Talk:List of sharks

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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance within WikiProject Sharks.
Sharks To do:
Fish Portal
This article 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
List This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[edit] Regarding old list now found at List of shark articles

This isn't a very good idea - there are 368 species of sharks, so this template is not even accurate, plus we have taxoboxes specifically to avoid needing this kind of thing. Stan 20:01, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • On the other hand it is a very nice way of giving a set of interesting links, although the category does almost that same. The taxbox is a mystery to me, there is no way a 'normal' human can find a way to list all shark articles in the current shark taxbox? I do not even know how to start and I do know more than most people about sharks, lets say I start at Great White Shark (Sine that is probably the most read shark article) I click on Lamniformes and from there by clicking on some more latin names I can actually see a few more sharks, or I can get to the top shark page which should be linked from any shark article anyway, I have done this exersice long time ago and I gave up, I did not get the info that I wanted, so I disagree, think this box is good, I think tax boxes are good from a scientific point but of very little use for most users and when we have to many shark articles we can reorganize the box. Stefan 03:40, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
If you want to see them all in a flat list, use the category link at the bottom of every article. This template is just page clutter, and the note that it's incomplete just means that the content is meaningless - it's "just some species I happened to know about", with no hint as to what's missing or even how much is missing. I'm going to bring this up in the WikiProject, see what other people think. Stan 05:44, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The box is nicer and easier to navigate than the category, if the box is meaningless since it is incomplete then the category is also. It is the species that has articles in wikipedia, that is as complete it is. Nevermind, if you want to remove it just do so, but I liked it, I think it makes it easy for new wikiusers to read more articles, they will not know what a category is, but for experienced wikipedians it might be page clutter. Please tell me where you will take it up in the 'WikiProject' I would like to see the comments. Stefan 13:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
OK, it's at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Use_of_templates. Stan 15:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I removed the template from articles. Use Category:Sharks instead, or if you need a list, make a List of sharks. Gdr 11:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes I hate wiki, how can you argue with a bot, I can spend one hour to change back and with one click the 'owner' of the bot can undo what I do. I like the template, when it was discussed no consensus was reached, looking at Navigational_templates I can not understand why this template was removed and not the hundreds of others, but nevermind, you admin/bot, I lose :-( but a explanation whould be nice. Stefan 13:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

See Stan's comments above. Gdr 13:41:47, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

I did, I commented he decided not to do anything about it, can you please explain why THIS nav box is worse than the IPStack one e.g. Please help me understand, do not use your admin powers just to do, you saw this comment, you read Stans part and ignored mine and just changed, why? If he is right? Not saying he is not, then please explain why we have over 100 other nav tamplates, If I go and write a comment saying that they should go away, will you do that just like that? you must think on your own and have a reson right, not just follow what others say? Stefan 13:46, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything Stan wrote above. Gdr 14:25:29, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

OK, but then why did he not do the change? Nevermind, you win, how can I do a edit war with someone with a bot, I guess you do not want to answer my question, WHY is this nav template different than all the others? Stefan 14:28, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why Stan didn't make the change. Sorry. You'll have to ask him. As for other navigational templates, some are good and some are bad. Each must be considered on its own merits. Gdr 14:32:35, 2005-07-28 (UTC)

My guess is that Stan did not do the change since no one else posted and agreed with him.
Your answer is not a answer, WHY is IPStack good and sharks bad?, you can not just say because. Stefan 00:54, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I posted this to get some discussion going, but it seems there was little interest either way, so no motivation for me to act at the time. If Gdr comes along later and agrees with me, then that's effectively a 2-1 vote, which is a majority if not consensus. Personally I think most of the nav templates should go away - nobody reads the big cluttered list at the bottom of an article, so it's just wasting screen space. Templates with lists of species are especially likely to be misleading, because there is not even a canonical list of "types of sharks" - the list varies from month to month and even scientist to scientist, since they don't all agree on what species exist, unlike, say, US battleships, for which it is possible to have a complete and accurate list. A lot of editors are getting fed up with the template madness actually, and a proposal has been floated to require review and consensus for the creation of any new templates. Stan 19:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Agree, lets have a consensus, not just one edit by a bot! We have a stale mate, you did not do any change since no one else said anything, Gdr sees the discussion almost 1 year later agrees with you and makes the change, that is not a discussion and not a consensus in my mind (since the user who created the template should agree with me and the about 9 other updaters did not disagree as much as to not add things to it) so that makes a consensus of about 2 - 10 to keep it. IF wikipedia communit agrees that templates like this should not be used for navigational purposes, I will accept that, but one user just removing all templates from ONE subject group I find to be a bit to 'brave', especially since I do not have access to any bots that can fight him. I can not understand why the shark template was removed when I find probably over 100 others that I do not think was removed (I did not check more than a few) but nevermind I lose. I suggest that GDR takes away all nav templates with his fancy bot and then we see if we get a discussion or not and what the outcome is, I do not have as much time to spend on wiki as gdr. Stefan 01:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I ever claimed that {{IPstack}} was good or bad. I have no opinion on it, sorry. You seem to be suggesting that it is illegimate to change one template unless I have an opinion on all templates. I don't have the time or inclination to do that. Gdr 00:24:37, 2005-07-30 (UTC)

I have asked you many times why the shark tempate is worse than the others, just to understand your argument, which I have not seen yet except see Stan, you have never answered! IF you have no opinion about the IPStack one, then please explain to me how it is different so that I can redesign the shark one so that it is acceptable or at least does not make you have an opinion. As I see it the IPstack is the same, it does not have all protocols, the subject have a category, it is right adjusted instead of at the page bottom (not sure if that matters??), shark pages have tax boxes that I think that both you and Stan are very good at reading but I think 99% of the readers (not editors) does not understand them at all and can never use one to navigate. (I just checked IPstack and it have been changed since I checked it, I was talking about pre 30 July versions). Stefan 01:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
See Templates_for_deletion Stefan 13:12, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Can you put info in the left column, i.e. where we have navigation, search, toolbox, other languages? It would be a perfect place to put a link list of other simmilar articles? Can this area be manipulated without rewriting wikimedia? I would like to have a part there with related articles, so basically we could have a template with related articles and then just add that templat to a article and a new list would appear? OK wrong forum, should ask somewhere else, but gdr you migth know? Stefan 01:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no way to add material to the navigation column. It's an interesting idea, but remember that links to articles in other languages go there; see 2005 for a long list. Also, some "skins" lack the left-hand column and the printable version always lacks it (see for example [1]). You can file an enhancement request with the WikiMedia developers at bugzilla:. Gdr 05:21:34, 2005-08-01 (UTC)
Hum, since the language links comes there it should be possible, unfortiunately, for them you have to add them each one for each article, but if you could put that in a template ... like a expandable macro it should be workable, maybe it works if I put a language link in a template ... hum probably not, but can be easily tested :P This info is not much use in a paper copy since you can not click on the paper anyway and if you have a skin that does not implement all features to bad, I would guess most people have the default skin? (I have not checked the skins in a long time). Stefan 08:15, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
OK, works, if you put language links in a template they will be inherited to any main page that uses them. But still probably needs coding, but are you and stan agreeing that this is a good thing? Made test in snadbox btu do not know how to link there, but the sharks template now have language links to all shark articles, so same idea should be possible to do for a related links idea, where you make a template with related articles and the name for them and add the template to all articles. I think that would be good, better than the current (hum now ex) nav templates. As for 2005 article, true many languages will be a issue, but that is an extreme example (and see the nav box! your bot have some more work :-)) but for a more 'normal' page see that shark page, on my screen size it is only one page, to add half a page would not be an issue, it would only be strange for very short articles with many languages or many related articles. But that had to be decided per group of related articles, should be OK I think. Question is if related articles would interfere with each other? do we need/allow multiple related articles per articles, e.g. for a tiger shark wouldent it have both related shark and fish and water living and so on?? If so we could get very long lists. Stefan 12:39, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
I added a comment to Wikipedia:Bug_report under Relevant articles, lets see if anything happens, but seeing a few other pages with 2-3 nav templates it might be hard to do this for those pages, or it will be a very confused list. Stefan 14:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to the TFD nomination

Although there are many, many well-designed navigation boxes on well-defined topics, quite frankly this is not one of them. As Stan mentions above, there are just way too many sharks to put into one template. What you really need as a replacement for this template is a List of sharks that can be grouped, annotated, illustrated, etc., and then you can add a link to the list of sharks under the "See also" section" of each shark article. BlankVerse ∅ 15:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD result

This is a copy of the TfD debate:

[edit] Template:Sharks

This template have not been deleted but removed from all articles by Gdr. The template is a navigational template, it have been discussed before and now GDR thinks there is a consensus since one user was agains and one for removal adding his agains that was a consensus, so he used his bot to remove (not delete) it. See discussion at Template talk:Sharks. I have stated my point there as has he, or stan opinion that GDR agrees with. I can not start a edit war with a admin with a bot so I found this place and though this was a good place to discuss. Also see my suggestion to add nav links under language links? not sure if possible, probably better than this template but that is not the vote. This vote is either for deletion and not usage of the template or for keeping and adding the template back to the articles where it was removed from. Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Is good for navigational purposes, much easier to use than category and tax boxes, especially for new users. Stefan 13:05, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This template is currently a very, very partial list of the 350+ total possible sharks. Either it will always be rather incomplete, or it will be H--U--G--E--! Either way, it shouldn't be a navigation template. The template should be converted to a list, which can be grouped, annotated, illustrated, etc., and then a link to the new List of sharks can be added to the "See also" section of each shark article. BlankVerse ∅ 15:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Originally going to say keep, but after reading [User:BlankVerse|BlankVerse]] ∅ argument, i'm agreeing with him instead.--ZeWrestler Talk 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete agree with above. - SimonP 00:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify and delete, as above. --Carnildo 21:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and listify if felt necessary. -Splash 19:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Aesthetically pleasing and extremely useful. This anti-template crusade is a pity. --goethean ॐ 15:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with BlankVerse. The template can only contain small percentage of sharks, so a list is more appropriate in this case. The JPS 16:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Goethean. --WikiFan04Talk 20:14, 6 Aug 2005 (CDT)
  • Delete as per BlankVerse. It may be "Aesthetically pleasing" now but not when there are hundreds of links on it in the future if kept. RedWolf 22:33, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus appears to be to listify: therefore I have moved the template to "list of sharks" and editors can do what they want with it. Dan100 (Talk) 11:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • I have completed the conversion from template to list; rather than a straight list, I borrowed templates from Wiktionary to create a simple 4-column format that emulates in part the dimensions of the template. Courtland 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] information on megalodon

Most researchers , particularly in Palaeontology circles classify megalodon as Carcharocles megalodon

This species is also known by its fossil vertebae —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.127.227 (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)