# Talk:Whale shark

Currently this article is semi protected so I couldnt just fix it myself. " It also feeds on small fish and my butts of eggs and sperm during mass spawning of fish shoals.[1] The many rows of vestigial teeth play no role in feeding"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.57.217 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC) 

I took care of it :)
 Themp731 (talk) 14:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)   MP

Elasmobrancii or Chondricthyes? The Orectolobiformes article says it is Chondricthyes. - UtherSRG 15:38, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)~

Genus: typus is this correct?

Typus is the species. The Genus is Rhincodon. And 'benthic' means bottom, not surface. They do not demonstrate a preference for feeding at the bottom or the surface. They feed throughout the water column.
you are wrong....sorry guyz ......
Is the reason for this creature's name based on what it was once thought to be?? 66.32.252.184 01:26, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Holy  that is one big fish! Glad they're not maneaters. Phew.
they grow up to 18m  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.66.129 (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC) 
yes, that is big, but I was just reading that the deep sea "oarfish" are regularly 17 meters long, so if the whaleshark is usually 12 meters, that means he is NOT the biggest fish in the ocean, right? Or are they saying he's the biggest because oarfish are not nearly as big in girth?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.145.240.100 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 

Oarfish are the longest fish in the ocean, but they are long and skinny, so they don't weigh much. Whale sharks aren't as long, but they weigh several tons. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Was there a specific reason for the deletion of the photo that was with this article? It looks to me like something happened to the file, and I was the original contributor, I can re-upload it if needed. If it was deleted for policy reasons though, I won't bother.

Do you mean the photograph by User:Sauron11, taken in the Maldives? It was deleted from en.wikipedia ([1]) because it was moved to the commons, at commons:Image:Rhincodon typus.jpg. I like that picture much better than the drawing that is currently on the page; unfortunately, both images have the same name, and therefore the drawing takes precedence. I'll see if I can move that one to a different name, so we can include the photograph. Eugene van der Pijll 11:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yep, that was the one. I see you've recovered it, and saved me having to remember which (of many shots of that shark) it was - thanks. I hadn't realised that was what happens in the event of file name collisions. Managed to log in this time, as I'm on a computer which knows my password... Mike, 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What animals eat whale sharks?  I know humans, but I am interested if killer whales or other sharks eat them.  They seem rather defenseless.

I do not think that anything expect humans eats whale shark, at least not a full grown and healthy whale shark. As stated in the article its skin is very think and beacuse of its size it is hard to get a bite out of it. But we should verify this and write it in the article .... now where to veryify? Stefan 00:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
If they die, surely other animals eat them? Or did the question refer to when the shark is alive? Gohst 06:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course, I meant that I do not think any other animal hunts them. Stefan 00:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's something I found from the Australian government, apparently:
Known predators of juvenile Whale Sharks include the blue shark (Prionace glauca), the blue marlin (Makaira nigricons) and the killer whale (Orcinus orca) (Kukuyev, 1996; O'Sullivan & Mitchell, 2000; A. Goorah pers. comm. to Brad Norman). Although unconfirmed, it is believed that an attack on a sub-adult Whale Shark photographed in northwestern Western Australia in 2003 may have been from a great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) (R. Mau pers comm. to Brad Norman).[2]
--Darksasami 21:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
what oceans does the whalw shark swim in?

The article now states Also the shark can speed up or slow down the growth of the embryons in their body because the sharks meet possible mates around two times in their life. [3], I have never heard this and can not find any proof of this what so ever after a bit of searching, can anyone else confirm this and maybe even give a reference, I'm thinking about removing this statement, but I do not know for sure it is wring. Stefan 12:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I am aware, the uterine contents of only one whale shark has been examine (see Joung et al 1996. Env Biol of Fishes). Consequently, no inference of growth rate can be made, and certainly nothing can be conclusively said about the change in the rate of development. It is, however, a nice piece of speculation and makes for a nice story. Capepolly (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Should there be a section called "In Captivity"?  The new Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta houses four whale sharks.  Are there any other whale sharks in captivity?--Horsenbuggy 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The sharks at the Georgia Aquirium are covered in the 'Importance to humans section'  (there are apparently whale sharks in Okinawa Churaumi Aquarium as well), but it might be worth making it a subsection if we get many more. Yomangani 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing is is a little choppy in places, but not too bad. Flow could be improved
Tried to clean the whole page up. Stefan 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
"The family Rhincodontidae was not finalized until 1984." - This probably wouldn't be understood by a general reader, as opposed to me, a biology major.
Sorry no biology major here, not sure I can clarify. Stefan 13:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to be saying that the designation of the family only received acceptance by whatever body regulates such things in 1984, or possibly general acceptance, though that seems an awfully specific date for that possibility. Adam Cuerden talk 18:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Good use of graphics to show their range. Pictures of the shark are somewhat obscured by the water - a taxidermied specimen, or cropping [4] so that it's easier to see the main subject at small size would be a useful additional graphic, but not really required.
Cropped the picture and added to taxobox. Stefan 07:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Paragraph beginning "Hugh M. Smith retells the story of a 1919 whale shark discovery in a 1925 publication; where a huge whale shark was caught in a bamboo fish trap in what today is Thailand."    is extremely choppy, and contains the worst sentence in the article: "Some records says this shark was actually accurately measured at 17.98 meters and weighing 43 tonnes)"
This section rewritten, the whole section could do with more copy edit but at least it is better now. Stefan 05:15, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Diet section: Quickly describing gill rakers would help a non-specialist, though it's not a horrible omission.
Hmm. But on a second reading, I notice that elsewhere it says that gills are used in feeding, which is anatomically accurate, but awkward. You really could use a concise clarification of how they filter feed. Adam Cuerden talk 03:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I took that away, the gills is not used for feeding, or not really, lets describe feeding in diet section then it is correct I think? Stefan 05:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Aye. Though I beluieve gill rakers may originate from modified gills. Still, though.... Had a quick look and it does, indeed, look better. Are you sure it passes OVER the gill rakers? There's several ways filter feeding can work - trappimg in mucus, straining, and so on: Is this the way whale shark's filter feeding works?  Adam Cuerden talk 06:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, after seeing your question I must say that I do not know (I though I did :-) ), I did some research and found one ref that seams to talk about this (but not in as much detail as I would like), I have changed the text a bit and hope that I answer your question, it seams like a whale shark does not use gill rakers, it filters between the gills bars (whatever that means). Stefan 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Behaviour section isn't really about behavious in general, just about behaviour towards divers. It could be better named.
Agree, and done, but that basically means that we have very little about behaviour in the whole article... that is not so good. Stefan 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Section "Importance to Humans" is more about their conservation and study.
Renamed. Stefan 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Another good copy edit or so and it should be of GA quality. I'm putting the GA status on hold for now. Please leave me a message at my talk page when you're ready. Adam Cuerden talk 05:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One other thing: The article is somewhat low on in-line cites. It isn't necessary to document every sentence, but it would help to note at the end of each section the sources used for it. This may result in a lot of duplication, but it'll make for a better article in the end. Adam Cuerden talk 06:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I'm trying to add them when I update. Stefan 13:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Nearly there. Thoughts:
The bolded sentence seems out of place: It should come after the list of shorter lengths, and the paragraph needs more transition phrases such as "Similarly", "Likewise", "However", "As well", etc. 

In a 1925 publication Hugh M. Smith describes a huge whale shark which was caught in 1919 in a bamboo fish trap in todays Thailand. The shark was too heavy to pull ashore, but Smith estimates that the shark was at least 17 meters (55.7 feet) and weighed approximately 37 tonnes (81,500 lbs). Recent records says this shark was actually accurately measured at 17.98 meters and weighing 43 tonnes. Unverified claims of almost absurd lengths, such as 23 meters (75 feet) have been occasionally referred to. In 1934 a ship named the "Maurguani" came across a whale shark in the Southern Pacific ocean; the ship rammed the huge shark viciously, and it consequently got stuck on the prow of the ship: 4.6 meters (15 feet) on one side and 12.2 meters (40 feet) on the other.[5] No reliable documentation exists of those claims and they remain little more than "fish-stories".
I think that "The family Rhincodontidae was not finalized until 1984." really does need clarified, especially if this is going on to FA. 
It worries me that you yourself do not understand how its filter feeding works: It makes it hard to fully trust your description, as it may be unintentionally inaccurate. Please make sure it's right, and, if possible, diagram it. The gill arches, byy the way, are the bones that support and seperate the gills.
I know I'm being a bit picky, but it will, hopefully, help you in the end when it comes time for FA. Adam Cuerden talk 16:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Right! Filter feeding has definately improved, but the whole thing needs copyediting again. There's several comma errors that have been introduced, and one edit that muddies slightly:
These spots are unique to each whale shark and because of this they could be used to identify each animal and hence make an accurate count of the population (however, so far an accurate census of whale shark numbers has not been completed).
The original read "can be used to make an accurate population count"  - this was accurate, because "population count" can refer to a smaller populations than the global one. The change muddles the meaning somewhat, though it does point out an ambiguity in the original that should be fixed. 
That said, factually, this article has improved a great deal, and I don't mean at all to denigrate the effort put into it. But once the factual edits are done, it will need a little polish. Send me a message when you're ready again.
N.B. I may just do a copy edit myself tomorrow, but I'd then have to move myself out of the running to make the award. That might slow things a bit, which is why I've been avoiding it. Adam Cuerden talk 05:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Right. Quick note before I sleep: The wahle shark is not only the only species in its genus, but the only species in the Rhincodontidae family. (Take your pick of cite) This knowledge should allow the fixing of the two remaining oddities: The opening paragraph (jumps from genus to subclass), and the currently rather oddly-placed sentence "The family Rhincodontidae was not formally accepted by the ICZN until 1984." (this needs worked into the flow of the paragraph, or moved a little later or to a different section). 
Otherwise, I think it's largely done. Adam Cuerden talk 03:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I helped Yomangani and Stefan with Oceanic whitetip, and recently reviewed this article. Here's what I see:

From a MACRO point-of-view the organization of this article is excellent. The graphics and illustrations are superb. The templates are well thought out and sequenced. The references are top-drawer.
From a MICRO point-of-view it needs work. Here are some examples:
(1) It is too wordy. The prose needs to be tighted up. For example, instead of saying in the first sentence largest living fish species (four words) we really only need two words because we know it's living and we know its a species. That's just one of many examples where words just need to be crossed out. That's how Ernest Hemingway used to write - go back through it and cross words out.
(2) Some of the prose sounds pretty sophomoric. For example, the first sentence in the Behaviour towards divers template reads: When it is explained that most sharks are not dangerous to humans, this species is used as the leading example.  OK, that sentence is fine in a 7th grade book report. A better encyclopedic sentence might read: This species, despite its enormous size, is a prime example of why most sharks do not pose a danger to humans.--Hokeman 21:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
OK. Although I had no problem with the original, I've rewritten it to satisfy the few of us here who only read and write on the level of PhD dissertations.128.82.253.33 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Um... It's acually neccessary to say "largest living fish species", acually: There were karger fish in prehistoric times, unless I'm very much mistaken.  Hence, removing the "living" mkes the phrase inaccurate, and "lagest living fish species" is more scientific of phrasing than "largest living fish", largely because "fish" is here being used in a scientific sense (to include sharks), rather than its common usage (only osteichthyes)  Adam Cuerden talk 01:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
OK...I accept your logic that the word living is necessary because there were larger fish in prehistoric times. This article has improved substantially since I last read through it. I think it is well-deserving of GA status, and gets my vote as the 2nd best shark article (after Oceanic whitetip).--Hokeman 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In a 1925 publication, Hugh M. Smith describes a huge whale shark caught in a bamboo fish trap in Thailand in 1919. The shark was too heavy to pull ashore, but Smith estimated that the shark was at least 17 m (55.7 ft) and weighed approximately 37 tonnes (81,500 lb), which have been exaggerated to an accurate measurement of 17.98 m and weight 43 tonnes in recent years. There have even been claims of whale sharks of up to 23 m (75 ft). In 1934 a ship named the "Maurguani" came across a whale shark in the Southern Pacific ocean, rammed it, and the shark consequently became stuck on the prow of the ship, supposedly with 4.6 m (15 ft) on one side and 12.2 m (40 ft) on the other.[5] No reliable documentation exists of those claims and they remain little more than "fish-stories".
Is it really worth listing all of them? Adam Cuerden talk 14:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Concerns have been addressed and article meets GA criteria.  Eluchil404 21:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That article makes it sound like that sharks over 40 feet are merely rumoured. While there have been no reliable reports of whales much larger then this, the general consesus is that Whale Sharks ordinarily grow to lengths of 60 feet, merely averaging out at 40 feet in length. Maybe there should be a sentence to reflect this? Specusci 15:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Specimen over 41.5 feet are merely rumoured. Reports of 60 footers treated as accurate does not occur in modern scientific literature. "Averaging out at 40 feet" is ridiculous, such enormous specimens are extremely rare at best. The article makes it perfectly clear that there are unverified older legends and myths of sharks up to 60 feet, but those are at best unverifiable today and at worst in part of entirety simply hoaxes. Luka 11:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's just it:no reliable reports. If you don't have a reliable report, what you are doing is, in fact, guessing. 'General consenus' means nothing without physical proof. HalfShadow 17:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
According to Nelson, 2006 Fishes of the World, the Whale Shark has a maximum length of at least 12 m (about 40'). However, it goes on to say that it could probably be over 14 m. It also cites "Colman, 1997" as a source that it could perhaps be up to 18 m (about 60'). Thus, while actually reports may put the mark at about 40', there seems to be at least one source that perhaps actually gives good reasoning. If anyone has a way to find this Colman 1997 "A Review of the biology and ecology of the whale shark" in Volume 51 of "Journal of Fish Biology") and read it, that would be great. I think I might be able to get this from my university library. MiltonT 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
McClain et al (2015) cites Colman (1997) as questioning the accuracy of a report of a 60ft shark. Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"Sizing ocean giants: patterns of intraspecific size variation in marine megafauna" https://peerj.com/articles/715/ gives 18.8 metres citing this paper: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10641-011-9879-y
194.75.13.37 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw the line about merging the Butanding article to the Whale shark article, but when I checked the talk page no one's made mention of it. So let me start it off:
The Butanding article is about the whale shark living in some provinces of the Philippines, its current status in the country and news of its conservation. And it seems to be the only detailed article about the creature's existence in one particular part of the world. Are there any other articles like this? If this is the only one, how do we merge it? Alphapeta (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be wise to merge the articles.  They both refer to the same animal and there is a lot of repetition. Adove (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)adoveAdove (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There is already an entry about whale sharks.  Should this page be merged with that page?
pointless 16:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

support merge. Article is redundant. Shrumster 13:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Merge. An article on the Whale shark already exists. Injecting it with this Philippine-intensive content would help it achieve a better world view. -- • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 10:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge. Agreed, Article is redundant. Plcoffey (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge. Agree,  merge Butanding into Whaleshark. --Stefan talk 13:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge Butanding into Whaleshark. GrahamBould (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Do not merge, let it stay.[5] I viewed this last night. It is pathetic and fatal to Philippine marine biology and tourism, if this great article devoted to Philippine Butanding or whale shark would be just drowned in the whale shark main article. There are lots of whale sharks all over the world, and ours is unique and one of the best, since so many tourist go to Sorsogon. Please let this article live, on its own. - --Florentino floro (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
There is no biological difference between the whale sharks in the Philippines and the Japanese whale sharks Hayden Panettiere is trying to save, unlike the different types of eagles such as the American eagle and the Philippine eagle. They're one and the same species. --Howard the Duck 07:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge per User:Kguirnela--Lenticel (talk) 13:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 Done

I did a merge and redirect, I can not really find anything to merge though, all the important info is already in the whale shark page, only very specific Philipine info was in the Butanding page. For anyone that wants to save anything, all info is still left in the history, see [6], there where lots of reference, I did NOT check them, they might be good to keep? I redirected Butanding to whale shark. If anyone wants to delete Butanding, do so at WP:AfD I do not think it is nessesary so I will just redirect. --Stefan talk 14:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I tried to write a paragraph on the effect that tourists have on whale sharks and how operators and tourists can minimize this disturbance (including interaction guidelines). The piece got automatically deleted by a bot (it appears that my being a first-time wiki writer had something to do with it). Anybody know how I could recover the post and have it added? I have a fair amount of experience with the species, as both a scientist studying them, and as part of the tourism industry. Capepolly (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that you where reverted since you are new and linked to blogspot, see links to be avoided, you will probably be able to post what you wrote if you do not include that link, this is a copy of what you typed. --Stefan talk 13:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Not a wiki writer but just submitting this article for eventual review about a problematic situation here in the Philippines, in Oslob off Cebu island.
http://dive-bohol.com/conservation/5-reasons-not-go-oslob/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.58.241 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC) 

what is the life spand of the whale shark????  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.151.31 (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC) 

They can live to about 70 years of age. I added to the page. --Stefan talk 14:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The intro says 70 years, the reproduction section says 100 years.  The citations for both numbers are themselves citations, but the 70 year one looks like it's coming from a compendium of pop-scientific questions, the other an inference made in an academic publication.  Maybe the article should talk about the lack of definitive study on the topic instead of making apparent internal contradictions. 99.129.213.84 (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The shark was too heavy to pull ashore, but Smith estimated that the shark was at least 17 metres (56 ft) long, and weighed approximately 37 tonnes (81,500 lb), which have been exaggerated to an accurate measurement of 17.98 metres (58.99 ft) and weight 43 tonnes in recent years.This sentence has been discussed several times, but I wanted to clarify, as it jumped out at me when I read this article.
If the latter figures were exaggerated, then they can’t also be referred to as accurate, without subsequent verification.  This would have to mean the initial estimate was conservative, and the exaggeration was only sufficient to make it more accurate – hardly merits the term “exaggerate”.
Better to say; …exaggerated to a more precise measurement of… which doesn’t imply truth (precise 2. (sciences) …), in conflict with exaggeration.
Note that a measurement can be the act of measuring, as well as the data that this produces:  “an accurate measurement” implies the act.  The data were produced by exaggeration or measurement, not both.
I’ve done this edit – please revert it if you disagree. Ζζ (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Discovery Channel: Is the World's Largest Shark Shrinking?
Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 04:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

From the opening sentence "Rhincodon typus, is a slow moving filter feeding shark that is the largest living fish species." Sharks are not fishes. So is this creature a shark or fish?24.83.148.131 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)BeeCier

Sharks are considered fish; See this.  Scroll down a bit... — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 06:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting information Introduction says they live to 70 years and reproduction says they live to over 100 years? 76.10.166.189 (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
put the associated fish swim with the whale shark, what is the relationship of it to the whale shark, how you destinguished the male and female.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.26.114 (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC) 
It seems like the definition of fish is "all vertebrates that are not tetrapods", so that makes sharks and other 	Chondrichthyes fish, even though they are more distantly related to salmon than cats are. Using the more logistically sound cladistics classification, the largest fish is actually the blue whale, a type of Sarcopterygii.--128.143.189.80 (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cladistics are useful (perhaps the only valid method) for determining evolutionary links and genetic relationships. However, other things matter too. We need a word that means the non-tetrapod vertebrates (those fishy things that swim in the sea), and the word that we already have for that is "fish". If we changed the word "fish" to only cover bony fish, we would need another word to cover the rest of them. It would be pointless. So sharks are fish, and whales are not fish. Westmorlandia (talk) 14:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This sentence "On March 7, 2009, marine scientists in the Philippines discovered what is believed to be the smallest living specimen of the whale shark. The young shark was found with its tail tied to a stake at a beach in Pilar, Philippines, and was released into the wild. Scientists believe that this site is a birthing ground." doesn't give any kind of useful information since it does not say exactly what size the smallest living specimen was. Was it 10 ft? 20 ft? 2 ft? 1 ft? Without a cite at least, or preferably a measurement to go with that sentence, I don't see how it adds anything to the article. Thoughts? --Despayre (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, with this sentence in the article, "the females give birth to live young which are 40 to 60 centimetres (16 to 24 in) long", doesn't that make the de facto smallest living specimen of whale shark to be 40 to 60 centimeters? --Despayre (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Fixed. --Despayre (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This article has more information on what is known of whale shark reproduction. No clue about it's validity:
http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/ecology/coral-whale_shark.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.76.27 (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC) 

How are whale sharks fed in captivity?  Given that they're filter-feeders, won't the plankton run out quickly in a tank?  More info in the captivity section of the article please!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.115.7 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 

"The whale shark is not an efficient swimmer since it uses its entire body, unusual for fish, to attain an average speed of around 5-kilometre-per-hour (3.1 mph)."
I do not question that Whale Sharks are inefficient swimmers, but the explanation that "it uses its entire body, unusual for  fish" does not seem accurate to me. 
Most fish are flattened from side to side and use their whole body to swim making movements from side to side.  Whales are flattened from top to bottom and use their whole body to swim by  up and down movements with their tails thus leaving "foot print" on the surface of the water which shows their underwater direction.
Human swimmers copy the whole body movement when they swim butterfly stroke or do underwater dolphin kicks on backstroke starts and turns.  Otherwise human swimmers propel themselves with arms and leg movements.
What is unusual in fish is the Ocean Sunfish or Mola mola which uses the lateral fins not whole body movements to move.
It seems to me having only seen the Whale Shark once on a trip to the Continental Shelf edge south of Cape Cod is that the Whale Shark swims with whole body movement from side to side like a fish, but is flattened from top to bottom like a whale.  This would seem to be inefficient.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.7.15 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 

a whale shark, besides its name, is a whale, not a shark.this whale is about twice the size of a great whit shark.though they eat small plankton not fish or people.although they are the freindliest whale, they can fit a person in the mouth.
by smartlilgirl094 —Preceding undated comment added February 28, 2012.

The Whale Shark is a shark, a type of fish.  It's in the order Orectolobiformes, a type of shark (superorder Selachimorpha, sharks).  A whale is a mammal.  TJRC (talk) 01:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
A Whale Shark is a shark it has fish reletives but it is the shark family why would they name it a Whale Shark if it was not a shark
the meaning of the name WHALE ( because it can grow to the size of a whale) Shark (because it is a shark it is in the shark family.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.138.90 (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC) 

For some strange reason, this page is a constant target for IP vandalism.  At the moment, there's a request for temporary semi-protection.   Looking through the history of this page, there are more vandalism edits than productive edits; and almost every edit from an IP editor is vandalism.  It's been temporarily semiprotected three times; today's will be the fourth.  Is it perhaps time to request permanent semiprotection, allowing only registered editors to edit? 
WTF is it about this page that attracts such vandalism, anyway? TJRC (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

[7]. blame reddit. Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Whale shark listed at over 60 feet in new study. An error?
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/artful-amoeba/2015/01/13/ocean-giants-actual-size/
66.81.52.212 (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not an error, McClain et al (2015) accepts as "verified" two reports of 60ft whale sharks only because they appear in the literature, I have been only able to check one of the publications and it makes no mention of how they measured them, it just casually shows "18m" in a table and a plot as if not grasping the significance of that possibly being the largest ever known specimen, chances are is an estimate, either from looking at it from a plane or underwater so declaring it "verified" seems like an stretch. Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is it?  If it "does not pose significant danger to humans", that does not mean it is completely harmless. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. If a whale shark fell out of the sky on top of a car, it might cause damage. But in the sea, they're generally peaceful, don't eat humans, eat microscopic creatures. I don't think they have teeth per se. They're just huge.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Actually they have tiny rows of teeth but nothing like a lion or hyena.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Whale sharks can potentially cause harm if given the opportunity, i.e., that they may capsize a small boat, or hit a swimmer unable to move out of its path, and yes, whale sharks have very small teeth.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Could a native Vietnamese speaker please check this fact? It could be that the quoted source is incorrect. 
As I'm reading it, Cá Ông is the name of the god worshipped by some coastal villagers and represents large whales (in general, but blue whales specifically) and is not just descriptive of a 'whale shark god'. 
See also: https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cá_voi_xanh
This seems like it may be one of those translation issues that gets accepted as fact, but really isn't (wholly) accurate. 
I, however, do not pretend to be a native speaker, so I'm not editing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.95.172.210 (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC) 

Please change the fact about whale sharks in Vietnam being called "Lord fish"
to whale sharks being called "Sir fish" because the referenced article and its backup state,
Cool Fact- In Vietnam, whale sharks are known as ca-ong, or “sir fish.” Twigpi (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done The source does not mention the claim of being revered as a deity. I've removed that and changed the translation of the name. —C.Fred (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are the author citations for Rhincodontidae and Rhincodon listed as (J. P. Müller and Henle, 1839) and (A. Smith, 1829), respectively? I've only seen the parentheses used to denote that source used a different combination of specific name and generic name: ICZN Code 51.3 [8]. What does it mean to have parentheses around the authority reference when giving a genus or family name? Smith, 1829 used "Rhincodon".
I guess the parentheses might be used to signal that Müller and Henle, 1839 didn't use Rhincodontidae when they proposed the family but rather the invalid Rhinodontes -- is this a standard use of parentheses? But Smith, 1829 did use Rhincodon, so I'm confused about that. Umimmak (talk) 04:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not the standard. More likely, the person who added the parentheses was unaware of the rules. I've corrected it. RN1970 (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

More information about fisheries (legal and illegal) needs to be added. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Please change "Pupping of whale sharks has been observed" to "Pupping of whale sharks has not been observed", because the source that this sentence cites clearly indicates that pupping of whale sharks has not been observed. https://peerj.com/preprints/1885 JMacneily (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Fixed, thanks for the heads-up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I have a potential update to the scale chart which can be seen here: [9]  
This new chart also attempts to show how proportions change as whale sharks grow. The silhouettes are based on measurements provided for various individuals in the literature and images of similarly sized individuals online. The smallest silhouette is based on a 55cm juvenile reported by Wolfson 1983. The middle one which is scaled to 9m, which around the size they mature into adults, this number varies a little from source to source but most sources I have read say 8-9m. The largest silhouette is scaled to 18.8m meters based on a reported individual by Borrell et al. 2011 (reported as 15m standard length with the total length estimated) & supported as the largest reliably measured by McClain et al. Frustratingly reports larger than 12m lack detailed measurements and images online of whale sharks larger than 12m are hard to find, but I was able to find some footage and images of huge females seen in the Galapagos on Instagram, I based the shape of the largest silhouettes on these individuals. Any thoughts? Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I like :) Having refs integrated in the chart is useful, IMO. Could you maybe arrange the legends more in line with the silhouettes - i.e., space them more widely vertically? At the moment it looks as if the pup legend applies to the juvie silhouette. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the input! I'll rearrange the text to better align with the silhouettes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I've uploaded this version which aligns the text to the silhouettes.Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This article contain new information [10] about the size as well.
Yeah, it's an interesting study. I'm currently looking into whether it's worth updating the illustration.
I'm also attempting to rewrite the Wiki article size info because this research makes some of the statements in the wiki article potentially obsolete/misleading. It's a little tricky to write without making it confusing, most previous studies have treated growth estimates with data from both sexes. The I'm thinking of culling some of the info in the 'reports of large individuals' section. I feel it's overly detailed, which is partly my fault. There's not much point mentioning specific ~12m whale sharks because sharks of that size are regularly mentioned in the literature and frequent the Galapagos every year. I think that section should focus the more controversial/anecdotal larger sizes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In the popular manga and anime One Piece,  the character "First Son of the Sea" Jinbei, the helmsman and tenth crew member of the Straw Hat Pirates is a whale shark Fish-man.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7F85:2660:E951:74BD:B44:486B (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC) 

Under distribution and habitat, the following line "north of Japan and as south as Victoria, Australia." should read "as far south as Victoria, Australia." thanks! 71.238.241.52 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Several whales are larger than the whale shark. Since fish are basal to tetrapods including mamals, this would make the blue whale the largest fish. Specifying nin tetrapods, would add clarity to taxonomic and evolutionary distinctions. 174.2.69.60 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Only if your aim is to hopelessly confuse all readers by mixing common language and taxonomic domains in the same statement. Not happening. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
""Non-tetrapod fish" is a jargon-saturated quibbling that's thoroughly mired in WP:SYNTH, especially since it should be obvious that the article is using the colloquial definition of "fish" being "any gill-breathing vertebrate outside of Tetrapoda."--Mr Fink (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Relationship with humans > In captivity > "Their large size and iconic status have also fueled an opposition to keeping the species in captivity, especially after the early death of some whale sharks in captivity and certain Chinese aquariums keeping the species in relatively small tanks."
The animal died in the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta, Georgia, United States.  The way it is phrased now implies that China is to blame when it is not. 108.41.166.150 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This sentence in the description: "But in whale sharks (and bottom-dwelling cloudy catsharks), two amino acid substitutions has made the pigment more sensitive to blue light instead..." should be changed to "HAVE made the pigment more sensitive to blue light instead...".  Has is incorrect.  
Thank you! Jnikiel7 (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Removed "has" altogether. M.Bitton (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The word "fishes" appears several times when it should be "fish". 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:B934:B3A3:F11A:1DA0 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears twice. I made one instance singular through a copyedit. The other instance is fine. "Fishes" is not incorrect. In fact, it's more common in scientific contexts when referring to more than one species of fish. pillowcrow 22:59, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
What Pillowcrow said: In English, "fish" as plural refers to one specific population or species, whereas "fishes" refers to two or more distinct populations or species.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Whale sharks are cute and all, but they are endangered, and are going down fast. One of the many reasons that Whale sharks are endangered is because of their skin, it is almost bulletproof. Many kinds of shields are made of partial whale shark skin. Another reason is that Whale Sharks are a rare species so a lot of people want to see them. But while the tourists are there, they commonly leave garbage in the waters. That can cause the water to be poisoned. One last thing is Over-fishing. Over-fishing can accidentally end up getting a whale shark stuck in a net! Thank you for your time. IluvOceans (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Their endangered status is already noted in the article along with how they are affected by illegal fishing. If you would like to add substantiated information about whale sharks as bycatch or the bulletproof nature of their skin, feel free to make the edits. pillowcrow 23:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I found an article on National Geographic (https://www.nationalgeographic.com/premium/article/whale-sharks-endangered-ship-collisions) - talking about the threat to the species from ships. I haven't done a lot of edits on science pages like this. Not sure where to put this? @Gant223 I noticed you've been a contributor on here. Can you advise or help? Thanks Hannahthom7 (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I am Japanese and my English is not good. Please keep in mind that I will be using a lot of automatic translation.
Is it safe to recognize that you would like to contribution an article to Wikipedia? I am not sure if this will be supportive or not, but I will talk about it as a reference.
The article talks about how whale sharks and North Atlantic right whales often die and sink to the bottom when they are involved in collisions with transport ships, so the damage is likely to be underestimated.
It is unclear how large an impact this has on a population scale, but it leads to population decline, so in order to prevent such unfortunate accidents, the first author in the article functions to prevent accidents by reducing vessel speed and rerouting vessels. These methods are said to increase transit times and make it easier for captains to see and avoid sharks, leading to shark conservation without harming the industry.
In Wikipedia, use the same article as a reference and mention in the conservation status section that the damage to whale sharks that are involved in accidents on transport vessels is likely underestimated, and contribute your own words about how reducing vessel speed and rerouting vessels works to prevent accidents.
I hope I have been of appropriate assistance. Have a good day. Thank you. Gant223 (talk) 06:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the section "Distribution and Habitat", the text cites reference 52 "An Unprecedented Aggregation of Whale Sharks, Rhincodon typus, in Mexican Coastal Waters of  the Caribbean Sea" and claims the large aggregation occurred in 2011, while the reference states 2009 as the year of the event. Is this a mistake? HyperBeam148 (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Found evidence for the whale shark eating algae and thus being omnivorous.      

119.75.38.58 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Mahek

Seems worth mentioning, with the caveat that there is no observational evidence - this is based on conclusions about likely trophic level following fatty acid analysis. So, I'd suggest adding a couple sentences to the diet section to cover this. Also, let's stick to the actual study [11] rather than the slew of reporting tidbits. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The recent edit suggesting the killing of a whale shark in Gaza only cites a,  
according to wikipedia, pro-Israel source. Given the current situation, it seems likely that this source is not impartial in this matter and might therefore be unreliable. I suggest removing this information unless other, impartial sources are cited. --Carcharias taurus (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Looks like the edit was reverted—not because of the source but because the killing of a single specimen isn't worthy of inclusion on the page. pillowcrow 04:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)