Talk:Vampire squid/Archive 1

Filament from arm pairs?
The article currently says that the vampire squid's filaments are derived from earlier arm pairs. However, seems to say otherwise, saying that they're innervated very differently. --KJ 01:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Tree of Life Website refutes that. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I found a better refutal from your link. --KJ 08:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Question
Is there a picture that could be posted about the "pumpkin posture" that the article mentions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickers (talk • contribs).
 * There aren't that many pictures of them to begin with, and they don't rightly pose for the camera. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Vampyroteuthis link
Would it be too much trouble to make a link so this page appears when searching for vampyroteuthis? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonesean13 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
 * There's already a redirect at Vampyroteuthis. Mgiganteus1 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vampyroteuthis1.jpg
Image:Vampyroteuthis1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vampyroteuthis2.jpg
Image:Vampyroteuthis2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mass-Specific Metabolic Rate"
Okay, what the HECK is a "mass-specific metabolic rate? I mean, I know that it has something to do with digesting/processing food, but what IS it? Thank you.
 * Judging by what it sounds like, I'd say... maybe it's something to do with, if it eats more, it's metabolism naturally increases to cope? I don't know though, that's just a guess. --Scareth (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Edibility
Can you eat it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.36.46 (talk) 02:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh my God, shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.239.69 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
Do any other pictures of this thing exist? --70.143.32.19 (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs Reference
RedPenOfDoom has removed one of the only references to the Vampire Squid in current discourse, as Goldman Sachs was compared to a Vampire Squid in the very first paragraph of a very famous Rolling Stone article. RedPenOfDoom, I put it to you that you are a stooge of our evil Banking overlords. cojoco (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC) * Taibbi, Matt: The Great American Bubble Machine, Rolling Stone Magazine, July 2009 cojoco (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Endthefed" has independently added it again, and it was removed again. I've put it back now, because it's probably the most notable thing about the Vampire Squid, is well referenced, and quite relevant to most readers. Please don't remove it again without discussion. cojoco (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have subsequently removed it. A sarcastic comment in a Matt Taibbi article it may have been, but the contention it's the most notable thing about the Vampire Squid is a. first and foremost unsourced apart from that Matt Taibbi said it, b. has no place in the opening of the article anyway (WP:LEAD), c. even if it could be proved the comment made the Vampire Squid notable or relevant it would be in an in popular culture, and even that's a stretch. This verges on non-notable POV. –– Lid(Talk) 07:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Handling trivia applies here too. –– Lid(Talk) 08:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually given this comment "RedPenOfDoom, I put it to you that you are a stooge of our evil Banking overlords." and that Endthefed, by edits and username, is an SPA this appears to be an insertation of a POV political bend. –– Lid(Talk) 08:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also that quote, though several months old, does violate WP:NPA and WP:AGF. –– Lid(Talk) 08:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Anyway, I do believe that some reference to Matt's article is warranted, for several reasons.  The comment was cited by many reliable news organizations, far more so than any reference to the creature itself, which gives support to my statement that Goldman Sachs is its chief claim to notability. .  I was not aware that "XXX in popular culture" was the only method of broadening the context of a currently fairly academic article: I'd appreciate some guidance if you could provide a pointer to such a WP policy.  I agree that it need not go in the lead; perhaps it belongs in a closing comment.  cojoco (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I have nothing against a brief mention of the quote somewhere in the article, I find the idea that an offhand mention in relation to the financial crisis (which is why that story was so popular and reproduced) is the vampire squid's 'claim to fame' hard to swallow. It's generally accepted on wikipedia that a species is notable by its very existance, not merely due to popular media. Also, it must be said that scientific articles are by nature academic, though there is a place for media content. To include it, I'd probably go the way of giant squid and add it into a brief paragraph such as 'cultural depictions' or 'in the media.' Iciac (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy wise, in the broadest terms, it would be covered under WP:IINFO under merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. However in this case the more appropriate things to look at are the essays WP:HTRIVIA and WP:POPCULTURE. As Iciac explains a species existing is notable in itself, whether it is well known to the populace based off a derisive comment is incidental and not related to the biology of the species. As Iciac pointed to giant squid and I add great white shark which though are more known to the populace by popular depiction the articles are largely about the species itself. However a personal observation here is that while those articles all refer to Matt's usage of the animal to refer to the banks it does not illustrate that this quote is what most people know the animal from, and thus surmising that conclusion constitutes WP:OR. –– Lid(Talk) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The quote might find a place based upon WP:CEPH which says that the article should make reference to cultural, economic influence etc of the cephalopod. I'm certain that I've seen other references to the vampire squid around, so I wouldn't be completely against such a section being introduced to the article. Trivia and popculture should however be avoided - the quote seems to be a little thin for me, just a simple metaphor homing in on an evil sounding name (Oh no! Goldman Sachs is a 30cm long teuthid; great at glowing slightly to avoid predators, and little else...) - however, I'm not going to oppose it if an editor feels it's worth including. Iciac (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to the inclusion of this quote as it seems to be little more than connective trivia. There are no sources to support cojoco's claim that "it's probably the most notable thing about the Vampire Squid", rendering any such statement OR. mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting strangely self-referential. There are dozens of references to the Goldman Sachs Vampire Squid quote in reliable sources, and I gave some examples above. You do not need a reference explicitly stating that another reference is notable; it is notable for the simple reason that it has been cited, and more notable for the fact that it has been cited dozens of times by very reliable sources.  In any case, the fact that the GS quote gives the Vampire Squid notability does not need a reference, because nobody has proposed that this statement be added to the article. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect notable aspects of the world, and, in my opinion, the obvious resonance of this quote in many articles suggested it deserves a mention in this one. cojoco (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite a lot of the top ghits for "vampire squid" refer to the Taibbi article, whose primary subject is the Goldman Sachs company, so a mention of the comparison of Goldman Sachs to a vampire squid may well belong in WP's article about Goldman Sachs. However, I'm not big on "cultural references" sections in general, and I don't see a need to mention the comparison in this article.  If it is mentioned at all, it should certainly not be in the lede.  If Taibbi's article was primarily about marine biology rather than banking, and he had described vampire squids as "a great Goldman Sachs of the ocean", then the comparison would belong in this article rather than the G.S. article, but that's not what we're dealing with. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editor: I think you are being a bit stiff about the GS thing, which is why I came to the article. Please note the wikipedia article on the donkey (aka "ass"): "Braying is the characteristic sound made by an ass, donkey, and most mules. Donkeys use this sound to communicate and will bray more frequently when a new donkey is encountered. The sound typically lasts for twenty seconds.[5][6] The sound may be rendered onomatapoeically as "eeyore" and so this was used as the name of the donkey in Winnie-the-Pooh. Donkeys may be trained to bray or not to bray upon command. This may be used as a form of mockery.[7][8] Braying may be considered a simile for loud and foolish speech. For example,[9]

There are braying men in the world as well as braying asses; for what's loud and senseless talking and swearing, any other than braying —Sir Roger L'Estrange (END OF QUOTE) I think the message here is pretty obvious: each species may deserve its own article, but even vampire squids can be targets of popular wit, and even editors can sometimes be.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.7.8 (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

YET MORE.... There is also the wikipedia "bat" article, a scholarly endeavor that still has space for: "In Western Culture, the bat is often a symbol of the night and its foreboding nature. The bat is a primary animal associated with fictional characters of the night, both villains like Dracula and heroes like Batman. The association of the fear of the night with the animal was treated as a literary challenge by Kenneth Oppel, who created a best selling series of novels, beginning with Silverwing, which feature bats as the central heroic figures much as anthropomorphized rabbits were the central figures to the classic novel Watership Down." (END QUOTE, but there is more there....) Dude, even rabbits got into that one. Give it up, sub-subs, put GS back in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.7.8 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

NOT TO MENTION: The wikipedia article "vampire bat": "Role in fiction The vampire bat is often used in movies and books about vampires. Fictional vampires also consume blood, usually in order to survive. Comparable to the actual vampire bat, the most common feeding method is piercing a hole in the victim's neck with sharp fangs and sucking blood from the pierced area. Fictional vampires are also commonly nocturnal, and rarely come out during the day, similar to vampire bats. Other attributes of fictional vampires include, but are not restricted to, the ability to transform into a vampire bat and animal-like senses of sight and hearing. In several vampire horror films a vampire bat arrives through the victim's window then magically transforms into the fictional mythological creature.[11]" (END QUOTE). Loosen up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.25.7.8 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Two years have passed and the Vampire Squid = Goldman Sachs analogy is still going strong, so I've reinserted a mention at the end of the article. Plenty more refs within this New York Times article. Jpatokal (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for providing sources. I'm wondering, though, whether Taibbi really was referring to Vampyroteuthis infernalis, or just meant "a squid which is a vampire".  In the latter case, perhaps this information should be moved to the Squid article.  I will note that the animal indirectly described in the quote doesn't seem to resemble Vampyroteuthis infernalis much at all (but neither does it resemble any member of the order Teuthida, as far as I know). Augurar (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Grammar, spelling
Read this. "Its limpid, globular eyes; which appear red or blue, also depending on lighting; are proportionately the largest in the animal kingdom at 2.5 cm (1 inch) in diameter." Read it again.

Seriously, who wrote this? Here's a quick fix:

Its limpid, globular eyes, which appear red or blue, depending on lighting, are proportionately the largest in the animal kingdom at 2.5 cm (1 inch) in diameter.

You just can't use semicolons as 'higher-order' commas. That's not how it works.

Also: what I originally thought was a spelling error is actually right. The correct plural of octopus is octopuses; according to a video by the people at Webster, octopi was a Latinized version of a Greek word... followed by Octopodes, the correct Greek plural... but octopuses is correct because octopus was a foreign and imported word, so it takes on the English plural.
 * I've changed the sentence to your suggestion. Thanks for pointing it out. mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Threat to humans?
What is the point of the first sentence in "physical description?" This would seem extremely obvious because it's a deep-sea cephalopod. It's just as ridiculous as saying, "At a weight of only 4 grams, the Great Spiny Caterpillar poses no threat to humans," and then making that the first sentence in physical description section of the caterpillar. 71.62.188.38 (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. Thanks, mgiganteus1 (talk) 05:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Referencing
The method of referencing with both notes and references is unnecessarily complex. The two sections should be combined. Notes sections should be reserved for explanations. Also, dates accessed are most often superfluous since date of publication is given. Date accessed, or retrieved, is something someone added a while back that should largely be ignored J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Needs citations" can go
For an article of this length, the number of citations provided is completely adequate. Why not just get rid of the three-year-old, now invalid, "needs citations" tag?

Frankly, that tag pisses me the hell off. It's way, way, way overused. If some lazy smuck wants to hang that tag on an article, let him spend a weekend afternoon digging up some good citations himself first! That would be easy to automate - the system could be programmed so that you can't apply that tag unless the history shows that you yourself have provided at least three citations.

98.243.173.66 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, although I might not couch it in such terms. Just about all "needs citations" tags are unjustified, often by people who know nothing about the subject but who somehow seem to think it makes them important.  Actually it takes only a few minutes to find an adequate reference on line, if one is really needed. I generally delete those tags as clutter when I come across them. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Redirect
The article, Vampire Squid was redirected from the original article, Vampiroteuthis infernallis, but why. It seems there are contributors to Wikipedia who believe that using common terms for titles, rather than equivalent taxonomic ones, makes the article more readily accessed. That's a false assumption since linking allows one term to link to another as in either Vampiroteuthis|vampire squid or vampire squid|Vampiroteuthis. Brackets omitted.

Vampire squid is the common name of an animal, it is not a taxonomic term. So why bother with a taxobox? J.H.McDonnell (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "Vampire squid" is the common name of the species Vampiroteuthis infernalis. The terms refer to the same animal. Augurar (talk) 00:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

--122.59.179.223 (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Vampire squid

Orphaned references in Vampire squid
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Vampire squid's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "iucn": From Synonym (taxonomy):  From Timeline of the evolutionary history of life:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

New infobox image
It would probably be best to have at least one photo of a living vampire squid on this page. Thoughts on replacing the digital art in the infobox to one of the multitudes of MBARI sourced photographs? AdventureRick (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Squid
Why do they belong in the squid category if they're more closely related to octopuses?
 * I don't know what the policy on category inclusion is, but I sympathise with your objection. On the other hand, perhaps inclusion is justified by this species bearing the common name "squid", regardless of its correct taxonomic classification. Ypna (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Watasella nigra"
Ok, so I am researching this, and it is plain wrong. I know japanese, and "Watasella nigra" is not correct japanese. I have no clue what you were trying to say. In japanese, there are no l's. Nigra is not a word. Please explain or correct this. Also please fix your bad grammar throughout the article 72.216.176.18 (talk) 23:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)狼
 * You're right, Watasella nigra is not Japanese; it's Latin. Nigra is a Latin word, meaning 'black'. Nowhere in this article does it say Watasella nigra is a Japanese name, which you seem to have assumed. A Japanese scientist once proposed it as the binomial name for this species, and binomial names must be in Latin. Ypna (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to article
To add to this article: information about the recent published research about vampire squid brain structure. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 07:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deepseabioguy. Peer reviewers: Lbenedict.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 12 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KEENEYBR, Mcginnca, Sean Conboy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Missing myriad citation throughout the article. Gomescl (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Vampyroteuthis photo.png