Talk:River Thames whale

message: "London whale sighting, 2006" is a very silly title. The whale has not only been sighted but taken onto a barge and sent towards the sea. --Oldak Quill 18:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit conflict. I was just saying the same thing: "There is this terrible habit of disambiguating everything by adding a year to the end of the title. In this case, it is not necessary. This is the first time a whale has floated into Westminster. I say "Thames Whale" or somesuch. --Oldak Quill 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone suggest an alternative title? 

message: Well thanks for at least having what I wrote put above, instead of lost in cyberspace. Jamandell (d69) 19:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My article 

message: Why is it called Gonzo? --Dangherous 22:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzo? 

message: In the external links, there is a cartoon.  Is it really necessary?  Does it add much to the article quality?  And doesn't there seem to be enough links on there anyway? Jamandell (d69) 23:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartoon 

message: Is there a chance we could get a closer picture on the whale?  I know there needs to be one which isn't copyrighted etc, but still, does anyone know if they are able to have one?  It feels that since this article is about the whale itself, it should have a close up picture. Jamandell (d69) 23:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a new photo - I persuaded someone on Flickr to upload it to Wikimedia Commons under a GNU license. Frankie Roberto 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh that's great, thanks! Jamandell (d69) 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: I re-arranged 4 of the images, putting them under the appropriate day, etc (and left the 'nicest' as the main pic), I also removed :Image:Thames Whale Battersea Bridge.jpg since I felt it was the least informative or needed image, and the article was over-crowded.  My apologies to whoever uploaded it, and you're of course welcome to re-insert it.  (Though please, not at the top...only one main picture per articles, others get spaced throughout) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 21:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: I understand that naturally the many nicknames need evidence (although I already feel that there are too many, perhaps it would be best to let history decide what one we put there?)
But anyway, I find it amazed to believe that "London Whale" and "Thames whale" need citation, River Thames whale is the name of the article for goodness sake!  I don't even think they are nicknames. Jamandell (d69) 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the last point - those two aren't really nicknames; if they are in the nicknames list, they shouldn't be although they should be redirects to this article if they aren't already. Disagree on the history point though; can't see any reason why, if a nickname has a citable source, that it shouldn't go into the list SP-KP 22:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed? 

message: Yes the whale generated a lot of media coverage but it was over blown by SKY News and BBC News 24 who put the whale on 24 hours. Just like many people feel that the mass hysteria in the aftermath of Diana, Princess of Wales dying was fake and media led, I strongly believe that the media coverage made people take a false intrest. (Although at the time they didn't consider it false).
Even if the emotion shown by the mass media and public towards the whale was genuine, does this event have any significant place in London's history? My own belief is that the article is here as a result of the intense media coverage and not due to any real need to have one. {Anon}
:Well there has already been a vfd and it was given overwhelming support.  Of course it's worthy of an article, in my eyes anyway, because it was the subject of an important news story, it brought whales back into the attention of Brits etc.  I'm sure there are hundreds more articles less worthy to be kept than this.
:And if you believe that the article on Dian's death was fake and media led, well it doesn't mean it did not happen.  Whether you think the Thames whale was mass histeria, it did happen, and the evnts I believe are worthy for a Wiki article. Jamandell (d69) 13:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there really a need for an article? 

message: Many people now believe that this whale has increased the profile of whales to the public, and the opposition to the whaling industry. Many whale experts that were interviewed on Sky News believed this whale will leave a legacy, and it will have helped whales across the planet. They also took note of the fact that the Thames Whale was seen around the Palace of Westminster, the British seat of government.
Is there any evidence at all for this idea, which has been reverted and reinstated? "Many experts on Sky News" doesn't exactly add up to much, and WP is not a crystal ball. Flapdragon 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact 

message: Would anyone like to explain why this link has been deleted twice, with no more explanation than "irrelevant" (which it clearly is not, whatever other objection there may be)? It's perfectly relevant as an example of how many people felt the hype was excessive, no less informative than the "LEWIS PR WHALE WATCH" blog, and no more frivolous than the Matt cartoon. Is it just because it offends the sensibilities of whale-lovers? Flapdragon 19:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's insensitive, not relevant to the context of the article and doesn't enhance the article in any other way.  Perhaps if there was something a little less extreme putting the sympathy for the whale into question, but that link is just not needed. Jamandell (d69) 22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but no need to go to extremes. Jamandell (d69) 19:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No answer. I suppose it just doesn't seem "right" somehow to some people to be irreverent about whales. Flapdragon 23:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No apologies necessary. As soon as you have written a spoof that comes up to your own exacting standards in spoofdom we'll link to it. But seriously the whole point was not how splendidly witty or subtle the spoof was; it wasn't linked to for its entertainment value, but rather to demonstrate that some members of the public were fed up with what they saw as the excessive and sentimental coverage of the whale story, and the spoof certainly went the rounds at the time. It's not a question of whether one likes a linked-to page, this is an encyclopaedia not a selection of favourite links, it's whether they have a point to make. In this case the point it was making has been eloquently demonstrated by the unarticulated but passionate resistence to even linking to a page that dared to be disrepectful about the mighty monarch of the seas (and using a swearword too -- extreme stuff indeed). Not something that would have happened if an absent-minded sea-slug had found itself stranded in the Thames, or an endangered but unsexy species of rat had been found nesting under Westminster Bridge. Flapdragon 14:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "It's only a whale, for f***'s sake" 

message: This section needs a rewrite and I'm soon to take it on. Problems include:
* Don't like the section title. Much as I too was caught up in the emotion while it was alive, it's now primarily a scientific specimen and part-time tourist attraction.
* Where's the reference that the Sun was responsible for getting it to the museum (apart from the Sun itself, obviously)? The NHM has a legal right to examine all beached remains. I've seen other mentions that donations were involved, but we need more info here. There's also an implication that the NHM is failing in its 'responsibility' to display the remains, though it has no such obligation, the vast majority of its collection is not on public display, and large displays are planned years in advance. The remains have since gone temporarily on display anyway...
* I'll add more about the the process of preparing and storage
Loxlie 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  It was me who started this section and called it "Resting place", I just couldnt think of a better way to put it at the time (though I still can't think of one now) Jamandell (d69) 22:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resting Place 

message: The lead section states that this was the first whale that has been seen in the Thames since records began in 1913. I have never been able to ascertain what these "records" are. Did a government official decide in 1913 to count the number of whales in the Thames? ++ MortimerCat (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since records began