Talk:List of giant squid specimens and sightings

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of giant squid specimens and sightings. 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/20060513063118/http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/IMAGES/plum_island_map.gif to http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/IMAGES/plum_island_map.gif
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060808193447/http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/squid_Architeuthis.html to http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/squid_Architeuthis.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tonmo.com/forums/filedata/fetch?id=290608

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: 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) 14:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of giant squid specimens and sightings. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tonmo.com/forums/forum/cephalopod-species/cephalopod-species-by-family/architeuthidae/1453-living-architeuthis-photo?p=144746
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007020337/http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?search=1&searchtxtkeys=Giant+squid to http://piclib.nhm.ac.uk/results.asp?search=1&searchtxtkeys=Giant+squid

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: 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) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Page length

This page is 721,961 bytes long. That's far to big. What's the best way to split it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the only solution to this article is to delete it, per WP:TNT, and start over. The table is basically useless and I don't see any way to modify it to something encyclopaedic. I intend to eventually send this to articles for deletion if nothing substantive happens. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Delete it and start over? That's your solution? This is a meticulously sourced list (literally everything is supported by a WP:RS) on a notable topic (such lists have precedent in the scientific and popular science literature) that is of considerable interest to both the general public and researchers in the field. I can split it sensibly if you give me a chance (I have some ideas), but I can hardly see how you can justify throwing the baby out with the bathwater. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I strongly welcome ideas of splitting the article and I think you should have a generous amount of time to do so, and I'm willing to help if I can see a way to do so. Deleting would be a last resort but content would be retained to make a new article if that were to happen. I'm just completely overwhelmed by the table and wouldn't know how to begin to split it up, so I would be glad if you could make sense of it. Surely there needs to be fewer columns though. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I take your point on the number of columns and how this makes the table rather unwieldy. I can see at least three columns that could be easily got rid of by merging information in adjacent columns. I'll get on this shortly. mgiganteus1 (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I should also point out that the rows are far too wide but we will get a better idea of that as columns are removed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope my changes will address both of these issues. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

What I meant regarding the ocean sector is that it's not really necessary if the general location is given anyway. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC) The final column, "Notes", also doesn't seem to really belong here but I'm not certain what to do with it. Many entries have much more information that is justifiable, while others have none in that column. Is this information elsewhere on Wikipedia? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This is to be expected. Some specimens have very little published information, while others are highly notable and much discussed in the literature (e.g. first specimen to be filmed alive, type specimens, specimens on public display in museums, etc.). The variable length of the notes reflects this. And no, this information won't be anywhere else on Wikipedia (except for very brief mentions of a few specimens in the main giant squid article). mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As for oceanic sectors, this breakdown is followed in the scientific literature when discussing giant squid records (see the first table in the article) as the vast majority of recorded specimens come from a few "hotspots" (Japan, New Zealand, northern Spain, Newfoundland, South Africa/Namibia) which neatly fall into one of the quadrants. I deliberately enclosed the oceanic sector acronyms in curly brackets to make them unique search strings so that a search for e.g. {NWP} quickly gives an idea of the temporal spread of records and their total number. mgiganteus1 (talk) 10:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That seems like a very WP:FANCRUFT addition to the article. Can you explain why I shouldn't delete columns like the "additional sources" one? Surely you can't just be thinking of merging them into one column, there are far too many sources as well as too many columns. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The oceanic sector breakdown is that used by numerous scientific sources (published in academic journals and elsewhere) for presenting and discussing records of giant squid. It's not my invention and it's not "fancruft".

I've put a great deal of thought into the selection of references. It's not as if I've tried to collect every reference out there; some of the more widely reported specimens literally have hundreds of newspaper reports on them. I've only included sources that have something to offer in their own right (viz. information not covered elsewhere). Though the "Additional references" generally provide less in-depth coverage than the "Main references", the information presented on each specimen is taken from a combination of the two, and therefore removing the "additionals" would leave some of the content unsourced. You want the article to be shorter so that it's easier to navigate? The table narrower so it displays better? Great, these are legitimate concerns. But they can be addressed without removing valuable information and sources in the process, and changes need not be made in haste. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The way you've added it though is what comes off as fancruft. You've said that it's there so that they can be easily searched but it wouldn't occur to most people to do that sort of thing. There definitely should be less sources used and less detail given in the notes. How do you intend to split the article? I'm also curious what other ideas you have. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Now 732,759 bytes... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, I will try to split the article shortly. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The page is now 510,384 bytes long, which is a good start, but it's still far to big. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I will further reduce the size of the article shortly. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed the column for sex on the basis of it being disused. There are only a few entries where the sex is detailed and I don't think this is an important detail either. Given the size of this table, clearly something has to go. I also would like to bring attention to the bizarre pattern and scale of the citations used here, they take up far more room than would be expected for an article like this. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2019 (UTC)