Talk:Gigantic octopus

Untitled

I suggest the material pertaining to Octopus giganteus is moved here with a seperate page for the carcass (rather than its interpretation) itself. Tullimonstrum 13:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Because having a gigantic octopus and a Octopus giganteus page may be a subtlety lost on the average encyclopedia user so better a seperate "St Augustine Carcass" or similar. Tullimonstrum 13:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The two articles should not be merged. "Octopus giganteus" refers to a specific example. I will expand the article considerably in the next few days. The reason I chose that name as the title is to avoid ambiguity. The carcass has been called many things, including Florida monster, St. Augustine monster, St. Augustine giant octopus, etc., while "Octopus giganteus" can only refer to this particular carcass, the other names are not as specific. Mgiganteus1 13:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your case (and I like your page) but 1) the binomial name "Octopus giganteus" is confusingly similar to Gigantic Octopus 2) It currently isn't a valid binomial name anyway under ICZN rules cos there is no reason to regard the type material as a cephalopod (at least in the peer reviewed literature) 3) Even if it was an octopus the genus isn't going to be "Octopus" anyway and if it wasn't and there is a giant Atlantic Octopus I doubt that could be called "something giganteus" either as that has been used to describe what was probably a dead whale Also from the point of few of an encyclopedic article it is important to distinguish a physical thing - the carcass and what is left of the carcass, from the hypothesis about it: it could be a gigantic octopus. Also think about how it is linked to...not as Octopus giganteus but St Augustine carcass which suggests that is the natural name for the article.

Anyway at least leave the merge tag up to allow others to debate it. Tullimonstrum 14:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not a valid scientific name. Nevertheless it is a name that is used to refer to this carcass. Mgiganteus1 15:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing is a renaming of the article rather than a merging; all the information in the Octopus giganteus article pertains to the carcass rather than the possible species as a whole. If anything, I would lean towards "St. Augustine Monster" as an alternative name. Mgiganteus1 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF? (Some People Are Too Old To Edit Wikipedia, Clearly)

Talk about outdated, the species is entirely proven real, and has few-to-no mysteries left. It's been proven at least since I was a young kid. WTF is this doing being treated like mythology still, and like it's debateable? Scientists do not debate this, so WTF? Get with the times! Wikipedia likely even has a page about it already not considered mythology, it must have one. And, you'd have to be like 40, to 100 years-old to not know this stuff! (I'm 28, not a kid. Really, you'd have to be old, and VERY behind in following scientific news to not know this.) Absolutely not should this species be handled like a mythological being, or like it's debatable whether or not the existing is the one of legend! These are common knowledge now! --174.19.234.173 (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Your way of using the talk page is also wrong! Learn how o create categories for separate topics, please! This ties into my first topic, as the subject is that those who made, and are editing this page don't know what they're doing. So, this is fine to be in one category. Meanwhile, you guys didn't create sections, and just have it all smooshed together like it's one topic! --174.19.234.173 (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The largest scientifically recognized species of octopus, the giant Pacific octopus, averages at less than 15 kg (33 lbs.) Your assertion that octopods of these proportions depicted here are scientifically recognized is completely ludicrous. It is apparent that you are mistaking the the gigantic octopus with the very real giant squid, and really in no position to be criticizing anyone's scientific knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.98.189.181 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)