Talk:North Pacific Giant Octopus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Cephalopods
 This article is part of WikiProject Cephalopods, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use cephalopod resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] I'd like to know why you reverted the page deleting the link to the Video I added

UtherSRG,

The video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6647659487495659414) was shot by a friend who was visiting the aquarium with me at the time... Is there some problem with linking to it (I didn't think that had any copyright implications)?

Would it be better if I conviced my friend to make the video available via the GFDL or something?

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.59.131 (talk • contribs) .

It is unclear what reason the video serves. What part of the octopus is shown better through the video than the text/ How can we tell that this is the right species and not some other? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I just thought it was neat for people to actually see what these amazing creatures actually look like (since the article has no pictures or diagrams). And yes, it's the correct species - it was captured in Puget Sound, it has a life span of 3-5 years, the animal is definately quite large, the aquarium has a policy of capturing the animals and holding them for a year and then releasing them back into the wild so they can mate. But you need not take my word alone, here are some refs http://www.seattleaquarium.org/learn/research/ (species) and http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/traveloutdoors/2002181977_nwwoctopus17.html (which talks about releasing them back) -G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.49.59.131 (talk • contribs) .
It is a first point of call for many people seeking information on the web. Having a video link only adds to the article. Have reverted to the previous edit. Nicolharper 16:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
All I can see are a bunch of tentacles and (very occasionally) a bit of mantle. It's a nice home movie, but not a n appropriate link from an encyclopeida, IMO. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with removing the video, it should be kept until someone finds a better video and a picture of a North Pacific Giant Octopus. Even then, I think it is better to link to as many source as possible so long as they are not wrong. It is useful to be able to see the octopus, it is a long video and gives a fairly good view of the animal. I have added the video in a less prominent place. Nicolharper 15:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of links. I've removed it again. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


Wikipedia is a first port of call for many people seeking information. A video of the animal only improves the article, especially as there is no picture.

Quoting from WP:ISNOT

"Wikipedia articles are not

1. Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. "

The links are useful and content related. Two video links is hardly excessive, and certainly does not dwarf the article. Unless you can find better video please do not remove it again.

Nicolharper 16:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Nicol on this. The video is informative. Considering that most images are subject to copyright, this external link is a good way of showing what the animal looks like. Malamockq 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, when looking up the largest of all known octopus species, I would find a photo, illustration or movie helpful and encyclopedic. Perhaps a more informative clip would be desirable, but (IMHO) this movie is preferable to not having any visual information at all. (Provided, of course, that the species on the clip is verified as NPGO) ---Sluzzelin 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That video was informative, I didn't know pacific octopus ate sharks, that cool and interesting, I'm inclined to leave the video here, it shows a scientific discovery about the octopus and their habits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.106.144 (talk • contribs) .

That's a different video. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Big

I have repeatedly edited this page, someone keeps saying the Giant Pafici Octopus is not the largest octopus. That is not true, it clearly is the largest octopus, I've reverted this a couple of times and I also reverted the seven armed octopus article. On the discussion page for that article I posted a half dozen links backing up my claim that the Giant Pacific Octopus is the largest, I will now insert them here. TotallyTempo 03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Links: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjewwcts/invertebrates/octopus/Octopuscoloring.shtml http://www.octopus.com/species/ http://bjo.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/87/7/812 http://www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca/programs/expert/octopus/ TotallyTempo 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cited an article written by Dr. Steve O'Shea, one of the foremost experts on cephalopods, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You have linked to a number of websites that regurgitate the same *questionable* claims for which there is *no evidence*. I have made it clear in the introduction that the North Pacific Giant Octopus is the second largest based on scientific records. Mgiganteus1 08:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 272 kilos??

To call an estimate of 272 kg "highly questionable" is an understatement. "absurd, given our knowledge of the species" is more like it. That would make it a legitimate rival to the giant and colossal squids.

Is the referece provided based on an actual weighing, or an estimation based on a sighting? Because if it is the latter (or if it is at all ambiguous about it), I suggest we don't include this "big fish" story. - Atarr 01:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not absurd, considering the nature of octopus growth. Octopuses demonstrate indeterminate growth, which begins exponentially and become logarithmic in the final stages of life. This means that a small change in growth conditions early in life can produce very large changes in the final weight of the animal. This is a well documented phenomenon in octopuses. For instance, O. rubescens normally only attains a grown weight of 100g, but it is not unheard of to observe 400-500g individuals. Considering giant Pacific octopuses regularly attain a final mass of around 40kg, it would almost be expected that there would be some outliers weighing upwards of 150kg. Well, twice individuals have been caught and weighed by fisherman of close to 180kg, one in California and one in Port Hardy, BC (the CA individual was photographed.) Neither of these weights were overseen by a scientist, but seem reasonably credible and are frequently cited by GPO biologists. Personally, a 272kg animal does seem quite a bit large, but honestly, its not impossible nor absurd. It is exactly as the article puts it: “Highly questionable”. Taollan82 05:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, as the editor who worked on this article to add those claims, those claims are indeed questionable. However certain museums such as the royal British Columbian museum and various aqariums state that these octopi have been caught. Until we catch another one as large these claims will remain highly questionable though substatiated enough to warrant inclusion in the article TotallyTempo 08:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fish of the Pacific

The Fish of the Pacific category still needs to be populated, I was wondering if octopus should be included? Certainly I realised octopus are not "fish" in the atamocial sense as it were but they are part of the food chain in the pacific and an important part of the ecosystem. Thoughts before I go ahead and included pacific octopuses in the list : fish of the pacific

It most definitely should not be included, since it is not a fish under any definition. Mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)