This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 19:09, December 21, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Cascadia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Cascadia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CascadiaWikipedia:WikiProject CascadiaTemplate:WikiProject CascadiaCascadia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
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]
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]
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 | talk19:09, 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 | talk23:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Two studies with opposite conclusions are cited on this subject, but the findings of one of these are retold extensively and stated as fact, while those of the other one are only briefly noted, sandwiched in the middle of the exposition of the findings of the first study, and they are explicitly attributed as the position of its authors only. If this is the only material available, the exposition should be more even-handed, with an equal level of detail and comparable information from both studies and with both positions being explicitly attributed rather than any one of them being presented as the truth. Of course, it is possible that the first study reflects the position predominating among researchers in the field and the second one is isolated, but if so, it should be possible to demonstrate that with more references. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
