Talk:Coregonus confusus

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pfärrit → Coregonus confusus — Request move from German-language vernacular name (with umalauts, and one of ~~two~~three spellings) to scientific name. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No evidence has been produced that the latin form is the customary English usage in prose. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Ucucha/Titles for information. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And please show how German is "customary English prose usage".

Oppose There are enough non-English vernicular names which were adapted in the English literature and in the IUCN database (and believe it or not all books by Kottelat et al about the genus Coregonus are reference works) (to give another example: The vernicular name Masafuera Rayadito (a bird from Alejandro Selkirk Island) was adapted from the Spanish language) --Melly42 (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We use the FishBase names; and FishBase does not give any for English. Pfärrit and pfärrig are both used, and there are the umalauts, making it more confusing. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pfarrig (without umalauts) is used in McPhee "Extinctions in Near Time" and in Kottelat "An heuristic checklist of the freshwater fishes of Europe"; Pfärrit (with umalauts) is used in Kottelat/Freyhof Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes and in the IUCN Database. --Melly42 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this makes it an English common name (and I'd like to know if McPhee clearly used these non-English names as English vernacular names) there are not two but three spellings, with M. Kottelat using all three. So far we've used scientific names by default if FishBase doesn't list anything, and I think this should be followed here. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, McPhee's use is a reference to Kottelat's "A Heuristic Checklist". My problem with FishBase is that I don't known in which intervals it is updated. --Melly42 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that matter? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they have forgotten to add a common name --Melly42 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can't have all of a sudden become English usage. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the Fishbase article based on Kottelat's "An heuristic checklist of the freshwater fishes of Europe" (1997) and it is interesting to see that they don't use the updated material from Kottelat's updated work Handbook of European Frehwater Fishes (2007). And another thing: I don't think that the latin name will became common use in the English language because it was a endemic fish from Switzerland which is rarely mentioned in the English literature (neither in the vernacular name form nor in the latin form) --Melly42 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific name should be used since it is the scientific name, so nearly all literature uses it and it is most clear and international. By the way, it is not extinct (yet). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to "bondelle", which refers in French, according to FishBase to two fish species, which are not found in the lake mentioned by the Red List, so perhaps it should be listed. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bondelle is the vernacular name for Coregonus candidus --Melly42 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And oxirhynchus (probably not spelled right), and possibly this species—as I noted— so it should be a disambiguation page on the English Wikipedia —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore: According to Freyhof (Freyhof, J. and C. Schöter. 2005. The houting Coregonus oxyrinchus(L.)(Salmoniformes: Coregonidae), a globally extinct species from the North Sea basin. Journal of Fish Biology 67:3, 713-729.): Coregonus oxyrhynchus refers to the Houting alone --Melly42 (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read this: http://62.141.187.3/abt4/mitarbeiter/freyhof/downloads/C_oxyrinchus.pdf --Melly42 (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is extinct? That doesn't have anything to do with the name, does it? Intersting fish, maybe I'll get a DYK out of it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomy and nomenclature of the genus Coregonus was one of the most chaotic whithin the European freshwater fishes until Kottelat revised it in 1997. The chaos depends largely on the common names (which were used in the late 19th century). A well known example is Coregonus lavaretus (which was first mentioned by Guillaume Rondelet as Lavaret in 1555) but referred incorrectly to a large part of the coregonoids in Europe until Kottelat put the name back to the Lavaret (which is by the way incorrectly named as Common Whitefish in the Wikipedia). Incorrect in so far that the name which is first in use for a species should always have priority according to the ICZN. --Melly42 (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit-conflict) Remember that the English Wikipedia uses the FishBase classification and names, and that the ICZN obviously does not apply to common names. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ICZN applys to homonyms and FishBase is still using Coregonus lavaretus as homonym as did the Wikipedia (despite of Kottelats revision) --Melly42 (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homonyms are misapplied names --Melly42 (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is misapplied? —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incorrect use of one name (e.g. Coregonus lavaretus) for different species (e.g. for Coregonus fera or for Coregonus wartmanni). As the usage of the name Coregonus lavaretus is restricted to the Lakes Genève, Bourget, and Aiguebelette in the river Rhône basin (according to the original descriptions by Rondelet and Linneus and the revision by Kottelat (1997)) the use of this name for coregonids from other regions is not correct --Melly42 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to FishBase. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source which confirm that Kottelat is not correct with his revision on Coregonus lavaretus, in particular when Fishbase is only given references which are older than 2007 (instead of the IUCN which refers to Kottelats latest work) --Melly42 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We use the FishBase classification, to avoid chaos. It represents the consensus of icthyologists. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the case is a split not yet recognised by FishBase, rather than a purely nomenclatural problem. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really don't think the presence of umlauts is a problem. There are many Wikipedia pages with them in their title, and there is no Wikipedia policy that they should not be used. To change a page title because of their presence is unnecessary. I will confess that I have a particular hatred of scientific names being used for species, as I think they are inaccessible to the average reader. The average reader can usually grasp even a local name that comes from a foreign language easier than they can grasp the scientific latin name, and this progressive Wikicreep of scientific names (the botanists almost seem to be on a wild crusade) is reducing Wikipedia to be the tool of experts in the field, rather than ordinary readers. In cases like this, I look for what the species is referred to in non-specialist educated sources. If you can convince me that this fish is referred to only by its scientific name in English material produced by, for example, national park authorities, citations for inclusion in lists of protected areas, educated tourist guides, or something like that, (in other words, written by geographers, planners, bureaucrats or environmentalists rather than people immersed in the world of fish) I would find it more difficult to oppose the move. Wikipedia policy, which generally overrules specific Wikiprojects, is to use the common form in English. This is demonstrated by examples showing customary English usage in prose. I accept that this is difficult when we are talking about an obscure Swiss fish. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I don't have to show how German is "customary English prose usage". I'm not the one proposing to move the page. If you want to change the title and move the page, it is up to you to convince other users. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been arguing that this page is quite badly named indeed. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made all the relevant arguments. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said firstly that we use scientific names where no common names are listed at FishBase by default; nextly the mostly German language common name, while not ambiguous is spelled differently and often with umalauts to boot; finally and most importantly all those English language mentions of this species I know of (which are predominantly those technical papers and monographs you complain of) use the scientific name, if sometimes alongside the common name. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The name "Pfärrit" does not appear to be in general English usage for this species, so we should defer to the scientific name. Ucucha 05:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General English use indicates that there are enough English books to compare which is not the case --Melly42 (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't indicate that. If there is no established English usage at all, I still prefer to use the scientific name over a foreign-language name. This follows the reliable English-language source FishBase. Ucucha 12:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is obvious. You can move it --Melly42 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.