This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cephalopod size article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily page views
|
I'm uncertain on wiki policy, but it would be somewhat helpful to have those citations turned into superscript foot/endnotes, with the citations moved to the end. EasterlyIrk ( talk) 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What a nice article! Communist47 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't a giant octopus beached in the USA in 1865? It was photoed and the ball of its body was larger than 2 meters in diameter. Its arms were over 28 meters long estimated and the entire spread of such animal was estimated at 60 meters! That one colossus is not mentioned in the article at all! 193.226.227.153 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many reports of giant squid attaining to 55-57 feet long. The way the article summarily dismisses such claims without even a citation is disturbing.
65.81.28.227
13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Even National Geographic reports squid at long as 59 feet:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/photo4.html
Far from being scientifically accurate, this article instead ingages in 'recentism,' forgetting past claims in order to concentrate on recent finds. Also, using just one source (a skeptic) is hardly a balanced approach.
→ R Young { yakł talk} 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they just found a colossal squid 33% larger than the previous one indicates we haven't come close to matching the 'true' size records here. There is a problem of gullibility (I should know...I deal with claims of '140' year-old persons, totally false) but there is also a problem of 'recentism,' for example when it was recently claimed that the 'oldest mouse ever' was 4 years 12 days old (oops, not a record). That the skpetics' view for this article is in fact based on just one expert (O'Shea) gives one person too much influence. Most sources agree the 1887 specimen DID measure 55 feet long. How would O'Shea know if it were 'stretched like a rubber band'? Was he alive in 1887? NOT. There have been actual photographs as well.→ R Young { yakł talk} 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Checking this out:
http://zapatopi.net/cephnews/colossalsquidcaught.html
Over the past 8 years we have done everything we can to reduce the reported lengths and weights of Architeuthis, not exaggerate them. Similarly, when this specimen of Mesonychoteuthis was first brought to our attention we expected that it too had been exaggerated. When examining it we expected it to be fully mature, we expected the beaks to be as large as those (or very close to in terms of size) those reported from stomach contents of sperm whales. We were amazed that they were not. If this animal does attain a mantle length between 4 and 5 metres then it truly is one most formidable monster; it was frightening enough at 2.5 metres!
With kindest regards Steve O'Shea
Steve O'Shea might be a world's leading expert, but he is also a skeptic with an agenda, having done 'everything (he) can to reduce the reported lengths and weights of Architeuthis." While this campaign has been largely effective, it has also led to a one-sided approach.
Similar attempts were made to downgrade the idea that whales could live 100+ years, or that the panda is not a bear, but in reality there is no scientific consensus. In recent years, scientists now believe that whales can live to 210+ years (based on the contents of a whale stomach dating to 1790). Actual photographs of the 1887 55-footer have been made, and I again call this 'recentism'...there is an attempt in many fields to forget past research and begin anew, with new 'records'. The article here should provide a balanced approach...no 'live' specimen in the past doesn't mean that dead specimens were not measured. How hard is it to measure a tentacle?→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism
→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Tables should make things easier to compare. Is there a reason behind writing 0.69 m, 60 cm, and 500 mm, all in the same column? Otherwise, someone should (and I will if I have time one of these days) clean up the measurement units in the tables. Shingra 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I just want to toss this out there before I do any editing. I feel there should be an expanded explanation on the controversy between E. dofleini and H. atlanticus as the largest octopus. The explanation currently on several pages stating that the Seven-armed octopus is the largest "based on scientific records" is ambiguous and slightly misleading (there is a bit more explanation on the GPO page). There is disagreement among cephalopod researchers. I feel it would be useful to lay out a small paragraph detailing what the records actually are, and why there is disagreement, and link related pages, such as the Seven-arm octopus and the North Pacific Giant Octopus pages to that. My question to those monitoring these pages would be: Is the Ceph Size page the appropriate place for such a paragraph. Taollan82 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Haliphron atlanticus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 10:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cephalopod size. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Mgiganteus1, what would be the best way to split this article? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Cephalopod size article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily page views
|
|
I'm uncertain on wiki policy, but it would be somewhat helpful to have those citations turned into superscript foot/endnotes, with the citations moved to the end. EasterlyIrk ( talk) 20:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
What a nice article! Communist47 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't a giant octopus beached in the USA in 1865? It was photoed and the ball of its body was larger than 2 meters in diameter. Its arms were over 28 meters long estimated and the entire spread of such animal was estimated at 60 meters! That one colossus is not mentioned in the article at all! 193.226.227.153 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There are many reports of giant squid attaining to 55-57 feet long. The way the article summarily dismisses such claims without even a citation is disturbing.
65.81.28.227
13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Even National Geographic reports squid at long as 59 feet:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/photogalleries/giant_squid/photo4.html
Far from being scientifically accurate, this article instead ingages in 'recentism,' forgetting past claims in order to concentrate on recent finds. Also, using just one source (a skeptic) is hardly a balanced approach.
→ R Young { yakł talk} 13:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that they just found a colossal squid 33% larger than the previous one indicates we haven't come close to matching the 'true' size records here. There is a problem of gullibility (I should know...I deal with claims of '140' year-old persons, totally false) but there is also a problem of 'recentism,' for example when it was recently claimed that the 'oldest mouse ever' was 4 years 12 days old (oops, not a record). That the skpetics' view for this article is in fact based on just one expert (O'Shea) gives one person too much influence. Most sources agree the 1887 specimen DID measure 55 feet long. How would O'Shea know if it were 'stretched like a rubber band'? Was he alive in 1887? NOT. There have been actual photographs as well.→ R Young { yakł talk} 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Checking this out:
http://zapatopi.net/cephnews/colossalsquidcaught.html
Over the past 8 years we have done everything we can to reduce the reported lengths and weights of Architeuthis, not exaggerate them. Similarly, when this specimen of Mesonychoteuthis was first brought to our attention we expected that it too had been exaggerated. When examining it we expected it to be fully mature, we expected the beaks to be as large as those (or very close to in terms of size) those reported from stomach contents of sperm whales. We were amazed that they were not. If this animal does attain a mantle length between 4 and 5 metres then it truly is one most formidable monster; it was frightening enough at 2.5 metres!
With kindest regards Steve O'Shea
Steve O'Shea might be a world's leading expert, but he is also a skeptic with an agenda, having done 'everything (he) can to reduce the reported lengths and weights of Architeuthis." While this campaign has been largely effective, it has also led to a one-sided approach.
Similar attempts were made to downgrade the idea that whales could live 100+ years, or that the panda is not a bear, but in reality there is no scientific consensus. In recent years, scientists now believe that whales can live to 210+ years (based on the contents of a whale stomach dating to 1790). Actual photographs of the 1887 55-footer have been made, and I again call this 'recentism'...there is an attempt in many fields to forget past research and begin anew, with new 'records'. The article here should provide a balanced approach...no 'live' specimen in the past doesn't mean that dead specimens were not measured. How hard is it to measure a tentacle?→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism
→ R Young { yakł talk} 15:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Tables should make things easier to compare. Is there a reason behind writing 0.69 m, 60 cm, and 500 mm, all in the same column? Otherwise, someone should (and I will if I have time one of these days) clean up the measurement units in the tables. Shingra 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I just want to toss this out there before I do any editing. I feel there should be an expanded explanation on the controversy between E. dofleini and H. atlanticus as the largest octopus. The explanation currently on several pages stating that the Seven-armed octopus is the largest "based on scientific records" is ambiguous and slightly misleading (there is a bit more explanation on the GPO page). There is disagreement among cephalopod researchers. I feel it would be useful to lay out a small paragraph detailing what the records actually are, and why there is disagreement, and link related pages, such as the Seven-arm octopus and the North Pacific Giant Octopus pages to that. My question to those monitoring these pages would be: Is the Ceph Size page the appropriate place for such a paragraph. Taollan82 ( talk) 22:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Haliphron atlanticus.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 10:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cephalopod size. 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, 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey Mgiganteus1, what would be the best way to split this article? Onetwothreeip ( talk) 01:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 05:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)