Talk:Shark

Taxobox image collage

There's been a bit of a back-and-forth recently over the taxobox collage or image, after the original collage used on the page for years was removed without much explanation in 2024. The original collage included representatives of all eight orders widely recognized at the time it was made (seven of which using photos of living sharks and one with shoddy taxidermy), while the new one includes five photographs and an illustration representing six of the orders. I had a bit of offsite discussion with Anthropophoca about this, but I think it's worth bringing to the talk page since there are apparently some disagreements. Multi-image templates or collages are commonly used in the taxoboxes of diverse taxa, but I wanted to get thoughts about how many images should be included, what species, and whether live animals photographed in situ should be prioritized over a mix of drawings, taxidermy and live sharks. For those that want a single image for the taxobox, is that grey reef shark photo for sure the way to go? Gasmasque (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Gasmasque and Cyclopia, I think there needs to be a wider discussion on the use of montages. I personally think they are more important for showing the scope of the article (like Cetacea) rather than morphological diversity of the taxon, which can be shown throughout the article. Too many images can clutter things and is inappropriate for a common name article. A single image of a shark with the basic body plan clarifies things quickly for the reader. LittleJerry (talk) 22:52, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Since this is an article about a specific group of animals (Selachii), isn't the diversity of the taxon the scope of the article? I'm not sure I understand how your Cetacea example, which uses eight images of chosen representative from the major clades that the article is about, is different than what I'm proposing here. I'm not suggesting something like what was previously used on the fish page, but something like 4-8 carefully chosen images representing the different taxonomic subgroups under the shark umbrella seems entirely reasonable to me. Gasmasque (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

MOS:LEADIMAGE is clear on this. A lead image serves "...to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page" and that should it should be "what our readers will expect to see." The term "shark" is a common familiar word which invokes a specific image for the average person. Readers should not click on a familiar animal and have to process six images. In particular, the frilled shark is a highly specialized and unusual species that should not be given the same weight as a typical shark.

"Cetacean" on the other hand is a formal and much less familiar term so a montage signals to readers that this is an article on whales, dolphins, porpoises and their allies as a group. This is what I mean by scope. LittleJerry (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I think I follow. Since this article is a widely-used common name there's less need for the kind of clarification in the taxobox that a montage would provide, since the reader is expected to already know exactly what a shark is in some capacity, similar to the change made on the bat page a few months ago? Would a collage of images to outline diversity still have a place in the article somewhere, but just not be very useful in the article's lead in your opinion? Gasmasque (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

That's about right. Morphological diversity is important but it should be showcased in the body of the article while the taxbox provides visual utility. It doesn't have to be a collage, just post more images throughout the article. I've started a discussion here. LittleJerry (talk) 19:02, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I have strong enough opinions on the matter to really comment on the use of collages in general, but by that logic it's reasonable to have one particularly nice image in this instance. Is the grey reef image the best to use, do you think? There are some very nice photos of blacktip sharks available that might be better to show off a side profile. Maybe a dogfish of some sort could be used, since they show off a "generic" shark body plan particularly well, they're a familiar species, and textbooks often use them as a representational shark since they're popularly used for dissections. I have no objections to keeping the current image if you think it's the best fit, though. Gasmasque (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2026 (UTC)