Talk:Kayavak

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Kayavak (beluga whale) → Kayavak — this is the only Kayavak, and therefore does not need the "beluga whale" suffix. Please see here. —Airplaneman ^talk 01:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support move. Kayavak was once a one-sentence article about this whale but was later changed to a redirect. Needs admin to move the article because of history. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Support move. I do support the move of my article. But, there's a problem. When you type in Kayavak, it redirects you to the Shedd Aquarium page, on which there is no info about her. Belugaboy535136 (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Uncontroversial IMO. Target has no significant history. Andrewa (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notes on redirects and similar words

I've just removed a mention that Kayavak (beluga whale) redirects here for the second time. There is absolutely no need for mentioning this. You will have seen this on articles where users may find themselves on pages that bear a substantially different scope from that which could have been assumed of the redirect title. A person entering "Kayavak (beluga whale)" into the search bar would not be too surprised to wind up on this article. See {{redirect}} for more.

Similarly, there is little need for the note that kayavak should not be confused with kayak. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Distinguish for typical uses of the {{distinguish}} template. --Swift (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. It's starting to come to me how it makes sense. Belugaboy535136 (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Expansion Complete

I am proud to announce the expansion is complete, along with a top-notch picture of Kayavak and "step-mom" Naya. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 12:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, the picture is of Kayavak and "gal pal" Bella. Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 02:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Inline Citations

In general, everything came from all of the resources, so I put the inline citations at the end of the article, and removed the template. Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 13:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

{{Editsemiprotected}} Vandalism and nonsense edits have not become a problem with registered users and admins, but IP addresses and anonymous users. I think she deserves the protection. Belugaboy ^{Talk to Me!} 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to request semi-protection. {{Editsemiprotected}} is only for requesting an edit be made to an already semiprotected article. Please see WP:RFPP to request page protection. Thank you. Intelligentsium 19:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

However, regarding the article's history, it does not seem to have been vandalized since December of last year. This is generally not enough to warrant semiprotection; most articles for which semiprotection is approved are vandalized many times a day. Cheers, Intelligentsium 19:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is way too large. Allow me to make it smaller. I'm pretty sure there are no guidelines concerning picture sizes, but if there were, I'm sure this would violate. Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 13:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Major Revamp

There is a major revamp that I will be doing, my last contribution, sort of like Michael Jordon coming out of retirement for 1 game. Belugaboy^{cup of tea?} 14:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup needed

This article is full of words and style that are inappropriate to a Wikipedia article. Things like "Not surprisingly" and "Gently coaxed" and "it was unlikely that". It also has quite a bit of unsourced info. I'll try to rewrite if I have time, though it may take me awhile. All info in the article needs to be neutral and verified by reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Kayavak.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kayavak.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Britannica blog

First, my apologies for tagging the Britannica blog citation as "dubious" a few hours ago without providing a timely explanation. I have an inherent distrust of all blogs, even though I am aware that the reliable sources policy allows some, such as those emanating from respected news organisations. This may come as a surprise to some, but I also have a disquietude about using Britannica as a source for anything on Wikipedia, or at least the web-based version of it. It is a tertiary source and therefore, in theory, no more reliable than Wikipedia itself ... but in many cases the web version seems not even to cite the sources that it is using.

Getting to specifics, the blog appears to be a write-up by one person who has an affiliation with the Shedd aquarium and it takes the form (in my opinion) of being something akin to an essay or even a fan page. It is reliable as a statement of opinion by the person who wrote it but beyond that I have my doubts. Does anyone know if these blog entries are peer reviewed etc? I've never come across them before. - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kayavak. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/61vH9VZit?url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008946467_webbeluga30m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008946467_webbeluga30m.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)