Talk:List of captive orcas

Add topic
Active discussions
  (Redirected from Talk:List of captive orca)

UntitledEdit

This page was formed by splitting out the list of individual captive orcas from the article Captive orcas. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Kasatka nonsenseEdit

You obviously mistook something.

Orca is kOsatka And kAsatka is a tender spoken word for swallow.

I don't know which is wrong there, the name or its description, but there is an obvious mistake.

212.176.32.20 (talk)

Birth AnnouncementEdit

Takara gave birth to a Calf on January 7th, 2009. Since Takara was moved from SWF to SWT early Feb. 2009, the calf's father is Tillikum. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.56.63 (talk) 13:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate you adding the information into the appropriate articles, I can't find where in the cited source it mentions that the name of the whale that sired the calf. That borders on original research, which doesn't belong here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
How can I obtain cited information about the father of the calf? To me, it is all original research. From what I know, an orca's gestation period is 15-18 months. Takara and Tillikum were together at SeaWorld Orlando for quite a while. Then, Takara is moved to SeaWorld San Antonio early Feb. 2009. Obviously, Takara did not get pregnant at San Antonio, but at Orlando. The only male capable of siring at that location is Tillikum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.56.63 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that line of thinking is not supported by any verifiable and reliable sources. You may well be fully knowledgeable about SeaWorld's killer-whale inventory, but without being able to verify that, it can't be used here. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

References


Keltie ByrneEdit

How is this name BLP? She drowned in an incident involving an orca years ago. Drowned people are dead. Last I looked BLP didn't apply to dead people. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME states that if a person is not notable enough for an article, and the addition of their name does not improve or add value to the article, then the preferred choice is to leave it out. Further, people notable for a single event (such as you indicated, being killed by a killer whale) generally aren't considered notable enough. In previous discussions of similar events, including natural disasters, plane/train crashes and acts of terrorism, victims' names are not appropriate unless the person was already notable. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
The response above doesn't seem to be a good summary of what consensus there is. See Talk:Incidents_at_SeaWorld_parks#RFC:_including_or_excluding_victim_names for a long discussion of a similar issue. -- Avenue (talk) 12:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

TilikumEdit

Tilikum now needs his own page. He is currently the single most popular search entry on Yahoo, for example. [Beating out the olympics, hollywood stars - everything.] While his notoriety will fade in time, it is clear that his relevance to any discussion of orcas in captivity has, for unfortunate reasons, just escalated dramatically. Given the number of visits that new page will likely get over the next couple of weeks, I'd prefer someone with more experience than I take on the challenge of starting the new page up.Ricegator (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Support ... he has become notable enough to stand on his own, I would think. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: If you do this, please add {Amusement park accidents} to that page's footer. SpikeJones (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Against: Dispite the recent amount of Yahoo searches, we must keep the whole event in perspective. The amount of information in this article is sufficiant and I can't see it being expanded at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, McDoob - your concurrence is sufficient for me to boldly attempt the feat. SpikeJones, I concur and will add the suggested link. Ricegator (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do news articles keep saying he is involved in 3 deaths when all that can be found are descriptions of two, with the first suspicious? 69.121.105.239 (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article state that Dawn Brancheau's death was by drowning? That was the SeaWorld story, but there's enough other information out there about her injuries (and the coroners report) that say otherwise. Also, the last statement about him being kept with his grandson, rather than alone, should be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Down-right-mystical (talkcontribs) 02:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

More OrcasEdit

I propose to put more orcas on the captive orca page; this page just has the orcas in the U.S.A.; there are more around the world. StarLegacy (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Why not any of Marineland's current alive orcas; like Kiska( Icelandic) and updates on Ikaika at Marineland? Also; why not have 1 page for alive captive orcas and eliminate the deceased orca info so then you can keep with the count! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.127.211 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

KahanaEdit

Just wondering why Kahana, not Kohana, was not mentioned. I can't remember her history at the moment, but she was at Sea World San Antonio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.194.67 (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

TaimaEdit

I question the reference that "Her name means crash of thunder in the Native American language." I see that the reference was changed today, with the comment that "No, her name means "Crash of Thunder" in Native American, not Icelandic. Someone got it wrong.". Forgetting for a moment that the linked SeaWorld article clearly states that it means "crash of thunder" in Icelandic (whether that's right or wrong), there is no such language as "Native American", despite the fact that all of the baby name sites that mention "Taima" tell you there is. The reference needs to be changed. If she wasn't specifically named with a Native American word in mind (and from the SeaWorld article, it would appear she may not have been), then there's little point in mentioning what the name means in a Native American language. And if she *was* specifically named for a Native American word, then the actual Native American language should be specified (not "the Native American language"), and the link to the SeaWorld article should be removed, since it does not corroborate any Native American origin of the name. Motsa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC).

I have reverted to "Icelandic," kept the reference, and specified that "According to SeaWorld..." This still begs the question of the real source of the name. I doubt if it is Icelandic -- An Icelandic/English dictionary returned nothing for Taima or "crash of thunder". It returned thunder=þruma and crash=árekstur, neither of which resemble Taima. Obviously, lack of proof is not proof of lack, but it seems suspicious. Nevertheless, until someone can come up with a better explanation AND citation, the sentence is at least correct and supported by the citation. Donlammers (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Just because the article says "According to SeaWorld" doesn't mean that it will be accurate. Look up the name Taima, and no matter which website you go on, it will tell you that Taima is a Native American name and not an Icelandic one.

Ulises and Separate Pages for Deceased OrcasEdit

We need a section of this page to talk about Ulises. Why hasn't he been put on the list yet?

Also, I think we need a separate page for the orcas who are now deceased. With new additions to this list, it is starting to look a bit messy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLegacy (talkcontribs) 22:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced InfoEdit

Tons of unsourced info in this article. I have been deleting all the unsourced behavioral info (e.g. Shamu always follows Willie around; Blackie really shines during performances; etc.) I would normally just add Citation Needed, but I suspect there is no suitable citation out there which documents each whale's personality, daily habits, favorite toys, etc. It appears that much of this is being presented from anecdotal observations. Needless to say, this doesn't meet Wiki guidelines. (Obviously, if I am mistaken, and notable, reliable resources do exist, please add them.)JoelWhy (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted back to one of JoelWhy's edits, and hopefully added back in the few legitimate edits (by 2.206.107.189) since. I apologize if I missed something that should have been put back. I removed some additional unsourced behavioral info, rumors of pregnancy, statements of things that might (or might not) have been on Shamu-cam, etc. There is still an awful lot of unsourced and anecdotal material in this article, but I don't have time to try a real cleanup right now. Anyone trying to add such material back needs to source it (see WP:Verify), so we know it's not just your own observation (which is original research -- see WP:OR). Otherwise it will continue to be reverted. Don Lammers (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the only solution is going to be to move this page to semi-protected.JoelWhy (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The "A hangs out with b and d and z" is non notable as well as being unsourced. There are several IPs editing and they geolocate to different places so a semiprotection request is probably the way to go. If it gets turned down then we will just have to revert. Thanks to you both for your vigilance. MarnetteD | Talk 15:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
As an FYI, I posted on one of the anonymous user's talk page (based on his/her IP address). He/she responded "Ulises can be seen with Corky and he is indeed dominant for a male. you can read it on cetacean cousins." I'd never heard of cetacean cousins, but it's apparently a blog which just prints orcas/dolphins "news". Don't think it constitutes a reliable source, though, so probably doesn't matter.JoelWhy (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I've requested semi-protection for this article.JoelWhy (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Now that the article has been fully protected due to the current content dispute, I'll put forward the subject for discussion. Should this site be considered a reliable source? Based on first impression, it appears to be a self-published blog with no apparent oversight, as would be found on a scholarly or newspaper website. If someone has evidence that this site is indeed considered reliable, it should be presented now. --McDoobAU93 16:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that website either, but I don't feel that I'm to say whether to trust the website or not. However, I noticed that the site sometimes does not provide consistent information, e.g. regarding Ulises' size. orcahome.de hosts the SeaWorld documents stating Ulises measured 19.5 ft as of June 2010, while the site itself uses data from February 2004 (20.3 ft). My edits around here and on the Ulisses page were based on the more recent SeaWorld documents. At the same time, other users kept reverting these edits using the source with older data. Both measurements are listed on another private site. That site does use orcahome.de as source for some of their data, but also provides lots of links to newspaper articles for the most important data. Therefore, cetacousin.bplaced.net seems to be more reliable than orcahome.de. Dirk P. Hebel (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I feel that cetacousin is more reliable as well, and from it you can often get their source, which is even better. However, I have also been using the SeaWorld document when possible -- even if something else claims to be newer, it's hard to say where it came from.
I just changed the refs in Ulisses back to the 19.5 feet. Even cetacousins (which was cited) shows this as the latest measurement, and I went ahead and cited both sources. The existing statement was technically true because it was artificially qualified as "in 2004" even though later measurements were available. Don Lammers (talk) 11:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Of pregnancies and friendsEdit

The other issue at play in recent disputes is whether the information included is notable/encyclopedic. Two things have come up consistently, which are orca pregnancies and discussions about which orcas are friends. My opinion is that neither of these are encyclopedic (unless there is something particularly notable about the pregnancy or friendship). These are news items, and Wikipedia is not a newspaper (or a diary/blog. Once an orca is born, it is well established in the articles that the birth and the new orca become part of the narrative, but (IMHO) pregnancies are just news and not appropriate here. I would also argue that even if we decide these are notable, they only belong in the main article, not in what should be a short bio. Don Lammers (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I concur with all that you have stated. We just don't need these items in this or other articles. MarnetteD | Talk 14:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Being a huge fan of orcas myself, I'm very interested in these kinds of information. However, I concur that Wikipedia is not the right place for it. As soon as reliable information is available, new-born orcas should still be mentioned though. Dirk P. Hebel (talk) 19:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Dead LinkEdit

As the page is protected I am not able to make the changes. I also don't think it needs to be done immediately. Citation number 63 Yahoo.news 63.^ News.Yahoo.com is a dead link. Viewmont Viking (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Yaka and "African" languageEdit

In the Yaka section, it is written that the name Yaka means "Strong One" in African. There are several languages in Africa, there is not such a thing like an "African" language. There is a language called Afrikaans, that is a mix of Dutch and German spoken in South Africa, but "Yaka" is not an Afrikaans word for sure. Personally I don't know to which language the word "Yaka" belongs. For this reason I delete the sentence about the meaning "Yaka". If someone wants to put it back, please specify in which language "Yaka" has a meaning "Strong One".

CorkyEdit

The photo caption that comes with the Corky (which as far as I can tell actually refers to Corky II) section is incorrect. It refers to the 'slide out' behaviour used at SeaWorld as a natural instinct to used capture seals from ice floes. As far as I'm aware the only time an Orca has been known to deliberately 'beach' itself is actually when they're in pursuit of seals on beaches, not ice floes: Orca behaviour with seals and ice floes tends to involve trying to 'wash' them off it. The caption could be called into question anyway, because while it might be a behaviour wild orcas use, it would not be one that Corky II would have learnt in the wild. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Down-right-mystical (talkcontribs) 02:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Deceased orcas - remove from list/table?Edit

as was posted here previously, the table of orcas is starting to get confusing. Once an animal passes on it is no longer "in captivity." I'd just as soon see someone start a page dedicated to the deceased, listing how old they were when captured, how long in captivity, and/or if captive born how long they lived, period, since Miami seaquarium is quoted as they die faster than they are reproducing. I'm not personally equipped to do a deceased page, however. Before I "boldly" remove the deceased entries, does anyone have thoughts? Please post. Ukrpickaxe (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

EDIT it seems that http://www.orcahome.de/orcadead.htm has already made a table of deceased orcas, with 169 to 200 on it depending on sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukrpickaxe (talkcontribs) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree. This page could use some heavy clean-up, and I think it should be devoted to living captive animals. Especially if the Blackfish film prompts an increase in hits. A separate list can be devised for the deceased. I do have a sandbox ([1]) that, though still in its early stages of development, has quite a bit of information on dead killer whales. Additionally, it does not source OrcaHome and Cetacean Cousins because, while those resources are undoubtedly useful, they aren't run by professionals or reputable officials. If it helps, anyone is welcome to take chunks of information/text from it. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. 'In captivity' doesn't mean 'in captivity now' so your point is irrelevant. This is a small, finite list of heavily interrelated individuals,so it makes no sense to separate them. Furthermore, if a user wants to look up a killer whale and they don't know whether they are alive or dead, that would make it much more difficult. Salopian (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

'Splash' infoEdit

Here are some links I've found that may be useful towards developing an entry [and/or article] about Splash.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

AsteriskEdit

Throughout the article, numerous names are followed by asterisks. I can't find anything explaining this. What is the intent? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a very good question. Remnants of some since removed footnote perhaps? I'm inclined to delete them as they don't appear to communicate anything at present. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I used "Revision history search"/WP:WikiBlame to look into it a bit. The first instance I found was "Sarah*" as of 22:24, 23 October 2010. Followed by "Orky II*" as of 06:13, 14 March 2011. Followed by a number of others over the next few months. Example: "Kianu*" as of 08:46, 10 April 2011.
I didn't find any sort of explanation. Neither in edit summaries nor in the body of text. Peculiar. I'm going to go ahead and remove them from the current article. --Kevjonesin (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Very strange. In the hopes of shedding some light on this, I've contacted @StarLegacy: as one of the edits you linked was theirs. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I can shed some light on this: on some website regarding the information of captive orcas, an asterisk next to a name would indicate that the orca is no longer living. Keiko*, Kandu V*, Kenau*, Splash*, Sumar*; they've all passed on, and the use of the asterisk can let someone know if the orca is alive or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLegacy (talkcontribs) 21:15, May 8, 2014‎
Thanks for clearing that up, Star. As it stands now, Kev has removed the asterisks. IMO, that is consistent with the rest of the project. On occasion, someone will show up adding "the late" to references to a celebrity who has recently died. This is quickly removed as we do not say, for example, "the late Julius Caesar". Does anyone feel we should use the asterisks or are we done here? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, using a symbol convention from an external site without providing any sort of guide or explanation to readers (or justification to fellow editors) seems decidedly ill-advised. Even if a 'key' were provided I think it would still be unnecessarily inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is written poorlyEdit

It doesn't read like the usual objective/detached Wikipedia article and is awkwardly written — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.238.40 (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

So fix it. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Err, after rereading my preceding line it seems a bit glib and perhaps risks being taken as snarky even. Let's try again in a less terse—more polite/friendly—manner:
Hey SummerPhd, I glanced at that IP user's contributions and they appear to be just 'getting their feet wet' with editing. Responding with just a "So fix it." link seems a bit terse to me when such is taken into consideration. And feedback from readers as to how they've perceived the tone of an article can be useful/informative. Such can be hard for those immersed in a topic to notice at times. Sometimes it's hard to 'see the forest for the trees'.
Upon examination, some of the article text does seem open to improvement, IMHO. Perhaps 108.18.238.40's observation has some merit. Maybe it might be taken as a constructive reminder to editors who've taken an interest in this article to present well referenced material with a neutral point of view.
--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries, please.Edit

A glance through this article's edit history shows that many editors have been neglecting to leave edit summaries. This includes both new editors and long-term contributors.

I'd like to remind everyone that it's helpful to share a bit of "what" and "why" in an edit summary so that fellow/future editors may better understand what's being done. Feel free to add "see talk page", "see talk page for details", "please discuss on talk page", "discussion on talk page", "as per talk page" or some such to one's edit summary when more detail is desired than fits well—providing of course that one actually makes sure that there's a relative talk page entry to be referred to.

Please, please, please,—'with-whipped-cream-and -sugar-and-the-proverbial-cherry-on-top'—leave explanatory edit summaries with your edits.

Thanks in advance,

Kevjonesin (talk) 12:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained section removalEdit

StarLegacy, I was looking through the edit history and noticed an edit you made where you blanked a section and replaced it with the following comment in excluded wikitext:

<!-- We have deleted the Adán page because someone insists on having something in this section that does not pertain to said orca. Do not undo. -->

As I see no relevant discussion to such on this talk page, I'm curious as to whom exactly makes up the "We" that you are referring to?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Citing Wikia?Edit

It seems to me that citing unsourced content from Wikia.com (another publicly edited wiki) is ultimately no better (if not worse) than having no citation at all.

In a case in which information is found in Wikia along with accompanying reference citations, then citing the referenced source seems to be preferable.

A number (of Wikia references) have been added to the article lately. Perhaps they should be removed?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your post and you are quite correct K. Per WP:CIRCULAR items sourced to wikis is not verifiable and should be removed ASAP. MarnetteD | Talk 20:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to say please feel free to remove the items in question. You might also check the wikiarticles used as a source as they may well have items sourced to other wikis and that info should also be removed, MarnetteD | Talk 20:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of captive orcas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Who is this user 68.5.63.93 who keeps messing with the orca's age?Edit

I found this user with IP address of 68.5.63.93, who keeps changing each orca's age (Corky's, Kasatka's and Katina's) ages without citing a reliable source. I told him to identify reliable source before changing the orca's age or anything else, for the third time I told him to do that, and he still does not respond, instead he kept changing without citing. Please someone inform this user not to do it again. Thank you. --Ramy5077 (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of captive orcas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of captive orcas. 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:

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) 00:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of captive orcas. 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:

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) 23:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on List of captive orcas. 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:

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) 05:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of captive orcas. 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:

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) 17:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of captive orcas. 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:

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) 01:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of captive orcas. 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:

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) 04:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 May 2019Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is a consensus for this requested move. On an additional note, I've made all the moves concerned but there might be some ensuing cleanup necessary, for which I apologize.(closed by non-admin page mover) qedk (t c) 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


– The main article is at killer whale so per WP:TITLECON we should be consistent and use this in the naming of all related articles. Clearly if concensus ever shifts on the name of that article then these and all others should be changed accordingly, but until such time there is no basis for making an exception for any of the above.

Renominating these on behalf of Interstellarity as there was some confusion over the previous discussions that led to them being closed early. PC78 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

@Interstellarity, Colin M, Paintspot, Martinevans123, Srnec, *Treker, King of Hearts, In ictu oculi, and Lawrencekhoo: Pinging all users who commented in the earlier discussions. PC78 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as original nominator. Interstellarity T 🌟 15:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I would remove the (orca) on those that don't need it (e.g. Keiko Ulisses) and move the others to (killer whale). Is there a policy that named animals must have a disambiguator? Alaney2k (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ulisses is occupied by a set index article for the name. PC78 (talk) 16:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Missed that, thanks. Alaney2k (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support as reflecting the current naming consensus at Killer whale. Colin M (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Question, forgive my embarrassingly low level of zoological knowledge, but are there captive whales that are not killer whales and, if so, how are those named? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
See Category:Individual cetaceans: named dolphins are disambiguated as "(dolphin)" and as I understand it, killer whales are part of the oceanic dolphin family, though to disambiguate them as such would probably be confusing. The only other examples are a beluga and a blue whale, both of whch are disambiguated as "(whale)". PC78 (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks. So surely, if this passes, KOBO (whale) should be changed to KOBO (blue whale) and all four at Category:Individual beluga whales changed to xxx (beluga whale)? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Possibly, though I don't have any firm opinion either way. PC78 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm very surprised you don't see those as a consistent and necessary piece of collateral tidying up, although I guess separate RMs would be required in each case. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how that necessarily follows. I would support (whale) over (beluga whale) or (blue whale) (unless of course there were multiple whales with the name!) - it's more concise, and no less natural or recognizable. Colin M (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support for WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Neutral (changed from Oppose; see below). Instead, I would suggest moving (renaming) "Killer whale" to "Orca", as "orca" is about 7x more common than "killer whale" in online English text (at least, according to my Google search). Should that move happen, it would make this one moot. Ross Finlayson (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really, since some of the above use "whale" and would need to be moved either way, and there are other articles (and a whole category structure) that already use "killer whale". The point of this discussion is maintaining internal consistency, not to weigh up the relative merits of "killer whale" vs "orca". PC78 (talk) 18:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that "internal consistency" is good. However, should "Killer whale" end up moving to "Orca", we'd have to change all of these pages again. All I'm saying is: Wait a while, to see if there's any near-term interest in moving "Killer whale" to "Orca". If not, then go ahead. Ross Finlayson (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I do hear what you're saying, however I believe that argument is moot unless someone wants to start that discussion at Talk:Killer whale. PC78 (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I suggest reading the last move discussion about this (and even the earlier 2009 one linked from there, if you want to dig deeper). If you compare searches on Google Scholar for "orcas are" vs. "killer whales are" (to avoid false positives on other uses of "orca", as suggested by User:Neil P. Quinn in his comment), it looks like "killer whale" is still more common in scientific literature, even if you only look at the last year. Anyways, no-one has proposed another move since 2015, so I don't think Killer whale is going anywhere anytime soon. Colin M (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I checked on Talk:Killer_whale, and there currently doesn't seem to be any appetite for changing that article's name. So I changed my !vote to "Neutral". (I'd change it to "Support", except that I really think that "orca" is a better name.) Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I may have missed it, but I don't see anything at WP:TITLECON that says disambiguators need to match the parent article title. The current disambiguator orca meets all the requirements of good disambiguators as far as I can tell, and is obviously more WP:CONCISE than is killer whale. There is also no reason to use the same disambiguator of all these anyway. What's important is, for each name, disambiguation from other users of that particular name. If one of these is the only whale with its name, then whale alone is a perfectly appropriate and sensible disambiguator - no reason to get more precise than necessary and use orca or killer whale. I also think it might be time to look at moving Killer whale to Orca anyway. --В²C 20:45, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
"Consistency in titles means that titles for the same kind of subject should not differ in form or structure without good reason. Where multiple titles are available, and where titles are equally usable in terms of recognizability, naturalness, preciseness, and conciseness, then the title to be used should be consistent with titles used for similar or related topics in Wikipedia." Is there a "good reason" for using three different disambiguators for the same thing? PC78 (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
If what most obviously distinguishes one use of a given name is it being a whale, as the other uses are not whales, then that's a good reason to use whale as the disambiguator. --В²C 20:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
It is my understanding that killer whales are merely a specific type of dolphin, they are only whales in the broadest sense (i.e. cetaceans). If the argument is to use "whale" as the disambiguator then logically that should apply to other dolphins too, but I'm inclined to think that would be confusing and unhelpful. PC78 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Orcas are commonly and widely known as, and called, whales; dolphins are not. That's what matters and what we should follow to avoid confusion. --В²C 21:13, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I think most people think of dolphins and whales as very different creatures. I realise that's not very encyclopedic. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
But are they commonly known as just "whales" as opposed to "killer whales"? I'm not so sure. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
If these should use "whale" instead of "killer whale", then should we also move Pag-asa (eagle) to Pag-asa (bird)? Or Jenny (gorilla) to Jenny (ape)? These strike me as obviously bad ideas, though it's not easy to articulate why. It's not necessarily that more specific is better (I wouldn't move Pag-asa (eagle) to Pag-asa (Philippine eagle)). All I can say in these cases is that some disambiguators just read more naturally than others. (WP:ASTONISH might come into play here too) Colin M (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not proposing these should use "whale" - just pointing out that should be a reasonable disambiguator. But so is orca. I don't think your other examples are comparable unless each of those topics is known as "bird" rather than an "eagle", etc. --В²C 23:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
But you are proposing that we remain as we are and continue using a mix of disambiguators for these articles ("whale", "killer whale", "orca"). Yes, you can say that all three are fine in and of themselves, but what's your argument against being consistant in how we title these articles? PC78 (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support all since "killer whale" is preferred over "orca". SnowFire (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Titles should align, although that is not a requirement to use killer whale in ever instance in article bodies. Srnec (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 5 June 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 12 March 2022Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: speedily, uncontroversially moved per WP:SNOW. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)


List of captive orcaList of captive orcas – The current use of the singular "orca" in this article's title seems strange, and is probably only because the person who moved it yesterday was unable to move it to the "orcas" title without admin assistance. Some discussion may be needed since the last RM for this article concluded with a consensus for "killer whales", and the move performed yesterday was against the spirit of that (there were some other very recent RMs, such as the one at Talk:Orca#Requested move 25 January 2022, that concluded with a preference for "orca" over "killer whale", but see also WP:RMCI#NOTOTHERPAGES). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Support: It seems to follow that the title should be "orcas" after Killer whale was moved to Orca, but just in case it's necessary to get some opinions, I support it. Snow move really. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • For reference, here's a link to the move, and the person who performed it is @Spekkios. (Feel free to add this info to the move request and delete this comment.) — W.andrea (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    Hi - I was under the assumption that "orca" was the plural but after a quick Google search I've found that both "orca" and "orcas" are correct with the later being the more common I think. I thought this move would be uncontroversial due to the main article moving. All the other articles in the previous move request on this page have been moved from "killer whale" to "orca". --Spekkios (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: The singular is incorrect. Regarding killer whale, it doesn't matter to me, but if the consensus arises to revert, that should probably be done after fixing this mistake. — W.andrea (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.