Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Brown Trout versus Brown Trout Complex

I have been intermittently revising the Brown Trout in the eventual quest for FA status. One of the challenges with the article is that Salmo trutta and its subspecies are not as clearly defined or agreed upon in literature as are the subspecies of rainbow and cutthroat trout, both articles that reached FA status. Of course early literature on brown trout talks about several different species: S. ferox, S. trutta, S. fario etc. plus others. Into the 1980-90s literature refers to these as S. trutta morph fario, etc. Of late however, there is growing evidence (genetic not morphologic) that what really exists is a Brown Trout Complex with up to 28 distinct species

This idea of explaining a Brown Trout Complex is complicated by the vast artificial propagation and introductions outside its native range and the historic common (not scientific) distinctions between sea run, river run and lake dwelling brown trout. I am contemplating changing the base article name to Brown trout complex and revising it to discuss all aspects of this fish as a complex, instead of a single species. Then, like the cutthroat trout base article, there could be any number of related articles on individual fish (such as Gillaroo) that fall within the complex.

Before I do that however and bring this up on the article talk page, I would like to seek input and ideas from members of this project. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Are Nothobranchius rachovii and Blue notho the same thing?

To my untrained eye, this looks like two articles on the same fish known by different names. If so, please fix. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure why I missed this when I replied to the below! Anyhow: Yes, two names for a single species (WP:CONTENTFORK) and the articles should be merged. I'll deal with it shortly. Should have read beyond the headline before replying! When people talk about blue notho they're often talking about Nothobranchius rachovii. However, the former name is used for several species, incl. Nothobranchius patrizii, which is the species the blue notho article currently deals with. In other words: No, they shouldn't be merged, as they deal with two different species (this is yet another case where one could argue that the use of common names for fishes is questionable→WP:FISH#Common names). 62.107.221.124 (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

American paddlefish

The FAC reviewer gave his support after reviewing the article, and suggested the following ...ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. Following is the link: [1] Your time will be greatly appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 15:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing references from articles

I've been encountering some persistent removal of references from a wide variety of fish articles from at least two registered accounts and one anonymous account. Typically, the edits remove references to Fishbase, but removals are not limited to that site. An example edit is [2] and the users that I have seen so far include Planonasus (talk · contribs), 109.29.22.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and SuperPayara123 (talk · contribs). Edit summaries are rarely included and I am not aware of any discussion that would warrant such removals. They appear to be vandalism to me, but perhaps someone else is aware of something that I am not. I'd appreciate some comments if I'm missing something, and some help with reverting if I'm not. Neil916 (Talk) 19:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I should add that many of these editors' contributions appear to be constructive, so these don't seem to be vandalism-only accounts. Neil916 (Talk) 19:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've come across many questionable edits from Planonasus and 109.29 over the last several several months, and similar stuff from 66.61.92.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) around June and July this year (although 66.61's edits aren't following quite the same pattern as Planonasus/109.29's). I've given up on fixing the problematic edits from these users (especially as they are often sandwiched between good edits). As far as I can deduce, the pattern/rationale for removing Fishbase as a reference is as follows. The user usually removes Fishbase when it is cited to support a statement such as "there are x species in the genus Foo", but if recently published taxonomic papers (not yet followed by Fishbase) are accepted, then the species number is different from that given by Fishbase.

Planonasus often makes cut and paste moves of articles to reflect bleeding-edge taxonomic revisions. They've had people caution them against making cut and paste moves a couple times on their talk page but continue to do so. These users have also been responsible for some copyright violations I've reverted (verbatim copying of the abstracts of articles describing new species), e.g. this diff and this one. Plantdrew (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

SuperPayara123 (talk · contribs) seems an able editor who has basically made a productive start and who is likely to be a net asset to the project. He is clearly discouraged by what has been said here, and perhaps just needs something more encouraging to start him communicating more directly. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

SuperPayara123 has been very helpful at WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and is definitely not a vandal by any stretch of the imagination. He resigned there too, which is how I found the discussion here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Plantdrew's explanation above makes sense, and from reexamining the edits by Planonasus and 109.29, it looks like they are consistent with removing FishBase reference links in cases where fishbase is contradicted with more recent publications. With no edit summaries and no direct communication with anybody else that I could see, it looked like a constant game of whack-a-mole, but now I can see what's going on. SuperPayara's circumstances appear to be different and looks to have stopped removing references from articles in mid-September after I dropped a note on his talk page. Neil916 (Talk) 00:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Could someone with more admin experience take a look at Planonasus? The editor continues to cut and paste on redirects or new articles rather than move articles. I'm not sure if it's done with intent to disrupt or cause confusion, but it does and continues despite warnings, and the user doesn't seem to respond to talk messages. I don't know if temporary sanctions are warranted, and I wouldn't known how to implement them, but it would be prudent to keep an eye on the editor's changes, and correct their behavior as gently as possible.--Animalparty-- (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User Planonasus (talk · contribs)/109.29.22.222 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seems also to have a habit of removing the parentheses from authorities of all scientific names, as if this is just a matter of taste. See here for a minor edit war: Totoaba. Micromesistius (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing (or indiscriminately adding) parentheses isn't that uncommon from well meaning editors who don't know what the parentheses indicate. It might be helpful to add (at a minimum) the basionym to the synonym field in the taxobox. It's difficult to detect a problem with parentheses if no synonyms are listed, but if there are two combinations lacking parentheses it's clear (to those who know what the parentheses indicate) that something is wrong. Plantdrew (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. I left another comment about parentheses on Planonasus's talk page a few hours ago, and the parentheses were just now removed from Totoaba again. I've added them back, but I'm at two reverts now. I don't want to get involved in any administrative drama, but this is a problem. Plantdrew (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Pregnancy in pipefish

I have been writing an article Pregnancy (fish) but I cannot find any details for pipefish on the length of gestation or number of offspring? Can anyone help please?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thomas H. Fraser stub needs notability

A stub was recently created for living ichthyologist Thomas H. Fraser, but I'm not he sure he's notable enough to meet inclusion criteria per WP:SCHOLAR or WP:BIO. He's certainly published articles on cardinalfishes and described species, but I can barely find any significant mention of him besides his journals or books (although he visited the Australian Museum in 2008). The stub was apparently created to satisfy incoming red-links, but I feel that is poor reason in general to make a BLP article as it means Wikipedia editors, not the world at large, are determining someone's notability. Without adequate secondary material, a biographical article may never expand beyond a stub, save going into the details of primary literature, which doesn't do anything to establish notability outside of cardinalfish taxonomy. The fact that the subject's name is not terribly unique runs the risk of mistaken identities and creating a Frankenstein article. If anyone can contribute to establish notability, please do. Otherwise this may be an AFD candidate. Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no evidence of adequate notability and the article should be referred to AFD. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Acentrogobius kranjiensis

Today Acentrogobius kranjiensis was submitted as the first article ever by User:Pi-gimjiRu, and after checking Fishbase, ITIS and some other sources, I think this species is not valid, it seems to be a synomym with Drombus kranjiensis, see genus Drombus on wikipedia, http://www.fishbase.se/summary/Drombus-globiceps.html on Fishbase, and http://www.gbif.org/species/106851867 on gbif.org etc. I guess one option is to redirect the article to Drombus kranjiensis, if this is the valid species?

What do you think here on Project Fishes? Dan Koehl (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Catalog of Fishes has Drombus kranjiensis as a synonym of D. globiceps. I can't link directly to the CoF record, but it's kind of curious that neither CoF or Fishbase lists Acentrogobius kranjiensis (searching CoF for the combination in Ctenogobius or Drombus works fine). CoF cites a publication by Kottelat from 2013 for the synonymy, and since he is the person who transferred kranjiensis to Drombus in the first place, it seems reasonable to follow him and CoF in synonymizing with D. globiceps. Fishbase may have been trying to synonymize as well (which would explain how they've got "kranji drombus" as a common name for D. globiceps), but it looks like they made an error somewhere along the way. Plantdrew (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, and rather exciting. It seems the creator of the article was relying on Thai sources. Dan Koehl (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:Plantdrew and would follow Kottelat in viewing this as a synonym of Drombus globiceps unless someone publishes something to the contrary in the ichthyology journals. I think it likely that FishBase will eventually catch up as well, and I think the Thai source or whatever it's drawing its information from is likely out of date as many online databases are. Eschmeyer and coworkers at CoF are generally well above average at keeping things current, so they are usually the ones to follow for the latest sources unless one has frequent exposure to the primary literature oneself. Koumz (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed it in Drombus globiceps. I also made {{Animal common name}} as a direct copy of the {{Plant common name}} SIA. I don't know much about template making though, so that might be wonky. Please check if you can.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The most popular fish species we're missing

I searched Google books' ngram database for every scientific name found in the Catalogue of Life. I made a list of the most common ones (i.e. the scientific names found in the most books or volumes). From that, here is a list of the 30 most common vertebrates (and other chordates) that Wikipedia doesn't have articles or redirects for. Almost all of them are fish (plus the odd sea-squirt). The top of the list is Girella nigricans (the Opaleye), Embiotoca jacksoni (Black perch), Ammodytes americanus (American sand lance) Epinephelus guttatus (Koon or Red hind) and the rest of the list is posted to Tree of Life's talk page. Enjoy. —Pengo 06:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Another issue

I believe those two articles actually describe the same species? >> Cyclocheilichthys repasson and >> Anematichthys repasson. What do you think?

Dan Koehl (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This has been taken care of. Posting on three different talk pages is not required. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs) 01:38, 16 January 2015

I dont fully agree with @Animalparty:, and Im still interested in your view and opion on this issue, members of WikiProject Fishes. Im not sure that Fishbase is the best taxonomy source, which I believe that Animalparty used. Wikispecies redirects species:Anematichthys to species:Cyclocheilichthys, I think, with reference to Kottelat. Im not personally arguing any opinion, so I just want to hear different points of view. Dan Koehl (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what the issue is, but the fault lies with the creators of both articles. A very important thing that should be done after an article has been written is to check for synonyms and redirect all of them. I would say that Fishbase is reliable. But like WoRMS and other taxonomic databases, they may be slightly out of date when it comes to revisions in the past 5 years or so. In case of stubs, which often only use one source, that is often a problem, but it's not an issue when it's quite easily corrected.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this just comes down to "which database to follow". Although I did not add the section, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy suggests we use FishBase taxonomy on Wikipedia, which even if arbitrary, at least provides consistency in the case of disputes (and see Why there may be discrepancies in the assessment of scientific names between the Catalog of Fishes and FishBase). Wikispecies, however detailed or up to-date it may be, should not be considered a reliable source, just like Wikipedia, since it may change from day to day or at a moment's notice. FishBase and currently uses Anematichthys while Catalog of Fishes suggests Cyclocheilichthys is the valid genus, and similarly, the IUCN red list account, assessed in 2011, uses Cyclocheilichthys. Fittingly, there is recent disagreement in primary literature over the status of the two genera, with Pasco-Viett et al 2012 resurrecting Anematichthys while Kottelat 2013 argues for subsuming it under Cyclocheilichthys. At Wikipedia we don't evaluate which view is more "true", we just report varying views. For consistency and clarity I think using FishBase as a taxonomic backbone (e.g. title and taxobox) is fine, since it is also used as a source for WoRMS and Catalogue of Life, and provides a level of editorial stability in the face of ever more common and sometimes ephemeral revisions, which can and should be discussed in the article. In the case of new species that aren't yet on FishBase, certainly other sources can be used. Perhaps we should clarify this at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy. Following up on Obsidian Soul's second sentence above, synonyms should also be sought before writing an article, to see if the species is already covered by a different name, as a WP:Move is easier when there is no significant pre-existing text or edit history at the intended article title. --Animalparty-- (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with a lot that has been said, and Im glad I brought it up here. The question is, whether wikipedia and wikispecies should give two different points of view, and if not, which one should be the choice. Personally, I would prefer that within Wikimedia project, one line is kept in taxonomy issues. Dan Koehl (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

In a more recent 2013 paper Pasco-Viett agrees with following Kottelat in treating it as Cyclocheilichthys repasson. So in this case, I'm not sure that there is any active disagreement in the primary literature, and expect Fishbase will likely change their treatment in a coming update.

In cases where there is active disagreement (or where disagreement has only very recently been resolved), it seems reasonable to make a pragmatic decision to follow a secondary source (i.e. Fishbase) rather than chasing bleeding-edge taxonomy through the primary literature.

It is unfortunate that en.Wikipedia is now out of step with every other Wikimedia project with this species. Wikispecies follows newer sources in treating it as Cyclocheilichthys while Wikipedias in other languages follow older sources for the same treatment with en.Wikipedia stuck in the middle. However, some disharmony is to be expected between different projects with different levels of taxonomically focused editorial activity when things need to get updated frequently. Plantdrew (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well from what we've discovered it seems reasonable to in this case Ignore all rules! in the interest of writing good articles. We have between us compiled several papers on the issue, now the only thing left to do is create the article Anematichthys (even if only as a redirect) and improve the article Cyclocheilichthys and subsidiary species articles, all with depth and nuance far beyond what FishBase or any other heartless database can provide. Huzzah! --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Common name usage vs binomial name in article title.

I have been working on an article on Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis and have been vehement about making the article's title the common name of the fish that I have always known, which is Chevron Tang. One person tried to revert the edit the other day, and a second person finally did today. They did it citing the IUCN red list website, which gives a list of common names (they are now cited in the article). If you were to simply enter the names in on google, the only results you would get would be the IUCN red list and some other fish that aren't even the same species. With that in mind, I wouldn't think that those other names are very common. Since those other names aren't common, I would think that the article should retain the name Chevron Tang--the project page agrees with me:

Use the common name for any species that satisfies at least one of the following criteria: 1(i) The species has a single common name that is widely used and never used for any other species. While the species in question may have additional common names, those names are rarely used

— Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes

Should I revert the name back to Chevron Tang or let it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachofMS (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It would not be unreasonable to rename the article Chevron Tang. There is little evidence that other names have any real circulation, and FishBase identifies Chevron Tang as the appropriate common name. But it's not worth getting into an edit war. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC).

Heads up – potentially troublesome user

I have noticed some worrying behaviour on the part of at least one editor. Because it mostly relates to articles on fishes, I thought this would be a good place to make people aware of it. User:Planonasus has made a large number of edits to fish articles which, although generally constructive (I assume – I'm not sufficiently au fait with fish taxonomy to judge), he/she consistently removes parentheses from scientific authorities. These actions are very similar to those of User:109.29.22.222, and I would not be surprised if there were sock-puppetry involved. Please keep an eye out for undesirable changes. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he just doesn't know he has a talk page and isn't seeing the warnings?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

This behavior is not new: see the discussion above, Removing references from articles. Planonasus does not respond to user talk notifications, nor apparently make any contributions to talk pages aside from creating them with project banners. More troubling (IMO) than the removal of parentheses from authorities is the copy/paste creation of new pages for synonyms, rather than properly moving pages. I see the user has currently been blocked, hopefully this will encourage a change in behavior. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

109.29.22.222's block has expired and they are back to removing parentheses again. See this diff and this one. Plantdrew (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This person seems to have no interest in stopping the mess (I've just reverted wrong use of brackets in one of his edits from yesterday and a fast check revealed many more in the last month). Currently Special:Contributions/109.29.22.222, mentioned in the previous post by Stemonitis. Indeed, in the edits where he doesn't mess up the brackets it's because he already did it before (Tatia, Trichomycterus, etc)! This editor has already caused havoc in a large number of articles and it will be a massive task to get it back in order. We're talking about several thousand edits and a large percentage involve the removal of brackets (as well as messing up synonyms, removing refs). He clearly has no interest in stopping or talking about the problem; the first warning on his talk page was almost a year ago! He basically continues as soon as blocks expire. Not sure about the block rules, but wouldn't it be possible with a longer one? 62.107.194.112 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The same goes for Planonasus who picked up where he left off as soon as his most recent block expired. diff. Neil916 (Talk) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

And he continues: The edit I just corrected (see my previous edit above) has already been reverted by him. 62.107.194.112 (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just checked the edit marathon over the last few months by this user (Special:Contributions/109.29.22.222+Special:Contributions/Planonasus) and it is fairly obvious that this is a lost cause. When stumbling upon a few recent cases today I reverted and corrected them, but that was only until a fast review revealed that:

• 1) The user still has absolutely no interest in stopping the mess (or even discussing), despite repeated comments on his talk page(s) by several users.
• 2) The volume of edits by the user is now so great that I doubt it'll ever be corrected again.

The fact that this user mixes bad edits with good edits doesn't make it any easier: if everything was bad I guess a bot could clear it up by auto-reverting everything (admittedly I'm starting to think that the gain would be greater than the loss even if everything was reverted). So, it appears to me that the only possible conclusion is that this user "won" by sheer persistence and edit flooding. 62.107.211.25 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Has this been taken to ANI? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I did see this report in August 2014. Not much came of it. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 15:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Potentially problematic edits by user(s) Baitoeytnt, Babebu and Pi-gimjiRu

I don't have the time because of the large number of edits, but it may be worth checking user:Baitoeytnt, user:Babebu and user:Pi-gimjiRu. These three have near-identical edits and appear very much like WP:SOCKs, often even editing the exact same articles. Basically, the edits involve the addition of a thaibiodiversity.org link and WP:COPYANDPASTE its info (translated to English) to the wiki article, sometimes including the photo (several photos have already been deleted from wiki). So, we either have WP:COPYVIO, or (if the user is associated with thaibiodiversity.org) WP:COI adding WP:SPAM. The added info is also of questionable value, e.g. an entire subsection just saying "freshwater" or "The common name is xxx". Finally, there's the matter of messing up article format, notably moving info that would be suitable as a WP:Lead to the very end of the article. 62.107.221.251 (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pi-gimjiRu: This editor, though apparently good faith, has created an unhelpful mess within the project, and it would be good if their edits can be rolled back by someone who uses tools that automate the job. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And now there's another account doing these: Special:Contributions/Mikitoruz. Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Linkspamming_etc._by_Pi-gimjiRu for more background info. Also, it is worth noting the potential COI, however well-intentioned, mentioned on the user's Commons Talk page: see Commons:User_talk:Pi-gimjiRu#Copyrighted_photographs where the user states, in response to my concern about mass uploading of quality yet unlicensed image: "Thanks for the advice But we were the officer assigned by the agency. To disseminate that information to Wikipedia, please advise me what I should do to correct the model of Wikipedia". And, unsurprisingly, there are similar issues with Commons:User talk:Baitoeytnt. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Pi-gimjiRu has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. I've nominated his unusable infobox-plus-linkspam stubs, and in the early ones that were usable stubs (or were improved by others), I've replaced the linkspam with a Fishbase ref. If the other sockpuppet(s) are blocked, I'll do the same there. Unfortunately this task doesn't lend itself well to automation, so I've simply gone ahead and ploughed through it manually. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured Portal Review for Portal:Fish

Portal:Fish has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. Neil916 (Talk) 06:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabbitfish

In expanding the article on Siganus doliatus, I came across the abstract of a research study Pair formation in the herbivorous rabbitfish Siganus doliatus which mentions that pairs of fish have a novel feeding behaviour but does not mention what the behaviour is. Does anyone have access to the full length article? It seems silly to mention a novel behaviour in the Wikipedia article and not explain what it is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't, but you can post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and I bet you'll get a pretty quick response. Neil916 (Talk) 06:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know that WikiProject existed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

New article - Cave-climbing catfish.

Chaetostoma microps, the newly discovered cave-climbing catfish has been created. Interested readers may kindly help develop it. Aim is to take it up to DYK. AshLin (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Random page moves

Just a heads up on the random page moves by user Jaspergeli. I'm not sure why he is doing it, but he moved Platy to Sdsdas (?!?!) and in the process also create such interesting redirects as Delete this please and Delete this please haha (?!?!). 62.107.216.149 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

An admin will be apparently needed to move Platy and restore the edit history, then speedily delete Sdsdas and the other moves. It almost looks like Jaspergeli is trying to cover their own tracks, although I'll assume good faith mistakes for a new editor. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Move completed: Platy is now a disambig page again. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Carp identification

File:Cirrhinus cirrhosus.jpg

This is a Cirrhinus cirrhosus. So, are they the same? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Cirrhinus cirrhosus? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Carcharodon carcharias? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguate ling?

I am working on Portgordon, a fishing village in the Moray firth area of Scotland. One historic reference I use mentions ling, but I don't have the expertise to say whether this would be common ling (most likely would be my guess), blue ling, or another species (unlikely I think). Any experts here able to help? Thanks. --Derek Andrews (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Silver bream

Subject of requested move, see Talk:Silver_bream#Requested_move_30_August_2015 (especially for aussies) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominating Pain in Fish for GA

I am contemplating nominating Pain in fish for GA. I would very much appreciate some more eyes and input on this as it has been rather a solo trek improving it.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Taxobox help needed for Choeroichthys latispinosus

I'm not a biologist but when stub-sorting Choeroichthys latispinosus I found an infobox with "Unrecognized Choeroichthys taxon" and although I followed the "fix" link I'm not confident of setting up the template correctly (this lists a subfamily of "Syngnathinae" but this doesn't). Perhaps someone could drop by and do it? Thanks. PamD 08:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Done! I included the subfamily, although by default it is not displayed for speciesboxes. Micromesistius (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

smooth toadfish...

is at FAC, if anyone wants to comment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Category as Taxon tree: how to include?

Hi, fisher(wo)men:

For sake of interwiki links I've just made the family-superfamily-suborder-order chain complete, for blue fish in Category:Pomatomidae (family), which is inside Category:Percoidea (superfamily) inside Category:Percoidei (suborder) inside Category:Perciformes (order). This is good. However, as left-over from previous edits, Cat:Pomatomidae (family) also belongs directly to Cat:Perciformes (order). How should I handle this? What's the criteria for inclusion?

Also, should the article page of taxon A and the cat page of taxon A enjoy the same categorization? In this particular case all taxons have both article namespace and cat namespace. Should they obey certain pattern, being together everywhere; or maybe the family articles should be included into the order cat, whereas only the bigger (suborders etc) cats can be included into the order cat? Would the latter be a better idea?　　Cheers! :) -- SzMithrandir (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Fishes of the Salish Sea

Just finished compiling List of Fishes of the Salish Sea. The primary reference NOAA Professional Paper NMFS 18-Fishes of the Salish Sea: a compilation and distributional analysis (PDF) (Report). National Marine Fisheries Service. September 2015. pp. 6–11. Retrieved November 15, 2015. {{cite report}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help) at 112 pages has a lot of info on many obscure species and some 23 pages of cited literature that editors may find useful in referencing other fish articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Could use help with Demersal fish

I tend to lurk 99% of the time and edit 1%, so I don't really know if this is the right place to post this or not, if it isn't any direction would be welcome.

I recently changed a bad link on Demersal fish and glanced through the edit history only to notice a small but old edit war had been occurring in February/March in regards to the use of "Fish" and "Fishes". I know fishes IS used in biology sometimes, but generally fish is the preferred(?) plural of fish. In the interest of not starting another edit war I thought I'd ask someone who knows the correct usage to take a gander at the article and make any changes as needed. Some of the "fishes" used seem like they would make sense, but there are some that just read weird to me.

Is this something I should be posting in dispute resolution or for third party review? The war was so old and dead there isn't really a dispute to resolve per se...but some consensus on the correct usage seems warranted.

2601:601:C780:724:FCFD:A902:D4A4:CCEF (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Among others, it's in Fish#Fish or fishes with several high WP:RS sources. It's been discussed repeatedly. There are people that don't know. That doesn't justify incorrect use. If in doubt about the result of earlier discussions, the name of this group reveals it: WikiProject Fishes (Epipelagic, the user who corrected it in Demersal fish, is one of the more active editors in this group, i.e. he knows.)

Indirectly related: The article titles, however, are governed by WP:SINGULAR, which requires that articles are placed on the singular form of the word. Consequently the article titles will always be "fish" (never "fishes"). 62.107.222.87 (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes this is a tiresome recurring problem. Some editors think they know, but don't know, and think it is okay to get rude about it. This discussion here is an example. There is a special redirect fish or fishes that can be used. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oviparity

The term Oviparity is defined in the article lead as "Oviparous animals are animals that lay eggs, with little or no other embryonic development within the mother. This is the reproductive method of most fish ...". The article then goes on to contradict this by stating "Oviparity: fertilisation is internal, the female lays zygotes as eggs with important vitellus (typically birds)". The article Fish reproduction has the same contradiction. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It is the introduction of the term "ovuliparity" that leads to the confusion. This source defines "ovuliparity" and equates it to "classical oviparity". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: The 2012 paper Oviparity or viviparity? That is the question.. may be of some help here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft article could use a little more attention

There is a short biography about a prolific ichthyologist, Draft:Charles Eric Dawson, that could be expanded by knowledgeable fishy types. I cleaned it up a little. 2601:285:101:7076:BC92:75A5:EA28:795D (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Jordan's rule

Can you verify the article? Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Diagnostic statistics

Is there any policy against including a list of diagnostic statistics in fish articles? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive editing, again

Planonasus has again had a spree of unconstructive editing, mostly removing citation templates and DOIs. While the removal of citation templates is not necessarily visible to an end user, removing DOIs is approaching vandalism. Beyond undoing the unconstructive edits, I don't know how to react to this as the user has also done a number of useful edits. The user has been warned at the talk page. Micromesistius (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You could consider discussing it with a friendly administrator, who may gently reason with the user. If that proves insufficient, of course they may decide to take further action. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I do wish anyone trying to contact Planonasus best of luck. You'll need it. This user has been contacted many, many times over a period of 2 years! On talk pages of both Planonasus and his IP 109.29.22.222. He never responds. It has also been discussed several times on this wiki project (check archive). Another possibility is to block (it's been tried: Planonasus and IP), but then you'll see that he simply evades the block by using the 2nd account. A year ago I called it a "lost battle" because of the large number of edits by this user. Since then the mess has spread even further. You can correct an article now, but he'll just return tomorrow, next week or in a few months and change it back.

Removal of citation templates, in articles where that system already is established, is against the guidelines: WP:CITEVAR. 62.107.210.8 (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Then the right place is WP:ANI. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm completely at a loss with this user who mixes useful and nonsensical to destructive edits, like here for Hyphessobrycon. It would be sad to block this enthusiastic user, but I'm not sure whether the net effect is positive? At least the user is creating a huge backlog of tidying up. Micromesistius (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing the nonsensical and destructive part of that diff you posted, but can you outline what was wrong with it? It seems ok to me. Neil916 (Talk) 05:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC) Never mind, I reread the entire thread and see the citation edits. Neil916 (Talk) 05:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Redundancies in the taxoboxes for a discussion about the format of taxoboxes for species and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

sp. vs. sp. nov.

There's a large number of articles on undescribed fish species, mostly sourced from the IUCN Red List.

The fish species usually have names like:

• Haplochromis sp. nov. 'backflash cryptodon',

however our articles have been renamed to titles like:

• Haplochromis sp. 'backflash cryptodon'.

Is there a reason for the loss of the "nov."? Is this a common naming convention? I haven't come across it before. Most of the renames appear to be by Dysmorodrepanis~enwiki (talk · contribs) who does not appear to be active on Wikipedia any more. If the renames are in error can we change them all back? Other examples can be found at Category:Undescribed vertebrate species. —Pengo 11:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't usually have articles on undescribed species in the first place. The idea that species may be inherently notable (WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES) is predicated on them having been formally described. It can be difficult to trace the provisional designations used by IUCN to the formal scientific name to move the article when the species is described, so the informal designations create problems in the event that the species is described. And 'blackflash cryptodon' has been hanging around IUCN for at least 20 years now with no formal description in sight.

That said, I read "sp. nov." as a flag marking the formal description of a new species. Most uses of this abbreviation are in papers describing a species. IUCN isn't describing species, nor is Wikipedia, and IUCN's use of "sp. nov." instead of just "sp." flies in the face of convention. However, a designation with just "sp." (as in "sp. A", "sp. 2") is often used in ecological studies for morphotaxa that are unidentified, but not presumed to represent new species. I suppose that "sp. nov." helps clarify that these are presumptively new species rather than unidentified morphotaxa (although a designation such as "backflash cryptodon" rather than an alphabetic or numeric designation already helps clarify that). Most of Wikipedia's articles in Category:Undescribed species that are sourced to IUCN do have "sp. nov." in the title, so there is a consistency argument for going with "sp. nov." instead of "sp.". Plantdrew (talk) 16:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Epinephelus / Hyporthodus

Could someone please assist us having a look at commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/07/Category:Epinephelus niveatus? Thank you! --Achim (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The current name and appropriate category is Hyporthodus niveatus; the relevant references are now in the Snowy grouper article. Similarly, Hyporthodus nigritus. -- Olaff (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Olaff, thank you very much! --Achim (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Is either sturisoma or beaufortia a known mucous feeder?

Please answer at Category talk:Mucous feeding fish#Is either sturisoma or beaufortia a known mucous feeder?. TIA, BACbKA (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Monotypic genera

The policy at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA is clear: genera with a single species should have one article, covering the genus and the species, with either the common name or the genus name as the title (unless the genus name needs disambiguating).

I notice that, for example, there are a large number of fish articles covering monotypic genera which are incorrectly at the species name – see Category:Monotypic fish genera.

Also, if the article does need to be at the species name for some good reason, the monotypic category should be placed on the genus redirect: the species is not a "monotypic genus" and should not be listed in Category:Monotypic fish genera.

Snake articles provide examples of how it should be done: see Category:Monotypic snake genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Fishes/Archive 4 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

How reliable is PaleoBioDB.org's taxonomy?

I started looking at eol.org's taxonomy for Beryciformes after I noticed Wikipedia's page didn't exactly make clear to what family all of the extinct genera belonged to. I found a link to paleobiodb.org and it seems to have some significant classification differences from Wikipedia.

• http://paleobiodb.org/classic/checkTaxonInfo?a=checkTaxonInfo&is_real_user=1&taxon_no=35771

If you follow that link and click "View classification of included taxa," there are a number of differences from Wikipedia's page. The family Berycidae, for example, only contains 1 genus, Centroberyx, and not Beryx as is listed on Wikipedia and FishBase. It also lists a number of species not included in FishBase or Wikipedia. My question is, is paleobiodb.org a reliable source for taxonomic information? If not, what is a good source for taxonomy of extinct species?

Drauv (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not reliable. Or at least, it's good for some groups of organisms, not so good for others. I understand it relies on users for updates, a la Wikipedia, although there may be a little more vetting of editors than occurs at Wikipedia. Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware, there isn't a better source for extinct genera in general. Plantdrew (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I'll defer to FishBase when it comes to taxonomy, in that case. My follow-up question would be, should I go ahead and add the listed extinct species for genera on paleobiodb? It seems relevant to include extinct species as well as extant ones, but I hesitate at doing so if paleobiodb has species assigned to the wrong genera. Just as an example, the link below for the genera Beryx has three extinct species that are not listed on Wikipedia. What are your thoughts? To list or not to list? Drauv (talk) 09:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

* http://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicTaxonInfo?taxon_no=35779 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drauv (talk • contribs) 09:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing topics list

My list of missing topics about fish is updated - Skysmith (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictures

[3] I captured this fishes at Yeosu Hanhwa aqua planet. I don`t know what is their name so, piz discern this fishes and tell me whether the pictures are acceptable to upload on wikipedia or not.--Altostratus (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

ongoing move discussion

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Isurus hastalis#Requested move 2 April 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Archive 4/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Fishes.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Fishes, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Help on a new article

Mobulidae is a new article that looks well-documented, but none of the sources are available online. The infobox is all screw-if. Would really appreciate someone with more knowledge of marine life than I have to take a look and clean it up. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Plantdrew for taking care of this.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Fish species English names

Anyone out there know if Wikiproject Fishes is using Fishbase as the standard for English names where there are no conflicts of multiple species using the same English name, or is there another way English names are chosen?......Pvmoutside (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside:, the de facto standard is basically Fishbase. Fishbase was also the de jure standard in 2007 (see old standard here), but the article naming convention was revamped after some discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Fishes/Archive 1#fauna article naming conventions). Fishbase apparently uses an algorithm to determine which name to display on a species page when there are multiple English names. The algorithm favors FAO names over AFS names, but favors AFS names over names from random books/checklists, which is basically in accordance with "prefer the common name most used (orthography aside) by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones" from WP:NCFAUNA. Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong date for synonym in S. melanocercus -- nomenclature help?

Hi, so just for the record I don't know much about taxonomy, but in Symphodus melanocercus, I was trying to add the source for Risso 1810 for the synonym Crenilabrus melanocercus, but I only saw that name in Risso 1826 (Eur. Mér., now cited in the article). The 1826 description has (n.) next to the name, which to me suggests that (he thinks) it's a new species, so I'm confused why that synonym is dated 1810.

If Risso 1810 also refers to Ichthyologie de Nice, I don't see that name anywhere in that volume.

Other sources give 1826 / Eur. Mér. for the year of C. melanocercus, e.g., [4], [5].

Should the year for that synonym be changed? Or should it stay 1810, as per Fishbase [6] and the Red List [7]?

Thanks!

P.S., I'm not a biologist in case it isn't obvious, I just like finding sources :)

P.P.S., hopefully it's okay to ask this here instead of the article's talk page, I figured it was more active and that anyone who knows about fish taxonomy would be able to answer. :)

Umimmak (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: a bit late, but I'll reply anyway. Authority depends on when a taxon was first described, i.e. species authority+year doesn't change just because a species is moved from genus A to genus B. The "n" is not widely used in ichthyology today (a bit different in some other fields) and refers to new combination (new being "nouveau/nouvelle" in French). In this case Risso described a species in 1810 (as Lutjanus melanocercus), but moved it to another genus in 1826, the result being a new combination of species name and genus name. So:

Crenilabrus melanocercus (Risso, 1810)

Crenilabrus melanocercus (Risso, 1826) – new combination

Following the usual standard in ichthyology, first is the primary to use. RN1970 (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@RN1970: thanks! I had only seen "n" to refer to a new species and "n. comb." for a new combination and so that tripped me up. So, should this combination in the synonym part of taxonbox be dated with the date of the new combination without parentheses "Crenilabrus melanocercus A. Risso, 1826" or remain with parentheses but with the date of the establishment of the specific epithet "Crenilabrus melanocercus (A. Risso, 1810)"? I've seen pages do both. I get that the species authority for Symphodus melanocercus should be (A. Risso, 1810) but when listing former combinations of the species it seems useful to say when that combination was made instead of repeating when the specific epithet was first used. I hope I'm clear with my question. Thanks. :) Umimmak (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: As mentioned in my previous post, the standard in ichthyology today is just species authority+year. I don't remember seeing authority+year of new combination in any recent publications in this field, but I could have missed one of course. It might be useful for wiki readers anyway; if you want to add it just make sure it is clear that authority+year refers to new combination (e.g., with the "n. comb."). ICZN requires no parentheses around species authority+year when using original combination and use of parentheses around species authority+year when a species changes genus, but lacks rules dealing with this when listing new combination authority+year. The nearest ICZN has is article 51G, but it is only a recommendation and whether that format is suitable for the synonyms section of the wiki taxobox is an open question. In this case it would be: Crenilabrus melanocercus (Risso, 1810) Risso, 1826.

BTW, in cases where only one major authority with a specific surname has described taxa, the surname is generally enough. Antoine Risso is one such case and in species authority his name will typically be listed simply as Risso (instead of Antoine Risso or A. Risso). Unfortunately zoology lacks an official authority importance list similar to the one in botany. If unfamilar with a name it's generally a good idea to check major works like FishBase or IUCN. RN1970 (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@RN1970: ah okay thanks. I think I got confused before and didn't realize you were talking about synonyms and thought the author citation for the species was somehow different. Okay I'll leave the synonym as is then since you said it's still an open question as to how one should format these for wikipedia taxonboxes :) ! Umimmak (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon at FA

I've just nominated Megalodon (a really big shark from a really long time ago) to FA. Feel free to proceed to the nomination page in a calm and orderly fashion and deposit your initial remarks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On my "to do" list. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Saluda darter and Carolina darter

I recently removed most of the content from Saluda darter because it was copied from here. When I googled to try to find information to add to the article, I found that the Saluda darter is now understood to be the same fish as the Carolina darter (dnr.sc.gov). I know nothing about fish and less than that about distinguishing between species, so I would appreciate input, but it seems that we could merge the Saluda and Carolina darter articles. What do you think? Leschnei (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

They should probably stay as separate articles for the time being. Catalog of Fishes ([8][9]) currently recognizes both species as does Fishbase (although Fishbase does have a note at Etheostoma collis about the synonymy). ~!Plantdrew (talk)

OK, thanks for the input. Leschnei (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

List of brackishwater and introduced fish of Sri Lanka

I'm confused by the content of this page. Does it list fish that are both brackishwater and introduced (not native to Sri Lanka)? Or does it list both non-native fish and brackishwater fish? If so, which ones are which? I think this would also be confusing for many readers. See Talk:List of brackishwater and introduced fish of Sri Lanka#Brackishwater and Introduced? for the talk page discussion on this matter. Input would be appreciated. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a very ambiguous title for a page........ It should be split, as it is not very useful...... List of introduced fish of Sri Lanka and List of freshwater fish of Sri Lanka would be better choices......Let me know if you'd like setting up a discussion regarding this.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There's already a discussion on its talk, but currently lacking in comments: Talk:List of brackishwater and introduced fish of Sri Lanka.

As I mentioned there I only see two possibilities: Option 1. Split the article into an article for introduced fish species and another for brackish water fish species in general. Option 2. Move article to introduced fish species and remove everything for brackish water. If someone wants to save the brackish water section it could be done, but at present the listing is so incomplete that it is essentially useless. There is already a List of freshwater fish of Sri Lanka, which based on a very fast look is pretty accurate. RN1970 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the page is confusing with its ambiguous compound title. I would support Option 1 (splitting the article contents into a List of brackish water fish of Sri Lanka and a List of introduced fish of Sri Lanka pages) with the caveat that both new pages would be incomplete lists until the remaining missing species are added. Loopy30 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes seems pretty dead at the moment. (The last messages on its talk page are from 2014.) Does anybody want to revive the wikiproject with me? Antrogh (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

i'm here.....Pvmoutside (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Is anyone else? Is it active as a WikiProject, or just a few people editing aquarium fishes articles? Antrogh (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tuskfish page improvement

Hey, nonmember here, but I came across the page orange-dotted tuskfish after seeing the animal featured in the BBC's new nature documentary Blue Planet II. The page is a stub right now, but with the increased coverage from the TV special, it might be possible to do a quick expand. Just a thought. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing Remora

The EPA posted the phot at right with a description of the fish as Remora brachyptera, but the picture doesn't seem to match the drawing. Before I add it to the article, can anyone confirm or deny the classification? Thanks! MarginalCost (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Just an FYI....

An editor acting in GF has changed the first sentence of the lead in several fish articles, so I politely advised him of our title-lead MOS consistency and asked him to revert the ones he changed (appears to be quite a few). I recently fixed Synodus_intermedius...any thoughts on how best to handle this? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The editor has responded to you on his talk page, so discuss it with him. Neil916 (Talk) 15:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy

There is now a 2016 5th edition of Fishes of the World Nelson's 5th edition, should this now be used as the basis for the taxonomy of Fish above the level of genus in Wikipedia? Quetzal1964 (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been meaning to ask this question. The 4th edition is still stated as the official taxonomy of Wikiproject Fishes, although many articles have moved on. I see no reason for keeping the 4th edition as the favoured source. A different question is whether to favour it over the Deepfin system, although 5th edition generally agrees with the Deepfin system outside the Percomorpha. I have already prepared a listing of the taxonomy from the FotW5Classification.pdf document, which may be of help (see User:Jts1882/phylogeny/Fish.   Jts1882 | talk  07:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not a ichthyologist at all, but if there is WikiProject consensus to follow the higher taxonomy of a particular authoritative individual or group, I think it is implicit that Wkipedia's taxonomy should reflect the most recent proposals of said authority. If the most recent proposals by that authority are going off the rails, by all means, discuss other sources as being more appropriate to follow. Plantdrew (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Not an ichthyologist either. I don't think there's been any suggestion that 5th edition has gone off the rails. However, the 4th edition is currently specified at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy. I notice that article Actinopterygii has been updated here. William Avery (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Everyyone writing here so far appears to think that we should use the 5th Edition of Nelson as the basis for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes#Taxonomy but I was trying to see if there was consensus for that so the project page could be updated. There is subsequent work by Betancur et al which the Deepfin system is based on but differences between the two can be noted in articles. Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that FotW was going off the rails in the 5th edition. I mentioned the Deepfin system as that is a credible, strictly phylogenetic alternative, whereas FotW is more conservative and preserves the tradition taxonomy until there is more certainty. I should have supported the change to the 5th edition and raised the alternative as a separate question. At the moment we have the strange siutation where more recent classifications are compared to the outdated 4th edition, even when the 5th edition has already incorporated changes to reflect the new information. FotW is specified by the Project as the official taxonomy and it should be natural to make the change to the 5th edition unless there is a particular objection. I can't see one.   Jts1882 | talk  16:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I suggest the recommended taxonomy be changed to the 5th edition of Fishes of the World. The Fish Project has used Fishes of the World as the favoured suprafamiliar taxonomy for at least a decade and changing to the new edition is not controversial. There is much more agreement between the Deepfin system and the 5th edition than with the older work; outside Percomorpha there are only a few small differences. Moreover, the Fish articles have generally moved on so the project recommendation is largely ignored in practice.   Jts1882 | talk  08:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Kokanee salmon vs. Kokanee trout

Hi there! I came across an edit request at Talk:Salmon (section link: Talk:Salmon#Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018) in which an editor (BluePankow (talk · contribs)) has requested that "Kokanee salmon" be wikilinked to the article Kokanee trout. Kokanee trout does not specify that an alternate name for that particular fish is kokanee salmon (although the article does list a number of alternate names including the word salmon). Kokanee (fish) and Kokanee salmon both currently redirect to sockeye salmon, where there is a discussion on kokanee in the Landlocked populations section, which does not mention the word trout. I was always under the impression that trout and salmon were different classes of fish, but I will happily admit I am generally clueless about taxonomy.

I was basically wondering if Kokanee salmon and Kokanee trout are the same thing. If so, is the article at the correct and most common name for this fish? Also, should the redirects be updated to point to the new article (Kokanee trout was created only a few months ago via WP:AFC)? Many thanks for your help. NiciVampireHeart 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs), I'm 99% sure that they are the same fish. I've read through a couple of articles. One of them says this: "Most salmon go to sea, but "kokanee" are land-locked sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). Adult kokanee are smaller than adult sockeye, and they spend their adult lives in lakes or streams instead of the ocean" (http://chamisa.freeshell.org/salmon.htm). The thing in this quotation I am pointing to is the scientific name. It matches in both the Wiki article and this one. I can check other sources as well. Okay, so I just did more looking. The genus and species is the same as sockeye, so it has to be a salmon, because a trout is classified under a different genus. Also, this article relates sockeye and kokanee as the same fish, one just being landlocked: "Landlocked Sockeye Salmon are known as Kokanee" (http://eol.org/pages/205251/overview). If you read through the article on Kokanee trout in Wikipedia, you'll find that its facts match the articles that talk about kokanee salmon. Maybe a name change should be requested for it. Actually, here's something good. The National Trout Center listed a couple of geneses and said that they were salmon, despite the different casual names they might have (like trout). "The anglicized name is “salmonid”, refering to the salmon family within the larger taxonomic order, “Salmoniformes”. Included are three sub-families, Salmoninae, Coregoninae, and Thymallinae, bearing the sub-family suffix “-nae” and denoted with the vernacular names[link to: “Vernacular Names” file] salmon (and trout), whitefishes, and grayling." (http://nationaltroutcenter.org/learn/trout-and-salmon-family/). I hope this is sufficient to help this poor little kokanee article. Blue Pankow (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pacific trout and Pacific salmon belong to the same genus (Oncorhynchus). Although traditionally assigned to different subgenera, there is evidence that the rainbow trout is sister to the Pacific salmom species (Fishes of World, 4th edition, p203-4), i.e. that the Pacific trout are parphyletic to Pacific salmon. So Pacific salmon could be considered trouts. The distinction between trout and salmon is not a natural one.

The sockeye salmon (O. nerka) exists in anadromous and freshwater forms and the latter is known as the Kokanee, which seems to go by a variety of names. For instance, the Wallis & Bond (1950) reference used in the article lists little redfish, silver trout, kokanee, kikanning, silver salmon, Kennerly's salmon, Kennerly's trout, and walla as common names, while B.C. Fish Facts lists Kickininee, little redfish, silver trout, landlocked sockeye, and blueback. In other words, it is sometimes referred to a trout even though it is known to be a landlocked sockeye salmon. There doesn't seem any question that the Kokanee is a form of sockeye Salmon.

However, I can't find any reference to the "Kokanee trout" apart from Wikipedia (where it is not supported by the cited reference) and a Youtube video. The widely used name is "Kokanee" or "Kokanee salmon", which seems a more appropriate name for the article. An alternative option is to merge it into sockeye salmon, but it seems notable enough as a fish with a distinct lifestyle and as a commercial fish, so a separate article is reasonable. But the article name should be changed.   Jts1882 | talk  08:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jts1882: many thanks for your input. I've requested that the article be moved to Kokanee salmon. Thanks again, NiciVampireHeart 14:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   10:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

References to Catalog of Fishes

I've noticed that a number of articles reference Catalog of Fishes for lists of viable genera (in a family) or species (in a genus), but the reference takes you to the main search page rather than a pages showing the results of the search. I thought a template to create references pointing to the results of the search would be helpful so have created a couple of draft templates, {{Cof genus}} and {{Cof family}}, to produce referees in {{cite web}} format pointing to the results of the search.

Use the templates as follows:

*{{Cof genus |Garra|7 June 2018}}
*{{Cof genus |genus=Vinagarra |access-date=7 June 2018}}
*{{Cof family |Xiphiidae|7 June 2018}}
*{{Cof family |family=Cyprinidae |access-date=7 June 2018}}
*{{Cof species |genus=Vinagarra |species=elongata|access-date=7 June 2018}} 
*{{Cof species |Abbottina|rivularis|7 June 2018}}
*{{Cof species |Tylognathus|sinensis|7 June 2018}}

Results:

• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). June 2018 "Species related to Garra 7 June 2018". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Species in the genus Vinagarra". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). June 2018 "Species related to Xiphiidae 7 June 2018". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Genera in the family Cyprinidae". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Species related to Vinagarra elongata". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Species related to Abbottina rivularis". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences.
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Species related to Tylognathus sinensis". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences.

If this is considered useful I can put this into a module to facilitate additions. Any thoughts or suggestions?   Jts1882 | talk  12:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is wonderful, thank you very much! Any chance of doing the same for species? I guess the template is not case-sensitive, but I would write "CoF" rather than "Cof". Micromesistius (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The genus version gives a list of species for the given genus. I've added another search option that gets the synonyms of a given valid species or the valid name of a synonym. Is that what were you wanting for species?

The template name is case sensitive, but that can be handled with redirects. I was tempted to use CoF as that is what I usually write, but template names tend to avoid upper cases. However, this is the place for people to suggest the most appropriate and intutitive template names.

There may also be other search options that can be added. There is one taking a species or genus ID, but I see know obvious way of getting the ID numbers. Fishbase uses them, but CoF doesn't seem put them in the results of their searches.   Jts1882 | talk  15:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Very helpful Jts1882!....Pvmoutside (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Brilliant! Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you for the positive responses. This suggests to me that it is worth converting to a Lua module. Before I do that it would be good to get some feedback on what would be most useful or intuitive. The template language is horrible to work with, but the Lua modules make it much easier to customise templates for particular uses.

At the same time, we could consider what other fish resources need updating. Are the Fishbase templates suitable, is there something we could do with Fishes of the World, etc?   Jts1882 | talk  19:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What about synonyms? I use CoF as the source for genus name synonyms so having a template for that would be extremely useful to me. I can use the family templates for that (see Syngnathus) but that seems rather scattergun.Quetzal1964 (talk) 05:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You can get the information for a genus alone if you know the genus id (genid-=150 for Syngnathus), which can be got from Fishbase. In the Fishbase entry for Syngnathus abaster the CoF pages are indicated as Catalog of Fishes (gen., sp.). It would be easy to create template for that to just show the single genus entry, but I can't find a way using the genus name directly.

The searches available are listed here: fishcatget.asp. Any of these are simple enough to implement.   Jts1882 | talk  06:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I've added another template {{Cof record}} which takes the genus ID (genid) or species ID (spid) and a title for the reference (e.g. the genus or species name).   Jts1882 | talk  07:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

{{Cof record |genid=150 |title=Syngnathus |access-date=8 June 2018}} 
{{Cof record |spid=14756 |title=Syngnathus abaster |access-date=8 June 2018}}
{{Cof record |genid=150  |access-date=8 June 2018}} 
{{Cof record |spid=14756  |access-date=8 June 2018}}

Results:

• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Syngnathus". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Syngnathus abaster". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "genid=150". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
• Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "spid=14756". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 8 June 2018.

Excellent and very useful indeed!

Speaking of Catalog of Fishes and this goes for everyone editing fish articles: Please be careful when changing articles to FishBase species taxonomy. Basically, FishBase is an excellent resource and I know it is listed as the taxonomic authority for species by WikiProject Fishes, but it has become outdated in many cases, often only adopting changes years after the publications. This problem is most striking in taxonomic reviews (the most extreme I've seen was a 5 year delay), but also occurs in new species (the most extreme I've seen was a 3 year delay). In this Catalog of Fishes often is superior. FishBase taxonomy largely relies on Catalog of Fishes (there are minor differences), but updates can be very slow to appear. I'm not saying we should depart from FishBase species taxonomy (at least not fully), but I am saying that it is sensible to be bold in some cases, especially when supported by Catalog of Fishes. RN1970 (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

There is an interesting article on Fishbase about the differences between Fishbase and Catalog of Fishes. Fishbase is far more comprehensive than CoF, as its contains extensive biological and ecological information, as well as taxonomic and systematic information. Fishbase largely follows the CoF taxonomy, but updating their records involves far more changes, so there is a lag. Occasionally Fishbase recognise a new species earlier, because they have the biological and ecological information to present, while the nomenclature is still uncertain or has technical issues about validity.

The new templates in no way change the Wikiproject Fishes guidelines. They are purely to address a need, referencing the relevant detailed information on CoF, rather than just linking to their main search page, something I have found inconvenient.

I have created a Lua Module (Module:Catalog of Fishes) and will convert the new templates to use this. This makes changes and flexibility for easier to implement. Any suggestions on how the reference should appear or for features (additional parameters) that would be useful would be appreciated. It might also be worth considering a update for the Fishbase template if there are additional features than are considered useful.   Jts1882 | talk  09:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps my message was unclear: I was not suggesting that your nice template would change the guidelines, but thought this was a good opportunity to comment on a general issue I had noticed a number of times in the last year ("updates" of certain articles that were supported by CoF taxonomy and recent publications to outdated FB taxonomy). FB is far more comprehensive, also covering ecology and alike, which is why I specifically said taxonomy (the one place where CoF and FB can be compared). I keep a fairly close look on newly described species and have never seen a case where FB was faster than CoF. Further, when FB makes taxonomic updates, updates to their remaining sections are often delayed: An example is the spotted eagle ray where FB split off A. ocellatus in 2012, but only just (in late 2017 and ongoing) began updating distribution, ecology and alike. Or Brochis and Doryrhamphus where they, until I contacted them (the issue had annoyed me for years) recognized both these genera but placed the type species in other genera. There are several other examples.

When taxonomic changes happen it is often a good idea to wait a bit before implementing them and see if any other authority, e.g. CoF or another secondary source, follows it (to avoid potential WP:PRIMARY issue). I'm mainly objecting to the cases where FB updates are greatly delayed, often by years. Anyway, as noted in my previous comment: I'm not saying we should depart from FB species taxonomy, but I am saying that it is sensible to be bold in some cases, especially when supported by CoF. CoF isn't perfect, but mistakes certainly are very rare (an example is Oxymormyrus where I, in a recent update, chose to mention all three widely used taxonomic treatments for balance, even though CoF's is untenable — which of the two other treatments is correct is however a matter of opinion). RN1970 (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)