Talk:Shark

dermal denticles

Ok, I'm familiar with the way dermal denticles work with sharks. But how exactly do they protect from parasites? Many sharks do fall subject to parasites or bacteria. In fact, many have 'pilot fish' which eat up the bacteria and parasites. I'd like that statement in the opening paragraph clarified if possible. Thanks! --Starchild12345 (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Mythology

Do you have any reference to shark mythology, in addition to what is already in the article? --pippo2001 03:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) ppro

continuing shark prejudices?

Hi, I think the section on "shark attacks" shouldn't be section number 2 in this article. lol

As I see it, putting this section there only answer to the fact that people always think of sharks in terms of them attacking people or not, and not as simple (carnivore) animals.

I think putting it in position two gives too much importance to the fact that sometimes attacks to humans do happen. I think it should be in position number 7 or 8, next to "Shark fishing", since I believe it's more a "other aspects of sharks" type.

since it would be a big change to the article, any comments on this idea?

--uriel urindar 10:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think Shark Attacks would fit best either after Shark senses or Shark fishery. This is consistent with other articles on animals, which typically focus on information about the animal first, then later on human related topics such as conservation, danger to humans, etc. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 14:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. Plus the latest additions are again full of good old-fashioned hyped prejudices. I am just back from the Maldives where the Black and white tips where mixing with all the bathers, swimmers and snorkelers. They swam until about on the beach.

According to the current article however black tips are dangerous and if you're lucky you will survive an encounter with such a monster. You live by fighting them off by hitting their gils. In reality, they are so shy that is was very hard to get a decent photograph. I had to get up early to see the adults and everytime one ran into me by accident they turn around and swim away. The bull sharks I encountered could also not care less about me. Again they just swam away. Although I personally do not chase bull sharks (very unrecommended behavior), I saw an experienced underwater filmer do just that to get a decent shot. Accidents happen (5 people got killed in 2005) but millions of times people and sharks mix without any problem. I guess the Jaws movie still has a large influence on the general opinion. You are much more likely to get killed by a human (even in the water), nevertheless the Humans article has no information on which species are the most dangerous and how I can fight them off.

I propose to revert the current prejudiced changes. And then put the old Shark attack part as a main article on its own page. The separate page should then be a well balanced story as it is a subject that interests many. Janderk 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Shark attack is currently a disambiguation page with only two links, to the Shark Attack films and to this article. I propose to move most of the content in the section Shark attacks in this article to that title, thereby changing it from a disambiguation page to an article, and adding a disambig line at the top for the films. Meanwhile, this article can contain a small amount of information on the danger, such as it is, of sharks to humans and a link to the main article Shark attack. I'm putting the appropriate templates up now. Thoughts? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · contribs} 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if another entire page is needed, but at least lest place the attacks as a sidefact of the animal and not as the primary center of attention. After all, sharks attack to eat, and humans are as edible as any other animal, it's not like there's hate there, they are predators, that's all. I see most of you agree with this --uriel urindar 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

it's definatly not a question of hating the animal, they just really spook you, and that's if your lucky and don't leave any limbs behind!! After the current spate of shark activity in South Africa there is again talk of culling and netting.

Mycroft_514 - 1 Mar 2007):

Look, the International Shark attack File is run by George Burgess, who, amongst other things, is guilty of academic fraud. He only holds a BS degree, not the PHD he keeps getting accreditted with. If you want actual shark statistics on interactions with humans, I suggest this site instead: http://www.sharkattackfile.com/ Further, in helping the GSAF (the site I just pointed you to) collect statistics on shark incidents over the last 6 years, I have come to find that George Burgess's statistics are just plain inaccurate as well. I have also made 3 dives in the ocean to specifically interact with sharks.

---

sharks are very interesting creatures

It seems a wee bit specious to say you're more likely to get attacked by a pig or a deer than a shark, wouldn't it depend on how much of your time you spend in water and how much you spend on a pig farm or in the woods?.

Besides, there's a difference between being attacked and being killed! I fancy my chances against a pig more than a shark!!!!

---

I read somewhere that for preschoolers, the scariest single word in the English language is "shark". How about some info on sharks attacking people? Is it common? rare? Are there precautions swimmers should take? Ed Poor

• That's on my list of things to explore. Just to reassure Ed, shark attacks are actually very rare. ;) I plan to make this article much larger since sharks are very complex critters. Oh... and just to show people how perceptions can be false, I'd bet most think of the Great White as a rather ponderous, non-maneuverable animal.. Take a look at this link (if you didn't see the Discovery documentary called "Air Jaws").

http://www.discovery.com/stories/nature/sharkweek2000/sneakpeek.html

And click on "Watch the Video".. Rgamble

---

D'oh! At least I gave the opportunity for punning. As a side note, I have personal experience with how fully functional young sharks are. Having participated in a survey cruise off the coast of Maine, we catch fishes, measure and check their gut contents (needless to say, they don't survive this latter procedure - fortunately in the case of the fishes like sharks and rays that survive the netting process, we only do a few of these and release the others). Any female dogfish that are checked this way are also checked for pups and I've seen one or two that had pups with yolk sacs still attached. We cut the yolk sac free and release the pups, which are already quite mobile and attempting to bite their tormentors. Rgamble

• Heh. Couldn't resist. (By the way, I owe you an email; soon.) - Who knew marine biology could be so, er, perilous an undertaking? Compared to that, surely editing Wikipedia's quite tame. :) -- April

• • Nah, dogfish pups aren't bigger than 6-8 inches, and the adults have teeth designed for crushing so they're relatively harmless too (except for the glove piercing spines on the dorsal fins). I'd still rate editing Wikipedia as somewhat more wild. Rgamble

---

Magnus, thanks for dropping in a picture. That was on my list of to-do's for the page but that one's perfect. I'd love to put a picture of a great white pup (dead) lying next to a human for scale in the reproduction section, but not sure it's public domain (or even on the web for that matter). Rgamble

---

Hi Im new here and I'm the one that have done the latest edits. So if you mind flame away, Im learning.

Whale sharks is not 60 feet, there are lots of books saying that but there are no true measurement over 35-40 feet. Changed a bit on sharks killing humans. Changed some small bit here and there.

Is the whale shark really Oviparity that has been unsure I have to check it up. Do not like the definiton of a shark as a large, predator, but I guess it is quite correct? Must check the average size of a shark? :-) And I would place the sharks in the elasmobranch ???, I find the Chondrichthyes page and shark page is confusing now. Isent shakr, rays and skates part of the elasmobranches? skates is now not mentioned on the Chondrichthyes page ... well classification is not my strong side. Stefan

---

OK admit to 60 feet whale sharks, although they are not very common. Change Whale shark to Ovoviviparity.

What I think is missing now is shark finning and ampullae of Lorenzini.

Added ampullae of Lorenzini and lateral line, should have much more info and own page ...

Stefan

---

From the article, first section: There are exceptions to the "large", "marine" and "predatory" portions of the characterization. This makes sense, apart from the implication that not all sharks are "marine" - this is out of my field so I'll leave others to correct or not.Mat-C 15:34, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

I always thought the "sharks dont get cancer" were true, but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/703082.stm

That might be added as a "myth" about sharks...

---

Question...

There are two pictures on the front page. They both are the same. There are lots of edits on this page, myself included. I don't want to step on anyone's toes. Do you think maybe one should be removed?

--Khaldei 20:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reproduction

Please see my comment and link on Talk:Parthenogenesis and consider this topic for inclusion. --Viriditas 13:03, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to Hawaii myself and have done some research on sharks in particular. I have heard of many myths of them taking forms of men. --nellieviolet

The side note about a well-endowed skate is out of place here.

--Mzabaluev 10:59, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was told that they lay some of the biggest eggs in the world, is this true??? The Cleveland Browns are awesome! 14:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Lateral lines

As far as I know lateral lines are for detecting the movement of water (wimilarly to as we humans can detect the wind on our skin), while electrical pulses sent out by wounded or dying fish, or rather electrical field resulting from bioelectricity, are detected by specialized cells in the organ at the top of the nose. Great for detecting hidden prey; wounded is detected rather due to olfactory sense. As I am not sure about validity of the mentioned fact, I didn't corrected the article (yet). --Jnareb 07:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suffocation

I came across this interesting quote on the net. Not sure if its true: "Sharks are said to die of suffocation if they stop swimming" [Message left 05:36, 3 Jun 2005 by User:60.234.139.237 ].

It is true. I have updated the article accordingly. --Theo (Talk) 09:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not always true. Certain species of shark can lay motionless on the bottom quite nicely. Trekphiler 20:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Cerberus

I know a lot about Greek Mythology and i've never heard a story about Cerberus being anything other than the 3 headed dog guard of Hades. certainly nothing to do with sharks

What is the source for that part of this article?

Humans taste bad

My understanding of the proceedings of most shark attacks are as follows:

1) shark mistakes swimming human for floundering fish

2) shark takes bite

3) shark discovers human flesh is much less oily than the fish and marine mammals it usually eats

4) shark says "yukk" to itself and leaves.

If this is true (the humans-aren't-oily-enough bit) then I figure the article should mention it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:07, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I doubt this is true. --pippo2001 01:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about that "oily" thing, but most sharks indeed stop their attack when they realize their prey isn't a fish, a seal or whatever. That's why the majority of shark attack casualties die of their injuries, rather than being completly eaten. 80.140.232.214 14:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I also hear that sharks generally only take one bite out of humans. But I heard a completely different hypothesis:

"Sharks treat humans no different than any other animal. Sharks take one big bite, then circle at a safe distance, waiting for their prey to bleed to death (rather than risk injury from all the thrashing of the wounded animal)."

I agree that If this is true (the humans-aren't-oily-enough bit) then ... the article should mention it. Anyone know one way or the other? --DavidCary 20:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Advice to Those Who Work or Play in Waters Inhabited by White Sharks"

The first comment was the most accurate. Sharks usually bite once to detect the percentage of muscle to fat ratio (sorry but it has nothing to do with 'oils'). Sharks prefer 'fattier' prey, so humans are usually abandon after the first bite, rather than being devouered. The source I have for this is an article given to me by my professor but was exclusive for my colllege and class (I needed a password to access it, and now htat I do not have that class anymore, I can not access it), but I will do my best to find it again. --Starchild12345 (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Deadliest sharks

I think we should have the Discovery Channel's list on the deadliest sharks.

1. Bull shark
2. Great white
3. tiger shark
4. oceanic whitetip shark
5. mako shark
6. blacktip reef shark
7. sand tiger
8. hammerhead
9. blue shark
10. lemon shark

- B-101 02:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, tried to add much more text to shark attack, sortof incorporating the list but in text format, need feedback on the 10-15 sharks that are dangerous to humans, I'm sure there are lots that I have forgotten. Do not agree and sand tiger, should be in the part three, that will attack if provoked I think, but never dived with them so not really sure? Stefan 05:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Long range shark travel

Someone who edits this page will probably find this interesting - Shark followed on 12,000-mile trip.  BD2412 ^talk 05:02, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I added a little more information about shark eyes. JedOs 23:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is going on?

Some guy calling himself JustPhil keeps removing the parts I have added to the article. This is what I have added:

"Unlike bony fish, the sharks have a complex dermal corset arranged as a helical network and made of flexible collagenous fibres surrounding their body. This works as an outer skeleton, providing attachment for their swimming muscles. The sharks saves more energy while swimming this way than if they didn't have their collagenous corset. A similar arrangement of collagen fibres has been discovered in dolphins and squids." Source: http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/white_shark/skin.htm

"Their dermal teeth gives them hydrodynamic advantages as they are reducing the turbulence when swimming." (A well known fact)

"Their upper jaw are not attached to the skull." (Also a well known fact)

"The short duct between the anterior and posterior nasal openings are not fused like in bony fish." (Another fact)

Those who read and use Wikipedia are encouraged to add and write themselves, but what's the point if it's removed all the time?

I have notified the user on his talk page that he should explain why he does the reverts and warned him agains the three revert rule WP:3RR, lets see what happens. I think your edits are good and can not see why they should be reverted. Stefan 06:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry. But that edit was deleting part of that paragraph.- JustPhil 11:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to see everything is okay now.

Inviting all shark editors

I don't know if you guys out there have read the articles for the individual species. Some articles, e.g. Oceanic Whitetip Shark and Great White Shark are top-drawer. Absolutely first class work.

Other articles, e.g. Tiger Shark and Bull Shark are really pathetic. I mean Bull Shark really, really sucks. These are two important species.

Let's get busy people! Hokeman 01:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

how do sharks "smell" blood in the water? is it throught diffusing or is it bt other mechanisms

Opening sentence

The opening sentence (which is also a whole paragraph) reads as follows:

Sharks are a group (superorder Selachimorpha) of fish, with a full cartilaginous skeleton, a streamlined body plan, with normally 5, but up to 7 (depending on species) gill slits along the side of, or beginning slightly behind, the head (in some species, a modified slit called a spiracle, is located just behind the eye), dermal denticles covering the body to protect from damage, parasites and improve fluid dynamics, and rows of replaceable teeth in the mouth.

In case anyone decides to hack at this this incredible run-on sentence, i'd like to preserve it on the talk page here so it can be rememebered as a great example of awkward openings. —Pengo 04:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Collective noun

I removed the comment about "shiver" being the collective noun for a group of sharks. There's no source given, and the OED does not give this usage among the three distinct words written shiver in the English language. Google finds only 141 hits on "shiver of sharks", largely people listing collective nouns ("murder of ravens", etc.). I strongly suspect somebody just made this up -- put it under neologisms. Tkinias 12:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd put it in a 'Trivia' section if you decide to have one. I've heard it used once only.HappyVR 14:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sleep

Is it true that sharks never sleep? Can something be added about this? Badagnani 00:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not know how or if sharks sleep, I added a section with some facts, if anyone knows more please add. Stefan 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

    From my understanding sharks do not sleep, but shut down parts of their brain in certain intervals while remaining active, I will work on locating the source for this. --Starchild12345 (talk) 06:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Urine

It says that sharks urine accumulates in the blood and is excreted throught the skin, but isn't urine what is filtered out of the blood, if you put urine back into the blood it just becomes plasma.

Perhaps it would be more clear to say "ammonia" or "nitrogenous wastes." --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sharks in captivity

It would be interesting to add a section to the article about sharks in captivity. I may take that up at some point, but for now, I am pretty busy with other things... So until then, other people are certainly free to take the bait and get started with it. User:Svartulfr1 01:17 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added something about sharks in captivity, this is only a start but its something --chris_huh 12:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A very nice start at that... thanks! svartulfr1 17:04 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Sense of Smell

Though I realize that their credibility is questioned by some people, on the show "MythBusters", they tested the 'blood drop in water'theory, and they foudn it to be untrue. Or..untrue within the parameters they created.

But it was a much smaller area of water and I'm not sure what kind of shark they tested this on, or if they were even fully grown sharks. The sharks were quite small. I don't know that there is any type of shark that is small enough to fit in a large bucket as an adult.

If anyone has any info on this, please edit that section, or at least clarify, with a source.

Reproduction2 - placenta

In the Placenta-article in does not say anything about non-mammalian placentas at all. Does someone have information about this and could add it? I think it is a very interesting question in what sense shark and mammalian placentas converge and what are the most important differences. It doesn't say anything about this neither here nor there. Great article, by the way, keep up the good work!80.109.92.235 00:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Split "Physical characteristics" off

The article is becoming fairly big now - I think it would be good to split the physical characteristics out to a separate article and just maintain a summary here. Yomangani^talk 10:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at what bits we might be able to split and physical characteristics seemed to be to most likely, as it is easily large enough to be its own page, and will only get bigger. chris_huh 10:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting

Are we using American or British spelling? I found both in the article, and I'm reluctant to change to one or the other without the consensus of people who have worked on the article. Any preference? I don't mind going in and changing it myself.

I also messed up with "fish" vs "fishes" in my edit. I went back and changed things before I hit "submit", but I may not have got them all. ("Fish" should be used for a number of individuals; "fishes" refers to a number of different species.) I'll give it another go-over later today. Sorry about that! Lomaprieta 03:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the very first edit [1], which appears to use American spelling (characterized, not characterised). So I would say editors should change British spellings where they encounter them to American spellings. This is according to (my interpretation of) Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 03:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Since that first edit only had one paragraph, i don't think you can really use that to go by. It seems that the majority of words so far in the article and in other shark articles is in British spelling, so i would have thought it would have been better to keep to that and change the few others. --84.9.149.110 08:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Does this fact seem stupid?

In 2005, according to the International Shark Attack File, there were a total of 58 unprovoked attacks recorded worldwide, of which four were fatal.[25] In comparison, several hundred people die annually from lightning strikes[26] and 1.3 to 3 million people die from diseases transmitted via mosquito bites.[27]

0 people die from diseases carried in mosquito bites in cold environments. And 0 people die from shark attacks in central Australia. The entire basis of this comparison is wrong. Different areas have different chances of attacks. Id edit the page myself but im no good at editting

AGE

Hey can anyone tell me how old a shark can get? How old is it when it starts reproducing? Does it ever stop reproducing if so how old would it be? Does it have a teen stage? Does it die of old age? Does its teeth ever stop growing? FranzSeidel 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

National Varieties of English

So which variety are we using? I see people changing spellings back and forth which is usually not appropriate, but would be okay if it were to make the spellings consistent with one variety. I went through the (very) old original edits, and found these early versions that appear to use American spellings, starting with the first edit: [[2] (characterized) [3] (recognized) [4] (favored) Based on this information I think Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English recommends using American spelling throughout the article.

I thought we had gone through and already made sure that they were all of the right variety. When it was selected as the Sharks COTF we went through and made sure they were all British spellings from what i remember, as only a few were American. Maybe someone has gone back in and changed a few back. Chris_huh^talk 00:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that whole thing when the WP:FISH article fell off my watchlist somehow. Can you point me to the discussion? --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 01:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Its actually just a few headings up - 'Copyediting'. Its not really much of a discussion as not much was decided on, but i remember after reading it i and maybe someone else went through and tried to consistantly use British. But maybe someone has gone in and changed some of them back. Chris_huh^talk 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we decided on British English just because there were more instances ion the text already - the problem is that the Behavio(u)r section was added later and is now a prime target for that sort of "correction" (its especially nice when the title is changed and the first sentence left). Let's keep it as British English. Yomangani^talk 10:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone check respiration section

There seems to be someone tampering with the article... bye everyone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.198.108 (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"The process of ensuring an adequate flow of the gills by forward movement is known as ram up the ass.

this doesnt sound scientific nor im sure is correct...

R.

It's called vandalism and it's gone now. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. In the future, you can always make the change yourself -- anyone can edit this encyclopedia! --Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 19:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

False info on smelling blood?

No scientist can actually prove that they can smell blood. Actually according to a discovery channel show, the Mythbusters, they can't smell blood. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.44.106.218 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

Wrong, Sharks have an incredible sense of smell, and can detect extremely small amounts of blood in water.--Starchild12345 (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Dynamic lift in buoyancy section

"...so sharks employ the dynamic lift to maintain depth and sink when they stop swimming". I don't think this is right. Dynamic lift should incorporate something dynamic, such as moving.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.226.207.1 (talk • contribs).

Swimming is the dynamic movement involved. --Ginkgo100^talk 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sharks as fish

Sharks should not be classified as "fish" because they aren't vertebrates because they don't have bones and vertebrates have to have bones —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.101.44.70 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 January 2007.

Actually, a fish is any chordate (that is, animals with a notochord) that is not a tunicate or a tetrapod. For more information, see What is a fish?. --Ginkgo100^talk 23:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

a notochord is a backbone, which is composed of vertebrae, which sharks don't have

I'm not sure, but I think like us, humans, sharks have the notochord just on embrional stage, or else they wouldnt't be considered Chordata, or was I sleeping at my lessons again? o.O

No, a notochord is not the same as a backbone. Please read the article if you are not certain about this. The notochord is one of the most ancient structures in chordates, which is why the phylum is named after it. The notochord is found in the embryological stage of all chordates including sharks. In the adults of more derived (advanced) species, its only remnant is a blob of tissue inside the discs between the vertebrae. (By the way, sharks do have vertebrae; they are made of cartilage instead of bone, but they develop from the same tissue.) In the most primitive chordates, such as lampreys, the notochord is fully developed even in adults. --Ginkgo100^talk 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Afferent vs. Efferent

The article says "Here the blood is pumped to the shark's gills via the ventral aorta artery where it branches off into afferent brachial arteries." I'm no expert on shark physiology, but my understaning was that afferents go towards the heart and efferents go away from it. Is this not right? -Selket ^Talk 05:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Shark Rehabilitation Mania

It might be worthwhile mentioning that despite being "misunderstood" creatures, they are nevertheless extremely dangerous and should never be approached however benevolent the motives.

Except in the case of some TV explorers who foolishy swim with sharks, it would be agreed that there would be nothing misunderstood on either side if an unwitting ordinary mortal came face to face with a shark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.177.61 (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

First Paragraph

I have been looking at different species articles and came by the shark one. This is the only article that has a first paragraph with, as i see it, irrelevant details as "They are some of the world's most misunderstood predators..." I was looking for actual information about the species and although this information is useful to some, it should not be where it is. Look at other not-so-popular species' articles to see what I'm talking about. (Antonio.sierra 15:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

FA

What do you think, should this be a FA nominee?

I would not nominate this article just yet, it needs a good copyedit, possibly prosifying that listed section, and that part about the repellent needs to be clarified and cited to find out if its true, it has been temporarily removed from the article apparently and has a hidden comment. I would also take a good look at all the external links, making sure none of them are advertisements or linkspam, there are an awful lot of them.Darthgriz⁹⁸ 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Range?

Is there any discussion of the range of sharks, or are they like mosquitoes: more or less everywhere? (Within reason)? 68.39.174.238 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

As in north/south they can be found everywhere, from greenland shark to whale shark. Not sure if it should be mentioned in the article and if so where, lead or habitat section? Stefan 23:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Companion fish

What are those smaller fish that are often seen swimming alongside (or attached to) a shark? Might be worth mentioning in the article too. Ham Pastrami 05:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is pilot fish, when they are attached it is a remora. I updated text for picture, not sure if it should have its own section in article, it is pretty largs as is. --Stefan ^talk 05:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

The trivia section doesn't really add much to the article (and they are discouraged in wikipedia). I reckon this section should be completely removed. I am not sure where some of the info could be included in as some of the facts do not necessarily relate to much else. Should it just be taken out completely then? Chris_huh^talk 15:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Remove it all!!! Only thing I would save it that the tiger shark can stick its head out of the water (did not know that) (but after checking the ref and seeing that it is a bad link I would not reuse it either) --Stefan ^talk 15:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section is also incorrect. I'm not sure you'd be too successful in "turning the shark over and rubbing its belly" if you were under attack, but they will go into a coma-like state if they are turned over. - Theresa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.40.61 (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in section "skeleton"

To the author(s) of this article,

Someone has vandalized the skeleton section of the physical characteristics part of the article on sharks. Where it describes the male reproductive organs, a vandal has substituted the word "dicks". Thought you might like to know.

Thanks

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.231.88.5 (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Up to a year or more?

Under "Sharks in captivity", it says that only a few species could be kept in captivity for "up to a year or more." That doesn't mean anything. It doesn't tell us anything about the longevity of sharks in captivity, since it only says that the length of time could be less than, equal to, or greater than one year. The trouble is, I don't know what the author of that sentence actually meant. Could someone clarify? Thanks. Ketsuekigata (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

"The fossil record of sharks extends back over 450 million years - before land vertebrates existed and before many plants had colonised the continents. "

And then...

"Among the most ancient and primitive sharks is Cladoselache, from about 370 million years ago"

Hmm, that's an 80 million year gap, could this be filled? I'm not going to get into the "well, 80 million years is nothing compared to the total time of the existence of Earth" thing, but 80 million years is a longer time than the extinction of the dinosaurs thing and close to a sixth of the time that sharks have been around. I'm not saying that sharks haven't been around for that long, they probably have, it's just odd to read. Don't we know anything about 450 mya old sharks based on fossilized skeletons and is our knowledge based on a several teeth or fossilized egg cases, or what?Seeofseaof (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, it's almost as if science doesn't really know as much as it claims to!

So.. that didn't help me one bit. If there is no evidence of sharks having been around for 450 million years, this should be removed from the article and reduced to 370 million years. If there is, this article needs some fossil evidence that show that sharks have been around for that long. If it's just clearly shark ancestors, that could be included with the article, but shark ancestors aren't sharks just like Cynodonts aren't humans.Seeofseaof (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the references for those two statements, they are quite solid (plus minus about 25 million years :-) ), but my guess is that since 450 million years is about twice as long ago as the dinosaurs, and sharks does not have bones, there is not that much left, I guess what you want is a name of the 'first' shark? After a bit of searching I found this: [5] which states

“

The oldest fossilized evidence of prehistoric sharks comes from shark-like scales that date to 455 million years ago during the Ordovician Period, in Colorado. Some paleontologists do not agree that these scales are sufficiently shark-like to pronounc them sharks. But there is no disagreement that scales found during the Silurian Period, aged 420 million years, are from sharks. Shark scales from this period have been found in Siberia and Mongolia. The oldest shark teeth are from the Devonian Period, about 400 million years old, found in Europe. Nothing beyond these scales or the teeth is known about these early sharks.

”

So either we take that statement and add something from it, or leave things as it is?? I think I will try to add something from this, maybe tomorrow.... --Stefan ^talk 14:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I somehow missed that link. I'm not going to edit it right now or anything since I'll await approval or if someone else wants to do it (I'm not that knowledgable on sharks at all, I'm just an evolution nut, though sharks do interest me). How's our knowledge on the phylogentic tree of sharks? Shouldn't it say

Evidence for the existence of sharks extends back over 450 - 420 million years, into the Ordovician period - before land vertebrates existed and before many plants had colonised the continents.

since for all we know, the shark like scales and teeth could belong to an ancestor or a sister-clade rathar than a true shark? I hope I'm not being too critical here.Seeofseaof (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be critical, that is what wikis are all about (as long as it is constructive critisism), I just did the change,I think it is better and agree. If you are an evolution nut please review and update and/or research, I have no clue what phylogentic tree is, and it is a red link so that did not help :-(, so please help fill in info and be critical! I think we should have a separate article about the evolution of sharks, but I not sure I'm capabe of writing it .... hint hint :-) --Stefan ^talk 13:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I meant to type phylogenetic tree, my bad. My typing skills are on the more horible side of things. I would write it, but I'm lacking knowledge in the shark deparment. I agree, though, a seperate article that explains the different major stages in shark evolution (perhaps occasional mass extintionn and important steps in shark evolution, when their lineage branched of from rays, and so on) would be beneficial and interesting. Also a time scale of when shark linages diverged would be a good read.87.208.40.14 (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I found it after I wrote the comment, think it is a subject you need to do serious research to do a good writeup of. I really would like to show the scale of how long the sharks have really existed compared to other life, it is really interesting, this statement above is very good, " before land vertebrates existed and before many plants had colonised the continents " but the scale of things is kind of lost. Not sure how express the scale of things better. --Stefan ^talk 02:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Dolphin fear

Sharks have good cause to fear dolphins, or at least to show some deference. Sharks may follow pods of dolphins when a dolphin is giving birth (there will be edible afterbirth and there might be an edible stillborn dolphin that the pod leaves behind) or when some dolphin in the pod is in ill health because a dead dolphin is shark food. Dolphins themselves are predators, and should a fish escape one set of predatory mouths, then a shark has a chance at that fish. Sharks usually keep a safe distance, for attacking a pod of dolphins is a fatal mistake; dolphins can ram a shark to death even if the dolphins have no chance to eat the dead shark.

This is altogether different from the threat that dolphins pose to small sharks that a dolphin could devour in one bite. --Paul from Michigan (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

My Biology teacher told me that sharks can never stop moving because they don't have a gill cover (which would allow them to stop moving and keep breathing). So when they sleep they have to continue swimming. Similar to humans continuing breathing while sleeping. This article contradicts that, who's right? You guys or my Biology teacher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.73.187 (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

a couple sharks are designed to stop moving and still be okay, a few have unusual gills or find water currents where they can sit still as the water flows over them like a wind tunnel, but most have to keep swimming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shark Marriage

I read a book one day, on sea monsters. I forgot the exact title of the book, but it explained that a woman married a shark... This was a real newspaper, can anyone find this and explain the story, I didn't get a chance to read the whole book myself, it was my friend's book. Thecutnut (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Shark Attacks

This shit is all over the news RIGHT NOW. Got shark attacks in Mexico, CA and now Florida - so far. Seen this on FOX News and on the Communist/Clinton News Network. 205.240.144.214 (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This article offers an explanation: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/04/wildlife.climatechange?45 Bob98133 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Typical sensationalism in choice of article title. There is no "surge in shark attacks", and no where in the article does it blame increased attacks on global warming. What it says is that global warming could be a factor in the location of the attacks. The WP article on sharks (this one) states "The average number of fatalities per year between 2001 and 2006 from unprovoked shark attacks is 4.3." So having 1 in 2007 was an anomaly, instead of having 4 in 2008 being a "surge". More people die from falling coconuts each year than from shark attacks, and you can put that in the article. See [6]. It can not be emphasized enough that when we go into the ocean we are going into their native habitat, and we need to avoid them, not expect them not to bite us. What the Guardian article does say, is "as long as we have an increase in human hours in the water, we will have an increase in shark bites." 199.125.109.126 (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy is out-of-date

Hi. According to Itis.gov the taxonomical level called Selachimorpha is not anymore used. It and rays are unified to one superordo called Euselachii: [7]. It need lot of work to upadate this page. 84.253.216.60 (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

New information for the Bluntnose sixgill shark

[8] stated that the six gilled shark sucks in water and sand to eat the isopods. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

In popular culture section

Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but I don't precisely see the reason behind a handful of shark related movies, books and televisions shows that feature sharks as the centerpiece being enumerated. It seems a bit tangential and not at all helpful to the article, at least not in an encyclopedic sense. Am I alone in feeling this way? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine with me to drop the popular culture section. I agree. Bob98133 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The section is just a horrible list that doesn't say much, but I think an encyclopedia article on sharks ought to at least mention things like movie Jaws. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, removed it, Jaws is mentioned in the shark attack section. --Stefan ^talk 14:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge Shark senses and behaviors into shark

Suggest that this new article should be merged into shark. Not much to merge, shark already have most, but some things seams to be good but is not cited (or have a (cite) text), whatever that means, and should probably be cited before it can be merged. One things that is missing in this article that the Shark senses and behaviors have is a section of diet, I did not like the one in Shark senses and behaviors so I modified it a bit but we should have one in here i think. Comments? --Stefan ^talk 13:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Support No reason to have this as a separate article. A diet section would be nice to add to the Behaviour sectionsince none of the page is cited it could be a problem. Chris_huh^talk 14:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Support--Mbz1 (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Created a small section on feeding here (please improve) and redirected Shark senses and behaviors to here. --Stefan ^talk 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Removal of misleading digitally altered photos

Two editors (I'm one of them) have removed two misleading digitally altered photos from this article. They are pictures of what sharks look like going after bait on the end of a pole, but the photos have been for some reason doctored to remove the pole. Since the photos show shark behavior when presented with bait on the end of a pole, it is misleading to hide the pole. It's the equivalent of showing an image of a man waterskiing, and digitally removing the ski rope. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The image I posted last was only cropped and not touched digitally at all. May I with your permission crop my own images?Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you should not alter photos, including cropping them, in a misleading way. Why are you insisting on hiding the poles in these photos? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I like it better this way. There's absolutely nothing misleading in the images at all. Could you please try to imagine that images could have been taken with no poles seen or poles could have been under water? BTW, if you dot not like my images please feel free to nominate them on deletion. I could explain to you how to do it.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, other editors don't "like it better this way," because "this way" misleads readers. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit and crop your own photos however you like, but after altering them electronically you should not post them to Wiki. If altered photos are used, readers have to take the editor's word that the context/sense/image has not been changed in a way that would alter its meaning. Since you like the altered versions better, clearly their "meaning" is somehow altered by your editing. This would be like rewording a quotation but leaving it in quotation marks. Even if it means the same thing, it's not right, and not verifiable by other editorsBob98133 (talk) 22:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. This image and this image were only cropped.Absolutely nothing else was done to the images. I guess you would not mind, if I put them back to the article? On the other hand here's one of my images , which was altering electronically not by me, but somebody else. May I please ask you to nominate it for speedy? I would have done it myself, but I'm afraid speedy would be refuesed, if I am to nominate the image myself? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So called "other editor" has agreed that cropping is OK. I posted cropped images back to the article.IMO it is wrong to say that images are misleading. The images show a usual behavior of great white sharks toward a prey (or any other subject that a shark wished to investigate) that is floating on the water surface, and therefore evan to talk about the images being misleading is simply wrong. I hope that user:Sharksaredangerous would agree that the cropped images could have been easily taken the way they are cropped now in the first place. I would also like to know what is the extent of the knoledge of great white sharks by user:Sharksaredangerous, besides of course their user name, which IMO is kind of misleading (Sharks are not nearly as dangerous as Sharksaredangerous is :=) .--Mbz1 (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to talk about people personally, maybe you should find a chat site rather than an encyclopedia. As far as encyclopedia articles go, I've added to a caption to make the context clear, and removed an image with no apparent context to the section it was in. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It was only a joke, nothing personal. Sorry about this.I cannot agree that my image has nothing to do with a shark attack. Of course it does not show a shark attack, and I've never claimed it does, but it is at the very least as relevant to the section as the other image is. BTW there are literally thousands of articles here on Wikipedia, in which the images are displayed "with no apparent context to the section it was in". It's OK, unless of course you'd like to remove the images from all those articles.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That there are also other articles with mistakes in them that is not going to prevent me from fixing mistakes on articles I am interested in. Good captions establish the picture's relevance to the article and provide context for the picture, so I'm going to fix this caption so that it does just that. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 19:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you at least were so kind to explain to me how the othe image in the section is more relevant than my image is, maybe I would have agreed with you. My image at least shows the teeth. I hope you would agree that the teeth are one of of the main factors of a shark attack.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The caption of the other image provides context which makes a case for its relevance. Please keep in mind that this is a collaborative encyclopedia project and not your personal photo gallery so I don't think we need three of your images in this article, nor do we need this image in three articles, nor do we need three images of one type of shark in a general shark article, nor do we need your unethically manipulated photos, nor do we need you warring over your image placement and captions. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it is collaborative encyclopedia. May I please ask with whom excacly you collaborated before removing my images. May I please ask you to stop personal attacks? The photos were not "unethically manipulated ". The photos were not manipulated at all. The photos were cropped. If there were better images than mine, I would have been the first one to remove my images from all the articles.I could agree that The caption of the other image provides context which makes a case for its relevance, but what there are besides the caption? How many caces there are of blacktips attacking swimmeres? The image shows a close up of a swimmer and a small reef shark that by the way swimms away from the swimmer.All your arguments are bogus. You did not like that I removed a pole in photo shop and then, when I showed to you that the same thing could have been done simply by cropping the image you became very much unfair and very much enraged. What "unethically manipulation" are you talking about? Did I open a shark mouth and inserted the teeth there? What did I do? I only removed a pole, and btw, when I did so called ""unethically manipulation" of the images I provided a very clear links to the original images. That's why I consider your talking about some "unethically manipulation" as a personal attack. The images that are in the articles now were only cropped. They could have been easily taken this way in the first place. Call it "unethically manipulation" is a very, very, very big stretch and is really unethicall on its own. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Your photos where you removed the poles by adding extra waves to the images were unethically manipulated. Do you understand that? It harms the credibility and utility of an encyclopedia if it publishes doctored photos. As far as your view that the other image is misplaced, then either move it or remove it. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree that my images were "unethically manipulated" not as long as I provided a clear link to the original images, but why to talk about them now? Now my images are only cropped and you still call it "unethicall manipulation".Most of the time I try to add images to the articles and not to remove them, and while doing this I mostly consider, if an article will benefit from the images added. I believe that this article has benefited from my images. As a matter of fact I believe that two of my images that are in the article now are very relevant to the article and to the sections they are in. That's why I'm fighting to keep them in the article and that's why I cannot agree with any of your arguments in favor of removing the images. Once again I consider your comments as highly unfair and highly unethicall. Still I'd like to ask you a question please: Could you agree with my statement that it was entirely possible that the images were taken the way they are cropped now?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, first I see no problem with cropping an image (unless you take away something that is importaint for context), and I do not think that should be the argument here. Secondly I have been trying to find any policy or guideline or anything that describes when we should add images and I can only find ONE small text in WP:IMAGES which states Contributors should be judicious in deciding which images are the most suitable for the subject matter in an article and then states some examples. I think that a picture that shows a white shark biting a bait is not really suitable in the shark attack section? I can also agree that the picture of the black tip and the swimmer is not really suitable either. I do think it is more suitable since it shows that shakrs do not eat humans all the time, and the bait picture shows a unnatural situation and behaviour of the shark induced by human interaction. So if you are happy to remove YOUR picture if we remove both, please do. And also remeber WP:Other stuff exists, just because there are other place, lots of them, including this article that have other pictures that does not fit, or does not fit into the section does not mean that this argument does not hold here, this is a [[wiki], just edit (I would, but I do not want to get into a revert war). There are MORE than enough pictures in the page. I also would suggest to remove the picture in the teeth section, I can not see the multiple rows of teeth on my screen. The tiger and oceanic white tip does not add antything either. The shark fin soup picture is questionable. Same argument goes in shark attack and great white shark --Stefan ^talk 13:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Stefan. So according to you there should be almost no pictures in the article at all? Well, I'm afraid your opinion is a little bit off most of the users and readers opinions. For example you voted "oppose" on my green turtle nomination. The image is FP on four Wikipedias and on Commons. The image got fifth place on the picture of the year competition. Now let's get back to the sharks. We have only one a very, very low resolution image, which shows great white shark jumping out of the water to catch a seal. My images of the great white shark are the best ones on Wikipedia to show the teeth, not only great white shark teeth, but the sharks teeths in general, and you said the teeth section does not benefit from the imafe? Great white sharks do get theit heads out of the water to catch a prey , including humans. It is their natural behavior, and you offering to remove both images from all the articles? I am sorry you cannot see multiple rows of teeth on your screen, but I hope you would at least agree that it is the best image on Wikipedia, which shows the teeth of the live shark. I've never seen a shark attacking a human and I hope I'll never will, but I strongly believe the images should stay, where they are.The tiger and oceanic white tip do provide the pictures with the links to the article. I'm very sure some users do not read the article, but only click on the pictures. What's wrong, if they see the pictures of two very hard to find and hard to photograph sharks?--Mbz1 (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree w/Stefan. This discussion is pointless and off-topic if it is discussing other articles, previous voting, etc. Time to seek concensus. Please weigh in. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah Bob98133, I had no doubt you agree with Stefan. BTW what is this 98133, your zipcode? I will not remove any image from the article myself because I believe the article benefits from the images, and the article value increased by all the images, which are present in the article now even by the image of the soup from sharks. On the other hand I'm not going to put my images back to the article, if they are removed. I got tiered of ignorance of some of the users, who never saw a shark in their entire life, but find it's ok to talk about sharks natural and unnatural behavior and so on.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(Conflict)Mbz1, I do not know if it is the best picture on wikipedia which shows the teeth of a live shark, and it does not matter to me. I do think the 'dead' teeth is more encyclopeadic, and that one picture is MORE than enough to cover 6 lines of text, and what does your FA turtle have to do with this?? I still think the background is messy, but it is still a good picture and probably a suitable picture for most pages that you have added it to! Mbz1 be careful with what you assume of people, are you calling me ignorant or only bob or someone else? How many different shark species have you seen in a natural environment, i.e. not baiting? --Stefan ^talk 15:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I do know, Stefan that you prefer dead teeth and aquarium sharks. After all you voted to support this whale shark aquarium image, which did not pass. It is a good picture, no doubt, but to me the images taken in the wild are much more precious and encyclopedic, even when baiting is involved. I took few images of the whale sharks, when I snorkeled with them in the middle of Indian ocean. They are much worse than aquarium image, but they were taken in the wild! When I see a shark in aquarium I'd like to break a window and let him go to the ocean. I've seen whale sharks, black and white tip reef sharks and one shark that I cannot ID, but some believe it could have been a small tiger shark, maybe it was just another reef shark. As a matter of fact I did not see him at all, when I was taking pictures. I saw him only, when my pictures were printed. It was strange and a litlle bit scarry. Here he is in the upper right corner. Could you see him on your screen, Stefan? Great white sharks are almost imposible to see without baiting. At least I'm not sure I wish to see one ever, not while I'm swimming anyway. I still believe that my images of great white shark out of the water do show natural behavior of the sharks inspite of baiting, and are one of the best images of great white shark Wikipedia offers now.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

(conflict again)You did not answer my question, do you consider me ignorant? or bob? Or was it someone else? Anyway FYI, then I have seen more than twice as many live shark species in a natural environment, including 2 oceanic white tipps, none baited! And yes I can see your shark! I also think it is a tiger, do not think that is a reef shark, but I'm not an expert. Also stop digging up old personal things that you do not like, discuss the point, do not try to provoke! I will stop talking to you now, there is no point! --Stefan ^talk 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I could suggest getting a third opinion about which images best illustrates the topics discussed here by nominating competing images in a Most Valued Review, which is a review method used in the Valued images project on Commons to figure out which image best illustrates a certain scope, i.e., Shark attack. See more details at at the Valued image candidates page for some more information and examples of ongoing reviews. The reviewers there are used at evaluating how well an image illustrates a given scope in an online context, and it is un-biased. That may give some more balanced and uninvolved input into this polarized discussion. Note, that to compete, the images have to fulfill certain other criteria. For instance, they should be geocoded on their Commons image pages. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kim,
Thank you very much for your message. I'm afraid we already have three opinions and they all are for removing my images from the article. As a matter of fact we've got fourth opinion. The shark on his back image was removed from the article already, which IMO means that once again ignorance has won while Wikipedia readers have lost. I'm not going to put it back, but I'd like one more time to state my opinion here. The dead teeth image shows teeth close up while the shark on his back image shows not only multiply rows of teeth of a live, wild shark, not only upper and low jaws, not only the color of the jaws, but also a very interesting behavior, when a shark turned on his back to catch a bait. The images add value to each other, and IMO they should stay together in the article. IMO it is kind of silly to suggest that because of baiting shark's behavior becomes unnatural. It is what sharks do to attack a swimmer, who swimms at the ocean surface exactly as a bait does. The same applies to my other image too. IMO my images added value to the article, but I decided to let it go.Thank you again.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I made an edit a few days ago to remove some of the images from cluttered regions. I didn't realise that they were being discussed here until I was informed so might as well put in my opinion on this.

The teeth section is only about 7 lines (obviously depends on screen size, but won't vary too much) so just the one photo is really necessary. Between the two (Image:Tiger shark teeth.jpg and Image:Great white shark at his back12.jpg) i think the tiger shark teeth is more useful as the teeth are far clearer. Although the multiple rows of teeth are visible in the GWS photo it isn't particularly clear. Mbz1 argued on my talk page that the GWS photo shows interesting behaviour, if so then wouldn't it fit better in the behaviour section.

This discussion seems to have started with the cropping in the photos. Although it is a bit misleading, i think the more pressing issue is whether they are really encyclopaedic enough (and if they are properly used). As i have just said, i dont think the teeth one holds up in the teeth section, when compared to the tiger shark teeth photograph. As for the other photo of the baited GWS, that also doesn't really fit into the shark attack section. That section is about sharks attacking humans. A GWS attacking bait doesn't really convey much about this (even if it may be similar [it is dead bait though] to attacking a human), and given a choice between that and a photo of a snorkler with a black tipped shark not attacking, i would have to favour the latter. The baited GWS may fit in nicely in the feeding section though.

Mbz1, don't feel hard done by having your photos removed from an article. They may fit in better in other articles. Was there a reason you didn't upload to Commons instead? Commons would mean it could be used on other language wikipedias, as well as other wikimedia projects, and just simply on commons itself. There are links to the other projects at the bottom, including commons, so if you put them up there then people can get the photos that way.

If every photograph that was slightly relevant to sharks was used in this article it would be swamped; the article would be huge to download for readers, and difficult to read. I never, personally, like seeing more than one photo on one line, making the text sandwiched between two images (if you understand me), i just think it ruins the look of the page.

For quality sake i prefer the baited shark (over the open mouth shark) photo, and would have no problems with that one being included in the feeding section. I won't make any changes to it yet though. Chris_huh^talk 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chris_huh, may I please ask you, if you agree that the two discussed images are the only images in the article, which actually show a shark doing something except just swimming. IMO they both are good brhavior shots and it seems to me that we at least might agree on this one. The shark on his back image shows jaws of a live shark and I believe it is also interesting, it also shows the difference between upper and lower teeth, but I do agree with you that the teeth are not clearly seen on the image, and I would not mind putting the image to other part of the article. IMO the other image, which is in shark attack section now is the best image to illustrate how a shark could attack a swimmer. Right now I do not really care, if both images will be removed from all of the articles. Looks like I am the only one, who believes the articles benefits from the images. I do not upload my images to Commons because I clossed my Commons account. So you believe that the discussed images are only "slightly relevant to sharks"?Oh, well... Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose they are the only images that show sharks doing something other than swimming, but with the snorkling photo it shows that the sharks behaviour isn't always aggressive (which is, sadly, what a lot of people think it is), and the Oceanic with the pilot fish displays how they have no problem with other fish (as does the tiger shark above to some extent).

I have moved the baited photo to the feeding section as i feel it makes more sense here. Obviously a photo of a shark attacking a human would fit perfect in the shark attack section, but noone would really want the opportunity to get a shot like this, maybe a photo of a shark bite wound or something, but beggers can't be choosers. What would be nice would be a different caption for the image left in the article now, that relates to how it was baited and how it feeds.

The problem is that articles very much benefit from pictures but too many and the article gets cluttered, which makes it hard to read, which is really what it is for in the first place. That is why with some subjects which have a lot of pictures (such as this) you have to start scrutinizing the pictures to keep just the most valuable, and useful. But then thats why links to commons are provided so if people specifically want to find photos on that, they can.

Sorry, i didn't mean to say that these photos were only slightly relevant to sharks, they clearly are very relevant, but so are many of the ones in the commons category, so indlued all of them too would flood the article. It's a shame you left commons, you put in a lot of good photos, i think the common problem with some of your shots, though, is that many of them were taken before digital (correct me if i'm wrong) and then scanned in (or reprocessed in some way from the negs to digital form) which means that the quality generally isn't as crisp as can be acheived from digital sensors (at least for screen viewing). This is a problem i saw with some of your commons FP noms, people would argue it is possible to get a shot retaken of the subject with better quality for screen. But i digress into Commons chatter. Chris_huh^talk 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Habitat

I have checked the source material for the section named habitat, as it is oddly phrased in an apparently contradictory manner that sharks live down to only 1500 meters, but then claims that they don't colonize below 3000 meters. According to one of the sources, the Annual Census of Marine Life 2006 Highlights, this is backwards. It should say that they rarely colonize below 1500 meters, and are very rarely found below 3000, which makes more sense. I have updated it accordingly.Filksinger (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)