![]() | Livyatan 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2021. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on July 2, 2010. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is leaving me very confused. Any thoughts? Airplaneman ✈ 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The scientific name "Leviathan" was published back in the 1840's, for a mammoth fossil from Missouri. The authors of "Leviathan melvillei" are apparently aware of this, and presumably will publish a new name; this article will then need to be renamed and moved. Dyanega ( talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have put a 'citation needed' tag by this in the article. It appears so far to be original research (see WP:OR) and so should not be in the article unless a ref can be provided in a reliable third party source with other commentators making this point. Stronach ( talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow... the authors are aware of the issue and certainly will be publishing a note with a new name in the next month or so. Is it really that important to jump on this immediately and not wait for the paper? Simply noting that the name was also used by Koch should be a good enough placeholder. In the mean time I wonder if it would be appropriate to simply not italicize "Leviathan" and place it in quotes, as is done for " Ingenia" yanshini, a dinosaur genus which has been recognized as preoccupied for over a decade with no replacement name in sight. MMartyniuk ( talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've modified the Physeteroidea cladogram from the German article on L. melvillei (see below). I was going to include it here but noticed that it differed somewhat from the one in the supplementary info from Nature, where many of the nodes are unresolved. Is the German version incorrect or is there another cladogram it's based on? mgiganteus1 ( talk) 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Physeteroidea |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The main article badly needed a re-write and I did it. The early writing felt more like a press release material rather than a description of an animal.- LeGenD ( talk) 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a realistic picture, why it has a cartoon picture. A fossil skeleton or skull would look better.Also its blowhole is in the wrong position
Im wondering if this is a necessary section? If the links lead to RS information that is not in this page then shouldn't the info be incorporated in with the linked page as a reference. If they do not add new information should they be linked at all? That the genus has gotten a fair amount of press is notable but wouldn't it be best to write in a sentence or two noting that and not having the external links?. just some thoughts -- Kev min § 07:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Per the general guidelines and practices for the naming of articles on monotypic genera and extinct genera, shouldn't this page be located at the genus name Livyatan rather then the binomial Livyatan malvillei? -- Kev min § 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel that perhaps a bit of disambig between "Leviathan" and Livyatan at the top of the article would be helpful. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes ( talk) 22:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
So apparently this article uses the term "raptor" when briefly describing raptorial physeteroids, but I feel like this may come with some issues. First, there are no sources anywhere that use the term "raptor" and that the article revamp is the first time it was used (as far as I know), and the term itself may cause confusion with other animals nicknamed the same term. I don't really think that wikipedia should be starting a new term, but I would like to know why I shouldn't change "raptor" to "raptorial" or "macroraptorial" in more detail. Macrophyseter ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Macrophyseter ( talk) 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually the source you cite does NOT use them as synonyms. The term "raptor" appears once, in the conclusions, and all other instances in the paper are "raptorial". It is fallacious to suggest that all wiki articles on raptorial whales be changed to the incorrect term raptor based on a single time use in one paper, (one that I suspect quite possibly to be a typo of "raptorial")-- Kev min § 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
I'll do this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77: This article is well up to the required standard for GA, and with a bit of polishing should have a good chance at FAC. While there is no official quid pro quo here at GA, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage you to review one or two articles in the Biology and medicine GAN queue in the spirit of collegiality. Meanwhile, congratulations on another excellent article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
During research I stumbled upon a forum post showing a screenshot of an abstract for a likely upcoming paper on the dental physiology of L. melvillei, which would provide a lot of new interesting things and hopefully additional comments on distributions outside Peru and Chile. I haven't found the source of the abstract, and so I'm not sure if it would be reliable to incorporate into the article, but fingers crossed that an article would come out of this study soon.
Link to Wayback Machine archive: [2]
Macrophyseter | talk 07:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Isotopic analysis of the Chilean specimen's enamel revealed that it likely operated at latitudes south of 40°S. Isotopic analyses of contemporary baleen whales in the same formation show that Livyatan was not commonly feeding on them, indicating it probably did not exclusively eat large prey, though it may have targeted baleen whales from higher latitudes. [1]
User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 14:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
It was a member of a group of hypercarnivore macroraptorial sperm whales
I'm not 100% sure that all cetaceans are hypercarnivore (baleen whales might gulp a lot of phytoplankton) but all odontocetes surely are. Эйхер ( talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Wow, it was amazing to see this on the front page today - a VERY different beast from the crappy little stub I created in June 2010. Massive congratulations to all the editors who have made it such an excellent featured article! Stronach ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
![]() | Livyatan 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. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 24, 2021. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on July 2, 2010. | ||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is leaving me very confused. Any thoughts? Airplaneman ✈ 21:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
The scientific name "Leviathan" was published back in the 1840's, for a mammoth fossil from Missouri. The authors of "Leviathan melvillei" are apparently aware of this, and presumably will publish a new name; this article will then need to be renamed and moved. Dyanega ( talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I have put a 'citation needed' tag by this in the article. It appears so far to be original research (see WP:OR) and so should not be in the article unless a ref can be provided in a reliable third party source with other commentators making this point. Stronach ( talk) 07:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow... the authors are aware of the issue and certainly will be publishing a note with a new name in the next month or so. Is it really that important to jump on this immediately and not wait for the paper? Simply noting that the name was also used by Koch should be a good enough placeholder. In the mean time I wonder if it would be appropriate to simply not italicize "Leviathan" and place it in quotes, as is done for " Ingenia" yanshini, a dinosaur genus which has been recognized as preoccupied for over a decade with no replacement name in sight. MMartyniuk ( talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've modified the Physeteroidea cladogram from the German article on L. melvillei (see below). I was going to include it here but noticed that it differed somewhat from the one in the supplementary info from Nature, where many of the nodes are unresolved. Is the German version incorrect or is there another cladogram it's based on? mgiganteus1 ( talk) 17:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Physeteroidea |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The main article badly needed a re-write and I did it. The early writing felt more like a press release material rather than a description of an animal.- LeGenD ( talk) 18:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a realistic picture, why it has a cartoon picture. A fossil skeleton or skull would look better.Also its blowhole is in the wrong position
Im wondering if this is a necessary section? If the links lead to RS information that is not in this page then shouldn't the info be incorporated in with the linked page as a reference. If they do not add new information should they be linked at all? That the genus has gotten a fair amount of press is notable but wouldn't it be best to write in a sentence or two noting that and not having the external links?. just some thoughts -- Kev min § 07:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Per the general guidelines and practices for the naming of articles on monotypic genera and extinct genera, shouldn't this page be located at the genus name Livyatan rather then the binomial Livyatan malvillei? -- Kev min § 04:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I feel that perhaps a bit of disambig between "Leviathan" and Livyatan at the top of the article would be helpful. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes ( talk) 22:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
So apparently this article uses the term "raptor" when briefly describing raptorial physeteroids, but I feel like this may come with some issues. First, there are no sources anywhere that use the term "raptor" and that the article revamp is the first time it was used (as far as I know), and the term itself may cause confusion with other animals nicknamed the same term. I don't really think that wikipedia should be starting a new term, but I would like to know why I shouldn't change "raptor" to "raptorial" or "macroraptorial" in more detail. Macrophyseter ( talk) 23:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Macrophyseter ( talk) 04:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually the source you cite does NOT use them as synonyms. The term "raptor" appears once, in the conclusions, and all other instances in the paper are "raptorial". It is fallacious to suggest that all wiki articles on raptorial whales be changed to the incorrect term raptor based on a single time use in one paper, (one that I suspect quite possibly to be a typo of "raptorial")-- Kev min § 03:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
I'll do this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap ( talk · contribs) 09:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Dunkleosteus77: This article is well up to the required standard for GA, and with a bit of polishing should have a good chance at FAC. While there is no official quid pro quo here at GA, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage you to review one or two articles in the Biology and medicine GAN queue in the spirit of collegiality. Meanwhile, congratulations on another excellent article. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 19:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
During research I stumbled upon a forum post showing a screenshot of an abstract for a likely upcoming paper on the dental physiology of L. melvillei, which would provide a lot of new interesting things and hopefully additional comments on distributions outside Peru and Chile. I haven't found the source of the abstract, and so I'm not sure if it would be reliable to incorporate into the article, but fingers crossed that an article would come out of this study soon.
Link to Wayback Machine archive: [2]
Macrophyseter | talk 07:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Isotopic analysis of the Chilean specimen's enamel revealed that it likely operated at latitudes south of 40°S. Isotopic analyses of contemporary baleen whales in the same formation show that Livyatan was not commonly feeding on them, indicating it probably did not exclusively eat large prey, though it may have targeted baleen whales from higher latitudes. [1]
User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 14:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)
It was a member of a group of hypercarnivore macroraptorial sperm whales
I'm not 100% sure that all cetaceans are hypercarnivore (baleen whales might gulp a lot of phytoplankton) but all odontocetes surely are. Эйхер ( talk) 08:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Wow, it was amazing to see this on the front page today - a VERY different beast from the crappy little stub I created in June 2010. Massive congratulations to all the editors who have made it such an excellent featured article! Stronach ( talk) 09:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)