Talk:Short-tail stingray

Short-tail stingray has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 16, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 26, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the short-tail stingray is the largest stingray species in the world?

Bull Ray???

Is this really called a bull ray? The article about family of eagle rays says that the genus Pteromylaeus are called bull rays. Are bull rays now a genus of eagle rays or a species of the genus dasyatis? I'm really confused now... --84.226.146.231 22:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, with actuall article about the Bull Ray species, and a disambuguation page fopr the many species called bull ray. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone notice the article says Scrotom... Sternum would be Closer to the Heart...

Steve Irwin

Does anyone know if this is venmous, or did Steve die from the act of the tail stabbing him like a dagger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash331 (talk • contribs)

I don't know personally, but the article is listed in the category of Category:Venomous animals. That might indicate something. -- Longhair 20:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short-tail stingrays (or Smooth Stingrays) are venomous. You can look at this site: [1]. As for how Irwin died, I'm thinking that both would be most likely. The venom would be directly injected into his heart, causing cardiac arrest. bibliomaniac15 20:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources have cited that the venom would not have likely been a factor. TheHYPO 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve's death was caused by the puncturing of the right ventricle and right atrium. This caused too much strain on the heart, causing cardiac arrest. The venom may have quickened the cardiac arrest, but it was not a major factor. User:GxIxJesus

I don't think the death of Steve should be mentioned in this article. It has nothing to do with the Short-tail stingray in general. What if one would list all people killed by bears, tigers, lions etc. in the respective articles? The only place where this sad stingray incident belongs is the article about Steve. + this hate-wave against stingrays is childish, useless and unworthy to the memory of Steve.

---it should be added. A section about it being dangerous or something....everyone knows tiger, sharks and other wild animal are dangerous, but no one knows that stingrays can be dangerous or can kill a person...a topic should be added about their aggression or about the rare recorded deaths. and please someone find a decent picture the drawing is useless ---- Sohaib Zaheer / X-F \ 20:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sohair, The drawing is not useless. Supply something better yourself rather than complain. "No one knows stingrays can be dangerous..."!!? What a silly statement, just revealing your ignorance. Please do a little research in future before bursting into print. GrahamBould 21:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The area where it's explained what the stingray eats that mentions "crocodile hunters" is highly and completely childish and inappropriate. I suggest it be removed quickly.

I think that the rarity of deaths by stingrays and the fact of Steve Irwins persona would warrant a couple of sentences about his death in this article. LindaWarheads 21:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that there have only been 17 fatalities in recent history. I have read that it was 17 fatalities since 1996. I suggest the article be edited to change this generalization.

The article on Steve used to mention that, but it was an error. 17 as of 1996 is what's been cited. --Kjoonlee 02:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He died because it stabbed a whole in his heart. NOt because of the venom70.130.169.23

The person above is correct. Steve died because of the actual barb to the chest, and the sudden tearing of the flesh as the ray pulled the barb out... not because of the venom. Secondly, Steve shouldn't be mentioned here at all. It's not relevant to the discussion of stingrays (per the purpose of this article). Last, I don't know what some of you are thinking but labeling this creature as dangerous is a terribly wrong thing to do. With so few fatalities this animal isn't dangerous; the most frequent casualty from them is the sting they inflict on people's ankles in shallow water. What happened to Irwin was horribly tragic and very rare- but we can't just label stingrays as threats because of it. If this happened to some random Australian boy, no one here would know, nor care- so his popularity should not be capitalized.

Actually, Steve pulled the barb out. Which leads me to ask about whether the rays normally pull out the barbs themeslves or whether they leave the barbs embedded?

From reading up on stingrays after this story broke, it would seem that the barb has the tendency to break either completely off or the end off. I have read a few reports stating that people who are struck (I think that word is better then sting/stung as has been used recently given the nature of the stingrays defence mechanism) often require the wound to be enlarged to ensure all of the barb is removed.Pissedpat 04:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "tail" section of the article is completely stupid: it's seemingly written for (dedicated to) the recent death of Steve Irwin. If one cannot come up with some scientifically interesting facts about the tail of the stingray, then a few lines embedded in the article would be enough. And again: i think here's no place for the sad stingray-Steve incident.

I agree that there is no place for further comments on Irwin's death. I will remove itThe 89 guy 13:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should be a serious discussion about whether Steve Irwin's death should be mentioned. I am of the opinion that a couple of sentences would suffice, something about how the Short-tail stingray made news. I would like an explanation of why this would be irrelevent. Nicholassharland 14:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the species, Short-tail stingray, not Steve Irwin. We have another article about him. Stubbleboy 15:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is an article/entry about the Short-tail stingray in an encyclopedia, not a newspaper article 84.247.49.215 16:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you may add steve irwin to the its feeding habits, though :))

Come on... It's not a subject of mockery... 84.247.49.215 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that in regards to the death of Steve Irwin, I don't think that it is appropriate for this article. To begin, the number of people killed by stingrays is so low that Irwin's death could easily be considered a freak accident. Secondly, making it a significant part of the article might give the false impression that these animals are dangerous. Based on what I know about Irwin, I think the last thing he would want is people to have the wrong idea about any animal. If, however, it is decided that a mention of Irwin's death is warranted, the I suggest we put it in terms that indicate the rarity of such incidents. "Despite such high-profile incidents such as the death of Steve Irwin, a.k.a. the "Crocodile Hunter," human fatalities from stingray wounds are exceptionally rare..." Something like that. Check out the "Aggression" section of the main Stingray article for a good example. Fogelmatrix 12:30, 5 September 2006

Agree, but ONLY if it is "warranted". The stingray suddenly is in the center of attention and a lot of people will look it up in the encyclopedia these days, so it's our responsability to keep the article scientific, objective and undistorted. Most of them (well, excluding vandals... :) ) are driven by curiosity and want to know more about this animal - maybe some folks have heard for the first time about it in the news. We shouldn't repeat the Irwin story here: everybody knows it anyway. Instead we shoud offer a clear and accurate description of what they are looking for. And the recent death of a single person (or even 17) is icompatible with the description of species (+ it was only a very unfortunate accident). 84.247.49.215 17:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC) I don't even think that the only sentence about its tail would deserve a separate section. The sentence is useful but it could have been integrated very well in the main text of the article. 84.247.49.215 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fixation of not mentioning Steve Irwn's death is sheer denial of reality. I thought that the beauty of Wiki is that enquirers can make connections between entries which are impossible in the paper medium. Look at the entries for other fauna.. Lion has "Lions in culture"; Eagles has "Eagles as religious objects"; Shark has "Shark attacks". So please stop being patronising.

All those do not mention specific cases, but general pattern, as is done in this article. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of denying reality, it's a question of relavance and putting the information in proper context. According to the wikipedia article on Stingrays, as of 1996 there have only been 17 known fatalities from stingray attacks worldwide. Given the rarity of such attacks, the tragic death of Irwin was, therefore, a freak accident. "Lions in Culture," "Eagles as religious objects" and "shark attacks" are much wider topics, and it's natural to include them. Also consider that in such a small article, giving this incident prominence might give the false impression that these rays are inherently dangerous, even with a simple sentence like "This was the ray that killed Steve Irwin." I doubt that Steve Irwin would want people to get the wrong idea about any animal. Put it another way, singer/songwriter Curtis Mayfield was crippled from the neck down when a piece of stage lighting fell on him at a concert in New York. However, those details aren't included in the article on stage lighting. Why? Because it is not the general nature of stage lighting to cripple people. These are freak accidents. -- Fogelmatrix 15:42, 5 September 2006 (EST)

Fogelmatrix is right. Just wait until this Irwin story chills... In a few weeks/months it will be of no importance (for the general public) the role of the stingray in this incident. People won't be looking for stingray because of Irwin. If someone is interested in the details of his death, will find everything related to, in the article about Irwin. And the natural flow is from Steve Irwin to the Short-tail stingray, not vice-versa. 84.247.49.215 20:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Irwin was killed by a stingray. No doubt about that. But it can't have been a short-tail stingray because they simply are not found anywhere even remotely close to Port Douglas where he died. See the "Range" section below. The discussion about Irwin does not belong here. SimonJones 12:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary! This discussion does belong here, and it was necessary to convince some folks about the mistake of inserting text about Steve Irwin's death into this article. And if Irwin wasn't killed by a Short-tail stingray, then the presence/purpose of this discussion is even more justified. 84.247.51.190 18:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. One of the chief arguments being cited against the inclusion of a mention of Steve Irwin is that the incident was a freak accident. Doesn't that make it more notable, not less? -Toptomcat 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freak accidents are notable for themselve, as freak accidents. Not every little piece of information needs to be included in every possible article that in any possible way is connected with anything possible. Even if this was the actuall species that was involved (it is NOT), this freak accident is in full detail covered under Steve Irwin where it makes sense, while here, it just does not make sense. In that case, we should mention all under horse also Kenneth Pinyan as a freak accident. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Range

The CSIRO reference states: "Most common off southern Australia but occurs north to Maroochydore (southern Queensland) and to Shark Bay (Western Australia) in depths to at least 100 m... Records from northwestern Australia, however, appear to be misidentifications of the pink whipray." Port Douglas is more than 1600 km further north than Maroochydore. People who have guessed that the references to "bull ray" in relation to Steve Irwin were references to this species were just guessing. SimonJones 09:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class Elasmobranchii?

The article says that this animal belongs to the Class Elasmobranchii but Elasmobranchii is a Subclass i believe. I am in an ecological program in college and there I learned that rays, skates, and sharks belong to the Class Chondricthyes instead.

Check http://filaman.ifm-geomar.de/Summary/speciesSummary.php?ID=6381&genusname=Dasyatis&speciesname=brevicaudata from FishBase which Wikipedia follows. Also, it would be nice if you signed your comment (put four ~ at the end of your comment)GrahamBould 12:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Short-tail stingray/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yzx, article looks very solid, like usual. A few comments:

Schreiners ray or Schreiner's ray?

Fishbase says "Schreiners"; my feeling is that it's probably meant to be "Scheriner's", but go figure.

"The modestly-sized mouth" doesn't give me much of a size reference… can I stick my hand in it?

Modestly-sized relative to the body, which is vague yes but I think adequate to convey "not very small and not very large" ...and yes, probably.

are kevlar bootees equipment worn by divers? Might be worthwhile to mention that it's so.

Yes; I've piped the link to the appropriate article.

there's no mention of the synonym Trygon schreineri Gilchrist in the text

My policy on synonyms is to only mention them in prose if they're especially significant in some way. Otherwise I think the synonyms section of the taxobox serves in providing them.

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No issues, article meets GA criteria, passing now. Sasata (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Yzx (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense??

Why is this article written in the past tense, as if the animal in question was extinct... to my knowledge it is extant, and the listing as "least concern" would seem to suggest so as well. Writing this article in the past tense is confusing, in my opinion it should be rewritten into the present tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeklinCaban (talk • contribs) 00:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's from some vandalism that was only partially removed. I'm gonna try to get them all now. Wish me luck. Benevolent Prawn (talk) 05:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tense issues and direct copying from sources

Hi lovely people!

I read through the description section today and came across a couple of sentences that were super hard to understand (about the teeth). It seems that they were directly copied from the reference that followed (which I figured out googling "quincunx stingray" and it turned out to be a very esoteric description by the author).

It turns out that a significant portion of the description is lifted from sources, which is likely the cause of the constant tense switching, it's a real mish mash.

I reworked the worst two sentences in my opinion (way harder than expected, because I had to painstakingly research WTH it all meant. 2 sentences, embarrassingly took over an hour! haha) but this article really needs a bit of love. A comb through to reword confusing sentences, mixed tenses, and direct quotes in hiding would make it a really good article. 122.62.137.227 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]