Talk:List of cetaceans

message: 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)
replies: text: 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_huhtalk 12:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks satisfactory now. --Gray Porpoise 22:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merger proposal

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

message: GeeBee60 (talk) 11:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table vs Articles -- information disagreement 

message: It doesn't include extinct species. Abyssal (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a different artice: List of extinct cetaceans Dunkleosteus77 (push to talk) 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Biggest problem of the article

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: We can always put at the top of the article , or , or    User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:16, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making [[List of extinct cetaceans]] more prominent 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Replacing the Lead 

message: Why is the hatnote at the top of the article in an onlyinclude tag? --Gonnym (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote in onlyinclude tag 

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [cetacean needed] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion