Talk:Beluga whale

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Cetaceans (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans articles

Arctic High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Mid‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: Physical geography High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

On the top of this page...

I think it would be nice if it was noted early in the text that the word "beluga" comes from the Russian for "great white" (ca. 1580's) as noted in etymonline.com. Apparently I don't have permission to edit the article. (Mikeyg Rocks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeyg rocks (talk • contribs) 04:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noted two problems with the Beluga article and I think someone is tampering with it. It states that belugas eat mainly human flesh - obviously ridiculous but I am not a marine biologist and don't want to replace one error with another.

It also states belugas reach sexual maturity in 8 days, 5 for females. Again obviously reidulous but should it be 8 years? I don't know what is correct.Fhdubois (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there is a message that says "See this article" with a ghost-link. This is ridiculous! 66.32.76.38 23:04, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by ghost-link? You mean the red link to the Beluga sturgeon? That is simply an article not yet written. If you know anything about that fish go ahead and write something there, and the ghost link will become a real link. andy 23:06, 7 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Whale?

The article calls them whales several times, but the lead 'graph does not. If it's true, it should be in the lead; if not the body should be fixed. --Jerzy (t) 02:16, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

The short answer for they are a whale. Longer windedly - a whale is a cetacean that isn't a dolphin or a porpoise. If you check out our dolphin page you will see there are lots of usable definitions of a dolphin. The most natural one is "the family Delphinidae plus the river dolphins." Thus beluga is a whale. In practice however most people don't care to categorize it one way or the other; they just call it a beluga and be done with it. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:12, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and naming

The picture part of the page seriously needs cleanup. Perhaps there should be a link to a beluga pictures gallery. It ought to be fixed. It looks ugly and not very encyclopedic. And the Naming "paragraph" is one sentence. I think someone ought to add etymology. I'll probably do that myself at some point; I know where the name came from. But it needs expanding.--Belugaperson 19:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the naming section a little bit, but I think that more information would be helpful. --Horatiohornblower 05:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

russian word?

Beluga - the word derives from the Russian beloye meaning white one. (from Introduction)
The name Beluga is derived from the Russian word belukha, meaning white (from naming)

I kinow that Russian is a complciated language and thus perhaps these statements are equally valid, however they appear contradictory and confusing. Can a consensus be reached? Perhaps by someone with a verifiable source? --Brideshead 14:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no contradiction here. Belukha (alternatively: beluga) is the Russian word for the animal itself (according to the Russian Wikipedia). It derives from the adjective belyy which means "white". I clarified that in the article. Kpalion 14:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beloye is an adjective, meaning "[ this thing is ] white". Belukha is a noun derived from this adjective, meaning "white creature". 213.87.137.208 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taxidermy and Stuffing of the Beluga Whale

I'm assuming this used to be taxonomy, so I'm changing it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.23.77 (talk)

Gulf of St. Lawrence

The Beluga whale is also found in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in eastern Canada. It is considered an endangered population. These Beluga whales also wander in the Saguenay fjord. Maybe the map should be updated. Reference: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/species-especes/species/species_belugaStLawrence_e.asp [ 207.134.187.165 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC) ][reply]

More on distribution

Belugas are relatively abundant throughout the Sea of Okhotsk. I added the info in the article, but it should also be reflected in the map. - Eliezg (talk) 03:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why does "Beluga" cover the mammal?

according to OED, the first (more prevalent) meaning of Beluga is " 1. A species of fish: ..."

shouldn't "Beluga" redirect to the sturgeon page then? Or at least Beluga should lead to disambig page, while this page should be renamed "Beluga whale"

Anatoly.bourov (talk) 15:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polar bears and stranded beluga

I believe that the paragraph marked "citation needed" regarding polar bears and captive belugas is referring to the Frozen Seas episode of The Blue Planet by the BBC. The program shows such a situation. --24.130.63.18 (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Status

The Beluga's conservation staus, per IUCN (see {{IUCN2008| assessors=Jefferson, T.A., Karczmarski, L., Laidre, K., O’Corry-Crowe, G., Reeves, R.R., Rojas-Bracho, L., Secchi, E.R., Slooten, E., Smith, B.D., Wang, J.Y. & Zhou, K.| year=2008| id=6335| title=Delphinapterus leucas |downloaded=[[2008-10-07]]}}) is near threatened, not endangered. Why are some IPs changing the status to endangered? Rlendog (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that some subpopulations may be considered endangered but that does not constitute the species being endangered. The taxobox represents the conservation status of the entire species, which is near threatened.Rlendog (talk) 23:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population, threats, and human interaction

The inclusion of Sarah Palin's opposition to the listing of the Cook Inlet population under the Endangered Species Act is relevant, well-cited and should remain. This wasn't a passing notion - the Palin administration submitted 95 pages of data and comments to keep the whales off the list, despite a drop in numbers from 1300 in the 1970s to about 375 currently.136.186.1.189 (talk) 03:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant, excaept because she is running for VP. If she weren't, no one would think to put it there. So it's politics, not relevant. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that makes it not relevant how, exactly? Her opposition to this particular listing was certainly relevant to its delay. Unfortunately, politics can have considerable bearing on environmental issues but, that aside, the issue here is the particular listing of a particular animal, which Sarah Palin personally and politically (and unscientifically) opposed - her position is what gave her this power. I didn't place this information on account of the politics (which are actually irrelevant to me, as an outsider), but I question your removal of it.136.186.1.189 (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's to be removed because articles should remain at the unaltered state until a disagreement is resolved. I disagree with your edit. Second, naming Palin in the edit is the part that is most irrelevant. I'm no lover of Palin, but it is best to keep as much politics as we can out of biological articles. Please don't undo my revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I won't undo your revert, I think Palin's role truly crossed over from politics to natural sciences, at least in terms of its effects. The six month delay was purely at Palin's instigation and, had the non-listing been achieved, it would have been a triumph of political interest over natural science - Palin's denial of the crash in numbers, in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary, could have been the death knell for this population. The only reason I'm not reinstating it is because she was ultimately defeated, even by her own party, on this issue.

In terms of the disagreement, it would have been good to bring this here first, rather than just reverting my first edit - I still don't consider the grounds were there for doing that, as this information is central to the articles cited.136.186.1.187 (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Interesting Article!

I very much enjoyed reading this article. Marine biology is a subject that I find very fascinating! -- Bill Sapperton —Preceding undated comment was added on 06:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I find this a highly irrellevant comment, thank you for your support, but do not voice your personal opinions on th article, as we try to maintain a neutral point of veiw here on Wikipedia (By the way, this IP is really the now retired Belugaboy, so you know.) 24.15.175.163 (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing reference to pathogens

The section on "Pathogens" contains this sentence:

Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae gram positive/variable bacilli, likely from contaminated fish in the diet, can endanger captive Belugas, causing anorexia, dermal plaques, and lesions.

I don't understand the first few words at all. The passage apparently refers to Gram staining of bacteria, but that's not explained to the reader. There's also no explanation of why this feature of the bacilli is of any importance in understanding the Beluga whale. I'm replacing that passage with a wikilink to Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae. Elaboration of this point can be made there if it's important. Goodguy2 (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population discrepancy

the article on baffin bay claims a population of belugas of 120,000 there alone. i am not sufficiently knowledgable to correct it, but one of the articles is clearly wrong, and wp looks foolish in the process.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CETA capitalisation discussion

}}

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Not moved. Jafeluv (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beluga whale → Beluga (whale) — This page was recently moved from there with the reason that typing the parenthesis was too much of a bother. This animal is by all accounts generally referred to as a "beluga", not as a "beluga whale". A redirect from "beluga whale" makes sense, though. --Swift (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The vernacular name of this species is "beluga", not "beluga whale". This may even be the primary topic for "beluga". Ucucha 11:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Qualifiers should only be used when absolutely necessary. I don't see the qualifier as necessary, especially given full text is possible. IMO, the WP:COMMONNAME is beluga whale, not beluga.--Labattblueboy (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IUCN and MSW 3, two of the most trustworthy sources on mammals, both give "beluga" as the vernacular name, not "beluga whale". Could you please cite sources to support your assertion that "beluga whale" is the common name for this animal? Ucucha 16:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I had said it was principally my personal opinion, but I'll respond nonetheless. "beluga whale" produced 871 sources hits in google books. I personally prefer google scholar hits because it presents some insight into the citation index. "beluga whale" produced 3,340 hits in google scholar and "beluga whales" produced an addition 4,200. Then there are organizations like the Alaska and Inuvialuit Beluga Whale Committee, aquariums [1], National Geographic[2], WWF[3] that may not be reliable sources onto themselves but a demonstration of colloquial usage when relating to a non-scientific organization. My point is the terms in widely used and its generally preferable to use a complete name that is unambiguous then to disambiguate (WP:NCDAB).--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the fish and the things (such as the plane) named after these two necessitate the name Beluga (whale). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-It is unneeded for the parenthases, as I stated in my Move Explaination. Kept as Beluga whale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belugaboy535136 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Necessity isn't the issue. See WP:COMMONNAME. --Swift (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree. given the request is to disambiguate, an assessment of necessity is entirely proper.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is beluga whale, as contrasted with beluga caviar, and people actually use the term "beluga whale", so parenthesizing the whale portion is disadvantageous. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that "beluga whale" is more commonly used to refer to the animal than "beluga"? --Swift (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying your reasoning is faulty, since WP:NCDAB states that you should avoid using parenthetical disambiguation when you can get by with a more complete name; One reason for this is that someone would actually wikify beluga whale or type it into the search box, whereas beluga (whale) will need to be a piped link, and no one will type it into the search box, so serves no advantage, and is in fact disadvantageous. "Beluga whale" is fairly widely used term, and does not suffer from the parenthetical disuse fault that your suggestion does. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The editing guideline you refer to says that an equally clear and unambiguous title may be used. The guideline furthermore also suggests using parenthesis as well. These options are not ordered according to preference and therefore don't suggest one over the other. The example provided, the Delta rocket actually redirects to Delta (rocket family).

Your utility argument doesn't necessitate the beluga whale location, either. A redirect would accomplish the very same.

Finally (again); Are you saying that "beluga whale" is more commonly used to refer to the animal than "beluga"? --Swift (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swift, trust me. I've been to almost every aquarium that houses beluga whales, and they all say "The beluga whale...," not "The beluga..." So, thus, moving is opposed. Belugaboy535136 ^talk 12:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Ucucha noted to Labattblueboy, you need sources. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for example, the article isn't Beluga (caviar) or Beluga (sturgeon). As I stated, no need for the parenthesis. Belugaboy535136 ^talk 13:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of "need". Please read WP:COMMONNAME. The food is at beluga caviar, the fish at beluga (sturgeon). Either could be disambiguated the other way, but we should follow vernacular use there as in here. --Swift (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Aquarium and Shedd Aquarium among others all use "beluga whale," not "beluga (whale)." I doubt many zoos & aquaria have ever heard of the sturgeon. --Belugaboy535136 ^contribs 00:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

As a Bomb Target

Why nothing about the Canadian Air Force using them for target practice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.222.234.83 (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because you invented the idea, so it is not true. Only facts referenced by reliable sources should be added to WP. David Spector (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eskimo hunt

Read your history books again, there are no such thing as Eskimo populations anymore. There are people living in Greenland, but they are not Eskimos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.162.54.74 (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

unfused neck, attractiveness to humans

However ref name paine means a Sierra Club book, not Sergeant's article on body size, so I can't tell what the citation intended.

The citation for unfused neck in the Head and Neck section is: Bonner, W.N., title=Whales, isbn=0713708875, pages=17, 23–24, so I put that in the Captivity section Kim9988 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on Beluga whale

Cyberbot II has detected links on Beluga whale which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://j.smad.info
Triggered by \bj\.smad\.info\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Beluga whale. 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://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gJx0IzvRt6GWrUBb90Foe4URCGagD93SD0DO0
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.airbus.com/en/services/airtransport/

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: 5 June 2024).

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} 02:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

"There had been several vagrant individuals demonstrated seasonal residencies at Volcano Bay, and a unique whale were used to return annually to areas..." I can't make sense of this sentence. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Beluga whale. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 13:17, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A student in my class, Amelia Percival, logged into Wikipedia and edited this site on the Beluga Whale with her name in place of the whale's name as a joke.

I don't know her username for Wikipedia.

Doug French (dfrench23) Dfrench23 (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been fixed, but thanks for letting us know. Anaxial (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beluga whale. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Beluga whale. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 09:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal categories Comment

On 2017-09-19, an anonymous editor added (and Canterbury Tail deleted) a dozen categories for this article, for Mammals of North America, Greenland, Russia, etc. Canterbury Tail said, "rv good faith, not really suitable categories for a whale. Those categories are for mammals native to those lands, whales are sea creatures and other whales aren't categorized into country or land categories.

I was not the anonymous editor, but I agree with him or her. These are good categories for the beluga article to be in. Belugas live in interior coastal waters, such as the St. Lawrence River, Hudson's Bay and among the islands of Canada, Alaska, Russia, Greenland, etc., as well as deeper oceans. Furthermore non-interior coastal waters over the continental shelf are also part of each continent and country. The Category:Mammals of North America already includes pilot whales, right whales, harbour porpoises and otters, which also live over the continental shelf. I think readers would go to the category to find mammals of North America, and would be misled to have cetaceans excluded. Certainly the category is incomplete, but that doesn't argue for making it more incomplete. The Category:Mammals of Greenland has more hope of becoming complete one day, and it already has minke, humpback, narwhal, and seals. What do others think? Kim9988 (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm convinced. Canterbury Tail talk 20:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan hunting belugas?

At this writing, there is a sentence which @Lever112 inserted on 29 October 2018, saying:

Belugas are targets of Japanese research whaling as well. See Whaling in Japan.

This sentence has no source, the Whaling in Japan article does not mention Belugas (and did not on 29 oct), and I found no source saying it. I will remove the sentence, but if someone finds a source, please put it back in. Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese research whaling does not target belugas, according to the IWC's catch statistics. Thanks for removing. —grolltech^(talk) 12:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IWC does not track belugas as far as I know, so the question is still open. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are spaces around numbers needed in tables?

On 12 July 2018‎ @Sam_Sailor added spaces around titles and numbers in the tables, and gave this reason:

(Citation fixes per CS1; copyediting per the Manual of Style; tidy citations)

I find nothing in the Manual of Style on spaces around numbers, and WP:Manual_of_Style#Section_headings says

Spaces around the title (e.g. == Title ==) are optional and ignored.

I don't really care about spaces in titles, but I am getting ready to add more Russian data to the hunting table and want to know if there is a reason to add the fairly large amount of space needed to pad every number with spaces. It seems this would slow the loading of the page, which loads pretty slowly anyway, because of its size.Numbersinstitute (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is Special:Diff/849999610/850000544. It reduced the page with 46 bytes, so if anything load time would - highly theoretically - be faster, not slower. The spacing of figures in the table in § Beluga catches by location was inconsistent before, TMg's autoFormatter adjusts this. Sam Sailor 06:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I added the data without spaces, to save over a thousand characters. Not a lot, but seems no need to pad with spaces. Numbersinstitute (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Beluga Whale Abstract Painting.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Analysis Confirms Anomalous Skull is Beluga/Narwhal Hybrid

A new study published in Nature confirms, by DNA analysis, that the anomalous skull is indeed a first-generation male hybrid of a male beluga and a female narwhal. Should update Taxonomy section?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/science/narwhal-beluga-hybrid-whale.html?action=click&module=Discovery&pgtype=Homepage

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44038-0

Marc Sarrel 108.203.13.6 (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking ice with head?

The article says

the dorsal ridge "along with the head, can be used to open holes in ice up to 8 cm (3.1 in) thick.^[1] "

That reference is 177 pages long, and I can't find where it discusses breaking ice by the ridge or the head. The dorsal ridge makes sense, and the head could be used for pushing aside broken ice, but it seems doubtful that a soft melon would be good for breaking ice 8cm thick, since the melon would spread out the force over a large area, unlike the hard dorsal ridge which would concentrate force. Another source agrees that the ridge is used for breaking ice, but does not say that about the head. It says belugas have a

"tough dorsal ridge (used to break ice), and a rounded structure, called a melon, on the dorsal surface of the head, which is filled with lipids and facilitates echolocation" page 2 of Recovery Strategy for the Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas), St. Lawrence Estuary Population in Canada, 2012

Can someone find a reference for using the head to break ice? Interpreters at marine mammal parks often say so, and it may be true, but we need a reference, or we need to just say it is the ridge used for breaking ice. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Belkovitch, V. M.; Shekotov, M. N. (1993). The Belukha Whale: Natural Behavior and Bioacoustics (PDF). Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 7, 2014.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Canadian field-naturalist (1980) (20332437900).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian English

An anonymous user has been changing the language template for the article (shown at the top of the talk page) from Canadian to American English without consensus and without giving reasons. Canadian spelling of colour has been in this article since August 2003 and the Canadian template has been on the Talk page since August 2016 (there was no template before then). Canada is the English-speaking country with far more Belugas than any other. Futhermore the standards at MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN call for keeping the established Canadian spellings. Kim9988 (talk) 06:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poststub spelling (which is American) is per ENGVAR policy that sets poststub as Engvar. +Until the template was erroneously inserted, almost all spellings were "colors, behavior, kilometers, meters, percent" (percent is not Canadian) with no extra letters here, even the article subsections are exclusively "color/behavior": https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beluga_whale&oldid=604476724 Again, vast majority of edits have consistently been American since the beginning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beluga_whale&oldid=75938778 and almost all reverted edits since have been to reinsert "color," etc which had formed the vast majority of edits until the template was wrongly introduced, ironically without consensus or any discussion, so you'll save yourself a lot of time since vast majority of editors/readers (i.e. with internet) use US English.

Ironically, Canada also uses "color" frequently in print (books)/in commerce, even as company names. Per Bloomberg: "Canada Colors & Chemicals Ltd," "Colors Fruit Canada Inc" so color is also Canadian spelling. 1. https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/4627946Z:CN 2. https://www.facebook.com/canadacolorsandchemicalslimited/ per CanadaCorporate 3. http://www.canadacorporates.com/corp/405678.html and Bloomberg https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/6899837Z:CN even in official Canadian encyclopedias/documents/newspapers, "color"/colored": https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/black-volunteers-in-the-first-world-war Or even "Honors" on this prominent Canadian professor's resume: https://www.polymtl.ca/expertises/en/meunier-michel

+Alaska has lots of belugas too, not to mention that most belugas in captivity per capita are in USA or US owned aquariums/sea parks (Seaworld, etc). /You are ironically citing an American book to prove your point.

Instead, let's use "Coloration" as it's more neutral/is acceptable even in Britain (see "animal coloration" talk page).

If 1st poststub edits, majority of edits since then, AND Canada's usage are "American spelling" of "color," American spelling should be used. Besides, it lives in US waters too. I'm a big fan of compromise, so I agree with anonymous user's compromise of "coloration" instead too. Overall: sounds good! ---2600:387:A:9:0:0:0:47

Endagered Status Citation

In the side bar the Beluga is described as 'Least Concern' with respect to its endagered species status, while in the introduction (fourth paragraph, ending in "Of all seven extant Canadian beluga populations, those inhabiting eastern Hudson Bay, Ungava Bay, and the St. Lawrence River are listed as endangered.") describes the endangered status of the Beluga (along with that I assume are a number of sub-species). Note that this section appears to contradict the side-bar. Additionally, the side-bar listing comes with what seems to be a reasonable reference, while the contradicting section in the introduction has no citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.241.135.194 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Canadian field-naturalist (1980) (20332437900).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beluga catches by location

I suggest that the annual table showing the number of belugas caught in Canada, Russia, Greenland and Alaska each year, from 2016 back to 1954 be updated to show numbers up until 2020, at least for the Greenlandic catches. The last numbers for Greenland are: 2016: 203; 2017: 196; 2018: 213; 2019: 263; 2020: 189. These numbers can be found here https://nammco.no/topics/catch-database/

Thanks! MartinNAMMCO (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status

Why is the conservation status displayed as Least Concern? Is there something I'm missing? Winniemei (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[belko-1] Belkovitch, V. M.; Shekotov, M. N. (1993). The Belukha Whale: Natural Behavior and Bioacoustics (PDF). Woods Hole, MA: Woods Hole Oceanographic Inst. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 7, 2014.

[1]