Talk:Whale song

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Whale song 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. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 28, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result May 6, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 23, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

Portal	This article is part of WikiProject Cetaceans, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use cetaceans resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Cetaceans.
Cetaceans To do: Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by the Cetaceans WikiProject. If you are interested sign up on the project page: Copyedit/Formatting: Beaked whale Expand: Hector's Beaked Whale, Hector's Beaked Whale, Ginkgo-toothed Beaked Whale, Shepherd's Beaked Whale, Archaeoceti, Cumberland Sound Beluga, Blubber, Chinese River Dolphin, Humpback dolphin Requests: List of extinct cetaceans Stubs: Callosity, Cephalorhynchus Images: Pictures of the baiji are wanted. Featured/Good article candidates: none at present Patrol: Look through the Category:Cetaceans for recent changes Collaboration of the Month: Baiji Other: See the project page.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 ogg format is obscure 2 FAC comments to work on 3 Capitalisation 4 New spectrogram 5 Rubber Blubber Whale? 6 Scientific Accuracy 7 Malicious damage 8 Star Trek? 9 good article 10 Confusing use of the term 'whale' 11 Too strong statement 12 Too strong statement

[edit] ogg format is obscure

Any way we can get these sounds in mp3 format?

The "freeness" of MP3 is a murky issue at best, so Wikipedians decided to go with OGG which, whilst obscure, is definitely free in every sense. Pcb21| Pete 16:06, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAC comments to work on

I think that Animal echolocation needs to be better described in the article, as I understand it this type of communication has only been shown to be the case for dolphins and killer whales. The function of the humbacks song seems, from a scan of recent literature, to be a contentious matter since noone has tested to see if humpback whales listen for and respond to echoes generated by their songs, this may also be the case for other whales. There probably should be some expansion of the tooth and baleen sound production sections, or seperate discussions on other species with well studied songs to address the comprehensivness point, false killer whales for example seem to be the subject of numerous vocalisation studies. A section on the use of whale songs to locate and track whales would also be a good addition to the article, also a descripion of how the sound is measured would be helpful to the reader. --nixie 03:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I must have added my comments to the FAc discussion too late, but I still think they are an important issue that should be fixed in the article, so I will copy them here:

Comment. Hmm it looks really good, and I'd like to support, but the structure is a bit confused, and parts of the article are not even about the topic. I'll start with the second part first. The 'Toothed whale sound production' section starts with a sentence saying the sounds they make are not considered whale songs, so why is that section six times longer than the section on 'Baleen whale sound production'? So that section there then a later whole section on the Humpback whale song later is confusing structure wise. What is this article about? Whale songs or whale sounds? In fact I can't see anywhere in the article that it tells me the Humpback is baleen at all, so the prior distinction between baleen sounds and toothed whale sounds is even more disjointed. The other sections don't seem to flow in a logical order either. Further, do only males produce whale songs? - Taxman 14:39, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

That was a really odd revert, Pete. Since when are animal species names in English supposed to be capitalized...?

Peter Isotalo 20:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

The thinking is that a species is a proper noun (compare a Common Starling and a common starling). Admittedly the consensus on this fractious but still capitalisation is policy for mammals. See more discussion than you could ever stand to bare in the archives of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

Should I even bother refering to blue whale and humpback whale, or is that just the opinion of EB? And considering that your example of "common starling" isn't even a proper scientific name (the Latin names are not supposed to be directly translated), I really think you should consider giving in to the tyranny of more serious encyclopedic standards. If anything, it makes the text look really amateurish...

Peter Isotalo 22:50, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. An upper case "Humpback Whale" in the middle of a sentence looks odd to me. CDThieme 23:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Convincing me isn't the issue, it is forcing a wider change of policy on which there are lots of positions from lots of people, laid out in the archives of the ToL talk page. Whether we agree on which style guides to follow or not, I think it is easy to agree that we should be consistent across pages, which is I don't want this one to come out-of-sync with all the others. Pcb21| Pete 07:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no standard, and it says so on the policy pages, since the "proper noun"-clause is easily overturned by simply looking up any single species name in a dictionary. It's apparantly up to whomever writes the articles (and you're clearly the one taking a stand for your own opinion here, not a policy). Are you even going to comment the use in other encyclopedias?

In the meantime, let me show you an edit that illustrates exactly why your idea is neither consistent nor reasonable. If certain species should be capitalized, then all names of single species should. If you're going to revert it, I'd like to hear some very, very good arguments.

Peter Isotalo 10:58, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New spectrogram

I made a new spectrogram for this page. I didn' bother trying to keep the wave form (which isn't very informative anyway). Zeimusu | (Talk page) 11:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rubber Blubber Whale?

Is that trivia entry really appropriate? Out of all the hunderds of songs that sample whale song, why is this one important enough to mention? (In fact, I'm just gonna go ahead and take it out.)

[edit] Scientific Accuracy

The statement that smell was not effective due to the slow speed of water was changed to slow diffusion of molecules, which is a more accurate description of how the sense of smell actually works. (whereas some ocean currents can be quite fast, compared to wind speeds at the Earth's surface) Similarly, I added the statement about the relative difference in the speed of sound, because it's an important fact when considering underwater communications of any sorts. -- Hao 4:12, 28, Jun 2005 (JST)

[edit] Malicious damage

Someone seems to have wiped out the article.

[edit] Star Trek?

Whale song was a pivotal plot point in the 4th film 'The Voyage Home'. Would this bit of trivia be suitable to be added somehow? --Djbrianuk 28 June 2005 16:13 (UTC)

[edit] good article

i think this is truly worthy of being a featured article 134.121.50.127 28 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing use of the term 'whale'

Some dominating contributors (Pcb21 in particular) have insistently refused that killer whale and other dolphins are whales. I disagree, but if that is the majority view it's OK with me. But the use of the term 'whale' needs to be consistent. This article demonstrates it is not. Let us take one example:

"Every toothed whale except the sperm whale has two sets of phonic lips and is thus capable of making two sounds independently."

According to the view of Pcb21 and others the only toothed whale actually is sperm whale. The phrase “Every toothed whale except the sperm whale…” is then completely nonsense since the group is empty. Odd editing rules have become common in this and many related articles. The last is the very odd rule of naming animals by upper case first letter. Blue whale therefore is named 'Blue Whale' while other animals still have to accept their lower case first letter (as for example 'human'). Will somebody take the responsibility of cleaning up? --- Arnejohs 29 June 2005 14:17 (UTC)

It is slightly annoying that you carry on being obtuse (mischaracterizing what I have said, etc) even though it must be months (years?) since we've discussed this and since I spelt out in mind-numbing detail how stupid the English language is, but that I didn't invent it.

As for the capitalization, do whatever the hell you like. It seems like bloody capitalization is the only contribution people make to cetacea (sorry, in your terminology, whale) articles anyway. Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 16:18 (UTC)

I refuse to continue any discussion if this is the language of the contributors. In spite of that I still believe in the wiki-project. Hopefully the language and the debate will be less wiki-wiki and more consistent in the future. Meanwhile you may think out an explanation on my question concerning the toothed whales. I did not find that you gave any now. Good luck! --- Arnejohs 29 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)

I'm sorry that doesn't make sense. What does "[..] the debate will be less wiki-wiki and more consistent in the future" mean? What does "I did not find that you gave any now" mean? Pcb21| Pete 29 June 2005 23:36 (UTC)

[edit] Too strong statement

It is not necessary to make strong statements like whales "...are much more dependent on sound for communication and sensation than land mammals are" in order to stress that sound is important. It is hard to make comparisons like this and almost impossible to prove it scientifically. It should be enough only to point at echolocating mammals as bats for example. They can hardly survive without their "song". --- Arnejohs 11:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too strong statement

To Arnejohs: it can be proved scientifically. You only must compare the efectiveness of all senses in sea than in land, then you could appreciatte the difference, independent of the animal who gots that sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.53.145.210 (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC).