Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Coelacanth

I've gone through the effort of splitting Coelacanth into four articles, adapting the new articles Latimeria, Latimeria chalumnae, and Latimeria menadoensis from previously written text which used to appear on Coelacanth. There is plenty of room for improvement, so if anyone knows about either species of Latimeria, don't hesitate to take over. I've done all I can without doing further research. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Shark GAR notice

Shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

A compilation of highly-cited biology-related missing journals has been uploaded at on the WP:BIOL talk page. Some entries are fish-related (about 6-7 of them) so I'm letting you know. There is a writing guide to help you write the stubs. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Whale shark

Whale shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Barbinae

Hi folks, I am currently updating Barbus. My sources suggest that the Barbinae are a junior synonym of Cyprininae, or otherwise it'd have to be restricted to about 2 dozen barbels in Barbus and a few other genera. The small African barbels may be a distinct subfamily, but carps are closer to Barbus barbus than to these (which are about equidistant from carps + typical barbels as is Garra, and thus the decision of a new subfamily or not basically depends on whether you accept Labeoninae as cdistinct or not).

So, should I sink the Barbinae on Cyprinidae and elsewhere, and if necessary merely remark that Cyprininae possibly contain this "African small barb" subfamily?

(I do not think that group has a name yet - "Pseudobarbinae" would come naturally as the ?clade clusters around Pseudobarbus, but no such taxon exists and we can't create it) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I have redirected Barbinae to Barb (fish), because the "subfamily" is paraphyletic through and through, and with the reference to Barbel the Barb article is a logical place to find out what part of the "subfamily" one actually searches for. The de Graaf paper has a nice sample of taxa from "Barbinae" and Cyprininae (though unfortunately only one labeonin). Will change Cyprinidae accordingly. The original genus list was a mess BTW, at least half the "barbine" genera were missing! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Expert opinion needed

Background:' The following articles contain empty tables of prehistoric genus of varying types of creatures. A bot has been written by me that can fill them in using data from paleodb.org and Sepkoski. The task is currently stalled due to some concern about my own lack of expert knowledge on the subject.

Needed: I need someone eith "expert" knowledge (defined as a passion for the subject matter & the ability to easily spot blatant errors) to review the potential bot output of any one of the following articles of his or her choosing:

The articles:

Sample page: A sample page is available for viewing here. This is provided to give you an idea about what the output will look like, but shouldn't be viewed as a final product as it (currently) includes at least one error that will be corrected shortly.

What I want: Basically, I want someone to look over an entire table (of their choice) and say either "I don't see any obvious errors" or "there are a few errors such as X,Y,Z." I will then figure out the cause of the errors (if any), fix the code, and re-run to make sure the errors are gone.

Reward: Wikipedia gets a lot of valuable science content. I get this stalled project off my to-do list. You get a "warm fuzzy" for helping improve Wikipedia in a significant way, my gratitude, and a token of my appreciation.

Let me know if interest, ThaddeusB (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Cichlid

Cichlid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

article guidelines

The article guidelines here are in some need of improvement. It certainly is near to useless for me. A "section entitled 'In the aquarium'"? Is this a very encyclopaedic heading? Tell me if I'm wrong. A trivia section for each article? Doesn't Wikipedia try to avoid trivia listings? I just corrected the example genus heading, which started with an unitalicised "Barus." Conservation status "Secure"? Can somebody redo this entirely? innotata (Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've made a request for Wikiproject Fishes to be included in the Popular Pages wikiproject. This shows which Wikiproject Fishes pages receive the most traffic and where improvement efforts would be best directed. The toolserver will automatically update a page located at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fishes/Popular Pages beginning in a month or so. Neil916 (Talk) 20:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to believe

I've decided to update European Perch and I have found very interesting fact there. "...reach a maximum weight of around 10.4 kg (23 lb) in Australasia..." Isn't it a myth? Is it possible? Are there any reliable sources to prove this fact? From Fishbase.org: "max. published weight: 4,750 g." --Lime82 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

The article Yellowtail amberjack, relevant to this WikiProject, has been proposed to be split. You may wish to comment here. Please move this to the correct location if this is misplaced. Thank you, Intelligentsium 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Acanthognathus: an extinct genus of "bony fish"???

Sorry, I am not a member from this WikiProject, I am a editor from Spanish Wikipedia, but I see the article Acanthognathus and we can read:

Acanthognathus is an extinct genus of bony fish. It was first named by Mayr in 1887, and contains six species, A. brevicornis, A. lentus, A. ocellatus, A. rudis, A. stipulosus, A. teledectus.

and the references of the article are www.discoverlife.org.

Well, all the information are correct but about a genera of ant, and the taxobox seems it's false, because the family of fish Sparidae I think not include a genera Acanthognathus. Before there is a "clarification" in the article and talk about the real genera of ants, but it's confuse, because the previous information it's not true.

Sorry if this page are not correct for comment this, but I don't know what to do. Greetings, --Furado (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I will changed it to the page for the ant shortly. The ant genus (Mayr, 1887) is the senior homonym of the genus of fish (Duncker, 1912), i.e. it is only valid as a name for the ant. Other problems in the article were that it placed the now invalid fish genus in Sparidae when it actually was in Syngnathidae, and they're not extinct either, just placed in valid genera now. 62.107.237.72 (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Photos from Belize

Free photos of 45 fishes from Belize are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/sets/72157607254072541/ --Snek01 (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Fishes to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fish nervous system

I have proposed deleting Category:Fish nervous system.

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Category:Fish_nervous_system, where your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sharks

Hey, just a note that Portal:Sharks has been nominated for featured status. Comments are welcome. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

((fish-dab))

There is a discussion about the disambig template {{fish-dab}} over at Template talk:Disambig#The other disambig templates. We could use the input from some of you guys about what to do with that template.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Notice


Bah, that was an evil message, the mammals are out to kill this project. Just one week to respond? Where's the consensus for that? Here's some bureaucracy right back at you: That's abuse of the {{ambox}}. Article message boxes are supposed to be used on articles, while talk page templates should use the brown {{tmbox}}.
But I see that Neil916 did update the status of this project to "active=yes" over at that directory. And he did that update just 35 minutes after the above template was placed here.
--David Göthberg (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you will find the Message comes from WikiProjects Animals, not mammals. Technicaly this is a WikiProject page so any box can really be used. It would be assumed that if a project was active that at least 1 of its members would take notice of the "notice" and respond swiftly (as one of your members did) so clearly your project is safe. ZooPro 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
And yes it is an evil message :-) ZooPro 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I have struck out my humour towards this user as he is now engaged in personaly attacking me on the WikiProject Councils talk page. ZooPro 02:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

{{FishBase species}}

I have proposed a change to {{FishBase species}} (here), to use italics for scientific names. To me, it seems uncontroversial, but since it is used on nigh on 5000 articles, I figured I'd best check first. Any input gratefully received. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Help please!

For this new article Akame. It doesn't even have binomial nomenclature. Thanks! 82.32.238.139 (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the same thing as the barramundi, or else a relative therof. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I've found this [1] which suggests its Lates japonicus, but am not sufficiently knowldegable to add to the article, hence the call for help. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not knowledgable about these particular fishes either. Perhaps it refers to a generic Lates; Lates japonicus in Japan, and the barramundi in Australia and restaurants. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The PDF article says it's a new species, different from Lates calcarifer, the barramundi. I just don't know whether on the strength of this one article I can put in the scientific name in the Wiki article, or if more corroboration is needed first that the Akame is L. japonicus. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
It was a new species in 1984; it is the akame, and the English name is Japanese lates, see there. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, I've added a pic from commons. Nice work us! 82.32.238.139 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing - in moving the article from Akame to Japanese lates you've lost the original edits made by three or four other editors from the article history. Did you cut and paste rather than use the 'move' tab? Any chance of putting the original contributions back? I've just looked at the talk page, my apologies. 17:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.238.139 (talk)
Yes; I really should have moved the page, though (something logged-in users can do), but it doesn't matter now. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, if you expand the page a bit more—to 1500 characters—it can be nominated it for DYK. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll have a bash at it now. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 17:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't manage much. 82.32.238.139 (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The article has now been nominated for DYK. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

template:Fish-dab

FYI, {{Fish-dab}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Signpost

Ciao! This is Belugaboy with the Post! I was wondering if you have a coordinator, director, or some particularly active members that would be willing to answer some questions for an upcoming WikiProject Report! Thank you very much, Belugaboy Talk to Me! 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This project is not very active, so I don't think this is really a good idea. —innotata 15:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Chilodontidae

Is more important Chilodontidae (gastropods) (more species) or Chilodontidae (fishes) (8 species)? Corresponding categories could be Category:Chilodontidae (gastropods) and Category:Chilodontidae (fishes). Can gastropods occupy Category:Chilodontidae based on more numerous taxon? --Snek01 (talk) 12:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Both are clearly extremely obscure. the fish are popular aquarium fish, and the gastropods inhabit the deep sea, but are more divers. So I think the current article names are best. —innotata 14:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, question was about category. I presume, that more populated category can have more simple category name. --Snek01 (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
No, my opinion is that it would be best to use the article names for the categories, since parentheses will be needed for one category at least. —innotata 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with innotata, it would be best to use the article names for sake of unambiguousness. —Alexander ktn (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Common names/Capitalization

With most of my work being ornithological, I find the adoption of the FishBase naming convention odd... sure, for birds we do have unequivocal common names for each and every species, while for fishes we have not. But, as can be seen by the considerable number of within-genus duplicates, FishBase common names are neither consistently maintained, nor did FishBase ever put unification/standardization of common names high on their priority list. They simply picked up what they came across while collecting other data.

And after all, a species-specific common name can be considered a proper name... that is at least the ultimate rationale why common names of bird (and increasingly other, such as mammal, plant, amphibian...) species are capitalized. Related is the scholarly discussion (within the scope of phylogenetic nomenclature, usually - see e.g. doi:10.1007/s10539-005-8240-2) of whether above-species taxa are epistemological "individuals" or "sets" - i.e., whether they are monolithic entities, or collections of such entities. Nonwithstanding the dispute about what higher-level taxa are, it is widely accepted that species are "individuals". And thus, a species name (if it is unique) should be capitalized, just as a person's name or a place name or an organization's name.

The practical advantage is twofold - for one thing, it allows to distinguish between species and superspecific taxa. For another - and this can be very helpful in the scope of Wikipedia - it allows to distinguish between a species-specific (unique) common name and a common name that is shared among several species but does not refer to a superspecific taxon.

Using capitalized names for fish species has not been common in the past, but it seems to have become quite frequent in the peer-reviewed literature in recent years and the USDA for example seems to be shifting towards it. I ran a Google Scholar search for "blotchside logperch" - just a random example I picked off the top of my head -, and the difference between pre-2005 and subsequent results was very conspicuous. If not already prevailing usage in the scholarly literature, capizalized species names for fishes have become about as common as noncapitalized ones in the last years, while one decade ago they were rarely ever used.

And if we'd ever get a consistent naming convention for WP:TOL, it would be capitalized species names anyway, since there's no way the ornithologists are gonna ditch their practice ;-) In any case, if the current trend holds (and I see no reson why it shouldn't), in a few more years we'll be hard pressed to claim that non-capitalization is the prevailing usage among the authors of reliable sources. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I think usage matters more than philosophy, and that no matter what there are strong arguments on both sides. I think sentence case is too entrenched for many non-birds, and title case for birds and butterflies, for a TOL-wide convention to be possible. In reliable sources and general usage, I still see sentence case to be more common, except for birds. All in all, this is highly complicated, and perhaps the best attitude is this. —innotata 18:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
There is simply no standard, globally agreed-upon list of common names for fish species as there is for birds. Period. Sharpnose stingray can refer to four different species, while ragged tooth shark has three common names, all in wide use in different parts of the world. As for your example, you got a skewed result because blotchside logperch is a U.S. species, and U.S. freshwater fishes do tend to have a more-or-less settled name due to generations of work. You certainly won't find this for the tens of thousands of other fish species in the world. Just look at the morass of common names that's in the aquarium fish industry (what is an upside-down catfish? A kribensis?) And I'm not really even touching upon usage in scientific sources, where the predominant usage remains sentence case, and I can find examples if you want. My main point here is that trying to treat fish names as "species-specific (unique) common names" will be a disaster. -- Yzx (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
So should we move a good many fish to scientific names? I've been doing that a little with whitefish, and User:Ucucha has been pushing that for mammals. —innotata 19:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It depends. Like I said, for U.S. fish common names are more-or-less standardized and I think articles should be under them. I do like seeing articles under common names whenever possible, since I think it makes the article much more accessible to a general reader. But certainly there are cases where it's problematic. I would actually survey the literature and see if there's a single name that's prevalent or not, as opposed to seeing a blanket approach applied to all (or even a large subset) articles. -- Yzx (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that, basically. —innotata 19:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
A minor correction: There is no single globally agreed-upon list of common names for birds. There are several lists with significant differences and some common names are used for more than one species, while many–if not most–species have several different common names. These issues are certainly no less problematic in birds than in fishes. However, unlike fishes, pretty much all authorities on birds agree on the use of caps (with the exception of caps after hyphen: depends on relatitionship in AOU school of thought but never in BOU school of thought) and there are essentially no regularly recognized species of bird without a common name. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you've already noticed, but there was a long discussion of this, located here in the archives. There was also a recent dicussion at the talk page of WP:CETA about whether common names of cetaceans should be capitalized or not. Hope that helps. Neil916 (Talk) 04:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Using a bot to create missing species stubs

Recently, I had been helping Gastropod project with creating species and genera articles. The bot has created about 12,000 species stubs till date. I use World Register of Marine Species as a reference to create the articles. Since the source is a database of marine species, the bot could be of help to this project as well. So I created some sample articles in my userspace for your review. They are all species in the family Petromyzontidae.

  1. Caspiomyzon wagneri
  2. Entospheneus lamottei
  3. Eudontomyzon lanceolata
  4. Geotria australis
  5. Geotria macrostoma
  6. Ichthyomyzon unicuspis
  7. Lampetra appendix
  8. Lampetra ayresii
  9. Lampetra fluviatilis
  10. Lampetra tridentata
  11. Lethenteron camtschaticum
  12. Lethenteron reissneri
  13. Mordacia lapicida
  14. Mordacia mordax
  15. Petromyzon marinus

The bot works with a pre-defined template and CSV data downloaded from WoRMS. I would like to get some feedback whether this is something you are interested in. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about this, especially since we generally use FishBase's taxonomy (and I notice some species which I think FishBase syonymises). A large portion of organism articles have been created by a bot, user:polbot, which is a good model to follow as well as an illustration of the problems involved—the bot created duplicate articles, added the same awful habitat description to thousands of tropical rainforest animals, and so on. I also don't think things like the blank sections are any good. —innotata 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's a good idea either. Many of the aforementioned articles by Polbot contained errors. I just don't think content creation should be handled by automation. -- Yzx (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Innotata, WoRMS uses FishBase as the basis of the record [2]. What was the species which you think FishBase synonymises? I would like to check that. Let us do a query on each site and see what we get manually. The bot does not create species with "unaccepted" status on WoRMS. This takes care of the synonym problem.
Yzx, similar concerns were raised at the bot approval page. I will not attempt to change your mind about automation. :)
Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

New project page

User:ManfromButtonwillow/Sandbox1

What do people think? I stole the design from wikiproject elements. ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind it, though I don't think we really need it. —innotata 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:JCW help

There's a new WP:JCW report.

Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.

See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects (Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from ichthyologyfrom the list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Clumsy traslations

Hallo I'm an italian ichthyologist and I wrote several hundreds of fish articles in the Italian wikipedia. I'd like to translate them ut I'm not sure of my english...I'll probably make many mistakes. Do you tink I can create these pages in ns-0 (someone will corect them) or maybe before in a sandbox? Thanks--Etrusko25 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)--Etrusko25 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. --Snek01 (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Coral trout

I just copyedited the article but it is quite unbalanced - i.e. lacks a description section. i am not too good on fishes so some basic buffing would be much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Signing up

Where do you do that exactly? I cleared the list of copy-edit requests and am doing other things, but I haven't "signed up" because I don't understand the protocol. Thanks! Lfstevens (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Just add yourself to the list: WP:FISH#Participants. —innotata 18:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I meant sign-up to take on a specific task. Lfstevens (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
In virtually all cases, probably those you're thinking of, just do it! That's what Wikipedia is like. (Have you read WP:BOLD and suchlike?) —innotata 15:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Background of a Species article with substantial information on the Family level

Should an article about a specific Species have information on the Family of that species, particularly when at article exists for the Family? Additionally, when the information on the Family and specific Species appears to be getting convoluted and comingled, to the degree that it becomes difficult to discern the differences, should the Family level background information be reserved for the article on the Family, while the article on the specific species focuses only on the background information related to the species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.52.241 (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless the species is particularly well-known, such as the infamous blue coelacanth, I'd agree. For species like the coelacanth, the editors should keep in mind that many readers will see the fish as just a strange sort of trout that can crawl, so it would be very appropriate here to include family-related information. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 03:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So for a well known fish like the common carp, Cyprinus carpio; it would be appropriate for the Species article to stick to origins information related to the species itself? Which also makes this article on this species somewhat confusing is that the family level of this fish, Cyprinidae, is commonly called the 'Carp Family'. When information on the origins of Carp (the Cyprinidae family) is comingled into the article on Cyprinus Carpio (the Carp species) it becomes difficult to discern which information is pertinent to the species and which information is pertinent to the family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.52.241 (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Fishes articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Fishes articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Shark Taxonomy

FishBase is horribly inaccurate and un-updated when it comes to shark and ray phylogeny. The modern classifications have the Tiger Shark in its own family (Galeocerdidae, disputed), same for Loxodon/Rhizoprionodon (Rhizoprionodontidae, together, disputed), spearate from the Carcharhinidae. In the Triakidae, the Galeorhininae is now a family, Galeorhinidae, so each of the tribes in each pf the families are now subfamilies. Chlamydoselachidae is in its own order, Chlamydoselachiformes, separate from the Hexanchiformes. Same for the Echinorhinidae, in its own order the Echinorhiniformes, instead of the Echinorhinidae. Carcharias is in its own family now, Carchariidae, separate from the Odontaspididae. Rhiniformes and Rhynchobatiformes are among the Ray orders. The species lists are also un-updated not accurate at all. This is just the beginning of the issues. I request permission to clean this all up. I don't have to actually delete the FishBase classifications, but I could make a new section on each page called "Modern Taxonomy" or something. Jntg4Games (Not Logged In) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.26.117 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true that FishBase is less vigilant about pruning obsolete taxonomies than updating new species. However, the taxonomic changes you list (e.g. the splitting of Carcharhinidae, the placement of Rhina and Rhynchobatus in their own orders) are by no means universally accepted, even if some have phylogenetic support. I have updated some of the cartilaginous fish article taxonomies to reflect Nelson's 2006 Fishes of the World, since he's considered a fairly authoritative source in a constantly changing field. But to simply change taxonomies to reflect the conclusions of various different research groups would be anarchy. For one, a definitive taxonomy of the batoids has not been achieved. However, if you want to add a sentence or two in certain articles about new developments (appropriately cited, of course), then you're certainly free to do so. -- Yzx (talk) 03:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about making an Outline of fishes?

Here are a couple of discussions that you might find interesting:

  1. Utility of outlines to wikiprojects
  2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?

There is already an outline on a certain type of fish: see Outline of sharks.

Would an Outline of fishes be useful to your wikiproject?

The Transhumanist 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not, if someone wants to start one? I don't think we'll get a good one for a while, though. —innotata 15:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It's easy. To create one, add this line to Outline of fishes:
{{subst:BLT|fishes|Fishes}}
and press "save".
Then click "edit this page" and add missing subheadings and populate the sections with links to fish-related articles.
The Transhumanist 18:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Little tunny

Little tunny is getting a peer review, your input would be welcome. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Goose or Monk fish"

File:Goose or Monk fish showing its gaping mouth, by Smillie, T. W. (Thomas William), 1843-1917.jpg

Anyone know precisely what species this would be? The context in which this was uploaded means it would have been on display in Washington, D.C. some time in the second half of the 19th century. Is this a Lophius piscatorius, or might it be the "Fossil Monk Fish, Squatina alifera" referred to in Frederic Tabor Cooper, Rider's Washington; a guide book for travelers, with 3 maps and 22 plans, New York:Holt, 1922? - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's definitely not a Squatina species (a.k.a. an angel shark), but otherwise identifying to species based on this image alone might not be possible, given the angle and quality. There are two Lophius species in U.S. waters: L. americanus and L. gastrophysus. -- Yzx (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
So it would be safe to call it a Lophius? - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a description on the back of the card at [3] on the NYPL site. I can't read all of it, at least not so far (still trying, especially to make out the species). It does definitely confirm that it is a Lophius americanus. - Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Fish" disambiguation pages with links.

Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to disambiguation pages about fish. We at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate any help you could give us in fixing ambiguous links to the following pages:

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

One more: Sea bass: 67 links
Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Another one: Loach: 48 links - probably should not be a disambig, as the clear primary topic is the loosely defined family of fish.
Cheers! bd2412 T 20:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Black Caviar

The usage of Black Caviar is under discussion, see Talk:Black Caviar (horse). 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F

You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F --Philcha (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstars

Does this project have its own barnstars yet? I can't seem to see any. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists of fish species by region

What is the recommended naming convention here ? Shyamal (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  1. List of fishes of _REGION_
  2. List of fish species of _REGION_
  3. List of fish of _REGION_
  4. List of fish in _REGION_
Definitely not #3 unless you're naming individual fish, which I highly doubt is the case. #1 makes the most sense, as often a subspecies or simply a genus might be listed. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 19:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
That was what my understanding as well - but some editors are moving fish lists from 1 to 4. Shyamal (talk) 01:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
A list of lists can be seen here Seems like a clear policy would prevent this from constant movement. Shyamal (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

appearance of scientific names in lead of species articles listed at their common names

I've created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Consensus_how_scientific_names_are_displayed_in_the_lead_of_species_articles_listed_under_common_names to get an idea of whether we should streamline. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new taxonomic standard

I've been concerned for some time that the project uses FishBase as a standard for all fish systematics, because the site is run on a volunteer contributor basis and so is unevenly updated. It's very good at the species/genera level, but the higher-level taxonomy is often outdated (for example, it doesn't include the Order Myliobatiformes, which almost all post-2000 sources have as a valid group). So, I propose that, for fish taxonomy higher than genus rank, that instead of FishBase we default to the 2006 fourth edition of Nelson's Fishes of the World as a standard reference, since that book is already used as such a standard in ichthyology. -- Yzx (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've gone ahead and changed the guidelines as I proposed. -- Yzx (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Food web

Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any relevant contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Red-tailed black shark

  1. Extinct in the Wild - listed as Extinct in the Wild
  2. Red-tailed black shark - other status

I hope it is good place to report this as there is no "report error" page on enwiki Bulwersator (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, somebody changed it to Critically Endangered, referencing to the to the IUCN page, and removed it from the list at Extinct in the Wild. —innotata 16:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mustelus mustelus

There is an image in article, named Mustelus mustelus described as Mustelus asterias - is this change correct? Bulwersator (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive

Hi,

I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include many about fishes. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Unidentified marine fish

We could use some help in identifying the fish on commons:Category:UShaka Sea World (unidentified), taken at UShaka Marine World in Durban, South Africa. Some of the images already have suggestions on their talk pages. Lupo 07:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Scorpaena scrofa

Dear friends! I would like to discuss the title of the article about the scorpionfish species Scorpaena scrofa. We have two propositions:

1. To use the vernacular name according to FishBase, Red scorpionfish, because this name is used more often in scientific literature, also used as official in FAO. Also, the rule of main of scientific journals is to use the vernacular names according to FishBase, www.fishbase.org (or any mirror) 2. To use scientific name as title, because there are also the other common names in English (you could check the list of common names).

We started the short discussion on the talk page of the article, but would like to discuss it here. We are waiting for your ideas. Sincerely Yours. Ykvach (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I contend that renaming anything to Red Scorpionfish or the like will end up with confusion, hatnotes, and dab pages. As I posted at Ykvach's talk page: "...Scorpaena cardinalis and Pseudophycis bachus are also called the red rock cod.[4][5] Plus, Eastern Red Scorpionfish, is another name for Scorpaena cardinalis. Also, Scorpaena notata is also regionally called red scorpionfish. Actually, I would guess that lots of species are called red scorpionfish. So, I really think renaming such articles to red rock cod and Red Scorpionfish will cause confusion. ... Scientific names avoid all that...."
If it's a really unique common name, fine. If there's any chance of it being ambiguous, go with the scientific. Earth is big. There are lots of areas using different names, and times change. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I was undecided on this issue, until I discovered that Pontinus furcirhinus is also called "red scorpionfish" by FishBase, ITIS and IUCN, among others. On that basis, I think "red scorpionfish" will have to be a disambiguation page, and the species dealt with under their scientific names, as Anna Frodesiak suggests. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Please help - we need your expertise to fix the large number of disambiguation links to Chub (41 links), Sea bass ((39 links), and Bullhead (38 links). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Plecos…

Plecostomus appears to be an aquarium related version of Hypostomus plecostomus, which is rather poor (note the number of references, random images of other species, lack of taxobox, etc). I propose that it is merged into Hypostomus plecostomus and Loricariidae. I would be happy to do the work myself, of course.

Also, pleco currently redirects to plecostomus, but it is used as common name for all Loricariidae (as is mentioned in the article), so I have proposed that the redirect is changed.

Comments and feedback would be appreciated for both.

Kat (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that there has been only positive response, I will start merging the articles soon. Kat (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The article is half-merged now, I'm lacking some references, so any help would be appreciated! Kat (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Trichopodus gourami article naming

I propose that all Trichopodus species articles should be moved to their scientific names because all have multiple common names (see naming guidelines). Please add your views on this to the individual articles:

Kat (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Spring cavefish article

I'm not familiar with the subject matter but a "single-purpose account" seems to be converting the Spring cavefish article into a description of a plan for monitoring the fish population in Missouri (diff). Could someone check out the edits to see whether they are reasonable please? - Pointillist (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs.....

Debate on taxonomy sections listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxonomy_vs_Classification_vs_Systematics_vs..... It follows on from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#General_structure_for_plant_articles_and_lists cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Weird additions to fish stubs

I wonder if any of you all know what's going on here:

  1. Popeye Shiner by Lmb213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  2. Etheostoma neopterum by Jkaitchu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  3. Luxilus coccogenis by Jusabelle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It seems to be a bunch of students pasting term papers into fish stubs. Probably it's a class project or something. Maybe there are more, but these are the ones I noticed. I'm just not sure what to do, or if anything should be done. Anyway, if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, but I wanted to let someone know.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's this, too: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weird_activity_on_fish_stubs— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The first thing to do with an apparent class project is to request, or rather demand, that the students put you in touch with their instructor or professor or similar evil overlord. It is the path to enlightenment, since any problems are the result of the instructor not understanding some things about Wikipedia or about class projects, not anything the students are choosing to do of their own volition. (Of course, it may be the students are adding mistakes of their own to the misunderstandings, but if so then the instructor should be actively monitoring their efforts.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
OK, I did ask at least one. I'll go back and ask the others. They're completely unresponsive, though. Thanks for your help!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The class is an upper-level undergraduate class at the University of Tennessee (I'm a graduate student of the professor). The articles aren't term papers, exactly. It's a multi-year project to get all the of 324 fishes of Tennessee onto Wikipedia - we like the fishes in our state a lot, and want to put the information out there. Once the semester is over it's extremely unlikely that any of the students are going to respond to information requests, unfortunately. I'd very much like to get these pages more in line with the standards of the Fishes project, and we never meant to step on any toes. I compiled a list of all the pages from this year here: User:Sclemm/Fishes of Tennessee (I'll get lists from previous years from my professor soon). Any advice on the first steps I could take to clean up the existing pages, and what I can do to coordinate better with the project, would be greatly appreciated. I haven't done a lot of editing in wiki before (and my professor has done even less), so I'm really sorry for the mistakes. -Sclemm —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Improper signature, sorry Sclemm (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The articles are all written as management plans, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so no original research is allowed. The articles then need a good deal of work, most importantly: removing original research (especially the management suggestions), editing or removing text written in an unencyclopedic style, removing or tagging unreferenced statements, ensuring that basic formatting such as a lead section is used, and checking for copyright violations/plagiarism (I think I found text copied in an article written as a management plan some time ago, and a number of the articles you linked had copyright images). I've mostly done this with Noturus exilis and did this some time ago for other articles; I contacted the users who posted the articles earlier, but they never responded so I stopped doing so. The articles will need further work, with often poor writing (sometimes too many technical terms) and coverage (focussing on Tennessee for example). WikiProject standards in particular are mostly supposed to be sensible recommendations so I don't think much will come up in that regard.
As far as advice on improving the project in the future: ensure you know the basics of what Wikipedia is, get help from Wikipedia editors, arrange for students to learn basics of Wikipedia editing—see Wikipedia:School and university projects, which should answer many questions you may have about setting up projects. —innotata 00:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for all the advice, I'll start talking to the instructor. Updates to the existing pages will likely be slow (sorry), but we can revamp the project requirements to prevent some of these errors next year. Sclemm (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Bluefin tuna article rename

I have proposed northern bluefin tuna is renamed to Atlantic bluefin tuna. Considering the importance of the species (B-Class), I'm also adding a note here. The main discussion is here. RN1970 (talk) 12:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Identification of unkown fish

Hi guys,

I was hoping you could help me identify the fish in the following images:

They were all taken at the Melbourne Aquarium in February 2009. Cheers! --Fir0002 12:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

rama/chandramara species

I find articles for Rama rama and Chandramara chandramara, with redirects to the latter from Pimelodus chandramara, Pimelodus rama, Leiocassis rama, and Rama chandramara. Scotcat[6] lists Rama chandramara as senior, with all the other names as synonyms. Fishbase[7] lists Chandramara chandramara as senior, with Pimelodus chandramara, Pimelodus rama, and Rama chandramara as synonyms. IUCNRedlist[8] says Chandramara chandramara may be a synonym of Batasio, with Rama rama likely a synonym of ''C. chandramara. It looks like the Rama rama and Chandramara chandramara articles should be merged, but I don't feel qualified to judge which name should be primary. Maybe someone who knows more about it can sort it out. -- Donald Albury 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Tiktaalik and Amphistium are cited as examples of transitional fossils and make up two subsections of the article. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Stubs

Howdy, I wonder if we should remove the stub list; it is woefully incomplete and out of date. It would not be overly difficult to create a new list, but it would be much longer and not a table. We should also use the magic word {{PAGESINCAT:fish stubs}} to automatically update the numbers (eg, there are 38 pages in the Fish stub category). Thoughts on removing the entire list or updating it? --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Acrossocheilus ambiguity

Hi,
Over at the talkpage of Acrossocheilus formosanus, it's been suggested that it's now thought to be a junior synonym of Acrossocheilus paradoxus. What's the best solution? Delete? Redirect? Ditto for A. labiatus. bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Acrossocheilus formosanus; I suggest we centralize the discussion there. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Teleostomi

Please see Template talk:Taxonomy/Teleostomi#Skipping Eugnathostomata where we are discussing how to handle the display of Eugnathostomata in the automatic taxobox. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice resource for text and images

The Dutch Journal "Zoologische Mededelingen" published the research article "An illustrated translation of Bleeker’s Fishes of the Indian Archipelago Part II Cyprini" Everything published by this journal is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, including text and images. Interesting for your wikiproject perhaps? See: [9] Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Shrimps and prawns

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shrimp#Caridea, Dendrobranchiata, Shrimp and Prawns. Does the term shrimp refer to a taxon or to a common name, and what is the scope of the shrimp and prawn articles? – Epipelagic (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject bot notification

This is a notification that a range of fish-related articles are about to be tagged by my WikiProject tagging bot, User:Tom's Tagging Bot. If you have any questions, suggestions or issues, please feel free to raise them on my talk page. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Is seafood a subset of cuisine?

Should articles on seafood be given titles that restrict them to cuisines, as a user maintains in this thread? There is a referral for comment on this issue where members of this project are invited to give their views. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Unicorn shark

Can someone verify this species, I saw it when looking through recent changes and it smells a bit... fishy. Rgrds. --64.85.221.220 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a hoax. I've marked it for deletion. -- Yzx (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Help Identifying catfish

I think this is a basa catfish but I'm not sure. Fish was found in India. Can some one good at this stuff ID i so that I can put it up on the article?


Thanks.Staticd (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Category: articles needing expert attention...fish or fishes?

There's a link at Category:Fishes articles needing attention that goes to Category:Fish articles needing expert attention which is empty. There is, however, a non-empty Category:Fishes articles needing expert attention. Seems wrong, Richigi (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Devil's Image

taxidermy of Sea devil

There is an image of Sea devil (according to its official description, Ceratiidae) which seems so strange to me. On its official description page it says, 'A mummified specimen of this exotic fish was presented by Dr. Muhammad Farhad Rahimi to the museum of Astane Qudse Razavi in 1999.' and in the museum the description card says Dr. Muhammad Farhad Rahimi bought the taxidermied animal from France in 1970. I put the image on the article. Are there any comments from experts?--Taranet (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Nothing to do with Ceratiidae, and I've removed your addition of the image to that article. Looks like someone has been having some creative time with a skate skeleton. I have also added an explanatory note to the description of the image on Commons, and categorised it under "Humour in art". --Epipelagic (talk) 06:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I changed the category to 'fake objects'--Taranet (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
See also: Jenny Haniver --Dbr de (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Interesting :) --Epipelagic (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Poeciliopsis occidentalis sonorensis

According to Fishbase valid as Poeciliopsis sonoriensis. The article has been updated, but it needs to be moved to the appropriate lemma. Regards, --Dbr de (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Percula clownfish vs. Orange clownfish

There's a current RM that may interest members of this project. Your input is appreciated at Talk:Percula clownfish#Requested move. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Student groups editing marine articles

This is a notification that what appears to be two student groups have started editing articles on marine life: EcoWikiGroup13 (talk · contribs) at Oncorhynchus, and Group9ecology (talk · contribs) at Coccolithophore. Their instructor doesn't seem to have notified anyone at Wikipedia that this would be happening, and so far the first group, EcoWikiGroup13, have been non responsive at attempts to communicate with them. The edits so far seem fairly competent and Copyscape doesn't detect plagiarism. However, the names they have chosen suggest there may be 13 or more groups involved, so this may be the start of considerable activity. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Pygmy pipehorses

An issue has come up with one of the AfC submissions. Please see the discussion in my talk page, I'd appreciate your input. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sections

Any objections to adding: or "In aquaria", for the section heading for aquariums? Also, adding "or in a fish farming or hatchery section" about feeding and breeding. Many fish are bred and/or raised in a fish hatchery, and then re-stocked into the wild. A vastly increasing percentage of fish for food are raised in fish farms. Apteva (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Aquaculture-related stuff should go in the section about human interactions, not in the sections about feeding or reproduction. They are deeply different topics. -- Yzx (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pre-spawn Mortality in Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) might be of interest. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Typhleotris madgascarensis / Typhleotris madagascariensis

I believe the two names above refer to the same species - the latter variation is linked from Blind fish and Eleotridae, but I'm not sure the former name is correctly spelled. Can any expert here check the authoritative name (Petit, 1933) for me please? - TB (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The correct spelling is madagascariensis. -- Yzx (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Ta. - TB (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Haptoclinus/H. dropi articles

Hello all - I'm a non-member, but have a passing interest in fish. After reading up on a new blenny species described several months ago, I took the liberty of creating the Haptoclinus dropi article, and in seeing that the Haptoclinus genus article was a redirect, I made that a formal article as well. I'd appreciate any and all comments, including any of the blunt "you're doing it wrong" sort. Cdtew (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Greenland cod

Is this certainly a Greenland cod (Gadus ogac, Richardson, 1836)?

I would like to upload the image to commons, crop and rotate the fish, and add it to a planned image column at Cod.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

No, it looks like an Atlantic cod. -- Yzx (talk) 09:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you kindly for the quick reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Silvershiner.jpg

image:Silvershiner.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 09:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Size comparison diagram discussion at Goblin shark

See discussion at Talk:Goblin_shark#Removal_of_size_comparison_image - discussion over whether this diagram should be in the taxobox, elsewhere or not in the article at all. All input welcomed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Another edit dispute has arisen regarding this article. Please add your opinion to Talk:Goblin shark#Discussion to resolve edit dispute. -- Yzx (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

GA nominator retired

Hi, the GA nominator of Great northern tilefish has apparently just retired from Wikipedia, before addressing all my recommendations in my review. Anyone feel up to finishing it up? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Manta ray

I just tried to link Manta ray to the Spanish project's Manta birostris article, but couldn't because that article is already linked to Giant oceanic manta ray. I don't know enough to know whether I'm just mistaken, or whether Manta and Giant oceanic manta should be merged, or what. Any help available? Thanks, Awien (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Giant oceanic manta ray should certainly not be merged into manta. The first is a species (Manta birostris), and the second is a genus (Manta, with two described species and a possible undescribed species; for details see Manta ray#Taxonomy and etymology). The problem is that the Spanish project still uses out-of-date taxonomy where only a single species is recognized. In time, they'll presumably update their project to follow current taxonomy. 62.107.217.140 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. Awien (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Fish - Skysmith (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Lamprey genera

I've noticed a discrepancy in Wikipedia's coverage of lampreys. The Pacific lamprey is cited as Entosphenus tridentatus, which is in line with usage in a scholarly work I came across. However, the species is listed as a member of Lampetra in the template {{Petromyzontiformes}}. As a librarian, I work with Library of Congress Subject Headings, which prescribes Lampetra for Entosphenus as well as Eudontomyzon and Tetrapleurodon. It's very likely that LCSH is simply behind the times, and that Lampetra has been broken down, but if that is the case, our lamprey template is outdated as well. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I believe most recent scholarship recognizes Entosphenus, Eudontomyzon, and Tetrapleurodon as valid genera. The template should be updated. -- Yzx (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

List of fish species that protect their young

I just created a new article List of fish species that protect their young and was curious if anyone knows of additional fish species that could be on that list. Their young being eggs or hatchlings. Dream Focus 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Caesio caerulaurea (Blue and Gold Fusilier) in Fiji by Nick Hobgood.jpg

Is this ID correct? JKadavoor Jee 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

No, those are yellow and blueback fusiliers, Caesio teres. -- Yzx (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate article?

These two pages have very similar texts: Trematomus and Trematosus. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow trout nominated for GA

I've been upgrading the Rainbow trout article for the last couple of weeks. Essentially it was very unbalanced with too much emphasis on steelhead, instead on the type species Oncorhynchus mykiss and associated subspecies. The Rainbow trout is a complex topic and I trust I've made sufficient changes to warrant Good Article status. Any suggestions or help from this project would be appreciated.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Rainbow trout achieved GA status last week and I've requested a Peer review in advance of an attempt at FA status. Any feedback is welcome. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cutthroat trout nominated for GA

I've just completed the overhaul of Cutthroat trout and put it up for GA. Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Golden Silver Sunapee trout char

There is a confusing situation developing regarding the Sunapee golden trout and it's exact relationship to the Arctic char and the Silver trout. See the talk pages of the Sunapee and the Silver trout as well as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 1#Sunapee trout. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Most reliable, up to date online source for taxonomy

Hi! I'm writing an article on a fish species. It also has a few subspecies. Where can I find the best online source for species naming (as well as who named it, and when)? Sources tend to contradict one another, and FishBase seems to give a dubious answer as well. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 06:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Draft:Doryrhamphus excisus

Category:Introduced freshwater fish and all associated subcats have been proposed for deletion.

Category:Introduced freshwater fish (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been proposed for deletion, as well as all sub-cats, including:
Category:Introduced freshwater fish by country, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of South Africa, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Argentina, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Australia, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Chile, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Madagascar, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of New Zealand, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Papua New Guinea, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Ukraine, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of the United States, Category:Introduced freshwater fish by continent, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Africa, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Oceania, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of New Guinea, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of South America, Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Hawaii.
Anyone wishing to comment may do so at the categories' entries for AfD. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Cutthroat trout peer review

Cutthroat trout has been nominated for a peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Cutthroat trout/archive1 in preparation for a FAC push. Any inputs welcome. Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Apparent class project re: fish

I've discovered that there was likely a class project relating to the fishes of Tennessee without any guidance from Wikipedia's education folks. There are MANY articles with a similar format (I'm still compiling the list) that have a lot of good content from what I can tell, but sometimes the references are badly formatted and they tend not to be wikified. There is also a good deal of essay content (the students' management recommendations for their species) that needs to be removed. I'm going to try to clean up some of them, starting with Bantam sunfish, which I'm still working on. Anyone who would like to help can see my list so far (I'm still adding to it!) at User:Calliopejen1/to do/Fish article cleanup. I'm not positive these are all part of the project (I'm just copying in what is hitting my google search terms), but most should be. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Cutthroat trout nominated at FAC

Have just loaded up Cutthroat trout at FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cutthroat trout/archive1 All reviews welcome. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for article reviewers

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This edit unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:25, 16 April 2014

Links to archived thread updated. JohnCD (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Razorback sucker

The distribution of the species in the article is outdated, as of 2012 Xyrauchen texanus was found in Grand Canyon National Park. There is now an ongoing project to determine the population in the park. Please update the article according to the information I left at the talk page. --h-stt !? 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Peacock flounder

As part of an effort to improve my article-writing skills, I have written an article on the peacock flounder (Bothus lunatus) which is currently in my userspace ready to replace the present stub in mainspace. Please could someone look at it and see if it is up to scratch? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Brook trout nominated for GA status

I've just nominated Brook trout for GA review. Any willing reviewers from this project interested? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Expert input required on Template:Primitive fishes

The template is under discussion at TfD, expert biological input is welcome.--cyclopiaspeak! 16:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A similar issue is now present at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29#Category:Primitive_fishes. Please contribute to the discussion. Many thanks! --cyclopiaspeak! 17:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

anoyying

how bouut u shhut up about fish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinelov (talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification of CfD on Fish by country of Europe distribution categories

I thought anyone involved in this project might be interested in the discussion on upmerging the fish by country of Europe distribution categories. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 2#Category:Fish of Liechtenstein. Any comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Unreferenced Fishes articles

Category:Unreferenced Fishes articles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion by another editor. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fish ID

Any idea about the name of these species? Materialscientist (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"These" species suggest more than one, but if you're just talking about the species on the single photo you attached: Lophius sp. 62.107.217.225 (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy

There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. Thus, for example, none of the articles in Category:Fish anatomy are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes/Archive_3&oldid=1147966111"