Talk:Blue whale/Archive 3

Major Revamp of Blue Whale Page
Hi everyone. I am a research biologist specializing in blue whales. I am currently working with the Society for Marine Mammalogy on a major revamp on the blue whale page. They want the marine mammal pages to be more uniform and scientifically accurate. This will involve a substantial reorganization of the sections, updating information, fact checking current sources, and adding more appropriate citations (i.e., peer-reviewed journals). The biggest changes will be the section reorganization, as well as the subspecies classification and evolutionary relationships. But on the smaller scale, I am spending a lot of time fixing the unreliable citations and assertion without citation. I wanted to reach out and give you a heads up so that it is not a surprise when I start making major changes. And I am happy to work with you all to make this page better. Feel free to check in with me as we go or let me know if you have any concerns. Angie zorka (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Angie

This has caused enormous collateral damage. A lot of good information was lost, and some of what remains is without context. For instance, the average weights are without the accompanying lengths. There are also errors like saying that 92 feet was an average length in the northern hemisphere, when in fact it was a maximum. The old article has much more information on nearly every subject. I tried copying and pasting parts of the old article into the new one, but many of the citations were destroyed, and I don't want to leave a huge mess for DrKay to clean up. I'm going to revert the edit, and the new contributions of the "revamped" article can be copy and pasted in. It would be much easier this way. In the future, it's better to make major changes piecemeal instead of burning down articles like this.

MrAwesome888 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems I can't do that. There needs to be a way to combine the pages.

MrAwesome888 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It would appear that the only way to jump back before these edits would be to go back here, which would also remove a dozen of 's cleanup edits. That might not be too much of an issue because those mostly fixed minor formatting issues introduced by the big "revamp". So I'd suggest, go ahead and do it. Then let's see how the new material can be integrated without wholesale replacement of the old. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for reaching out with your concerns. I realize a major revision is a lot all at once, and I apologize if it has created any problems. I was engaged by the Society for Marine Mammalogy for the major re-write because of my expertise on blue whales. They asked for specific sections to be added/moved and that I verify/replace secondary sources with more primary sources. I posted to the Blue Whale talk page months before I posted the new version asking for feedback on the re-write. I spent six months combing through all available primary and secondary literature to make sure that everything on the page was accurate and that each statement could be backed with the appropriate citations. I kept some secondary sources but removed any that made unverifiable claims. I also replaced older primary sources with citations that had updated information. The final re-write was peer reviewed and approved by another blue whale expert, Dr. Trevor Branch, at the University of Washington. I will definitely check out the maximum length issues/citations. If there are any other specific issues, I am happy to discuss and help with updates. My goal is to make the page a robust and accurate resource. I want the page to be both informative and engaging. Angie zorka (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2020
"Blue whale" appears many times in the lede, more than is needed. For example, this sentence uses it twice:

The global blue whale population abundance is estimated to be 10,000-25,000 blue whales, roughly 3-11% of the population size estimated in 1911.

Please remove one of the appearances from this sentence, so that it reads "global population" or "25,000, roughly" 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2D52:B20F:ECF0:C4F4 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2020
Under "Vocalizations", the second paragraph links "fundamental frequency" twice; please remove the second per MOS:REPEATLINK. 173.166.187.68 (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! CMD (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
http://museum.wa.gov.au/newmuseum/blue-whale http://museum.wa.gov.au/about/latest-news/iconic-blue-whale-skeleton-returns-new-museum — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.232.127 (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, awesome! and thank you!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add the Perth Western Australia museum blue whale to your list of museum specimens. First exhibited in 1900 it is back on display after a 20 year hiatus. If you need a reference please refer to the museum's website. 139.216.232.127 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I actually want to remove the entire section per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any other thoughts? ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 07:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indiscriminate and basically unsourced. CMD (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A blue whale skeleton is an amazing thing to see, and a list of places where one can see one doesn't seem to be indiscriminate. The section should be marked as needing citations. IdRatherBeAtTheBeach (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Remove per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Unless there's a secondary source that lists these, the whole section smacks of original research and promotion. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 19:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are sources that discuss the London Natural History Museum, so at least that one is notable, and I think it shows that blue whale skeletons in museums are generally noteworthy. Which are listed should probably be confined to which can be sourced. 1 2 3 ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would agree that only ones supported by secondary sources be included, but add that the specimen - not the museum - be the topic of the source. An article on a cool whale that happens to be at a particular museum is different to a cool museum that happens to have a whale. And yeah for the reasons WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:PROMO. Relatedly, it'd be good if the focus could flip from places where whales are, to describing notable specimens. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Well, that was a very interesting trip through the Wikipedia page as well as the museum's website! Unfortunately, while there was much to like about the Perth, Australia museum, there was absolutely nothing I could find about the blue whale exhibit. If the requestor can point us to an exact page on the website, or some other reliable source, that would be helpful. When this is done, feel free to change yes to "no" in the request template to reopen this request. Whether or not to delete the entire paragraph is a separate issue and should require a well-visited discussion and consensus.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 16:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated to ✅.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Subspecies and populations
The article goes back and forth on whether it treats the Chilean population as a subspecies or not:
 * the lead says "currently five subspecies";
 * the infobox lists four (one of which is noted as "?");
 * "Geographic range" says five are "outlined below", but then lists four;
 * "Migration" describes four as subspecies and Chilean as a population;
 * "Diet" has Chilean as a population, but that section refers to it in text as a subspecies;
 * "Subspecies and stocks" says there are four subspecies, and lists four, but then has the Chilean one listed as "unnamed subsp" in the populations list and a section describing it as a subspecies; and finally
 * "Population status" has Chilean as a population, but that section refers to it in text as a subspecies.

My best guess is that someone tried to update it to say that the Chilean group was a full subspecies, and only got half-way through - or maybe vice versa? Hard to work out from the history. I'm not sure which of these is actually correct, so I'm reluctant to try fixing it and risk making it more confused! It's also unclear what subspecies the Chilean group should be listed as (unknown?) if it's not one in its own right - the article doesn't seem to say. Andrew Gray (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * My best guess is that someone tried to update it to say that the Chilean group was a full subspecies, and only got half-way through - that's about the size of it. The subspecies is not currently recognized, but the putative "describer" sure was busy implementing it in half a dozen language editions of WP. Our local discussions about his stuff are here and here. AFAIK, it's still not a recognized taxon (I believe this is still the state of play), and we agreed to reflect that, by referring to it as a population but not as a subspecies. Looks like there are some loose ends in the article still. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Overciting?
There are a lot of places with 4 or more cites next to each other. Is that overciting? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. I removed some and plan to do more soon. LittleJerry (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Copyedit
Comments for cetaceans wiser than I:


 * The lead looks a bit short?
 * "a unique pigmentation pattern along the back in the region of the dorsal fin" is "along the back" necessary?
 * convert can and should be used throughout Morphology
 * The size section would benefit from a table; I can't make the prose clean if it's just a list
 * "(n=1133)" needs more context
 * Geographic range could really do with a single image showing the distribution.

Will proceed later. Ovinus (talk) 09:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR
This article has slipped in quality since the last review in 2007. The lead section spends nearly half its time talking about the specific number of whales in each place, and some sections are inappropriate: "Museum specimens", "Whale watching". In general the article also tries to talk about each population in great detail for no good reason, with lots of data dumping. Some of "Behavior", "Taxonomy" is usable, but the article needs a lot of work to be an FA. Ovinus (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Maximum recorded mass and size of North Atlantic blue whales
I'd like to address something I've noticed regarding the maximum weight. The COSEWIC report refers to Tomilin, A. G. 1957 when discussing the female blue whale captured in 1947 that's widely credited as the heaviest blue whale ever measured. The report specifically says it weighed 190 tons and converts it to 173,000 kilograms in parentheses, implying the source reported the animal in short tons. Lockyer (1976) cites the exact same source as the COSEWIC report, but reports that the female blue whale caught on March, 20, 1947 was 190 metric tons. Now, other sources that credit the very same specimen as being the largest also refer to it as being 190 metric tons, such as the McClain et. al paper and multiple books I own. The only places I've seen refer to Tomilin's maximum estimate as 190 short tons/173 metric tons were using the COSEWIC report (or this very Wikipedia article) as their source. The whale being recorded as 190 metric tons makes more sense to me because the original paper was from the USSR and translated into English in Israel. During both the time of the whale's capture and the publishing of this paper, the USSR had converted to the metric system, which Israel (the place where the paper was translated) also used. So if the paper literally just said '190 tons', it was most likely metric tons. Now aside from that, it would also be informative to mention that this specimen was 27.6 meters. This is not the same whale that was measured as 29.9 meters.

Another thing I want to correct is the average length breakdown for each population. 28.1 meters is most certainly not the average length for a North Atlantic Blue whale, in fact, that was the longest blue whale ever recorded in the region, which was caught in the Davis Strait. I haven't found any studies that provided an actual mean for this region, but the boxplot figure from the McClain paper suggests it was effectively the same as in the North Pacific, with a slightly higher maximum.

Sources:

Lockyer 1976: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240590693_Body_weight_of_some_species_of_large_whales McClain paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4304853/

NOAA report that cites the largest North Atlantic Blue whale: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249895815_Recovery_Plan_for_The_Blue_Whale_Balaenoptera_musculus (This source also reports the largest North Pacific Blue whale to have been 27.1 meters).


 * Fixed the length. I don't see what you mean with the maximum weight. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that the COSEWIC report cites the maximum weight as 190 short tons. However, most other sources I've come across cites the same specimen as actually being 190 metric tons. That makes the difference between it being 173,000 kg vs 190,000 kg. Only the COSEWIC report, the source that the Wikipedia article currently cites for the maximum weight, interprets the figure as being 190 short tons. Every other source I've come across, such as the Lockyer paper I've linked, cites the figure as 190 metric tons. Cmj399 (talk) 6:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where in the Lockyer paper does it mention the maximum weight of the blue whale being 190 mertic tons? LittleJerry (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the appendix in the end. She provides a breakdown of all of the piecemeal weighings of the whales used for her regression formulae. It's stated all measurements are converted into tonnes. There's a 27.6 meter blue whale caught on March 20, 1947, that weighed 190 tonnes. She cites the whale from the 1967 English translation of Tomilin, A. G. 1957. Cetacea. Mammals of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries. Volume 9. page 717. That's the same source and page number that the COSEWIC report cites the '190-ton' blue whale caught on 1947. As I've said, most of the other sources I've found that refer to the same figure cite it as 190 metric tons. The main exceptions were sources that were either directly citing the COSEWEIC article or were indirectly citing it through this Wikipedia article.Cmj399 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have more recent papers that cites the 1947 specimen as heaviest? LittleJerry (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The McClain et.al paper from 2015 also cites 190 metric tons as being among the heaviest piecemeal estimates. That paper cites an animal records book written by Mark Carwardine, which refers to that estimate as the same whale caught in March 20,1947. The '190 ton' whale described by the COSEWIC report was also caught in 1947, and uses the same source as Lockyer, most likely referring to the same whale. Otherwise, most of the more recent sources I have are books. It seems regardless, that specimen was the heaviest ever weighed, and it's just a matter of whether it was 190 short tons vs metric tons. Right now, it seems the only references that cite the whale as 190 short tons are ones using the COSEWIC report.Cmj399 (talk) 9:43, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Section
Is it just me, or there is not a section in this article where it shows where the Blue whales lives. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 00:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a little bit in the subspecies section but I feel like the range and habitat deserves it's own section. TigerScientist  Chat > contribs 00:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It already states "They are distributed in all major ocean basins, except the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean (although they have been sighted near the ice edge in the North Atlantic)". Stocks and subspecies gives enough detail. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2021
In the "Diet and feeding" section, change "34,776–1,912,680 kilojoules (8,312,000–457,141,000 cal)" to "34,776–1,912,680 kilojoules (8,312–457,141 Cal)" or "34,776–1,912,680 kilojoules (8,312–457,141 kcal)"

Explanation: the energy measurement is cited in kilojoules, then converted to calories in parentheses. While technically correct, this conversion is presumably to provide the measurement in common terms. However, the calorie typically used in nutrition is actually the Calorie (with uppercase "C"), or kilocalorie. Sticking to the common use of the word "calorie" avoids confusion. Parillo (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, makes sense in a diet context. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Swim Speed Section
The swim speed section need an overhaul. It is a mess of constantly changing standards. Starts with knots (with km/hr and m/hr also listed), then in kilometres/day, then at the end it's miles per hour (without knots being listed at all). Can someone please clean this up? Not up the the standard required of Featured articles. —  Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) (or here) (or here)  18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2022
change "... estimated to be 1,120 ± 359 kilograms (2,469 ± 791 lb) pf krill." to "... estimated to be 1,120 ± 359 kilograms (2,469 ± 791 lb) of krill." 66.67.125.223 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  03:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022
Change "whaes" to "whales" in section Conservation: Threats. Sentence starts with "Harvesting of the species...". Mosdoom (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2022
In the "Subspecies and stocks" section of the article, there is an image of a blue whale from an aerial point of view. In the description of the image, the word 'aerial', however, is misspelt as 'areial'. 86.50.118.117 (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Recorded heart weight?
I have noticed that the 180kg heart collected from the 23.3m stranded female is used as the sole reference for the weight of a blue whale's heart in this article. However, many piecemeal weighings of blue whales were conducted in the Arctic under the supervision of Allied inspectors or Scientists, like Masaharu Nishiwaki (the same individual who provided the record of the largest known blue whale to be scientifically verified). Is it possible for this data to be mentioned in any capacity?

https://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/SC004184-209.pdf Cmj399 (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Please change "direction" to "direct"
In the section Parasites and Predators, the phrase "direction observations" was probably meant to be "direct observations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelgrimes (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Typos
Edit lock prevents correcting “This began to change in the mid-19th century which the develop harpoon that could be shot as a projectile” to (presumably) “This began to change in the mid-19th century with the development of harpoons that could be shot as projectiles”. 2603:800C:4040:F37:2D26:B29E:CDD6:FF0C (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sleep
Can someone add a section about how Blue Whales sleep? Seems there's no mention of it anywhere in the article. Dionyseus (talk) 13:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Blue whales
How long do blue whales live? 94.17.118.242 (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Largest animal ever(?)
Peru Cetus may have been even larger than the blue whale, reaching up to 375 short tons according to its article I believe IndoBoy Official (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I tried to correct that, but it was (partiallyI reverted. In any case the lead cannot simply state without qualifiers the blue whale to be the largest animal ever, when that claim is not correct and outdated.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * P.S.: The addition under size needs a grammar fix. Moreover the claim that the Basilosauridae might rival the blue whale in length is not confirmed by the target article. So if some sources actually claim that, it be added in the target article, otherwise it should be removed from that line.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Those issues seemed to be properly addressed now. Thanks to all involved.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Maximum confirmed length and weight
> maximum confirmed length of 29.9 meters (98 ft) and weighing up to 199 tonnes

This is inconsistent with the values in List_of_largest_mammals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_mammals#Whales_(Cetacea)

> The longest confirmed specimen was 33.58 m (110.17 ft) in length and the heaviest was 190 tonnes Iaaaaaaaan (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested Edit
Can an editor with an account consider adding the content below to the article body:

Recent genetic studies indicate that fin whales routinely mate with blue whales, and they produce viable offspring capable of reproducing. Studies suggest that this has been due to the slow recovery rate of both species in response to whaling in the early 20th century, creating a population bottleneck encouraging interspecies mating between the two species.

Thanks. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 22:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done - UtherSRG (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)