This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofAlaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
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.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greenland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Greenland. 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.GreenlandWikipedia:WikiProject GreenlandTemplate:WikiProject GreenlandGreenland articles
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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yu.ste.
Here's another one. Curiously it says "Experts have pinned down the weapons manufacture to a New England factory in about 1880 and say it was rendered obsolete by a less bulky darting gun a few years later", somewhat contradictory to the 1890 dating in the article. --Anshelm '7722:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In May of 2007, a 50-ton specimen caught and harvested off the Alaskan coast was discovered to have the head of an explosive harpoon embedded deep under the blubber of its neck. Examination determined the 3 1/2-inch arrow-shaped projectile was manufactured in New Bedford, Massachusetts, a major whaling center, around 1890. This proof that it survived a similar hunt more than a century ago indicated to researchers that the whale's age was between 115 and 130 years old.
LABarr writes "AP and CNN are carrying a story that has forced scientists to re-evaluate the longevity of mammals. A bowhead whale caught off the Alaskan coast last month had a weapon fragment embedded in its neck that showed it survived a similar hunt over a century ago. 'Embedded deep under its blubber was a 3½-inch arrow-shaped projectile that has given researchers insight into the whale's age, estimated between 115 and 130 years old. The bomb lance fragment, lodged in a bone between the whale's neck and shoulder blade, was likely manufactured in New Bedford, on the southeast coast of Massachusetts, a major whaling center at that time. It was probably shot at the whale from a heavy shoulder gun around 1890.' "
They're not the same text, but it's pretty clear that either they had a common ancestor, or one was directly based on the phrases from the other. -Harmil20:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
of the populations listed in the Population Status section of the article only one is "conservation dependent" with all other populations in worse shape. Why is the conservation status in the infobox then listed as conservation dependent instead of vulnerable or endangered?--Ibis319:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Six years later I have the same question. Unfortunately the source link is broken. I'm going to change the "least concern" to "vulnerable" so that the article is consistent in and of itself. However, someone needs to find a new source because these could all be inaccurate. --Trakon (talk) 22:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Belaying the change regarding my last comment. The source link is broken for those listed Conservation section. But the Redlist source is current for "least concern" status. --Trakon (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to ski behind one of these monsters? I mean, can they be trained like the dolphins at Sea World? Seems like it would be a "greener" way to ski than running a high-powered motorboat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.23.29 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The large tail fin would cause a great deal of choppy water behind them. Plus, it's a slow swimmer and for water skiing you need a reasonably fast and steady tug forward, or you'll sink. Strausszek (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Support per prior discussion and note that I'm willing to help actually carry out the moves if this is closed as successful. Ucucha01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that article should probably be split anyway, as the two subspecies are separate species according to MSW 3. As for the capitalization, EDGE agrees with you, as do mostsources on Google Scholar. Ucucha04:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually attempted to retract my capitalization suggestion after doing some searching for myself. I didn't quite get as far as hitting the "submit" button on my strikeouts before I was distracted by business matters (which tend to generate much better cash flow than the time I volunteer on Wikipedia does), and never made it back until now. Anyway, my perception is that general usage seems to be about 50/50 on whether to capitalize the "River" part of that/those species name/names so I'll defer on the matter and let the experts sort it out. I still remain in support of the overall transition to sentence case in article titles and bodies; this comment only relates to that one article I mentioned before. Neil916 (Talk) 07:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, a thorough examination of relevent academic discussions specifically about capitalisation would be a start. But a requested move using as a basis the claim that "this is how literature does it", that my first check of the literature finds contrary, doesn't make me supportive. Nor does the way this process has been handled - my objection at WP:CETA was moved and hidden by the editor who initiated this proposal. There has been no response to the issues raised. This move would be a major change to existing practice that affects a lot of articles - some of which have already been "moved" prior to resolution - being discussed on the talk page of one article. Given all this, my bar for sufficient justification is pretty high. Gimmetrow21:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"that my first check of the literature finds contrary," I encourage you to read the discussion in its entirety. We've spent quite a bit of time on this.
"my objection at WP:CETA was moved and hidden" Your objection was indeed moved (with a descriptive edit summary) from the Rationale section down to the Comments section but in no way hidden and I resent the accusation.
"There has been no response to the issues raised." The issue had already been raised and resolved nearly seven weeks before you posted your comment. I'm sorry, but if you cannot be bothered to read the discussion through, you cannot demand others spend their time answering every little problem you have.
"major change to existing practice" Existing practice on Wikipedia is irrelevant. This project does not set standards.
"...prior to resolution" We've spent a good deal of time over the last couple of months getting to the bottom of existing practice in relevant literature. Having reached the conclusion that the literature overwhelmingly uses sentence case, we cast a wide net (I personally tagged every single cetacean species talk page) to get comments from the community should they have any arguments that we had missed. None came up so we made a test case on a prominent page and are now going through official channels rather than having the administrators active on WP:CETA move them. If you're insinuating that we're somehow bypassing the community on this, I suggest you take the time to read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans#Capitalisation. --Swift (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per this response, I reassert opposition. I have read the WP:CETA discussion. My concern was not addressed anywhere - precisely why I made a comment. My comment is still not addressed. And now I have no idea where the appropriate venue is for discussion - is it here, or at WP:CETA, or was it at Killer Whale and now a fait accompli? And this project most certainly sets standards for this project. Gimmetrow15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the cetacean section of MSW 3 mostly uses title case (also note the account of Indopacetus pacificus); as I had already said, Swift's earlier comment was incorrect. (Incidentally, there are a few places in other chapters of MSW 3 where sentence case is used, as Aranae noted somewhere.) However, we shouldn't be relying solely on one source, and I think the WT:CETA discussion has made it clear that the rest of the literature mostly uses sentence case, at least in prose. Ucucha15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose "North Pacific right whale"? "Southern right whale"? "Bryde's whale"? "Antarctic minke whale"? ??? What the hell? Since when is the Right not capitalized?? And "Bryde's" etc all the other possessive forms require that it be capitalized. Or do you call it "Bryde's" as a bare possessive??? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See [2]: most of the scientific community appears to disagree with you about the capitalization of "right". Same for Antarctic minke whale and Bryde's whale. I am not sure where your assertion that possessive forms require capitalization comes from; it is evidently not a view shared by many reliable sources. Ucucha05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your input would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans#Capitalisation. Please read what has been written and feel free to add to the discussion if you think that we are making a mistake. I think that a lot of time has appropriately been spent making sure that we're getting it right, and if we're making a mistake, please speak up and point us in the right direction. Neil916 (Talk) 07:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment/clarification request. Sorry, what is a "bare possessive"? It's been many, many moons since I've taken any kind of English grammar classes, so please forgive my ignorance. If I try to read into the context of your statement, I believe that the convention is for the "B" in Bryde's whale to be in title case, regardless of its location in a sentence, since it was named after Johan Bryde, who helped set up the first whaling station in Durban, South Africa in 1908. On the other hand, the right whale, supposedly named because it was the "right" whale to hunt because it floated to the surface when it died (rather than sinking to the ocean bottom) would not be capitalized unless it happened to be the first word of a sentence. Am I understanding your question/opposition correctly? Neil916 (Talk) 07:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have a dog in this hunt (as they say) but in the past I have heard from a couple of people working among the San Juan Islands/Gulf Islands that in the case of Killer Whale, the "K" and "W" were capitalized because an orca is actually a dolphin, not a whale, and using capitals reflect that its a proper name consisting of the two words together. Other examples include American Buffalo (which really isn't a buffalo) I tried to do an internet search to justify this imprssion but was unsuccessful, and I don't really care which way this move request goes, but obviously I cared enough to mention this possible explanation for the use of capitals. 67.100.222.77 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Killer whale" (with either capitalization) is certainly not a proper name. A proper name is a word referring to a specific unique thing, instead of a type or class of things. Keiko is a unique killer whale, so "Keiko" is a proper name, but "killer whale" is still a common name since it describes a type of animal, not a specific animal. Jafeluv (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
conservation status of LC conflicts with the threat status detailed in the article
Thanks, I have expanded and modernized the article a little and it should hopefully get more information as the articles are created. --Kevmin§09:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fin whale is the second largest whale. According to Lockyer's formula, the average weight of an 85 foot fin whale would be 100.4 tonnes, or 110.7 tons. This is the average weight throughout all seasons. In his other paper, "growth and energy budgets of large baleen whales from the southern hemisphere," he calculates that blue and fin whales gain half of their body weight during the feeding months. (a blue whale entering the antarctic weighing 100 tons would leave weighing 150 tons) The average weight would be 5/6 of the "fattened" weight. Therefore an 85 foot fin whale would weigh 132.8 tons at the end of the feeding season, larger than any right or bowhead whale.MrAwesome888 (talk) 20:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) Not an issue of grammar or syntax, but does Wikipedia prefer the term 'tonnes' over 'tons'?
2) "It lives entirely in fertile Arctic and sub-Arctic waters, unlike other whales that migrate to feed or reproduce to low latitude waters." The 2nd half of the sentence contains inverted syntax.
3) Several sentences are missing either definite or indefinite articles (in this instance the problem is made all the more apparent since the name 'right whale' contains a word that may or may not be part of a name depending on capitalization; it is perhaps informative to note that the number of missing definite articles may indicate that some of this text was originally written in Russian). I have inserted the needed article in square brackets in each of the selection of sentences below:
"It was also known as [the] Greenland right whale or Arctic whale."
"An unknown species of [the] right whale, [the] so-called "Swedenborg whale" which was proposed by Emanuel Swedenborg in the 18th century, was once thought to be a North Atlantic right whale by scientific consensus." (I deleted the 'the' before "Swedenborg whale").
"It is of comparable size to the three species of [the] right whale."
"However, since recent times whales have been regularly observed at [the] Shantar Islands, very close to shores such as at Ongachan Bay." (And: 'to the shore at Ongachan Bay').
"Thus bowheads in [the] Sea of Okhotsk were once called "forgotten whales" by researchers."
4) "American whalemen called it the steeple-top, polar whale, or Russia or Russian whale." 'or Russian' should probably be in parentheses.
5) "For the next 180 years, the Balaenidae family has been the subject of great taxonometric debate." Verb tense problem, probably should be 'was' rather than 'has been', since it is no longer a matter of controversy as stated later in the article.
6) "However based on later DNA analysis of those fossil bones to be claimed as of "Swedenborg whales", it was confirmed to be actually from Bowhead Whales." Inexplicable capitalization at the end of the sentence aside, "analysis of those fossil bones to be claimed as of 'Swedenborg whales'" has an anomalous instance of the verb 'to be', also I'm not at all certain that "Swedenborg whales" should be plural.
7) "The bowhead whale has a robust, dark-colored body, no dorsal fin and a strongly bowed lower jaw and narrow upper jaw." The second 'and' before 'narrow' should probably something more like 'together with' both for clarity and elimination of parataxis.
8) The first paragraph of the "Description" section needs tightening as the connections between sentences are extremely loose, some ideas should perhaps be grouped into more complex sentence structures.
9) "but it doesn't appear to have been actually measured." Two problems...eliminate the contraction and move the adverb to precede the verb.
10) "It's hypothesized that this organ provides a mechanism" eliminate informal contraction.
11) "which is normally protected from the cold Arctic waters by 40 cm of fat", the article just said that the average is 43-50, so a qualifying word/phrase would be prudent, such as 'a little over' or something like it.
12) "It's believed that this organ will engorge with blood; the whale will respond by opening its mouth and allowing the cold seawater flow over the organ, cooling the blood." Contraction, problems with verb tenses, and comma splice. Should be something more like: 'It is now believed that this organ engorges with blood, causing the whale to respond by opening its mouth so that cold seawater can flow over the organ, thus cooling the blood.'
13) "Although perhaps less active than Eubalaena sp., bowheads' behaviors generally resemble that of Right whales including showing curiosity towards mankind." 'bowheads should be 'bowhead's', 'that' should be 'those', 'Right' should not be capitalized, and there should probably be a comma after 'whales'.
14) "whales'" should be 'whale's', one member of a species such as this is the collective noun for the species.
15) "Beluga whales often follow Bowheads. This could be due to curiosities and to secure polynya feasible for belugas to breathe, as bowheads are capable of breaking through ice from beneath by headbutting." Sentences need to combined.
16) "Recent data have shown that specimens might reach". The repetition of this thought aside, 'have' should be 'has'.
17) "It is confirmed that their ranges had been changing largely depending on climate changes along with right whales." Subject/Verb agreement issue.
18) "Several companies provide whale watching services which are mostly land-based." Advertising? In any case a non sequitur.
19) "Scientific research on this population was seldom accomplished before 2009" 'accomplished' is the wrong word.
So, why haven't you started fixing these issues yet? *grins* This is all of our encyclopedia. You ar emore than welcome to fix any problems you find. - UtherSRG(talk)21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. See Tonne#Origin and spelling - basically Tonne, and Ton are slightly different, which is why the article gives measurements in all three (Metric Tonne, Long Ton, and Short Ton). Also, see WP:ENGVAR.
3. I don't think all of those instances of "the" that you want to add are needed or beneficial. I've taken a look and added some of them, as well as rephrasing some other awkward language, but for example, "It is of comparable size to the three species of [the] right whale," seem has too many "the"s. "The three species of right whale" is correct.
4. Why do you think it should be in parentheses when none of the other alternate names are?
Because it is an alternate to an alternate, it's the only way you can use 'or' twice in a list.
5. I fixed it.
6. Does it make more sense now?
Yes, it does.
7. Eh. I just got rid of the first "and".
8. I refractored it into 3 separate paragraphs; you were right that it was a mess of random factoids.
9. Fixed.
10. Fixed.
11. Fixed.
12. Fixed.
13. Fixed
14. Where?
15. Eh; not sure if it's better as one sentence or two, but I combined it.
16. Better?
Yes, better.
17. Yeah, that whole sentence was confusing. Better?
Yes, much better.
18. Not advertising, as it's not advertising any specific company. Doesn't seem like much of a non-sequitor either as it's providing support for the assertion that the whales have been observed in that area, though I'd rather have an WP:RS. At any rate, I left it for now but you can feel free to remove it if you want.
Is there a way to flag an article for editing that has a lot of errors? I regularly make small copy-editing corrections, but some articles are bit daunting in the volume of their errors, it would be nice to flag them either to come back to them myself or for someone else to begin the work it they'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.83.155.208 (talk • contribs)
Yep; Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup has a whole list of templates that flag an article as having various problems, which then add it to categories for clean up. Putting {{copy edit}} will generate the following tag:
Also, please sign your talk edits with 4 tildes (~). It's the polite thing to do. And if you are making regular edits, please consider creating an account. Thanks! - UtherSRG(talk)16:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Subsistence Hunting(Whaling) in Alaska BIB and summary of additions I would like to make to the page
In this section I would like to say which tribes are know for hunting the whale and where they can be located (map). This will be a relatively short section only detailing which tribes in Alaska hunt the bowhead whale, and maps of the location in which you can find the different tribes.
Tribal Use of the Bowhead Whale
In this section I hope to detail how the native tribes of Alaska use every piece of the whale with regards to their culture. This section will include detail as to which parts of the whale they use and for what functions. Additionally information will be added if they use that part of the whale for a religious/ cultural practice.
Legal Rights to Tribes for Subsistence Hunting
In this section I hope to find all laws in which have allowed tribes to hunt on a subsistence level regardless of the whale being listed as endangered and on CITES. This will contain a lot of Alaska law that details the legal side in why they are allowed to still hunt. Information about where the animal is listed under CITES and the endangered species list could have been added in here, but that information can be found elsewhere on the page so I will just direct them to the "Conservation" heading on the page.
How Tribes Get Their Licenses
In this section I would like to illustrate the process in which tribes have to apply for their subsistence hunting licenses. Though tribes have access to subsistence hunting they still have to apply for a permit, and there is a process to do so. The steps in which a tribe has to go to, along with any title they must hold, will be detailed here.
I have just added archive links to one external link on Bowhead whale. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
There are four sources for the age of the whale that was found with an old projectile embedded in it's blubber, but these disagree. Two claim that this specimen was estimated to be between 115 and 130 years old (backed by AP info), while another supports the claim made in the wiki page, an age of 211 years. Since most scholarly articles cite a lifespan of up to 200 years, this claim is probably incorrect. Has anyone more insight on what to do with disagreeing sources?
I have just modified 3 external links on Bowhead 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on Bowhead 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
Whaler is an ambiguous term. It can refer to a ship, a person, or a type of boat not even used in whaling (e.g Boston whaler). Changing "whalemen" to "whaler" because two women shipped on whaleships (if I recall correctly disguised as men, well at least one that I know of) is goddamn ridiculous. That's a bunch of "politically correct" bullshit and you know it. Experts use the term "whalemen", particularly during the Yankee open-boat era. Only people with agendas would change that term. OM2003 (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that "whalemen" is encompassing enough in this instance and no change is needed, "whalers" is just as correct and commonplace. Your offensive rants in the face of well-made arguments by Ifny are not appreciated. Please cut it out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A 2013 discovery has elucidated the function of the bowhead's large palatal retial organ. The bulbous ridge of highly vascularized tissue, the corpus cavernosum maxillaris, extends along the center of the hard plate, forming two large lobes at the rostral palate. The tissue is histologically similar to that of the corpus cavernosum of the mammalian penis."
I have no idea what this means; I don't know about 50% of the words. Could it be reworded to make sense to the layman?
Is it pronounced Bowhead like bow and arrow or bowhead like bow of a ship? The fact that this is unclear implies to me that a pronunciation guide on the page would be useful - Khitrir (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yu.ste.
