Talk:Cephalopod attack

Marine life High‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Marine life, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on marine life. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Marine life To do:

Have a look at the Marine life WikiProject and sign up.

Here are some tasks you can do, as organized by The Marine life Wikiproject:

Collaboration of the week: Marine life article assessment
Other: See the projects page
Images: Upload any non-copyrighted marine life images to Wikimedia Commons
Featured Articles/Good Articles:
Other: Add {{Portal|Marine life}} to related articles

Cephalopods (inactive)

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

Problems[edit]

Article reads a bit like an essay. I fixed a glaring error in the lead paragraph:

"Creatures of the genus ‘’’’Cephalopoda’’’’ include all squids, octopi, mollusks, and the nautilus."

Obviously, Cephalopoda is not a genus. There may be more scientific inaccuracies like this in the rest of the article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides several nonsensical translations, this article relies on mostly sensationalist TV shows and disreputable books. There are also slightly ridiculous claims. It mentions a giant manta eating someone (which it couldn’t do if it wanted to as it only eats plankton) as well as Any number of others. It is frankly virtually worthless from an educational point of view, start to finish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swauden (talk • contribs) 15:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Giant squids and sperm whales[edit]

I added a citation needed tag because it said that the squids never kill the whales, but isn't that tough to say when this kind of action is never seen and we only see the aftermath? Wouldn't it be better to say something like a case of a whale being killed by a squid has never been documented? Cleanelephant (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. The article is one big mess in the first place. :/ -- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-editing[edit]

I'm not an expert on the topic, but I'm working on copy-editing the article and removing irrelevant information. Since I'm working on it on-and-off, it might take me a day or so. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Feel free to aggressively excise or tag unsubstantiated information.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the copy-editing, though I'll re-check the article in a few hours just in case I missed any details. Any feedback would be great—this is my first time editing anything other than a typo. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reads better now, far less "flowery" than the original. Don't really have any advice on English grammar and stuff though, as I'm not a native speaker myself :P but layout-wise, the subject of the article should be mentioned prominently in the lead and bolded.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split into "Octopus attack" and "Squid attack"[edit]

This article should be content split into "Squid attack" and "Octopus attack". Chrisrus (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Op47 (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different things. We don't merge wolf attack and dog attack and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are currently only a few sentences regarding legitimate Squid or Octopus attacks in this entire article, and crucial citations are lacking. It would not be helpful to have multiple articles on a very similar subject, each with 2 sentences (and should we then split Giant Squid and Humboldt squid attacks?). The articles of wolf attack and dog attack are more developed to stand on their own, but all three articles appear to suffer from a good deal of non-encyclopedic content and essay-like analysis. See also Wikipedia:Splitting guidelines. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would have to be much more developed before a split. But they are different referents. the difference between a Blue-ringed octopus attack and a Humbolt squid attack is much greater than, for example, a tiger attack and a bear attack. Chrisrus (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of material available and the sizes of the Octopus and Squid articles, if it is still felt inappropriate to have a single article, then perhaps the material should be moved to within those articles. Op47 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cephalopod attack. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110623184249/http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99FNF0O0&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99FNF0O0&show_article=1

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid's potential to attack people vs Sharks.[edit]

I know that giant squids almost never come to the surface, but if they did how would an attack by a squid differ from a shark. I know that sharks don't prey on humans as they don't have the high fat meat they need to keep going given the amount of energy they need. How is a squid any different? I hear that giant squids have 4 hearts and that could require alot of energy for them to keep going. In fact this article states that Humboldt squids are more dangerious, though I did hear about the 1941 incident(which was mentioned in this Wikipedia article.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141212-quest-for-the-real-life-kraken Graylandertagger (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ville de Paris Squid attack[edit]

Regarding "The French ship Ville de Paris participated in the American War of Independence. She sailed in the company of nine other ships when she was attacked by huge giant squids and dragged down into the deep" There is only a single source for this event, its an obscure source in Hungarian from 1936. The Ville de Paris' page makes no mention of the event. Unless there is another source found I think this line should be deleted. LienEmpire (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Common Octopus"[edit]

None of the alleged attacks listed in this section claim that it was a Common Octopus specifically that was responsible, and the sizes given are far more than would be reasonable for that species.. Iapetus (talk) 16:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]