Talk:Tiger shark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Tiger shark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
October 17, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
Tiger shark is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Shouldn't the list of shark species be made into a template? Babajobu 11:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


AS far I know, Tiger sharks are probably the most dangerous sharks, because Ive seen them killing orcas, and read reports on the tiger sharks have killed giant squids and crocodiles, which ar the main enemies of the sharks. I ahev to say that I'm glad that sharks still occupy the top niche in sea food chain. Galeocerdo Cuiver has also a great skil to get adapted to almost any climate circumstance and it's so strong that it barely gets sick. They also eat sea snakes, sea lions, and as they are known as sea trash boats we can thereafter proof that they are very capable and adaptable fishes.

Thankyou

Please Wikipedia, add some pics of this great animals

ATTN,

Jim Anderson Flowers

Keep smiling :o)

Contents

[edit] Clean-up needed for this article

I don't know how much the contributors of this page read the articles for other shark species. Let me enlighten you. Some are absolutely top-drawer, first-class work (e.g. Oceanic Whitetip Shark& Great White Shark). Others, like this one really stink; however, Bull shark is worse. Kind of reminds me of a guy from Alabama that I once knew, all he ever said was "Mississippi's worse". Hokeman 04:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This article has improved to the point where it doesn't stink anymore. --Hokeman 00:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added an image, but I can't decide which one I like seeing up there better: "scarface-tigershark.jpg" or "scarface-tigershark2.jpg"... the first one is cleaner, but the second more dramatic. -- pterantula 12 June 2007
So lets add both! :-) Stefan 23:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Stefan, you replaced my image. I have no problem about that. But can you move that incredible new image to the Commons please? This will allow people to tag it with common categories so that it appear in category pages reachable from the wikipedia article (from the link to commons in the External Links section). Fred Hsu 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the old image back to the anatomy section temporarily, until we find a better full-body image. I gave the image a better title. Feel free to remove it again if you feel strongly about it. After all, you have been cleaning this article lately and have a better sense about how you want to further improve it in future. Fred Hsu 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hum, I do not have a user on commons, I have been wating for unified usernames for a looooong time, will try to grab my en username on commons, if I can just remember how to request for that. Stefan 01:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Lets keep that image, it actually fits ok in the article so it does not harm anyone, sorry for removing it! Stefan 02:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I did not realize you can 'grab' a name. Are you serious? ;) Another advantage of adding image to the commons is that wiki from other languages can easily reuse the same image. I really have no problem with my image being replaced. I have rewritten other people's articles and replaced other people's images in the past. Wikipedia needs better images, in general, and we shouldn't be afraid to replace existing images with better ones :) Fred Hsu 01:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
You can grab (or at least request to get) a username that is created but not used, i.e. have no edits, 'mine' had no edits so was ok, you can not grab a username that us created and used. See [1] last section about usurpation. I have now created a user and gotten it renamed and uploaded all images that user:Pterantula have uploaded to commons, except the new larger size Image:Whiteshark-TGoss5b.jpg which should really replace Image:Whiteshark-TGoss5.jpg on commons, but I'm not allowed to do this since my commons user is to new, either you do it or I wait a few days, not sure how long it is on commons, think it is 4 days on en. Stefan 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

This article says that Great Whites are responsible for the most human fatalities, while the Oceanic Whitetip article claims that that shark outpaces all other species combined in regards to deadliness to humans. I'm no biologist or zoologist, but this seems like it should be rectified? Anyone know for sure which view is correct? Ghamming 13:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

I love tiger sharks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.211 (talk • contribs) . that was really uncalled for. this paragraph is for questions only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.79.111 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that the nr1 in casualties was the ocean white tip shark and not the great white: "Famed oceanographic researcher Jacques Cousteau described the oceanic whitetip as "the most dangerous of all sharks".[14] Despite the greater notoriety of the great white shark and other sharks habitually found nearer the shore, the oceanic whitetip is considered responsible for more fatal attacks on humans than all other species combined, as a result of predation on those shipwrecked or from aircraft downed in the open ocean.[7] These incidents are not included in common shark-attack indices for the 20th and 21st centuries, but would appear to total in the thousands worldwide, with one incident alone, the torpedoing of USS Indianapolis on July 30, 1945, giving a minimum figure of between 60 and 80 sailors killed by sharks.[1] Also during World War II, the Nova Scotia, a steamship carrying approximately 1,000 people near South Africa was torpedoed and sunk by a German submarine. There were only 192 survivors, and many deaths were attributed to the oceanic whitetip shark.[2]

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_whitetip_shark

[edit] GA nomination

This is close to GA quality, but not quite there yet. The article reads well, but occasionally has a non-encyclopedic tone. "as it flirts with the equator throughout the colder months." or "The attack is a brutal confrontation". There are also rather few references in the text and multiple unsupported statements. More images would also be a bonus, but not essential. TimVickers 03:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree 100% with the above comments - let me amplify them a little. (1) Remove unencyclopedic language that sounds like a 7th grade book report (2) A full body image in the water would be appropriate where the teeth image is located now (Move that one down into the Diet Template. Teeth/Diet sort of goes together). There are a lot of images on the worldwide web of Tiger sharks attacking albatross chicks at French Frigate Shoals (in the northwest Hawaiian Chain). A full-body shot of one of these would be perfect. (3) Go back through the text again and add references to unsourced statements like we did getting Oceanic whitetip ready for FA status.--Hokeman 21:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I would suggest moving the second paragraph in the Diet template which starts out, "The shark is known to be aggressive..." down into the Dangers template. Also I recommend moving the photo of the teeth down adjacent to where it talks about teeth at the bottom of the anatomy template. Right above it let's think about putting a full body photo of a tiger shark in the water because the first paragraph in the anatomy template talks about the gross anatomy.--Hokeman 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass
2. Factually accurate? OK
3. Broad in coverage? Pass
4. Neutral point of view? Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images? OK


Additional comments :

Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Having a reference for the paragraph that starts with Its teeth are flat, triangular, notched and serrated... would be really useful to verify the veracity of the fact.
Fixed. Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Same as above for the paragraph Recent information contradicts the notion that the tiger shark ...
Not so easy, I can not find anything, anyone else?? Stefan 14:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I will also say that the presence of the word recent in the sentence is not appropriate for WP which tries to be time-independent. Lincher 11:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph adds nothing of value to the article so I've removed it. Yomanganitalk 12:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Lincher 15:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Upon recent revamping of the page in accordance with requested elements mentioned in the above section, the article is now of GA status. Cheers, Lincher 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size

The article reads, "but there have been confirmed specimens as large as 6.4 m (21.5 ft)", is there any actual source with more information on this giant specimen? I have never heard of a verified find of a specimen larger than 5.5 m. Luka 08:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I can not find any reference for that, lets remove that statement until a good reference is found. Stefan 22:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawai'ian Laws?

"It is illegal to feed sharks in Hawaii and any interaction with them such as cage diving is discouraged." This cannot be true, as I've done cage 'diving' (with galapagos and sandbar sharks) off the coast of Oahu's North Shore (Hale'iwa), and there is more than one company doing this. The sharks are fed scraps of food off the stern of the boat. Pterantula 17:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well speeding is illegal also, but I must confess that I have done that once or twice :-) I guess you took Jimmy Hall's Hawaii Shark Encounter Tours? See [2], [3] and so on, just do a google search. Stefan 23:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Added better ref to actual page see [4]. Stefan 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight range

Someone keeps modifying the weight range without proper reference: first time and second time. The two previous source clearly indicated that the normal range of this animal is 850 to 1400 lb. And one reference talked about a possible 2000 lb one. The anonymous editor destroyed previous reference in the first attempt and replaced it with a broken reference in the second attempt. The newly added reference also pointed out:

The adult tiger commonly reaches lengths of 10–14 ft, weighing 850–1400 lbs. The largest specimens have been known to reach 17–18 ft and to weigh 2,000 lbs.

That the tallest human, Leonid Stadnyk, is 2.58m tall doesn't mean we should we should use 2.58m as the second number in the average height range of human. I am reverting the second attempt at changing this article. Fred Hsu 02:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC) anyone who eats or harms sharks are white trash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.54.163 (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)