Talk:Goblin shark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Sharks
 This article is part of WikiProject Sharks, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on sharks. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance within WikiProject Sharks.
Sharks To do:

Merge - if the images are public domain they would be useful additions Yomangani 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page Overhaul

Phew, pausing my page revamp. I'll take a break for a while. Shrumster 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work, you deserve a break! Stefan 00:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! :) We need to find more pics. Shrumster 16:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Tried to rearrange so that it looks more like the standard layout that we have tried to have on the rest of the shark pages, see Oceanic_Whitetip_Shark as the example (since it is FA). Please adjust if you are unhappy with the changes. Stefan 01:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm not sure about the changes yet. I'm thinking the previous order might make more sense for a reader, as I tried to approach it from an scientific-educational point-of-view. Morphology first and foremost to establish what the animal looks like, then where it is found, and then details into its ecology. Only then is the human-aspect brought in, with importance taking precedence to conservation to establish any possible reasons prior to the conservation section. Then the Etymology/taxonomic history section as a not-really-that-important semi-trivia and history section, which is why that section is placed near the bottom. It is only really important for "trivia" purposes and I don't think it should be the first section. Finally the popular culture impact as that is the least important section. If you all agree with it, I think we should try applying that format to the other articles as well and see how it plays out. Shrumster 05:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, the format I used was also influenced (only slightly modified from) by the standard at the Fish Portal. Shrumster 05:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Not keen on the new layout, as it essentially orphans the "trival" taxonomy section out of the article (it's only trivia if you aren't interested in it). Taxonomy goes some way to charting the discovery and recording of the species, so in my opinion should be up at the top. The rest of the layout seems fairly arbitrary though perhaps morphology (which I think should still be called anatomy and appearance to cater for the general non-scientific reader) should come before distribution and habitat. I'm going to swap the oceanic whitetip back until we've discussed this. Yomanganitalk 13:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I just considered the taxonomy section "trivial" in light of appeal to the non-scientific reader. By trade, I'm an ichthyological systematist/taxonomist, so I find it very interesting. I'm thinking though, for the casual reader, they'd be more interested in what something looks like (anatomy/appearance) and where it's found (range/distribution), and then it's behavior (ecology). I was thinking etymology and taxonomy would be one of the sections later down so that once everything about the species is establish, then we branch out into its discovery and the other related species/former names, affinities and the like. Shrumster 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Uh, so where's the discussion? Shrumster 19:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, missed your first comment. I don't feel the taxonomy section sits well at the end. It probably doesn't matter so much here, but most of the time it ties into the discovery, first description, etc, so works nicely as an introduction. It also sometimes gives an introduction to the defining characteristics of the animal where the common name is indicitive of those. Putting it at the end does reduce it to trivia, as everything but the etymology will have to be covered previously. If a reader isn't interested I'm sure they will skip the section. Yomanganitalk 00:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
As a systematist and a taxonoomist though, I'm saying that the taxonomic history of any particular organism takes a back seat to what the organism actually is. Hence, anatomy/morphology, ecology, range and distribution, and the like are more important and should come first. Taxonomy is heavily based on human-made classification systems and should not be given first importance, especially for an encyclopaedia. Putting it near the end does not really "trivialize" it in any way. This is also why conservation measures, however important they may be to the survival of an organism, should not take precedence over actual, measurable and independently-verifiable facts. It's just more encyclopaedic when the basics come first. Shrumster 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And, if you want to "dumb down" the term morphology into anatomy and appearance, you might as well "dumb down" other science-specific words such as taxonomy into classification, or habitat into where does it live?. Shrumster 05:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, range and distribution shouldn't be lumped with habitat. Habitat is in the realm of ecology while distribution is within the scope of biogeography. Habitat is directly related to an organisms' preferential choices and is often affected by many ecological factors such as the structure of the community it occupies, its niche within that community, prey availability and the like. A species' range and distribution however, is affected by much larger factors, especially for marine species. Oceanographic factors such as currents, temperature, dispersal, etc. affect the distribution of an organism more than ecological factors. Evolutionary (and geological) history can also play a part in a species' range, especially if it arose via sudden allopatric speciation. Essentially, habitat should go to the ecology section and range/dist should stay in their own section (or be unser a "Biogeography" section. Shrumster 08:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the time in these articles we trying to avoid having a disproportionate number of titles compared to the content. Taxonomy is often a shorthand for "Taxonomy, etymology and discovery" which is why I think it sits nicely at the beginning. The same goes for "Distribution and habitat": we could quite happily split them, but we'd be propagating titles for little benefit (as you point out in the dumbing-down titles this is where it lives, whether on a local or global scale). If we have enough content under any title I'd encourage splitting them, but for a line or single paragraph I just don't think it is worth it. I don't have any real objection to "Morphology" as a title, but I think "Anatomy and appearance" avoids a more technical term without being too simplistic (and "Classification" may be a better title for "Taxonomy" too). Habitat and distribution are terms in more common usage that I doubt would cause confusion. The titles should allow the general reader to identify the section they are interested in rather than catering to scientific naming conventions (as flattering as it would be, let's not kid ourselves that ichthyologists are using this a reference). Yomanganitalk 10:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly. The "discovery" of a species is framed within the western science-centric viewpoint and doesn't belong at the start of an article. A species' physical characteristics and its ecology and behavior, which are regardless of whether they have been "discovered" or not, should be given first importance. I would be willing to place the taxonomy section before the conservation one if you feel that it would be "trivial" if it were at the end of the article, but it definitely and logically goes after what does not change about the species-its morphology and ecology. Shrumster 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And regarding "Habitat and Distribution", as I was saying, they should not be lumped together as they are two entirely different aspects of an organism's biology. In fact, the way I arranged the article before lumped together the ecological aspects of the organism, which provides a better logical flow for readers. Right now, the sections are all jumbled up, with little logical sequencing. After taxonomy is distribution and then morphology, so only after two sections will the reader find out exactly what the animal looks like (which is why it should be the first section). Only after learning about its physical characteristics should topics like behavior and distribution come about. In addition, the "Importance to Humans" is misplaced in-between the species' ecological description. The section as it stands is trivial and only makes sense right before or after the "conservation" section. "Specific occurences" should be grouped (or under, as I had previously created) with the "Range and Distribution" section because that's where it belongs. They add factual chunk to the species' range (i.e. where it is found). Shrumster 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
And regarding the last statement, as an ichthyologist, I never use Wikipedia as a reference. However, this doesn't mean that we should aim for lower standards, especially considering that we have an opportunity here to up the standard and make it more scientific, for the betterment of the reading public (scientifically-minded or otherwise). Shrumster 15:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)