| Revision as of 19:09, 18 August 2024 editMacrophyseter (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,988 edits →MDD Update: ReplyTag: Reply← 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 |
| (10 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 23: |
Line 23: |
|
{{WikiProject Cascadia}} |
|
{{WikiProject Cascadia}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Norway}} |
|
{{WikiProject Norway |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Arctic|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Mammals|importance=mid}} |
| Line 50: |
Line 50: |
|
* ] (resolution: both (''2004'')) |
|
* ] (resolution: both (''2004'')) |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Better wording for section of threats to humans in opening == |
|
|
|
|
|
The sentence "Wild orcas are not considered a threat to humans, and no fatal attack on humans has ever been documented." doesn't read well for me. In particular I missed the "Wild" at the beginning which is key for correct understanding of the second half. Also the passive construction "are not considered" could be considered 'weasel words'. I think something like "Orcas are not usually a threat to humans, and no fatal attack has ever been documented in their natural habitat." would be an improvement. Thoughts? ] (]) 06:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{u| Eluchil404}}, I agree. ] (]) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Done. ] (]) 05:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Wolf should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl which was the ancestors of whales == |
|
|
|
|
|
"wolves of the sea" should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl (Mesonychid) also called "wolf on hoofs" ] (]) 10:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:That would not be appropriate for this article, nor for the place where "wolf" is mentioned. - ] ] 13:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is also the problem of how mesonychids are not artiodactyls to begin with.] (]) 20:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Surfer Bitten claim needs a source == |
|
== Surfer Bitten claim needs a source == |
| Line 85: |
Line 71: |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
: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) |
|
|
::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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] (]) 03:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
|
::It is indeed an issue concerning certain smaller populations. ] (]) 08:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Longevity in captivity vs in the wild == |
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
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.
