Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes/Archive 5

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

Fish species

(Note: this discussion was started on my talk page. Looks like an editor would like to continue the discussion.....Pvmoutside (talk) 01:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC))

That's what I thought, then a discussion ensued and it was determined Catalog of Fishes was more up to date. See Wikiproject Fishes...Pvmoutside (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Yes I read that too but my interpretation differed somewhat, the conclusion I took from it was that in some cases one is more up to date than the other and vice versa. I don't think it reached a consensus to replace FishBase as the reference. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
From the Wikiproject talk: "Fishbase is far more comprehensive, also covering ecology and alike, which is why I specifically said taxonomy (the one place where CoF and FB can be compared). I keep a fairly close look on newly described species and have never seen a case where FB was faster than CoF. Further, when FB makes taxonomic updates, updates to their remaining sections are often delayed: An example is the spotted eagle ray where FB split off A. ocellatus in 2012, but only just (in late 2017 and ongoing) began updating distribution, ecology and alike." Given that statement, and a few like it, my pref is to use CoF whenever it differs from FB.....If there is specific taxonomy where someone believes FB is in the lead, then it certainly can be discussed.....Pvmoutside (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The project page still says "Taxonomy at the level of genera and species should follow FishBase. Higher-level classification should follow the 2016 fifth edition of Fishes of the World by J.S. Nelson, T.C. Grande and M.V.H. Wilson for consistency. If applicable, disputes in classification should be noted in article text". No consensus has been reached.Quetzal1964 (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside: My next contribution to our discussion was going to be that the project has chosen to follow FishBase for lower lever taxomony but that does not mean that alternative classifications cannot be discussed in the text of an article. When I edited the article on Liza I asked how the alternative taxonomy should be dealt with and I was advised to follow FishBase in the taxobox, title etc. but to describe the alternative taxonomy. Since then I have followed that advice when editing fish articles. I don't see the need to change away from FishBase as the guide if people note the alternatives in the article. If a newly described species isn't included in FishBase I will look for other secondary sources or cite the primary source.Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only can alternative classifications be discussed in the text of an article, well sourced alternative classifications must be discussed to maintain a neutral point of view. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
The question is should the taxobox always follow Fishbase? Fishbase follows CoF on taxonomy, but there is often a lag as making changes in Fishbase involves more work. Fishbase sometimes has a new entry before the name is verified by CoF when they have biological and ecological information on a new fish, as they need a name to make a database entry (this is a claim by Fishbase; I don't have any examples). Reading the Fishbase description of reasons for differences, it doesn't seem like Fishbase ever makes a decision not to follow CoF, it's just a matter of time until they do. So I think it is reasonable to depart from Fishbase when there is good reason to do so (good primary reference(s) and recognition by CoF).
I would suggest changing the guide lines to say that Fishbase is generally followed, but exceptions can be made under appropriate circumtances. Fishbase and CoF work in tandem, they don't have the "frosty" relationship that exists between Amphibian Species of the World and Amphibiaweb where discrepancies get personal. The discrpancies between Fishbase and CoF are more technical relating to their different functions.   Jts1882 | talk  07:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
so then the problem becomes what to name the article when Fishbase and CoF conflict. Do you name the article based on CoF, and note the Fishbase (and/or other tax auth) discrepancy) or vice-versa?....Pvmoutside (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
I think that we should follow the path of least resistance, follow guidance as is, i.e use FishBase for species and genera, but note in the text where CoF or other authorities differ.Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Fishes is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 56.2% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Article title

Please see Talk:Salmo trutta fario#Article title for a question about the correct scientific name and hence article title for this taxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Wakin listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wakin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Goldfish?

I've recently had the misfortunate of needing to sift through our wiki's numerous goldfish articles to vet a large set of dubious edits. That work is now done, but its gotten me thinking about the state of our coverage of goldfish overall. It is frankly abyssmal. Most goldfish breed articles are stubs, and while sources for standards exist they are not applied consistently. I think that getting together a community of people who understand goldfish could be quite helpful in this regard, similar to the existing WikiProject Dogs. Sadly, I am not myself able to take this on. My knowledge of goldfish is limited, and my time has recently become very limited also. So I'm posting up the call to arms, and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Cichlids

I have foolishly taken on the task of adding Automatic taxoboxes and speciesboxes to the Cichlidae and I am finding that there is no consensus on the taxonomy between the levels of the family and genera. The 5th Edition of Fishes of the World explicitly avoids any higher than genus subdivisions. I am still working on the Neotropical cichlids, having just completed (hopefully!) the tribes Cichlasomatini and Heroini which I have placed in the subfamily Cichlasomatinae. However, when I look at many sources these tribes are classified as sister taxa within the subfamily Cichlinae. I propose to use the subfamily Cichlinae for all the New World Cichlids as per López-Fernández, Winemiller, Honeycutt 2010 and Smith, Chakrabarty, Sparks 2008. Before embarking on this I would like to seek consensus. My own view is that if the New World Cichlids are a clade then it makes sense to follow the suggested taxonomy. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think there is reasonable consensus on grouping all Neotropical cichlids in Cichlinae, going back to Sparks and Smith (2004), through the two papers you mention, to a recent study by Ilves et al (2018). There seems agreement on the seven tribes and only the position of Astronotini differs in the phylogenies of the three papers focusing on Neotropical cichlids: as sister to Cichlasomatini and Heroini (Lopez-Fernandez et al, 2010); as sister to Chaetobranchini and Geophagini (Ilves et al, 2018); or as sister to a group contian all those four tribes (Smith et al, 2008). All three studies find sister relationships between Retroculini and Cichlini, Chaetobranchini and Geophagini, and Cichlasomatini and Heroini.
A more detailed analysis of Heroini can be found in Rican et al (2016), which also contains some taxonomic diagnoses and revisions.  Jts1882 | talk  12:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I had read that paper too. Quetzal1964 (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Rfc

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Chub

Greetings, oh fish people! I am hoping that someone here can help with a question in the category of "fish as food". On the chub page it talks about how the term "chub" is used for various different species. Which of those species (and Wikipedia articles) is the one for smoked chubs, caught in cold North American lakes and sold by discriminating fishmongers? Commercial examples can be seen here and here. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ichthyophiles. In doing more web searches for this, several web sites seem to be referring to these fish as "bloater chubs". That would be Coregonus hoyi, which are commonly known as bloaters. (For whatever it's worth, that WP article says, "Since most of the other "chubs" of the Great Lakes have become extinct, the average size of the bloater has increased, and it is caught and smoked in the United States.") Here's a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service page about them. So, I'm pretty sure that's the answer. — Mudwater (Talk) 14:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Fishing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Fishing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fishing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Size Comparisons for Lamniformes

Megamouth shark

I recently created a size comparison for the megamouth shark, and I do plan to eventually make more size comparisons like this. I am unsure where the best place to get this size comparison reviewed would be, so I've placed it here, in addition to WP:PALEOART. I noticed that there seems to have been quite a controversy over the size comparion for the goblin shark. Is this diagram accurate and of high enough enough quality to be used in its respective article? The size here is based on the holotype specimen. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Slate Weasel: I like it and only have three comments: The megamouth does not have a strongly forked tail (the tail indentation is angular but rather softly rounded, not a sharp angle, like this). Secondly, the two sexes mature at about 4 and 5 m (13 and 16 ft) TL respectively, i.e. the type was a young but mature male. If using 5 m TL instead you would enter the range of medium-old mature males, while also including young but mature females; this is arguably a more accurate representation of the species as a whole. Finally, the human appears bit small. As far as I can see this diver is about 1.5 m (4 ft 11 in) tall based on a fast check using Photoshop to extend the lower leg and remove the flippers. I know average height varies considerably depending on sex and location, but IMO the 1.7–1.8 m (5 ft 7 in – 5 ft 11 in) height range would be most suitable for illustrations like this and it also seems to be the typically used range. Anyway, these are minor issues and I quite like it. 62.107.211.90 (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@62.107.211.90:, sorry for the late reply. I have implemented the changes, does it look better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
@Slate Weasel: – (slow reply, only just saw it, apparently no pings for IPs). Looks fine to me, great work. 62.107.211.90 (talk) 02:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Gavfish

An IP keeps adding the common name "gavfish" to the fish article Psychrolutes microporos. I have asked the IP to provide a reference but they have not done so. When searching for "gavfish" and the genus name, I get no results. Please could someone else look at this, because I do not want to break the 3R rule. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Reverted. It's straining my assumption of good faith. William Avery (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Monotypic fish genera

I was looking through the species tagged in the various categories of category:monotypic fish genera, and there are a very large number of binomials. I've been nipping at them to convert to genus pages since that seems to be the standard in most wikiprojects that use scientific names for the article titles. I think I'm reading that right....I thought I'd see if anyone wanted to join in the fun.....Pvmoutside (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Identify a fish based on very little information

Some years back, the Pearson Scott Foresman company donated a ton of line art to Commons. These were items which had been in their illustrated dictionaries. However, they didn't label all the images - and in fact, they donated them in the form of assemblies of images, with filenames like "PSF-W1040007" that indicate only the first letter of the words illustrated by the images.

That's the context. Can anyone identify these fish whose names begin with W?

  • W-fish
    W-fish
  • Also a W-fish
    Also a W-fish

Thanks. DS (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

A whiting and a wrasse, I should guess. Choess (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Scomberoides

Catalog of Fishes states that the type species of Scomberoides is Scomberoides noelii Lacepède, 1801 but there is no species of that name listed in Fishbase among the species of Scomberoides and CofF does not state that this is a synonym of any of the currently listed species or that it is a valid species. It also states that the type is missing and the type locality is possibly Suriname, which would be incorrect for this Indo-Pacific genus. If it is neither a synonym or a valid species surely the type species of the genus has to be reassigned? Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about this, but possibly Scomberoides commersonnianus is a synonym of Scomberoides noelii. While the latter isn't given as a synonym of the former by either CoF or Fishbase, Fishbase does list S. commersonnianus as a synonym of S. noelii here. Cof also has the comment on the type "can be commersonnianus .. if noelii is a nomen dubium", which I read as an alternative type, but could possibly suggest an the alternative name for noelii. Puzzling.   Jts1882 | talk  10:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Bit of a mess! For anyone who wants them: BHL link to the original description and Catalogue critique des types de Poissons du Muséum ... William Avery (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The Fishy Barnstar

I've made The Fishy Barnstar. Hope everyone likes it. Jerm (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I also added an alternative version in the same template. Jerm (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

CoF Genus template

When editing the article Trichogaster I tried to reference the list of species in the genu on Catalog of Fishers, I entered 

{{Cof genus |Trichogaster|15 December 2019}}

and the resulting ref is

Eschmeyer, W. N.; R. Fricke & R. van der Laan (eds.). "{{{1}}} genera". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 15 December 2019.

What am I doing wrong?

Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I just fixed a problem on that page with "Cof family" template, which was using "Family" as a parameter name, instead of "family". William Avery (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its seems to work for me, as {{Cof genus |Trichogaster|15 December 2019}} is generating the reference:
Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). December 2019 "Species related to Trichogaster 15 December 2019". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
Is it possible there is a control character on the page? They appear as red dot in the edit window and I've seen them appear before when copying text.   Jts1882 | talk  10:21, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the page history, it was the {{Cof family}} reference generating that error. The reason is that it didn't recognise |Family= so was looking for the first positional parameter, which was absent and defaulted to {{{1}}} instead.   Jts1882 | talk  10:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

It works for me too. Where did you want to put the template? We could do it in your place, with the current date. Albert the 1st (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of fish articles

Hi. This project has a page with advice about categorization (WP:FishCat). I've made some edits to that page and plan to do more (e.g. where categories have been renamed/deleted and the page hasn't been updated). Afaics it hasn't been edited by a member of the project since 2012. If you've an interest in categorization please take a look at that page and watchlist it.

I'm compiling advice about categorization of organisms (especially animals) - currently at User:DexDor/BioCat.  Hence, if there are ways that the fish categorization advice differs from the general advice I'll be looking to see if they can be brought into alignment. DexDor (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Spelling, forms of English and Fish names

It is absolutely clear what to do when you are writing an article that you use the spelling of the form of English you are writing in, I always write in UK English and so spell words like colour and armour correctly, i.e. with all of the letters included, unless I am editing an article written in Webster's abomination (joke!). My question is where a common name is attributed to American English and does not seem to be used elsewhere in the Anglosphere. So alternative names for the striped boarfish include "sailfin armourhead", which is global, and "whiskered armorhead", which is used only in Hawaii. I have included both and used the variant spelling for the US version but it looks odd to have both "armour" and "armor", so was I correct to include both spelling styles? Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I think vernacular names should be given precisely as they appear in a source; spellings and hyphenations should not be amended to achieve some standard format (I think that should go for capitalization as well, but that ship has sailed).
Fishbase's regional attributions of vernacular names should be regarded with some skepticism. I've seen cases where Fishbase attributes a name to English as spoken in Denmark, just because a book written by English speaking authors was published in Copenhagen. Fishbase says that "striped boarfish" is a common name in Kermadec and Micronesian English. I doubt any Kermadecers or Micronesians were interviewed to find out what they called it. Rather, a New Zealand author and an American author gave the vernacular names they were familiar with (not completely unreasonable given ties between NZ/Kermadec and US/Micronesia).
I don't think it is necessary to list every vernacular name given in Fishbase, although I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on which to exclude. If Fishbase does present essentially the same name with a slight difference in spelling or hyphenation, I don't think all versions need to be included (so if Fishbase had listed "whiskered armorhead" and "whiskered armourhead", you could choose to list the one consistent with spelling elsewhere in the article). Plantdrew (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Genitive_of_a_name_ending_with_"s"_in_species_names is a recent thread about following sources in formatting vernacular names. Plantdrew (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Template:SealifePhotos

I just followed a link to {{sealifephotos|126983}} which should have been a Grey Mullet, but it seems the Sea Life website has move to [1] and all the ID numbers have changed. I've started a discussion on Template talk:SealifePhotos for what can be done to fix things and the 1964 affected pages. --Salix alba (talk): 13:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Classify a searobin (Scorpaeniformes)

Some kind of Scorpaeniform

I came across a really interesting photo (right) which NOAA described in its original caption as an "armored searobins (Triglidae)". My confusion is that the armored searobin (family Peristediidae) don't seem to be within the family Triglidae. The Triglidae article does state "many species also possess armored plates on their bodies", but my read of the order Scorpaeniformes 4th paragraph seems to indicate the presence of armor classifies a fish as Peristediidae rather than Triglidae. Is anyone here able to identify the fish confidently enough to resolve my confusion? MarginalCost (talk) 05:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm no fish expert, but this picture looks a lot like this Peristedion truncatum. Looking around I'm inclined to think that the description might have actually erred in its identification with Triglidae, which appears to be a completely different family compared to peristediidae. bibliomaniac15 05:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've updated Armored searobin to include the photo. MarginalCost (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Flounder families

The article on Bothidae mentions the Japanese halibut as a member. The article on that fish however states that it is a member of Paralichthyidae. I suspect the latter article is correct given the genus name but this is not my aoe. Tigerboy1966  07:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Tigerboy1966: I know this question is a few months old, but I've now removed the mention of Japanese halibut in Bothidae. It was sometimes placed in this family many years ago, but it has long since been moved to Paralichthyidae. RN1970 (talk) 18:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Ichthyologists in red

Several ichthyologists have 50+ redlinks from taxonomy articles. Would any member of this project like to verify whether they're notable and consider writing articles about some of them?

Hoping that list is of use to someone, Certes (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion: Channichthys

Hello editors. It has been proposed that the article Channichthys be merged with the articles for the various species in that genus. If you would like express support for or object to the merge then you are strongly encouraged to do so at the talk page for Channichthys. Thank you! --Paul ❬talk❭ 10:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Update to peer review page

Hi all, I've boldly updated your project's peer review page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Peer review) by updating the instructions and archiving old reviews.

The new instructions use Wikipedia's general peer review process (WP:PR) to list peer reviews. Your project's reviews are still able to be listed on your local page too.

The benefits of this change is that review requests will get seen by a wider audience and are likely to be attended to in a more timely way (many WikiProject peer reviews remain unanswered after years). The Wikipedia peer review process is also more maintained than most WikiProjects, and this may help save time for your active members.

I've done this boldly as it seems your peer review page is pretty inactive and I am working through around 90 such similar peer review pages. Please feel free to discuss below - please ping me ({{u|Tom (LT)}}) in your response.

Cheers and hope you are well, Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Haemulon

Fishbase seems to have made an error, they include the California salema in Haemulon but it is the type species of the genus Xenistius, which Fishbase show as a monospecific genus containing only X. peruanus. Tavera et al (2012)resurrected Poey’s Brachygenys to resolve the polyphyly of Haemulon. I have set this out in an edit to the Haemulon article but this does not have californiensis included as set out in Fishbase. I am tempted to create Brachygenys despite this not being currently recognised by Fishbase. Any thoughts? Quetzal1964 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Catalog of Fishes has genus Brachygenys as valid, citing Tavera et al. (2018) and Parenti (2019). It's probably a matter of time for Fishbase to make the change. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Jts1882 (talk · contribs) Thanks for the input, I agree Fishbase will catch up. Brachygenys has been written.Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Plectorhinchus picus

Although Fishbase uses the above name I have made a request for this article to be moved to Plectorhinchus pica because as ETYFish [2] says the name means "magpie, probably referring to black-and-white color of juveniles, similar to the color of the European Magpie, Pica pica [often incorrectly treated as an adjective and misspelled picus]". In fact, Picus means woodpecker. Catalog of Fishes says the name is P. pica too. I would be grateful for project members input to the discussion. Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Fish articles needing expert attention has been nominated for discussion

Category:Fish articles needing expert attention has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. 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. Peaceray (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Stub article improvement

Hi all! I have been working on improving the New Zealand grayling wikipedia page for a subject being taken to fulfil requirements for an undergraduate science degree at the University of Sydney. Any criticisms or suggestions for improvement are greatly appreciated! Oatmilk17 (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Electric eel#Requested move 23 May 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Electric eel#Requested move 23 May 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Aphanius desioi

I inadvertently joined your project when I started making articles about fish from the genus Aphanius. I was about to make an article for a fish called Aphanius desioi, but as I was researching, a source that I frequently use said that Aphanius desioi was just a synonym for Aphanius fasciatus. You can view the source here. I would love any insight as to whether I should just remove the species from the page entirely and redirect the name to Aphanius fasciatus. Helen (let’s talk) 22:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your source (Fishbase) is the agreed source to follow for lists of species in a genus. It might be a little premature (Fishbase notes that A. desioi "will be removed for the next update"), but you can go ahead and remove it from the genus page and create a redirect to A. fasciatus. The species list at Aphanius is not in agreement with Fishbase; Fishbase lists 34 Aphanius species (including A. desioi for now). The Wikipedia article lists 38 and claims to list 39; two of them are fossils (which Fishbase doesn't cover), but that still leaves Wikipedia listing two more species than Fishbase has. Plantdrew (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Gymnogeophagus

Someone changed the identification for this fish, without leaving a reason as to why they did it. And they're no longer active, so I can't ask them.

Does it seem like a valid change? Thanks. DS (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


The image was uploaded in 2009 and the species Gymnogeophagus mekinos was only recognised in 2015. Perhaps it was considered part of Gymnogeophagus gymnogenys. The photo description says it was taken in the Tacuarembó River, Uruguay. The Fishbase descriptions say "South America: Brazil and Uruguay" Gymnogeophagus gymnogenys and "South America: rio Negro and rio Uruguay" for Gymnogeophagus mekinos. The Fishbase photos don't help me as one is poor.
Given the more exact description for the distribution of Gymnogeophagus mekinos and the location of the fish photographed, I'm inclined to think the name change is correct. But this is no expert opinion. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The paper describing Gymnogeophagus mekinos is Malabarba et al (2015), which describes five new species and restricts the distribution of Gymnogeophagus gymnogenys. The text seems to validate the name change, but the photos in the paper wouldn't to my inexpert eye. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Morwongs

I am currently revising and trying to destub articles about the taxa within the superfamily Cirrhitoidea and have reached the morwong mess. The 5th Edition of Nelson's Fishes of the World, which this WikiProject follows with respect to taxa higher than genus, treats the families Cheilodactylidae and the Latridae in the traditional manner whereas Fishbase and Catalog of Fishes follow the retention of 2(-3) African (and South American) Cheilodactylus species in Cheilodactylidae and the rest of the traditional Cheilodactylidae is moved in the Latridae, including the division of the genus Cheioldactylus sensu lato across these two families. I propose to keep the families as set out in Nelson and explain the differences in the taxonomy section, the clades Goniistius and Morwong I would treat as if they were subgenera of Cheilodactylus with Cheilodactylus sensu stricto also being treated as a subgenus but that leaves the species moved from Cheilodactylus to Chirodactylus in the revised classification which I will label as subgenus incertae sedis. Does this seem sensible? Any suggestions as to tackle this would be welcome? Quetzal1964 (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Cepolidae

Does anyone know if the ICZN has made a decision on the case of Cepolidae? The fish family named by Rafinesque in 1815 is the senior homonym to the land snail family named by Ihering in 1909. It was to go to the ICZN to resolve the homonymy in 2017 has there been an outcome? Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dyanega: would be the best person to ask. I'm not finding it as a case on the ICZN website. Plantdrew (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't don't recall any such application appearing in the BZN, let alone coming to a vote yet. You might need to track down the people who had planned to submit it; it may never have been submitted, or it may have been sent in but returned to the petitioner(s) as not actionable. Applications are returned as not actionable if the solution does not require the Commission's intervention to achieve the desired outcome (this happens fairly often, where people think they need a ruling but they actually don't). If it involves molluscs, then the odds are good that Commissioner Francisco Welter-Schulthes will know about this, and he would probably have reviewed any incoming applications on the topic. Dyanega (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Notothenioidei

I spent an afternoon looking for the author of this name. The oldest form of it I could find is Regan’s 1913 Nototheniiformes. Regan seems to be the first to recognise them as a taxonomic group. Is my reasoning correct in this case? Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion about Encyclopedia of Life

Hi all

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on Barracuda

Hi folks. I've been working on the list of edit requests by people with declared Conflicts of Interest. Not specifically on fish, just generally. I ran into the following request, and fell down a rabbit hole of trying to figure out a) if the request is scientifically correct and b) how on EARTH to navigate the template system to implement it if it is. I'm 90% of the way there on A), however, because there's an "Incertae" in there, I'm baffled on B). I'd appreciate if an expert on Wikipedia Fish Taxonomy (Boy, THAT's a job title, innit?) could have a look.

Article: Barracuda

Edit Request: [order and sub order of Barracuda]

Thanks! PianoDan (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@PianoDan: The taxonomy used in the taxoboxes should follow the project guidelines, which is to use the latest Fishes of the World (5th edition, 2016) and discuss alternative classifications (e.g Deepfin, Fish Tree of Life) in the text (see WP:FISH#Taxonomy). The taxonomy of such fish are currently in flux so there is no one accepted right taxonomy. The taxobox wasn't following either of the main systems. I've changed the order to Istiophoriformes following FotW5. The request is unsigned and made by editor TheFatManatee with their only two edits so far on Wikipedia (see contributions). If there is a COI, i.e. someone involved in one of the taxonomy system, this doesn't mean they can't participate in discussions on which taxonomy system the project should be following. It might be time to revisit whether Deepfin/FTOL should be the followed system. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems like you beat me to it. I'll close the request and nudge the editor to head over here to discuss. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Fishing television series"

Main page: WT:WikiProject Television § "Fishing television series"

The category Category:Fishing television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and the article Fishing television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) states that "fishing television series" are TV shows about sport and recreational fishing; while Category:Fishing television series contains many TV shows about commercial fishing, as does {{Fishing television}} (since 2009, when TV shows were added [3]); There's a discrepancy here. Is "Fishing television series" just about sport and recreational fishing, or does it also include commercial fishing. I will note that one of the most popular TV shows about fishing, The Deadliest Catch, is a commercial fishing TV show. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved to WT:WikiProject Television § "Fishing television series"

Hippocampinae and common names

I'm seeing many common names for species and groupings of Hippocampinae, my attempts to wrangle them making matters better of worse I'm not sure. The last couple of years have seen closer studies of their phylogeny, including misidentifications as species of Hippocampus, previously more loosely identified in common names such as Pygmy seahorse / pipehorses / pipefishes that redirect to a number of targets. Does anyone more familiar with these lovely creatures see a solution? ~ cygnis insignis 23:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Aquaristic tables

An editor has started adding summary tables to the aquarium sections of fish species, e.g. dwarf rainbowfish and clown loach. This may be a good idea or it may not - I assume the project has some standards about what should be present in these sections. Some early assessment of the practice would be good before it goes into serial production, as I'm fairly certain is imminent. Ping: The Great Mule of Eupatoria --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the harm. Some might object on the grounds that Wikipedia isn't a How To Do It Guide (WP:NOTHOWTO), but the table is also informative of diet, sociality and other things. It might be a good idea to template it, perhaps as an infobox, which would then set out the required parameters. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I would say its fully violates WP:NOTHOWTO, and I have removed the two that Ive encountered so far. Nothow makes it clear WP shouldnt be a source guide for how to do things such as how to care for aquaria.--Kevmin § 16:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It does not violate it at all. Things I have added in the table include the temperaments of the fish, as well as the temperatures they live in, as well as their diet. How is stating things that simulate their wild behaviours and preferences a how-to guide?

There’s a mycology table of similar information

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podaxis_pistillaris

Displays edibility, as well as identification but it’s encouraged on all mushroom or fungus related pages.

This doesn’t violate any Wikipedia policy--The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I will start with noting that the polish wiki is not relevant, since you have brought it up several times in edit summaries now. The different language wikis are autonomous and policy/practice at one is irrelevant on the others. The box as it is falls very much into the area talked about at WP:NOTHOWTO, as the article should discuss the natural habit conditions. This basically the same as having an infobox discussing the full range of habitable conditions that humans can keep hippopotamuses or polar bears in. Human containment is not the natural and will vary. The mycology box is different, as it only covers the natural aspects of the fungi that are used in identification if encountered, and notes if it is edible, that is all, its not a how to box for growing the fungi.--Kevmin § 17:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Then it can be modified to display the fish’s preferences (effectively the same thing without the tank size), I will show a demonstration of such a table soon and let’s see if it abides by the policy The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Problematic Cryptid fish

@The Great Mule of Eupatoria: has made three articles in the past week on fish "described" by William Beebe; Bathyembryx, Bathysidus, & Bathysphaera. The problem is that the genera (3 out of 6) were only sighted visually by Beebe from the view port of his submersible diring dives, no type specimens were ever taken. WoRMS does not have records for any of the genera, and I suspect the genera are nomen dubium at best, and likely nomen nudum. The articles probably shouldn't have taxoboxes, and should these be merged into List of Cryptids?--Kevmin § 19:41, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. In all three cases, that's remarkably flimsy sourcing and insufficient for what we would usually accept for a stand-alone cryptid article (although about par for this editor); and the taxoboxes are straight-up false information. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I concur. At the very least, the taxoboxes should be removed for being misleading. Wondering if the info in these articles is suited for merging into William Beebe? I don't know if that would be undue weight. bibliomaniac15 01:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
It's interesting that Bathysidus and Bathysphaera have taxonbars (supported by Wikidata items that precede the creation of articles on en.wiki) with links to databases that should be reliable for proving the existence of a scientific name. ZooBank (!!!) has a record for Bathysidus; there are Wikidata items for yeti and sasquatch footprints as ichnotaxa, but those aren't in ZooBank. Plantdrew (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. As for Bathysphaera, it does seem that the name was considered preoccupied when someone named a Radiolarian genus this way (page 245), which would indicate that it is not a nomen nudum. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Eschmeyer's Catalogue of Fishes

A new taxonomic database for fish has come to my attention: [Eschmeyer's Catalogue of Fishes], run by the California Academy of Sciences. This one seems to be more regularly updated than FishBase or Fishes of the World, our main sources until now. I'm not usually in favor of upending taxonomic authorities that Wikipedia relies on, but might we be able to rely on this source for fish taxonomy instead? Geekgecko (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Geekgecko I use the Catalog of Fishes and normally note where it and FishBase differ when editing an article, as I do when the 5th edition of Fishes of the World does not agree with Deepfin. Fishbase actually follows the Catalog of Fishes but tends to be slower to update. Catalog of Fishes security license needs to be updated, Windows 11 is flagging it as not https at the moment. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not new and Fishbase records link to CoF. They are quite complementary. CoF is more a taxonomic record, whereas Fishbase has far more on the biology. The latter is probably why Fishbase tends to lag CoF (although not always) as there is more work in updating the records. There's a page discussing the differences here. I also assume there is a discussion on why Fishbase is the preferred source for species somewhere in the Fish project archives. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Whoops, by "new" I meant "new to me". But still, should we follow the CoF taxonomy, or only Fishbase's? Geekgecko (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
The first revision of the project page from 2004 ([4]), suggests following FishBase, but also mentions citing ITIS when possible. Wikipedia discussions in that era often occurred on mailing lists, so I'm not sure if consensus to follow FishBase was ever really established formally. ITIS was being actively updated to follow CoF in 2004 (I should know, it was part of my employment at that time). I'm not sure how often ITIS is being updated now, but for purposes of early project discussions, ITIS=CoF. I suspect FishBase may have been chosen because it is/was more prominent in search engines than CoF (and ITIS would have also shown up more than CoF itself). (pertaining to the thread above, CoF/ITIS have an entry for Bathysphaera, for whatever that's worth). Plantdrew (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Help evaluate my stub article

Hi! I'm a university student currently working on the stub article called Kidako moray. I need someone to evaluate if my article is qualified for Wikipedia and give the article a rating. I would appreciate any advice on what improvement I could make. Thanks in advance! Mssecret774 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it could use some improvement. The tone isn't very good for Wikipedia, and some of the grammar is wrong. I'll help clean it up.
Asparagusus (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

Sacred Cod has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ɱ (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit dispute at Hagfish

I am in a dispute with another editor at Hagfish#Edit that does not belong in the article about whether mention of a road accident involving a load of hagfish belongs in the article. Is anyone interested in offering an opinion on that? - Donald Albury 23:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Error in Wikipedia article regarding Scorpaena Scrofa

Hi there,

I apologize if I'm posting in the wrong section, but I'm really a newbie regarding these matters.

Moving on, I'm currently doing a PHD in Scorpaena species of the Northeastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, and has such I've been doing a lot of research on these species. This brings me to the Wikipedia article https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Scorpaena_scrofa where I have the firm conviction that the image Grosserdrachenkopf-02.jpg is a misidentified Scorpaena notata, and not a scrofa.

My assumption is due to these following characteristics (comparing notata to scrofa): > Bigger eye. > Larger orbit/snout ratio. > Short supra-orbital tentacles. > Absence of sub-mandibular tentacles and skin flaps.

You may read more on these species and on identifying characteristics in: > A Systematic Review of the Scorpion-fishes of the Atlantic Ocean: (Pisces:Scorpaenidae) > Occasional papers of the California Academy of Sciences > Duncan M. Porter, Paul Henri Arnaud, William N. Eschmeyer > The Academy, 1969

> Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. v. 1. [1984] > Whitehead P.J.P. (ed.); Bauchot M. L. (ed.); Hureau J. C. (ed.); Nielsen J. (ed.); > et al. UNESCO, Paris (France)


Misinditification of these species is common, even within the Academia, but I kind of have an issue that one of the main results when searching for images of "Scorpaena scrofa" is one of what probably is another species.

How may I proceed to try to rectify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.210.215.6 (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there another image at c:Scorpaena scrofa that is correctly identified? You can just replace the misidentified image with a correct one. Plantdrew (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
194.210.215.6 I have changed the image, please check it to confirm it is correctly identified. Quetzal1964 (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Butterfish

Could you help to disambiguate the links to Butterfish shown at this list? I don't know enough about the different species to pick the right one.— Rod talk 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Mass_creation_of_pages_on_fish_species

You may be interested in this discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Mass_creation_of_pages_on_fish_species. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Article creation at scale discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale; the primary issue of concern is editors creating large numbers of stubs. Articles on species are repeatedly brought up as examples. "Large numbers" is not defined, but from the positions taken by some commenters an editor who regularly creates one article a day might be considered to be engaged in article creation at scale. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger of Antarctic fishes with Notothenioidei

I propose merging Antarctic fishes into Notothenioidei. There is a great deal of overlap between the two, and Antarctic fishes really only deals with Notothenioidei and does not cover other groupings such as eelpouts or snaifishes.Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of Parosphromenus Project Information

Hello, I'm hoping to create pages for the missing species of Parosphromenus. I just want to get confirmation as to whether [5]https://www.parosphromenus-project.org/en/ (The Parosphromenus Project) is a viable source before I use it. They cite the studies their information comes from, which would of course be used first, but they also have a lot of information about behavior that comes directly from the managers' experience keeping the fish, particularly with reproduction. BlitzarExotics (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Poacher (fish)

I have put a Requested move on this talk page. Any input, either way, would be welcome. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

GAR of Fish

Fish has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  1. Ocean sunfish
  2. Oceanic whitetip shark

Scombridae

Should Scombridae be classified as Scombriformes or Perciformes? The article uses the first, the category uses the second. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Scombriformes. Fishes of the World (5th ed.) is the source Wikipedia is following for higher level fish taxonomy, and the article on Scombriformes notes that the order is recognized in Fishes of the World. Articles are more likely to have been updated to follow FOTW than categories (but, as far as I'm aware, there are still some articles that need to be updated). Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I've moved categories Category:Scombroidei and Category:Stromateoidei to Category:Scombriformes. That should move Scombridae and other relevant families to the appropriate part of the category tree according to the FotW5 classification. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

New species in Halieutopsis

A new article, Halieutopsis kawaii, concerns one of five species newly described from existing collections in 2021. I can find no mention or uptake of these names anywhere else, and the original description is in a journal from a publisher of shaky repute (MDPI). The study seems rigorous enough. Should it be concerning that the classifications have not yet made it into any database? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Catalog of Fishes has kawaii, Halieutopsis Ho [H.-C. 2021] as valid[1] and has entries for all five new species (see Species that contain: Halieutopsis).[2] Fishbase tends to update slower as they have additional content on the biology. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Very good, thanks. I shall cite accordingly. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

There is also a little awkwardness in having articles for both Halieutopsis vermicularis and Halieutopsis nasuta. The Catalog of Fishes species list accepts Ho's conclusion that H. nasuta is a junior synonym of H. vermicularis. William Avery (talk) 13:33, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Species related to Halieutopsis kawaii". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 17 February 2023.
  2. ^ Eschmeyer, William N.; Fricke, Ron & van der Laan, Richard (eds.). "Species in the genus Halieutopsis". Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 17 February 2023.

Years in fish paleontology and Years in palaeoichthyology

There are 'year in subject' articles dealing with fish fossils, but there are two naming schemes used. Pre-2016, it is 'Year in fish paleontology'. 2016 and onwards is 'Year in paleoichthyology'. There is only one redirect between the naming schemes (2016). (Also the articles violate MOS:BOLDAVOID and WP:THISISALIST.) I'm not a fish guy so I'd thought to give you all the chance to hotly debate a title that all should adopt. Here are the articles I've found:

SWinxy (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Seeking help with Elisabeth Lippitsch

In taxa such as Mbipia and Haplochromis redlinks are made to Elizabeth, rather than Elisabeth Lippitsch. Her Wikispecies bio uses "s", as does her LinkedIn Profile and ResearchGate entry and the articles accessible there. As this is not my normal field of editing I thought I would raise it here, rather than simply being bold and making all the changes straight away. Oronsay (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed the spelling in Haplochromis. It was already correct in Mbipia. The links are still a redlinks, though. I wonder what the policy is for interwiki linking and whether it is appropriate to link to the Wikispecies bio page. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I will make changes to other taxon articles where that link has been entered in the next day or so. I haven't come across links to Wikisource bios in en:wiki and hers has little information in it, so I think it's probably best left as a straight redlink. Oronsay (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Eques (fish) and Equetus

FishBase places the spotted drum (E. punctatus) in the genus Equetus and the jack-knife fish (E. lanceolatus) in Eques. The type species of the genus Equetus is Equetus americanus which is a synonym of Eques lanceolatus. FishBase has made a clear error here and Catalog of Fishes has both E. punctatus and E. lanceolatus in the genus Eques. I think we should follow Catalog of Fishes in this case. Thoughts? Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a problem in a number of cases. Another is here where I provided the info, but it was subsequently "corrected" with the page moves eventually overwriting the actual, correct version. In that case, FishBase decided against following the 2006 taxonomic review where Ophthalmolebias was coined, but when O. ilheusensis was described as a new species in the genus in 2010, FishBase used the genus for just that one species. In direct conflict with the ICZN Code. It's the same way where we get the complete mess in the current versions of Simpsonichthys and related genera. These splits are a bit messy anyway (some unresolved poly/paraphyletic issues), but not as much as the current wiki treatment based on FishBase randomness without scientific support.
It usually happens when FishBase follows separate authorities without noticing that they conflict. For example, taxonomic authority 1 splits genus X into two, keeping some species in genus X and moving some species to the new genus Y. FishBase decides to adopt this treatment. Later, taxonomic authority 2, who disagrees with the changes made by authority 1, publish a description of a new species that is part of subgroup Y. However, because they don't recognize the genus split, they describe it in genus X. FishBase simply follows taxonomic authority 2 for the new species, not noticing the issue related to the genus split that they adopted earlier. In other cases, it is related to complete vs. national taxonomic reviews (e.g. adopting a complete taxonomic genus review, then later reversing this for a few species by following a review that only deals with species in one country), or taxonomic reviews where only some species were sampled (in most genera the subgroups are quite well-established and you only really need a genetic sequence from one species in each subgroup to get the full picture). Sometimes I've emailed FishBase about such issues and they've generally been responsive (e.g. they recognized Brochis [which almost certainly will become valid again for "Corydoras lineage 8" when the full review eventually is done] and Theragra [which is gone for good], but in both they used them without the type species). However, I don't really have the time to contact FishBase each time I notice an issue.
CoF has its occasional issues too (often caused by the same things as the FishBase problems), but they're rarer and typically correct themselves within a few months. FishBase is an excellent resource, by far the best single resource when it comes to basic info on appearance, behavior and distribution for fish species globally, but their taxonomic issues are more widespread and tend to stay up for longer. In taxonomy and nomenclature, the superiority of CoF became clear years ago. However, the format of FishBase is much more accessible to people without a deeper understanding of these things. RN1970 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I would support following CoF for taxonomic issues, at least some of the time. My understanding is that Fishbase uses the CoF classification and they diverge in two main cases, to which I'll add the above mismatch due to conflicting authorities.
  1. CoF makes a change and there is a lag before Fishbase adopts it because Fishbase has far more information to update (i.e. on the biology and ecology).
  2. There is a taxonomic issue that needs resolving before CoF makes a change and Fishbase has the biological and ecological information ready; in this case, Fishbase goes ahead to put the information out there. This is often new species, but there are also a few new families that Fishbase recognises that isn't in the CoF higher classification (I don't think this updated as often as the genus/species nomenclature information).
  3. Errors due to Fishbase following conflicting authorities (see above explanation by RN1970).
In the first case we can follow CoF in the expectation Fishbase will eventually follow, in the second it's the other way round. In the third we can expect Fishbase to eventually follow, but they may need prompting.
I wonder if its worth creating a hidden category and template to flag pages where the Fishbase and CoF taxonomy doesn't match. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis#Requested move 29 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis#Requested move 29 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Scaevius milii#Requested move 13 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scaevius milii#Requested move 13 November 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Help wanted with mass cleanup of vandalism to fish articles

Hello WPF. I'm here to ask for help with a big cleanup of vandalism to fish articles: please see WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alomomola_and_common_names_of_fish. If it's not clear what the problem is after reading that, I'm happy to supply examples of what needs reverting. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Wikishovel: Thanks for mentioning this here. I have been working on some of the cleanup tonight, but as someone who lacks extensive knowledge about fish, it is a rather difficult and time-consuming task. Hopefully, someone with fish expertise will be able to help. I will also post the request on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life page as well. Thanks again! Wikipedialuva (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. I'm no fish expert either, so you're right that the search part is difficult and time consuming. Didn't know there was a separate Marine Life project, and thanks very much for the post there: will keep an eye on it for advice. Wikishovel (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
@Wikishovel: I think that the fake common name "Bicolor conger" page title needing to be moved to the scientific name "Rhynchoconger bicoloratus" page is the last page move that needs to be done for this user's fake name vandalism. Since there was a redirect from the scientific name to the fake common name, I can't move it. I put in a move request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, but thought I'd let you know as well since you are a page mover. There is still work to be done on article bodies, but I believe this is the last of the moves that will need to be made. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Good catch Wikipedialuva, thank you. User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, could you please move Bicolor conger to Rhynchoconger bicoloratus without redirect? Thanks in advance, Wikishovel (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Wikishovel: Oops, I spoke too soon. "Brazilian puffer" also needs to be moved to "Sphoeroides camila" as well. It turns out there is more than one species commonly known as the "Brazilian puffer", but "Sphoeroides camila" does not appear to be one of them. Thanks again! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
How about we convert that into a disambiguation page then, listing the species that have that as a common name? So far, I can only see that in RS online as a common name for Colomesus asellus. Wikishovel (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Wikishovel: I looked into it more (as I noted earlier, I am far from a fish expert), and it appears that the different names I was seeing are all the same species: "colomesus asellus". (Colomesus asellus has been listed under different scientific names, including "chelichthys asellus", which I initially thought was a different species). When the current page "Brazilian puffer" (real name Sphoeroides camila) gets moved, the page can then be made to a redirect to the real "Brazilian puffer" (colomesus asellus) if that sounds good to you. Thanks again for all your help! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
User:The Blade of the Northern Lights has just moved Bicolor conger as requested above (thanks!), and for now I'm going to move Brazilian puffer to the now-G6'd Sphoeroides camila without a redirect, on the grounds of reverting vandalism by a blocked vandal. I'm no fish expert either, and would prefer to do the least harm possible while reverting vandalism. So I hope members of this WikiProject will feel free to create either a redirect or a disambiguation page as they see fit, if they can find RS to confirm the common name in the article(s) linked, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
@Wikishovel: Thanks for the move! I found a reliable source for the common name for "colomesus asellus" having the common name "Brazilian puffer" and added it (with WP:RS) to the article. If there are no objections, I'll create the page "Brazilian puffer" with a redirect to "colomesus asellus". Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The source describing Sphoeroides camila (Araujo et al 2023) gives proposed English (Southern bandtail puffer) and Brazilian (Baiacu-pinima) common names. These are not common names in the Wikipedia sense, as the scientific name is currently the most used name. It's a new fish species, recognised in Catalog of Fishes (which doesn't give common names), but not yet by Fishbase (which does). These two fish resources are usually in agreement, but Fishbase is more comprehensive and tends to be slower. I've remove Brazilian puffer from the Wikidata entry. There are quite a few common names edits at Wikidata Contributions:Alomomola. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Jts1882, I haven't even begun to look at cleanup of their Wikidata vandalism. Wikishovel (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
The ANI discussion has now been archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143#Alomomola and common names of fish, thanks again. Wikishovel (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Taxonomy issues near Istiophoridae

I had to make a quick edit at Template:Taxonomy/Istiophoridae because some other changes had caused a rank order error. Someone needs to investigate the taxonomy templates in this region of fish classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably should put it back to Istiophoriformes, as that is the classification followed by Fishes of the World (still the project preferred taxonomy) and Deepfin, although there is a newer lumpier classification from Thomas Near which places it in Carangoidei in Carangiformes. The Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes classification also puts it in Carangiformes, although in suborder Menoidei. Not sure what classification uses Xiphioidei, although Google throws up a few uses. It's a shame people are reluctant to source taxonomy templates.
The fish classification used has been discussed a few times, with the suggestion being it should move from FotW5 (2016) to Deepfin (2017), although now the Near classification needs consideration and ECoF (and hence Fishbase) are moving in that direction. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Given that the problems began with this edit followed by this one, restoring to Istiophoriformes seems sensible. I'll leave it to members of this project to deal with.
I do wholeheartedly agree that It's a shame people are reluctant to source taxonomy templates. Just a URL is enough to allow other editors to see where the classification comes from. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I've restored Istiophoriformes (consistent with FotW5 and Deepfin4), although I'm inclined to think a Carangiformes sensu lato with an appropriate suborder is the taxonomy that will probably become widely used. But we must follow. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I was looking at this and following WoRMS (in turn following Fishbase), where Xiphioidei has been moved to the Family level. However, that change postdates the 5th edition of Fishes of the World, which I believe is preferred here for taxa above genus level. I can't find a reference to Xiphioidei by Eschmeyer. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
ECoF uses suborder Menoidei, incuding three families Medidae, Ziphiidae and Istiophoridae, presumably because Meneis the sister of the latter two in the phylogenetic analysis by Ghezelayagh et al (2022). It seems Xiphioidei was created when it was decided that Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae were different from the other Scombroidei (e.g. see here), where they were place in FotW4. The Deepfin classification didn't use it as their Istiophoriformes just contains the two families, i.e. Xiphioidei is a synonym (although why Istiphoriformes and not Xiphiiformes?). —  Jts1882 | talk  18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, sorry for any problems caused. Presently, the taxobox on the billfish page seems to inaccurately classify the group as paraphyletic with respect to barracudas, even though all studies consider it a monophyletic group, with the most commonly-used name I can find for this clade being Xiphioidei. Xiphioidei is not used by taxonomic authorities, but I don't know how much of that is a consequence of the constantly changing order for the group. Papers that deal with the fossil members of the group still use it (see here, here, and here), so there doesn't appear to be any debate over its validity. For this reason, to properly define billfish as a monophyletic group and also have a taxon to keep stem-billfish under, I believe Xiphioidei should be used. There is also the fact that billfish are now classified in Carangiformes over Istiophoriformes but that's different debate. Geekgecko (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
{{Paraphyletic group}} is used in two different ways. One way is for paraphyletic groups that been named scientifically. Crustacean is an example of this. The lowest rank in the infobox is the scientific name, in bold and not a clickable link (this is set by using |taxon=). The other way the paraphyletic group template is used is for common names that don't correspond to any scientifically named taxon. The common name concept might be paraphyletic, or even polyphyletic. The lowest rank in the taxobox in this case is a clickable blue link (this is set by |parent=). Barracudas do not have bills; they aren't included in the common name concept of "billfish". Istiophoriformes is a separate article that covers billfish+barracudas, and it can be accessed by clicking the link in billfish. Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
You're right, but in any case I don't think we should necessarily define the group as such when a proper scientific term for the group already exists that just happens to be used more in paleoichthyology and mostly ignored by authorities for modern taxa that don't incorporate extinct groups. Geekgecko (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
We shouldn't get hung up on the name of the template, as its not reader facing. {{Paraphyletic group}} just provides alternative taxobox display options. I've demoed two options for billfishes:
  1. Change the groups included/excluded headings to remove the default cladisitically excluded text. See this edit.
  2. Use |informal=billfishes to show they are a subgroup within Istiophoriformes. See this edit.
There might be a case for using "xiphioids" for the informal name. They definitely are described as xiphioids in the literature and we don't need to refer to a formal taxonomy, which we would if using suborder Xiphioidei. I've made this change in this edit and left it as the live version (please revert as appropriate). Somewhere in the article it should mention that billfissh have sometimes being place in suborder Ziphioidei in Perciformes and referred to as xiphioids. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes/Archive_5&oldid=1263407977"