Talk:Murray River rainbowfish

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Murray River rainbowfish article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Murray River rainbowfish appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 May 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that because their range is the southernmost of all rainbowfishes, Australian rainbowfish can tolerate low winter temperatures of 10 to 15 °C (50 to 59 °F)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/May.

Wikipedia

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: New South Wales / Queensland / Victoria / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Murray River rainbowfish is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Queensland (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Victoria, or the State Library of Queensland.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Aquarium Fishes Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Polish and German Wikipedia articles

Do the following articles represent the same Australian rainbowfish: pl:Tęczanka większa and de:Schwarzband-Regenbogenfisch? --Kimse (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over four years late, but they are not the same species. Those articles are about the black-banded rainbowfish, and I have removed the incorrect Wikidata link to the Polish Wikipedia. There's no article about Melanotaenia fluviatilis on the Polish Wikipedia, so I'm unable to replace it with an accurate link. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change

I am proposing that we change the name of this article to Melanotaenia fluviatilis, because it is somewhat confusing ascribing "Australian Rainbowfish" only to M.fluviatilis because Melanotaenia duboulayi is also called Australian Rianbowfish in the aquarium trade and is also historically the original "Australian rainbowfish". To quote: Melanotaenia duboulayi is the original "Australian Rainbowfish" and were being maintained in the aquarium hobby around the turn of the twentieth century. [1] Also, to add to the confusion the Australian Melanotaenia genus is generally referred to as "rainbowfish". So it would seem most precise to use the taxonomic name as the title for this article. Any comments? John Moss (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

oops ...had a problem with trying italicize the heading on the name change and can't switch it for some reason. Can anyone help?John Moss (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Melanotaenia fluviatilis. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100529065049/http://members.optusnet.com.au/rainbowfishes/Fluviatilis.htm to http://members.optusnet.com.au/rainbowfishes/Fluviatilis.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 August 2023

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that "Murray River rainbowfish" is the WP:COMMONNAME above other vernacular names for the species. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melanotaenia fluviatilis → Murray River rainbowfish – Sorry to dig this up again @John Moss. The citation (https://fishbase.mnhn.fr/comnames/CommonNamesList.php?ID=22685&GenusName=Melanotaenia&SpeciesName=fluviatilis&StockCode=18008) doesn't give any evidence to back up this statement "The Australian rainbowfish (Melanotaenia fluviatilis), known less commonly as the Murray River rainbowfish". There are a whole bunch of species that could be called "Australian rainbowfish", not just Melanotaenia fluviatilis. As per WP:NCFAUNA, "Use the most common name when possible". The most common name for this species is Murray River rainbowfish. Any objections if I WP:MOVE this?

99% fad-free (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Multiple vernacular names exist. The scientific name is the most commonly used name. All of the websites above give the scientific name. Three of them call it "Murray River rainbow", and other names mentioned in the above websites include: crimson-spotted rainbowfish, Murray-Darling rainbowfish, Crimson-spotted Jewelfish, Crimson-spotted Jewel-fish, Murray River Sunfish, Murray-Darling Sunfish, Pink Ear, Pink-ear, Pink-eared Rainbowfish, Rainbow-fish. Plantdrew (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In reality here in Victoria, there is only one vernacular in common usage, which is Murray River rainbowfish. I'm not sure whether we are referring to the same websites, but the majority of the websites in the list I gave put "Murray River rainbowfish" or "Murray River rainbow" as the most prominent common name. I agree that there are other names, but the preponderance of sources seem to agree. Here are plenty more sources below that also list "Murray River rainbowfish" as the most prominent common name. I can take some pictures of the common name in use at local aquariums around here too if it would help, but I think that would breach Wikipedia:No original research ;).
99% fad-free (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, Fishbase, which Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aquarium_Fishes#Taxonomy_references gives guidance as being the authoritative source. I believe it's referencing Allen, G.R., 1989. Freshwater fishes of Australia.

https://fishbase.mnhn.fr/summary/Melanotaenia-fluviatilis.html 99% fad-free (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, from Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Use_the_most_common_name_when_possible, the most common vernacular name is the most appropriate when it is unambiguously referring to that species, as is the case with Murray River rainbowfish.

"Article titles are determined by the application of five criteria. The article title should usually consist of the name that is most common in English, following WP:Article titles § Common names. For well known animals, this will normally be the vernacular name (exceptions are detailed below)".

Although the scientific name is used alongside the vernacular, the vernacular is more appropriate according to policy as well as general readability. When people talk about, write about, reference the species, they are usually using the vernacular. Of course in scientific publications they are more likely to use the scientific name, but that doesn't stop us from using the vernacular which is usually also the most common name in English, Wikipedia being an encylopaedia, not a scientific publication.

Sorry for not being WP:Succinct. I am still developing my knowledge of Wikipedia practices. 99% fad-free (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. It does look like the WP:COMMONNAME is as proposed, and if there are other titles they are not widely used. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Fishes has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Aquarium Fishes has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Australia has been notified of this discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's tricky to use common names for aquarium fishes, not only because there can be many of them but also because a common name can refer to multiple species, and the Latin name is unambiguous. But Murray River rainbowfish should definitely be a redirect to this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you got any policy guidance that can help us here? I'm not a fan of relying purely on policy, but in this case the policy seems to be providing us with good guidance. e.g. Neon tetra is an aquarium fish and we use the common name in that scenario. In this case, Murray River rainbowfish unambiguously refers to Melanotaenia fluviatilis. WP:NCFAUNA advises to use the common name in this case. Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes#Common name or scientific_name refers us to Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes#Fish names and article titles:

"Common name or scientific name

Article titles should be determined using the guidelines at WP:FISH (naming guidelines)".

Under "Article titles", I believe that item 1(ii) is applicable.

"Article naming for fishes differs, as detailed below, from Naming conventions (fauna).

Use the common name for any species that satisfies at least one of the following criteria:

..

1(ii) The species has a widely recognised common name that is so rarely applied to other species that confusion as to the subject of the article is unlikely to arise. Example: Guppy."

Murray River rainbowfish is a widely recognised common name and is rarely (or hardly ever) applied to other species. The guidelines state that only one of the criteria needs to be met. This doesn't exclude other common names from existing or being referenced in the article or being used as redirects.

Although unnecessary (it only needs to satisfy one), I believe it also satisifies 1(iv):

"1(iv) The species has a common name that is normally seprated from similar common names by use of geographical, descriptive, or other modifications to those names. Once differentiated, these names satisfy criteria i, ii, or iii above. Examples: Shovelnose sturgeon, Little shovelnose sturgeon, False shovelnose sturgeon."

Crimson-spotted rainbowfish also refers to Melanotaenia duboulayi, which was originally believed to be the same species as Melanotaenia fluviatilis, hence the confusion. Murray River rainbowfish came to refer to Melanotaenia fluviatilis unambiguously as a geographical modification to Crimson-spotted rainbowfish or any other type of rainbowfish. Perhaps decades ago, when the species were only just discovered to be different, it wouldn't have been appropriate to use a common name that wasn't well established, but, at this point in time, the common name has become entrenched. I believe it also satisfies criteria 1(i) and 1(iii) and can go into further detail as to my reasons if necessary. 99% fad-free (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Policy seems clear on this, and so do the sources - the common name is the preferred name and there is a clear common name to use here. JTdale 🗩 11:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.