Jump to content

Talk:Basilosaurus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Some researchers (cf. Gingerech) would dispute that archeocetes' hind limbs were "withered and useless" but in fact played a role in copulation. Graham 21:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Illustration

I added an illustration, Image:Basilosaurus_illustration.jpg, which is based on this image. I hope it suffices. If not, just tell me and I'll retool it as needed. Bhumiya (said/done) 01:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

the picture you submitted looks too flabby and fat. basilosaurus had much less blubber than modern whales because it lived in much warmer waters.196.208.78.150 14:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC) 16:05 (CAT) August 2007

Also, this simple picture may not be enough. Can't a bit of colour or backround be added? it's too bland. T.Neo 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

A living Basilosaur?

I found this website online while doing research of basilosaurs and I found the website and see the carcass of the creature. He is the website:http://www.englishrussia.com/?p=251. What do you think?--4444hhhh (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks far too short to be Basilosaurus (80 feet long), and the teeth don't look right.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a biologist, but it looks like it has fur on its back. It definitely looks mammalian, but wouldn't it more likely be a sealion/seal/walrus/other marine mammal? 125.238.132.225 (talk) 01:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Skull isn't the right size or shape, and the molar teeth aren't present, but the teeth definitely look mammalian and the head is reminiscent of cetecians; I would say that this is some sort of dolphin or porpoise, but it's hard to tell without a scale. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) No its not realistic they dont exit anymore, this cryptid nonsense from that fake field of crytozology. Biologists can put the label cryptozology and say basilosaur as a harmless speculation but a real cryptozology guy would say it is a basilosaurus 100%. No its dead --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, there is an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1386, that might be useful.

Thanks, Justin --Duboiju (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image identity

The taxobox image Flickr page says it is Basilosaurus, but it seems other photos of the same specimen label it as Dorudon?[1] FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Too long for a Dorudon, so it must be a Basilosaurus. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
My interpretation of this image is that there are two skeletons hanging next to each other at the Smithsonian: a Dorudon with short vertebrae, and a Basiolosaurus with elongated vertebrae. In the taxobox image there is actually a smaller skeleton hanging in the background. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Ah, so it seems the various photographers may be mixing them up. The skeleton with various dark bones seems to be Basilosaurus, and the light one is Dorudon. I'll recategorise them accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Which means this image[2] used in the Dorudon article, is probably Basilosaurus as well. Agree? FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Most likely yes. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Basilosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basilosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basilosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Verified basilosaurs

It is not clear from the text what basilosaurs are confirmed taxonomically and if some reclassified cetaceans are sliding into the lede. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Ummm, huh? What are you asking here, as its not totally clear. Are you asking if basilosaurids are Cetaceans?--Kevmin § 17:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
No. There are claims in the lede that members of the Basilosaurus genus have been discovered in a variety of locations (Egypt, Jordan, Poland and the Ukraine). It is not clear if they were initially assigned to the genus and reclassified, still tentatively assigned, or definitively assigned. There is a more in depth discussion in Basilosaurus#Nomina dubia and Basilosaurus#Reassigned species but the lede doe not follow from it. The relevant citations in question are a database entry and a German title attributed to "Smithsonian" ("Untersuchungen über die fossilen und subfossilen cetaceen Europa's". Smithsonian.). BiologicalMe (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Are there secondary or primary sources that indicate the two sources (which you removed for some reason) are not correct? (Also as a note its Basilosaurus, no need for "the" or "genus").--21:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The sourcing was inconsistent in usage, to say the least, as well as quality. In the lede, Egypt and Jordan were not sourced; Poland and Ukraine were. The Ukraine is nomen nudum; clicking on the details in the source describes it as "stated without evidence".[3] For Poland, once I searched around, the source actually was an 1873 book in the Smithsonian collection.[4] The odds of a find of that age being reclassified are pretty high. I would have moved the text to the body and summarized in the lede. This in not my area of expertise, but what I see are good faith edits using sources that are not up to snuff and being dropped into the lede rather than placed in appropriate context in the article the article. I can't do enough with the sources to figure out what, if anything, to move to the body or where, so the best I could do is flag and await experts. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think basilosaurus was also found in New Zealand or i think i might be referring to another whale--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I only get basilosaurus-like from a quick web search—https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/valley-of-the-whales/—not that it's a definitive source. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, third party sourcing should be used for the popular culture sections. Not every mention of something in another source should be included in an article. While Moby Dick is not obscure, the ideal would to use third-party articles to establish the cultural significance. As for Walking with Beasts, the only third-party article I have found on a preliminary search was from a college newspaper.[5] I have not done in-depth searches on either, yet. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Yeah i can see that, I was trying to fix the popular culture as it only said "a female basilosaurus is in walking with beasts". It was garbage so i added stuff to it as well as an extinction section.--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Basilosaurus & durodon image...

I don't want to harp on Bubblesorg, but is this image of a quality that we want to have displayed in the article? I'm somewhat surprised that the Paleoart review waved it through with such despatch [6]. I'll accept that the image does not contain any gross anatomical improbabilities, as I gather from there, but I'd consider that the lowest bar of all. I'd further stipulate that images not look like a caricature drawn in crayon, which is my overwhelming impression here. Are people really happy with this? - Ping: @IJReid, Cetusaurus pudgetiens, and FunkMonk: --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Erm I wasn't done reviewing it yet, I've been giving criticisms and it shouldn't be up on any pages until I'm done, and at least someone else has given it the OK. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

bubblesorg mentioned it was made on Gimp actually--Cetusaurus pudgetiensd (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you kind of missed the point here.. it doesnt really matter in wich program art is made at least if its good art, Im also new here so i shouldn't make judgments but Bubblesorg maybe you should listen to advices that more expirienced editors give you and also have a bit of self-criticism. I also have quiet suspicion that users Cetusaurus pudgetiens and Bubblesorg are the same person based on writing style and Cetusaurus activityKoprX (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)KoprX
...that is actually not a bad inference, seeing that the user popped out of the woodwork with the express purpose of praising Bubblesorg. Bubblesorg: I really hope you are not engaging in shadow-boxing here. That way lies perdition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

no, actually just no, i only have one acount. Also this user made some contributions on the ambulecetus page before anything. Also note how im not on wikipedia for long peroids on time these days but Cetusaurus is. The way i write is actually pretty common for new useres. Also I dont make sock accounts. Not in my intrest, but i know who Cetusaurus is.https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCB1K0ocfrPLDk8h_JnjTB8w he is a friend of mine. I will talk to him to stop. I actually was going to remove the basilosaurus work myself once i realized it was him. --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Ok i talked to him and he agrred. He also is abandoning this Cetusaurus acount for a kiwi stock one.--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Yeah these are his apologies. https://sta.sh/0159rg0yo2yn, https://sta.sh/01u9cok1v0v1--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

  • One thing to remember, as I also said for the Tylosaurus image, even if an image is approved, it doesn't mean the article has room for it. We should only use the most relevant images we have, not fill up articles as if they were art galleries. FunkMonk (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

would this be reliable?

https://www.thoughtco.com/facts-about-basilosaurus-king-lizard-whale-1093325? would it--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but everything they mention can be included in the article with the source of the site's information (which I assume is reliable, it is a nice page). cygnis insignis 21:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
For example, the hoax Hydrarchos redirects here, but I don't see it in the article. cygnis insignis 21:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It is mentioned under nomina nuda, but it appears that specimen is now considered Pontogeneus. Anyhow, we should use scholarly sources for the same info, not random websites. FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The author is a published writer, a freelancer, and like wikipedia it is starting point (a so called 3rd or tertiary source), but confers some notability to a fact. And it is considered as Pontogeneus? wow!, can't wait to find out what is going on with that :–) cygnis insignis 14:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

okay lets not use it--Bubblesorg (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

guys, we need this at good article criteria

For an animal this popular, i believe we have not done it justice, why cant we start getting this article to good article criteria so we can get a star on this thing. I am not going to be here for a week so, but we need some fixing --Bubblesorg (talk) 01:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, it certainly needs a lot of work to get there. But if something has to be worked on, the best way is to nominate it at Palaeontology collaboration. You can also try out yourself, with guidance if you need. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Along the way, please relocate all these citations you put into the lede into the article body. That's one of the first things that will be pointed out at GA review. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
(And please don't refer to people as retards. It reflects poorly on you both as an editor and a person. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC))

Yeah sorry about that, well we should be doing that, I will start later tonight Bubblesorg (talk) 02:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Too many images?

The one thing I noticed about the article is that it has a lot of photos that are usually about the same thing; reconstructions and fossil skulls. Should there be a lesser amount of these photos so as to not make the article feel so cluttered of the same thing over and over with not much subject variety?Gabeluna27 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, furthermore, it isn't long enough to support this many images. Though it certainly could be, the text isn't covering the subject at its full potential. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Additionally, while we're talking about format and neatness, the citations are pretty randomly, incosistently, and often incorrectly positioned, sometimes even in the same sentence. Italics are missing in several spots. Furthermore, this is the third time that Bubblesorg's been told that there's not enough room for all the images currently in the the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay removed a few I felt were inaccurate of the data presented and some were obvious 3d print outs, can you help me instead of complaining now with the sources, I am trying to get this to good article standards --Bubblesorg (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I've improved the citation positioning in the description and added italics where they were missing. I was not intending to come off in a complaining manner, sorry if that's what it seemed like. I mainly wanted to list some things in the article that could be improved (formatting errors are probably going to come up in GA review). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I think half of the images could be removed without missing anything, some of the same specimens are even shown multiple times (the one in the taxobox is the same one shown no less than twice in the pop culture section, just re-mounted). Also, the structure is quite messy. Try basing it on something promoted about similar animals, like Livyatan or Brygmophyseter. Dunkleosteus77 might have some ideas as how to improve this. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The "Popular Culture" segment

While we're still talking about the neatness about the article, the next subject is the "Popular Culture" segment. Despite its numerous sources, some of which I think are unreliable, some of its information is rather trivial and don't explain the "public view" of the animal. Wikipedia is not a place for collections of "spot the monster" kind of content.Gabeluna27 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I know, but thats fixed--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

A record of Basilosaurus cetoides in egypt

This article made by Philip Gingerich stated Basilosaurus cetoides was found outside of Egypt. This is the article https://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2011AM/finalprogram/abstract_196143.htm. I want some thoughts--Bubblesorg (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you either please take care to organize your thoughts more carefully, or please take care to READ the articles more carefully, since it's about the first instance of Basilosaurus cetoides being found outside of NORTH AMERICA, not Egypt.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It must have been a typo.--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A moment of thanks and image question

Man, a guy who I talked to a few weeks ago on devientart (who I did not think much of) did this great deed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus#/media/File:Basilosaurus_cetoides.png A special thanks to this person! Anyways, can we have more pictures and reconstructions like this? They are honestly high quality.--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the question? Yes, we can have any picture if the artist lets us. That's not up to us to decide, all we can do is ask them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Sure, this was just an excuse for me to say thanks for a good restoration --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Basilosaurus/Archive_1&oldid=1178086846"