Jump to content

Talk:Orca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleOrca is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 4, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 3, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
April 3, 2010Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Better wording for section of threats to humans in opening

[edit]

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? Eluchil404 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eluchil404, I agree. LittleJerry (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl which was the ancestors of whales

[edit]

"wolves of the sea" should be linked to Sinonyx a carnivorous artiodactyl (Mesonychid) also called "wolf on hoofs" 103.226.243.133 (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be appropriate for this article, nor for the place where "wolf" is mentioned. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the problem of how mesonychids are not artiodactyls to begin with.Mr Fink (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surfer Bitten claim needs a source

[edit]

You cannot make claims like this without citing a primary source. This needs to be deleted until it can be cited. 76.93.232.99 (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source at the end of the sentence supports the surfer part of the sentence too.[1] "There has never been a documented fatal killer whale attack on a human. The only relatively well-documented bite was one suffered by a surfer in California in the early 1970s" Schazjmd (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to do more research, the surfer's name was Hans Kretschmer, and it happened in 1972.[2] Here's the contemporary news report from The Los Angeles Times: Whale Takes Bite From Surfer's Leg. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Speciesbox image?

[edit]

Per Morin et al. (2024), Orcinus has been split. The existing Speciesbox image depicts the transient population, now Orcinus rectipinnus. I'm not entirely sure which image would be the best replacement, or if it needs to be replaced at all, but I thought it'd be a good idea to bring it up. Borophagus (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For mammals, we wait until secondary sources pick up the work of primary sources. Typically, this means waiting until the new species appears in ASM's MDD, so I'm going to revert your recent changes. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, got it. Wasn't aware of that requirement. Borophagus (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Wikipedia is a simple complex. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if they are split, this article would be about the genus Orcinus so the current picture would still be appropriate. LittleJerry (talk) 01:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MDD Update

[edit]

ASM's MDD now has both O. ater and O. rectipinnus listed, though acknowledges that O. orca remains paraphyletic. Meanwhile, the Society for Marine Mammalogy (considered a taxonomic authority on marine mammals) recognizes them as subspecies until further research clarifies their status. Separate pages for resident and Bigg's types wouldn't be difficult, at least, but this page might need to be changed. It could be moved to Orcinus and discuss just the genus, which would require a separate O. orca page. Or it could remain as-is (with added information on these recent taxonomic proposals) until there's a clearer picture of what researchers are using. YellowstoneLimestone (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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." Macrophyseter | talk 19:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 common bottlenose dolphin 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. Macrophyseter | talk 23:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Section on threats in intro needs sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

The relevant information is in Orca#Conservation. 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. CMD (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed an issue concerning certain smaller populations. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]