Talk:Goblin shark

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Miguel Yaniz (article contribs). Peer reviewers: LONGYC6.

Comment

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

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. Yomangani^talk 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. Yomangani^talk 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). Yomangani^talk 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)

God, just choose an arrangement that represents a logical order: discovery/classification, looks, behavior, etc. People can scroll down or click on the Table of Contents link. It's not that difficult, guys.65.32.108.38 (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

250m is not quite deep ocean is it?

*in the deep ocean*, far below where the sun's light can reach at *depths greater than 200 m* 118.6.136.95 (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, typically we would classify this as deep ocean because humans need special protection to reach those depths. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Distribution and Habitat

[...] M. owstoni specimens have been found in the waters off South Africa, from various sites throughout the western Pacific Ocean. [...]

Does not make sense, since South Africa is not on the Pacific Ocean? --84.173.104.174 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, you would be correct. It would border 3 oceans Atlantic (West end), Southern Ocean (South End), and Indian Ocean (East End). Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of size comparison image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've again reverted the placement of File:Goblin shark size.svg in the taxobox, as there is limited space in the article for images (galleries are discouraged for articles) and I don't think it contributes enough to warrant inclusion for the following reasons:

• The current lead images are the best illustrations we have because they are photographs of a fresh specimen and depict two important aspects of the subject (a whole-body view and a view of the distinctive snout and jaws).
• File:Goblin shark size.svg gives no indication of how large the shark or the human silhouette are supposed to be, nor how these sizes were chosen. In this species this is particularly problematic as the "typical" size is uncertain.
• The subject of File:Goblin shark size.svg (size) is not a complex enough concept that it requires illustration. Most of our animal Featured Articles do fine without it.

Please discuss the merits of the image before adding it again. -- Yzx (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't a good infobox image, especially without any actual indication of scale. (the silhouette of a 5" tall human is different from that of a 6" tall human when it comes to comparing against an animal...) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The article should contain the scale overlay for the following reasons:

-Scale is important when dealing with aquatic animals. Most people coming across this have no reference points beyond the scope of the article - It has a solid scientific basis - Marine animals have numerous sizes underwater. Disagree? -It adds to the overall equational value of the article.

Foremost, the scale is easily identifiable. I doubt most people could mentally think of 5 or 6 feet when dealing with an underwater context! A scuba diver however does make that possible. -Dr. E

I don't have a problem with the image being used somewhere in the article per se, but it really doesn't belong in the infobox. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I maintain that the concept of something being x meters long is not so difficult that it demands illustration in a space-limited article. Nor do I think this comparison image is valuable, since it presents no information that isn't present in the text. Finally, I have no idea what "animals have numerous sizes underwater" or "equational value" are supposed to mean. -- Yzx (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

My statement was more of a "I could see a potential argument being made for it" thing; I agree that it doesn't currently fit anywhere in the article, but I'm specifically only opposed to the image's use in the infobox, not the image's use anywhere else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

-"Animals have numerous sizes underwater." Does this really need to be defined to you? "--"Equational value" refers to the individual picture adds value to the overall breadth depth and context of the article. -Dr. E — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me make one thing clear. I am about to publish a book on marine wildlife. I am a published author attempting to add value to this site. If you do not have a credential in wildlife do not revert my edit. This example will already be known in academia of why wikipedia is not a reliable source of information thanks for the case study. See you in the published world. -DOCTOR E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 00:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, just came across this - my view is htat the image is useful for visualising the size of the shark, but we generally put this type of image in the description section. The taxobox is generally reserved for real life images and we use schematic diagrams or paintings/illustrations elsewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Cas' suggestion is an excellent idea: this way, both pictures can be utilized in the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still opposed to adding this image at all, given that there's no indication of how big the person or the shark are supposed to be in it. Not to mention that there's no clear scientific idea of how big an "average" goblin shark even is. -- Yzx (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The picture does not make sense as a headline but would be ideally suited for the description section. Well stated. Cheers. C.

I'm not impressed by your credential-dropping, DrEdna, nor do your claims excuse your behavior. You do not have consensus for your edit. Accept it and move on. -- Yzx (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, to the contrary it sounds like most people find value in that picture. This makes you the minority and the picture stays. So practice what you so dearly preach and move on. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely zero consensus for using the image in the infobox; you are, quite literally, the only person here in favor of its use. This is ridiculous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect, once again on a margin of 3-2 people this the picture adds value to the page. Once you include the editors you are essentially knocked out of the running. How much more proof do you need that you are the minority on this? Math does not lie only humans do. DrE DrE (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

While it appears true that there seems to be support for the picture, I would highly recommend you refrain from further posting on this topic. At this point the community needs to step in and decide for itself. Excessive banter on both sides in both illogical and ill-productive. Cheers. C.

That is 100% false. Between the above supporters and previous editors it outweighs the two of you. Just because you are the most vocal does not mean democracy should take a backseat. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 10:35, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I count five participants in this discussion (in order of posting: Yzx, myself, yourself, Cas Liber, and Mr Fink), and you're the only one in favor of using the image in the infobox. I'm blocking you for disruption if you add it again. Please stop. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I will post some notes alerting others to come and offer an opinion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

EVula: You're not going to threaten me with you personal vendetta due to your involvement in the edit war. The page is already blocked so I don't know what you are looking to accomplish by posting threats on my personal talk page post fact. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just thought I'd post this to clarify, but I warned you[1] two hours before it was locked. I wasn't posting threats after the fact.[2] EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time for both of you to back out of this conversation and let the community at-large chime in on the topic. Neither of you are doing this conversation and therefor this community any good with this continued dialog. Cheers. C.

Article protected temporarily

To make sure the discussion is confined to the talk page, I have fully protected the article for a week. Favonian (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I protected it for a hot second, but decided to undo my protection since I was an involved party. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

3O was not the right place

Hi, I'm Howicus, a volunteer at WP:3O. Someone posted this page at 3O, and I removed it, because more than two editors are already involved. If the dispute does not get resolved here at the talk page, consider WP:DRN instead. Howicus (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You all give me a headache

I can see value on both parts. However, folks it is important to get back to basics here. This website exists to educate and inform the public at large. So beyond petty bickering you need to decide what adds value to this article? I am willing to bet that the majority of visitors to this page come and leave in the blink of an eye. Sadly, most probably do not do further research into this exciting field. So the few moments that they do spend on this page have to be magical and educational. Given the many variations of size in salt water marine life it would be a reasonable to include a graph showing the difference in size to something the average person can relate to. It is the same logical flow to include the size of a human next to a NASA rocket to show size comparison. Logically, when you have whale sharks, tiger sharks, white sharks all with varying levels of length it would be a logical step to include educational visual references to address that knowledge gap. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

A size comparison is a reasonable expectation, but there is a significant problem with File:Goblin shark size.svg, in that there's no actual scale: it's just a guy and a shark, with no size definitions. As an encyclopedia, we try to avoid vagaries like that. Several other shark articles annoyingly have a similar image (such as Great white shark), but those articles also haven't gone thru the rigorous process of becoming a featured article; if they had, those images very likely would have been removed as part of the improvement process.

As for your mentionings of NASA rockets, Scout (rocket family) has a scale, but it has clearly-marked measurements, and Saturn V has several scales, but those have specific measurements too; manufactured items that have consistent sizes are probably a bad comparison. Let's look at several other Featured Article-quality pages. Lion doesn't have any size comparisons on there at all (much less a vague one). Acrocanthosaurus has a relative size comparison to a human being, but it clearly has a scale (and isn't in the infobox). Albertosaurus is the same. Hippopotamus doesn't have a size comparison; neither do Golden White-eye, Noisy Miner, Noronha skink, Pelican, or White Stork. Getting back to sharks, Silky shark, Oceanic whitetip shark, and Pigeye shark don't have scale images either. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your feelings and DrEdna are clear. Perhaps it is time to let others chime in. You both seem to emotionally invested in this topic. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That's fine. I will go with the majority as long it isn't this one vocal person. DrE

Size comparison image with scale

I have no problem with a size comparison graphic in this article, as long as a scale of measurement is included. The existing graphic does not have one, so it is less useful. I suggest that the graphic be re-drawn with an appropriate scale. Kevyn (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This sounds to be the best option.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

This would make sense aside from the graphic is drawn to scale.Perhaps, another content expert could peer review my statement for this discussion. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The image size corresponds to an average goblin shark to human scale. You cannot put an accurate scale due to the close variance. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:B123:2BBC:6080:8EB9:9AC1:8FB (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

So, by that assumption the proposed graphic is drawn to an accurate scale. Further evidence of why this graphic should be included in the article for its continued educational value. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes that graphic would match the educational pedagogy of the article. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.0.9 (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Enough said. Two people versus the rest the picture stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I stated the picture lends value to the overall article, final judgement is with the community at-large. I would stop your narration on the topic. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion results

Just so there is no confusion, these are the results of the discussion. 7 people input their opinion (Yzx, EVula, DrEdna, Cas Liber, Mr Fink, Kevyn, C). These are the options that have majority support:

• The size comparison image is to be added under Description, not in the taxobox (supported by EVula, Cas Liber, and Mr Fink; I support this as well if the image must be added)
• The size comparison image is to be added only if it is modified to include a proper scale of measurement (supported by EVula, Mr Fink, and Kevyn; I support this as well if the image must be added)

-- Yzx (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Since the image contains a scale could an admin move it to the description section if this is the consensus? Cheers. C.

That would be acceptable. DrEdna

Closing comments

I'm an uninvolved admin, and I have decided to close this discussion after coming to this page to answer the edit request above. I have read through this discussion and have come to mostly the same conclusion as Yzx as to the consensus that has been found. There seems consensus to:

1. Add the size comparison image to the Description section, but not to put it in the taxobox.
2. Add the size comparison image only if it is modified to include a proper scale of measurement.

Figures have been added to the image, and this seems to satisfy the second point. However, this does not rule out debate over any further possible changes to the image. I will unprotect this article and leave it to others to implement this close. However, if there is more edit warring I will reprotect the page and/or block users as the situation warrants. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What happened to the link to the YouTube videos?

There used to be two links to YouTube video in the External Links section. The videos were of goblin sharks in the wild, one showing a wild goblin shark extending its jaws. These seemed entirely appropriate and educational for an encyclopedia article. Why were they removed? Does anyone have any objection if I replaced them? Kevyn (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as the videos are from the official channel of the source. We should not be linking to copyright violations. -- Yzx (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The video of it in the wild was clearly a copyright violation; they were just filming something on their TV. If you can link directly to the Science Channel video, though, yeah, that should be added to the article. As for the other one, it was just a rather boring video of it swimming lazily in an aquarium; I'm not sure it contributed very much. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all for this victory

I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude for everybody who chimed in for this editorial win. This is a true victory for all educators everywhere against editorial oppression and censorship. DrE

Most admins aren't like these two. I think you would find most to be more reasonable.. although I don't know why you would need to toot your own horn over a picture. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 19:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if that's a compliment or not, but thanks? And remember that admins are people too (unless they are adminbots)... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a complement. IMHO I believe the previous admin/editors (see names above for reference) let their own bias cloud their judgement against the community as a whole. This is not to say however I agree with the verbiage DrE used sometimes. I praised you because you provided a fresh outside viewpoint and brought consensus and closure forward rather than making personal remarks like, "This is getting stupid". It was obvious that people liked the picture so it should never have been challenged by an admin. What concerns me is people warned DrE when they were guilty of doing the exact same thing. How's that for Wikipedia justice? Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. You hardly have a prestigious title working for an open sourced website.Things around here are kind of a joke. DrStrat I don't consider you part of that statement. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this and I couldn't help laughing at the permanent sarcasm mode turned on at WP:ANI. In this dreary place it shakes up the regulars a little. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 17:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Remarks on the debate

I feel that, as the author of the size comparison image everyone is fussing about, I should chime in.

I created and added this image to make this article conform with other Wikipedia articles on other large fish and cetaceans. Most of them include a vector diagram comparing the sizes of an average-size specimen with an average-size human. I did not start this trend, I continued it by creating improved images and some new ones, like this particular goblin shark one everybody is fussing about. It was the most challenging image I've made yet, so I was sad to see it torn away.

It's true that individuals in a species may vary a lot in size, especially when you take gender into account (I modified the comparison image for the sperm whale article accordingly). I simply chose what I felt to be an average sized goblin shark and compared it to an average size human (1.75m). Females tend to be bigger than males, but at 3.1m they overlap, as far as I've gathered. Perfect precision was never a priority for me, since it never was for any of the other images in other articles. They are simply there to give a rough idea of just how big these creatures are. A goblin shark will not fit on your dinner plate!

On all other pages, the size comparison image appears in the infobox. I am therefore surprised this was a problem. I am also surprised by the demand for scales to be put in, since none of the other images in other articles have scales. In the interest of harmony I have compromised by adding numbers to this particular image. For what it's worth, I think it should be in the infobox, but the debate is closed and I will not be re-opening this can of worms any time soon.Kurzon (talk) 10:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

You did a commendable job on this image and I personally and professionally think it adds a lot of value to this article. It is unfortunate that a couple people used their admin rights to enforce their own personal viewpoint and not that of the general public. I think this example should be used as a 'case study' so history does not repeat itself. THANK YOU for all the work you do adding value to this community. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you did a good job on this image and it brought educational value to the article as a whole. I am sorry a couple editors with some privileged access decided otherwise. I hope WIkipedia disciplines them for their actions. Obviously, they were the minority on this. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yzx & DrE Are Both Ready to Edit-War Again

Just popped my head back into this article to notate Yzx and DrE edit-warring. Yzx appears to not like the placement of a picture by the pictures original illustrator. Is there a process to block BOTH of these people from editing? I understand Yzx has special permission but they are a bit out of hand once again. I think an outside admin needs to chime in. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've thrown my hat into this ring again, though I am no admin.Kurzon (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear issues only happen when Yzx doesn't like the placement. I do not understand why this person thinks it should be only be their way. We need an alternate resolution to this topic or just blocking Yzx. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 19:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to bring wider community scrutiny on what's been happening here, by all means do so. Don't just hide here flinging baseless accusations and veiled threats. -- Yzx (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is hiding anywhere. And yes I have already reached out to somebody to curb your continued vandalism to this article. As an admin, I would highly recommend removing yourself from this equation due to your bias against Kurzon's continued work. You might want to seek a second opinion from somebody who has not edited or responded on this talk page. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and now an accusation of vandalism. Can you do anything but throw mud? -- Yzx (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide constructive inputs into this article? How about adding value through narration rather than single handedly undoing one editors pictorial contribution. Despite continued support for its value you go rogue and diminish its value. Doesn't your behavior strike you as odd? Does it strike you as odd that you are the ONLY person removing and tampering with that picture? It does for me. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Until you apologize for your accusations, I'm done engaging with you. I await wider community input. -- Yzx (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you and DrE should both take a long vacation from this article. Cheers. C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.56.12.253 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, what's wrong with that other "older" picture?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't feed them. They're not here to build an encyclopedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you should refrain from such personal attacks for now. We should always assume good faith. Some people are bad at resolving disputes, but this does not mean malice.Kurzon (talk) 11:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page for two days due to the continued edit warring. This is not an endorsement of the current version - the dispute is a valid editorial dispute and needs to be discussed on this talk page so that a consensus can be reached. This protection is only an interim measure, as I don't like fully protecting articles for long periods. Instead, I will go and leave messages on the user talk pages of all who have been reverting, and if they continue to edit war after the protection has been lifted I will hand out blocks. I will block even for one revert before a resolution has been reached - the three-revert rule is not a licence to revert three times every day, and even one revert can constitute edit warring. I am particularly disappointed with accusations of vandalism by 209.56.12.253 and personal attacks by DrEdna. We have a very strict definition of vandalism on Wikipedia, and personal attacks are not allowed. Please be aware that I will factor this kind of behaviour into any decisions about whether to block people. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. JUST WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE? Coming in here thumping your chest? "I will block even for one revert before a resolution has been reached". Get real keyboard warrior. I am hardly impressed with your chest puffing and pounding on your keyboard. Nobody cares what you think and the verbiage used on either party was hardly confrontational. Keep to playing your fiddle. Go ahead and block me for your own self-gratification my open source volunteer admin. "Factor" that into your mouse clicks. DOCTOREdna — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 13:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctor, in colloquial American English, Mr Stradivarius is "laying down the law" in order to ensure that all the concerned editors abide by Wikipedia rules of etiquette and conduct so that we can all cooperate and continue making constructive edits to the article. Furthermore, please be aware that A) you do not own, nor can you claim ownership of this article, B) Wikipedia can not function at all without cooperation, which can not be cultivated if editors are driving other editors off with insults, incivility and false accusations of vandalism, and C) there is, in fact, a stark difference between censorship, and being punished for failing to follow house rules much in the exact same way there is, in fact, a stark difference between a sawshark and a sawfish.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia article, not the basic training academy. Edna — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If that's so, then why are you scolding/castigating/taunting Mr Stradivarius about allegedly threatening to censor you when, in fact, he was warning about punishing any editor who would continue behaving uncivilly and or continue prolonging this already exasperatingly protracted edit war?--Mr Fink (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion to resolve edit dispute

Well, let's see if things can be civil this time. I support this version over the currently protected version of the article for the following reasons:

• File:Mitsukurina owstoni.jpg and the associated caption make an important point about the discrepancy between most popular depictions of the shark and what it normally looks like. This point requires the use of artwork from a published source.
• File:Goblin shark size.svg is better placed in the second paragraph, because that's where the text concerning the shark's size is located.
• "Description" is a better title for the section than "Morphology" because (1) it is far less technical, and (2) it is a term often used for this purpose, both in guide books (for example, Ebert 2003. Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras of California) and as a standard part of taxonomic publications (example here)

-- Yzx (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with this. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• This logic is actually pretty sound. I support it. DrE — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 02:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly with the first point. Antiquated and inaccurate depictions have no place here in an article where people expect accuracy (although the image isn't terribly wrong). Perhaps that historical image could appear in some history subsection or a gallery, but not in the Morphology/Description section. It is somewhat akin to a diagram of a geocentric planetary system in an astronomy article.

"Morphology" is the proper word that scientists use, though honestly I could go either way.Kurzon (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

These objections don't make sense. The use of the antiquated image is entirely appropriate, given that it precisely illustrates the point it is being used to make. The term morphology is not the only "proper word that scientists use", the term anatomy is equally "proper". "Description" is a more straightforward, accessible, and accurate term, particularly because the section discusses not only anatomy or morphology, but also physiology. An alternative heading could be "Characteristics"... a heading used in most of the high level fish articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I take some of that back, that old image is accurate enough (I had issues with the color, but it turns out goblin sharks are pinkish in some photos so I'm uncertain). It is a little redundant, however.Kurzon (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

"Description" is also a "proper word that scientists use". In fact, above I gave you examples of a scientific book and a scientific article that do just that. As for redundancy, I fail to see how it's redundant when its used to illustrate a separate point. -- Yzx (talk) 07:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly qualify that article to speak on behalf of all of science. I question the need for the first picture as well. What real value does it bring to the article? I understand the picture that shows scale versus a human, but an "early illustration" photo? What real value is that adding to the reader? I fail to see the educational value of that picture. Failing to see the educational value of that picture I do not understand why you would want to keep that in the article that is trying to be brief in nature. Morphology is a perfectly acceptable term because it follows the same logical flow for other headings (taxonomy, Phylogeny etc). DOCTOREdna --— Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs)

I think we ought to have a gallery to show interesting images that we could not fit into other parts of the article. I have been told this is discouraged practice, but I think it can resolve this specific dispute.Kurzon (talk) 11:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? I challenge that that early illustration photo shows has any educational value at all. I can get a feel as to the size of mitsukurina owstoni... so if I am a reader I can say, "Okay this is only slightly bigger than me". There is value and knowledge there. You all have failed to show me that the other picture adds any real educational value? If your goal is to have a pretty picture to smile at... go right ahead. DOCTOREdna — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrEdna (talk • contribs) 11:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Galleries of images are one reason we have Commons, which we can link to readily. Also agree that using the word "morphology" is unnecessarily jargon-like and has no extra meaning above and beyond "description" and is hence unneeded. Briefer headings are better. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus in favour of Yzx's proposal, which I have implemented in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Lead sentence

How is this shark described in the leading sentence as "rare" when in terms of being an endangered species, it is of "Least Concern"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.231.217 (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably it is rare in the sense that it isn't commonly found because it lives in the deep ocean. CFCF (talk) 11:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be changed to "rarely encountered", for the sake of clarity? Though "rarely encountered, poorly understood" has the rhythm of a drumbeat. --Oldak Quill 15:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Least Concern doesn't mean a species is common. It means its survival isn't currently threatened by human activity. -- Yzx (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request 05/05/14

A goblin shark was captured in a shrimp net in the Gulf of Mexico on April 19, 2014. It was then re-released. 1. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/05/rare-goblin-shark-caught-in-gulf-of-mexico/ 2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/04/goblin-shark-caught_n_5263131.html 31jetjet (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC) 31jetjet

It's already been mentioned.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

126.212.250.180 (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)I can translate the shark name to Japanese.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Question

Why are their noses very long? If you know the answer, please write it in the article under description WillSmith (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

Since it is not a fast swimmer, the goblin shark may be an ambush predator. Its low-density flesh and large oily liver make it neutrally buoyant, allowing it to drift towards its prey with minimal motions so as to avoid detection.[26] Once prey comes into range, the shark's specialized jaws can snap forward to capture it. The protrusion of the jaw is assisted by two pairs of elastic ligaments associated with the mandibular joint, which are pulled taut when the jaws are in their normal retracted position; when the shark bites, the ligaments release their tension and essentially "catapult" the jaws forward.[7] At the same time, the well-developed basihyal (analogous to a tongue) on the floor of the mouth drops, expanding the oral cavity and sucking in water and prey.[8] Striking and prey capture events were videotaped and recorded for the first time during 2008 and 2011 and helped to confirm the use and systematics of the protrusible jaws of goblin sharks. The video evidence suggests that while the jaws are definitely unique, goblin sharks use ram feeding, a type of prey capture that is typical of many mackerel sharks.[35] What makes the goblin shark unique is the kinematics of their jaw when feeding. The lower jaw seems to undergo more complex movements and is important in capturing the prey. The measured protrusions of the upper and lower jaw combined put the goblin shark jaws at 2.1–9.5 times more protrusible than other sharks. The lower jaw has a velocity about two times greater than the upper jaw because it not only protrudes forward, but also swings upward to capture the prey, and the maximum velocity of the jaws is 3.14 m/s. The goblin shark has a re-opening and re-closing pattern during the strike, a behavior that has never been seen in other sharks before and could be related to the extent with which the goblin shark protrudes its jaws.[35] This “slingshot” style of feeding could be an adaptation to compensate for poor swimming ability by allowing the goblin shark to catch elusive, fast prey without having to chase the prey.

After the sentence "Once prey comes into range, the shark's specialized jaws can snap forward to capture it." Add the sentence "It can open its jaws to almost 111° to easily engulf its prey.[41]"

References 41: "Nakaya, K., Tomita, T., Suda, K., Sato, K., Ogimoto, K., Chappell, A., … Yuki, Y. (2016). Slingshot feeding of the goblin shark Mitsukurina owstoni (Pisces: Lamniformes: Mitsukurinidae). Scientific Reports, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep27786" Gageglass77 (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. It does not seem there is consensus for this addition. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)