Talk:List of cetaceans

Improvements

Excellent, this was great from the start! Not only is it informative, but it encourages contributing by showing which articles lack a photograph, map, or size comparison. The only thing it needs now is an introduction that's diffrent from Cetacea's. (I would add this to the peer review, but it hasn't been started yet.) --Gray Porpoise 11:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've written a short replacement for the introduction at User:Gray Porpoise/Article Draft. If you wish to help expand it so that it is informative but is not identical to that of Cetacea, please do so, but do not drift off-topic. (This is about cetacean species, not blubber!) --Gray Porpoise 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have put that article draft of yours, with a little bit about the characteristics of cetaceans as the introduction. It might be good to have a paragraph on taxonomy, since that is essentially what this article is about. Chris_huh^talk 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks satisfactory now. --Gray Porpoise 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The status "CD" is not defined, unlike LC (Least Concern), DD (Data Deficient), CE (Critically Endangered), etc. 198.217.64.22 (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Page move

This article should be retitled as the "List of extant cetaceans," as it exclude prehistoric taxa. As is, the title misleadingly implies the list to be comprehensive to the entire order, which it most definitely is not. Abyssal (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Anaxial (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I didn't actually propose this merger, but a mergeto to template was placed at List of Cetacea species yesterday by another editor. It seems a reasonable proposal to me, since that other page merely duplicates information here and at List of extinct cetaceans; I can't really see the need for a separate page that simply includes the content of both of those. Obviously we'd need to confirm that there aren't any known extinct species on the Cetacea species page that aren't on the extinct cetaceans page. Anaxial (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it turns out that there was another merge proposal made yesterday as well, for the slightly odder List of placental mammals in Orders Pholidota and Cetacea. This seems a rather unlikely search term, never mind a duplication of content (from in this case, this page and Pangolin). I'd have been inclined to AfD it, myself, but since the merge proposal is already there... Anaxial (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, merging seems a good idea to me too. I think List of extinct cetaceans ought to be thrown in as well. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 23:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mentioned in BoingBoing on 17:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Here: Cetacean needed: Wikipedia whale diagram needs line-art, referring to this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.251.123.2 (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Table vs Articles -- information disagreement

GeeBee60 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)The table of cetaceans does not agree with the text on specific animals, (different pages).

BLUE WHALE

Rorquals -- Intro (above table): "... the blue whale, which can reach 150 tonnes, ..."

Table -- Blue Whale: Population 10,000 to 25,000, weight 100 - 120 tonnes === Family Balaenopteridae: rorquals

Article -- Blue Whale: Population 5,000 to 12,000, weight 170 tonnes, (190 short tons) [[1]]

Article -- Pygmy Blue Whale: Population 15,000 (10,000 PBW plus 5,000 other subspecies) [[2]]

(Blue Whale article acknowledges Pygmy Blue research and that numbers may be higher, but neither come close to the 25,000 in the chart

NORTHERN MINKE

Rorquals -- Intro (above table): "...the northern minke whale, reaches 9 tonnes. ..."

Table -- Common Minke (Northern Minke, same species, name excluded): Population "Unknown" Weight: 6 - 11 tonnes

Article -- Common Minke: Population 180,000, (North Atlantic) plus 25,000 (North Pacific (20 year old data)); Weight max cited 8.35 Tonnes; article fails to give helpful overview.

[3] -- a primary source "... parts of ... the Northern Hemisphere ... in excess of 100,000 individuals..."

This is as much as I can investigate right now. I'm no expert, I know there will be disagreements. Population estimating is not exact by any means, but it seems that some of this could be a bit closer. And size definitely ought to be closer than some of the numbers.

There may be approximations for some populations, but there is no approximation for the total number of wild Northern Minke whales. I'll try to fix the inconsistencies with the blue whale. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 00:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Inside Joke or Weird Consensus?

Um, when and who established the consensus for a need to replace "citation needed" tags with "cetacean needed"? Isn't having inside jokes in articles against Wikipedia policy as such things have a very strong tendency to confuse and mislead people in the exact same way deliberate misinformation does? I mean, it's why we don't post that Jack Benny is (still) 39 in the corresponding infobox in his article, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apokryltaros (talk • contribs)

The difference here is that this joke is both harmless and accurate. A picture of a cetaceans is indeed needed, while Jack Benny is not 39. Gamaliel (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I echo that [cetacean needed] is accurate and not misleading or disruptive.

It's not exactly in line with the manual of style, and makes it more difficult to present Wikipedia as a sensible, scholarly work to professionals. It's funny, yes, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be funny: it's supposed to cater to people all over the world, some of whom will have a poor grasp of English, and some of whom will want to copy Wikipedia for use in their own work where an inside joke would be inappropriate. People rely on us to give them a sensible, useful encyclopedia that most can understand. Inside jokes work against our goals on both of those works, even if they do generate headlines. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 01:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The professionals are probably the biggest fan of that harmless phrase. (See, for example, Deep Sea News). It's not an "inside joke", inside jokes require inside knowledge. If you are reading List of Cetaceans you know what a cetacean is. Gamaliel (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to have to side with Gamaliel on this one. It is a harmless little phrase that's not disruptive in any way. If a person is on this page and doesn't know what the hell a cetacean is, perhaps we should start an edit war on a name change than this 'inside joke'. Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 02:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I still find it difficult to appreciate the usefulness of a pun in an article that confuses well-meaning editors into thinking that there has been long-term, deep-rooted systemic vandalism.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an RfC would help. I'm happy to accept the result of one. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 16:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the problem that the reader might not be familiar with the phrase "citation needed", and won't get the joke? The disruption is that this otherwise featured article looks to some readers like it has badly-written placeholder text - it's like reading List of dog breeds and seeing "(dog needed)" where a photo would be. --McGeddon (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually those little "cetacean needed" tags means that they need a picture, not a ref   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

[Cetacean Needed] is amazing and I hope it stays forever. Linkhyrule5 (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 02:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I support it as well. 2601:600:9080:A4B0:FD90:F0C0:94D9:78E (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Biggest problem of the article

It doesn't include extinct species. Abyssal (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a different artice: List of extinct cetaceans Dunkleosteus77 ^{(push to talk)} 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of cetacean species. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106152733/https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/ to https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/redlist2006/redlist2006.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106152733/https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/ to https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-of-marine-mammal-species-subspecies/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of cetacean species. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611100729/http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/index.htm to http://www.cms.int/reports/small_cetaceans/index.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Making List of extinct cetaceans more prominent

The article's title and lead doesn't clearly indicate the list is only of living cetaceans, and the List of extinct cetaceans is under See also. I think it should be made clearer there's a seperate article for that.--occono (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

We can always put at the top of the article {{See also}}, or {{Not to be confused with}}, or {{Further}}   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Replacing the Lead

This Lead does not satisfy the criteria for a Lead. As per WPMoS, its purpose is to summarize the article. This Lead is apprpriate for the article on Cetaceans, not the list of species. I will move this material to the Talk page of the article Cetaceans, and then merge it with the current Lead there. Here, I will create a Lead that explains the List. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hatnote in onlyinclude tag

Why is the hatnote at the top of the article in an onlyinclude tag? --Gonnym (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

[cetacean needed]

I am, as one might guess from my signature, a fan of the "[cetacean needed]" line. It's a harmless bit of humor that's still entirely accurate, and has been in this article for quite some time without causing any issues other than people occasionally objecting to the presence of a pun in an article. It may even serve the porpoise of drawing more attention to the need for photos of some of these cetaceans.

95.70.175.176 recently removed the "[cetacean needed]"s. I restored, citing the longstanding consensus. They reverted, saying there is no consensus. I strongly disagree with that interpretation of past discussion here, and I note that WP:EDITCONSENSUS is also a form of consensus. But rather than having a whale of an edit war I thought I'd pose the matter here: Have people soured on the pun, or does it still have support?

I'll note that there isn't any actual policy against humor in articles; the closest is the essay section Wikipedia:Humor § Humor in articles, which says humor in articles must not violate any other policies. This does not. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 06:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there's a discussion above with at least somewhat of a consensus. If someone really wanted to get rid of the cetacean needed tags, they can - get a camera! Elli (talk | contribs) 06:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

They seem fine. They are indicating missing images, not missing citations, so I do not think they will cause confusion. CMD (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Platanista gangetica noaa.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ban on whaling vs. moratorium

It is a common misconception that whaling is illegal. The International Whaling Commission introduced a voluntary moratorium in 1982 after which whaling ended in most countries, but this is not the same as a ban. Norway objected to the moratorium, fully in accordance with the rules of IWC, and can therefore continue their hunt for minke whales without infringing the moratorium. The whaling by Iceland and Japan on large whales is justified for scientific purposes, which is also in accordance with IWC rules, but disputed. There is no global regulation on hunt for smaller cetaceans, such as dolphins and porpoises, as they are not covered by the regulatory mandate of IWC. Some coutries (such as USA) and regions (such as the European Union) has passed separate legislation that bans whaling, but this only applies to these countries own waters and/or ships.

JakobT (talk) 07:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)