Talk:Sand tiger shark

message: An article on the Eastern Grey Nurse Shark in the Life supplement of The Guardian, from 17th February, records the gestation period as about twelve months, but also points out that no one is quite sure how long it takes.  Chenxlee 16:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gestation

message: I know the article does say 'Sand Tiger' as another name, but wouldn't this be better kept under Sand Tiger than 'Grey Nurse'?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.31.148 (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For fish article we use WP:FISH#Fish names and article titles as the rule, and since fishbase call it sand tiger so do we. --Stefan talk 06:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying, as per the article, it is called grey nurse in Australia, spotted ragged-tooth in Africa and sand tiger in the US and UK, all is correct, wikipedia is international and WP:FISH have stated that we should use then name that fishbase uses, fish base calls this shark grey nurse shark so therefore the page is correctly named, sand tiger and spotted ragged-tooth both have redirect. --Stefan talk 02:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree. Nobody calls this fish a 'grey nurse shark' outside australia. 'Sand tiger shark' is a much more internationally common name. Before seeing this article I wouldn't have had a clue what a 'grey nurse shark' referred to, despite being perfectly familiar with sand tigers. This could easily confuse people. If there's even a policy about naming according to fishbase which hasn't been followed, why hasn't this article been moved? 86.26.78.54 (talk) 09:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Discovery channel sources put Odontaspis as the genus for this shark, rather than charcharias.  Is this simply a difference in opinion or a change in taxonomy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.74.232 (talk) 05:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many species are being moved or debated on where they belong in the taxonomy tree. In wikipedia we use fishbase, see reference in the article, as our main source for fish taxonomy, what is correct is not obvious. Changes in taxonomy happen very slowly, and I doubt there is an entity that everyone accepts as being the 'correct'. So as to answer your question, yes, both difference in opinion and possibly a change happening that is not accepted by fishbase yet. --Stefan talk 06:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus 

message: Ragged tooth shark redirects to Smalltooth sand tiger yet it should merged with this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlackersHammer (talk • contribs) 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two articles merged 

message: I dispute the claims that the shark is "not aggressive unless provoked." The international shark attack file has instances of unprovoked attacks, including fatal attacks. In South Africa, especially in the "raggie" has a reputation for being aggressive.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual issue 

message: I formatted the reference section and it is set up for books if you use any. However, the original citations are all over the place. Many are just web addresses. You will need to insert the "cite web template", then follow the actual link to complete the required information. This will take time. If you are not comfortable with the web resources that were there, then delete the citation and attempt to cite the info from another source. There is a section I called Additional reading which consist of random web links not in the actual text. Either use them - thus moving them under references or delete them completely.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2011
Okay, I will work on all of the original citations this weekend. Some of them are not legitimate, so I'll probably end up deleting those. All of the rest of the useful sources I will convert. Also, the reason why I added the external links/additional reading area is to keep the sources at hand for future use just to save time. I will delete them now and bookmark the sites instead on my computer. Thank you so much for the help, I was going to ask you about the unformatted sources on Monday. This saves me a lot of time. --UND77 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: The range map is very good. The range description is very uneven in detail. Three particular sightings for Canada and a very sweeping statement for the Pacific ocean. I think it would be a good idea to describe the map. There is a limited number of coastlines marked. The source of the map could then be the source cited for the text. --Ettrig (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range description 

message: Maybe the article Smalltooth sand tiger can be an inspiration to this article. It is GA. It is about one of the other three species in the family. It might have citations of sources that are also relevant to this species. --Ettrig (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smalltooth sand tiger 

message: "You" state: (feeding in surf zone) has caused many instances of accidental attacks upon humans. . This is not documented in the reference you cite; it fact it contradicts your reference which actually states: Despite this, they are a docile, non-aggressive species, known to attack humans only when bothered first. ---> From National Geographic reference.I will attempt a teacher review soon - you are behind the Greater Scaup. --JimmyButler (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE, is it correct now do you think? I was a little confused on what you were asking here...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by UND77 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference alignment with facts in paper 

message: * They can weigh 350 pounds and average can reach up to 10 to 11 feet. No recognition of metric (The scientific measurement).
:DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will read through the article extremely carefully, and make sure that the weasel words won't be in there. Sorry about that, I really have to separate my English writing from my Scientific writing. I will try not to make the same mistakes. --UND77 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teacher Review 

message: General
*In the middle of a sentence, it's "sand tiger", not "Sand tiger".
: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just took some shots at the aquarium, I am reviewing them now. They should be up shortly. --UND77 (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Set the standards with that effort!--JimmyButler (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I have not yet found resources about this fact. Is there anywhere specific I should be looking?--UND77 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Humans do not serve the sand tiger as a diet resource. I think this is the line... humans do not serve as a dietary source for any sharks; this best addresses "threats to humans".--JimmyButler (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I have seen evidence of the Great white, Thresher, and Dusky shark having the "tail slapping" behavior, but not the sand tiger. --UND77 (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE, I tried to find as much as I could on this subject. The information given seemed pretty straight-forward, there was not much elaboration to be done. --UND77 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you! That clears the confusion of the process. Also, is there a resource that states that the sand tiger is the only known shark to do this type of reproduction. I have read many articles on this, but I have yet to find that fact. --UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE --UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE, NOAA states that the period is eight to nine months. Is this correct? --UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some comments 

message: The lead is suppose to be a summary of the article. References are not required in the lead(unless the material is contentious) but go into the body of the article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! I was saving the lead for last, so that is why it was not tend to. I will be sure to edit the reference out of the lead. --UND77 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the wording above. References are not required. References are allowed. I prefer without, personally. But don't fret over this one. --Ettrig (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References in lead 

message: A few observations so far, more to follow:
;Lead
*"Two behaviors set the sand tiger apart from other sharks: its method of reproduction and its ability to gulp air from the surface to allow it to float effortlessly throughout the water." I've got so many problems with that sentence. First of all, the Description section says that "Sand tigers have many features that distinguish them from other shark species", but here we're told there are only two. Secondly, in what sense is its method of reproduction a behavior? And thirdly, what does "float effortlessly throughout the water" mean?
:DONE --UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the number signals, tiger is one, their is 2 or more. --Ettrig (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I've got another problem with this sentence, which is to do with the statement that sand tiger sharks swallow their prey whole 93.7% of the time. First of all, biologists haven't observed all sand tigers, just a sample of them, so all that can be said is that among that sample prey was swallowed whole 93.7% of the time. Secondly, the precision to one decimal place seems absurd to me; surely the point is that biologists have observed that sand tigers almost always swallow their prey whole; if this study was to be repeated, what do you think the chance of coming up with 93.7% again would be? Zero? Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you. I considered doing that, but I didn't know if it had to be exact percentages. DONE --UND77 (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 

message: Hi!
Saw that this article was part of a school project, though I should give some suggestions.
* In the lead, I would add a estimated water death for "epipelagic and the mesopelagic regions" which most normal people have no idea on how deep it is.
:DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: DONE--UND77 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

text: And here's my additional suggestion. Leave this article for a couple of days and then come back to it with fresh eyes. Try to forget it's something you've worked on and instead look at it as a regular reader coming across it for the first time would. Right now it really doesn't hang together: the sharks never attack unless provoked, but there are 29 reported cases of unprovoked attacks ... no need to rush it, take your time. Malleus Fatuorum 03:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I will definetely do that. I just need to take my time. Of all the edits I have done, have I done them correctly? Do they make sense? Especially the unprovoked attacks edit. I tried to make it as connected as possible. Thanks for your help Malleus. I really appreciate it. --UND77 (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're doing fine, but softlee, softlee, catchee monkee. Give yourself a break of a day or two and then come back and read the article like anyone else would. Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think Malleus? I tried to go through it carefully, trying to get things more understandable. I saw where you were coming from. After taking a break, I was able to notice problems much clearer. Thank you very much. --UND77 (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking good. It's like you have to step outside yourself, and look at the article as if it was written by someone else. The best thing of all, I think, is when you look back on something you wrote years earlier and think "Wow, did I really write that? It's fantastic!" Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  YES! That's exactly what happened! Some things I thought, "Why in the world would I use that word here?", but the greatest feeling was "Holy mackerel! This is awesome!" I can't wait for the day when someone asks me about the Sand tiger (if that day ever comes), and I can tell them a random fact or just say, "Hey! Check out the article on Wikipedia! I wrote it." Do you think the article is ready for a GA review? Thanks again Malleus. --UND77 (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No I don't, not quite. Check out the Interaction with humans section for instance. That needs some work. Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Maybe worth keep a check on nervous shark, it's a recent good article nominee. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Nervous shark]] 

message: I'm not sure if this is really an issue, but in some places you refer to it as a Sand tiger, and in others it's the Sand tiger shark. I'm not doing an animal article, so I'm not sure the rule behind this, but I suspect it might just be an issue of consistency? I just thought I'd bring this up. If it is a problem, it would just be a simple fix. Phorofor (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed that if I put "Sand tiger shark" that "sand tiger" would be okay too. I don't think it matters though. Thank you for bringing it up! It made me read through my article again. --UND77 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sand Tiger vs Sand Tiger Shark

message: As far as the sand tiger's location in the water column, it roams... Conversational dialog not expedient enough for my taste. Four students in the group, one of you please read through this thing and remove the words that contribute nothing to the understanding of this topic... we are not trying to reach a "word count" for a class paper. Errrrrr....--JimmyButler (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many words  does we need Mr. B. fo da A 

message: The reproduction section is a mess and needs attention.  It is stated that they have one of the lowest reproduction rates and yet the reasons for this are not adequately explained.  
1. "During early embryonic stages the young absorb nutrients from a yolk sac"
The initial number of young is not given.  It is as many as 40 between the two uteri.  I have seen one source say 40 in each uterus, but most state the former and it appears to be more accurate.
2. "At approximately 10 centimeters (4 in) in length, developing embryos in the mother's uteri are killed and devoured by two surviving pups, a process called intrauterine cannibalism (oophagy)."
Using "killed" is unnecessary and humanizes the biological process.  In fact, "killed and devoured" is a melodramatic statement that is completely inappropriate for a zoological article, as is the term "mother."  It is also poorly explained; no reason for this behavior is given.  In addition, the phrase "by two surviving pups" is both inconsistent (they are referred to as embryos in the former part of the sentence) and vague.  It suggests that these two are somehow either preselected or farther developmentally advanced than the others.  In reality it is more of a "free for all," with the strongest and most aggressive embryo in the uterus being the survivor.
At two months of age (which likely coincides with 4 inches of length) the individual yolk sacks of the embryos run out and they must utilize the only other food source available to keep themselves from starving.  The embryos begin consuming one another and continue until only the largest and strongest embryo in each uterus is left. 
3. "There are reports of biologists probing the bellies of landed females and having their fingers nipped by the cannibalistic young with their fully developed teeth"
Irrelevant to the reproduction of this species.
4. "Hydroids grow on the mother's teeth during pregnancy because she stops feeding"
Somewhat interesting but also irrelevant.  Needs to be either tied in to the section or removed, not tacked on to the end as an afterthought.  Most people will not know what hydroids are, let alone the significance of them growing on a shark's teeth, so it should probably just be removed.  If it can be tied in it also needs to be stated in a less simplistic manner and without using the anthropomorphized term "mother."  
It is worth noting that the primary source listed for reproductive data is thirty years old; positively ancient by scientific standards.
There has also been an interesting development in the last few years by Australian researchers attempting to breed the species that may be a relevant addition to the Conservation section.  They have attempted to create an "artificial uterus" utilizing a system with different chambers to rear the young separately from one another, preventing cannibalism and yielding a higher number of offspring.
I don't know if anyone is still working on this article as it looks like the last activity was a year ago.  I will check back and can make changes if no one else is active. CrisisRose (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reproduction Section Needs Attention 

message: In diet, benthic is referenced as "free swimming". I think that pelagic is a more accurate term. I know my students have moved on, is anyone vested in this article at present? --JimmyButler (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benthic 

message: A long series of edits by user:Jwhferguson (hasn't been active on wiki for a long time) resulted in removals of fairly large sections from the article. Some changes were fine, but other removals seem questionable, especially in the "Description" section. I don't have the time at present, but it might be worth checking if it is worth saving some of it. 62.107.193.67 (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits removing large parts of text (check needed) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sand tiger shark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927133953/http://www.comparativepsychology.org/ijcp-vol26-1/06.Tate_etal_FINAL.pdf to http://www.comparativepsychology.org/ijcp-vol26-1/06.Tate_etal_FINAL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified