Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sharks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Wobbegong

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)

I think I've fixed this in a satisfactory (if not definitive) way. Yomanganitalk 13:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added page to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects

I added this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject/List_of_proposed_projects and copied all users to that list. Lets see if that is a good way to get more members. Stefan 04:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA v FA

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Moving out of user space

You should probably shift this over to the Project namespace for the obvious reasons. Yomangani 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but how to do it now, the name is already occupied? I can not just move my project over 'his'. Stefan 01:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, shark vs sharks ... OK, will try to do tonight (i.e. in 12h). Stefan 02:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Done! Stefan 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Discussion copied out of project

[edit] Things to be standardized

  • 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)
  • 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):
This article details the species "Sharkus caribbio", for a list of sharks of the Caribbean sea see List of sharks by geography or Category:Fish of the Caribbean

HappyVR 22:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

        • 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)
  • 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)
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)

[edit] Merge

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)

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)

[edit] Project: Merge Two Projects So That It Looks Better And Also Helps Us Aswell

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Pseudoginglymostoma brevicaudatum

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)

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)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

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)

Yes sounds like a good idea. Please do :-) Stefan 13:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy of the Carcharhiniformes

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)

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)
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)
I wasn't proposing deleting the list, just filling it from existing lists. Yomanganitalk 14:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of articles

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Templates

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)

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)
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)
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)
example logos
example logos
That 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)
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)
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)
Image:Example wikiproject sharks logo v2.png
example logos 2
example logos 3
example logos 3
Ok 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)
Image:WikiProject Shark logo 2 by Lenny.PNG
My (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)
example logos 5
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)
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)
Image:WikiProject Shark logo 2 by Lenny modified.PNG
Modified Logo by Lenny
Modified logo. Lenny 13:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
Damn, oh well i don't think we could get away without 'shark' in itchris_huh 15:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Image:New fellow project logo by Lenny.PNG
Modified example 3 logo.
Here is my modifed version of your design, it includes a reshpened fin to acomidate the 'globe'. Lenny 07:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
WikiProject Sharks Logo.
WikiProject Sharks Logo.
There you go. No fade on text, looks good methinks. --chris_huh 10:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep, I vote for that. Yomanganitalk 10:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Me too! Looks good! Stefan 13:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Project Sharks

This is what is gonna happen.

There will be two projects and two sets of userboxes.

There, simple aint it? Lenny 08:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Modified template

This is my new this article is part of template. I know you will like it!

[edit] Date for Oceanic on main page?

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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

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)

Looks good to me, I think fortnightly is better (we are not that many) but anything goes! Stefan 14:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
Hi Stefan. What is this collaboration? I dont get it. Lenny 14:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] the project page

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)

Yes, agree! Stefan 23:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Sharks

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)

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)

[edit] Co-project

We are now officialy a co-project! Lenny 09:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

what is a co-project? Stefan 15:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Co-project is two or more simular projects joined as one but operated individually. Lenny 17:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Strong oppose - Not that I'm sure this is really a vote. Stefan 13:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

[edit] SharkdeBait

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)

[edit] Article assessment

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Stub

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)

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)

[edit] Category for monotypes

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

[edit] Talk template

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)

[edit] Bot adding portal template

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)


[edit] RC patrol for WP:SHARKS

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)

[edit] Quiz

Name the shark:

Yomanganitalk 14:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] References

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)

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)

[edit] It's been a long journey...

...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)

[edit] Shark

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Epaulette shark, new spp. and media coverage

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)

[edit] Confessed, Unconfessed...?

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)

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)

[edit] Sub-project

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)

[edit] Project directory

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)

[edit] Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Veterinary medicine project

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)

[edit] The Fish Portal

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)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

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)

[edit] Shark fin soup

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)

[edit] Time range of Hexanchiformes species

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)

[edit] The Fish Quiz

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)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk

You will probably want to move that to template space... Yonatan talk 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed fish article naming standards change

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)

[edit] WP:TOL template

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animals project proposal

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)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

[edit] Distribution maps

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.

Just a thought. Chris_huhtalk 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

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. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheeks of a ray

G'day,

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)

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 .... --Stefan talk 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
yeah, that looks right. I got the name cheek form the stingray article. The bellman (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoax?

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. --Eliyak T·C 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)