Talk:Vinagarra

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.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Vietnam Low‑importance

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that an image or images be included in this article to improve its quality.

Deletion request[edit]

This genus seems listed on a few databases as accepted. Why is it being proposed for deletion? --Nessie (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which databases? The ones I see don't list it.and nothing on a search at google or google scholar....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WoRMS, as linked in the taxonbar, and Catalog of Fishes (search here). Plantdrew (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

Removal of Labeoninae Category in Vingarra[edit]

Highflyingfish reverted a deletion I made for the Labeoninae category being removed from the Vinagarra article.....his reasoning "Reverting: Other genera in Labeoninae are placed in that category. Please discuss your reasoning on the talk page and establish consensus rather than revert-fuding"......So I thought I was following proper format, and already following consenus...….as in other taxonomic articles, I thought the genus article itself is placed in the genus category only, after which the genus category then placed under the family category, rather than having 1 genus articles placed in the genus and/or family/subfamily article..For example, Vinagarra article is placed only in the Vinagarra category, then the Vinagarra category is placed in the Labeoninae category......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at a few other genera linked from the Labeoninae article, and saw they were in the Labeoninae category. Therefore I assumed this should also be in the Labeoninae category. On further inspection though, the other genera I looked at were all monotypic, and looking at the ones with multiple species, they aren't in the Labeoninae category, so I may have made a mistake. That said I will @Micromesistius: since they also added the category back after it was initially removed. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon articles are placed in the lowest ranked category, and not in any parent categories. However, the category system for taxa is far from complete. If there a category for a genus, the article on that genus and any articles on species in the genus should be placed in the genus category. In many cases, there is no existing category for a genus; in that case, articles on the genus and its species can be placed in a subfamily (or family, suborder, etc.) category. However, it may be desirable to create a genus category when one doesn't already exist rather than using a subfamily category. There is no reason a genus should be in a subfamily category when it is a genus category that is itself a subcategory of a subfamily category. Plantdrew (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]