Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans/Archive 2

message: Is there a user list for joining the project? I've been wanting to join. I know quite a bit about marine mammals and have read many books and references about them. --Belugaperson 13:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the project page, there is a section entitled "Confessed contributors" where you can add your name. Thank you for wanting to contribute. --Gray Porpoise 15:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joining the project 

message: There's a Bio Barnstar for biology-related contributions, but I think there should also be some more specific WikiProject awards. In my opinion, WikiProject Cetaceans should have its own award, preferably a light blue star with "engravings" of dolphins on the points and a small image of a whale fluke within the center circle or something. (I'm a terrible graphics maker.) I'll list this on Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals if I can get some support (and a decent image). --Gray Porpoise 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think that's a good idea. --Belugaperson 14:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: wtf thats sus 68.4.24.168 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Award? 

message: I see several discussions that are no longer active, for example, the Saving the Portal one seems to be unnecessary at this point. Is one allowed to delete such discussions? --Belugaperson 14:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The talk page will be archived when it gets too long and has many inactive discussions. Let me know if you have any further questions. --Gray Porpoise 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleting outdated discussions

message: When, if at all, shall we start assessment of cetacean articles? --Gray Porpoise 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Assessment 

message: A question was posed at Talk:Porpoise about the Taxonomy section that some of the Cetacea articles have. Basically, they are confusing because they give too much information. Those sections at Porpoise and Delphinidae give the entire Cetacea tree; the one at River dolphin is more reasonable.
I personally would like to see one of the navigational footers to show the Cetacea, like this:
(This is a mockup from my sandbox; please don't use it!) If you think it's a good idea to replace those Taxonomy sections with this navigational footer, let me know and I'll put it into the template namespace. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 07:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having a footer box, and this one looks good. I agree that some of the pages have more information on than they need, i don't know why they have all of the other families and stuff when they are not needed.--chris_huh 10:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, sounds good. Should I keep the scientific names in the navigational footer? --Grahamtalk/mail/e 08:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having the scientific names i think is a good idea, the only question is that if they weren't there, would it be much smaller. If it was a bit smaller it might be better to have at the end of the articles.--chris_huh 12:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm opposed to replacing the taxonomy section, or the trees therein, with a nav footer. The two serve different purposes. The taxonomy tree shows where things lie in relationship to others, while the nav footer does not. I will modify the taxonomy sections pointed out above to be more informative. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, i didn't realise you meant to replace the taxonomy trees, they are vital, i think, even if at the moment they are not displaying just the required information. I thought that the plan was to have a footer as well, that could be a good idea as it does show you all of the related families, whereas the taxonomic trees are just for the closely related species. --chris_huh 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I think that including a complete tree at the family level is a little clunky. I would put a list of porpoise species there and use a nav footer. As the Talk:Porpoise questioner pointed out, it was hard to tell why the Porpoise list included, say, Ziphiidae. --Grahamtalk/mail/e 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxonomic trees 

message: Idea stolen borrowed from WikiProject Sharks. Previous joke stolen borrowed from some RfA questions. Maybe we could start a collaboration project for WikiProject Cetaceans. WikiProject Sharks has a Collaboration of the Fortnight, but since the Cetaceans project has fewer active users (Chris_huh seems to be doing much of the work), ours could be for the month or quarter. --Gray Porpoise 21:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually set up the COTF on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks and that's where i have been for a while, setting up the project to get it off it's feet. I had been thinking of doing a cetaceans one as well. Fortnight or month would be best i think. Probably month. I can set that up if you want.  Also what i was thinking about was assessment of articles, have a look at the sharks one and that was what i was thinking, it is the official kinda one. With assessment it doesnt really matter how long it takes so i think that one should work ok too.--chris_huh 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The WikiProject Sharks collaboration project has an agreeable method. --Gray Porpoise 01:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: There is another WikiProject called Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks, which, surprisingly, is about sharks. I thought i would mention it here to see if anyone would be interested in helping out.--chris_huh 21:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Sharks 

message: Dolphinarium has been nominated for Good Article status - It actually went up on 18 August, but i didn't notice chris_huh 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article candidate 

message: I have made a draft of a welcome message we could use at User:Gray Porpoise/WikiProject Cetaceans/Welcome Message. Please comment on it and edit it to your liking. --Gray Porpoise 23:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of having the todo list template in there, it makes sense i guess. Although do you think the blue may make it stand out too much, a bit striking, wouldn't it look better just with a white background, but maybe a blue or grey border around it perhaps. chris_huh 01:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an edit to your one, if you hadn't noticed. What do you think of that? chris_huh 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that! The original was just a rough idea, awaiting a good designer. --Gray Porpoise 00:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should I move it to a subpage of WikiProject Cetaceans, or leave it in my userspace? --Gray Porpoise 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans/Welcome or something like that. chris_huh 17:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome message 

message: I have made a few diagrams for particular cetaceans which compares the size of them against an average human as i thought these would be useful images. I have uploaded 11 to commons so far called things like Sperm_whale_size.png and Blue_whale_size.png etc. What do you think about these (they are quite basic), and where should they go on the pages. It would be handy if they could go in the taxobox, maybe in the image2 parameter, so that then they are all in the same place on all pages, rather than having some in strange places. chris_huh 01:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea. --Gray Porpoise 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the images to most of the cetacean articles. I haven't made ones for the porpoises or river and oceanic dolphins. I will ge tround to that soon. Some of themi don't have informaiton for so i will have to find them somewhere else chris_huh 15:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Very nice indeed.  Every time I see one, I cant help but think the diver is about to get whacked! Istvan 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size comparison diagrams 

message: I have set up a collaboration. This is essentially a copy of the one i made on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks although, of course this one is about cetaceans! It is also a collaboration of the MONTH as there aren't too many of use, nor are there a great deal of articles. I have added links to it from the main project page.
Any one got any good ideas for what the first one could be? chris_huh 23:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Beached whale is the new collaboration. It hasn't been edited this month, hopefully it will become more active. --Gray Porpoise 01:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the Month 

message: Another idea of mine for a Cetaceans subproject: factual accuracy check. Members could sign up to read through articles and make sure, using outside sources, that there aren't inaccuracies. --Gray Porpoise 00:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: I have reworked the way the taxonomy can be sorted for Cetaceans How it basically works now is that each genus has a template, which can be placed on the page for that genus ( as in Balaena). Then each family above that has a template which transcludes that genus template which can then be used on the family page (as in Balaenidae). This builds up to order level (Cetacea) going through genus, sub-family, family, super-family, sub-order (as long as they have them). The top level template is  (the rest follow this naming technique). This should allow us to both have a taxonomic listing on each relevant page (eg River dolphins) and to only need to update it the one time through the template. 
So if anyone notices a good place to put one of these templates (as on a genera page or somethign) then add them and maybe put:
: 
above so that future editors can understand what is going on. I have used them so far on some pages including Mysticeti and Odontoceti.
I made the templates from information from the Odontoceti and Mysticeti pages before i realised that the information on the Cetacea page had further information. Is there anyone who knows a bit more about the taxonomy of cetaceans that could have a look at the templates and check is they might need something else on them. I left out Tropical dusky dolphin, i have no idea where this came from and i havent heard of one before, so i dont know if this is real or not.
chris_huh 23:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not certain this is a good idea. While it is similar to what is done on Wikispecies, that site has a much lower traffic profile and so the compounding of templates has little effect on the site. Wikipedia has such a high traffic profile that the compounding of templates in this manner puts an undue strain on the servers. This is one of the reasons that the taxoboxes were changed to be a single template instead of multiple and sometimes nested templates. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy and templates 

message: Moved from front page
Hi, I am enquiring about Indo Pacific Humpback Dolphins( Sousa Chinensis). Do you have any informantion or research on these estuarine dolphins. I am a Volunteer and a lay person in scientific terms, at the Dolphin Centre at Tin Can Bay, Qld ,Australia, where these Dolphins are found. I wish to put together an education programme for children, to teach them about Estuarine Dolphins & Dugongs in particular,as they relate to our area. Can you supply me with any sites or information . Thanks Norma Sanderson. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.69.158.96 (talk • contribs) .
:Have you looked at humpback dolphin? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeking...

message: Hello, I was just about to undertake some copyediting of the Fin Whale article when I came across the capitalization of common names issue.  This has obviously been discussed in this WikiProject in the past (see the "capitalization" section on this talk page), but would like some further clarification of the capitalization rules.  For example, the first sentence of the current version of the article reads, "The Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus), also called the finback whale, is a mammal which belongs to the baleen whales suborder.".   If the capitalization is to be standardized based upon this WikiProject's current preference for capitalized common names, should "finback whale" be changed to "Finback Whale"?  Does the capitalization apply to common names of suborders?  Should it be "Baleen Whales" instead of the current lower case?   Since "whale" is a common name of a larger taxonomic group, then should every instance of the word "whale" be capitalized?
I have contributed to many articles in the WikiProject Fishes, where the standard is to use sentence case for all common names.  To me, this seems much more logical and easier to read, and according to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna), seems to agree with more of the scientific literature.  Would there be any support for changing this project's capitalization standards?   I'm not trying to jump in here and stir up a hornet's nest or anything.   Neil916 (Talk) 21:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct about "Finback Whale", as it represents a species. For ranks above the species level, comon names should be in sentence case, such as "baleen whales". For details on the reasoning and logic, see the Bird Wikiproject. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, see WP:MoS#Article titles --WhiteDragon (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization rules continued

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Just to let everyone know that Fin Whale is now a featured article candidate. See its nomination here. Chris_huhtalk 12:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been promoted to featured article. Neil916 (Talk) 18:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great news. Neil - i don't know where you're getting the time to do all this but well done, it really paid off. Chris_huhtalk 18:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fin Whale]] up for [[WP:FA|FA]] 

message: The portal is also up for featured status, but, surprisingly, for featured portal. See its nomination, and help out if you can. Chris_huhtalk 18:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm excited to see how this turns out. Please inform me if any work needs to be done on the portal. --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 19:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And the [[Portal:Cetaceans|portal]] 

message: I have done some work on the Sei Whale article and have posted a request for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sei Whale/archive1.  I'd appreciate any feedback about how this can be improved in anticipation of a featured article nomination.  Also, if anybody is able to track down some free images of this whale, they'd be greatly appreciated.  The one photo of the whale itself that we have is pretty pathetic, and I haven't found anything useful over at NOAA or anywhere else.  Thanks. Neil916 (Talk) 02:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Though it's in need of a few changes to be FA-worthy, I'm nominating it for good article status. --Gray PorpoiseWhat have I done‽ 18:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review request for [[Sei Whale]] 

message: I archived all of the sections from February 2004 up through August 2006. --Gray Porpoisecetaceans have large brains 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive 

message: I try my best when I evaluate, but I probably make errors. What do you guys consider to be a start class? I usually apply it when articles have a couple of short sections or fewer, and are just long enough to escape stub class. However, many of the things that I consider B-class may be start-class to others. --Gray PorpoiseIs this overformatted? 01:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i regard Start-Class as being maybe a paragraph or two. B Class should be a fair bit more than that - with some headings, because after B is GA, and that would be quite a bit higher than a few headings. Chris_huhtalk 14:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment 

message: There is currently a barnstar proposal at :Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildlife Barnstar 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Portal:Cetaceans has just been promoted to Featured Portal. A nice little birthday present i think. Brilliant. Chris_huhtalk 11:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We have a Featured Portal 

message: There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Veterinary medicine project 

message: Exploding whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploding whale FAR

message: The articles on baleen whales are pretty close to being a featured topic.  It's last nomination didn't do so well, but with just a bit of work it could be re-nominated.  --Arctic Gnome 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baleen whales as a featured topic. 

message: Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microformat

message: Hi everyone. I've been trying to figure out what to do with the very long section in the Orca article which discusses captive orcas. Most of it describes unfortunate incidents. I'd like to spin it out into a separate article that covers cetaceans in captivity, including the relevant purposes, history, current practices, effects on the animals involved, and ethical debate. 
Right now we have the following similar articles which cover these issues to some degree:
*Dolphinarium
*Marine mammal park
Marine mammal park includes a list of marine mammal parks; we also have List of dolphinariums and List of marine parks with Orcas. There is also Oceanarium.
I propose that we:
* merge Dolphinarium, Marine mammal park, and Oceanarium into a single article called Cetaceans in captivity. 
* summarize the Captivity section of Orca, and spin out the details into Cetaceans in captivity.
* merge List of dolphinariums, List of marine parks with Orcas, and the list of marine mamal parks into a single article called List of marine parks with cetaceans
Does this make sense? I'll put requests at the Talk pages of these articles to come here and comment 
Cheers, Kla'quot 11:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the surface I'd have to disagree since dophinairium and marine mammal park seem to be lengthy enough to stand alone.  I also would expect people to find these (dolphinarium, marine mammal park, & oceanarium) by their names but not "Cataceans in captivity".  I just don't see the need to merge.  I might consider a new article Cetaceans in captivity combining bits and pieces of other articles that overlap but not a merge.  Please discuss more.  Cburnett 14:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I disagree. I do see overlap though, with the same issue being brought up in various articles. So perhaps there could be an article like "Cetacean welfare in captivity", which these articles could link to for more information. BabyNuke 18:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear: do you disagree with the merge or with my comment (you're indention after my comment leads me to think so). Or both. :)  Cburnett 20:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think an article called Cetaceans in captivity would be a good topic for an article, as an article on exotic animal husbandry. I think the proposed Cetacean welfare in captivity is too POV. However, I would not support merging marine mammal park into such an article, because marine mammals kept in captivity include pinnipeds and sometimes others, not just cetaceans. I would support merging dolphinarium, or better yet, renaming it and then beginning to generalize it to other cetaceans. --Ginkgo100talk 21:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge articles on cetaceans in captivity 

message: Are we due to start a new Collaboration of the Month soon? May I suggest:
*Cetology
*Humpback whale - officially it's a Featured Article, but it needs a lot of work.
Kla'quot 05:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next CoTM 

message: Many whale articles list more than one species in the taxobox. These need to be split into their own articles. An example of one of these offending articles is Right whale.
Species should have their own articles, and list of species in genus articles should be put in the "subdivision" box (e.g. see how kangaroo's taxobox lists species, as done by just about every other genus article on Wikipedia). "Conservation status" does not belong on genus articles, nor on these Whale articles that try to cram 4 species into one taxobox. Likewise having four range maps is nasty. These should be at least overlaid and shown all in one map. 
Also there's a bunch of articles where the conservation status is listed as "Not evaluated" (NE) where it should be "Data Deficient" (DD). This may be because of taxobox template changes.
I clicked through to all the cetacean species articles, and made this list of crammed cetacean articles:
*Right whale
*Minke Whale
*Bryde's Whale
*Pilot whale
*Common dolphin
*Right whale dolphin
*Humpback dolphin
*Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops aduncus -> Tursiops truncatus)
*Giant beaked whale
*Bottlenose whale
Maybe there could be an uncramming collaboration. Exciting idea, yeah? —Pengo 03:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is something that really needs to be done. Right whale in particular, shame its a FA and splitting it up could remove that. When it comes to right whale we could either just have four separate articles and then Right Whale either redirects to the most common or a disambiguation page. Or we have four separate articles plus another article on Right Whales (ie the group of whales) which could mean that a lot of the current text could be kept. The others might be easier to do as it would be a smaller job. I suppose that we could just have Right Whale as the COTM or something and focus mainly on working on splitting it. I dont know about merging Balaenidae straight into Right Whale as then it can confuse what it actually means, but i suppose if a Right Whales page is made it would deal with that. Chris_huhtalk 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Having one article per species makes sense for some articles, but not all. I think we should decide on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether the result of splitting would be two substantially different articles or two very similar articles. Kla'quot 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's start with the most obvious cases. Right whale is a good one, and I'd be in favour of it being the next COTM. Yeah, three or four range maps in one taxobox looks crazy. Kla'quot 06:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crammed cetacean articles 

message: FYI, I've nominated this picture at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Killer whale mother and calf. Kla'quot 03:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Picture Candidate 

message: Humpback whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 
I've played with it a bit to get it to conform more with Fin Whale, Blue Whale and Sei Whale but it needs a Description and some Behaviour bits as well as some referencing.cheers,  Casliber | talk  |  contribs 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news everyone, after some hard work, Humpback whale is looking much better and has survived its Featured Article Review. Even better, the population of Humpback whales has increased by an order of magnitude ;) Kla'quot 05:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Humpback whale FAR

message: In an attempt to uncram the Right whale article, I've started three new ones on right whales:
*Pacific Northern Right Whale
*Atlantic Northern Right Whale
*Southern Right Whale
All of which are stubs right now (hint hint). And if you're interested in editing these articles, you might want to look at the Pygmy Right Whale and the Bowhead Whale too. —Pengo 06:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Additonally, put yer on how to reorganize the RWs here cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Right Whales 

message: Blue Whale has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SP-KP 22:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blue Whale FAR 

message: here.  Tomertalk 22:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article about a bowhead ... OLD bowhead... 

message: :Category:Famous orcas is showing a lack of conventions. Most of them use the form "Name (whale)" but as orcas are dolphins, it's not really correct. Should it be "Name (orca)" instead, and if yes should orca be capitalized? Kla'quot (talk | contribs) 07:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, good point (Orca != whale).  Any followup/consensus on this, perhaps discussed elsewhere? I've been touching a lot of those pages today... I could have helped fix, if I'd known there was a need. - Ageekgal 04:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you're the first person to reply...I'm ready to move them all to either Name (orca) or Name (Orca), depending on how the capitalization discussion below goes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs) 02:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As there's been no discussion in months other than what's above, let's move them all to Name (Orca). Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 09:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention for famous orcas 

message: There is currently a debate underway at the main wikipedia manual of style regarding whether common names of animals should carry an initial capital letter (horse or Horse) when used in the body of the text.  It is looking strongly like the rules are going to be changed in favour of no-caps (except for birds), and since this may impact you guys, please visit Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Common names of animals.Sabine's Sunbird  talk 22:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived, lives here, now. (Consensus was no change to MOS.) - Ageekgal 05:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation debate at main [[WP:MOS]] 

message: I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animals project proposal

message: The above article has been prodded as not establishing notability. If anyone knows how to establish notability, or even find references for the article, that would be greatly appreciated. John Carter 20:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OOps, I removed the notability header based on my perception that many living captive orcas, and some deceased ones, have pages (granted--poorly sourced, in most cases; I've been flagging many, today). Notability gleaned from being one of the relative few of their species in captivity--less common than, say, a camel or monkey or whatnot in captivity--and by virtue of being public performers during their lives. All of the captive orca, and some of the other captive cetacean, pages could use a workover and sourcing. Surely there are sources--research journal articles, etc. It's on my "to do" list to help these pages, if they can be helped (and I feel most of them can.) If I've significantly erred, feel free to add the header back (I know you didn't put it there, but if you feel it deserves to be there once added...) - Ageekgal 05:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some possible (print) sources for all the captive Orca pages -- http://members.aol.com/OrcaInfo/page12.htm - Ageekgal 12:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, National Marine Fisheries Service Marine Mammal Inventory Reports, permit applications, and Erich Hoyt's Orca - the Whale Called Killer (3rd edition,1990.) (I'm scouring Orca-related sites and contacting the authors to ascertain what their sources reportedly were, since few cite them.) - Ageekgal 12:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And The Performing Orca by Erich Hoyt -- http://web.mac.com/erich.hoyt/iWeb/www.erichhoyt.com/More%20Info.html - Ageekgal 13:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sumar]] 

message: Yes, I know Walruses are pinnipeds.  However, those of us that work with the almost-but-not-quite-so-aquatically-adapted lack the exemplary Wiki-Project infrastructure of Club Cetacean. In light of this, perhaps some one might visit the Walrus page, which is currently on hold as a good article nominee, and provide some feedback or editing. This would be GREATLY appreciated, as the elevation of the article's status has been a largely solo affair to date.  Thanks in advance, - Eliezg 17:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Walrus]] review request 

message: Alerting...there is a [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of marine parks with Orcas
|debate at AFD here]] on whether to delete List of marine parks with Orcas, if anyone has a strong opinion either way. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the alert. Not heavily invested in the page, but do have a leaning so I appreciate it. - Ageekgal 03:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD debate for...  

message: Is there still consensus that the names of cetacean species should always be capitalized, e.g. "Orca" not "orca"? I know the arguments on both sides of the debate. I'm just wondering if our current practice of always capitalizing is what the community actually wants. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are four of us that I'm aware of that prefer sentence case. I understand the reasoning for birds, but there is no confusion in the popular literature with whales, despite sentence case being almost universal. No one is going to think that a "killer whale" means a man-eating humpback, that only "fin whales" have fins, or that a "blue whale" is depressed. kwami (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "I saw a blue whale yesterday." "Really? Was it a Blue Whale?" "No, it wasn't that big, but it was certianly blue in color." QED. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We can all make up silly episodes like that, but it's simply not an issue in the real world. In your scenario, did you imagine yourself gesturing the capital letters in "Blue Whale"? Pray tell how your interlocutor was able to understand such a statement. Did you need to write it out for him? Context disambiguates here, just as it does in an article dedicated to the animal in question. The capitals are completely unnecessary, and go against common English usage. kwami (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization again