This page is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
I realize this WikiProject is still not up and running, but if people are looking at this, please review my comments on Talk:Wobbegong. I was gonna "fix" the article, but now I'm at a loss as to what to do with it... Tomertalk 04:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've fixed this in a satisfactory (if not definitive) way. Yomanganitalk 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After we get the oceanic whitetip article through to FA I think we should concentrate on getting more articles to GA status rather than trying to push some through to FA. The FAC process is exhausting (and right now is a hot potato), and personally I'd prefer to see some depth of quality articles in the project rather than one or two stars. What do you think? Yomangani 11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, I can not help any more with FA, if it is chasing references and adding facts I can help, but my english, language and writing skills is obviously not up to FA standard. I know that oceanic whitetipp is not the greatest of prose and I can find a few of the places where is it lacking, but I can not make it any better. I think we can get basking and tiger to GA without to much work, now I know there is a process for GA also, but I think it should be simpler than FA, when I nominated oceanic to GA it was just listing it :-). Stefan 13:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The GA process isn't too rigorous: I think we should still aim for the standard of FA in the articles, just not put them forward. One of the problems with rewriting some of the prose in the OW article is that subtle changes in style can push you away from what the original source actually said - for example, it's good to strip out vague terms such as "long" and "very", but we don't want to be guessing at what the original source meant by this, and because of the paucity of sources we can't just replace it. Anyway, I'm still plodding through - we'll get there. Yomangani 13:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Format/layout of article, let's find a good article and use that as a standard, then try to reformat all other articles after that. Suggest Oceanic Whitetip Shark for now, that is probably the best shark article right now.
I agree - made a start on changing layouts of other shark pages to match the oceanic whitetip. Yomangani 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article names, shark article names when common name is used should be first word uppercase and after that all with lower case letters, see Project Fishes naming articles
How do they resolve description versus common name? e.g Caribbean reef sharks (reef sharks from the Caribbean) vs. Caribbean reef sharks (the species). I think the Bird people (those from the bird project, not winged primates) may have had the right idea here with initial caps. 15:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
For title name the species should take precidence. For reef sharks of the caribean I'd suggest either a list "List of Caribbean sharks" which could be subdivided into sections if need be - or better still use a Category eg Category:Fish of the Caribbean in every article about a shark native to that area. The "Caribbean reef shark" article could contain a short disambiguation message at the top of the page: (for example):
I like Sharkus Caribbio - maybe we need a cod Latin section in the tax box. I actually meant in sentences such as "some Caribbean reef sharks have been seen eating carrion" - how to distinguish between any sharks that live on the reef in the Carribean and Carribean Reef Sharks. Anyway I guess I answered my own question:careful phrasing! I think the disambiguation message at the top of possible confusing pages is a good idea too. Yomangani 14:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we only use uppercase on the first part of the name if it follows the rules of the fish naming convention and is normally capitalised, for example: Port Jackson shark,Greenland shark,Caribbean reef shark but oceanic whitetip shark (as Ocean is not normally capitalised). Obviously it should use uppercase if it is the first word of a sentence or phrase and in the article title. Yomangani 19:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right, sorry for the missunderstaning and confusion, I read the rules wrong, my misstake, and I will never get into a revert war, I will always discuss and try to come to the right solution, thanks for correcting me!! Stefan 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I cancelled the merge, I removed the logo, SO THERE. As I made it I got the right to remove, especially as I didn't give you permission in the first place. Dont expect this to go down without a fight (no threat ok?). Lenny 16:05, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gave me permission? give me a break, are you sure you understand the concept of wikipedia? Nevermind, we will make a logo at some time, no need to use 'yours', and I will NOT fight, I will write articles! Have fun fighting! Stefan 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Project: Merge Two Projects So That It Looks Better And Also Helps Us Aswell[edit]
We might as well merge as both of our projects isn't going anywhere Please discuss this matter. Lenny 08:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC) (copied from my talk page, to move discussion here which is a better place)Stefan 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure what do you want to discuss? This is a project, it is run by wikipedia rules, not by me or you, if you want to join please join! If you want to add your ideas to this project please do so. But the time to do a nice split on how to merge is over, you ended that by vandalising[1] this project page and by ending the merge that you had already agreed to since you got a member, I though we already had agree that this was for the best and you changed your mind when you thought that you got a member and could fight this project, but do not take me wrong, I still would prefer to have one project and any help to improve shark articles is good and anyone wanting to improve the shark articles is very welcome here, your ideas will be added and maybe updated and if no one have any isses they will be added to the project, if we do not agree we will try to come to consensus. Stefan 13:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it is always your talk page I have to talk on. Ok. At least you are not using my logo which I removed (ha). My new logo is full sized. I went for merge not delete my project but if some of the ideas are good then we will put them on mine (yours). So what do we do first? Lenny 14:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you say? I think this is a project discussion so it should be held at the project talk page NOT my talk page, this is not for you and me to decide, but the project. If you want to update the project then update it!! I do not know what you want to update this project with. You have 2 options, either update! be brave! This is a wiki, or if you are not sure if others will object then ask here to see if others agree. Stefan 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do update my project. It seems that you want me to delete my project then you know what the answer is... NOT IN A MILLION YEARS. Merging is ok as long as I get some of my work included but that seems to be going nowhere so where shall we go with this now? Oh I am sorry I took so long to reply but normally I wait for a orange bar to come up forgot I had to manually check. Lenny 07:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about updating THIS project, if you want to keep 'your' project, there is not much I can do about that. If you want ME/us to merge 'your' project into this project after the incident where you become upset when I took 'YOUR' GPLed picture as a logo to this project and you removed it, then you have to understand that I will never copy anything from 'your' project again, YOU have to do that. This project is fine and alive, we want as many members as possible, you are welcome, the rest is up to you! Stefan 13:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody know if this was reclassified? The FAO catalogue lists it as ginglymostoma brevicaudatum which means there are two members of the ginglymostoma genus, and hence makes a lie of the the Nurse shark opening paragraph. I've found classification mistakes in the catalogue before though, so I suspect it is wrong. Yomanganitalk 13:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, but a quick google search seams to indicate that there is indeed two species, as I have understood it there is no correct authority, wikipedia fish project seams to follow ITIS more than FAO, but anything that is resonably scientific is OK. I asked something simmilar at Project Fishes talk with heading "What is our reference for species?" see the answers. In short, anything that is resonable is OK. Stefan 15:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about having a collaboration of the week? And perhaps a required stub of the week (so we aim to create at least one new shark page every week, even if it is just a line)? Yomanganitalk 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sounds like a good idea. Please do :-) Stefan 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the list Taxonomy of the Carcharhiniformes needs to be completed (or at laeast says it does at the top of the page). It shouldn't be too bad to fill out the species list. --TeaDrinker 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering whether it might be a better idea to include the genera lists from the genera articles (by making them into subpages) - that way we don't have to update two or three lists (or change them when they reclassify a species or discover a new member of a family). What do you think? Yomanganitalk 13:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know, I find the duplication of info in wikipedia to be a problem, often different articles state different things, the more articles we have of the same topic the worse the problem gets, but I also like list like the Taxonomy of the Carcharhiniformes, so I'm divided. For sure I want us to have a article of at least each genera. Stefan 13:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't proposing deleting the list, just filling it from existing lists. Yomanganitalk 14:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking about a status list of our articles, this would be good to pick collaboration of the week from and future good and FA articles, I did one before shark article status which is not very up to date nor very good, now there is a official assessment guideline where you can make a list like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Organization. Whould that be of use? or is it overkill before we have more members? Any comments, if not I will put it on my to do list and do it in a few weeks, then I need help to fill in the actual grading of each article. Stefan 13:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is good idea but a big task for a small project. On the other hand there is no time limit on assessing the articles, so it can't do any harm. Yomanganitalk 14:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I will do it, but maybe only start by listing some of the more major articles. Stefan 15:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of making some templates for the project.
How about a userbox and one of the boxes that you put on the talk pages of relevent articles. Kinda like the ones at Wikiproject fishes. Also how about choosing a picture which could be used for both the project and the portal. There already is a template for the portal but no image on it. --chris_huh 13:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good idea, but there's been some hassle with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Shark ( you can see most of the sorry tale around here somewhere) and we didn't want to have two boxes on every talk page. The portal could certainly do with an image though, if we can find one that can still be identified at that small size. Yomanganitalk 13:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the hassle, i am a bit confused to why there is much problem, i think a lot of the discussion has gone on over many different pages. I don't see why he doesn't just merge his project into this one, since this one clearly has more members and it set up better. Oh well. I also see what you mean about a good picture, there aren't many good ones that would work ok small for the portal. hmmm i might have a look at making one then, will have to see. --chris_huh 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a picture that I can give to GPL use, it is a gray reef shark, it is quite ok even as downsized, I have though about making it as a user box for a long time, but have never had enough members to bother and now as Yomangani says I'm a bit afraid to pick a fight. The picture is here if we decied that it is good enough I will upload and license for wikipoedia, I think I have a cleaner better version somewhere on my computer. Stefan 16:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
example logosThat picture looks like it might be ok, damn sharks, if they weren't so good at camoflage we would be fine, what were they thinking. Also i have got bored and had ago at making two example logos if you are interested. I am not sure which one i prefer as yet.--chris_huh 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for the top one. And if the grey reef pic works OK as a small version I think that will be good for the portal. Yomanganitalk 21:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree! Top one is very nice, will see if I have some time today to find a good version of the gray shark picture, but not sure if we need a picture with that logo and I also think we should have same logo or very simmilar for the project and the portal so that people can relate to both of them. (I tried to add a wikipedia globe to the top logo without much success. This is the best shot so far. but I think I prefere the original, but think it can be made. In a nice way. On the other hand there is really no point in stating that this is a wikipedia project since you probably have to know what wikipedia is to even find it.... Stefan 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
example logos 3Ok i will have a tweak with the top one, and make a few examples based on that, i will try with the globe and without, and maybe without the WikiProject too, but that wont be til later today or tomorrow - today i am going to the zoo!
I had a go with the globe and without the 'WikiProject' but they didn't seem to look that good, so all i did was resize some of the text, how about that? --chris_huh 21:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:WikiProject Shark logo 2 by Lenny.PNGMy (Lenny's) new logo Very nice design, font looks to boring though, presume its arial or something. My black & grey version looks good as well dont you think? Dont know? Try it on for size. Lenny 08:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
example logos 5 I have changed the font to trebuchet in the right logo and the left logo is arial, i don't know but i think the arial one still looks better. The trebuchet font looks nice but it starts to make the logo too tall, but there really isn't much difference in the two. I don't think the black one looks that good, the fin looks a bit ragged and i dont think we need the globe. --chris_huh 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never liked Trebuchet except in small sizes as it smoothes at lower points. Calibri (as in my logo) works really well. I think a globe nessesary as it proves we are part of Wikipedia, well we are aren't we? Black & White is the colour of Great White Sharks (sterio). Your colours and font choice iseams to simular to shark trust. I'll make another soon. Lenny 13:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start over here before we disappear off the side. I like the left hand version in example logos 5. Yomanganitalk 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the one i prefer, it's the same as example 3. Because it's a blue colour it looks like shark trust?, i think blue looks better because the text on wikipedia is black as is a lot of things so having it blue makes it stand out a bit. Blue is the colour of water (in most cases) which is where the sharks live, and the great white is just one species, i could say blue is better because it is the colour of the blue shark. The globe doesnt really fit in anywhere, and you don't see globes on all of the article pages, and they are part of wikipedia. Calibri looks ok, but i see nothign wrong with good old arial. --chris_huh 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that similar to the Shark Trust logo apart from the fact it has the word Shark in it [2]. I wouldn't worry about it. Yomanganitalk 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, oh well i don't think we could get away without 'shark' in itchris_huh 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just that the colours and the font looks the same, but you can clearly see it isn't the same logo duh! Besides in case you were wondering, I made my logo from scratch in case you thought I edited yours. I like all of them (exc: trebuchet) but the one I am going to use is MINE. Calibri is deffo the best lookin' font yo. Ya know wat I mean man? Its up to you (stefan) what one you want to use, the second one from the top looks great though. I have three logos each joined together by the fin et (&) globe. Oh and we need the globe as it sybolises that this is a Wikipedia Project for Wikipedia and fellow wikipedians. All pages have the globe on the top left hand side. Lenny 17:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't expecting this to be such a long debate. I think the example 3 looks best. Font really doesn't matter that much, logos in wikiprojects arent that important. I understand that having a globe in it would make sense, but it makes more sense to not have one if it makes the logo look crap. Its really not that important to have a globe, if there is already a globe on the page. No disrespect to stefen, i'm sure he'll agree, but its not up to him to choose the logo, this is wikipedia, not myspace, so its up to the vote. --chris_huh 17:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with 3 or 5, all look quite the same to me, actually I think I would like 3 best but change it to not fade the text, which bascially is a mix of 1 and 3. I want the wikilogo, but have not seen any example in which it looks good (I tried many versions), so agree with chris not to have it, lenny, I do NOT decide, this is a wiki project, not my playground, here we practice consensus, even you who does not want to put your name on the members list is allowed a say. Stefan 02:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The globe works well in my logo as the colours all match the rest of the logo. You could add a globe in the circular bit left hand side of your fin. Lenny 06:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had tried that, but it still doesn't look as good as it does without it. I had also tried substituting the 'o' in Project for the globe, but that doesn't work either. I can't find a single wikiproject with the globe in its logo (nor even that many with logos), it really isn't important. --chris_huh 09:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - we know it's on Wikipedia, let's have example 3 (left 5), I agree with Stefan that it would look better without the fade on the text. Yomanganitalk 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Sharks Logo.There you go. No fade on text, looks good methinks. --chris_huh 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There will be two projects and two sets of userboxes.
There, simple aint it? Lenny 08:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know whats going on here, why don't they just get merged into this one. WikiProject:Shark only has one member while the Sharks one has 7 already and has been going for longer. The projects aren't personal possessions, whichever one makes it easier to make better shark articles surely is the best one, and so far it is Sharks that is doing this. Having two lots of userboxes is no good nor is having two lots of any template, it's just a waste and will confuse people, it's certainly not simple. I don't get it. --chris_huh 12:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried for a while to find a good date to have Oceanic on the main page, but I can not come up with any good date (in the resonable near future), the best I can think of so far is 9 November which is Rodnex Fox birthday (which have very little to do with oceanic whitetips :-( ). Anyone have any better ideas, or do we not care and just hope it gets on the main page some date? Stefan 13:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should get the closest date possible before it loses its featured article status! These things are very rare. What date was the cageless diving in 1992? If its close and available we will use that! Lenny 13:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was January according to the article, I rather take the blue water, white death expedition then, it was more about oceanic than the cageless expidition? But have no idea on when it was. .... One google search later, it was spring 69, no luck. Stefan 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly bothered about it having a specific main page date. The best dates would be Lesson's or Poey's birth or death dates or the Indianapolis anniversary, but they are all next year now. I don't think we need to panic about it having its FA status withdrawn. Yomanganitalk 15:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a collaboration of the week page which i have set up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/Collaboration. What do you think?
I wasn't sure to have it as a weekly collaboration or fortnightly, so i started with weekly but it can be changed quite easily. Most of the ideas for the text and such was from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones collaboration as they seem to have a well organised wikiproject and collaboration. At the moment the current collaboration is just set to COTW, until we can decide on one to start with.
chris_huh 12:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, I think fortnightly is better (we are not that many) but anything goes! Stefan 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it fortnightly now, i think that would be better, as you say there aren't that many of us yet. The collaboration works through a talk page template too (so if that article is the selected collaboration then it will say so), which i have made for this reason, but due to problems with certain other projects i am not sure if we should be putting them up yet.chris_huh 14:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Stefan. What is this collaboration? I dont get it. Lenny 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why ask me? Ask the PROJECT!! Anyway see other projects, they often have this, it is a way to decide that this article is one that a group should work on for the next week or 2 weeks. This is a good way of improving the quality of one article. Tyhe next week another one is choosen and so on. Stefan 05:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How interesting, hum, well it seems complicated in that text. I come up with an idea simular to that one - Wikipedia:WikiProject Shark/Shark Select. Easy to understand for everyone. Bye the way we are co-projects now so that means we operate as seperate projects but we are part of one, no deleting no merging! Lenny 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we might want to choose an article to start the collaboration on, so that we can then start it off properly. I suggest Shark as that seems an appropriate article for the first collaboration. We can work towards getting it a Good Article and it can always be selected again later on. --chris_huh 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have just done a little bit of a format on the main project page, i was also thinking it might be good to have the Todos with subheadings, more like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans page, so that it can be seen easier, what do you think? --chris_huh 16:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree! Stefan 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the List of sharks so that it is now a full taxonomic listing of sharks (as full as i could find at least). After i made it i realised that there had been some talk on the discussion page about it being a template and such, but i think that a full taxonomic listing was required and i could think of no other page name that would fit it well. I have moved what was there before to List of shark articles so that it still exists. --chris_huh 20:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the species listing is from the Compagno's 1984 Sharks of the World book. It is a very good reference to start stubs as well. Very well done! --TeaDrinker 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are now officialy a co-project! Lenny 09:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what is a co-project? Stefan 15:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Co-project is two or more simular projects joined as one but operated individually. Lenny 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - I really don't understand why a co-project is a good idea, all it will do is confuse people and make it harder to keep track of things. I could understand a merge, but there doesn't seem to have enough things different between them for that. Are there any other co-projects out there? --chris_huh 20:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose too - I don't see the point of it either. If the two projects were on the same subject but had wildly different aims I could see a reason for doing this, but since they don't, I don't. Yomanganitalk 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also strong oppose - You can't just say that its a co-project, people have to vote for it to be one. WikiProject Shark looks amateurish, and rubbish. Project Shark has spent too much time stealing from others and making pointless 'userboxes' and Lenny seems to be more interested in having a WikiProject to his name than on actually improving the shark articles. WikiProject Sharks, on the other hand, actually is working to try and do something good on Wikipedia. Even a merge wouldn't work as almost all of the stuff on Shark is on Sharks but is not as good. --134.225.228.27 13:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - Not that I'm sure this is really a vote. Stefan 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Co-project cancelled. No merge either, no deletion. Oh and thwere was no vote anyway. I am reverting template 1 to my project only, you will have to use your own userbox. Lenny 16:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't seem like it was a vote, but that is the way to do things on Wikipedia, you shouldn't just state that this is how it is. --chris_huh 16:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi my new projectpaper is now running. It gives editors a look at what has happened to the project and articles over the past season. The summer edition is now up. Enjoy. NOTE: only the editor stated at the foot of the page may edit it. Any member of wikiproject shark only can start the next edition of the paper. Lenny 16:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an assessment page, which uses the Wikipedia article assessment classifications. It seems like it could be a bit too much work for this project as yet, but there is no real timeframe for the assessments to be finished. And once the project gets going for a bit it would be harder to change to this. The only problem i found is that it was harder to fit in the information that was on the status page that already existed. Do you think this is the best way of doing it? --chris_huh 22:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just ignore my old page, it was done before the grading system exsisted and was a way for me to keep track of the status of a few shark articles, I think it is a good list, but it needs a bot to keep it updated and the new system is better. Maybe I will write that bot some day, but do not expect it to happen in this lifetime :-). Stefan 23:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the assessment and collaboration onto the project main page, and i think i might set the collaboration to Shark as a good starting point for the next two weeks. Then it can be changed roughly every other monday or something. --chris_huh 00:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have put forward a proposal for a shark-stub. I think this would be useful, particularly since the only other stub is fish-stub and there are 25,000 fishes or something. I am not sure how the proposals really work but i guess they just look at how many votes there are for it, so the more votes the better. --chris_huh 18:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The stub is now active at {{Shark-stub}} with the category as Category:Shark stubs so that this can now replace the fish stub templates and we can have one just for sharks, which should help with expanding them. I have changed it to the new stub on all (i think) of the {{fish-stub}} articles under Category:Sharks but i may have missed some. chris_huh 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of having a category when there is only one member of the genus? It would balance the category arrangement, but otherwise seems a bit wasteful. Yomanganitalk 11:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about that. We want to have every species in Category:Sharks and then in at least their family, which is itself in one of the 8 orders. It would make sense splitting the families into genera too, i suppose even of there is only one species in a particular genus. If a species (eg Tiger shark) is under the Sharks, Carcharhiniformes, Carcharhinidae, and Galeocerdo Categories and not just under the Genus (Galeocerdo) Category (which is itself under Carcharhinidae which is under Carcharhiniformes) then there would be a long list of species under the family name, making it harder to find oone that isnt listed under its genus.
If you could make sense of that, well done. So basically i think that every shark should be listed under its order, family, sub-family (if there is one) and genus as well as sharks. Even if there is only one species in the genus, it just makes it run smoother. Is that what you were thinking? chris_huh 11:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is what comes of typing while on the phone - I actually meant when it is the only member of a family rather than a genus. Yomanganitalk 11:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm, well that might make a difference. I suppose make a category for the Family but not for the Genus, as it won't be very hard to find it. --chris_huh 11:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strike all that, I don't know what I was thinking - we have categories for all the orders, so every species has a home in one of the subcategories. For some reason I got confused with the family and order when looking at basking shark and then reconfused with family and genus when typing the above question. It's all sorted out now and I shall go and take my medicine. Yomanganitalk 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the talk template too all (i think) of the shark articles under Category:Sharks, plus did a bit of work on the categories. Now any article that is listed in a subcategory of sharks is also listed in the sharks category itself. --chris_huh 11:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bot should be changing all of the {{portalpar|Sharks}} to {{Sharksportal}} to all of the articles in Category:Sharks within the next twelve hours or so. --chris_huh 14:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like i can create a watchlist of pages for this project to assist in monitoring recent changes of pages in this project. if you are intrested drop me a line on my talk page. Betacommand 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that there isn't much of a concensus when it comes to the references section for shark articles. Looking at Wikipedia:CITE i think that it would be a good idea to set a rule for this. So that at the end of the article there would be the references section called References then in that would have the list of inline references. After that there could be a subheading of that called General references which would have bullet points of general references used throughout the article. This is in the style of Shark.
There are other ideas, such as having it under a section called Notes or Footnotes, but i don't feel that references should be under a heading like this as they aren't really notes or footnotes, as a footnote is more of a sentence or two to further explain something in the main text of the article.
What does people think? chris_huh 17:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember that most FAs use "Notes" or "Footnotes" for the inline citations sections and "References" for the general references. Not too fussy myself...I'll probably end up putting "Notes", as it is ingrained in me now. Yomanganitalk 17:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...so I removed my membership from this project so I can concentrate on my project. I will still help shark articles become the best on wikipedia (in the biology section). Wish you luck with the sharks project, keep it up its working well. Lenny 12:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well the first collaboration is over now - i think shark gained from it. The question is: what do we do with it next. Before it was the COTF i was thinking to nominate it for Good Article status. But now i am thinking that it is worthy of FA status. So maybe we could put it up for Peer Review, with the aim of nominating it for FA.
What do people think? chris_huh 15:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would pass as a Good Article, but it is still under-referenced for FA. I think it is also unbalanced in places (the Hawaiian gods section) and a little bit too fragmented to pass the "compelling prose" criterion. Peer review and FAC mean committing a lot of time to the article to be fair to the efforts of the reviewers - I think we should come back to it as a COTF fairly soon, putting it up for Peer Review just before we start. Yomanganitalk 16:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree, I nominated shark for GA and got it accepted very fast! Lets not do any more FA for a while, it is much more easy to get GA status, lets do at least tiger, whale and basking to GA first. Stefan 23:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation International seems to have recently announced that they have discovered two new species of shark (along with a bunch of other species). While the new species don't appear to be academically published, a new user created the article Epaulette shark (with what appears to be the original member of the genus Hemiscyillum which is reportedly what CI has classified the new species into. Anyone with an interest might take a look at the article, since it could see some traffic with the story in the press.
Just in case folks are interested (there is a great video of the shark walking on its fins on the CI site). --TeaDrinker 22:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone actually know what the difference is between these two headers. Is Confessed for people who want to state what they are going to be doing, and unconfessed for just general editors? Is it worthwhile having the two options? chris_huh 14:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not sure :-), I assumed what you guess but never seen a definition of it, I copied it from another project long time ago, checking a few other projects now it seams that it is not that common anymore, I guess we can remove it. Stefan 16:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Shark people. I have started a sub project of sharks called shark films. I am hoping you think this is a good idea. Unisouth 16:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Melanochromis has done a great job getting the Fish Portal up an running. At this point, more sets of eyes can help make it even better. If you can offer some tips on the portal talk page about how to improve Fish up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 13:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Does anybody have any reliable sources for information on Shark fin soup? There is a single purpose account determined to prove that any impact on sharks is a myth, and while regularly running up against the 3 revert rule in removing his original research and dodgy sources, I don't have any resources to write the article to an acceptable standard without reducing it to a stub. Yomanganitalk 13:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Time range of Hexanchiformes species has been nominated for deletion, mainly because it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter (such as me). Is anyone interested in cleaning it up, and explaining the tables? If an introduction is added, and a key to the tables it could become a useful article. (If you are interested in cleaning it up, and it has been deleted before you've read this note, I'd be happy to undelete it for you.) Eugène van der Pijll 17:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to announce that the Fish Portal has added a new feature - The Fish Quiz!! Come test your knowledge, interact with other fish editors, try to win the game and have your name honored in the Hall of Fame, and have a fun break from editing wikipedia. Cheers --Melanochromis 08:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will probably want to move that to template space... Yonatantalk 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed fish article naming standards change[edit]
WikiProject Fishes is discussing a proposed change in naming standards for article titles. If the change is made, this project's article naming standards (if any) may need to be changed as well in order to avoid conflicting guidelines. Your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. -- Neil916 (Talk) 00:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:
I'm gonna start making some more distribution maps for the sharks and upload them to commons. At the moment the few that are up there are called something like Oceanic whitetip shark distmap.png, but i was just wondering if you think it would be better to call them by their latin names + distmap.png (eg Carcharhinus longimanus distmap.png) just for internationalisation.
Never mind, i have made all the distribution maps and uploaded them to commons. They are under the Category:Shark habitat maps, and also under the category for that species (by binomial name). The maps are all named in the way mentioned above: Carcharhinus longimanus distmap.png, etc. Just to keep it consistent i have uploaded new versions of the previously uploaded maps but renamed them. When the check usage tool is working again i will go through and change the usage to the newer version. So now on commons each species has its own category, found in its genus' category, in the family, in the order.
I have added the maps to a few pages so far but not many yet. Chris_huhtalk 19:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justinchat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know what function the area just behind the eyes of rays called the cheek plays? They are holes that lead into some kind of internal cavity. The bellman (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea, never though about it .... can find nothing in wikipedia .... checking books, think what you are talking about is called spiracle, see [3] for picture to confirm, and this says that it is used as an alternative to the gill slits when the ray is laying on the bottom, see also britannica, but now checking shark#Respiration, we actually have text about this for sharks (but not rays :-( ), learned something new today .... --Stefantalk 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, that looks right. I got the name cheek form the stingray article. The bellman (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated the article Sperm Shark for deletion as an apparent hoax. Not actually knowing much about sharks myself, I thought I'd let you guys know. --EliyakT·C 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages[edit]
Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These two genera list the same species; many of them have two articles (e.g. Mud catshark). Can someone who knows the latest research take a look at these articles, and decide which of the names are valid? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Halaelurus is the valid genus; all the species under Bythaelurus were moved there [4]. FishBase lists only one valid species under Bythaelurus, Bythaelurus incanus, which was only described in 2008. -- Yzx (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found this on a beach in the UK, anyone know if it's a purse and possibly what to? (Are there even sharks in the UK!?) Ryan4314 (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a mermaid's purse: it's the eggcase of a skate (fish) or ray, a Raja species, probably Raja undulata. And yes, as well as skates there are a lot of small sharks around the UK, often known as dogfish. Their eggcase looks different, see [5]. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for replying, that's very interesting. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.
If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.
Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.
As some of you may have noticed, there is a cleanup of large-scale copyvio going on. For background, see here and here. There are also fairly many shark articles included, but with them we have a problem... Several of the shark articles started by User:GrahamBould give
as a reference, but none of us actually have access to that book. For the moment we have simply blanked the articles with {{copyvio}}, but they too will have to be handled properly at some point. So if you do have that book, please join us at here (despite the name of that page, we are currently working with fish articles). – Sadalmelik☎ 08:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article (in German) indicates that a probable PJ shark survived for an extended period of time out of the water. The living shark was found deposited on a pavement in Warrnambool and subsequently transported to the beach and released. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reviewed the Tiger shark article as part of the GA sweep, and have a number of concerns that need to be addressed for the article to maintain its GA-status. I'm hoping some members of this WikiProject might want to help out. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani (talk·contribs), the person listed as this portal's maintainer, does not appear to be active. Would anyone be opposed to me overhauling the portal, basing it loosely on my (already featured) Portal:Fungi? I'd love to have another portal to work on, and this one seems like a great candidate. J Milburn (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm currently working on Portal:Sharks, and I'm looking for more high quality or highly valued images of sharks- perhaps to nominate for featured or valued status, perhaps just to add to the portal. Does anyone know of any particularly good ones? J Milburn (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whale shark in the aquarium is featured on Commons... I'll add that to the portal now. The great white one is already there, and the other two seem a little redundant. Thanks a lot for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whale shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --MalleusFatuorum 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Sharks to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just a note that Portal:Sharks has been nominated for featured status. Any comments are welcome. J Milburn (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Project Activity
- Please Confirm your WikiProject's Activity by changing the status from "Unknown" to "Yes" on this page, this is to assist the Coordinators of WikiProject Animals update the directory listing on the WikiProject Council Directory. If your project is NOT updated within 1 (one) week of this notice it will be assumed the project is inactive and the project page will be tagged as such. If you have any concerns please contact me on my talk page. ZooPro 04:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Jaws (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
In case you guys need a mascot, meet Sharky. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shark articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Shark articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please look [map?]. I think you have wrong map, when I translate your article for czech wikipedia. Have a nice day. Krvesaj (talk) 08:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up this page as a user (I am no ichthyologist) and found it in an unsatisfactory state, without citations (it still lacks several and is generally incomplete and incoherent.) I did a bit of editing and linking and ref'ing, but it needs attention from someone who knows the field. IMO, this stub still is in several respects unsatisfactory. It should be merged with Cookiecutter shark which at present is far more satisfactory. If it depended on me, I should change this article to tidy it up and to incorporate the content of the Cookiecutter shark article, and turn that page to redirect to this Genus-named page. But to have both articles instead of one plus a redirection, is not practical either for users or editors. If no one else is interested, I could do something on such lines, but as I have hinted, it isn't really my field.
JonRichfield (talk) 13:48, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article cookiecutter shark is about the species Isistius brasiliensis, while the article Isistius is about the genus, which includes three species. Therefore it is not appropriate to merge them. -- Yzx (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, point taken. But CKS has a lot of info that is appropriate to the genus. Does anyone have the Isistius article in his sights, or should I start ramping up to expand the stub seriously? I am not an ichthyologist, and not short of topics to work on. (Who is??? ;-) ) Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to work on whichever article you want. That's the point of Wikipedia, after all :) -- Yzx (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
appearance of scientific names in lead of species articles listed at their common names[edit]
Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species[edit]
Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.
Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs.....[edit]
I'm a long-time editor who doesn't write in this area at all, but I was just attracted to a headline reading "World-first hybrid shark found off Australia." This is a news report that wouldn't meet the topic requirements for RS, but I don't immediately see anything about it on Wikipedia and thought there might be members of this project with more direct access to scientific literature. I see how news sources distort or sensationalize archaeological finds pertaining to topics I know well, so I always suspect the same for popular science journalism I'm not qualified to assess; still, I (and perhaps other readers) would be interested in learning more about this from an encyclopedic treatment. Just thought I'd mention it here in case anyone was interested in pursuing it. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've flagged the article Sand shark as needing expert attention as the seems to be massive confusion in the text between this species and the Sand tiger shark. Not knowing much about sharks, I'm unsure how much of the text refers to the correct shark. Would it be possible for someone to look into this? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I own many original content videos of various shark species. Is there a way can share these I am new to the wikipedia editing and how to do images and video? Anyone care to help me out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.126.143 (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a notification that what appears to be two student groups have started editing articles on marine life: EcoWikiGroup13 (talk·contribs) at Oncorhynchus, and Group9ecology (talk·contribs) at Coccolithophore. Their instructor doesn't seem to have notified anyone at Wikipedia that this would be happening, and so far the first group, EcoWikiGroup13, have been non responsive at attempts to communicate with them. The edits so far seem fairly competent and Copyscape doesn't detect plagiarism. However, the names they have chosen suggest there may be 13 or more groups involved, so this may be the start of considerable activity. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Squalus bucephalus: I have uploaded a series of 7 photographs of this rare shark in Wikimedia. The specimen has been identified by Bernard Séret, one of the authors of the species. Anyone interested in creating the page? Jeanloujustine (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made one. Thanks for the images of rare fishes. -- Yzx (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed Alopias sp. has been switched from a redirect to a very stubby article - any idea on standard practice for these? It feels somewhat like it ought to be merged into the main family page for now. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and this has now been restubbed again by the same user. Not sure if we have a formal guideline on "undescribed species" articles like this. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
I am wondering if someone from this WikiProject would mind taking a look at List of fatal shark attacks in California and assessing it. There seems to be a lot of detail provided about some of these attacks which might be taking things a bit too far, but I am not sure if that is common for these types of articles. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A new article on the superorder pleurotremata was created today. This appears to be an outdated term that was used to differentiate sharks (pleurotremata) from rays (hypotremata). I've opened a discussion at Talk:Pleurotremata outlining my concerns, but I'm no expert in the field, so I'd like someone who is more knowledgeable of shark taxonomy to take a look. Thanks!! WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]
Greetings WikiProject Sharks Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Sharks.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Sharks, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
"Hi, it has come to my attention that there no longer seems to be a dispute over the classification of C. Megalodon. There seems to now be a strong consensus that Megalodon is a member of Otodontidae and thus is not a close relative of Great white sharks within Lamniformes. It therefore should be considered a member of the genus Carcharocles. No paper supporting the Carcharodon placement seems to have been published for over a decade, and every recent scientific paper on the topic uses Carcharocles.
The main contention being that Megalodon is derived from the genus Otodus and therefore ultimately Cretaceous Cretolamna while the great white shark derives from "Cosmopolitodus" hastalis, I can find very little information about the precise origin of that species except that is probably derived from some Cretaceous members of the mako genus Isurus.
At this point, I think that Wikipedia should be updated to reflect this, but since the article is such a high traffic one I think that a consensus should be reached first."
This talkpage does not seem to be particularly active, but I'd like to hear your thoughts regardless
Okay so it's been a month since the whole PR dilemma, and now I've nominated it to FA. If you've got anything to say, say it there or forever hold your peace (or just edit the page at a later date, whatever's easier). That is all User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest[edit]
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The question came up about renaming the article, please join if you have an opinion on that, or anything else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
