedia Commons near the bottom of the article. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 February 2013

Removed in favor of request below this one (February 12 2013)

Adussaq (talk) 07:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013

This is a better summarized follow up on a previous post.

"A blue whale's aorta is about 23 centimetres (9.1 in) in diameter.[30]" While this is true, it is based on an explanation from this paper:
-Gosline JM, Shadwick RE. The mechanical properties of fin whale arteries are explained by novel connective tissue designs. J Exp Biol. 1996 Apr;199(Pt 4):985-97. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8788091)
which estimates the aortic diameter based on this paper:
-Wolinsky, H. AND Glagov, S. (1964). Structural basis for the static mechanical properties of the aortic media. Circulation Res. 14, 400–413. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14156860)

The derived formula from the second paper is: da = 3.65M^0.358 using a 100 ton blue whale we can derive the 23 cm, however this formula is based on a "segment of thoracic aorta was removed after intercostal artery branches had been ligated near their origins". Meaning that this estimate, although show pretty accurate for fin whale in the first paper, should not be generally described as 'aorta', instead it should be described as 'thoracic aorta'.

In summary, I simply request that this be changed to "A blue whale's thoracic aorta is estimated to be 23 centimetres (9.1 in) in diameter." Adussaq (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done Camyoung54 talk 22:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Page Archiving

Due to the size of the talk page, I feel it is time to begin to archive this page. Does anyone disagree? Camyoung54 talk 22:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

'No natural predators'

Is it really correct to say Blue whales have no natural predators? Surely humans are natural predators, since they hunt and eat them. Should it not say, 'no natural predators other than humans' instead? 82.1.157.16 (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Killer whales have been noted attacking them several times, so I don't know why it says that. I'll remove it. SHFW70 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Just read the article. It already mentions killer whales. Where does it say they have "no natural predators" exactly? SHFW70 (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Length

We need clarity on:

  1. the longest blue whale recorded
  2. the typical lengeth

The source used in the intro (2nd sentence) says

  • the longest whale that could be verified was a 98 ft (29.9 m) long female taken by Japanese whalers in the 1946-47 season. ... a maximum length of about 100 ft (30.5 m) is the best to use.

[http://books.google.com/books?id=I1P9kdqGEz4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:08965

I'm still looking for a "most blue whales are between ___ and ___" quote. --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There already is clarity. The longest recorded was 110 ft and the longest reliably measured was 98 ft. Best to use? It wasn't 100 goddamn feet. It was NINETY-EIGHT. Not 97. Not 99. NINETY-EIGHT. The end. And the average size for physically mature individuals of each sex is already given for each hemisphere. There's no point in giving a range when this information has already been presented. SHFW70 (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine. If we're agreed that Wikipedia is going to use 98 feet, then let's put feet first (and use the conversion template to show meters second). Apparently it was measure in feet.
The other way, it looks like we're converted a "round number" of 30 meters into an excessively precise 98 feet. But the precision is justified, because they measured it in feet, right? --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Uh, you ignored my edit summary and my response elsewhere, so obviously I'm going to give you a dick reply to your stupid proposal. It was measured by a scientist, so it was probably given in meters. That doesn't change the fact that it wasn't 100 feet. I seriously don't understand why you want to convert a real length to some stupid rounded figure?? And even if it was 30 meters (98.43 ft), why in hell would you want to add a foot and a half? It isn't some goddamn estimate for christ's sake. It's an actual length. And the standard practice is to put meters before feet (like the rest of the damn article). And don't use that worthless converter, which rounds everything off like you. Go back to doing edits bots normally do. Go home. Bye. SHFW70 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

'Whalers' clarification

The third paragraph reads "For over a century, they were hunted almost to extinction by whalers..." I believe the sentence should be updated to 'commercial whalers' for clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.64.1 (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

"Around 2,000" Statement

A sentence in the third paragraph states: There remain only much smaller (around 2,000) concentrations in each of the eastern North Pacific, Antarctic, and Indian Ocean groups.

The "around 2,000" is a bit unclear in meaning. I assume it means number of whales, rather than there being 2,000 different concentrations (which to me is what the sentence technically says). But is that number of whales the total, or per concentration? I'm assuming total just because it's previously stated that there may be as few as 5,000 whales total in the world. There's no cited source and I couldn't find anything definitive, so I'm reluctant to make the grammar more clear when I'm not sure of the right answer. I thought I'd bring it up here instead.

--Nition1 (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There's estimated to be about 2,500 individually identified blue whales in the eastern North Pacific, about 2,300 blue whales in the Southern Ocean, and I'm guessing 2,000 in the Indian Ocean (I haven't read much about the last subpopulation, so I'm only basing this on the quoted statement above). And a scientist (forgot his name) posted on the talk page a while back that there were estimated to be roughly 10,000 to 25,000 worldwide, so it definitely doesn't apply to that. The figure of 5,000 is just a very outdated estimate. SHFW70 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Here it is Trevor Branch's estimates. SHFW70 (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources for penis size

Refs. 32 and 33 referring to the size of the animal's penis are a book of miscellaneous trivia and a sex tips book, respectively. I highly doubt if these are reliable sources on the subject of cetacean physiology and propose that they be tagged as such. 82.42.249.162 (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Done, removed and replaced. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Size of a blue whale's mouth

This article says that the blue whale's mouth is "large enough to hold up to 90 metric tons (99 short tons) of food and water". The cited source gives a figure of "1000 US [short] tons". On noticing this, I somewhat unthinkingly corrected the figure in the article to match the source, then realised that the 1000 ton figure is pretty absurd. It seems like the source must be in error, in which case it's unreliable and shouldn't be cited – or have I misunderstood something? DoctorKubla (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

From the source "as much as 1000 US tons of water and food at a time.", very flimsy statement here. What do they mean by at a time? I'm sure if you take it for a good amount of time, it can reach 1000 US tons but they haven't mentioned how much time here, a good specification of quantity filtered versus time taken is needed. Hope this helps. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

correction

In reference 58, please correct "Journal of the Acoustics Society of America" to "Journal of the Acoustical Society of America" 76.14.86.123 (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the correction. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Unranked

I changed the rankings on “Cetacea” and “Mysticeti” to “Unranked” because the Artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates) are not a monophyletic group if Whales are excluded (“whale” here includes dolphins and porpoises), so either Cetacea must become a suborder or lower of Artiodactyla, or Artiodactyla must be split into several orders, with Cetacea being one order within the same group. Okay? The consensus among scientists is that non-monophyletic groups cannot be valid taxa. Understand?

I also deleted the statement at the beginning of the article that Mysticete are a suborder, for the same reason.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Biological Science: A Custom Edition for Western Washington University by Scott Freeman, Pearson Books, Inc. (2011), page 477-479, carefully describes the DNA and fossil evidence that shows that the hippopotamuses are the sister group to hippopotamuses; that is, the hippos are the group of living organisms that are most closely related to whales, and vice versa. Next most closely related are ruminants (cattle, sheep, goats, deer, giraffes); then pigs and peccaries; then camels and allies. Therefore artiodactyls are not a monophyletic (or natural) group unless whales (incl. dolphins and porpoises) are included, and as I have explained on other talk pages, such as Collodictyon, the consensus among biologists is that only monophyletic groups can be valid taxa. Therefore Cetacea must be declared part of the order Artiodactyla, or Artiodactyla must be split into four orders. Aforementioned book was the textbook for Biology 204, a class I took at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington.
The claim that hippos are more closely related to whales than to other Artiodactyls, is supported by “World Book Encyclopedia”, 2001, article “Hippopotamus”.
Yes, the same changes should be made to the other Cetacea articles. I will report this to Wikiproject Cetaceans.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

File Problem

There is something wrong with the image that bears the caption "The blow of the blue whale" and it won't show unless you click enlarge, please fix it! Queen4thewin (talk) 12:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

It's showing up fine for me. It may have just been your browser. SHFW70 (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to change 'metric ton' to 'tonne'

As an anon editor I cannot edit this page as it is protected. I therefore, as a result of the protection, request all instances of 'metric ton' be changed to the internationally recognised standard of 'tonne'. --124.180.168.76 (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe someone can include a mention of the world's supposedly largest skeleton?

Slottsfjellsmuseet, a museum in Tønsberg, Norway, has the world's largest known skeleton of a blue whale on display. At least it says so on a poster in the museum (I've been there) and here, on the museum's internet page: http://www.slottsfjellsmuseet.no/om-museet/slottsfjellsmuseet/ (The last sentence under "Hvalhallen"("The whale hall").)

How long is it, exactly? There's a 26.5 m (87 ft) blue whale skeleton on exhibit in California and a c. 27 m (88.5 ft) blue whale skeleton perhaps exhibited elsewhere in Europe (the "Ostend Whale"). Is it longer than either of those? The cited paragraph only vaguely mentions that blue whales reach c. 27 m and 150 tons (which is inaccurate, btw). SHFW70 (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
My Norwegian is rusty. Perhaps it was stating that their blue whale skeleton was about 27 m (88.5 ft). Now it just depends on whether the Ostend whale is still on exhibit. That would just tie it for one of the largest then. SHFW70 (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The blue whale a marine mammal. It weighs 30 (m) 98 ( ft ) in length 170 tones. The blue whale is the largest known mammal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.148.151 (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

pleas do let me see the wed page coz i need this information for my web project I REQUEST U ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.97.137.174 (talk) 15:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Speculation

The following sentence is speculative in nature: "As with other mammals, the fundamental instinct of the whale was to try to carry on breathing at all costs, even though this meant beaching to prevent itself from drowning." If a source is suggestive that this was the case, perhaps this should be edited to read "It is possible..." or "It was speculated..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.11.119 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Bad Source

it is the largest known animal ever to have existed.[6]

The largest Megalodon on record is 30ft, equal if not greater than a blue whale. The piece of information is important and the source could be better:


^ "What is the biggest animal ever to exist on Earth?". How Stuff Works. Retrieved 2007-05-29. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8flynn (talk • contribs) 08:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

blue whale sightings

Good to add following video link of latest sighting of blue-whales in Sri-Lanka http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5MPbZZ4xJA pekon (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Evolution

There is nothing on the evolution of this species, including why it has evolved to be so large. Please add... Fig (talk) 19:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014

I believe "Subspecies' deistribution" should be changed to "Subspecies' distribution" as it appears to be misspelled. Wilburb (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Done Minor edit only. The possessive apostrophe in that same title is also questionable but I don't think leaving it is a bad thing. I'll leave it to the discretion of others. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit required

The "Size" section opens with the following:

The blue whale is the largest animal ever known to have lived. By comparison, the largest known dinosaur of the Mesozoic Era was Argentinosaurus, which is estimated to have weighed up to 90 metric tons (99 short tons).

It's pretty confusing using the phrase "by comparison" when at this point no blue whale weight has been given to compare the Argentinosaurus's weight to. I'm unclear on how best to proceed. Would someone have a go? David (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit required

Under the 'Other' section - "Calves are tend to be more playful on water surface than adults."

Should be "Calves tend to be more playful on the water surface than adults."

Linzdai (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus was the largest animal that ever lived

Further proof why you should never cite Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.161.151 (talk) 07:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What information is the basis for your assertion? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Click on the link in this section's title. Look here also: http://www.rappler.com/world/regions/latin-america/58274-largest-dinosaur-fossil-argenitina . Regarding the claim that the blue whale is the largest animal on earth that ever existed: I don't think we can be this affirmative. Lerichard (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The blue whale certainly the heaviest. With regards to Argentinosaurus, see today's news. CMD (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The reason I asked the IP editor about the source of their assertion—I had already skimmed through our article on Argentinosaurus—is because I wanted to ascertain whether they were concerning themselves only with body length, as opposed to other measurements such as mass etc. The real question here is: how is size measured and compared? As CMD states, the blue whale is the heaviest. I note that the article that CMD links to carefully describes the new dinosaur as the largest animal to have ever walked on Earth. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
When animal "size" is discussed in scientific papers and the like, I find that unless qualified it refers to body mass. See for example this book on organism size (a somewhat outdated one, but it shows the assumption is old). Size is of course used to refer to other measurements (eg. [http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/body-size-and-temperature-why-they-matter-15157011 interesting paper on body size and shape, with regards to temperature), but it explicitly mentions length rather than just size. Sauropods are a lot of thin neck and tail, the bulk of the animals fills up a much smaller space. CMD (talk) 00:00, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

longest animal in history?

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 107.213.4.32 (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Where in the article is that claim made? CMD (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Preferred Citation?

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)

Temporal range box

Why is there no temporal range box in this article? Is it because we don't know how how long they've been around or what? 117.233.205.228 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Whale Audio Mix Up

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)

All these recordings are sped up so you can hear them, so trying to tell the difference between them is kinda pointless. Also, don't rely on secondary sources written by non-experts. Blue whales produce and can easily hear sounds well above 52 Hz. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Californian population.

What exactly warrents this specific case being mentioned in the lede? This is supposed to summerise the article, not give blow-by-blow accounts. Smacks of US-Centrism or more acurately, the Californian-San Francisco "save the Whales" bias!--86.184.47.22 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015

This statement and possibly others in the same paragraph need citation:"In the 1930–31 season, these ships caught 29,400 blue whales in the Antarctic alone." This is not common knowledge and is disputable. There is information on NOAA website that is in conflict with this statement at the following page: http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/blue-whale.html. According to the above rules: "Please provide reliable sources if appropriate. All information in Wikipedia articles should be verifiable from reliable sources which are independent of the subject.". . ."Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

204.47.138.36 (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Citation added. Also, where is the contradiction with the NOAA page? The only hunt figures from the 1930s listed are from the North Atlantic and North Pacific, not the Antarctic. Altamel (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2015

In the museums section of the article it does not mention that there is a Pygmy blue whale skeleton suspended from the ceiling at the Museum of New Zealand, Te papa tongarewa. link to page at the museum website Apteryx12014 (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion

The Blue whale/Archive 2 article is part of the Cetaceans WikiProject. A discussion on the capitalisation of common names of cetaceans is taking place and your input is appreciated.
Please see the the project talk page for the full rationale and comments. Swift (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016

you have a few errors and i was wondering if you'd let me edit. if not an example is tons not tonnes an average blue whales also weighs around two hundred tons not one hundred and seventy three. Fame19 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

See the section above this one. Please establish consensus for any suggested edits and provide a reliable source for each particular claim. DrKay (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Blue whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Strandings

A couple of my recent additions on strandings were removed. The first was the fact that several dead blue whales were stranded in 2007 after being killed by ship strikes. The reason stated was "not a stranding." What?? The second was about how a 40 foot stranded blue whale was rescued in India. I was told not to add material sourced to tabloid journalism. This stranding and rescue certainly happened. There were photos and it is documented in multiple other articles. Problem is, how do I know which one would be considered "genuine" and worth citing? MrAwesome888 (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Cetacean stranding is when a whale gets stuck on a beach when it is alive. Dead whales washing up don't count. Find a better source for the other one and we can include it, if nobody else objects. --John (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see. What about "beaching?" I have seen washed up dead whales referred to as "beached" many times. Or is that just considered a synonym of "stranding" here?

MrAwesome888 (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Article on Blue Whale Penis

There is an article called "Blue whale penis" that does not link to the main blue whale article. Also, I do not believe that the main blue whale article has a link to the page or even talks about the genitalia. I thought about merging the blue whale penis page with the main blue whale page, but determined that the resulting article would be exorbitant in length. 216.161.238.11 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting question. Before I read the Blue whale penis article, my instinct was that there should not be a separate article because we then descend into writing articles about Elephant penis and Dog penis and any other type of penis. When I read the article though, I found it informative and relatively well written. Having said that, it has some sources which I am not immediately sure about, and the large quote needs to be paraphrased. I suggest it goes through a really harsh trimming and editing process, and then re-assess whether it should be merged into Blue whale. I'm willing to help with this. DrChrissy (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The article is linked from the "Size" section. DrKay (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

"In Popular Culture" section

I think I remember there being one years ago, it mentioned a Pokemon based off of a blue whale and a movie where a blue whale is used to move an island, but obviously it was deleted some time ago. Does anyone else remember it, and why was it deleted? MrAwesome888 (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It was removed in this edit. CMD (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, now I can see why it was removed. MrAwesome888 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I recreated the section since I believe there is enough information in it to justify its existence. If has flaws or style violations of which I am unaware, please improve it if you can but do not delete it.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 01:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
It renders the article non-compliant with the featured article criteria, and if neither improved nor removed, then the article should go to Wikipedia:Featured article review for potential delisting. DrKay (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Ugh, sad to see that my boldest edit yet is so problematic. I certainly wouldn't want this article to be delisted on my account, but I also don't want that section removed, since how the blue whale is popularly viewed is important, especially the misconceptions. I'll improve it as much as I can.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

The rules say for further reading say that nothing should be there that's in the references should be in further reading UNLESS the references section is too long to use as a guide, which I'd say it is. Therefore "Wild Blue" should be re-added. MrAwesome888 (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

At nearly 100kB the article is already too long to navigate and edit comfortably. I have to edit articles over 100kB in sections because it is impossible to edit them otherwise and it makes loading incredibly slow. There should be no duplication in the article, because if it grows much longer the article will become inaccessible to large parts of the globe that are not fortunate enough to live in highly-developed first-world countries or use the latest connections and computers. DrKay (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
In that case, maybe "Further Reading" should be removed altogether.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blue whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Size

. . . "ever known to have lived." needs to be changed to "known to have ever lived." The point of "ever" should be to emphasize that are no known species, living or extinct, that reached this size, not to comment on what people "knew" at various times in the past. It should modify "lived" to emphasize that the statement isn't limited to comparing living species. Having it modify "known", as it does now, makes it a commentary on the range of "known" facts over time. . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Since 10 Nov 2014 the size of 180 metric tons (200 short tons) given in the lead has been in conflict with the size as given in its readily-accessible source, which says 190 short tons (170 t).

Comparing this to the Blue whale#Size section, "Animal records" and "Assessment and update status report" have always agreed on 190 short tons as the largest recorded size, although the latter is rather more sceptical of this figure. "The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats" (and Guinness world records more generally) seems to have settled on 190 tonnes, 190 metric tons (210 short tons). Given the common reference to 1947 as the date of this measurement it seems likely that GWR have used the same source as "Assessment and update status report" (Tomilin 1957, "Mammals of the USSR and adjacent countries" as translated 1967) but selected a different unit. It is unclear which unit is correct.

The sizes of 150–170 metric tons (170–190 short tons), 180 metric tons (200 short tons) and 177 metric tons (195 short tons) that appear in the Blue whale#Size section do not appear to be backed by sources. In particular note that "Assessment and update status report" says 80–150 short tons (73–136 t) (plus the mention of the 190 ton outlier above).

TuxLibNit (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

As Guinness is the outlier and the rest agree on a maximum of 173 tonnes or 190 short tons, the most likely explanation is that Guinness have their tons mixed up and have misread 190 tons as 190 tonnes. DrKay (talk) 12:46, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong, there are really some reliable sources wich says the max size is 190 TONNES, and NOT 190 TONS, I've checked the sources. WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make things up. We're perfectly capable of checking the sources ourselves. DrKay (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please check the Wood, Gerald (1983). The Guinness Book of Animal Facts and Feats. p. 256. ISBN 978-0-85112-235-9. source. It is reliable, and it says the heaviest nrecorded blue whale was 190 TONNES, and NOT 190 TONS. WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In these edits: [1][2], you claim that:
(1) This source [3] states that:
  1. Blue whales weigh more than 190 short tons.
  2. "adult blue whales have never been weighed whole, but cut up into manageable pieces first. This caused an underestimate of the total weight of the whale, due to the loss of blood and other fluids"
  3. "measurements between 150–170 tonnes (170–190 short tons) were recorded of animals up to 27 metres (89 ft) in length"
  4. "The weight of an individual 30 metres (98 ft) long is believed by the American National Marine Mammal Laboratory (NMML) to be in excess of 180 tonnes (200 short tons)"
  5. "The largest blue whale accurately weighed by NMML scientists to date was a female that weighed 177 tonnes (195 short tons)"
  6. that the longest whale (of 29.9m) was "measured by scientists at the NMML"
(2) The Guinness Book of Records states that "There is some uncertainty about the biggest blue whale ever found, as most data came from blue whales killed in Antarctic waters during the first half of the twentieth century, which were collected by whalers not well-versed in standard zoological measurement techniques."
(3) The longest whale of 29.9m was a "female caught in the Antarctic by Japanese whalers in 1946–47" according to Capelotti, P.J. (ed.), Quentin R. Walsh. 2010. The Whaling Expedition of the Ulysses, 1937–38, p. 28.
None of these claims are substantiated by the sources. In fact, on point (1)3 above, the source explicitly says that adult weights typically range from 73–136 tonnes (80–150 short tons), but this is a fact that you are removing from the article.
On the issue of the Guinness claim of 190 tonnes, this claim directly contradicts all the scientific literature, which puts the maximum size at 190 short tons. The body of scientific literature is more reliable than a single pop culture tertiary source, and it is undue weight to give more credence or the same credence to a single source than to all of the other sources, particularly when the other sources are more professional and expert than the single source. DrKay (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

In Lockyer's 1976 paper "Body Weights of some Species of Large Whales," it gives the formula W= L^3.25 * 0.0029 to calculate the average weight of a blue whale of a given length. This varies substantially by how much fat the whale has, which varies according to season and/or availability of food. L is length in meters, W is weight in metric tons. I converted the formula to W= L^3.25 * 0.00006726 for feet and short tons.

Another paper by the same author (I believe it's called "Growth and Energy Budgets of Southern Baleen Whales" or something very similar) calculated that the lean weight is about 80% of average and the fattened weight is 120%. Pregnant blue whales are 1.6 times (or was it 1.65 times?) the lean weight.

In Ichihara's original paper about pygmy blue whales, he determines that they are on average 10% heavier than other blue whales of the same length. From that I calculated the length/weight formula for pygmy blue whales (in imperial units) to be W= L^3.25 * 0.000074161. Antarctic blue whales are about 80-90 feet when fully grown. In Branch's paper "Biological Parameters for Pygmy Blue Whales" he states that they average 68-74 feet when fully grown. Northern blue whales are in between Pygmy and Antarctic blue whales in length.

Therefore, across all subspecies and seasons, the average weight would vary from about 50 to 180 short tons. a 98 foot long pregnant blue whale would weigh over 250 tons. In Dan Bortolotti's book "Wild Blue: A Natural History of the World's Largest Animal," it states that the largest blue whales would weigh over 200 tons. Another paper (I'll try to find which one) states that a 108 foot blue whale would probably not be able to exist due to respiration and energy constraints. The calculated average weight for a 108 foot blue whale is about 275 tons. Therefore the maximum weight is probably over 250 tons, possibly as high as about 270 tons. However the maximum length is probably only about 100 feet.

I realize this can't all be added to the article, but the original weight/length formula, the length of pygmy blue whales and the fact that they are 10% heavier on average, the variation in weight, and the fact that they can be over 200 tons should be. MrAwesome888 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added the part about 200 tons in the size section, but have not added anything else since I don't know how to add new citations. MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I figured it out. I read Lockyer 1976 again and found that the length/weight formula I posted above was just a reprinting of an older one, the paper has an updated formula and a separate one for pygmy blue whales. The weights I posted in the article were derived using it and the results multiplied by 1.06 to compensate for 6% blood loss, as the new formula does not include it. MrAwesome888 (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is your own original research and the weights and formula used are not given in the citation? DrKay (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the paper in the citation gives the formula to calculate the weights for different lengths. It says that they are not compensated for blood loss, and that the results they give are about 94% of the weight of a live whale. Therefore to calculate the average weight of a live whale use the formula and multiply by 1.06. I sincerely hope that using math, (which is possibly the only objective and universal truth), to calculate the weights from a formula specifically provided for doing so in a scientific paper on the subject does not count as "original research." MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:CALC allows for the results of calculations to be included if it is the consensus of editors to do so. Now that you've explained it, I don't have a problem with it, personally. DrKay (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll try to learn more about the editing rules and style so I don't cause problems.
MrAwesome888 (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The article gives the average size for physically mature Antarctic females as 26.5 meters (87 feet) but one of the citations given (the IUCN red data book) gives a range of 26-27 meters as a loose average. It seems that whoever added 26.5 meters simply put in the average of 26 and 27 meters. (I haven't been able to read the other source, if someone who can could tell me exactly what it says there that would be great) "Growth and Energy Budgets of Large Baleen Whales from the Southern Hemisphere" by Lockyer, already cited elsewhere in the article, gives the more precise figure of 26.2 meters (86 feet) as the Antarctic female average. It also gives the male average as 25 meters, which is the same as what's already in the article. Therefore I'm changing the female average here to 26.2 meters, please don't revert unless the other source contradicts it or there is another good reason to. MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, since weight and not length is the primary scientific criterion for size, "largest extant animal and the heaviest that has ever existed" should be changed back to "largest animal ever to have existed." MrAwesome888 (talk) 21:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Lockyer 1976 and 1980 list the largest weight as 190 tonnes. MrAwesome888 (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals is almost certainly using metric tons when it says 50-150 tons, for the above reason and because the weight range would be heavily skewed to the smaller side if it wasn't. Only an anorexic adult blue whale would weigh 50 short tons, and any blue whale over 85 feet would weigh more than 150 short tons at the end of the feeding season. In antarctica the average range goes up to about 90 feet. I would change it back to 50-150 tonnes but that would be "edit warring" and I'd get in trouble. I just hope someone sees this post. MrAwesome888 (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced because the "190 tons" in the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals clearly means short tons because it refers specifically to a specimen "taken off South Georgia in 1947" and we know from other sources that that is the 173 metric tons (190 short tons) specimen reported by Tomilin in 1957. In addition, the term "metric tons" is used elsewhere in the encyclopedia apparently to distinguish between metric tons and short tons. DrKay (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2017

Section 3.3: Threats other than hunting

Original Text: A similar incident happened on May 18, 2017 in Monterey Bay, with the orcas swimming in a line up to the blue whale's side. The blue whale fled and escaped. Orcas have virtually no chance against an adult blue whale, but may attack them on occasion anyway for their own enjoyment.

Edited Text: A similar incident happened on May 18, 2017 in Monterey Bay, with the orcas swimming in a line up to the blue whale's side to harass it. The blue whale tail-slapped and porpoised to escape the orcas. The incident was captured in a drone video by Anoorag Saxena for Monterey Bay Whale Watch. Orcas have virtually no chance against an adult blue whale, but may attack them on occasion anyway for their own enjoyment. Anoorag.saxena (talk) 15:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Facebook is not a reliable source in most situations; this is one of them. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blue whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2018

The metric units in the article are far too precise and need to be cleaned up. For example, the intro says they can be up to 29.9 metres. That makes no sense, this should not suggest an extreme precision but be a rounded 30 metres.

In general, the metric size should never be more precise than the source material. 95.222.62.11 (talk) 16:02, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done The source material says 29.9 meters. DrKay (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The original source (Rice) says 98 feet. The reference that Wikipedia gives has this converted to 29.9 metres. They made a mistake by doing so. There is no reason for Wikipedia to copy mistakes made by others. If the original source has a precision of two digits, so should the conversion. Also look it at without considering the source, there is no way anyone would normally say "This animal can be up to 29.9 metres." You cannot predict an animals size with a precision of 1:1000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.62.11 (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Thanks 95.222.62.11. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
No mistake was made you moron. 29.9 m = 98 ft. 30 m = 98.43 ft. You're adding imaginary inches by doing that. I'm changing it back. Fools. OM2003 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Blue Whales in Museum - Perth West Australia

New information for museum section -

West Australian museum has had a blue whale skeleton for over 100 years. Taken off display in 2003 it will be displayed in the new museum from 2020.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-16/blue-whale-skeleton-to-get-new-home-in-wa-museum/10120400

Cheers, Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.104.65 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

Blue Whale along with its calf was spotted recently off Churna Island, Balochistan, the World Wide Fund for Nature-Pakistan (WWF-P). This was the first live sighting of the blue whale, stated the organisation.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1357756/giant-blue-whale-spotted-with-calf-off-churna-island 83.110.94.36 (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: There's nothing notable about this; while WWF Pakistan is naturally interested in local appearances, we don't endeavour to track all 10k individuals of this species in the world. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Suggested edit: gestation period to be changed to months from days. Dominiqueprince15 (talk) 07:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, when you Google search 'blue whale gestation period' Wikipedia (from your page) states 10-12 days. When I read your in depth article it shows months, so i am unsure where it sources this but incorrect information but you may be able to help. Thank you (and for such a super article). Dominiqueprince15 (talk) 07:13, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

That problem is at google not here. DrKay (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Stradings

Just thought I'd ask what exactly about their social structure prevented mass strandings - the article doesn't really make it clear, so if someone knows why and could add that in that'd be nice. Thanks, LittlePuppers (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead missing

I saw that on 31 December the lead was deleted. As since then a lot of good edits have been made, I decided to copy in the old lead rather than revert all the edits, as I though it would be important for this FA to have a good lead at least.Achaea (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help in fixing the lead section! I make a few updates, but of course feel free to edit it as well. :) Angie zorka (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

It is stated in the second sentence of the article that "Reaching a maximum confirmed length of 29.9 meters (98 feet) and weight of 177 tonnes (190 tons), it is the largest animal known to have ever existed. [2]", but this most likely isn't true. The source it uses to prove so is [2]: "https://onekindplanet.org/top-10/top-10-biggest-animals-in-the-world/". But this source is abhorrent, as it not only is so blatantly wrong that it ranks the brown bear, a 3-meter long creature, as no. 5, whilst the creature at no. 6 is the whale shark, a creature that is not only 9 meters longer than the brown bear but also weighs 18 000+ kilograms more, but it also clearly is about the biggest creatures of our current day, as shown by the fact that it doesn't even mention prehistoric creatures, so this source doesn't even prove that the blue whale was the largest creature of all time. It may be the largest animal in our current times (though not the longest as the giant siphonophore holds that title), but it almost definitely isn't the largest animal of all time, as Sauropod dinosaurs, such as the Argentinosaurus, the Supersaurus, the Diplodocus hallorum, and the Patagotitan, all have estimated lengths ranging from 30-40 meters, meaning that they are thought to be just as, if not bigger by up to 10 meters, than the blue whale. Now admittedly none of these specimens have full skeletons, and so these sizes are uncertain, but it still proves a point that the blue whale being the "largest animal known to ever exist" is an uncertain claim and should not be on this article. And unlike the false claim made in this article, I actually have proper sources to prove that the estimated lengths of the Argentinosaurus, the Supersaurus, the Diplodocus hallorum, and the Patagotitan are of 30 meters or more, thus also proving that the blue whale most likely isn't the largest animal to have ever existed. Here they are: "https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40889321" "http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160201-meet-the-most-massive-dinosaur-to-ever-stomp-the-earth" "http://www.gspauldino.com/Titanomass.pdf"-page 350 " "https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/home/2013/06/the-biggest-of-big.html?rq=diplodocus" "https://www.livescience.com/24326-diplodocus.html". I think a proper correction would be to change the title of "Reaching a maximum confirmed length of 29.9 meters (98 feet) and weight of 177 tonnes (190 tons), it is the largest animal known to have ever existed.", to "Reaching a maximum confirmed length of 29.9 meters (98 feet) and weight of 177 tonnes (190 tons), it is the largest animal known that currently exists.". Please accept this request as I am sick of hearing people saying that the blue whale is the largest creature of all time, and I feel like this myth has partly been perpetuated by this article. Sir Rapator (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide sources for this information. (Also, this sounds kind of awkward without being specific as to the exact claim being made). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Noting that the request has been reopened with new text and sources – Thjarkur (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done. The sources given above do not dispute that the blue whale is the largest known animal. Opening party seems to have confused longest with largest. The maximum weights of all the dinosaurs given above are clearly less (by around 100 tonnes) than the maximum weight of the blue whale. Just because an animal is longer doesn't meant it's larger. Compare the volume of a snake 1 meter long with a pig 75 centimeters long. The pig is larger than the snake. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_whale/Archive_2&oldid=1136570381"