Talk:Megamouth shark

Capitalization discussion

Why the capitalization in the article's title? I wouldn't go in and move it myself, as I'm not much aware of biology, so I just thought I should comment in order to attract the attention of someone who knows better than I. - Vague Rant 07:53, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Because it is policy to capitalize the names of species. This has been controversial for several years, but I think the correct conclusion was reached. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and its archive. Pcb21| Pete 09:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ahem, no such consensus reached, although some have tried to represent it that way. In particular, capitalization of fish species continues to be argued among specialists in the field, and it's not Wikipedia's place to make the decision for them. I haven't reverted all the fish articles because I don't want to misrepresent the situation, which is undecided. Stan 15:19, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I apologize. You are right that the pro-capitalisation birding lobby, whose own specialists are generally in agreement, didn't so much build a consensus as cared so long and hard on the mailing list that their preferred grammar won the day, and spread to most of the rest of the animal kingdom. Today the status quo seems to be that there is a tendency for old-timers to convert to capitals for most species (fish often excepted), and for newcomers to be bewildered by it :). The specialists in my own area of interest, cetaceans, are also split down the middle and couldn't be used to make a definite judgement one way or the other. Pcb21| Pete 15:50, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This discussion is a little confusing. Vague Rant asks, "Why the capitalization in the article's title?" to which the answer would seem to be that this is customary. But then Pcb21 answers, "Because it is policy to capitalize the names of species." No, it is NOT "policy to capitalize the names of species," but it IS customary to capitalize ALL BUT the species, as shown by the the first line of text of the ARTICLE not title: "The megamouth shark, Megachasma pelagios...", Megachasma being the GENUS and pelagios being the SPECIES. And what on Earth does any "birding lobby" have to do with this at all...? As for "old-timers" v. "newcomers", SOMEONE has to set the original standards so the rest of us can communicate intelligently and effectively; otherwise it is the Tower of Babble all over again. Some professor once remarked sarcastically that the wonderful thing about standards is that there are so many of them, meaning that if every "newcomer" who comes along sets, declares or uses his own standard, soon there are none at all, everyone doing his own thing and nobody knows which end is up, nothing fits anything, nobody knows what anybody else is talking about, and there is total confusion and disarray; much better that we all speak the same English, and not just make it up as we go along.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.8.90 (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Bioluminescence

I, of course, may be mistaken, but I could have sworn from my Biology classes having learned that the megamouth's distinctive fleshy lips were (at least faintly) bioluminescent. It is not mentioned in this article. --Ngorongoro 28/3/06

"The mouth is surrounded by luminous photophores, which may act as a lure for plankton or small fish, and disco fanatics."...? Whose idea of scientific description is this? (Ngorongoro, here's your bioluminescence, BTW, with assinine silliness thrown in.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.8.90 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

pointless hoax story

The "hoax" section should be removed as it really conveys no useful information about the shark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.115.239 (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

filter feeder

J. Fish Biol.73 17-34 (2008), claims that feeding method is NOT like whale shark or basking shark. Instead it uses "engulfment" like humpback whales. I don't have time to edit right now, but if someone else is able, that would be great. 99of9 (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The pages as of now is not wrong, it IS a filter feeder, but it does not feed as the basking shark or the whale shark, see more details in the filter feeder page and whale shark and basking shark, agree this pages needs more info, will edit at some time but I also does not have time now. --Stefan ^talk 23:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo

The current photo is about as useless as a photo can get without actually being unencyclopedic. Most of the picture is taken up by Plexiglas dividers and what appears to be a gift shop, and the backward angle makes it almost impossible to see the head, let alone the mouth. I'd take a better one if I could, but short of that I'm tagging this page so someone else can. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

== What Megamouth Sharks Eat They eat plankton.

Access stats

Can anyone explain the spike in visits to this article on 12 August this year, please? Was the article featured on, say the shark portal? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Answered my own question; news of specimen caught off Mexico, from 11 August. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

small hooked teeth60 parirs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.131.58 (talk) 10:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megamouth 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/20120330130404/http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4609/elusive-megamouth-shark-snared-mexico to http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/4609/elusive-megamouth-shark-snared-mexico

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Expansion

Looking over the article, and considering how much published information exists out there on the species and their history as well as biology, and legacy that exists cause of theor discovery, this article needs SERIOUS attention and expansion. There is so much info here that is undersourced or not given at all, and it all needs a pretty significant expansion. I am not really one to do so myself as its not my area of expertise but if anyone is able to give this article the attention it needs it would be much appreciated. Paleface Jack (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LL03251944 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by LL03251944 (talk) 02:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)