Talk:Spade-toothed whale

Mesoplodon traversii

It seems like it would be better to have this page at Mesoplodon traversii. Personally, I strongly object to coined "common names" for very poorly known organisms. This whale is known from 3 specimens for crying out loud. Nobody is running around having a conversation about the "spade-toothed whale I saw yesterday". Anybody who is talking about this organism is going to be doing so in a scientific context, and using the scientific name. Google hits: 2,390 for "Mesoplodon traversii"; 1,540 for "spade-toothed whale". Additionally, "spade-toothed whale" results appear to be HEAVILY composed of Wikipedia mirrors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 January 2009

Good point. --Swift (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a good point when made and an even worse one now. I think you should respect the common name given to it by the scientists who redescribed it. There's now sixteen recent articles and blog posts (and counting) calling it the "spade-toothed whale". It's a descriptive name and easy to remember, unlike the countless ziphiids named after obscure scientists. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Now it's 230 and counting. I think we can safely say it can be called spade-toothed whale now. Let's save another beaked whale from being named after a very obscure scientist! "Travers' beaked whale"? No thank you. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

We have no ability to "save another beaked whale from being named after an obscure scientist," when it already has been named after someone and when nomenclatural rules for naming organisms don't give a group of Wikipedia editors the opportunity to do so.

I'm talking about common names moron. "Travers' beaked whale" is very rarely used. Almost every single new article used "spade-toothed whale" or "spade-toothed beaked whale" when writing about this species. Perhaps you shouldn't talk out your ass. Thank you. Good bye. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IP editor, it appears that whale articles on en.Wikipedia use common names rather than scientific names. Your general argument against common names as ridiculous for such a rare organism is understood, and the problems with common names in general is also understood, but the common names are used for whale article titles on en.Wikipedia. However, thanks for taking an interest; the whale editors (some exceptions, obviously) are generally a good group to work with; please consider contributing by editing some of the articles. Thanks for commenting. -Fjozk (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

new specimen

http://news.discovery.com/animals/worlds-rarest-whale-seen-for-the-first-time-121105.html Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was already added to the article before you had posted this. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Date when external appearance was first known

More than one editor has reverted the 2012 date to 2010 on good faith. As the two specimens were originally thought to be Gray's beaked whale, the 2010 date can not be used as they hadn't been identified as spade-toothed yet. As such, the 2012 date of the paper should be used to be safe. Please do not revert before explaining why it should be changed here. Thank you. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

better illustration or photograph available?

The illustration used here for this whale looks very little like the photographs of the whale that I googled. 67.243.29.174 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)