Talk:Bigfin squid

Map?

Any chance of a map to show where sightings have been made, to give a rough idea of distribution as known so far? Thanks. 2A00:23C7:D8D5:C001:DC8:EBBB:AD4F:11E2 (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

We'd love to get a map going to combat the removal of our geographic list we have been working on. Unfortunately it's a bit tough to utilise a geographic distribution map for a genus with very few sightings. Brachioteuthis (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Possible video

Should be PD:

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/multimedia/video-playlist-ex2107-bigfinsquid/

©Geni (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

New Sighting

The EV Nautilus (who has previously had a confirmed sighting of Magnapinna). Should we wait on more coverage? https://nautiluslive.org/video/2026/07/29/magnificent-magnapinna-marianas CacheOverride (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

https://youtube.com/IdwT4XE88Yg?is=jox-KIaAbhJvtP56

Just stumbled across another sighting on YouTube, dated July 2023 ~2026-46398-99 (talk) 17:33, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

As a general note, this article should not be a list of every single sighting that happens, and the list in the article really should be fully removed to trimmed to sightings that can be reliably sourced as considerable as notable in secondary literature.--Kevmin § 17:49, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

This issue still lies in "how do you define what is reliably sourced". Video footage of a live individual certainly would be described as "reliably sourced" since nothing is more reliable than seeing it with your own eyes. Brachioteuthis (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"Perpendicular to the body" ?

The introduction, as well as the section Anatomy, each includes the claim that the appendages

"are held perpendicular to the body"

But however the appendages might be held, the phrase "perpendicular to the body" makes little sense.

I hope someone knowledgeable about this squid will improve the wording here so that it makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-38980-22 (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Species B & C information derived from peer-reviewed sourcing

To be very clear @Brachioteuthis:/IP editor (I'm guessing you are the same person, and HIGHLY sugest you edit while logged in, not as a variable IP), the actual prose about both B and C are still fully present in the article here. This should be very clear from actually looking at the Physical specimens paragraph. If/when they are fully described, stand-alone articles can be recreated from the redirects. However its has been long term Wikiproject Tree of Life and dughter projects policy to NOT have articles on taxa that are not formally named and described, with rare exceptions for heavy news/cultural coverage granting stand alone notability. @Donald Albury: was fully correct in their revert of the edit you made, and may have more advice for you on the situation. I mostly write on fossil plants and arthropods of the Cenozoic, do you know just how many informally named Genus sp. A, Genus sp. B, Subfamily sp C there are? Notibility is considered granted by official naming followed by database and peer authors takin up said name. Wikipedia is NOT and has never been a place to list indiscriminate raw data, a policy that has been in place for years. The list of sightings falls squarely under that heading. We understand its important data, but its data that should be maintained elsewhere, by researchers or enthusiasts. Additionally, as I already noted once, it feels that you may be an author on the paper you have been citing. Did you actually take the time to read wikipedias conflict of interest policies?--Kevmin § 18:46, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Greetings Kevmin

To answer the question at the bottom, no I am not one of the authors of the scientific publication, I am a cephalopod researcher within the wider cephalopod community as a whole, and we are very supporting of the hard work that others in our community do just as those are in say the fields of Paleobiology, Botany, Herpetology etc. So while I do support the work of all the publication authors, I am not one of them.

For "indiscriminate raw data" we would argue that it is the exact same as listing every movie that a celebrity has been in, technically that would classify as raw data. So, while you may view it as against policy, we strongly support and will stand by that peer-reviewed, and scientifically important information should be seen by all and as open access as possible

We have stated that despite the scientific merit of the prior "Sp. B and Sp. C" specimens, we will allow the removal of those out of respect, however we still would appreciate the stopping of the removal vandalism of an important piece of peer-reviewed scientific literature, which you claimed previously was "not original research" and we have proven that it is original research, which falls within the guidelines of the WIKI.

We appreciate your views on the subject, and we hope that we can do a half and half respectful keep one thing that is published literature and we will remove the stuff that is currently being work on, and will replace the species names once a full name gets put on Brachioteuthis (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not concentrate of articles about living things, but I have worked on a few such articles. My practice, which I believe is in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, is to mention putative unaccepted species when sources are sufficient, but to not include them in lists and tables of species. See, for example, Floridobia#Species, where I mention a couple of reported but undescribed species in prose after the table listing accepted species, or List of Zamia species#Partially accepted species where I mention a species with a published description, but which is, as of last month, was listed as accepted in only one of the five databases I consulted in creating the list of species. I will also add that I could see the point of listing known sightings of bigfin squid when there were half-a-dozen. There are now enough sightings that we should drop the list and instead describe in prose the range of such sightings, as supported by reliable sources (which do not include YouTube videos). Donald Albury 23:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I can absolutely agree that maybe there are different ways to handle things. Regarding the Youtube videos, it could be seen differently depending on the video (the channel of a research institution vs a video of some random person fishing off their dock or exploring a forest).

Maybe there needs to be better clarification in the rules, because they don't seem to be in a very stable spot if we are removing original research despite original research being the only acceptable thing allowed on Wikipedia (at least in the sciences). We also need to really recognise citizen science since that is just as important as any scientific research.

Overall the main issue here is just to figure out a way that we can maintain the hardwork that researchers did to provide that accessible data to the general public. I could see range being an acceptable solution, but we also are in a state where we still need to be careful about accuracy. I still think we should maintain the list since the evidence comes from scientific credited research institutions (if that comes from Youtube ROV dives that's fine), but we can remove any that don't come from professional accredited institutions, and won't add the locality for non-scientific institutions. Brachioteuthis (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Im getting the impression that you are not actually understanding what WP:OR says. Wikipedia has a very clear policy that it is not the venue through new data/information/observations are ever to be published. Peer-reviewed science papers are in fact highly grey area with regards to acceptability, with some rules such as WP:MEDRS ONLY allowing for metastudies to be used. Stand alone secondary and some tertiary sources are the preferred sourcing for articles. Thus what we are calling out here is the primary source nature of the videos, and the violation of WP policy on databasing style use of articles. The sightings list is something that should be maintained elsewhere, not on wikipedia. Just because we have an article for the genus, and is free for anyone to edit here does not make this the correct host location for the sighting data.--Kevmin § 02:28, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

Providing a list of specimens for very rarely observed species

I have noticed that there seems to be a huge lack in the understanding of how original research is treated, particularly within the Magnapinna wiki page. A list was made for this genus that displays locality information as well as ROV footage from research accredited institutions that seemingly is getting vandalised due to a possible misunderstanding. This has caused a major problem to not only the academic community, but the general populace that has found the list as a valuable scientific tool and was a great way to encourage citizen science. To keep this list from constantly being vandalised, we would like to discuss one of two options: 1. Keep the list exactly as it is enabling the continued learning of Magnapinna from the "Bigfin squid" wiki page OR 2. Keeping the list of Magnapinna sightings on a separate page entitled " List of Magnapinna specimens and sightings" and have that linked to the main.

While we understand that some people don't feel like it belongs here, that list has been constantly getting updated for at least 1-2 years and has it an excellent source of information, including being one of the few spots where that information is held, which means removing it entirely is simply not an option.

A potential THIRD option is that many cephalopod researchers are developing a website built around Cephalopod research (if you know TOLWEB it will be like that). Once that site is fully up and running, we will happily migrate that table over there, but until then it should be able to stay on the wiki.

We would like to hear what people think. Brachioteuthis (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said. This page has been valuable for me and many people I know in the marine science community and it is disgusting that anyone would seek to vandalize it. ~2026-47091-15 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

This list has been insanely valuable to researchers and the public alike, and the list on its own shouldn't violate any of wikipedia's rules. It is ridiculous that it is being attacked after just being a regularly updated list of information, on *wikipedia*, a place where information is regularly updated. This page has to stay up! Squidy Man (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The list should absolutely be restored, either as its own page or on the page for Magnapinna, I know the list took months (maybe even years) to get to the point it is now, and it's incredibly sad to see it get deleted. Malakos 187 (talk) 08:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-47091-15:, @Squidy man:, @Malakos:, may I ask how you found out about this discussion? It is unusual for accounts with no previous edits (or, in the case of Squidy Man, only one previous edit from six years ago) to show up in a talk page discussion, so I was wondering if any of you were notified in some way about this discussion. Donald Albury 14:54, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Notifying @Squidy Man: re above comment. Donald Albury 15:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Donald Albury I (as well as many other people) am from the online Cephalopod community (Instagram, discord, reddit, Twitter, Bluesky, etc). I heard about this issue through those sources and other people have as well. This is important to us, so it is spreading around. We actually use this webpage as a useful source of information. I dont see how this is any different from any other list article on Wikipedia. If it needs to be moved to its own wiki page, so be it. Squidy Man (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Notifying @Malakos 187: re above comment, corrected user name. Donald Albury 15:38, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@Brachioteuthis: Based on the response above from Squidy Man, it appears that you have solicited support for your position in an off-wiki forum. That is prohibited by the policy at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry. Comments from accounts solicited off-wiki may therefore be ignored in accessing the results of a discussion. Donald Albury 16:09, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

You wanted discussion and these are comments from people in the field who the list clearly benefits. I find it completely unfair for something to be removed when it clearly has benefits for the scientific and general consensus community. If something is clearly positive for the community, I fail to see the issue. We are sorry that the list of specimens does not benefit you, who maybe the list has zero impact on, but it has a positive effect on others. Brachioteuthis (talk) 16:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've checked for recent posts on Reddit and Bluesky about this page and found nothing recent. Haven't checked the other three social media sites mentioned though. However, it's clearly not as widespread on social media as was claimed. Brendansoloughlin (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes like I have said we didn't just spread things through social media. The people that usually know about these things generally are cephalopod researchers, and granted that is who the table impacts the most however the general public has been involved in the type of work before. Brachioteuthis (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

As a marine biologist, the list of Magnapinna sightings has been very helpful and I kept coming back to check on it whenever I saw a new observation on magnapinna archives or in the divestreams from Schmidt Ocean Institute, EV Nautilus and others. We need more lists like this for rarely observed species. ~2026-47363-16 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a large volume of hyperbole around the editing action I took, it should be noted by all the WP:SPAs that have come (@Malakos 187: & @Squidy Man: among the IPS), at no point did I DELETE the table. I used markup to hide the table in the live view, every single observation and data source was left untouched in the process. All that has happened is the table is no longer visible on the live page. The table is still very much in violation of policy on databasing, and any of you that has access to servers elsewhere can take copies of the data /table at any point. However bludgeoning the editor here to force a solution that goes against policy is not the way forward.--Kevmin § 22:07, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem still comes into play of... what you define as "databasing". Every single celebrity whether they are an artist, scientist, actor, musician, they all have a database of their work... do we just get rid of every single database on every single celebrity page? It's the exact same thing as listing every movie, tv show, theatre production an actor has been involved in. Brachioteuthis (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

If we go off the rules set aside by the policy on databasing it is:

1. Summary-only descriptions of works - Not a Summary-only descriptions of works

2. Lyric Database - Not a lyric database - Has nothing to do with songs

3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics - Has nothing to do with unexplained statistics

4. Exhaustive logs of software updates - Irrelevant in this case as well

5. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources - It has been Brachioteuthis (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I also want to thank all the people who came in to support the re-visible table of Magnapinna distribution sightings. Your views and reviews do matter regardless of if people believe that your views don't. Every single one of your views and thoughts does matter, how the bigfin squid page helped you in your own interest in this charismatic and rare genus of deep-sea squid, or if it helped you in your own research, always speak up. Please continue to be vocal about the heinous invisibility of this wonderful scientific addition to wikipedia.

Keep showing support because the Magnapinna squid page really needs all the support it can get to maintain the integrity it worked so hard for Brachioteuthis (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

No, encouraging people to participate to advance your position is specifically against policy, per WP:MEATPUPPET. Please stop this policy violating behavior. User:Donald Albury told you above that this is against policy. To any would-be meatpuppets who are here because Brachioteuthis requested you to come voice your opinion; if you post here in support of their position, you are actively working towards getting them blocked from this site. Further, your comments can and almost certainly will be disregarded in any consensus analysis. Brachioteuthis, you are not helping your position. You are actively harming it. Please, please, I beg of you, starting working with us rather than trying your hardest to work against us. PLEASE. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You want a consensus, everyone's voice should be allowed to be heard that's what a consensus is. I don't see why you are trying to hard to shut out the voice of so many people who utilise the sources you claim to protect. Brachioteuthis (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have done nothing but be polite to you, I have given you evidence, I have not threatened you with anything, and yet seemingly when I am simply defending something that is just the basic levels of integrity and honesty, you seem to always have an issue. We could easily have a civil discussion, but you seem to not want that. The thing I am asking for breaks no rules (I checked the databasing chapter) to which you all said it breaks the rules... and not one of those rules did that table break. I have read those chapters, and it seems at least based on the paragraphs I read, that no rule was broken. Brachioteuthis (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I was not discussing the database rules. I was discussing the meat puppet policy, which you are violating. I have an issue with you violating it because it is policy here. You've already made it clear you have no intention of following our Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit warring policies. Are you now saying you have no intention of following our policy at WP:MEATPUPPET as well? Are you going to continue to recruit people from offsite in an attempt to sway consensus here? If you have a problem with a policy, your problem isn't with me; it's with the policy. If you don't like our Wikipedia:Consensus policy and think it should be changed to permit voices from non-Wikipedia individuals, and/or if you think the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy should be changed to permit edit warring (maybe only by people who are convinced they're right? I don't know), and/or if you think that the WP:MEATPUPPET policy should be changed to permit off-wiki recruiting of people to agree with you, then your next steps for progressing that change is to make a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). That's how it's done. As for you supposedly being civil; you have been repeatedly calling good faith editors vandals, which as Jpgordon noted in declining your unblock request is a personal attack. Further, you accused these editors of being "power hungry" ; another personal attack. So you have now violated Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Edit warring, WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL policies. So far, your plan to get things moving in the direction you want to move has failed. I say the following as sarcasm, but not to attack you; rather to highlight that this is not working; how many other policies will you need to violate before people start agreeing with you? Do you see how absurd this is? Please, please, do. Again, PLEASE work with us. This strategy is not working. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes I know you were not, I misread so THAT I will take responsibility for because THAT was on me. I have already stated that I have no problem with the consensus rules, and since a consensus applies to people who know this page exists, and honestly the reality is, is that if something vital does get removed, it spreads fast. The only reason I have called good faith edits vandals is because of making the table hidden, with no information given to why it was in the first place, if a valid reason was in place, there would probably be no issue, absolutely zero, and the fact that it has been on this page for over a year and had ZERO issue, literally it has been merged onto this page since August 2025, totally verifiable, so why is it that RIGHT NOW it is an issue, why did other people accept to have it merged onto this page, if it was a problem they wouldn't have merged it, and just removed it entirely back in August 2025. I could say it's a personal attack to the people that developed that table without giving them a valid reason as to why people chose to hide it, but I won't because I'm going to choose to remain civil as I have this entire time.

While my strategy is not working (because there is no strategy) it's simply making sure that the integrity of information that has provided members of the academic community, citizen scientists, and the public audience remains easily accessible. I don't see why the removal of an important tool is so controversial, like there is pretty much zero negatives (you could argue it takes up space), but that's it, and at a certain point maybe the table would become defunct, but as of now because of the scarcity of specimens, that seems of little to no issue. I would LOVE to work with you, but I have to stand with scientific integrity and the passion people have for these topics, choosing to silence people is not the way to get people to stand with you. If you want me to stand with you, and change my mind, all I want is this. Give me one solid good reason why that table is a hindrance to the Bigfin squid Wikipedia page. If you give me a reason, and an appropriate one (none of this Meatpuppet thing) I will not argue and will let you do your thing and drop it. But just a single outstanding reasoning why that table is not useful for all audiences. I also will ask that you don't silence people in the future for voicing their opinion. If at minimum the one question is answered, and it is a valid reasoning, like I said I will drop it entirely, request my unblocking, and won't touch the Magnapinna table. We will leave it invisible. Brachioteuthis (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

One, NOBODY is trying to silence you. I am trying desperately hard to get you to comply with policy. Two, you haven't been civil as I have pointed out above; calling people vandals and power hungry is most emphatically NOT civil. Three, I don't care about the content dispute here. I have stayed out of it so that I do not carry the possibility of being WP:INVOLVED. I am interested in ending the dispute. Ending it doesn't mean you get your way and that's that. Ending it means stopping disruption to the article and getting you to comply with policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Well you have yet to provide a valid reason why the table should be made invisible to begin with.

1. You weren't silencing me, I'm fine with your comments addressing myself, the fact you are silencing other people who utilise these pages quite often.

2. If people don't want to be called vandals, then it's probably best not to partake in Vandalish behaviour; that means providing a clear and accurate representation of why something is not allowed, before just deleting willy nilly.

I have told you how this dispute would end and never happen again, provide a solid and well made reason, why that table should not be allowed on the Bigfin squid Wikipedia page... that's it. Just one simple question, and then it's over, I'll leave it be, but you can't just delete things without a valid reason. Brachioteuthis (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not silencing anyone. Anyone is free to come here and use Wikipedia. You are not free to recruit people from offsite in an attempt to sway consensus, per WP:MEATPUPPET. Again, if you wish to modify a policy, the place to begin is Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). I am not going to get involved in this content dispute to discuss with you the merits of including or excluding the table. Others have commented and given you reasons. You don't agree with those reasons. That doesn't mean the reasons don't exist. Insisting on calling people vandals is not going to help you. Their behavior was not vandalism, as has been repeatedly said to you by myself and others. At this point I think we're talking in circles. You say no reason was provided, but it's been provided. You say their vandals, but you've been told they're not. You say people are trying to silence others, but you've been told about WP:MEATPUPPET policy. You say you're not violating WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL, yet have been told calling participants in a content dispute isn't vandalism, and insist on continuing to address such people as vandals. And on and on and on and on we go in circles never ending. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok since you are not answering the simple question (and no I think the only reasoning I have seen has been based on either Databasing (which has already been proven false), or a lack of original research. Both of those reasons are proven erroneous.

But I will choose to be the bigger man, you have chosen to simply sweep things under the rug, so if that's what you want to do, fine you can do that.

I will drop it, not because you said so, not because of your threats, I will drop it simply to help maintain the integrity of what Wikipedia used to be and what it should stand for, which is to maintain accurate, valid, and truthful information to the general public. You can keep the table hidden, despite the lack of proper reasoning, that's fine. But for the future, you may want to provide the reason BEFORE you remove something, a little tip for the future.

Have a wonderful day. Brachioteuthis (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh one more thing before I go... As promised I will drop it. However, the reason as to why it took a full year for that table to be hidden should also be discussed among you and your colleagues. I don't need to take part in that because I know why it took a full year.

Enjoy. Brachioteuthis (talk) 02:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

As I explained to you above, I am not going to be involved in the content dispute here and thus I have no role to answer questions about the the specifics of the content dispute. I am not answering the question because I am not going to be involved in the content dispute. I am not sweeping anything under the rug. I am holding to WP:INVOLVED, another policy here. I will not be drawn into this content dispute because of this. You aren't the "bigger man" or the "smaller man" in this, nor am I. There's no score here, no winners, no losers. I am simply holding to policy, as I should. I'm sorry that's apparently not being conveyed well enough to you. You are welcome to continue discussion about this content with your fellow Wikipedians on this article, as I have encouraged you to do multiple times. If I might suggest, since you're not getting the answers you want, you may wish to make a request at Wikipedia:Third opinion for an outside opinion from someone who is not burdened with adhering to WP:INVOLVED as I am. That is also part of the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. Following that is working with us, which I encourage you to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

And I encourage you to treat people with a bit more kindness next time. I will take your advice and do third party to insure the integrity over the removal of said quality information.

I am sorry you could not simply answer a question as you were already involved in the dispute.

As stated before this conversation is over, have a good day, and I hope you take this as a learning opportunity, as I know I have. Brachioteuthis (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I was kind to you. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to get you to understand how we work here. Many administrators would have thrown their hands up in frustration and blocked you entirely from the site. I tried to educate you, showed you the things you needed to read, showed you how they were being violated and how to avoid breaching them in the future. As for being involved; I most emphatically have not been involved in the content dispute at all. If you think I have, and thus breached WP:INVOLVED, there's a simple way to prevent it happening again in the future. You can submit a petition to have me removed as an administrator for committing such a serious breach of policy. See WP:RECALL for instructions. If the instructions seem daunting, let me know and I can help you craft it. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I was more than polite to you as well, seeing how people view scientifically important information.

I will formally apologise to you because I understand that you may not understand how important that table is because other editors don't see it as necessary, but many people do. It's quite common to become defensive when people attack something that has done nothing but be a source of reliable information to thousands of people.

I am not going to report you, because I understand that while you may not understand the importance of why I want to keep that table visible, along with many MANY others, you have the right to your own view as everyone else.

Like I said I along with any other people who have found that table helpful will leave it alone as promised, but we do hope that before future actions on other pages take place, that you discuss with the community before committing such actions to prevent a loss of integrity and trust in your community. Brachioteuthis (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the table and don't care about how important it is or not. I am not involved in the content dispute. Since you seem to think I am involved, then reporting me as violating WP:INVOLVED is the next logical step. If you're not willing to drop that accusation without providing evidence of it, then I refer you to WP:ADHOM where it says "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.". I.e., you can either drop the accusation, or report me. You can't continue to make an accusation without a report with evidence, as this violates our WP:NPA policy. Since you seem to think I have violated WP:INVOLVED, then my blocking you from editing articles would be a serious breach of that policy sufficient to have my administrator privileges revoked and your block overturned. As to other pages, I don't know what "community" you are referring to. If you're referring to the Wikipedia community, it will decide what's best using WP:CONSENSUS as the basis for doing so. I don't know what, or if, any other articles have or will be affected and frankly don't care. I do care about disruption to articles, which is what was happening here. Thus, why I stepped in in my administrative role to stop the disruption. If the 'community' you are referring to is the scientific community, I rather doubt that any scientist worth their salt would be using a tertiary source in their research. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have been so nice, I apologised to you, and yet you continue to be hostile. I literally do not understand why.

I have already told you I will stop, and yet here you go coming at me again, I have been more than respectful, I am choosing to not to report you because everyone including myself should take this as a learning opportunity. I hope in the future you will be less aggressive to other editors.

As for scientists using "tertiary source"... why yes... yes they have. It came from ROV footage by accredited scientific research institutions and has a peer-reviewed scientific publication utilising the information that was shared with Wikipedia from reputable sources. I have shared that publication multiple times, and linked it to the table that was created. So yes, I trust those scientists more than someone who has nothing better to do than bully people who have been kind, respectful, hell I apologised to you, and got spit back on.

As for this constant consensus talk. I agree with the idea of a consensus, but the consensus was reach back in August 2025 when that table was merged onto the current page (it used to be a separate page)... and fun fact, one of the editors who made it invisible this year, was the same person that seemed to have zero issue with it last year when it got merged (that is easily verifiable on the talk:bigfin squid page. I appreciate your administrative role, but there was no disruption other than the removal of something that has been on Wikipedia since at least June 2025 with no issue, other than a request to turn a separate page and merge it into the current one. All of that is verifiable and easy to access information. Brachioteuthis (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

And with that. I will once again leave you since you choose to continue this conversation and be rude aabout it.

Have a nice day. Brachioteuthis (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

You say you have been so nice, yet accuse me of violating WP:INVOLVED, now say that I am being rude, say that I am bullying you, and continue to assert that I am aggressive. The juxtaposition of those two realities is irreconcilable; it's akin to you saying you drew a circle with four corners and four sides. It doesn't work. You can't be both. Frankly, I don't see there's a learning opportunity on my part. The wrong doing you've asserted on my part...severely violating WP:INVOLVED and being aggressive and rude with you (thus violating WP:CIVIL)...has been completely unsupported by you with any evidence. I've pointed this out to you that this is a violation of WP:ADHOM and even quoted the respective passage you are violating. So, what is it, exactly, that I'm supposed to not be aggressive about? I should just accept that you violated WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EW, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:MEATPUPPET and say it's ok? _I_ didn't make these violations. You did. Does calling out your violations make me aggressive, thus the only thing I can do to not be aggressive is not call out your policy violations? Is that how you want this to work? You continue to assert there was no disruption on your part, yet blatantly violated WP:3RR . This is blatant disruption. As for it being added last year and removed this year, understand that consensus can change. It is not immutable. As for the ROV footage; that would be a primary source. That isn't what Wikipedia is. If scientists refer to it, they are using a primary source. I would be rather surprised if any scientist submitted a paper to a journal using Wikipedia as a cited source. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Like I said please have a nice day. If you wish to continue this discussion, it should not be discussed here, as this is for the discussion of the inclusion of a table used by all communities. And once again for the consensus, while the consensus can change, a single person is not a consensus, a single person cannot just remove something of importance, just like I cannot keep readding if I feel it belongs, it is a two waya street.

This topic was made to discuss the continuation of allowing the list to remain visible on the Bigfin squid page, not to keep an argument going.

This is my last comment, and many comments will be removed to keep this space tidy and allow for proper discussion. If you want to continue, I have zero issue if you wis to add to my own talk page.

Have a good day. Brachioteuthis (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

More than one person reverted you. It was not unilateral as you suggest. I presume your "many comments will be removed..." was meant to say "any comments will be removed..." Be aware that per WP:TALKO, "Removing others' comments is prohibited". Outside of your own talk page, you don't get to decide whose comments can and can not stay here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, I have apologised, and allowed for it to be removed. I am not going to delete other peoples comments as that is rude and against policies. And as another editor pointed out, we will put it into the sandbox until a proper consensus can be made. So as far as I am concerned everything is alright now, and I am once again disengaging from this conversation. Brachioteuthis (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Hammersoftand @KevminI am going to offer you both my formal apology for the way I acted around the both of you. I sincerely hope that you can forgive me, and I hope that I can be better to reearn the trust of both of you. Neither of you are vandals, I apologise for the misjudgment and mischaracterization. As it was a huge deletion of a lot of information you can understand why I acted as such. If it was a simple grammatical error or a few sentences it would not be so bad. But I do apologize sincerely for both of you for being patient and for providing suggestions and guidelines to follow that I should have taken opportunity at the time. Brachioteuthis (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I have zero issues with the table being removed, it is hidden and it can remain hidden. I will let you all do what you think is appropriate and I apologise for the aggressiveness on my end. Brachioteuthis (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

3O Response: Procedural decline, as there appear to be more than two involved editors and 3O is generally for requesting a third opinion. If you are unable to reach a consensus, you are welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution.. DonIago (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Given that I am likely not going to be listened to, and I have given my position above. I have requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion. As for "how long it took between the merger and this action", life happens and I have other editing projects that I spend the majority of my limited Wikipedia time on (Eocene Okanagan Highlands). As noted already Other stuff existing is not an option for doing or not doing things on wiki. @Doniago:, Hammersoft is uninvolved in an Admin capacity, @Malakos 187: & @Squidy Man: and the IPs are self admited meatpuppets, and should not be included per policy.--Kevmin § 20:59, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Kevmin Just to be clear, how would other support be organically found for or against this hiding of text? (Sorry for saying you deleted it before). Like, would I or other users have to be looking at the page often enough and using the table often enough to notice it gone, and find this thread, which may or may not already be finished? Because I am an average person who uses Wikipedia, I dont really edit it. I use it as a resource to pull on occasionally, and find tables like the one described useful. I wouldnt have known this was a debate at all if I wasn't told about it. So genuinely, are debates like this only ever supposed to be between mods and the person who started the debate? If so why even make it publicly available to comment? I dont want to be a 'meatpuppet'. This text affects one specific community, those who use the article and those who like having it as a resource to pull on. So shouldn't that community be notified if large changes happen to said article? And shouldn't those people be allowed to voice their opinion about it? If so, what is the proper channel to do so? Squidy Man (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Squidy Man, its important to know the context in which Wp policies like "meat puppet" have come from. While very rare in taxonomy articles like this, there is a long an very messy history of meatpuppetry across large very controversial topics like Western Asia, Gaming, LGBTQIA+, and Politics. To maintain the value, neutrality and stability of Wikipedia, the editing community has crafted and ratified various rules over the years as preventative and stabilizing measures. Discussion of a situation like this one is done "in-house" usually within the editor community that is focused on the broader topic area, eg taxonomy/biology articles, but as noted by

We would appreciate a third opinion. This has been allowed for over a year with no issue, and is a wonderful addition to Wikipedia for the scientific community, the general audience, citizen scientists, and even just people with interest in sciences. If agreement on a solution is not achieved in the small group setting, there are other options for larger discussion, as noted by Hammersoft. A way to establish oneself as a voice for any situations like that is to start editing articles and showing an interst beyond the contentious article/topic.--Kevmin § 17:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no problems with Hammersoft being uninvolved. The other people are people who utilise Wikipedia regularly, just because people do not edit, does not mean they don't utilise the sources provided to them, and the removal of the table is spread around quite a bit. It's not just a simple grammatical error, it was a valid, truthful, and insightful table that has provided no problems, it was well within the guidelines of Wikipedia, and a consensus was not reached prior to it's removal, as a single person chose to remove it. It is requested for the future that if an important item on Wikipedia is removed, it be discussed in that pages :talk page before it's removal, if a consensus is reach that it does not belong, then the removal or make it hidden is therefore allowed, but a single person (Myself NOR the remover) should have any say without that conssnsus, and the page should remain as is until that consensus is reached.

I will look into other dispute methods, since a consensus has not yet been reached on the removal or keeping of that distribution table.

I will throw up another option. Would people be more comfortable if we turned that table into an actual distribution map? Would that be more feasible to the community? Brachioteuthis (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have no problem turning the table into a map, it cleans up the space while still providing the same level of information. While a map is more useful for species with a documentable range, the distribution of a species on Wikipedia is common practice in some way shape or form (whether text-based, table-based, or map-based. Brachioteuthis (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I have also filed a dispute resolution for myself and @Kevmin. I have left Hammersoft out, as they were not involved in the overall removal and readdition of the table. Brachioteuthis (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, and didn't read all of the discussion, but the table clearly seems contrary to all sorts of different wikipedia policies. But if this list is so important to Brachioteuthis, at least on a temporary basis (sounds like 3 months), has anyone mentioned moving it to their sandbox? Cougroyalty (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I think moving it to the sandbox is a fine idea. This table is not only important to me, but it is important to so many in the cephalopod community and even outside that community. Brachioteuthis (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the suggestion by @Cougroyalty: is a possible solution, Sandboxing this and the other database style-lists until an appropriate alternate webhost can be located. (List of giant squid specimens and sightings, List of giant squid specimens and sightings (20th century) List of giant squid specimens and sightings (2001–2014), List of giant squid specimens and sightings (2015–present), List of colossal squid specimens and sightings) with the Giant squid series the most clearly a databasing issue). Other lists have been brought up as suggestions for why these should stay, but they arent really the same. A comparable style of list, would be if I chose to create List of all Klondike Mountain Formation fossils in North American repositories. A list like that would be a clear database violation and is very similar to the sightings lists that are present on wiki atm. The time its taken for an editor to notice and call out a policy issue with any article is not a reason to ignore the issue.--Kevmin § 17:04, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I have thought of another idea as a colleague had reminded me. It's possible for people to simply access the page with the table via the Archive Wayback Machine. So, it can remain accessible through that method and does not require it to be visible at the current time. And that is usable for all of those that are considered "databases". Brachioteuthis (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Using the Wayback Machine is unecessary. You can simply access the page history and link to a specific revision from there; the revision versions are always permalinked and accessible unless it has copyright issues. Anthropophoca (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Indeed it could be seen as unnecessary but it does create ease of access other then digging through a version history. I suppose you could create it as a favorite page either way, but I suppose it is up to what feels more accessible to the page viewer Brachioteuthis (talk) 03:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I also want to be clear I only made said this as a possible solution, there’s multiple ways around it as others have said including the sandbox idea. Sandbox, version history, and the Wayback machine are all good solutions to the same problem. Brachioteuthis (talk) 03:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not sure that I understand these ideas, but if I do understand them, I think that none of them are good solutions. I think that the basic issue is what information to present to the reader. The reader just wants to see the information on the screen, either of their mobile device or of their computer. The reader doesn't want to have to look in the version history or to use the Wayback Machine. Maybe I don't understand what the issue is, but I do understand that the reader should simply be able to see the verified information on the screen.

If there is an issue about what information should be in the article so that readers can read it, then a content issue can be decided by an RFC.

Maybe someone needs to explain to me what the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I think the main issues stems from whether or not the table of sightings should stay visible. While it may not be the “best” solution, utilizing the wayback machine will still allow the reader to access said table when needed (can still be seen on the screen)and it allows the table to continue to be made hidden, which is where the issue first arose. That seems to be one of the few issues that would agree with the results of both parties. Brachioteuthis (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I will admittedly say that I discussed these options with people who actively utilise the bigfin squid page (mainly cephalopod researchers, but some citizen scientists) and they do agree that all the solutions provided by myself and @Cougroyalty works out well, and solves the main issue that we all have been having. Brachioteuthis (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

While I definitely approve of lists (I've created and expanded quite a few lists in articles and as stand-alones), I don't think the list of sightings in this article serves a very clear encyclopedic purpose. I don't think Wikipedia is the place to post every You-Tube video of a presumed bigfin squid, and I don't consider the fact that a group of researchers use that list to keep up with recent sightings a good argument for keeping the list in the article. I won't say never, but I think we need stronger reasons compatible with this being an encyclopedia to keep the list in the article. Donald Albury 15:35, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

The good thing is, me along with the other researchers have developed a solution, one that benefits all parties, so we do not require the list to be on Wikipedia. With the solution, we are now on the same page. Brachioteuthis (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Addition of distribution map vs Distribution Table

This post is not to start yet another seemingly pointless argument. It's simple.

Do people feel more comfortable in a distribution map for rarely observed species, or is a table more useful for species with less than say 50 observed individual? A species distribution is an important part of that species so it should be taken into account in some way, as almost every speciess has some form of distribution talk whether it is text-based, table-based, or map-based.Brachioteuthis (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brachioteuthis I think a map makes a lot more sense than a table for distribution information when talking about a single species, regardless of how many observed individuals there have been. When the observations are few there is always the option of simply rendering a map with dots, one dot for each observation, as opposed to a map with colored surfaces according to the species range — Snoteleks (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

The only reason that I’m sure the creators of the table didn’t do that, is because not every observation has coordinates, so it can lead to false information since we would be assuming the locality (we know the general locality for some and others we actually have the coordinates. In a perfect world we would have coordinates for everything since that would be a great help for a species distribution. We can still make it work by simply including only those sightings with documented coordinates and add a footnote that there are said number of additional sightings that lack coordinates. Brachioteuthis (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 September 2026

Add this file to the right-hand side of the Section of the Article Titled, "Sightings"

File:Bigfin squid captured on Nov. 9, 2021, during Dive 10 of Windows to the Deep 2021.jpg

John George III (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: Licence is dubious. CMD (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Possible RFC

There is a content dispute involving this article, and questions about whether there is consensus for certain additions. A Request for Comments will establish consensus, and it has been suggested that we discuss the RFC here before it is launched. (I am also willing to take this discussion to DRN and state what the ground rules of the discussion are, but I am now asking whether this article talk page can be the discussion forum.) Is the inclusion of a table of sightings either the content issue or one of the content issues? Are there any other content issues?

Are there any other article content issues that need to be discussed, and may need to be resolved by RFC?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC)