Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:FISH)
Jump to: navigation, search

WikiJournal of Science promotion[edit]

WikiJournal of Science logo.svg

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M. "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. 
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15. 


T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

CFD notification[edit]

Pictures[edit]

[1] I captured this fishes at Yeosu Hanhwa aqua planet. I don`t know what is their name so, piz discern this fishes and tell me whether the pictures are acceptable to upload on wikipedia or not.--Altostratus (talk) 01:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

ongoing move discussion[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Isurus hastalis#Requested move 2 April 2017, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Fish species English names[edit]

Anyone out there know if Wikiproject Fishes is using Fishbase as the standard for English names where there are no conflicts of multiple species using the same English name, or is there another way English names are chosen?......Pvmoutside (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Pvmoutside:, the de facto standard is basically Fishbase. Fishbase was also the de jure standard in 2007 (see old standard here), but the article naming convention was revamped after some discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Fishes/Archive 1#fauna article naming conventions). Fishbase apparently uses an algorithm to determine which name to display on a species page when there are multiple English names. The algorithm favors FAO names over AFS names, but favors AFS names over names from random books/checklists, which is basically in accordance with "prefer the common name most used (orthography aside) by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones" from WP:NCFAUNA. Plantdrew (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Fishes.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Fishes, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Wrong date for synonym in S. melanocercus -- nomenclature help?[edit]

Hi, so just for the record I don't know much about taxonomy, but in Symphodus melanocercus, I was trying to add the source for Risso 1810 for the synonym Crenilabrus melanocercus, but I only saw that name in Risso 1826 (Eur. Mér., now cited in the article). The 1826 description has (n.) next to the name, which to me suggests that (he thinks) it's a new species, so I'm confused why that synonym is dated 1810.

If Risso 1810 also refers to Ichthyologie de Nice, I don't see that name anywhere in that volume.

Other sources give 1826 / Eur. Mér. for the year of C. melanocercus, e.g., [2], [3].

Should the year for that synonym be changed? Or should it stay 1810, as per Fishbase [4] and the Red List [5]?

Thanks!

P.S., I'm not a biologist in case it isn't obvious, I just like finding sources :)

P.P.S., hopefully it's okay to ask this here instead of the article's talk page, I figured it was more active and that anyone who knows about fish taxonomy would be able to answer. :)

Umimmak (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Umimmak: a bit late, but I'll reply anyway. Authority depends on when a taxon was first described, i.e. species authority+year doesn't change just because a species is moved from genus A to genus B. The "n" is not widely used in ichthyology today (a bit different in some other fields) and refers to new combination (new being "nouveau/nouvelle" in French). In this case Risso described a species in 1810 (as Lutjanus melanocercus), but moved it to another genus in 1826, the result being a new combination of species name and genus name. So:
Crenilabrus melanocercus (Risso, 1810)
Crenilabrus melanocercus (Risso, 1826) – new combination
Following the usual standard in ichthyology, first is the primary to use. RN1970 (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@RN1970: thanks! I had only seen "n" to refer to a new species and "n. comb." for a new combination and so that tripped me up. So, should this combination in the synonym part of taxonbox be dated with the date of the new combination without parentheses "Crenilabrus melanocercus A. Risso, 1826" or remain with parentheses but with the date of the establishment of the specific epithet "Crenilabrus melanocercus (A. Risso, 1810)"? I've seen pages do both. I get that the species authority for Symphodus melanocercus should be (A. Risso, 1810) but when listing former combinations of the species it seems useful to say when that combination was made instead of repeating when the specific epithet was first used. I hope I'm clear with my question. Thanks. :) Umimmak (talk) 18:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@Umimmak: As mentioned in my previous post, the standard in ichthyology today is just species authority+year. I don't remember seeing authority+year of new combination in any recent publications in this field, but I could have missed one of course. It might be useful for wiki readers anyway; if you want to add it just make sure it is clear that authority+year refers to new combination (e.g., with the "n. comb."). ICZN requires no parentheses around species authority+year when using original combination and use of parentheses around species authority+year when a species changes genus, but lacks rules dealing with this when listing new combination authority+year. The nearest ICZN has is article 51G, but it is only a recommendation and whether that format is suitable for the synonyms section of the wiki taxobox is an open question. In this case it would be: Crenilabrus melanocercus (Risso, 1810) Risso, 1826.
BTW, in cases where only one major authority with a specific surname has described taxa, the surname is generally enough. Antoine Risso is one such case and in species authority his name will typically be listed simply as Risso (instead of Antoine Risso or A. Risso). Unfortunately zoology lacks an official authority importance list similar to the one in botany. If unfamilar with a name it's generally a good idea to check major works like FishBase or IUCN. RN1970 (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@RN1970: ah okay thanks. I think I got confused before and didn't realize you were talking about synonyms and thought the author citation for the species was somehow different. Okay I'll leave the synonym as is then since you said it's still an open question as to how one should format these for wikipedia taxonboxes :) ! Umimmak (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Help on a new article[edit]

Mobulidae is a new article that looks well-documented, but none of the sources are available online. The infobox is all screw-if. Would really appreciate someone with more knowledge of marine life than I have to take a look and clean it up. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 02:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to Plantdrew for taking care of this.Onel5969 TT me 13:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon at FA[edit]

I've just nominated Megalodon (a really big shark from a really long time ago) to FA. Feel free to proceed to the nomination page in a calm and orderly fashion and deposit your initial remarks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

On my "to do" list. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Saluda darter and Carolina darter[edit]

I recently removed most of the content from Saluda darter because it was copied from here. When I googled to try to find information to add to the article, I found that the Saluda darter is now understood to be the same fish as the Carolina darter (dnr.sc.gov). I know nothing about fish and less than that about distinguishing between species, so I would appreciate input, but it seems that we could merge the Saluda and Carolina darter articles. What do you think? Leschnei (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

They should probably stay as separate articles for the time being. Catalog of Fishes ([6][7]) currently recognizes both species as does Fishbase (although Fishbase does have a note at Etheostoma collis about the synonymy). ~!Plantdrew (talk)
OK, thanks for the input. Leschnei (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

List of brackishwater and introduced fish of Sri Lanka[edit]

I'm confused by the content of this page. Does it list fish that are both brackishwater and introduced (not native to Sri Lanka)? Or does it list both non-native fish and brackishwater fish? If so, which ones are which? I think this would also be confusing for many readers. See Talk:List of brackishwater and introduced fish of Sri Lanka#Brackishwater and Introduced? for the talk page discussion on this matter. Input would be appreciated. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a very ambiguous title for a page........ It should be split, as it is not very useful...... List of introduced fish of Sri Lanka and List of freshwater fish of Sri Lanka would be better choices......Let me know if you'd like setting up a discussion regarding this.....Pvmoutside (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
There's already a discussion on its talk, but currently lacking in comments: Talk:List of brackishwater and introduced fish of Sri Lanka.
As I mentioned there I only see two possibilities: Option 1. Split the article into an article for introduced fish species and another for brackish water fish species in general. Option 2. Move article to introduced fish species and remove everything for brackish water. If someone wants to save the brackish water section it could be done, but at present the listing is so incomplete that it is essentially useless. There is already a List of freshwater fish of Sri Lanka, which based on a very fast look is pretty accurate. RN1970 (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the page is confusing with its ambiguous compound title. I would support Option 1 (splitting the article contents into a List of brackish water fish of Sri Lanka and a List of introduced fish of Sri Lanka pages) with the caveat that both new pages would be incomplete lists until the remaining missing species are added. Loopy30 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes[edit]

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes seems pretty dead at the moment. (The last messages on its talk page are from 2014.) Does anybody want to revive the wikiproject with me? Antrogh (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

i'm here.....Pvmoutside (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Is anyone else? Is it active as a WikiProject, or just a few people editing aquarium fishes articles? Antrogh (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Tuskfish page improvement[edit]

Hey, nonmember here, but I came across the page orange-dotted tuskfish after seeing the animal featured in the BBC's new nature documentary Blue Planet II. The page is a stub right now, but with the increased coverage from the TV special, it might be possible to do a quick expand. Just a thought. -- 2ReinreB2 (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)