Talk:marine mammal

RFD discussion: October–November 2016
SOP: A mammal that is marine. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Yes, it's SoP, but far more useful than . DonnanZ (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly, utility is not in CFI. In any event we would have a hard time directly determining utility. DCDuring TALK 12:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sadly indeed. Utility should be in the CFI, since a dictionary should contain lexical items that are useful to its users (i.e. people are likely to look them up, albeit determining this is based on many things ... such as frequency/commonality in the language). In fact, it seems to me that many of the SoP discussions revolve around the utility of the entry, I see that time and again. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Utility is in WT:CFI: "In rare cases, a phrase that is arguably unidiomatic may be included by the consensus of the community, based on the determination of editors that inclusion of the term is likely to be useful to readers." How it got there is another thing, but it is there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * keep --Hekaheka (talk) 13:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as undefendable under CFI. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That was a bit parrot-like; of course it's defendable. DonnanZ (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Many marine crustaceans aren't wholly marine either, but we have no entry for that. Polar bears, as far as I am aware, aren't typically thought of as marine mammals, so I question the value of the definition as it stands. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't they? There's a picture of a polar bear front and center at . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...perhaps it's more common to include them now than it used to be (a lot of what I've read about animals is older). I still maintain my vote, however, but on the grounds that "marine" can refer to something that lives off of or is found near the sea, rather than being limited those things that are found within it, making the term entirely SOP. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant SoP. Mihia (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you define "blatant"?  and  are also SoP, this term is no more outrageous or blatant than those. DonnanZ (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I need to define an English word that I am using with its normal meaning. I'm also not sure that "other stuff exists" is a good argument. Having said that, "nuclear power" seems more justifiable since "nuclear" can refer to a number of different things. It is not necessarily obvious, if you don't already know, that it is referring to the nucleus of an atom rather than the nucleus of something else. I don't see how there could be any such uncertainty about "marine mammal". Mihia (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: Would this SOP entry be useful to keep translations, at least? Maybe it could be kept for this reason. I call it SOP because its meaning can be understood perfectly from the entries and  alone. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is hard to know sometimes what is considered as acceptable SoP or unacceptable SoP until some deletionist slaps an RFD label on it, and the anti-SoP policy practised by some may discourage a lot of worthy entries. Any SoP name for a species seems to be accepted without question, e.g., , , , and personally I don't see any harm in an entry for a classification of mammals that live in a marine environment, even if they belong to several species. DonnanZ (talk) 09:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact any English dictionary that didn't contain SoP entries would be a very poor dictionary indeed. DonnanZ (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested to see an argumentation showing that is SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I would never query it myself, I was merely quoting it as an example. DonnanZ (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm with DonnanZ in that we have so many useless sops that one useful doesn't really matter. Take this beauty as an example: "two hundred and twenty-four". --Hekaheka (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If I'm not mistaken, there have been RFD discussions created to eliminate entries for those sorts of numbers. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Question: is there a specific grouping of mammals that "marine mammal" encompasses? Or is there variation in usage as to what is understood to be included? Do some people exclude polar bears from the group (I believe that they often do), or pinnipeds? If this is a well-defined category of mammals, then I might change my vote to "keep." Otherwise, I see it as just being "mammals that are marine." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried to define this in the entry. Whales, dolphins and porpoises never leave the water, though whales sometimes beach themselves and die as a result. Pinnipeds do leave the water, but spend most of their time in the sea. Then there's quadrupeds such as polar bears and sea otters which have cousins living in other environments. I think that is the borderline group, but they are regarded as marine mammals because of where they live, not because they belong to a particular family of mammals. DonnanZ (talk) 09:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, there seems to be three main groups of marine mammal. It is much easier to define what is a, or . DonnanZ (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, some marine mammals belong to wholly-marine species, while other species have both marine and non-marine populations, and there are some species that can live in both marine and freshwater environments. Defining whether a given taxon is marine or not can be problematic, since some have no adaptations specific to marine conditions and only go into the water when they happen to be at the coast.


 * Please explain how the first instance of the word "marine" differs from all the other instances in the previous paragraph, aside from modifying a noun that it alliterates with and being paired with that noun in a Wiktionary entry. I suspect that vague impression that the two are a unit that comes from the alliteration may be influencing some of the "keep" votes. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would only include species of mammal that habitually live in seawater, regardless of taxon. I have already tried to explain that. You wouldn't include a dog or horse that is running through the surf (a seadog or seahorse is not a mammal, and has a different meaning), or any mammal, such as a hippo, that habitually lives in fresh water. DonnanZ (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per ChuckE. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. — Ungoliant (falai) 12:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. — I'd say that the fact that we can't decided what the term actually even means is pretty good evidence that it is not, ipso facto, SoP. Clearly it needs defining (and btw, the current def needs improving as polar bears do not live wholly or primarily in sea water) - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 12:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is difference of opinion on the scope of inclusion of terms like conscious being, dangerous chemical, and classic automobile, too. Does that mean we need entries for them? Doesn't your argument apply to them as well? DCDuring TALK  13:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe so. My point is that the meaning is unclear. I haven't followed the discussion of conscious being, dangerous chemical, and classic automobile, so I don't know if the meaning was unclear in those cases. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There are different ways of getting at meaning. For terms that characterize members of a class, a list of members seems like one good way.
 * As to meaning derived from the component terms, there are perfectly analogous concerns with the other examples: What kind of consciousness? Self-awareness?; What kind of danger, to whom or what?; What do we mean by classic? Is a VW minibus an automobile? What about the first mini-van? Are race cars included? DCDuring TALK 10:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The meaning is equally unclear if you say "marine warm-blooded creatures with four limbs". If you want to know about marine mammals, go to an encyclopedia and read the discussion there. This is more of a category than a linguistic entity: should we have an entry for "blue birds" because it's not always obvious which species are included? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I feel that this belongs to the English vocabulary, exactly like fish, and that this term could and should be learned during English lessons, e.g. in the case of English as a foreign language. I think that all words means whole vocabulary. Lmaltier (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You might learn The Norman invasion of 1066 in an English lesson, too. Just because you 'feel' that it could be learned in an English lesson doesn't mean it ever has been. Ever. I'm glad you've shared your feelings with us, but does evidence have no part in the process, or is writing a dictionary only about 'feelings'? Renard Migrant (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (William F. Perrin, Bernd Wursig, J.G.M. 'Hans' Thewissen eds) the category includes Cetacea (whales/dolphins, etc.), Sirenia (dugongs and manatees), and certain Carnivora (polar bear, sea and marine otters, and pinnipeds). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Sonofcawdrey. It does not seem to be wholly sum of parts: I did not know polar bear was a "marine mammal". From the general definition of marine, it is not clear to me that polar bear is considered a marine mammal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No consensus to delete. bd2412 T 02:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

marine mammal
SOP. Has been RFD'ed and kept before, but I haven't seen any compelling argument from the keepers. The fact that polar bears are marine mammals might be surprising, but it has nothing to do with lexicology: it's a question of biology, ethology, ecology, what have you. There's Wikipedia for that. PUC – 17:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep again. DonnanZ (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The present definition is "A mammal, such as a whale, seal, sea cow or polar bear, which lives wholly or primarily in seawater." Strictly speaking, it is hard for me to see why this is anything more than "marine" + "mammal" along with a list of examples. Mihia (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article (and the inclusion of polar bears in the list) suggest that the definition is wrong, they don't need to leave in seawater, but they must rely on the sea/ocean ecosystem for survival. If we consider similar terms, say and, I would place marine mammal on the farm animal end of the spectrum. If it were, as you say, merely a mammal which lived in the sea then I would put it on the saltwater fish end. Unless Wikipedia is wrong, I would say fix definition and keep. -  TheDaveRoss  13:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just a part of the definition of "marine", though? I mean there are e.g. marine birds too, which may not live all the time "in seawater". So, even if the definition is adjusted along your lines, wouldn't it still be just as SoP? Mihia (talk) 14:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on our definitions of it is close to SOP, perhaps the right thing to do is clarify marine so that it clearly covers this sense. -  TheDaveRoss  20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * A slight complication is that the relevant sense of marine presently reads "(zoology) Inhabiting the high seas; oceanic; pelagic. (distinguished from maritime or littoral)", while maritime is defined as "Living near or in the sea". On this basis, possibly polar bears should technically be maritime and not marine animals, and indeed I have found some references to them as such. Unfortunately I do not have the technical knowledge to adjudicate on this, but, regardless, I do not believe that the word "marine" assumes any special meaning, be it loose or technical, in the term "marine mammal", beyond what we could and should explain at "marine", so Delete. Mihia (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I had updated marine a week ago, and I updated maritime today. -Mike (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as SOP per updated def at marine. Ultimateria (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * In the previous RFD I voted keep but I am no longer certain given the definition that can cover "marine bird" along "marine mammal". What about a redirect? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep again. The problem is that our def is incorrect (and seems SOP), whereas the Wikipedia def is correct (and doesn't seem SOP). In the last iteration of this discussion I remember that pretty much no one could reliably state the set of mammals that should or shouldn't be classified as marine mammals, strongly indicating that it is not SOP. If it were SOP then it would be obvious. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 13:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have edited the def to make it more specific as to which animals the term covers. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is any different from the issue surrounding aquatic animals. As User:Dunkleosteus77 says on the talk page for Aquatic mammal, "Is there a set definition or list of what constitutes an aquatic mammal? I get river dolphins and maybe even beavers as aquatic mammals, but I'm wondering if it would also include the fish-eating bat. Is it just any mammal that depends predominately on food from the water? Is it any mammal that lives primarily in the water?" Since this ambiguity seems to be present in the component parts, as with "aquatic animal/mammal", I say delete. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Under U.S. law (which need not reflect common use) as interpreted by the EPA: The term “marine mammal” means any mammal that is morphologically adapted to the marine environment, including sea otters and members of the orders Sirenia (e.g., manatee, dugong), Pinnipedia (e.g., seal, sea lion), and Cetacea (e.g., dolphin, whale) or primarily inhabits the marine environment (e.g., polar bears, sea otters). Personally I think of a sea otter as a marine mammal but I do not think of a polar bear as a marine mammal.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Dentonius (my politics | talk) 14:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 06:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, more than just SOP as per at Wikipedia. The terms aquatic mammal and semi-aquatic mammal entries are not needed though, those adjectives' entries cover them. Aquatic: whale, dolphin, sea otter. Semi-aquatic: river otter, beaver, etc. Facts707 (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't have thought a polar bear as marine (zoology: inhabiting the seas). Keep if we're sure it's even correct. DAVilla 00:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Either the scientists are off their rocker or I'm misunderstanding polar bears. Regardless, they seem to be applying "marine" in the defined sense. Delete as SoP. DAVilla 00:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, there seems to be a weak lemming case, especially in legal terms. Man, this one is impossible. I'm just going to have to conclude that I'm undecided. DAVilla 00:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

No consensus. bd2412 T 06:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)