Talk:Steller's sea cow

message: Wikipedia's figures are fairly well reproduced, but I have occasionally seen figures of 10.7 meters or 35 feet for this animal. This site mentions that the environment may have prevented the animals from growing to their maximum size, so could the 35 foot figure come from the fossil specimens? Cameron 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum size? 

message: On what basis is this animal considered to be within the scope of project paranormal, which deals with animals whose existence if proven would not be compatible with current views of normal science. This animal is merely extinct., or perhaps probably extinct. But there's  fossil record and nothing that doesn't fit into normal biology. 
:Furthermore,  how does it fit into cryptozoology? It would only fit if some people thought it was not extinct, and that there were current sightings. No evidence is presented in the article to show this--merely that Kipling chose to use such a possibility in a fictional framework. DGG 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree that there is nothing paranormal about this animal. If some think that there may be surviving specimens though, it may be relevant to the "cryptozoology" project. --84.72.181.164 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the "cryptozoology" listing is very questionable. Is there a definition concerning how many people have to believe in a cryptid's existence for it to be relevant to the field? Additionally, should we maybe list every dinosaur species as a "cryptid" because I'm sure an occasional looney belives in their continued existence? --130.92.9.58 16:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, that's nice, since they didn't live there, ever. FunkMonk (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I removed the Wikiproject Cryptozoology listing. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Paranormal? cryptozoology? on what basis 

message: Are the works of Kipling really considered popular culture? --buck 02:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the heading from "In popular culture" to "In literature".  Peace.  --buck 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jungle Book"?  Magmagoblin2 (talk) 10:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Popular culture?

message: Much as I'd like to believe that they're not extinct... The "Last hope?" section references this source: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/stellers-seacow/ . Is http://www.cryptomundo.com/ a WP:Reliable Source? Peter Ballard 12:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given it a  tag. http://www.cryptomundo.com/ is huge and it's a little hard to tell whether it's full on quackery, or reliable. It is maintained by Loren Coleman but that's little help because his WP article has very few WP:Reliable Sources too. Peter Ballard 02:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreliable source in "Last hope?" section? 

message: in 1887, zoologist Leonhard Hess Stejneger estimated that at discovery there had been less than 1500 remaining .... By 1768, less than 30 years after it had been discovered, Steller's sea cow was extinct.
If it went extinct in 1768, how was there 1500 of them in 1887?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.226.101 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Stejneger, writing in 1887, was estimating what the situation was back in 1741. I've reworded the article. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh 

message: At the moment, Hydroamalis redirects here, but the article only covers H. gigas, not H. cuestae. So should we have separate articles for each, or have a unified Hydroamalis page? In any case, what we have now is not optimal. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other species 

message: I have cleaned up and wikified the article to be consistent throughout (sentence case notably for mammal names) and removed the claim that Verne's writings had an influence on marine conservationists (which had been tagged since 2009 with a cite needed tag and sounds like WP:OR).
There was also a cite tage needed at the end which I assume was referring to the claim that Steller discovered the sea cow during the expedition with Bering. I have removed this and reffed the information concerned in the lede. CaptainScreebo Parley! 19:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You just have to add a move request here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I posted over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cetaceans but no-one answered yet, I have to request a delete for the page Steller's sea cow first don't I? It's a redirect but there seems to be some sort of history issue going on and that's why I couldn't move. I successfully moved Steller's sea ape using Twinkle. Can you help or do I just stick the move template on this page? CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look here, it's pretty easy, no need for a separate deletionn request, it'll be taken care of during the move: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RM FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks I'll take a look in the morning. I am a serendipitous editor and do not obsess about one thing so when I read articles I'm like omg the caps or the punc or the numbers and then I have to go check WP:MOS or FSM knows what. For example, I wikified this article to death yesterday and when I came back today I noticed it said "from 8 meters to 9 metres" and the conversion was in ft and then written out longhand foot, so back to the MOS and find the template and so on. So it's always helpful to have a "point in the right direction". Many mercis. CaptainScreebo Parley! 22:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome, most of the time when I have to find those pages, I have to Google them or look at other talk pages, not the easiest to find... FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:F John Series 2 Rhytina card 20.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 January 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Hydrodamalis gigas drawing.png Nominated for Deletion

message: I propose the Steller's sea cow article be renamed Hydrodamalis (which is currently a redirect) because there are two hydrodamalines, Steller's sea cow (H. gigas) and Cuesta sea cow (H. cuestae). So, rather than creating a separate stub-class article on H. cuestae which would be barely ten sentences long, I recommend that the two species should be discussed in one article.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that redirecting the page to the genus to talk about both species would confuse people looking for information just on Steller's sea cow.--Mr Fink (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Besides, what's so terrible about making another stub?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wrote it so that there are specific paragraphs just about Steller's sea cow and just about the Cuesta sea cow, so there shouldn't be confusion about anything   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I see no reason why there should not be an article on each species, plus one for the genus, as is the standard for organisms of all kinds, so I'm against this particular move. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the better solution is to simply create a separate article for the other species, as is the case for most other "recent" species. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose the proposed move, as well as the recent edits that have moved this article away from its species-focus. The Steller's sea cow has great individual notability, and an article focused on it is useful to readers who may look it up. CMD (talk) 11:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I also oppose the move. Hydrodamalis is the genus name and not the replacement name for the Steller's sea cow and common names (in particular when they are well established) should be used in favour of Latin names --Melly42 (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: New articles it is then   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  13:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought the issue up six years (!) ago, happy something will finally be done, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually about to nominate for GAN and then I saw your comment from six years ago (which started all of this)    User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Nice! I guess it's this article that you'll nominate? FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

text: I also echo the call for separate articles for the two species and genus. The present state where the two species are discussed in the Steller's sea cow article is confusing. There is nothing wrong with stub or short articles. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Cuesta sea cow, Hydrodamalis, and Steller's sea cow are now different articles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  good work; an excellent example of a cooperative approach to editing, sadly not universal on Wikipedia. Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I see this article is undergoing a FA review. Definitely an article worth having as featured. One thing I notice is completely unused in this article is any usage of the  parameter in the cite templates. In an article with 50 references that seems pretty shabby. Quote is useful when the article's text is directly supported by a small amount of text in the source. It is extremely valuable to have this. Some of the benefits are: A) helps confirm the article's text is actually supported by the source, B) every editor can quickly and easily verify there is no plagiarism of the source, C) aids re-finding the source using search engines when url's break, D) helps editors detect when references become detached and reattached to unrelated sentences during the course of time. So while everybody is reviewing this article, please take some time to consider adding such quotes. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the quote parameter to some non-repeating refs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think this is an actual FA requirement, but I see it's done already, so it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a FA requirement but your comment reads as if you would discourage it. Why? Jason Quinn (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't discourage it, but I wouldn't call articles that lack them "shabby". That would make the vast majority of featured articles "shabby". FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to referencing, I think articles, even featured ones, are often shabby. I state this is probably one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors that focuses on improving referencing. Among numerous problems, references are often too vague to easily verify and are very often taken to mean more than they say. As for featured article review, as if to underscore my point, the FA folk don't even bother to fix CS1 errors, probably because they don't even have the preference turned on to see them, which I think is a sin. These errors often indicate easily fixed problems with the references. (The very existence of a preference setting to see these errors is a sin, they should be visible by default.) We shouldn't be calling the FAs our "best" if they are littered with errors. How can we improve? Well, fix CS1 errors. And, in this day and age, we should be putting strong emphasis on page numbers and quotes. As I explained above, they are enormously valuable. And it's just too easy for the statements in articles to evolve to the point that it is no longer supported by the source. Without quotes, nobody notices. I'm really impressed with User:Dunkleosteus77's edit that added quotes. So few editors expend this extra effort. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one major problem with quoting every single ref: WP:fair use. I think it is debatable whether hosting such an amount of mostly copyrighted text on WIkipedia is advisable. But that is a discussion for a broader forum, not an individual article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as we give credit to the original source and treat it as a direct quote instead of original text, then it'd be okay   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Could you explain more how you think this would violate fair use? Are you referring to the line "Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited" in Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text? That line is saying that a single source should not be over-quoted. That is something we shouldn't be doing anyway within a single article. A work has no limit on the number of sources that can be used yet still be fair use. If you are referring to the total number of quotes from a single source across all of Wikipedia (rather than just a single article), I still don't think that would violate fair use. The vast majority of sources except for encyclopedias and reference books wouldn't have such wide scope for this to even need to be considered. Jason Quinn (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am referring to the amount of copyrigthed text used. When it comes to images and audio, we are told to keep it at a minimum. I can't see why this wouldn't apply to text as well. See this related discussion: If we quote every single ref, it will be a considerable percentage of the arricle, surpassing what we are allowed to use form any other media. Anyhow, this seems to boil down to personal opinion; I have yet to see a guideline/policy that states every ref should feature a quote, and that is really all that matters on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I am highly confident this is not a copyright concern and your interpretation of US copyright is flawed here. It appears that from the fact that we cannot use a high percent of a single work (like an image or audio recording) you have falsely extrapolated that an article cannot include too much copyrighted text even if that text comes from desperate sources. It is possible to build a work completely out of verbatim sentences from other works that still falls under Fair Use in the US so long as none of the sentences were a substantial part of any of the quoted works. Now that you have me thinking about this, however, I'm not sure the quote parameter is compatible with our text licenses like CC BY-SA. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is "falsely extrapolated", we just have different interpretations, because the guidelines are too vague. But the bottomline is, yes, fine if you put the quotes in, but it is not an FA criterion, so it can't be demanded. FunkMonk (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  quote parameter 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Steller's sea cow. 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/20161020122625/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-165-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-165-01-0001.pdf
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) 19:34, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: the full nuclear genome of Steller's Sea Cow has been sequenced. Probably worth incorporating into the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article remains contradictory to the paper. While this article states that there is "no archaeological evidence" for the hunting of Steller's sea cow in the Aleutian Islands, the supplementary information for the paper (supplementary table 8) notes 4 archeological sites in the Aleutian Islands containing Steller's sea cow material. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what the paper means by archeological since all the red sites are mentioned in the Range section as subfossil remains   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Among the article that the supplementary info cites Dynamics of sea mammal and bird populations of the Bering Sea region over the last several millennia notes finding a worked piece of Steller's sea cow rib, while Steller's sea cow in the Aleutian Islands notes finding a rib fragment that likely originated from a midden that pre-dates Russian contact, with the article concluding based on account of hunting at Attu Island "make it likely that sea cows were still known and hunted in at least the western Aleutian Islands into the 18th century." The evidence is circumstantial, but it seems compelling based on the literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add what you like, you don't need my permission   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper 

message: This is a FA so I just wanted to talk about this here before editing, but the author citations for a lot of the synonyms are incorrect per the ICZN Code: ,  It should be something like
or, as is more typically seen in zoology:
The only one I'm unsure about is how to denote Shaw raising the status of Gmelin's Trichechus manatus boreali to species-rank within the same genus; typically the authority would be Gmelin, 1788 for both, without parentheses. The ICZN only talks about the option of citing whoever transferred a species to another genus as far as I can tell. 
In any event, it's incorrect to say the authority of, say, Manatus gigas is Lucas, 1891.
The author citation for Hydrodamalis gigas in the infobox should be (Zimmermann, 1780); I'll make this change as I can't see that being objected to.
Also, if we're including other synonyms Domning (1996)  includes:
* Manatus balaenurus 
Also also why is Rytina borealis listed twice? It should just be , no?
Umimmak (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author citation for synonyms 

message: On what basis is the Finnish novel Elolliset not deemed relevant? The language area is small, but the book deals specifically with the animal and translation rights are sold in multiple languages. Based on available information it is not immediately more obscure than the poetry volume Species evanescens by Bronnikov, which remains untranslated. Gösspöket (talk) 11:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  In media and folklore, relevance of literary works