Talk:Henry the Hexapus

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Great photo! Cute 'pus. A little mollusk (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the only photo of the Hexapus right now, but yeah, the thing is strutting his stuff. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 20:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saving the cute quote, Squishy Vic. If seeing that great film with Jerry Lewis and Leslie Caron didn't make me want to head straight for Blackpool, this sure does. A little mollusk (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, all noteworthy and appropriate content is worth keeping as long as it's well formatted. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 05:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bit unclear

The sources make it appear that this creature is a specimen of an "ordinary" octopus species (which would normally have eight legs) that "suffers" from an abnormality of some sort (a "birth defect"), as opposed to the first example of a new species of cephalopod which have six rather than eight legs. --EngineerScotty (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the source says, so that's what I put. I think this animal is the start of a new species, hence the Hexapus, but it hasn't yet been established as a whole new species in these two sources, rather as an octopus that had a birth defect and instead was born a hexapus. Feel free to contribute, though. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 06:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK... you think that? Well, good for you. All of the scientific sources disagree. I'm removing the taxobox and rephrasing the article. <eleland/talkedits> 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just going by the source; it never said that a new Hexapus species couldn't be created. Besides, I wasn't the one who added the taxobox. But anyway, thanks for your lazy sourcing. Don't worry, I fixed it up for you. :-) —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 23:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point here. how do we know that this is not how some new species might occasionally evolve? it's interesting in the sense of major anatomical change to a well-known species. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this birth defect was hereditary, it wouldn't prevent Henry from breeding with other octupuses, and it wouldn't create a new species. Species don't form unless you have two populations within the species that stop breeding with each other (usually because they're geographically separated.) <eleland/talkedits> 22:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I remember learning about that. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 08:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was getting at, but I was never trying to push my own theory or whatever. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christened?

I'm not sure about the use of this word - what's wrong with named?. It links to a disambiguation page anyway.Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone removed it anyway, since it's irrelevant now since it's just a single Hexapus and we don't have to repeat what's already in the title. Also, though, the source said christened instead of named. Either way is fine, but I like to keep stuff as close to the source as possible, which is why I used christened. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 23:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up a related question: How do you baptize an octopus? Or a hexapus? I'm assuming it's total-immersion, of course. <eleland/talkedits> 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but like I said, I followed the source. Maybe they did baptize Henry ... :-P —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 17:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - total immersion in air. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia moved from article

Text removed: The only other known instance of a hexapus was a fictional six-legged octopus that appeared in the 1955 film It Came from Beneath the Sea. Since this science fiction film had a very small budget, the designers left off two legs to meet the budget constraints.^[1]

"The only other known instance of a hexapus" is one that did not, in fact, exist. Therefore, I'm moving the text here. I don't think this subject is big enough to justify having its own "Trivia" or "hexapods in fiction" section. If the article grows and/or a consensus is found that this piece of trivia should be included, I'll happily agree to its re-inclusion. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It, at the very least, shows that there was some other six-legged octopus before Henry, even if fictional creation. And it adds a little color to the article. A little mollusk (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing wrong with adding it. So what if it's not large? There was another instance where people might go "Hey, look, a Hexapus!" I say we include it, but whichever way it goes is fine with me. —Victor, Sr. (discussion) (contributions) 05:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Henry the Hexapus. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/sc_afp/sciencebritainanimalhexapusoffbeat
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080306052332/http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/hexapus.php to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/hexapus.php

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) 06:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^ Cite error: The named reference cnnarticle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[cnnarticle-1] Cite error: The named reference cnnarticle was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]