Talk:Orca

This article forms part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans

---

The most common name of this animal is "killer whale". Orca is a scientific name for the species. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). --mav

Sorry to cause the work. My thoughts were directed at the double misnomer. These beasts are neither whales nor killers. A convention which reflects common usage when that usage is faulty reinforces old myths. Perhaps the easiest example for a Canadain to make revolves around northern first nations called commonly called Eskimo. This is a cree language slur meaning "eater of raw flesh". prefered terminology here is Innuit meaning "The People" in their language. Reflecting common usage is the role of a dictionary. Encyclopoedia are meant to enlighten. please accept my apology and post here to talk on the topic. I've looked at the naming convention now.user:T-zero

No work involved and no reason to apologize. We don't expect newbies to automatically know everything. BTW, many animals have incorrect common names; a mosquito hawk isn't a hawk and common grey pigeon is not a pigeon but is a rock doves. This is information best left in the article and not the title. What is important is that people first find the article they are looking for - then we educate them. I don't know enough about the Eskimo issue to comment. BTW I always thought that killer whales were so named because the killed whales and not because anybody thought that they were in fact whales. Anyway, I've gotta go. Welcome aboard! --mav 21:01 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

As an aside Mav you bring up an interesting topic, the pioneers of the American wilderness were a pretty ignorant lot and mis-named loads of things, it's caused headaches ever since. :-) Mintguy

I've seen "orca" used newspapers I think. There's a case for saying it's a lesser common name that may be on the rise. -- Tarquin 23:05 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

I agree, Tarquin. Orca seems to be gradually taking over. But the ugly Killer Whale is probably the more common of the two names still - which is a pity in two ways, as it also invites confusion with a couple of its relatives. Tannin 06:23 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Since there's a controversy over whether these are whales or even "killers", and since they're a big favorite amoung children who know them by their scientific name, I'm going to move this article to orca. --Uncle Ed 20:03, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Moved back. See talk above Ed. --mav 04:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But most people know them as killer whales, regardless of whether they are whales or killers, so the article should actually be at killer whale. -- Oliver P. 03:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would quite strongly suggest that Mav and Oliver are mistaken on this one, and that Ed, Tannin and Tarquin are correct. All popular (and of course scientific too) books on whales and whale-watching these days call them orca. All whale-watching tours say we are going to look for some Orca not Killer Whales. All popular nature TV programmes about whales call them orca. Even more general nature programmes call them orca most of the time these days. To call the article the older common name of Killer Whale because the proverbial man in the street is probably more likely to call it that is a mistake in my opinion - obviously we need to be helpful to the man in the street but this is what redirects and an explanatory paragraph on names are for. I plan to move the article back but will hang for a day to wait for further comment. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:40, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I decided to move it back. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Let's have a page-moving war! :)

In what way am I mistaken, Pete? Am I mistaken in thinking (a) that "killer whale" is the most commonly used term, or (b) that a Wikipedia article should be titled using the most commonly used term, or (c) that from the two preceding statements it follows that the article should be at killer whale?

(a) is actually supported by the statements of Tannin ('Killer Whale is probably the more common of the two names still') and Tarquin ('"orca" [... is...] a lesser common name'), if we disregard for now the issue of capitalisation, and it is not contradicted by Ed's statement (which was only about children). It may be that most nature programmes use the name "orca" (I wouldn't know, as I don't watch most of them), but their usage doesn't seem to have filtered down to most of the general public. I've just asked the first two people I've come across (not a random sample, admittedly), and both gave the answer "killer whale" when asked what those big black and white dolphin things were called. One knew that they had an alternative name that sounded a bit like "okra"; the other didn't know the alternative name at all! Only anecdotal evidence, admittedly, but since it supports my position I trust it. ;) Oh yes, and the New Oxford Dictionary of English has "orca" as just "another term for KILLER WHALE".

(b) is just a statement of the usual Wikipedia policy on naming conventions. Have a look at it, and tell me if you think I'm misinterpreting it. Admittedly, there's a bit at the bottom that tells you not to "overdo it" (a rather artificial addendum, effectively saying that people can be excused from following the convention if they kick up enough of a fuss), but in this case, it explicitly says that "widely-known common names of animals" should be covered by the policy. Our job as a neutral encyclopaedia is to report on how things are, not to try to force change upon people. If a term is the most commonly used one, we should use that, rather than trying to push one that is less commonly used just because a minority of people (however well-intentioned) would prefer their favourite term to be the more common one. We have to favour one usage over another in article titles, so there's no such thing as a NPOV title as such, but I think the solution closest in spirit to the NPOV ideal is to go along with the majority. As well as being arguably contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia, there is also a practical reason why using less common terms is unhelpful. People just won't recognise them! What finally convinced me of the usefulness of the policy (I fought against it in my early days here) was Camembert's argument at the bottom of Talk:Lewis Carroll: "people interested in Lewis Carroll but who don't know much about him might see Dodgson come up on recent changes and not take any notice, because they don't realise who it is". The same argument applies in this case, only more strongly, because the name "killer whale" is not just a pseudonym. And as well as not recognising the word "orca" in recent changes, they won't recognise it in any of the places where it comes up in other articles.

(c) I hope you're not questioning my powers of logical reasoning... :) -- Oliver P. 15:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fixed very sloppy move by moving this page back (many double redirects left). --mav 20:55, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My two cents worth would be to use "Orca" for the real page name not the incorrect "Killer Whale" term. Granted, most know it by the latter term and while I understand the "policy" to use it, I still don't agree with it in this case. RedWolf 21:39, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

(Replying mainly to Olly P). The choice is between the most commonly used term by the general public (most of whom couldn't give a flying fig about them whatever they are called) or the most commonly used term by people who DO give a fig. If a recent-change-watcher were knowledgeable about whales, they would be more likely to contribute to a project that called them Orca (as Killer Whale would just sound amateurish) in recent changes. This probably at least outweighs the loss we get from "man in the street" happening to notice Killer Whale on recent changes and suddenly having the urge to find out about them. If policy is to have the article name to appease people who know nothing about a subject at the cost of irritating the people who do, even when we have redirects an opening paragraph that explains, then it is worth re-evaluating this policy. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:25, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On another note, we did not have a "page moving war". I made a comment that I wanted the page at the other location, waited for a day, NO-ONE said anything despite the key players in this discussion visiting Wikipedia during that time. Only when I moved the page did anyone do anything (revert straight back)... my Wikietiquette has been fine thanks very much. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:25, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

Mav, are you ok with the article being at Orca if I fix the double re-directs? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:25, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)