Talk:Dunkleosteus

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Palaeontology High‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Fishes

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sea Monsters (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sea Monsters, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Sea MonstersWikipedia:WikiProject Sea MonstersTemplate:WikiProject Sea MonstersSea Monsters

Panzerfische!

I see that the Germans refer to the Placodermi as Panzerfische.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkleosteus

http://www.joergresag.privat.t-online.de/mybk4htm/chap54.htm

Sounds about right to me! :-) -- 201.51.221.66 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand that, Dunkleosteus is a heavily-armoured fish so I can see why it is called "Tank fish", also I am wondering what our relation to the Placoderms is, are they cousins, brothers or what? Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor[reply]

Bite force

Corrected to 8,000 from 80,000 lbs per square inch. Added Quirks and Quarks interview audio link.

that isn't stronger than a megalodon, which registered at 18.2 tons max. http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1509266/megalodons_bite_strongest_according_to_computer_models/

Ameratsu (talk) 02:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?

Where does uts name come from?DS 01:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I added Dr Dunkle in. --Wetman 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Info Needed!

There especially needs to be a bit of history as to where and when the first fossils were found and why the name has been changed. CFLeon 06:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source

From which source comes this: "The discovery of Dunkleosteus armor with unhealed bite marks strongly suggest that they cannibalized each other when the opportunity arose."? Dropzink (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone

I have tagged the 'Description section for editing to improve encyclopedic tone. It tends to be too informal and has too many unscientific asides such as as stating that Dunleosteus was "highly evolved" for the Devonian. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone?

I've read encyclopedias, encyclopedias have long been chatty and informal, assuming you weren't brought up on modern anti-formal English. Is it that the Dunk article isn't encyclopedic enough, or that it's not scientific paper enough?

Encyclopedias are published for the general public. For that reason they must be informal to some extent. They must be, in a word, accessible. That doesn't mean badly written. It certainly doesn't mean colloquial. It does mean the wording has to be couched such that people can understand it and gain from it.

Dunk's story on Wikipedia is accessible, and it informs. So it aint as formal as some would prefer, it doesn't have to be all that damn formal to do its job.

BTW, I have read a number of authors refer to Dunk as being highly evolved for the Devonian. Maybe true, maybe not, but calling any such claim unscientific without proof does not make for scientific discourse.

One last thing: Death to passive voice in scientific writing!

mythusmage (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "highly evolved" even mean? Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I'm willing to clean up the article. given time. ResMar 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC) Trivia section removed:[reply]

In popular culture

Dunkleosteus was the main apex predator of the fifth most dangerous sea in Sea Monsters. The show counted down the top 7 most dangerous seas in history. Dunkleosteus was depicted as being cannibalistic and capable of bending metal.
In the Dinotopia books and movies a massive Dunkleosteus dubbed the "Fish" by the Kraabs', Lee and his son, Cyrus guards the underwater entrance to the subterranean caves that contain the strutters and sunstones.
The Devonian predator also made a brief appearance in the video game ParaWorld.
In the video game E.V.O. Search For Eden, Dunkleosteus appeared as an enemy creature in the first time period, and the player could evolve its jaws and body, both being the strongest in those categories.
China Miéville's novel The Scar features Dunkleosteus, where they are also referred to as "bonefish".
In Ecco the Dolphin, Dunkleosteus appeared as an enemy in the prehistoric levels. Ironically the Dunkleosteus existed in the Devonian period and the prehistoric levels takes place 55 million years ago. They were already extinct during that time. Even its echolocation sprite resembles a shark.
The early Playstation game Aquanaut's Holiday features at least two of these animals. One in the far north, within a 'den' and one in the extreme southeast.
Dunkleosteus was featured in the second episode of Animal Armageddon.
A Dunkleosteus is rumored to appear in the upcoming season 3 of the ITV television show "Primeval"

Totally unreferenced.

Bite force

Something is wrong with the reference used for bite force in the article. In the main text of the reference is says 1,100 and 8,000 pounds respectively but in the text below the photo it says 11,000 and 80,000! I don't know which is correct, but in the wiki article we use 8,000 pounds (=matching main text in reference) and 11,000 ponds (=matching text below photo in reference). Additionally, someone indicated the convertion to Newtons in the wiki article don't match, but corrected the wrong numbers (the numbers used in the reference instead of correcting the Newton). That clearly is wrong so I reverted it but will leave it to someone else to sort out this mess. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one good reason why conversions should be in parentheses, following the original units, which should come first. Don't pretend like the conversion is in the opposite direction. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the latter part was directed at me, but I didn't add the measurements/convertion and don't pretend anything. Rather, I corrected what clearly was a mistaken edit done without checking if it matches the associated reference. As anyone on this site, you're free to switch the convertions. WP:UNITS arguably suggests SI units (i.e., newton) are most appropriate as the primary units in an article like this, though this is contradicted by the following MOS:CONVERSIONS (not totally sure this is what is ment by "direct quatations", or if that is aimed at longer passages where the measurement only is a part). Regardless, that doesn't solve the mess of the different figures used in the reference. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]