From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 17, 2015 Articles for deletion Speedily kept
August 12, 2015 Peer review Reviewed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Marine life (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mammals (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cetaceans (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Arctic (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Animal rights (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cryptozoology (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Whale is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Whale at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Add list of crytid whales to species section?[edit]

I do realize that this is not a complete list (but I don't plan on making a complete one), but before I continue expanding this, I would like to know if I should continue (because I don't want it to be deleted when I'm finished with it...) Please give me your input onto my talk page by 8/1/15. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 22:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Cryptid whales [1]

Species Description Image
Alula whale The Alula Whale, also known as the Alula Killer, is a cryptid that resembles a brown orca whale with a well-rounded forehead and white, star-like scars on the body. The dorsal fin, about 0.6 metres (2.0 ft) high, is prominent and often protrudes well above the surface of the water. It is roughly 7.3 metres (24 ft) long, and weighs around 1.8 metric tons (2.0 short tons). This species was discussed and illustrated for the first time, but not formally named, by W. F. J. Mörzer Bruyns in Field Guide of Whales and Dolphins. It has been reported along the Eastern Gulf of Aden to Socotra, and orcas have been seen in the area that are of a sepia brown color, however, they could be a local color variant or a mutation.
A white killer whale, similar in color to the Alula whale
Giglioli's whale (Amphiptera pacifica) Giglioli’s Whale is a cryptid observed by Enrico Hillyer Giglioli. It was described as having two dorsal fins, a feature which no known whales have. On September 4, 1867 on board a ship called the Magenta about 1200 miles off the coast of Chile, the zoologist spotted a species of whale which he could not recognize. It was very close to the ship (too close to shoot with a cannon.) and was observed for a quarter of an hour, allowing Giglioli to make very detailed observations. The whale looked overall similar to a rorqual, 60 feet (18 m) long with an elongated body, but the most notable difference was the presence of two large dorsal fins about 6.5 feet (2 m) apart. No known whales have twin dorsal fins; the rorqual only has a single fin and some other whales have none. Other unusual features include the presence of two long sickle-shaped flippers and a lack of throat pleats. Another report of a two finned whale of roughly the same size was recorded from the ship Lily off the coast of Scotland the following year. In 1983 between Corsica and the French mainland, French zoologist Jacques Maigret sighted a similar looking creature. Although it has not been proven to exist, it was given a "classification" by Giglioli. However, scientists would classify the whale under Balaenopteridae. The whale may have been a genetic mutation. Given the species' alleged size (60 feet) and attributes, it is extremely doubtful such a species would not have been taken (and reported) by modern commercial whalers, bringing into doubt its very existence.
Giglioli's whale
High-Finned sperm whale (Physeter tursio) The High-finned sperm whale is a supposed variant or relative of the sperm whale that is said to live in the seas around the Shetland Islands in Europe, the Antarctic Ocean, and Nova Scotia. The major difference between this creature and other sperm whales is the presence of a tall dorsal fin on its back, which the sperm whale lacks. Two such stranded whales were supposedly observed by Sir Robert Sibbald. He described their dorsal fins as being similar to a "mizzen mast". Although species cannot be given scientific names until a type specimen is discovered, Physeter tursio has been suggested as the High-Finned Sperm Whale's scientific name by an early observer. A possible sighting was off the Annapolis Basin, Nova Scotia, Canada on either August or September 27, 1946. It was apparently trapped there for 2 days. Its length was estimated to be between 3 to 30 metres (9.8 to 98.4 ft). Cetacean needed
Trunko Trunko is the nickname for an animal reportedly sighted in Margate, South Africa, on October 25, 1924, according to an article entitled "Fish Like A Polar Bear" published in the December 27, 1924, edition of London's Daily Mail. The animal was first seen off the coast fighting two orcas for three hours. It used its tail to attack the whales and reportedly lifted itself out of the water by about 20 feet. The creature washed up on Margate Beach but despite being there for 10 days, no scientist ever investigated the carcass while it was beached, so no reliable description has been published, and until September 2010 it was assumed that no photographs of it had ever been published. Some people who have never been identified were reported to have described the animal as possessing snowy-white fur, an elephantine trunk, a lobster-like tail, and a carcass devoid of blood. While it was beached, the animal was measured by beach-goers and turned out to be 14 metres (46 ft) in length, 3 metres (9.8 ft) wide, and 1.5 metres (4.9 ft) high, with the trunk's length being 1.5 metres (4.9 ft), the trunk's diameter 36 centimetres (14 in), the tail 3 metres (9.8 ft), and the fur being 20 centimetres (7.9 in) long. The trunk was said to be attached directly to the animal's torso, as no head was visible on the carcass. For this feature, the animal was dubbed "Trunko" by British cryptozoologist Karl Shuker in his 1996 book The Unexplained. In the March 27, 1925, edition of the Charleroi Mail, in Charleroi, Pennsylvania, an article entitled "Whales Slain By Hairy Monster" reported that whales there were killed by a strange creature which was washed up on a beach exhausted and fell unconscious, but made its way back into the ocean and swam away after 10 days, never to be seen again. Cetacean needed


  1. ^ unknown. "Cryptid whales". 
I don't think these belong in the main article, since they are not yet recognised species. Once they are properly published in the scientific literature as confirmed species, then of course they can be added. Having said that, I see no reason not to make a brief mention that a number of cryptid whales are purported to exist, and link that to a cryptid whale page where the above information would be appropriate. It's not, in my opinion, that such information does not belong on Wikipedia, just that I don't think it belongs on this particular page. (Although I'd suggest more references, if possible). Anaxial (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
You're saying I should complete this list and put it up on a new article, right? Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 17:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that it's a valid topic for a new article, yes. I don't know what other interested parties might think, although there's no problem with being bold. Anaxial (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
A cetacean covered with diatoms, a genetic deformity, variability in dorsal fin shape, and hearsay shouldn't constitute the creation of a new article. GammaCepheus001 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I'll just make it into a new section under "Interactions with humans". Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 11:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • This entire section should be removed from the article and made into a separate article. It has no place in a reliable natural science article. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Scope of article[edit]

I commend Dunkleosteus77 for the hardwork done on such a high-profile article. However, I have some problems with the topic. The definition of "whale" in this article seems rather arbitrary. Why are beluga whales and narwhals covered but not pilot whales and killer whales? Does whale mean any cetacean that is not a dolphin or porpoise? Then that would make whales a paraphylyic group. I personally think this information would be better served at Cetacea. LittleJerry (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the closest relative of these "whales" would be the dolphins and porpoises, not hippos. LittleJerry (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pilot whales and killer whales are blackfish, meaning they are dolphins that are often confused as whales. I did have trouble identifying which species are whales or dolphins, but I found a list of which species are whales and which are dolphins on WikiProject Cetaceans and I wanted to stay consistent with that (as well with the dolphin article). The comment about the hippo is noted. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 03:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The misplacement of info between whale and cetacea was already debated about when this article was nominated for deletion. Whales have always been a paraphylyic group, and yes, they are any cetacean that are not dolphins or porpoises; dolphins are also a paraphylyic group. Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 04:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Please make a link [marine mammals] in first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Whale/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Awaiting "Whaling" and "In culture" items, see Comments.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment.

General comments[edit]

Please check for dead links such as Nanuq (Cetacousin). There may be archived pages which can be linked. Otherwise they'd best be replaced.

-- Sorry, I guess I missed that when I was looking over the websites. done.

There are several blogs used as sources, eg. Jessica Hullinger's 7 Fascinating Facts about Narwhals or Lord Geekington's Two Finned Dolphin. These are not considered Reliable Sources unless the author is demonstrably an authority on a topic. Similarly, a conspiracy fiction author like C. R. Berry can be presumed not to be reliable by profession and should not be used. The use of Wikia sites such as for Cryptid Whales is not satisfactory; these uncertified tertiary sources are, like Wikipedia, not assured to be reliable. Please check each doubtful site/blog use (not only these examples) and either justify it with evidence that it is reliable or replace it.

-- Yes, I realized, which is why I placed much more reliable citations next to them (for the most part). I have little access to books and poor internet access. I'll try to find something more reliable for the narwhals. I'll replace the Lord Geekington and C.R. berry refs. For questionable sources, I've provided (what I think to be) a reliable source next to or near it.
OK, then please remove the flaky ones, leaving the better ones.
-- That'll take some time. I'll get around to it tomorrow.
-- Done.

The tone of comments such as "(since they can't chew)" is too colloquial for a global encyclopedia, and the parentheses aren't ideal either. Something along the lines of "because they are unable to chew" would be more appropriate. Please check the article for remarks in similar style.

-- working on it...
-- Okay, I think I've finished that.

Please expand every usage of abbreviated words like "they're, can't" and "don't" (for example to "they are", "can not" and "do not").

-- Really? No contractions? Okay...

Please ensure that every web page cited has an accessdate. It may be wise to archive some of these.

-- It may be too late for access dates... Do I just put today's date?
Yes, and consider adding an archivelink.
-- Archivelink? Never heard of it.
The idea is to go to and locate an archived copy of the web page (or indeed of a dead page). Then the URL of that archived copy is preserved in a parameter in the cite template. Doesn't matter for now but worth finding out about.
-- I had to do it three times but it finally saved. All refs now have access dates. done.


The use of lists in text articles is one of the GA criteria which calls for some caution; lists are not forbidden but they are problematic all the same. We need to ask here why we should enumerate the species of baleen and toothed whales at all, given that these are listed already in List of whale species, they all have their own articles, and the families can all be navigated to via the taxobox. Further, there is already an article on the whole order, Cetacea, which is monophyletic and therefore a good taxon. This points up an awkward fact: "Whale" is not a taxon at all, but a paraphyletic grouping selected by size from the cetacea. Finally, even if this was a proper taxon, the normal treatment for an Order-sized article is to describe the Families it contains, with one or two examples of interesting genera or species, rather than attempting to describe everything that's covered by subsidiary articles. Therefore, I suggest, and I know this is a bit of a wrench, but there it is.

-- Counterargument: What?! Whale is an informal grouping, and which cetaceans are whales is a must since there's any clear definition is hard to find. GA articles, such as Tiger, have lists and descriptions of all nine subspecies (which is actually where I got the idea from). If the Whale article can't have a list and description of each species, then why can they? Each box contains basic info (stats, diet, binomial name, feeding behaviour...). Describing the basic stats, diet, and feeding behaviour in a properly organized list seems far better than the alternative which is describing each species's individual behaviour. By the way, I looked at the GA criteria and I didn't see anything on lists.
The main problem is repetition of subsidiary article material, rather than what should be here, which is description of the group as a whole. The article on Insects does not attempt to describe every species of insect, nor even every family: it correctly focuses on what is common to all members of the group. If you can't go with this, I'll be happy to fail the article immediately for lack of focus, but if you look at what will be left, you will see that there is actually more than enough to discuss, from the fossil record and phylogeny to whale anatomy and diving physiology, feeding and reproductive behaviors, whaling history and so on. It will make a far more sharply focused article, so please just do it, it won't take long and the article will be far better for it.
Oh fine.

1) please make it clear that whales are paraphyletic, and that for taxonomy readers should go to Cetacea and to its included families.

2) include a diagram like the one at the top of Paraphyly showing the relationship of whales and dolphins and porpoises. (This is not mandatory but would be wise and helpful).

-- Whale is a sort of informal grouping between cetaceans as with dolphins; no clear definition was made to distinguish the two, and I don't think there's any such diagram. done.
What do you mean, done? Can't see any change. A diagram would not be hard to make; I can help if you like.
There's no diagram on WikiMedia Commons, but I stated specifically in the lead in the second sentence "They are an informal grouping of marine mammals within the order Cetacea, excluding dolphins and porpoises..." If you could upload a cladogram, or find someone else to do it, that would be great.
Cladogram done; a paraphyly diagram could also be drawn. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That was quick. Paraphyly diagram? Would this have to be uploaded onto the Commons? If so, I can't do it because my computer would probably crash. If this is the case, could you or someone you know upload it?
Drawn one.

3) remove both lists, replacing them with a brief paragraph on each suborder, and if you wish with a word or two on each family within the suborders. I'd suggest the resulting section should contain two short subsections, each with a single image, i.e. one baleen and one toothed whale image. The family descriptions should briefly say what is distinctive about them as families, so - baleen, filter feeding, many of large size; toothed, fish/squid (etc) diet. If you are sorry for the material, much of it might find a home in List of whale species.

-- What?! Whale is an informal grouping, and which cetaceans are whales is a must since there's any clear definition is hard to find; I found it after three months in WikiProject Cetaceans... Besides, all that info about their diet is already under a section called "Foraging and predation" and the part about dentition should be in the "Anatomy" section.
By all means list their names in one sentence if you feel the need. The text on each group can be as brief as you please and need not contain much on diet: it would be logical to connect toothed with predatory feeding, baleen with filter feeding, even if in a single sentence, which is why I mentioned it.

4) For the Extinct genera, the main link to the List of extinct cetaceans is sufficient. Please remove the three boxed lists. These are redundant with the main list (or if not, they are in error), and not helpful to the general reader wanting to know about "whales" - if they are needed anywhere, it would be in Cetacea, not here.

-- Yeah, I guess you're right. I'll find a place for it there. done.
Thanks. Actually I meant there's a place for the wikilink in the text of the article, not just the See also.
-- Oh. Should I re-add it?
-- Yeah, I'll just re-add it.

5) Again, there is no justification for the coverage of Archaeocetes in this article to be more detailed per species than in the main article on that topic, so please remove the list as undue. I suggest a single paragraph supported by perhaps two images (say, Pakicetus and Ambulocetus to give the general idea).

-- Archaeocetes are, nonetheless, the most important part of the evolution of whales. I looked over the "Archaeocetes" article, and info on them is not very extensive.
Then most of the material probably belongs in that article and can be moved there. What is needed here is a history in text, not a list.

6) the taxobox is somewhat misleading, and could be said to be actually wrong in this context, making the whales look monophyletic, when they aren't a taxon at all. If you want to keep the taxobox, it ought to show and specifically exclude Delphinidae and Phocoenidae, but since orcas and belugas are also Delphinoidea, a diagram showing the exclusions would frankly be better. My preference would be to remove the taxobox. There is actually a simpler taxobox in Cetacea, which is the relevant taxon here.

-- Dolphin is also a paraphletic group, and they have a taxobox, so I thought it would be okay for this; if dolphin's keeping it, then I want to keep it. How would I specifically exclude those two families? I mean, I've already listed the names of the families in the subgroups.
Simply state that dolphins are not generally considered whales, that's all. A gap in a list of families is hard to spot, specially if a reader doesn't even expect it to be there, so lists are not a good way of showing this sort of thing. The argument that other articles do things isn't a good one (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) - we are free to cut down the dolphin one - but I already indicated that removing the taxobox is optional.
Okay, in the lead I said that "whale is an informal grouping of cetaceans, excluding dolphins and porpoises..." Is that okay?
How would I go about specifically stating that dolphins aren't whale using the taxobox?
By naming their family and adding "(excluded)" or something of that sort.
I don't know, the taxobox would get kind of full and confusing (e.g., people would think "why put families that aren't whales?"). Plus, your most recent edit, in the taxonomy section at least, has made it evident that dolphins are not whales. By the way, I'll just remove the subgroup section from the taxobox because it just says "see text".
We should either remove the taxobox altogether (this isn't a taxon) or leave the "see text" as, given the existence of the taxobox, they'll look for families. I'll put the subgroup bit back.
Alright then, but I'm going to remove the "Dolphins, porpoises not usually considered whales" bit.

Specific comments[edit]

The existing cladogram is very beautiful but somewhat off-topic, as it shows (much) too much detail of ruminants, pigs, camels and horses, and fails to make clear which cetaceans are whales - I can see Delphinidae but not Phocoenidae, for instance; and we don't need so much detail on the fossil groups either.

-- So what? Should I delete? Move it? Expand the caption?
I'd suggest replacing it with a small cladogram that has just one branch for ruminant, one for pigs, and so on, and that shows dolphins and porpoises.
There's no such cladogram available in WikiMedia Commons. That's the only (english) cladogram that has anything to do with cetaceans.
So we need to make a new one. Various people including me could make one, it isn't difficult.

There are no fewer than 3 sections named toothed whales (and similarly for baleen): ""Odontocetes" in Taxonomy, but the section actually covers anatomy, sonar, habitat, coloration, and feeding as well as taxonomy; "Toothed or Baleen" in Evolution, which also covers quite a bit of taxonomy; and then Species. I suggest you have exactly one section on each suborder, with a {{main|}} link to the relevant article. Currently the Whale article is trying to cover not only every whale species but full details of each suborder, which what subsidiary articles are for.

-- The two sections in the Taxonomy section are meant as contrast to each other. They describe the differences between odontocetes and mysticetes, which would be anatomy, sonar, coloration, and feeding. You can't talk taxonomy of whales without going into detail of the two different suborders which are vastly different from each other. The name "Toothed or Baleen" kind of implies a difference between the toothed whales and the baleen whales. By the way, I already have a section on each suborder (extinct or otherwise) with a {{main|}} link to the relevant article.
Yes, but the result is multiple sections on the groups, and as stated each section wanders over the other sections' territory, so they seem to need merging. The feeling is that each one is written by different, perhaps many hands: they do not appear highly focused.
-- The species section is now gone, so what is it about the "Toothed or baleen" section (which sentence specifically) strays into taxonomy territory (besides the echolocation)?
See next item.
-- I (reluctantly) took down the "Toothed or baleen" section.

In contrast, the Anatomy, Life history and behaviour, and Ecology are correctly focused on whales as a group.

-- Odontocetes and mysticetes basically share the same traits when it comes down to Life history and behaviour and Ecology, so not much is needed to describe the differences between the two suborders.
The article is not about the two suborders, so the task is to create a unified text on each topic which touches on suborders only as needed. Right now it contains lengthy sections on suborders and on species, which is simply wrong.
-- Yeah I see that, but it is legitimate in the "Taxonomy" section because that's all it really needs to talk about. So basically the main problem area is the "Evolution" section?
The taxonomy section should talk only about the dry details of classification; the evolution section only about evolutionary history; all the rest should be in a section which is often called "Biology", which can contain Locomotion, Senses, Behaviour, Life cycle and so on as necessary.

In culture[edit]

Perhaps the bible's "Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook?" deserves a mention.

-- I personally haven't read the bible; info on that was when I started. I've been trying to get people who're familiar with the bible for months, but with no success.
Try Leviathan for a quick summary.
Added one sentence about Leviathan in Job 41:1-34. See if it suits. -- Elmidae (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The section needs to say a little more about Moby Dick's nature as it is central to the novel and indeed to American culture.

-- I personally haven't read "Moby Dick"; info on that was present before I started.
All the same, it needs doing. There's more than enough for an overview at Moby Dick.
Added one additional sentence about nature & inspiration for the Moby Dick. See if it suits. -- Elmidae (talk) 18:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The section needs to say something about whales in the fine arts, e.g. William Duke Oswald Brierly Thevet 1574 - indeed, the Thevet image would go well in the history of whaling section.

-- There're already paintings of whales in the article (Engraving by William van der Gouwen depicting a stranded sperm whale being butchered, and painting by Abraham Storck depicting dutch whalers near Spitsbergen)
Indeed, but they don't add up to an account of whales in culture at the moment. The point is not the number of images, which may be few, but a section on the arts, which would reasonably be illustrated.

The history up to say 1900 should be in a section named History; the current Conservation and history looks quite recentist (prominent dates are 2013 and 2008), so the historical element is obscured. The history should briefly describe how and where whales were hunted; how they were processed; what they were used for; and which countries were largely involved. Since this involves humans, the History should go in the Interaction with humans section.

-- People only started caring about the conservation of whales in the 1900's. Whaling really took off in the 19th and 20th centuries. Before that was really myths, legend, (which belong in the culture section) and aboriginal hunters (and there's not a lot of that which isn't recent). Really, whales went basically unnoticed in a non-cultural view point. If there were a section on that, it would probably be two sentence, or would replace the "In culture" section.
The History up to 1900 will be mainly on whaling; after 1900, mainly Conservation. I meant, therefore, that they'd make good separate sections; and that the pre-1900 stuff probably needed expansion. 19th century is after all pre-1900.
Still, conservation of the whales only began in mid-1960's, and whaling still is a prevalent issue today (see whaling controversy). The "Conservation and whaling" section stays.
There absolutely needs to be a Conservation section. Please devote energies to editing not arguing.
So what you're saying is that you want the "Interactions with humans" section to have six sections: "In captivity", "Whaling before 1900", "Whaling after 1900", "Conservation", "In culture", and "Cryptid whales"?
Oh dear. Look, we need something on the human history of interaction with whales, which would divide neatly into early/hunting and late/conservation. This might give the structure:

6. Humans. 6.1 History. 6.1.1 Whaling [from the dawn of time etc etc]. 6.1.2 Conservation. 6.2 In literature and art. 6.3 In captivity. 6.4 Cryptids.

So the "History" is just going to be a heading with all the word going into the subheadings Whaling and Conservation? That seems like a good plan. Done.

The section on Cryptid whales is unduly long; for example the Trunko paragraph should be just a few lines, with most of the "reputedly" material excised.

-- Trunko is a cryptid, meaning all of it is "reputedly" material, but, nonetheless, a worthy topic for "Interactions with humans"; I would've fit it in the "Culture" section, but decided not to. Also, there're no articles for Rhinoceros dolphins and high-finned sperm whales and they redirect to the Cryptid whale section, so it kind of does need to be substantial (like more than two sentences) for such cryptids.
OK, but all the same it's far too long at the moment. If you have material you want to save that there isn't room for here, by all means make a subsidiary article on Cryptid whales (right now that redirects here) and link it from here.
Note that there's a talk page discussion about the "cryptid" section, with most people arguing that it should be split completely from this article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Then that might be best; but I'd favour leaving a link and a brief paragraph on the topic, which will at least stop people from wondering where it is and recreating it at length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
-- I'm still not too convinced this needs to be deleted. Cryptic whales fits in well with whale in culture. Perhaps I could put the "Cryptid whales" section as a subsection of "In culture". Honestly, whales in mainland European culture mainly show up in these cryptids, as far as I know. I'm against turning it into a stub-class stand alone article, though.
It would be a C-class at least, and it's worth a separate topic, so let's not talk of deletion but creation. By all means leave a short subsection in "In culture", a good idea. It's not the main cultural aspect of whales - that's probably a combination of hunting, revulsion at hunting, and whale song, not counting all non-European parts of the world. I have created the article and the main link. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: The paragraph on diving is uncited. LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)



Ref 5 - better source needed.

Ref 6 - better source needed.

Ref 35 comes from this book - please fill in {{cite book}} fields.

Ref 37 - better source needed.

Ref 40 - better source needed.

Ref 45 - please add fields for date, publisher.

Ref 49 - better source needed.

Refs 61, 62, 63 - better (scientific) source needed. 62 is dead, too.

Ref 67 - pages needed (and preferably DOI number too).

Ref 68 - better source needed (and it's a dead link).

Ref 69 - better (scientific) source needed.

Ref 71 - better source needed.

Ref 72 - better (scientific) source needed.

Ref 76 - please add fields for date, author.

Ref 78 - better (scientific) source needed.

Ref 80 - please add fields for date, author.

Ref 82 - please replace with the PLoS ONE ref in the sciencemag article, ie Peter Roopnarine, Joe Roman, James J. McCarthy. The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary Productivity in a Coastal Basin. PLoS ONE, 2010; 5 (10): e13255 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013255 (needs formatting).

Ref 97 - please update URL and supply full citation.

Ref 99 - author's name is Metcalfe.

Refs 115, 116 - please add date of publication.

Refs 125, 126, 127, 128: suggest delete all four and the supported text which is over-detailed (Wikipedia is "NOT NEWS") and has the wrong tone; the first sentence (ref 124) is basically all that needs to be said. If you want to say a little more, find a better source and rewrite the paragraph.

Ref 132 - redundant and poor source, suggest delete.

Ref 133 - better source needed.

Whale communication - citation needed for clicks and whistles.

Images on Commons[edit]

Please edit the text on the Commons page of "Features of a blue whale" to show its origins at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as it currently looks as if it was self-created by a user (the license is therefore wrong).

I've added a license.

Same for "Features of a sperm whale skeleton".

-- So to do this, I just put "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service" in the "Sources" section?
No, you have to look at the source. Actually this one is described properly, even if one of the source-of-the-source images is labelled 'self'.

File:Humpbackwhale2.ogg lacks proper source and author info at Commons and should not be used. Perhaps there's another audio file with better sourcing on Commons.

Please add a ref to Roman and McCarthy 2010 (see the Commons page) to the "Whale pump" caption.

Could you please check with someone at Commons that the "Sperm whale weather-vane" image has a valid license as it looks doubtful.


The first paragraph is a muddle. It needs to say paraphyletic, probably in the first sentence, mentioning the dolphins and porpoises. Then it needs to explain the 2 suborders; and I'm not sure it's even right to list all the families here, given we've already divided the group into two, and said what it doesn't contain. Then I'd mention the hippo etc, as now, as the last sentence. Perhaps the difference between the 2 suborders currently in paragraph 2 should be merged with the suborder bit in sentence 2 of paragraph 1. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

-- naming the families that aren't whales seems counter-intuitive. By the way, where does it say what whale doesn't contain? I've mentioned that whales are an informal grouping. The info about hippos is on the last sentence. I don't think I should merge the differences between the suborders, which is one of the more important and fundamental info on whales, into the lead section.
As long as it clearly summarizes the article it will be fine. Saying that whales are all cetaceans except dolphins and porpoises is not counterintuitive, it's about the only way of saying what they are at all concisely. I said hippos were rightly the last sentence! And I said second para (of lead), not second section of article - please read carefully, and move the Odonto/Mysti distinction higher up the lead. Oh, and please use colons to indent your replies.
So you want the Odonto/Mysti paragraph to be the first paragraph as opposed to the second paragraph?
The lead's job is to summarize the whole article, section by section, in a few crisp paragraphs. These are best written by scanning down the fully-revised article and summarizing it chunk by chunk, which we're not yet ready to do. For what it's worth, I think the lead is now very readable and probably close to where it should be; if it needs tweaking later, we can do that.

The lead is repeatedly cited; I suggest that all these refs be removed, and that any facts stated only in the lead be moved to the body of the article (refs 5, 8, 9, 10, and 13 appear only in the lead).

-- done
Not quite finished: 10 refs remain.
-- You wanted all of them gone? Sorry, I thought you meant delete the ones that show up in others parts of the article. done

Remaining items in Human section[edit]

Which nations went whaling from earliest times? in the 18th and 19th centuries? I've restored the 1574 image at the top of the history - it's the oldest image, of obvious historical interest in this article, and it needs direct discussion.

In fact, I'd suggest that more or less all the images should be discussed in the text: firstly, their cultural implications (whaling nations, ports, economic importance); secondly, the artistic progress they imply (woodcuts to oil paintings, for instance).

Where did those nations go whaling?

How important was whaling to those nations (economically, culturally)? Which ports did it enable to flourish? There is considerably more to say; for example, your Whaling Museum source describes 33 whaleships lost in 1871 alone, and that's just the American side of the story.

Please find sources for other whaling nations, including Japanese, French and British whalers, and briefly describe their history also. Read Whaling and History of whaling to form a concise, well-sourced summary.

Which were the subsistence whaling nations? Which whales do subsistence whalers catch? Details with sources.

What is the IWC? It seems to be introduced as an acronym, as if it was obvious what it was; and its function is implied to be anti-whaling, whereas its charter was to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" - sounds like supporting the appropriate catching of whales, no? Seems to deserve a bit of coverage, perhaps a paragraph.

Sorry, I put the full name in the Species section, and when I deleted it, I completely forgot about it.
We still need an account of the IWC's origins, its charter, and how it changed its purpose from pro- to anti-whaling. With sources. In other words, the Conservation section needs expanding.