Jump to content

Talk:Spot (fish)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spot Croaker or Spot

[edit]

Does it matter which common name you use in the article as long as you are consistent? I see it is referred to as the Spot croaker, yet the article references Spot. I'm uncertain of the convention here when there are two accepted common names.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot may just be a shortened version of the name, and used as spot in the article because ites easier (possibly). Hard to say, as long as it makes sense i htink its ok.P0PP4B34R732 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Patvac-chs (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy Paste .... seriously?

[edit]

Predators such as striped bass, weakfish, summer flounder, bluefish, and sharks eat them in turn. Taken directly from the source without benefit of quotations. There are other incidences which are lifted with little or no modification from the original text. The copy / paste button is a guarantee fail for GA. The beauty of a stub, there is so little content, it is easy to correct the errors of those that went before. In this case July 22 2009. Clean up what's there before it gets buried and you get the blame! --JimmyButler (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that bit of plagiarism in the article. I just fixed it. Dmanrulz180 (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stub I created

[edit]

Croaking mechanism of Sciaenidae is a stub that i created to link to from this article. Any and all positive edits or reviews are appreciated Dmanrulz180 (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the stub; however, it might be a good idea to expand the croaking section on this article to specify why this fish croaks... is it for mating?--JimmyButler (talk) 04:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would not the gulf of mexico be cap?--JimmyButler (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

[edit]

Why is "Spot croaker" capitalized in the title of the article, yet in the body of article it is lower case?--Haydenowensrulz (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Misinformation

[edit]

This article is filled with information that is 1 not all verifiable such as the distance measured to find hatching larvae & 2 just plain incorrect information. Starting with the name. Spot are not referred to as spot croakers they are only referred to by 3 names Norfolk Spot , Spot or Spot Fish & Yellow-belly during spawn season when some of their belly's are yellow. I have re-created this topic on https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Spot_Fish and am requesting assistance in cleaning up appearance of the information and for a swift removal of this page. if a compromise need be made it would be to delete both pages and recreate as https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Spot(fish) Cheatspace (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There should not be a second article on the same subject. If there are fixes that need made, please discuss them on the talk page and work on integrating them here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing the changes here would further add to the Misinformation as the name of the Species is not nor has it ever been Spot Croaker. It is only known as Spot / Spot fish / Yellow-belly & Norfolk Spot

Cheatspace (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article is copied 100% from a website owned by ( Copyright MarineBio.ca 2015 | All Rights Reserved | A Canadian Marinebio Site. )- TOS = http://marinebio.org/marinebio/copyright/ Information location = http://www.marinebio.ca/species/l/leiostomus/

ATTN: Epipelagic

Cheatspace (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are what could be some copy violations from MarineBio. It is not clear, since MarineBio doesn't seem to have an edit history, whether Wikipedia copied from them or the other way round. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The internet archive crawled their site in April 2014, but this page was not there at the time.[1] Since our article existed in basically this form then, it's likely that they copied us. —C.Fred (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It appears Cheatspace is looking for any reason to have this article removed and have Spot Fish as the main article. He's already made this gross personal attack and made a legal threat, so I don't know why s/he is not blocked. APK whisper in my ear 02:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia article is minutely and verifiably referenced to other sources. The MarineBio article is not, and is clearly copied from the Wikipedia article. Accordingly, I have removed the copyvio template. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. APK whisper in my ear 02:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your edit history https://web.archive.org/web/20130415000000*/http://www.marinebio.ca Now end this double standard.

Also for legal matters google is not your end all be all for verification information, Seek actual archiving websites which predate google. IE Wayback Machine by Archive.org


Cheatspace (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, our article predated the earliest appearance of this at Archive.org. —C.Fred (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I challenge you to find 1 Article anywhere on the web which refers to the spot fish as a spot croaker prior to 2010. You will find less than 10 pages searching it specifically. And individuals like than Canadian web developer now have false information supposedly provided by Wikipedia.

And for the not earlier on getting rid of this page, Yes it is my goal as this page does not have accurate information. Not even the title / name is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatspace (talk • contribs) 06:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Just about everyone here seems to be making mistakes. What do we have? A new editor (account created less than 48 hours ago) who obviously has extensive first-hand knowledge of the topic and is obviously here to improve Wikipedia. That editor is unused to our ways, has become frustrated at what may have seemed like pig-headed obstruction, has behaved in ways that are not acceptable here, and is already at ANI. Some questions:

  • C.Fred, when you removed the copyvio notice, were you satisfied that the apparent copyvio added in 2009 and flagged on this page in 2011 was in fact correctly dealt with this edit?
  • AgnosticPreachersKid, are you aware that we try not to WP:BITE good-faith new users? Are you also able to distinguish a personal attack such as "You fucking idiot ... " from a general attack, "You fucking idiots ... Not directly at you but you are just catching a long stemming boiling point"? I'm not in any way condoning the incivility here, but the difference is important.
  • Cheatspace, would you consider striking out your remarks on Joseph2302's talk page? Or asking someone else to do so on your behalf? It would also be appreciated if you were to make clear (here, on that talk page or on your own talk page) that you did not intend to make a legal threat with your comments there (legal threats are absolutely not permitted in Wikipedia). Would you also consider visiting the WP:TEAHOUSE to ask for help and advice on how to reach compromise and consensus with other editors on what this fish should be called and so on?
  • I'm no ichthyologist, but has anyone actually bothered to check the long list of references provided by Cheatspace here in support of his/her thesis? Or noticed that a Scholar search for "spot croaker" overwhelmingly yields results for "... spot, croaker ..."?

Perhaps everyone involved here could take a step back or a deep breath or something, and then try to move forward in a more collaborative spirit? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, um, yes I'm well aware of WP:BITE. Are you aware of WP:NPA and WP:LEGAL? Of course you are, just like I'm obviously aware of WP:BITE since I've been around this site for quite some time. As long as Cheatspace removes the legal threat and stops the gross personal attacks, it's fine. But let's not pretend an adult might not comprehend calling others a "fucking idiot" could be interpreted as aggressive and against this site's policies. APK whisper in my ear 23:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should note though I appreciate that you're trying to help. APK whisper in my ear 23:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to intend a legal threat, I am just angry that I have been stonewalled in every attempt to correct what is a grossly inaccurate article in which a few "reliable sources" such as fishbase to name one has sourced their incorrect information from. I have donated a good deal of my income to improving the online encyclopedia in the hopes that It remains a place of reliable information. Until now running into a situation where false information is being preserved in place for accurate information.

Granted that the talk page reply was uncalled for but after hours of what feel like attacks on the attempt to correct the article in preservation for "peer review". I have provided several references, books, state / federal & educational run resources that 100% are show the actual information for this species.

Additionally I removed the "spot in a jetty" photo because it shows a school of White Croakers(note there are a few spot in this picture upon further investigation), not Spot fish. I also made several corrections to this article and removed many falsehoods and replaced with actual information regarding the species. Only once it came to the point of being unable to correct the title did i branch out. Yet all the work I made towards correcting this article was reversed. At the very least it should of remained untouched.

Either way my goal is to correct the information regarding this species, I may also go through all of the drum fish family on Wikipedia to verify accuracy.

Cheatspace (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheatspace, Please read Wikipedia:Be bold and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You did well in your initial bold attempts to change the article. But when you were reverted you should have discussed your changes rather than trying to force them. I hope you stay at Wikipedia, but in order to be successful here you need to be more collaborative with other editors. —teb728 t c 05:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Parts of this article were taken / copied "and butchered with additional false information" from the following sources.

  • 1
Virginia Fishing Guide
By Bob Gooch, M. W. Smith
Published 2011
https://books.google.com/books?id=3D5NYa3Zp5wC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=%22deep-bodied+fish%22+spot&source=bl&ots=tT_QYRemdr&sig=7zjbcEYehVZVW3qznF446hfKhQw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pWjzVJ6OKoOkyAS_oIGwCw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22deep-bodied%20fish%22%20spot&f=false


  • 2
http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/vswft/Angler_Guide/angler_web_guide.pdf
copyright 1996-2015
  • 3
http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Leiosto_xanthu.htm
see "Species Description"
"Page last updated: June 9, 2005"
  • 4
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=usfwspubs
page 19 (PDF page 25)
published 1945 (before the internet)


  • More violations remain to be found.
Resolution? Collaborate and create an accurate article for this species.
Agenda! Come to a consensus on the name. determine that Spot and Croaker are 2 different species and share only the greater drum family, and have no naming similarities.


Cheatspace (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cheatspace here. As an example, here's a comparison of the text added with this edit to that of the cited source, the Smithsonian Marine Station:
Our article The source
The spot croaker is a deep-bodied flat fish with an arched back. A large black spot is set above the upper edge of the gill cover. Their body color is gray-blue dorsally, fading to yellow ventrally. It also has a set of 12 -15 darker streaks run forward diagonally from the dorsal surface down the sides to about the middle of its body. These streaks often fade with age. The fins are pale yellow in color. The head is blunt with a small mouth. The upper jawbone extends to approximately the middle of the eye. The dorsal fin is almost continuous, with a dip separating the stiff dorsal spines from the soft rays. There are 9-11 dorsal spines, and 29-35 soft rays. The anal fin has 2 spines and 12-13 rays. The caudal area is moderately deep, and the caudal fin is notched. A large black spot is set above the upper edge of the gill cover. Leiostomus xanthurus is a moderately deep-bodied, compressed fish with an elevated back. Body color is typically bluish-gray dorsally, fading to golden yellow or yellow-tan ventrally. A set of 12 -15 dark streaks run obliquely from the dorsal surface down the sides to about mid-body. These tend to fade with age. Fins are typically pale yellow in color. The head is short, with a small, inferior mouth. The maxilla extends to approximately the middle of the eye. The dorsal fin is continuous, with a notch separating the spinous portion from the soft rays. There are 9-11 dorsal spines, and 29-35 soft rays. The anal fin has 2 spines and 12-13 rays. The caudal peduncle is moderately deep, and the caudal fin is notched. A large black spot is set above the upper edge of the gill cover.
That is in my opinion an unambiguous copyright violation from that source, which does not carry a licence permitting such copying. I think a vote of thanks to Cheatspace for drawing attention to this is in order here. Normally I'd go straight ahead and list this page at WP:CP for thorough cleaning (this editor has numerous edits here, and was the same who "cleaned up" the 2009 copyvio mentioned above). However, since the copyvio template has already been removed by C.Fred, I'm pinging that editor and two copyright experts, Moonriddengirl and Diannaa, for their opinions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright situation may be a bigger mess than it initially looked. I think it's probably good to call in some experts; I'm willing to defer to their judgment on this. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Diannaa:
  • Cheatspace, if an article is at an incorrect title, the solution is not to copy the article to a different title and begin working on it there. The reason why is because we lose the attribution history, which is required by the terms of our license. The correct way to do it would have been to open up a discussion here on the talk page and decide on a title and move the page there (history and all) using the page move feature. That way the legally-required editing history stays attached to the content.
  • Checking out the four sources in Cheatspace's list, the only one where I found a violation was source #3, which is the same one that Justlettersandnumbers analyses above. The source predates the appearance of the material on this wiki, there's no doubt about it. The content has since been re-worked, but not thoroughly enough, as can be seen in this copy vios report. It's the two-paragraph description section.
  • Content added in this diff (2009) is without a doubt a copyright violation; you can tell by the line breaks. I found it here, in a document last revised in 2007. The source cited by the adding party is 404 and was never archived. Much of this content still appears in the article and will have to be thoroughly re-worked.
  • The Marine Bio page http://www.marinebio.ca/species/l/leiostomus/ is almost certainly copied from us rather than the other way round. While the page was created in 2006, the page was last modified on 1 March 2015 (ie, today). It's an almost identical copy. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa Image used belongs to http://nas.er.usgs.gov/XIMAGESERVERX/2013/20130425143339.jpg

Cheatspace (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is in the public domain, as it was taken by an NOAA employee in the course of their duties. Source website and copyright notice. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As promised

[edit]

Tag Justlettersandnumbers , TEB728 I am trying to rewrite this 100% from scratch however I wish none of my content to be labeled in any way Spot Croaker as it would be false. I do welcome any help that will be offered please make note of any changes you have made and only use resources found that predate this Wikipedia page.

- What I have so far, Yes I know there are Grammar issues which is why I post here first -

Leiostomus xanthurus also known as the Spot fish is a small silvery saltwater fish native to the eastern coast of the uninited states populating the Atlantic Ocean from Maine to Florida, best known for its presence in the Chesapeake Bay, also known as the Norfolk Spot & Yellowbelly this fish is a member of the Drum family Sciaenidae and is sometimes confused by novice fishermen with the White Croaker however confused in appearance 2 distinct things help with identifying the difference between these 2 species. Spot fish have a distint dark brown sometimes seen as black spot on both of their lateral 2 sides located just behind and slightly upwards their operculum or "gilcover". Also in contrary to the Croaker, Spot's cannot make the croaking sound. Which is why it is easy to most fishermen to distinguish between the two.

Spot are more commonly found in the Chesapeake Bay and in the Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. However they can be found everywhere along the Atlantic Coast of the Uninted States from Maine to the keys of Flordia, Also within part of the Gulf of Mexico.

Spot tend to be bottom feeders, targeting worms, small crustaceans & mollusks. Younger spot tend to feed on zooplankton until large enough to seek out other meals.

Spot are the natural prey of the following fish. Striped Bass, Flounder, Sand Shark, Dog Fish, Weakfish, Puppy Drum, Red Drum, Black Drum, Spotted Seatrout, Atlantic, King & Spanish Mackerel, Barracuda, Cobia, Black Sea Bass, Tautog, Tarpon, Dolphin. The list can go on for some time however these are some of the most known predators of the spot fish.

From the late spring into early fall months Spot can be found in the coastal waters, rivers & bays in which they inhabit, When the water starts to cool in the early fall months spot fish begin their migration to deeper water where they spawn & spend the Winter months, Spot lay their eggs along the continental shelf.As those eggs hatch the Larvae feed on the plentiful zoo-plankton until large enough to swim inland, while young the Spot tends to seek out low salinity waters such as the brackish swamps along the Elizabeth River feeding on Brine Shrimp & detritus. Once Spot grow to around 3 inches they tend to leave the brackish waters for higher salinity waters usually sticking to the reedy areas of the rivers until around 5-6 inches favoring waters 3-5 feet deep. Around this time Spot start to migrate into the deeper portions of the rivers into the bay which soon after they leave for the ocean around 7-9 inches overall the Spot gets to around 12 inches or 1 foot in length and lives for about 4 Years.


Cheatspace (talk) 05:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that you will get consensus to rewrite 100% from scratch. In any case, your draft has totally omitted all references; replacing sourced content with unsourced is a non-starter. By policy, “any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source”. And it has no formatting—like “The spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) or spot croaker…” It would be difficult to remove all mention of “spot croaker,” for the article has a source for that name. And if you are contending that the spot, unlike other sciaenids does not have a croaking mechanism, you would need a source for that. —teb728 t c 06:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This conversation seems to have turned unnecessarily acrimonious, but I think there's just about a consensus to move, factoring in the comment from Epipelagic that they can live with the move as well. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Spot croaker → Spot (fish)

Reopening the issue above at #Spot Croaker or Spot, “Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used”. See WP:COMMONNAME. Judging from this article’s references that give a common name, most use “spot”—only one (the same page is use for #2 and #6) uses “spot croaker.” Accordingly I propose the article be moved to Spot (fish). And in the text “spot croaker” should be changed to “spot” except for sourced mentions that it is also called “spot croaker” and that it is so called because it “croaks.” —teb728 t c 05:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ps, Cheatspace, this is how you get consensus to change a title. —teb728 t c 05:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Absolutely! There is essentially no mention of "spot croaker" in academic sources. Examples:
  • Highbeam search for "spot (Leiostomus xanthurus): 25 hits
  • Highbeam search for "spot croaker (Leiostomus xanthurus): 0 hits
  • Questia search for "spot (Leiostomus xanthurus): 2 hits
  • Questia search for "spot croaker (Leiostomus xanthurus): 0 hits
Fishbase is user-submitted content. Is it usually regarded as a reliable source within WikiProject Fishes? Even if it is, it can't take precedence over the entirety of the academic literature.
On croaking: the source for this is #7, Chesapeake Bay Program Bay Field Guide. It reads:

Spot is a member of the drum family, which includes weakfish, red drum, black drum and Atlantic croaker. Each of these fish is able to make a loud drumming or croaking sound by vibrating its swim bladder using special muscles.

Does that say that spot fish croak? I don't think so. It appears to say that weakfish, red drum, black drum and Atlantic croaker croak, and that spot fish are in the same family. Source #8 does not mention spot fish at all. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Reply Justlettersandnumbers

Every member of the drum family have a swim bladder, only the Croaker's croak. Spot do not make an audible sound. If your ever on the eastern coast of the US get some artificial bloodworms(unless you like getting bit by the real ones, but it hurts) and go to your local pier take with you at least 8lb test line size 6 hooks eagle claw are best pick, and get some litters(bottom rigs) a 1-2 oz pyramid or bell weight & enjoy you only need about 1 10th of a square inch worth of blood worm on the line you will pull them in 2 at a time if they are biting in your area. They are still biting in Southern Florida at the moment.

Cheatspace (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Also Justlettersandnumbers http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Leiostomus_xanthurus/

published in 2001 predates this page's spread of false information. no mention of spots croaking, It does mention croakers though.

Cheatspace (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Additional information - Including a Sound Production study(which predates this article) 

http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Section_3_Atlantic_croaker_spot.pdf
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/labs/panama/library/LB80TM.pdf
http://thescholarship.ecu.edu/bitstream/handle/10342/2858/11481.pdf
http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Leiosto_xanthu.htm 
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3670421?sid=21105995958823&uid=3739776&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs/297/
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/parasitologyfacpubs/450/
http://seagrant.mit.edu/cfer/acoustics/exsum/connaughton/program.html - Finially Found something on sound production


Cheatspace (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Urk! Indeed it will - I'd completely failed to look at the history there. Could you do that, Diannaa? Or shall I tag it and hope the Lone Histmerger shows up? Certainly it'd better if the copy-revdel was not done first ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you could tag it for history merge, that would be best. I've never done one. Thanks so much to you and to all the others who helped with the clean-up here. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HIstmerge turns out not to be needed, see Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen#Rejected requests March 2015. I've redirected Spot Fish here and requested revdeletion of the whole history there. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – If the name of the article is to be changed at all, it should be changed to Leiostomus xanthurus. See #Two comments below. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would that not go against the guidance at WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA (yes, found it now): " ... the article (if there is no common name) should go under the scientific name of lowest rank, but no lower than the monotypic genus"? So that if a systematic name is to be used, the page should be at Leiostomus, as suggested below? However, in this case we seem to have overwhelming evidence of one predominant common name, with (to date) three dissenting sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to align with the guideline you just mentioned the article should be moved to Leiostomus. You say I gave three sources to support this move. I didn't, I gave five sources. But I focused on the heavyweight ones that really count, FishBase and the FAO. You and others here have indicated that you can find only sources that favour the use of "spot" and not "spot croaker". Following are some links to scholarly articles that refer only to "spot croaker" and don't refer to "spot" at all. These links all return the full text so you can readily verify the position for yourself: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21].
There are many more examples than just these ones, and "spot croaker" may even be the dominant term in Google Scholar. Cheatspace has repeatedly claimed, both on this talk page and at other venues, that there are no articles on the web using the term "spot croaker" that date back prior to the Wikipedia article. Here are some counter examples: from 1966, from 1964, from 1962... --Epipelagic (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for those, though without citations they aren't easy to evaluate without actually downloading them one by one. Anyway, I was interested by your suggestion that Scholar might show "spot croaker" to be predominant. ScienceDirect has a much better search interface, so I did some research there. Here's what I found:
Searching ScienceDirect for
  • {leiostomus xanthurus} gives 920 hits, of which
  • {leiostomus xanthurus} AND spot: 711
  • {leiostomus xanthurus} AND NOT spot: 209
  • {leiostomus xanthurus} AND {spot croaker} gets exactly 3 hits. Those three are:
  1. Mason J. Smith, James Gelsleichter, Kelly J. Smith, Protein expression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) in spot (Leiostomus xanthurus) exposed to constant and diel-cycling hypoxia, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volumes 424–425, 1 August 2012, Pages 1-4, ISSN 0022-0981, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2012.04.020. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002209811200158X)
  2. Rochelle D. Seitz, Gradient effects on structuring of soft-bottom benthic infauna: Macoma balthica and predation, recruitment, and food availability, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 409, Issues 1–2, 1 December 2011, Pages 114-122, ISSN 0022-0981, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.08.014. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022098111003844)
  3. Thomas Thompson, Intake modifications to reduce entrainment and impingement at Carolina Power & Light Company’s Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 3, Supplement 1, 1 September 2000, Pages 417-424, ISSN 1462-9011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(00)00050-2. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901100000502)
The first, Smith, actually uses the name "Spot croaker": "Spot croaker (L. xanthurus) … ". The other two are false positives: they both have tables with the word "spot" immediately above "croaker"; they do not mention "spot croaker".
In ScienceDirect, of more than 900 articles that mention this species by its systematic name, more than 700 of which also include the word "spot", exactly one uses the name "spot croaker".
  • 195 use the exact phrase {spot, leiostomus xanthurus}
  • 319 use the exact phrase {spot (leiostomus xanthurus)}
The monotypic fauna guideline I mentioned above discusses what to do "if there is no common name"; clearly that is not the case here. There is a common name; it is "spot". However, the main thing is to get the page moved. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um... please tell me if I've got this straight. I've just done some hard work and offered you links to the full text of another 23 scholarly sources, all of which use "spot croaker" and none of which even mention "spot" by itself. You pretend this hasn't happened, and indicate that you are not going to evaluate the sources because you would have to download them. Instead, you use a limited commercial search site and announce that you find "spot" everywhere. Well yes... 688,223 articles on that site contain the word "spot". And you haven't offered a link to the text of even one example where your claims can be checked. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway this whole thing has puffed up out of proportion and people are speaking past each other. Let's end this, it's just not that important. Either way is sort of okay, so long as "spot croaker" is listed as a common name. So I'm okay with whoever wants to end this doing it their way. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
The following articles predate FOA ruling, This Fish species is only located on the East Coast of the United States of America & the Gulf of Mexico.

I have located several thousands of articles that predate the FAO listing of "croaker, spot" Which I must add their listing applied to ALL of the greater drum listing with "croaker," which is inaccurate in itself, This is the only fish I have found so far on Wikipedia that has had its actual common name changed based on that error on the account of the FAO.

http://repositories.tdl.org/tamug-ir/handle/1969.3/19276 (predates FOA listing in 1996)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022098189900154 (1989)
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f83-189#.VPnsm_ldVqk (cite Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1983, 40(10): 1633-1638, 10.1139/f83-189 1983)
http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/16/5/659.short (1988)
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08923979109019707 (1991)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659%281964%2993%5B396%3ACEOSLX%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=utaf20#.VPntZPldVqk (1964)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1991.tb04383.x/abstract (1991)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014111369290106V (1992)

Cheatspace (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


ADDITIONALLY The links above referencing "spot croaker" so far every single one has been released after 2009 such as the Mariel Odette Hagen Bio Sciences "fall 2013" some are earlier but I have 1 reference to trump them all :-) University of Michigan: Museum of Zoology(who better to know the common name than a Museum of Zoology)

http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Leiostomus_xanthurus/
Also I have found the oldest found on the internet article naming the common name for this fish specifically as "Spot" date 1899 http://fisherybulletin.nmfs.noaa.gov/18-1/smith.pdf :to make things better it is from the NOAA

Cheatspace (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheatspace, you say the 'links above referencing "spot croaker" so far every single one has been released after 2009'. But you can quickly verify that's not true by simply downloading some of the links you were given. It's time to stop making things up. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Epipelagic You say I am making up facts yet I have time and again provided many many many more articles proving the true common name of this fish and I am sorry but your Fishbase & FAO(which placed croaker, behind every species in the drum family) don't mean squat to me over the NOAA & First hand knowledge. You say I am making things up because rather than redacting a comment I left it and corrected myself. Yes at least 1 of your articles are prior to 1996 but a couple people writing articles that are naming the fish incorrectly. Several hundred or even thousands of articles in favor of the correct name "Spot" and you have the nerve to argue that there are almost a million articles that have the word spot taking out of context. Now that being said I understand you have a vested interest in this article I see you edited it on the first page of the history between 2006 & 2008. I am sorry the fruits of your labor ended in an article with misinformation. Lets stop bickering and correct it. I don't mind in the new article notating that some a very few individuals think of this fish as a "spot croaker" even though it has never been referred to as that in any area I have ever encountered them.

Also, 1899 Article from NOAA oldest article I could find with a common name on this species which is Spot. http://fisherybulletin.nmfs.noaa.gov/18-1/smith.pdf

Cheatspace (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Interesting point

[edit]

" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Dmanrulz180 "

I would like to take this time to point out a child made this Wikipedia page for an AP bio page, A very lazy child it would appear to me who copied and pasted most of the information, which I do not fault that part for except when he copied the name from the MD Wildlife page Spot, Croaker, Drum he copied Spot, Croaker removed the , and we are left with this misrepresentation.

Who I might add treats his Wiki page more like a facebook or myspace account listing his interests of which you will not find Fishing or AP Bio.

Cheatspace (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was titled "Spot croaker" prior to Dmanrulz180's edits. Wikipedia didn't invent the name "spot croaker". Scientists working with the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization invented "spot croaker" as a common name for Leiostomus xanthurus sometime before Wikipedia's existence (as can be seen in a 1999 source here). I'm not disputing that people fishing in the Chesapeake only refer to this fish as "spot", but I do want to note that there is an imbalance between "official" global common name (from the FAO) and the common names name used by people who encounter a particular fish regularly. Plantdrew (talk) 03:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0720/ML072060325.pdf and http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Leiosto_xanthu.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments

[edit]

A lot of dust has been kicked up here recently.

Is the fish a croaker?

Determining what common fish names are appropriate for Wikipedia cannot always be decided by referring to scholarly literature, since common names are a matter of common usage. They are language dependent and can vary widely with location and with time. Some fish have dozens of common names, with none of them of any interest outside the particular regions where they are used. They are not determined by scholars in the manner that taxonomic names are. In fact they are not necessarily even used by scholars. On the question of common names, Wikipedia fish articles usually defer to FishBase and to the FAO. It is rare for either of these two sources to disagree on an appropriate common name. FishBase is the world's main international data base on fin fish, and the FAO determine the international standards and often the vocabulary used in fisheries and commercial fishing. Both these authorities agree that the common English name for Leiostomus xanthurus is the spot croaker.[22][23] Cheatspace claims the fish is not a "croaker" and has never been referred to as such. However the main source he uses himself states clearly at the beginning under "Common Name" that the fish is also known as the flat croaker, the golden croaker, and the spot croaker. Other prominent sources referring to Leiostomus xanthurus as "spot croaker" include:

Given that both FishBase and the FAO use the common name "spot croaker", if the name of the article is to be changed at all, it should be changed to Leiostomus xanthurus. The long-standing practice on Wikipedia is to use the taxonomic name if there is any confusion with regard to the common names. -- interrupted comment by Epipelagic (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Interposed response) ↓
The principal reference for the Fishbase entry is C. Richard Robins, G. Carleton Ray, John Douglass, Rudolf Freund (1986). A Field Guide to Atlantic Coast Fishes of North America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. It gives the common name of Leiostomus xanthurus as "Spot". Even if one of the authors is the same, the original source is clearly more authoritative than an internet wiki. However, on your suggestion of using the systematic name: am I right in thinking that we have a practice of treating species in monotypic genera under the genus (I've no idea where to look for that)? In which case should the page name not be simply Leiostomus? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on checking what Google gives me (the co.nz link doesn't work where I am) for the most widely used popular guide to saltwater fish I find that it doesn't refer to this fish as "spot croaker" at all, it merely gives that name as an alternative. Page 233 of that book, as I see it, is clearly headed "Spot: Leiostomus xanthurus". Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing that some, and perhaps even most sources refer to Leiostomus xanthurus as "spot". For that reason, I agree it is not appropriate to call the article "Spot croaker". However, given that both FishBase and the FAO use "spot croaker" as the common name, it would not be appropriate to call the article "Spot (fish)" either. It would be better to use the binomial name. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
JLAN, Fishbase is not a wiki/user submitted content. Epipelagic, you say it's "rare" for Fishbase and FAO to disagree on common names. As far as I have seen, they never disagree. The common name displayed by Fishbase appears to be generated algorithmically; if there is an FAO name, Fishbase uses that. If there's no FAO name, but an AFS name exists, Fishbase uses the AFS name. If there's no AFS or FAO name, Fishbase displays a name from any other source that's tagged as English. If there's any room for human judgement in choosing what name Fishbase displays, I'd expect there would be some effort to eliminate duplicate common names referring to different taxa. E.g. Fishbase displays "silver perch" as the primary common name for both Bidyanus bidyanus (following FAO) and Bairdiella chrysoura (following AFS), which suggests to me that Fishbase common names are strictly algorithmic. I don't think you can count FAO and Fishbase as being separate, independent sources for a common name. I'm very curious to know if there is an example where Fishbase and FAO disagree. Plantdrew (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: Central figures behind FishBase are Daniel Pauly and the fish biologists around him at the UBC Fisheries Centre. FishBase itself is supervised by an international consortium which fields many of the world's most prominent fish scientists. The consortium includes the FAO itself, so in that sense it would be true to say that FishBase and the FAO are entangled. The central fisheries scientist at the FAO for many years was John Caddy. Daniel Pauly and John Caddy have, over the years had conflicts which could be regarded as representative of conflicts between FishBase and the FAO. Two high profile examples that spring to mind were a disagreement in 1999 over fishing down the food web, and a conflict in 2001 over FAO fishery returns. I have never seen FishBase and the FAO disagree on the common names of fish. That issue would arises only in relation to commercially significant fishes, since the FAO does not concern itself with fish that are not commercially significant. Presumably many wide ranging accommodations and rationalisations have been made within the FishBase consortium, and suppose this would be an example of one of them. We cannot know for sure, since the consortium doesn't seem to make its deliberations public. But the attempts some editors are making on this page to discredit FishBase are, well just plain ridiculous. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Scianidae species are capable of making a noise. Call it "drumming" or "croaking" or whatever; that's a matter of semantics. In many species, only the males drum/croak, and only during mating season. The Atlantic croakers that Cheatspace is familiar with are a little unusual (among Scianidae) in that both sexes drum/croak, and do so year round. It's not clear why Atlantic croakers croak, but it's obviously not just a mating call for them. If they croak in reponse to threats, that may explain why they croak when pulled out of the water. For spot (croaker), croaking/drumming may be just a mating call, so this behavior would not be observed by a fisherman pulling a fish out of the water. Plantdrew (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Plantdrew, I see that now; they have a couple of thousand contributors, not all of whom hold academic positions. But no, not a wiki as such. Perhaps you will agree that if, as you suggest, the Fishbase names are algorithmically generated from elsewhere, then Fishbase cannot be a reliable source for common names?
It appears that you and Epipelagic actually know something about this topic, which obviously is more than I do (I came here because of the copyright question). So, a question: do you have a reference for this species, Leiostomus xanthurus, actually croaking? Because the references that I looked at when trying to reconstruct the article were curiously non-committal on that subject – well, silent, really, not a croak from any one of them.
Again without any particular knowledge of the topic, I have suggested merging Croaking mechanism of Sciaenidae, created by the same student editor as the mess here, into Sciaenidae. Perhaps you would comment there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Fishbase is a reliable source for common names (plural), but not necessarily for determining THE common name (singular) that should serve as the article title on Wikipedia, when there are multiple common names. This dicussion illustrates the problem; should Wikipedia use the common name actually used by fisherman who encounter the species on a regular basis (which is endorsed as the "official" common name by a regional authority, the American Fisheries Society), or should Wikipedia try to consistently use the common names endorsed as "official" by a global authority? Personally, I'm pretty biased towards using scientific names; most fish species are of interest only to scientists (though spot (croaker) is an exception), and most of the "official" common names are invented by scientists who never use common names themselves.
At any rate, Fishbase has largely been Wikipedia's source for fish common name article titles (and most of these names come through FAO). Earlier versions of WP:FISH naming guidelines explicitly called for using Fishbase common names as titles. Currently as I read WP:FISH, I think it would support "spot (fish)" for the title, but in practice fish species with multiple common names are often at the scientific name. WP:COMMONNAME gives somewhat different guidance; leaving aside "spot" for the moment, I'd read COMMONNAME as calling for Leiostomus as a title over "spot croaker". Leiostomus smashes "spot croaker" in a WP:GOOGLETEST ("spot" may well be even more common, satisfying COMMONNAME, but it's too ambiguous to do a Google test for). WP:NCFAUNA is yet another guideline, with differing advice. NCFAUNA supports following global authorities (i.e. FAO's "spot croaker") over regional authorities (i.e. AFS's "spot"), and doesn't allow scientific names if any common name exists. Long story short, various guidelines give conflicting advice about what to do here.
Regarding drumming/croaking this paper, click View on the right is informative. A quote: "Sonic muscles in some species (e.g., spot and weakfish) appear at the onset of maturation and sonic muscle mass varies over an annual cycle, peaking in the spawning season". And there's a table on page 8 that characterizes sounds as croaks, knocks, drums, etc. In the table, spot's sounds are listed as croaks.
And I support merging (after cleanup/copyvio check) croaking mechanism of Sciaenidae into Sciaenidae. Plantdrew (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How serious are the copy violations?

An initial problem with copy violations arose when someone claimed the article was a serious copy violation of marinebio.com. In fact, it was the other way round. However, two areas of close paraphrasing have subsequently emerged, one involving the Smithsonian Marine Station and the other involving ASMFC Fisheries. As these comparisons show, the violations are not so extensive that there would be a lot of work fixing them, and what is happening above seems like overkill. If no one is willing to fix the article (which is basically sound) then I'll fix it myself. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright problems were quite serious enough (see above) and are now resolved (see Talk:Spot croaker#Copyright problem removed), though the histmerge and revdeletion are still to be done and I still need to check the other contributions of the schoolboy editor for similar problems. What's needed now is to write an article on this fish. In case it helps, I left the previously used references, some of which at least should be usable, as hidden text. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

So I understand that fishing for more than 20 yrs of my life in the Chesapeake bay don't count for squat here. So I will let you know you will not find many SCIENTIFIC articles relating to how to catch fish using spot as bait. That being said. Here are some articles & forums which you can learn from (or you can be like me and actually, you know do it for 20 years?)

http://www.stripersonline.com/t/539296/using-spot-for-bait https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBly2vEwv3k (also notice as this spot is on the hook as bait he is not croaking and is very much alive) http://www.oysterbaytackle.com/index.php/drifting-easy/123-how-do-i-catch-live-bait-for-flounder-and-other-large-fish-such-as-stripers-and-trout.html http://www.thebassbarn.com/forum/7-delaware-bay-forum/153421-hooking-spot-striperr-bait-question.html http://web.vims.edu/adv/aqua/Spot%20as%20Live%20Bait%20Advisory1.pdf

http://web.vims.edu/adv/aqua/Spot%20as%20Live%20Bait%20Advisory1.pdf corrected the direct url. teb728 and every one of my links are reliable, When it comes to fishing information, scholars do not NORMALLY study the art / craft of line fishing. That being said give me a list of TYPES of sources you will accept for citation for IE: Fishing Charters, Fishing Bait information, A video of myself catching trout, drum & flounder with live spot. I mean really define RELIABLE for this sort of information.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Common_knowledge <--- It is common knowledge with all fishermen that most small fish are good live bait in both fresh and salt water, ie [[Herring], Shiner Minnow , Gudgeon, Mullet, Sheeps Head, Brim & Crappie . there are way too many to list.

Also, Video is legitimate Source. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Video_links

Also http://saltwaterfishing.sc.gov/pdf/SaltwaterFishPocketGuide.pdf This PDF shows a full list of Fish located in SC, most of which are all along the east coast, also lists which fish you can use "small live fish" to fish for, See Angling " These are strong, hard-hitting game fish that frequently make numerous runs. They are caught trolling, bottom fishing, jigging and casting live baits and lures. Effective live baits include soft and hard crabs, eels, squid, and small fish."

And that is for Cobia .

Cheatspace (talk) 04:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

more to come — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatspace (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what is all that supposed to prove? Your last link is broken, and none of others is even a reliable source. —teb728 t c 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cheatspace: Please do not change your comments after someone else has replied to them. You should start a new comment below the reply you received. Otherwise you are going to make it look as though people who reply to you are stupid and do not read what you have written. That will not win you much support. I sympathise with how you feel about your experiences, but you need to be clear that your focus is somewhat confined to the Chesapeake Bay area. You need also to be clear on what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia's role does not include righting what you personally think of as wrongs or pushing bravely into new frontiers of knowledge engineered by yourself. The role is to reflect faithfully the current state of human knowledge as reflected by what are generally accepted as reliable sources, warts and all. You should read carefully wp:verifiability and wp:reliable sources. Even when FishBase and the FAO get it wrong, as they do sometimes, those errors are still part of what is the definitive currently position, and it is our job to reflect that. Maybe next week the FAO will put out an official bulletin saying they have read your comments here and they now realize that everything you say is correct. THEN you can insert your views in the article so long as you cite the FAO bulletin as your source. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize i saved during an edit, I was under the impression this works a lot like a live paste bin where information is fluid not lateral so changes work kind of like github. I apologize if i wrote over any comment you made.

That being said. Does FAO or FishBase even specifically list fish prey or predators? A lot of predatory fish are listed as consuming "small, medium or large" fish. such as what I mentioned with the Cobia. Then cross reference the native areas they are from. And I should be a little more specific other than just Chesapeake bay, I grew up in Portsmouth, Virginia. I have fished everything from the coast of MD to the cost of FL, Most of my time was spent in the Pamlico Sound(NC / Shouth side of VA Beach) , Oregon Inlet(NC) & Chesapeake Bay. And most of the rivers mainly the Nansemond River & the Elizabeth River — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatspace (talk • contribs) 04:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FishBase is not usually an extensive source of information on prey and predators, but is used on Wikipedia to maintain some consistency regarding taxonomy, and as a generally reliable source for range distributions and common names, as well as miscellaneous descriptions and information about things like lengths, weights and habitats. The FAO usually offer useful information if the species is commercially significant. In such cases it can offer extensive information in the form of species fact sheets. See for example this fact sheet for the spotted wobbegong. The IUCN can offer useful information, particularly if a species is threatened (such as this article on the largetooth sawfish). There are many other ways of locating reliable information. Google Scholar allows you to search scholarly articles, Google Books does the same for books, as does Google News for news. You may find purchasing some solid text books on fish and vertebrates useful. It is not always easy to find reliable information about recreational fishing, and some of the blogs and forums you have been listing are not acceptable. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I am sorry however I must discredit FAO & Fishbase. this from the FAO citation page for the Spot © FAO 2010-2015.

FAO FishFinder - Web Site. FAO FishFinder Contacts. FI Institutional Websites. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated . [Cited 3 March 2015]. http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/18034/en "2010 - 2015" People manage these websites go to places like Wikipedia to gather quick information. I will be in contact with FAO to correct this.

Also Fishbase Again likely farmed or updated from Wikipedia information. As technology evolves and the internet grows more and more people rely on Wikipedia for accurate information, rather than going out seeking reliable studies or first hand encounters.

Cheatspace (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NO! I gave you a link to an FAO publication from 1999 in a different section. Here it is again. Epipelagic gave you several other sources predating Wikipedia in the requested move section. "Spot croaker" originated with FAO before Wikipedia existed. FAO and Fishbase do not farm data from Wikipedia. You (and other fishermen on the Atlantic coast of the US) don't call it "spot croaker". Fair enough. But you need to stop insisting that Wikipedia invented that name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew 

All they did was put croaker, behind every member of the Sciaenidae / drum family.

Cheatspace (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Response to Reliable Sources

[edit]

Ok, This was raising my blood pressure I had to step away for a couple days, Now that I am back. I want to address some issues. You state your reliable source is a International Source that you feel should be made the appropriate source over a local American source that is specific to the Atlantic Ocean / Gulf of Mexico. Here is 1 thing both this article originally agreed with and EVERY other source agrees with this fish the "Spot" fish does not exist in other countries aside from the US & Eastern Shores of Mexico. This fact states that the Authority on this issue should be the local Authority which is the only one who encounters the species. So with this I would state that the authority on this species would be the American Fisheries Society.

See http://fisheries.org/docs/pub_style18.pdf section C.3

& http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f03-143#.VPnou_ldVqk
& http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659(1979)108%3C397%3ATSROSL%3E2.0.CO%3B2#.VPnpUfldVqk
& http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00397816#page-1
& http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002209819390255M
& http://fishbull.noaa.gov/854/oneil.pdf
& http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3277546?sid=21105553104061&uid=3739776&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=2 (includes new species of the spot)
& http://www.jbc.org/content/251/7/1871.short
& http://repositories.tdl.org/tamug-ir/handle/1969.3/19276 (predates FOA listing in 1996)

The following articles ALL predate FOA listing as "croaker, spot" which I may add every other species they named croaker, was not done the same on wiki they named the entire drum family croaker,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022098189900154 (1989)
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f83-189#.VPnsm_ldVqk (cite Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 1983, 40(10): 1633-1638, 10.1139/f83-189 1983)
http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/16/5/659.short (1988)
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08923979109019707 (1991)
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659%281964%2993%5B396%3ACEOSLX%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=utaf20#.VPntZPldVqk (1964)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1991.tb04383.x/abstract (1991)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/014111369290106V (1992)

I can keep going but really what is the point? if nothing else these are great sources for building an accurate article.

Cheatspace (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Spot (fish). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spot_(fish)&oldid=1198738446"