The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the whitetip reef shark(pictured) may have contributed to the
Hawaiian myth of ʻaumākua, family guardian spirits, due to the "loyalty" of sharks that stay in the same area for years?
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Comments
Another well-written shark article. I wish I could offer more suggestions to improve it, but it looks like you've covered the bases thoroughly. A couple of minor points:
I nothing about these sharks beyond what I've just read here, but I'm inclined to think that this line was inserted as a joke: "spear fishers are at risk of being bitten by one attempting to steal their catch." Isn't it the spear fisher's catch that is at risk of being eaten? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.119.204.197 (
talk)
18:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)reply
No, the fact that this species is absent from the Atlantic is not interesting or notable. The Indo-Pacific and the Atlantic are completely separate biogeographic regions and hundreds of thousands of species follow the distribution pattern seen here. It is not at all unusual, and any explanation does not belong on an article about a single one of these species. --
Yzx (
talk)
21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Right - where is an explanation of the Indo-Pacific and Atlantic distributions of "hundreds of thousands of species" to be found?
Paul venter (
talk)
08:55, 12 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Maybe it should be in the article about the Indo-Pacific, or maybe it should be mentioned in the biogeography article. Whatever the case, it doesn't belong in an article about a single species when it's a fact that applies to thousands. But tell you what, find me a reference that talks about why the whitetip reef shark specifically is absent from the Atlantic Ocean, and I'll put it in. Since you insist that this is important enough for inclusion in this particular article, my request should pose no difficulty. --
Yzx (
talk)
09:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)reply
OK, you've lost me with that logic - for example: A movie produced in Hollywood shouldn't mention that fact because tens of thousands of other movies are also produced in Hollywood. And by the same reasoning the shark's occurrence in the Indo-Pacific shouldn't be mentioned, because there are many other species of sharks occurring in the Indo-Pacific. Really?? Beware
WP:OWN!!
Paul venter (
talk)
16:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Actually, the logic is that there are tons of facts that don't belong in Wikipedia because they're not important -- for example, lions are not found in Australia, but this doesn't belong on Wikipedia because it's not important or useful. Every fact important enough to go on Wikipedia should have appeared in a reliable source at some point. But you did provide a source (though I'm going to replace it with
this one, which is better), so I consider the subject closed. Good job. --
Yzx (
talk)
17:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)reply