Talk:Bottlenose dolphin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Common species?

75.68.252.96 23:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC) I'm not at all sure that the bottlenose is the most common dolphin species (I won't argue that it is the best known, since so many of them appear in aquariums and in popular culture). Please cite any figures you can find on the "most common" claim. From what little information I can find (all sources list dolphins as very hard to count), the Common Dolphin is substantially more common.

Too Big?

I don't know, It just seems odd that the "Bottlenose Dolphin" article is much bigger than all the other dolphin articles (Except the main "Dolphin" article). It just seems wrong that a good portion of the article is information on dolphins in general; not just bottlenose dolphins. If you don't understand what i'm saying, look up a differen't species of dolphin (such as the "White Sided Dolphin") notice how short it is in comparison to the Bottlenose Dolphin article. 75.172.238.134 (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Bumble(The Dolphanatic)

Untitled

I was suspicious about the Laguna, Brazil claim but I found some fairly direct evidence here: [[1]] (it's in portuguese, but it clearly describes the behaviour indicated and it's from a local tourism source). Sbwoodside 19:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've seen very similar behaviour on a my spaceÁ documentary. It was definitely somewhere in South America, so that helps a little with backing up the claim too. Pcb21| Pete 21:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There exist reports in the scientific literature; see this page in the comments for a citation and abstract. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 10:43 28 February 2006 (PDT)

I call (cuss word) on this

"Bottlenose dolphins are difficult to detect with radar and sonar. Even when detected by an enemy, a dolphin is likely to be dismissed as a harmless sea creature. Navy scientists fit the dolphins with equipment that amplify their natural sonar pulses, and relay the information back to Navy Intelligence. The equipment strengthens the dolphin's sonar burst; giving the dolphin enhanced scouting abilities, and can even allow it to inflict damage on medium density materials such as low-grade steel, carbon-plating, and wood. This has proven particularly effective at detecting, and disabling underwater intruders including small drones, mines, divers and even ships and submarines that use naval stealth technology."

Yes I do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.135.74 (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Media reference

You've been referenced!

The internet free encyclopaedia Wikipedia gives a more measured view.

It says that bottlenose dolphins - the type that helped in Northland - are known for their "friendly character and curiosity". [2] - 203.35.154.254 00:16, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool! I've returned the favour by using the NZH as our reference for the shark attack story which I believe is worth a mention here. Pcb21| Pete 07:57, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Is "Bottlenose Dolphin" a proper noun? Why is it capitalised all through this article? silsor 04:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain; there has been some debate over capitlization of common names of animals. Apparently many in ornithology capitalize avian names (at least field guides do). I personally think it looks silly and is in contrast to every encyclopedia, book, and journal that I've ever seen—at least for mammals. If no one objects I think we should lowercase "Bottlenose Dolphin" and move this article to Bottlenose dolphin. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:35, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is ongoing debate as to whether the common name of a species should be capitalized. It's always true for the Bird articles, and other WikiProjects have adopted the usage. Part of the distinction comes when using the term to refer to the species as a whole, as opposed to individual members of the species. Part of the distinction comes from refering to a common characteristic of the animal that also appens to be the name of a species. In this case, there are several species of dolphins with bottlenoses and they can all be called bottlenose dolphins, but only this one species is called the Bottlenose Dolphin. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds for the lead arguments for case. The WikiProjects for Primates, Cetaceans, and Cephalopods are also following this format. Others are not. - UtherSRG 05:10, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should leave it as it is. "Bottlenose dolphin" looks weird... It should be called either "bottlenose dolphin", which is impossible, or "Bottlenose Dolphin", which is. --Ihope127

On second thought, "Bottlenose Dolphin" should reference the species of mammal while "Bottlenose dolphin" should be the species of dolphin... and therefore this would simply be a section of the Dolphin article. </twistedthoughts> --Ihope127 1 July 2005 00:16 (UTC)

First of all, please sign your "talk" edits with ~~~~. Second, please read WP:CEPH for information on the capitaliation of cetacean articles. - UtherSRG July 1, 2005 01:11 (UTC)

Sorry; I wasn't logged in. And I'll read that link... --Ihope127 6 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)

It seems to be a topic of discussion that re-errupts every now and again. There is a recent flourish of debate at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Capitalization. There is also a naming convention page at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), but I suspect not everyone agrees with it. Personally I'm ambivalent. -- Solipsist 6 July 2005 21:33 (UTC)

Requested move

The requested move from Bottlenose Dolphin to Bottlenose dolphin failed. The discussion is archived here. enochlau (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation for bisexuality

It would be nice to have a citation for

Janet Mann, a professor of biology and psychology at Georgetown University, argues that the common same-sex behavior among male dolphin calves is about bond formation, and benefits the species evolutionarily. She cites studies showing that dolphins later in life as adults are bisexual, and the male bonds forged from homosexuality work for protection as well as locating females to reproduce with.

Male Bottlenose Dolphins have been observed working in pairs to follow and/or restrict the movement of a female for weeks at a time, waiting for her to become sexually receptive. The same pairs have also been observed engaging in intense sexual play with each other.

AxelBoldt 21:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a publication listed as "in press" on Mann's home page that looks likely to fit. "Mann, J. In press. Establishing Trust: Sociosexual behaviour and the development of male-male bonds among Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin calves. In P. Vasey and V. Sommer (Eds.) Homosexual Behaviour in Animals: An Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge University Press." -- Wesley R. Elsberry 10:55 28 February 2006 (PDT)

Okay I don't understand why you people always seem to want to invade animals' privacy, I mean really, if we humans consider that kind of stuff to be private to us what difference does it make if it were an animal? Personally I always wonder how they feel about our sneaking-a-camera-and-recording-their-most-private-moments-and-showing-it-on-national-TV like a lot of nature shows like to do. And besides, I don't really think they are actually committing this same-sex behavior, I think it just looks like it (-;. 75.172.238.134 (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC) Bumble (The Dolphanatic)

Sound production

The laryngeal hypothesis is dead. Dormer's cineradiographic study of 1979 pretty well excluded it, then the Ridgway et al. 1980 study on intranarial pressure and electromyographic activity provided strong evidence excluding laryngeal production. In 1999, Cranford et al. used intranarial pressure and video endoscopy during an actual biosonar task to show that the tip of the larynx remained closed during sound production and that only interference at the level of the phonic lips actually interrupted sound production. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 10:49 28 February 2006 (PDT)

Human/dolphin cooperation

The article currently reads, "A unique collaboration has developed in the town of Laguna in south Brazil:"

The "unique" label is wrong. Such cooperative fisheries also exist in Africa, and have been reported through recorded history. --Wesley R. Elsberry 18:26 21 March 2006 (PDT)

Thanks for the report. I see that Axel Boldt has updated the article appropriately. Pcb21 Pete 10:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Lifespans and citations

There was a claim made that dolphin lifespans in captivity were inexplicably shorter than in the wild. The claim itself came with no citation, and was phrased such that it was far from NPOV. I reverted to an earlier version of the page. If the claim can be supported with reference to the scientific literature, then fine, it should be included. If all that the claim is is an anti-captivity talking point, then it doesn't seem appropriate here. Wesley R. Elsberry 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Bottlenose in fiction

Perhaps it's just me, but is it really needed to include things like the two star trek episodes where they happen to mention dolphins or a simpson episode? Flipper or Ecco the dolphin I can very much understand, but some are much too trivial for the article in my opinion. Besides that, this article is about bottlenose dolphins while in many cases just "dolphins" are mentioned. BabyNuke 12:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that section grows and grows and contains lots of irrelevant stuff. Maybe chop it down and move it to dolphin? That's probably where most people would look for it anyway. AxelBoldt 21:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all minor references and/or those from which I can't tell if they're bottlenoses or not (I assume 'Roxanne' from the Zeus and Roxanne movie to be a bottlenose from the poor screencaps I could find, same goes for 'Darwin' from SeaQuest). I don't feel there's any need to move the others to the dolphin article as that list is long enough already. BabyNuke 10:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Tool use?

Anthropologists generally only consider tool use the modification of natural resources. Simply using an object without changing it in some way doesn't qualify. Therefore, an ape using a rock for a purpose doesn't meet this criteria unless the rock is changed to better suit the purpose. I would think that dolphins wouldn't be any different, but I'm not an expert on the subject. Maybe someone else is. I think it should be looked into since it seems to be a rather bold claim. Tuna027 06:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's ok. It is explained in the article what the dolphins do and if it is or isn't a tool is in the end nitpicking over definitions. Besides, how else to put it? "Object use"? Plus, I quote from the tool article: "Philosophers once thought that only humans used tools, and often defined humans as tool-using animals. But observation has confirmed that monkeys, apes and other animals, mostly primates, but also some birds (ravens, for instance), and sea otters can use tools as well. Later, philosophers thought that only humans had the ability to make tools, until zoologists observed birds[1] and monkeys[2][3][4] making tools." - the way that is written seems to allow for unmodified objects to be seen as tools if used as such. BabyNuke 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Retarded notion

The issue has been solved.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"The salt water makes them hard to see both from above and below when swimming." Salt does not impart color to water, WHAT! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.70.187.76 (talk • contribs) . Agreed. Changed statement. BabyNuke 17:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New category

I think the articles for the bottlenose dolphin and other marine mammals should be added to the existing category "Hairless Mammals," but I wanted to hear input from others instead of just going ahead and making the additions. Does anybody agree? Phoenix Flower 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because marine mammals are actually not entirely hairless; they actually have just enough hair to cover up their genitals. Yes, really, I'm not kidding. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Dolphins

may you make a clip about dolphins please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.82.38.245 (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC). the bottle nose is named for it'snarrow snout wich is lined with small teeth shaped for catching and holding fish.

Please sign your comments (just type 4 of these: ~) and capitalize your sentences. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cognition research

In the article you mentioned that there was an experiment done where dolphins chose the panel with the greater number of dots. There has also been a published study with dolphins choosing the panel with the lower number of dots which is a more difficult concept. This study also corrected the panels for surface area so that they could ensure that the dolphin was not choosing the board with less white space, but with the actual lesser number of dots. The article is: Understanding of the Concept of Numerically "Less" by Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus). Journal of Comparative Psychology. Vol. 119, No. 3, pages 296-303. It can be found on the web at: http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib204/Jaakkola_et_al_2005.pdfNealie21 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you also seen any source articles on syntactic understanding? According to a marine biology course I took in 2009, bottlenoses are the only animals aside from humans with full syntactic understanding. So, reliable literature to say that must exist in at least one of the zoological databases. Anything we find, we might as well stick it in the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Reference link

There's a missing reference for the dolphin recently found with four flippers. Here is an article for the source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401230.html For some reason I can't start new discussions OR edit the references, so if someone could add it in for me, that would be great. -_- Milk.hermit 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Non consensual sex?

the dolphin article says that male bottle noses sometimes commit non-consensual sex. Is this true? There's no mention of it here, and in the source on the dolphin page, it is not mentionned either. It either needs to be added here with a decent source, or taken out from dolphin. Capuchin 12:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

This video good enough? Watch the last part. BabyNuke 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait,what would a video have to do with this topic?(If it is showing Dolphins mating than count me out! I personally think there's no reason to have to watch something that I don't really care about and I think deserves privacy just like we would want privacy too)75.172.238.134 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)Bumble(The Dolphanatic

Well, they do sometimes have sex for fun and not just for reproduction. I haven't ever heard of any dolphin rape, but then again I don't claim to know everything. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@BabyNuke and The Mysterious El Willstro: Some relevant information about this topic has been found, but it has not yet been added to this article. See the discussion here. Jarble (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jarble: Wow a reply to something from 2007, heh! Anyway in the discussion you linked to it's more about dolphins engaging in sexual behaviour with people, not so much the sexual violence between dolphins, which is what this question was about. The Dolphin article does briefly mention this topic, though doesn't go into detail. But I don't think it's exactly a common thing for Bottlenose Dolphins to be doing so I don't think it warrants much attention in this article. Besides, even though people have had sexual encounters with dolphins (and well beyond "foreplay" as suggested on the other talk page), good luck finding acceptable references! Somehow I think Wet Goddess isn't exactly scientific enough to serve as a reference and I'm sure wikipedia would frown upon a link to a bestiality website for more "graphic" evidence.BabyNuke (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Behavior

The first sentence of the behavior section needs a little bit of work. I'm not an expert on dolphins, so I don't feel I can contribute here, but I thought I'd point it out.

24.68.238.82 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I reordered and properly referenced the first paragraph of the section. Additionally, I have created a new heading titled Respiration and Sleep as the paragraph did not belong under Behavior. Ecirphr (talk) 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering there is no Section with the exact title "Behavior," I dare say it would need work. If any of you would like to create such a Section in the Article, you can. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Fish whacking"

Sometimes dolphins will employ "fish whacking" whereby a fish is stunned (and sometimes thrown out of the water) with the fluke to make catching and eating the fish easier.

Hard to know if this is true or is somebody's notion of a joke. Could a reference be given? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can find whether or not sonar waves can stun, that should clear up the matter. (Dolphins are not electric eels, after all.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

We have several capitalization choices in naming this creature. I started editing to reflect my initial reaction ("bottlenose dolphin"), but I gave up because I'm not so sure, and the article is all over the map on this one.

A particular breed of dog would be capitalized, such as a "Great Dane," but it wouldn't be a "Great Dane Dog;" rather either a "Great Dane" or [rarely] a "Great Dane dog." (More common would be a "Great Dane pup" and not a Pup.) A Holstein is a "cow," not a "Cow," and a Siamese is a cat, not a Cat.

So what do we call it?

• Bottlenose dolphin (this seems correct to me)
• Bottlenose (this seems equally correct)
• bottlenose dolphin (this could be correct, especially since there are several types of them)
• bottlenose (and therefore this could be correct)
• Bottlenose Dolphin (this seems wrong)

I realize I haven't cleared this up much, with 5 choices and only one listed as seeming wrong...any thoughts? Isaacsf (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The standard for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans is to use Bottlenose Dolphin. Please see the project page for the rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Not to stir up trouble, but I infer from that link that "Bottlenose dolphin" would be correct:

"The name of a group of species is not capitalised; birds, thrush family, kingfishers, turtle doves, marsh harriers." (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds.)

I think "dolphin" would fall into that category, i.e. whale, dolphin, porpoise rather than capitalized. Isaacsf (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

• various {{fact}} tags should be taken care of.
• I'd like some additional cites under Reproduction
• the large cite banner under Cognition alerts everyone to a problem - please add at least two cites, then remove the banner
• I'd recommend integrating the trivia section and/or re-write it in paragraph form to make it less messy and list-like.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Corvus coronoides _talk 14:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And the lead is far too short. Delisting. Richard001 (talk) 06:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I took care of all the issues described above. Rlendog (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cortical neurons

I'm not sure the paragraph about cortical neurons should be excluded. The information is specific to Bottlenose Dolphins. It was not treated in depth - it was about 2 sentences. And while the link between cortical neuron count and intelligence is unproven, the count provided is factual and most comments about dolphin or cetacean intelligence necessarily have some element of speculation. Rlendog (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Elephants (estimate for both species) have far more neurons than Bottlenose dolphins AND apes. Elephants are actually the closest to humans as they have 12.5 billion neurons (the same source says humans have 17.4 billion). This source was the Neuroscience and Behavioral Review 32 (2008) 96-98 from the ScienceDirect site and the article is "Large Brains and Cognition: Where do Elephants Fit In?".The duskydolphin (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting, since the Article currently says humans have 11.5 billion cortical neurons, not 17.4 billion. At any rate, Rlendog rightly pointed out that the link between cortical neuron count and degree of intelligence is unproven. The alleged link is probably an oversimplification, in fact, since chimpanzees and elephants do not exhibit something called full syntactic understanding, which is common to both bottlenoses and humans. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Learned/Cultural Behavior

I've added another example of 'cultural' behavior on the main page in the 'Tool use and culture', referencing a recent BBC article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7570097.stm . Please feel free to comment on it and edit it as appropriate. --Crs12 (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Significance

Instead of "Flipper" references (or rather: ahead, not nec. instead of them) there should be a section about the historic view and role of dolphins. The ancient Greeks and Romans gave the dolphin near-mythical status (as a savior of drowning seamen et al.), and probably many cultures before and after that, too. There must be some reasonably important pieces of art or literature devoted to the dolphin from those times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlaurson (talk • contribs) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure those were necessarily Bottlenose Dolphins. Common Dolphins and Striped Dolphins also live in Greek waters, for example. So this information may belong more in a general dolphin article than in an article specific to Bottlenose Dolphins. Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio?

I hid some of the content in the "Bottlenose Dolphins and humans" section; it appears to be copied from the last section of Bottlenose Dolphin at Animal Corner. These paragraphs will need to be put in our own words before re-added to the article. Perhaps the controversy over travelling shows is worth a mention as well when the information is restored. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 14:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bottlenose Dolphin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Under review. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "Bottlenose Dolphins live in groups that can number more than 100 animals, but are usually much smaller." How about a range? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- range provided. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From "Description", paragraph 1: "The Bottlenose Dolphin is perhaps the archetypal dolphin." Original research? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- revised and sourced comment. Rlendog (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

From "Description", paragraph 5: "Bottlenose Dolphins can live for more than 40 years." Is this the average lifespan? Is there a difference between captive dolphins and wild dolphins? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- This is a maximum lifespan. I think this is clarified by the additional info I added on wild dolphins, where I explicitly noted the "average lifespan" in the study. I'd like to say coluclisvely that the 40+ years is from captive dolphins, since it probably is based on the lifespan of captive dolphins whose dates of birth and death are known, but there could be census data on wild dolphins that confirm this. I haven't seen explicit references to this however, and I think the additional information on wild dolphin census should address this issue adequately.Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy": "the Common Bottlenose Dolphin ... colour sometimes almost blue". Colour sometimes almost blue? This needs clarification. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- clarified; color is grey but shade varies; bluish grey is one of the possibilities. Also added reference for that and the Indo-Pacific BN Dolphin description and range. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In the "Taxonomy" section, what about the two North Atlantic ecotypes? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- added discussion. Rlendog (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From "Taxonomy": "The taxonomic situation of these animals is likely to remain in flux for some time to come." This requires a reference, otherwise it is original research. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- removed comment. Rlendog (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

In "Diet", can we have a reference for the second paragraph please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- refs added. Rlendog (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From "Respiration and sleep": "A dolphin is able to exchange 80% or more of its lung air with each breath; contrastly, humans are only able to exchange 17%." This is misleading and untrue. Does it refer to alveolar volume, tidal volume or vital capacity? The value quoted for humans is incorrect, whichever of the three it refers to. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I am not sure which definition this is referring to but I found several references to both the 80% for dolphins and 17% for humans (in some cases this is expressed as a range of 10% to 20%). See [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] The last few may be copied from each other to some extent, but the first two seem independent of the rest. Rlendog (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I did revise the wording a bit and add a couple of refs, if that helps. I could also remove the specific range for humans and just state that the dolphins lung air exchange is "much greater than that for humans", if that would help.Rlendog (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- I revised the discussion of respiration relative to humans

based on information I found in the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. If the above sources are not reliable, I have not been able to find the specific reference to the 80% and 17% in a reliable source, so I removed the statistics. Rlendog (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From "Reproduction", paragraph 1: "The female has one genital slit, housing the vagina and the anus." Is this a cloaca? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think this qualifies as a cloaca. I've never seen it described that way, for the bottlenose dolphin or any other cetacean. And the dolphins have separate urinary and intestinal tracts; it's jus that the openings from those tracts (or the penis and anal opening for males) are hidden behind this separate slit in the skin (presumably to provide a smoother ventral surface for swimming, and to protect the sensitive organs from cold water).Rlendog (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

From "Cognition": "Such research has been ongoing from the late 1970s through to the present, and include the specific areas of: acoustic mimicry,[48] behavioural mimicry (inter- and intra-species),[49] comprehension of novel sequences in an artificial language (including non finite state grammars as well as novel anomalous sequences),[50][51] memory, monitoring of self behaviours (including reporting on these, as well as avoiding or repeating them),[52] reporting on the presence and absence of objects, object categorization, discrimination and matching (identity matching to sample, delayed matching to sample, arbitrary matching to sample, matching across echolocation and vision, reporting that no identity match exists, etc.), synchronous creative behaviours between two animals, comprehension of symbols for various body parts,[53] comprehension of the pointing gesture and gaze (as made by dolphins or humans),[54] problem solving, echolocative eavesdropping, attention, and mirror self-recognition." This long sentence should be split. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- Listified and parsed the long sentence. Rlendog (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

From "Tool use and culture", paragraph 1: "Rendell & Whitehead have proposed a structure for the study of culture in cetaceans,[59] although this view has been controversial (e.g. see Premack & Hauser)." Can we have an in-line citation for Premack & Hauser? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- ref added Rlendog (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For "Natural predators", paragraph 1, can we have a reference please? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- refs added Rlendog (talk) 02:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, "Interaction with humans", paragraph 1 requires a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- ref added Rlendog (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. I am about to leave for vacation for a few days, and so will have limited (or no) computer access for the next few days. I will try to address these when I get back, probably over next weekend. Rlendog (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Great work!

Excellent work so far Rlendog! [I'm impressed that you found some time during your holiday for this.] Thanks for providing the lung volume references. I'll relist them here for clarity:-

1. ThinkQuest
2. 2dolphins.com
3. Bottlenose Dolphin Facts
4. SeaWorld
5. ThinkQuest [Duplicate link]
6. Saving Dolphins [Source acknowledged as "SeaWorld"]
7. Dolphinaris

None of these are reliable sources. They are all wrong. Only "2dolphins.com" actually indicates the type of volume measured; it's apparently the tidal volume. Wikipedia's article on "Lung volumes" is accurate, indicating a tidal volume of about 500 ml in a total lung capacity of 6 litres, i.e. 8–10%. It is grossly misleading to suggest that the dolphin's higher relative tidal volume (80%) makes it more efficient than a human's. I'm not going to digress into a physiology tutorial (unless asked). I'll need to have a closer look through the references.

There are a couple of other places where references would be helpful:-

In "Taxonomy", could we have a reference to the distinction between "Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin" & "Black Sea Bottlenose Dolphin"?

•  Fixed -- Added citations referencing each of the subspecies. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In "Reproduction", paragraph 2, can we have a reference to courtship behaviour?

•  Fixed -- I revised the paragraph and provided references.Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From "Reproduction", paragraph 5: "The young live closely with their mother for up to 6 years; the males are not involved in the raising of their mother's subsequent offspring." I'm not sure what the second part of this sentence means. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Fixed -- I reworded the sentence and removed the part about males. I suspect it meant that the male does not form a long term bond with the female that continues for multiple births, but I don't think the sentence is necessary in light of the rest of the description of the mating process. Rlendog (talk) 05:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The only other outstanding problem is the long sentence in the "Cognition" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Still working on this one in my sandbox. I've listified the sentence, but I think the list could still use some parsing. Rlendog (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Just addressed this. See if the revised format works. Rlendog (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

It is well-written, accurate, broad in coverage, neutral, stable & appropriately illustrated.

My congratulations to Rlendog. For future improvement, the references should be examined more closely; some of them may not be reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New subspecies named: Southern Australian bottlenose

Outdated Discussion Section. Subspecies elevated to species. Go to the "Tursiops australis" Section below instead.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
New species named. From NewScientist: Luciana Möller of the Marine Mammal Research Group at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, and her colleagues were studying populations of what they thought were Indo-Pacific and common bottlenoses in southern waters. DNA analysis, though, revealed that most the animals living close to the shores of the states of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania were in fact a new subspecies, belonging to a new genus. "They look very like the Indo-Pacific species, but genetically they're very different," says Möller. Maybe Bottlenose Dolphin should be a disambiguation page to link to the three species named Bottlenose? Jack (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC) Ultimately, I expect that this page will become the Tursiops page or the "Common Bottlenose Dolphin" page, as more subspecies are identified. I suspect that this "South Australian Bottlenose Dolphin" may be the first of many. And the taxonomy of even the previous two seems a bit messy, since some would apparently put the Indo-Pac BN Dolphin into Stenella. But since all the currently named and future identified species have been for many years just considered "Bottlenose Dolphin", there is a need for an article covering "Bottlenose Dolphin", rather than making user guess which article they really want. And, for now, the information is integrated anyway, since it is not always clear which species was the subject of research in the past. While this page is essentially covering the Common BN Dolphin, it does need to address the other species because the data is combined. Of course, a general BN Dolphin article should have links to the indivdual species pages (as this one does for the Indo-Pac species, but not yet to the new species unless that was recently added). So we probably ought to see how the taxonomy plays out in the near future, and see if this new species and genus are even accepted before deciding how to reorganize the Bottlenose Dolphin articles. Rlendog (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC) The new subspecies would not have been named as above, they are specious names that refer to their verifiable names in the accepted nomenclature. Facts relating to the species and/or genus can still appear, but the unrevised application of 'common names' to these becomes ambiguous and dubious. cygnis insignis 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Clarification: The proposed species has not been named and is undescribed, but a mention (or article sans taxobox) could be included in our document. The paper cited in the news story is Multi-gene evidence for a new bottlenose dolphin species in southern Australia Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49 2, November 2008, Pages 674-681 Luciana M. Möller, Kerstin Bilgmann, Kate Charlton-Robb and Luciano Beheregaray. The species has been given a common name, Southern Australian bottlenose, but as is often the case this does nothing to disambiguate it from Hyperoodon planifrons (Southern bottlenose whale). Note that I had to link the accepted name to explain that potential confusion, the fact that common names 'whale' and 'dolphin' are interchangeable are claimed or denied in various articles on wikipedia! cygnis insignis 03:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Split

I rewrote the taxobox as a genus. This means there is no taxobox for Tursiops truncatus (Common Bottlenose dolphin?), the article should be split to expand upon each species. Shoehorning the valid descriptions and names into articles with 'common names' does nothing to clarify the current and previous circumscriptions of the genus (or genera), our articles should explain this rather than dodge the issue. cygnis insignis 01:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move (2)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Bottlenose Dolphin → Bottlenose dolphin — This article is about a genus, the common name for a genus is not capitalised (see Long-nosed bandicoot/Long-nosed Bandicoot, Howler monkey, Tomato frog/Tomato Frog etc.) The species was recently split into two separate species and this article remained as the genus page although mainly dealing with the Common Bottlenose Dolphin (which should subsequently be renamed as Bottlenose Dolphin -- but that's another discussion) — Jack (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Agree on moving this title to "Bottlenose dolphin", since it is now a genus page, not a species page. Do not agree with moving "Common Bottlenose Dolphin" to (capped) Bottlenose Dolphin for the reasons discussed on that page - I think it would add a lot of confusion (e.g., what would we call T. truncatus within this article?) for little purpose, since many reputable authors who have written since the T. truncatus / T. aduncus split have use the name "Common Bottlenose Dolphin" for T. truncatus. Rlendog (talk)
• Support Common practice to de-cap genus articles. However, IMO, I would prefer see genus articles plural (Bottlenose dolphins) to avoid further confusion, but I don't know if this has been previously debated or not. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Why invent a peculiar and confusing folk taxonomy for article titles on " Bottlenose (Bottle nose, Bottlenosed) dolphin, where the rank is indicated by case, when there is a perfectly viable alternative? We should do what every reliable source does outside of wikipedia, and conform with our policies of NPOV, V and NOR. The following groups have many common names, with their variants of case and spacing; these names refer to one or all of them, and others in Delphinidae.

Genus: Tursiops - Bottlenose dolphin

Species: Tursiops truncatus - Bottlenose Dolphin

Subspecies:Tursiops truncatus truncatus - BOTTLENOSED DOLPHIN?

Not sure this is the place to suggest this, try WP:TOL. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is cited everywhere. It is the proper title and definitive name. Is the folksy system you suggest as authoritative? Has it been put forward at TOL? cygnis insignis 17:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Common names have been discussed thoroughly at TOL; WP:MAM and WP:BIRD consistently name articles at species level by their common name, higher taxa are more variable though if there is a sole common name that is used. Popular opinion may have shifted, so state your views and ask for consensus at TOL, this really isn't the place to discuss it. Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more than aware of those discussions, they give little or no credence to the policies I mentioned. The quote you have given elsewhere has done nothing to support this position, the arrangement of the work only supports the accepted taxonomy. That is not the issue here, you appear to be acting as a nomenclator, my first unanswered question is rhetorical, the second is not. Has this bamboozling system been seriously proposed and accepted at TOL? cygnis insignis 18:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed through WP:NC (fauna), consensus: each WikiProject can do as it pleases. Jack (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikiprojects are not fiefdoms, to paraphrase another user, they are subprojects in our community. The articles can be in the scope of several of these, and their conventions vary. None own articles, despite the way they walled gardens that inhibit the improvement of our document. The suggestion that this gives one, or perhaps, several editors carte blanche to make stuff up is obviously incorrect. cygnis insignis 18:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, please take this discussion up in the appropriate place. I'm closing the discussion now, as the move has been made. Jack (talk) 19:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Omnivores? Carnivores? Herbivores?

Are the Bottlenose dolphins omnivores (meat and plant eater), carnivores (meat eaters), or herbivores (plant eaters)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.77.98 (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC) Christie

kakamusheeh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.71.121 (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate revisions/statements by Users

Instead of improving a current edit, administrator Stemonitis continuously reverted a page, over and over again, along with another user, creating an Edit War. Attempts at engaging in a collaborative resolution were met with accusations of racism and trolling, among others.

This is unfair to any who wish to edit or add contributions, whether deleterious or not, when they'll just be removed instead of improved. The statement "This article was stable until you came along" in the edit notes is extremely offensive, along with replies on Stemonitis's talk page. The statement "Groups of humans participate in dolphin drive hunts" is not, as we're the only species to do so in such a manner, along with other edits made by myself, which when viewed from an unbiased standpoint can obviously be improved, cited, and better-stated instead of immediately deleted due to over-controlling and self-presented arrogance-driven deletion.

Thank you.

98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits were not reverted because other editors are controlling this article, they were reverted because they are unsourced, add your POV to the article, and involve original research. None of those things belong on Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Than why were they not sourced instead of reverted, neutralized instead of deleted?

98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Of note also is that the parallels between dolphin drive hunts and the Holocaust, as well as the adaptability of dolphins to human-induced threats of murder and chemical pollution, are extremely well-drawn and fine examples, the only ones currently that I can think of. If a better example can be made, than please do. 98.89.62.107 (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, they are extremely poor parallels. There is practically nothing in common between hunting or fishing a wild animal for its meat and a politically-motivated genocide. The motivation is different; the techniques are different; the desired result is different. Dayewalker and I are in complete agreement that your edits stray far from the necessary neutral point of view. You are also wrong to place the onus of referencing on other editors. That burden falls to the editor making the edit; if you cannot back up statements you wish to add with reliable sources, other editors can (many would argue, should) remove those statements, even if they were true. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So the slaughter of sentient beings with complete disregard to their sentience is a poor parallel? I couldn't really think of a better analogy, and instead of completely destroying a constructive edit, both you and Daeywalker could, and should, have added and edited the article to a more neutral comparison instead of being deleterious to the edits of another user simply because you don't agree with what was said. Also, the means, reasoning, and end result of opportunistic predation of dolphins is quite commonly to completely remove the perceived threat of competition through mass-slaughter of a specific group or species. 98.89.62.107 (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand our statements. I will repeat that the onus to provide good references for each statement added lies with the editor adding them. He or she has no grounds for complaint if another editor removes unsourced material on the basis that it is unsourced. You continue to use emotive words where neutral ones would suffice, both in the article and here ("slaughter" rather than simply "killing", for instance). Emphasising their sentience has no particular relevance to the hunting section, any more than it has in various other sections. ("Despite their sentience, the diet of dolphins consists mainly of small fish, crustaceans, and squid" would be an obvious non sequitur.) Yes, they are intelligent animals; yes, they are hunted; but to juxtapose the two is a clear example of a novel synthesis. It adopts a particular point of view (that hunting more intelligent animals is somehow more objectionable than hunting less intelligent animals), which it does not balance or qualify. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit in question is clearly not appropriate or encyclopedic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 09:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Tursiops australis

I just started a new article on the Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops australis) which is being reported today as a third distinct species in this genus: New dolphin species discovered in Victoria (ABC News), Researcher discovers new dolphin species in Victoria (Monash University). I'm not a biology expert, so I'm not sure what is the most appropriate way to include it in this article, i.e. if there is consensus there are two species. There seems to have been some discussion above in 2008 about a possible new species (at the time named "Southern Australian bottlenose"), from research by Kate Charlton-Robb who has named this species, so I presume this was referring to research on the same dolphin. --Canley (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The paper is published in PLoS ONE here: A New Dolphin Species, the Burrunan Dolphin Tursiops australis sp. nov., Endemic to Southern Australian Coastal Waters. --Canley (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Start Autoarchiving soon

Can we please start Autoarchiving this Talk Page? There are some very long-inactive Discussion Sections that are still not Archived. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

"Common"

On March 3, 2012, a single edit removed the word "common" from the article, creating recursive links and general confusion as to genus vs species [10]. I have manually "reverted" the edit, as it appears to me that "common" was appropriate everywhere it was. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

the bottle-nossed dolphin can eat orca calves?

the bottle-nossed dolphin can eat orca calves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.10.189 (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC) if the bottle nosed dolphin can kill spotted dolphins so the bottle nosed dolphin can kill and eat orca calves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.239.51 (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it or isn't it?

The article say "the following are sometimes listed as subspecies". And goes on to list ones such as t gilli. Either its a subspecies or its not . Can't this site make up its mind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeybeesongfan (talk • contribs) 12:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Three references are provided for the two statements. The first reference is Mammal Species of the World, which lists Tursiops truncatus gillii and T. t. ponticus as subspecies. The second reference is Catalog of Living Whales, which describes Tursiops gillii/gilli as a distinct species. The third reference is Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna, which describes T. t. ponticus as a subspecies. I was unable to find any references that describe it as a species. Therefore I have moved the information about T. t. ponticus up to join T. truncatus.

The categorization of populations is often debated by biologists, and different authorities may have different opinions. Wikipedia (and its editors) do not decide which one is "right", but report the conclusions of reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Newsflash - when different "authorities" can't agree, they're not authorities. They're just people with opinions. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Bottlenose dolphin

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: There is clear consensus to keep this. Any remaining flaws can be discussed on the talk page, but they don't appear to justify delisting at this point in time.Challenger.rebecca (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is in need of major renovation if it is to remain GA. A request was placed on January 27, 2016, and it's really needed since the article was promoted 5 years ago.

• There are [citation needed]s all over the place, some dating as far as 2009. "Description", "reproduction",

I replaced all the citation needed tags.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Senses" - sentence beginning "When under water, the eyeball's lens serves to focus light," i s uncited.

Cited   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Nearly every section has one or two sentence paragraphs that break the flow. "Interaction" and "cultural influence" in particular are jumbled messes.

I don't see it, could you explain a bit more?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Under "Taxonomy", the "Some recent genetic evidence..." line; under "Description", the "Bottlenose dolphins can live for more than 40 years..." line; under "Anatomy", the "Bottlenose dolphins have 18 to 28 conical teeth..." line. "Interaction" and "Cultural influence" also read choppily, with lines like "Therapies for handicapped children can include interactions with bottlenose dolphins" and "The Miami Dolphins NFL franchise uses the bottlenose dolphin as its mascot and team logo." standing alone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with stand-alone sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Many citations are incomplete, particularly #6, #15, #18, and #70, in tthis revision.

I fixed the ones mentioned above. I'll look through the rest of article for more later, I'm a bit busy right now.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• What makes list25 a reliable source?

Replaced   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty busy this week. Could this wait until the weekend? I'll try to fix what I can throughout the week.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep Dunkleosteus77 I noticed the following few issues. I believe these can be fixed easily and the article need not be delisted. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• I suggest that citations not be used in the lead. The facts in the lead must all be mentioned in the main text as well - the citations should thus go to the main text.

removed

• There are a plenty of duplinks:

• Hybrids: Atlantic spotted dolphin
• Description: dorsal fin
• Anatomy: rostrum, dorsal fin
• Cognition: artificial language
• Tool use and culture: rostrum
• Reproduction: Shark Bay
• Social interaction: Sarasota, Sardinia
• Relations with other species: False killer whale, Risso's dolphin, Atlantic spotted dolphin, rough-toothed dolphin
• Predators: sharks
• Interaction: great white shark, Brazil, Mauritania
• Threats: Immune system

Fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• The citations should have a proper and similar format, preferably using cite templates. Ref. no.s 5 and 52, for instance, could be formatted better. In places we have sources like wiu.edu- it is better to say Western Illinois University. Check for such cases.

fixed

• There are some unsourced parts in Anatomy, Predators, Cultural influence and Conservation.

fixed

• The image of the head under Anatomy could be shifted to the right; it looks clumsy.

moved from the left side to the right side   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep for the exact same reason as SainsF. I also see two other very simple issues:

• "Interaction" section is in too many paragraphs

fixed

• Fix the who tags

fixed

-Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support delisting - there is honestly not a lot to fix if I was doing the GA review today, but there are some source issues and minor stuff. Notes below  MPJ-US  04:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
• use   between measurements and their units.

template {{convert}} is used

• Spell out "ml" the first time ml is used

done

• Source problems, Dead sources

• 64, 69, 35, 59, 108

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Subscription Required

• 97

added

• I agree with the "interaction" section, it's too many short disjointed paragraphs to really be easy to read.

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Changed to Delist - the GA toolbox tool revealed a major copyright violation as far as I can tell. if this had been a GA candidate it would be a quick fail.  MPJ-US  04:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Where is the copyright violation?

@MPJ-DK: Yes, could you please point out the copyvio? Which tool are you referring to? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• What tool? The one that's in the GA Tool box, DYK Toolbox - Earwig's copyvio detector - Result here. It is showing that large parts of the text matches this article from 2013. It is showing large blocks of text as being identical, not just specific terms or names or titles either.  MPJ-US  12:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't that have been taken from the Wikipedia article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure how we would be able to tell who copied who? it' not a wiki type site but it's definitly possible. MPJ-US  01:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)`

@MPJ-DK:, according to WikiBlame, some of the "plagiarized" passages were present in a 2012 revision, a year before the indicated published date of the website. The website copied information already present on the wikipedia article.   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

In that case, our article should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep - yep I jumped the gun, since there are improvements being made etc. I change my vote to keep then.  MPJ-US  11:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

• Keep if identical text on another website was taken from here, delist if our article is a copyvio. Also, I think the citations in the intro are unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A further point, I think the species should be listed in the taxobox. Just saying "see text" is almost an insult to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

added

It seems you have added subspecies of a particular species instead of the three full species mentioned in the intro. Likewise, "Species: Tursiops truncatus" should be removed form the taxobox, as this article is a bout a genus, not that particular species, which is covered at Common bottlenose dolphin. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

done

• Keep Had I come along and seen this when it was originally listed for re-assessment then I too would have supported delisting. But some really excellent work has taken place during this process. Based on the information in the article appearing prior to the other website (which should be detailed on the talk page of the article in case any reader has the same query) then I can support keep. The very, very minor issue I have is the size of the paragraphs for Taxonomy section appear unbalanced and I'm never a fan of sandwiching text between two images. But that's me, not the GA criteria. So keep. Miyagawa (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
• @TenPoundHammer: Do you have any more comments?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Dunkleosteus77: The one-sentence paragraphs still bother me a bit because they break up the flow and make it read choppily. Other than removing a non-notable cultural reference (it was redlinked and cited only to a primary source), I felt nothing else needed a change now. Good job. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
• Obvious keep: Another example of minor problems that could be = fixed in a single editing session being used as the basis for delisting. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Too keep or not to keep..

The whole article gives information that is well developed and descriptive of the Bottlenose dolphin. There is a few things I would change and one of them would be the section called "Intelligence." This section I believe can be either be separated into two other different topics that it tides to and those topics being The Physiology and Senses section or to the section on how the dolphins are related to humans. There is also a lot information that does not need to be directed to another article, when it can either be described in full without the need of being referred somewhere else or just not speak about it at all. One thing I would add to this article is to fully describe where each species of Bottlenose dolphin can be found, instead of showing a map in the corner that describes in total where all the dolphins can be found. One thing I would not change about this article at all is all the images that it demonstrates of the dolphins and how each picture has a description and ties to the section of the article. Jmarroquin12 (talk) 02:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This question might be better placed under Homo Sapiens. I'm not sure we're smart enough yet to write an online encyclopedia that actually helps people. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Bottlenose dolphin. 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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://acsonline.org/factpack/RissosDolphin.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.robins-island.org/dolphins_database.php?filter=Sea_World_California
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000059/Herzing%20Moewe%20Brunnick%20final.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/learnconcepts/whale.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://nationalzoo.si.edu/ConservationAndScience/AquaticEcosystems/Dolphins/AboutDolphins/Reproduction.cfm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23362100-5005961,00.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.crru.org.uk/research/papers/eisfeld_thesis.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://thebdri.com/resources/downloads/Diaz.Lopez_et.al_JMBA.UK.88.6_2008.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/dolphins.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/topstories/topstories/view_article.php?article_id=105831
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/115-5/focus.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/115-5/focus.html This link can not be found. Jmarroquin12 (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Lots of Fancy Words - But not a word on Evolution

I searched this entire "article" and couldn't find a single word about how long this species has been around. Doesn't someone know how long they've been around in terms of evolution in their (relatively) current form? How can we have endless discussions about citations and quotes, and leave out the vital information someone might actually be interested in knowing? If we can use a big word to discuss brain size, surely, someone out there with a big enough brain can give us an estimate of how long these creatures have been around. I've read it elsewhere, but right here is where we ought to be able to find it. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bioe124L.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)