| Revision as of 06:09, 4 January 2005 editHorsePunchKid (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,945 editsm →Capitalization?← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 10:05, 21 December 2024 edit undo62.73.72.3 (talk) →Longevity in captivity vs in the wild: new sectionTag: New topic |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
''This article forms part of ]'' |
|
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=12:26, 3 August 2004 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Orca |
|
|
|action1result=promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=5058609 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=FAR |
|
{{featured}} |
|
|
|
|action2date=01:25, 3 April 2010 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Killer whale/archive1 |
|
|
|action2result=kept |
|
|
|action2oldid=353581524 |
|
|
|maindate=January 4, 2005 |
|
|
|currentstatus=FA |
|
|
|collapse=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cetaceans|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=mid|WA=yes|WA-importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Cascadia}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Norway |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Marine life|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Old move|date=January 2009 |from=Orca |destination=Killer Whale |result=Moved|link=Talk:Orca/Archive_4#Requested_move |
|
|
|date2=January 2010 |from2=Killer Whale |destination2=Killer whale |result2=Moved|link2=Talk:Orca/Archive_5#Requested_move |
|
|
|date3=March 2010 |from3=Killer whale |destination3=Orca |result3=Not moved|link3=Talk:Orca/Archive_5#Move? |
|
|
|date4=June 2015 |from4=Killer whale |destination4=Orca |result4=Not moved |link4=Talk:Orca/Archive_6#Requested_move_19_June_2015 |
|
|
|date5=January 2022 |from5=Killer whale |destination5=Orca |result5=Moved |link5=Talk:Orca/Archive_6#Requested_move_25_January_2022}} |
|
|
{{Refideas|{{cite news|url=https://apnews.com/355cf8f5397f439d993431328cbf2bfa|publisher=]|title=Scientists discover different kind of killer whale off Chile|last=Borenstein|first=Seth|date=March 7, 2019}}}} |
|
|
{{Spoken Misplaced Pages request|Catfurball|Important}} |
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Sep 7 2014 (18th)}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 125K |
|
|
|counter = 7 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(100d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Orca/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Please keep the following archived discussion here as the issue of the article name ("Killer Whale" vs. "Orca") seems to come up every 5 years or so. --> |
|
Older issues: |
|
|
|
{{Archive box|bot=MiszaBot|age=100|search=yes|auto=long| |
|
:] |
|
|
:] (resolution: Orca) |
|
* ] (resolution: Orca (''Dec 2003''); Killer Whale (''Jan 2009'')) |
|
:] (resolution: dolphin) |
|
* ] (resolution: both (''2004'')) |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Surfer Bitten claim needs a source == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot make claims like this without citing a primary source. This needs to be deleted until it can be cited. ] (]) 20:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Naming== |
|
|
|
:The source at the end of the sentence supports the surfer part of the sentence too. {{tq|"There has never been a documented fatal killer whale attack on a human. The only relatively well-documented bite was one suffered by a surfer in California in the early 1970s"}} ] ] 20:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you'd like to do more research, the surfer's name was Hans Kretschmer, and it happened in 1972. Here's the contemporary news report from ''The Los Angeles Times'': . ] ] 21:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== New Speciesbox image? == |
|
I notice that the following sentence has been recently removed as part of an edit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Per , ''Orcinus'' has been split. The existing Speciesbox image depicts the transient population, now ''Orcinus rectipinnus''. I'm not entirely sure which image would be the best replacement, or if it needs to be replaced at all, but I thought it'd be a good idea to bring it up. ] (]) 14:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
''However ] has also played a role in the name change.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:For mammals, we wait until secondary sources pick up the work of primary sources. Typically, this means waiting until the new species appears in ASM's MDD, so I'm going to revert your recent changes. - ] ] 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
This is a important point. Why was it removed? |
|
|
|
::Ah, got it. Wasn't aware of that requirement. ] (]) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No worries. Misplaced Pages is a simple complex. ;) - ] ] 17:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And if they are split, this article would be about the genus ''Orcinus'' so the current picture would still be appropriate. ] (]) 01:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== MDD Update == |
|
] ] 00:25, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ASM's MDD now has both '''' and '''' listed, though acknowledges that ''O. orca'' remains paraphyletic. Meanwhile, the Society for Marine Mammalogy (considered a taxonomic authority on marine mammals) as subspecies until further research clarifies their status. Separate pages for resident and Bigg's types wouldn't be difficult, at least, but this page might need to be changed. It could be moved to ''Orcinus'' and discuss just the genus, which would require a separate ''O. orca'' page. Or it could remain as-is (with added information on these recent taxonomic proposals) until there's a clearer picture of what researchers are using. ] (]) 04:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Ah, it looks like Neutrality made the edit in a "drive-by" spree of copyediting of lots of articles. I have done a partial rv. ] ] 16:38, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It's only a matter of time that the paraphyly will get resolved once further research on the other types are done. If we split the two taxa off into their own articles, we could use the common names for the three subspecies SMM adopted but with "orca" instead of "killer whale." So "resident orca," "Bigg's orca," and "common orca." ] | ] 19:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Ah, it appears that Neutrality has made the same change again, without feeling it necessary to explain why here. I'll re-do the rv. ] ] 13:34, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::It does seem that we are nearing the time to make a significant taxonomic update here. It would be good to have the paraphyly sorted out, but with MDD being updated, I have no strong objection left. I suggest making this page to be about both the genus and the paraphyly, while information about the two new species can be their own articles. Once the paraphyly is resolved, we can then erect appropriate new articles and make this one to be only about the genus. - ] ] 19:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::As for name, I actually think we should just use the scientific name for the species articles, and continue to use 'orca' for the genus article; the species' common names aren't that common. - ] ] 19:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would disagree with the uncommonality of the common name. Both resident and Bigg's/transient (latter being rapidly replaced by the former) were exclusively used to describe the two groups by both scientists and laypeople familiar with them since they were recognized in the 70s. I was also curious regarding adopting full species status instead of subspecies; given that SMM accepted only subspecies status, and there's a good chance that other scientists are going to follow that lead for the time being. |
|
|
:::If we used the common names for the articles, then it would grant flexibility for changing between species/subspecies in the taxobox. I suppose that "common orca" is indeed an invention of SMM, but I think a similar situation happened with ] and the article just accepted it anyways with a note? Alternatively, we could temporarily keep ''O. orca'' as "Orca" and ''Orcinus'' as is; I recall having seen a similar precedent of one species taking the base name without any adjectives, but am still trying to look for it again. ] | ] 23:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Section on threats in intro needs sources == |
|
:::And the same change for a third time, without comment in the summary, or here. I have reverted using the rollback button. As a side effect the change from "m" to "metres" also got reverted. I will endeavour to find out what correct policy on using this abbreviation is. ] ] 07:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I like the abbreviation—that way, there is no American English/Commonwealth English bias. ] (])]] 13:31, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ok, that's fine by me. |
|
|
:::::You asked on my talk page why I do not like the edits you describe as "npoving". The reason is that they are exactly the opposite! That the common name for the species has more or less changed to Orca is to do with internationalization of research, but more importantly it is because there is an element of rebranding involved. No-one in the field disagrees with this. I don't really understand why you want to create a distorted history of why the name has changed, but perhaps you don't know that much about the situation, and are simply changing the sentence because it reads like a strong statement to you? If this is the case, then I am happy to reassure you that the sentence is quite acceptable in an NPOV article. ] ] 13:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Ah, OK. I think the article as it stands now is good. Thanks. ] (])]] 15:37, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TL;DR The sentence in the intro naming 5 threats to orca populations needs citations. |
|
== "Killer" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The section at the beginning has no sources while making 5 factual claims (about things that are threats to orca populations). The one specifically that caused me to doubt and made me think to check was the one about capture for marine mammal parks -- With tens of thousands of animals in the wild, and very few such parks with only a few orca each, I didn't see how this could ever be a threat to population numbers. I looked it up, and it turns out, the claim is support by NOAA! So I will add the source for that claim. Unfortunately I don't have the time to research the other 4. Help would be appreciated. ] (]) 03:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
I came to the article via the discussion page. I have made some copyedits. On reading the article I noticed two sections: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The relevant information is in ]. I would agree that marine mammal capture is likely a small issue compared to the others for the global population, although it may be a local issue. ] (]) 03:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:No attack on a human by an Orca in the wild has ever been recorded. There have been isolated reports of captive Orca attacking their handlers at marine theme parks. |
|
|
|
::It is indeed an issue concerning certain smaller populations. ] (]) 08:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Longevity in captivity vs in the wild == |
|
:However there are many who prefer the original name on account of the fact that it is a good description of a species that does indeed kill many animals (just not '''humans''' ). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two studies with opposite conclusions are cited on this subject, but the findings of one of these are retold extensively and stated as fact, while those of the other one are only briefly noted, sandwiched in the middle of the exposition of the findings of the first study, and they are explicitly attributed as the position of its authors only. If this is the only material available, the exposition should be more even-handed, with an equal level of detail and comparable information from both studies and with both positions being explicitly attributed rather than any one of them being presented as the truth. Of course, it is possible that the first study reflects the position predominating among researchers in the field and the second one is isolated, but if so, it should be possible to demonstrate that with more references. ] (]) 10:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
Later in the article it would appear that orcas have resulted in the documented death of '''one''' person, many fewer than can be attributed to domestic dogs. I think the second sentence could happily do with the removal of the part in brackets. I leave that up to those looking after this page. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Will do. ] ] 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Other things I noticed: |
|
|
:From then they periods of polyestrous cycling with non-cycling periods of between three and sixteen months. |
|
|
Is it worth mentioning single births? Is there an incidence of multiple offspring births? --] 03:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not that my references tell me. ] ] 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Pictures == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have brightened two of the pictures on the page. Hope you don't mind. Let me know if you think they are problematic as they now are. --] 19:40, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks good thanks. ] ] 20:02, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Polossatik?== |
|
|
This is probably a mistake. ''Polossatik'' is a Russian name for any of the ''rorqual'' whales. It means, unsurprisingly, "striped one". I guess somebody mistook 'rorqual' for 'Orca'. As for the alleged meaning in Aleut, this is probably condensed out of thin air. --] 15:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You may well be right that it is a mistake, however if it is, it is not a mistake of this article's author (me). The information is directly from |
|
|
''Orca: The Whale Called Killer'', Erich Hoyt, Camden House Publishing, ISBN 0920656250. Should we junk it to be on the safe side? ] ] 12:13, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::I think so. --] 15:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Incidentally a Google search gives just four hits for "polossatik". All four talk about Orca. One can be ignored because it is a wikipedia clone. Another lists Hoyt's book as a reference. The other two... I don't know... maybe they could've used Hoyt too. The three non-wiki-clones all have copyright dates prior to the writing of this article, and so probably did not crib from this article. ] ] 12:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Try 'polosatik' (single s). Most of the English hits are about Balaenopterae --] 15:20, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
::::For what it's worth, the correct Russian spelling is полосатик. The term is (in a technical context, at least) only used () to refer to members of ''Balaenopteridae'' , as far as I can tell. These are baleen whales, which are not particularly closely related to the dolphins, orcas, and other toothed whales. I'll see if I can find the correct Russian term... ] 05:44, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Distribution == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article states that the orca "is the second-most widely distributed mammal on Earth (after humans)". I found that a bit surprising, thinking that honor belonged to ''Mus musculus'' (the house mouse), which lives nearly everywhere that humans do. But I'm no expert. Has anyone verified this statement? --] 04:26, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think when you include the large swaths of ocean that orcas pass through, the total ''surface area'' of the earth in which one could possibly be found naturally is greater. I suspect the mouse you refer to is rather the most widespread mammal ''on land''. ] 05:34, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Capitalization? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why is Orca capitalized throughout this article? If it's the general name of the species, shouldn't it be lower-case? I don't go around saying that I own a pet Cat or that I go to the zoo to see Giraffes and Elephants... is there something special about Orcas, or can we just say orcas? - ] 04:34, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:I second this. I can't find anything online that supports the capitalization. If it isn't cleared up in the next day or so, I'm happy to go through and decapitalize it all. ] 05:28, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC) |
|
|
:I went ahead and took care of this. If lower case is good enough for ADW (and every other source I found), it's good enough for me! ] 06:09, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC) |
|
TL;DR The sentence in the intro naming 5 threats to orca populations needs citations.
The section at the beginning has no sources while making 5 factual claims (about things that are threats to orca populations). The one specifically that caused me to doubt and made me think to check was the one about capture for marine mammal parks -- With tens of thousands of animals in the wild, and very few such parks with only a few orca each, I didn't see how this could ever be a threat to population numbers. I looked it up, and it turns out, the claim is support by NOAA! So I will add the source for that claim. Unfortunately I don't have the time to research the other 4. Help would be appreciated. WiggyWamWam (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Two studies with opposite conclusions are cited on this subject, but the findings of one of these are retold extensively and stated as fact, while those of the other one are only briefly noted, sandwiched in the middle of the exposition of the findings of the first study, and they are explicitly attributed as the position of its authors only. If this is the only material available, the exposition should be more even-handed, with an equal level of detail and comparable information from both studies and with both positions being explicitly attributed rather than any one of them being presented as the truth. Of course, it is possible that the first study reflects the position predominating among researchers in the field and the second one is isolated, but if so, it should be possible to demonstrate that with more references. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
