Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


Taxonomic status of Limia

doi:10.1006/mpev.1998.0600 suggests that it is not any more distant from Poecilia than are guppies, and strongly supports monophyly of Poecilia sensu lato. So, what to do? The references is from the "late stone age" of molecular systematics, and I don't know whether it's reliable. It looks fairly good for its age though, and a Scopus check does not show any updates to the 1999 study except doi:10.1006/mpev.2000.0919 which does only concern itself with Limia internal phylogeny, and Poeser's 2003 paper, of which I can only access the abstract and which does not seem to be terribly relevant or contradict the 1999 study.

If I shall revise the group, drop me a msg on my talk page. It would - for the time being - mean reassigning Limia to Poecilia for the sake of consistency, as the content of the lineages is not finally established. The limia page will be kept separate however and it will all be explained in the articles' text: it's highly probable that the eventual outcome will be a split of Poecilia (+ Limia) into 6.

Yes I know FishBase considers Limia distinct. But FishBase is simply wrong here; their "Poecilia" is paraphyletic with regards to Limia, Micropoecilia (=Lebistes as far as anyone can tell - perhaps a subgenus, perhaps not even that!) and (non-monophyletic) Pamphorichthys. Dysmorodrepanis 08:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to offer what I hope is an expert opinion here, though I admit my PhD is in morphological cladistics rather than molecular phylogeny. A genus is forever. Whether or not one person sinks it into another doesn't really matter. The genus itself always deserves an article. Within that article there is scope to describe its usage. So you could say something along the lines of "According to Smith (2005) Limia is paraphyletic and the species assigned to it are best referred to Poecilia pending further analysis, while Jones (2006) maintains that that Limia is a distinctive clade characterised by distinct morphology including the presence of the such-and-such bone in the skull". It is very, VERY important for amateurs outside the field of taxonomy to understand that taxonomy isn't static, and that giving names to taxa isn't like naming a steam train or cataloguing stamps. Nothing above species level "means" anything in Nature, it's all just housekeeping, and sometimes it is revealed that the way things are arranged now isn't as good as it could be. The science of taxonomy is all about moving things about from group to group to better understand relationships. But it isn't "real" and each Limia species doesn't swim about thinking, "Hey, it's so cool I'm a Limia and so different to those plebian Poecilia types". So, go back to the Limia article and simply explain the debate and cite the relevant papers. We've had a similar situation with Maylandia versus Metriaclima and had to create and edit articles accordingly. There isn't a "correct" answer and both genus names are meaningful, even if one of them isn't currently used. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree, except with "A genus is forever". If a genus cannot be distinguished based on consistent (and meaningful) characters from another, it's a junior synonym. This is not entirely the case here; what I can make of the data is that Limia might well be still valid, but that apparently not all limias are indeed limias. So 2 alternatives exist: a) it's a junior synonym of the definitely monophyletic Poecilia (meaning that the characters "defining" Limia are meaningless because they are a product of convergent evolution), or b) it isn't but what precisely belongs into it is not as of present known with certainty. I have refrained from major changes on both pages, because I feel that these are warranted but would be more extensive than I'm willing to do (it would encompass a lot of changes on the family pages etc). It's basically a matter for this project to decide. You folks ought to check out the paper and then change it or drop me a note; I could whip up a short blurb to tell readers what's going on here in no time.
The main problem is actually the genus list on Poeciliidae, namely Pamphorichthys and Micropoecilia. Especially the latter. What to do? Maybe Limia could be struck from the family page; in that case Poecilia would need to be listed with an addition like:
(supergenus: includes limias, mollies, guppies, etc).
That would be the easiest way to achieve consistency, because nobody seems really to know what to make of the group With Poecilia sensu lato we have a definite cutoff point; further differentiation at genus level seems desirable, but also seems to require more research. In such a case, the limia article could be left essentially unchanged, with a note that the group seems to be a distinct genus but its delimitation is uncertain, or that it could be lumped into Poecilia if the latter is entirely unresolveable. Poecilia on the other hand would need to be changed more profoundly, i.e. including the micropoecilias, the Pamphorichthys etc, and mention the limias, with discussion of each of these.
Unfortunately, hybridization has played fast and loose with characters morphological and mtDNA alike in these guys, so all that can be said is that if the limias are considered distinct, the guppies and micropoecilias, and others, probably would need to be split too. How exactly? Impossible to tell at this time. Dysmorodrepanis 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

fish-stub subtypes proposed

It's nothing much to look at right now, but I've started a proposal to create a number of additional stub types corresponding to various fish taxons, to help deal with the huge number of articles in Category:Cichlidae stubs. More details to follow when I've bashed some numbers into place. Alai 07:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Animals project proposal

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

Beardslee trout

The only latin name for this fish I've been able to find is salmo gairdneri beardleei, but it seems it should have an Oncorynchus name, being a subspecies of Rainbow trout. Anyone got any newer info than I'm finding? Murderbike 22:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

According to FishBase, this scientific name is a synonym of Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus. See here. MiltonT 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Definitely Oncorhynchus something; the "Pacific" salmons & trouts have been moved out of Salmo for some time. mykiss I'm not so sure but from which source List of species native to Washington lists it as cutthroat trout subspecies I'm not sure either (cutthroat and rainbow are not 100% precisely delimited in the literature, so it's not astounding that there is uncertainty). In any case, I think more current information lacking, we should go with FishBase as usual, and I have edited the articke (+ taxobox) to that effect.
Some sources use clarkii instead of clarki for the Cutthroat. This needs to be checked out. Dysmorodrepanis 08:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Feature article candidate: Halfbeak

We already have Good Article status for this, but there's a whole bunch of mostly technical rather than content changes that need to be done for Feature status. Formatting references for example. You can see the discussion here. If anyone wants to help out, that would be much appreciated. Even if you can't make these changes, adding positive comments to the review would be appreciated. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 10:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to massive amounts of work from MiltonT, this article is really looking good now. Please please please stop by, edit if you want, and then leave your thoughts on its FA Discussion pages. It's really only grammatical stuff people are commenting on, so the more people who read and tweak, the better. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of introduced fish in Australia

I think this list is just about a featured list candidate. Any suggestions/improvements would be appreciated. Abbott75 10:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Flying fish?

What do you think this fish is? Bewareofdog 02:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Seahorse image nominated as a featured picture

An image of a seahorse has been nominated as a featured picture candidate, and I think some ichthyological info would help the image types out. If anyone knows about seahorses, dried or skeletal, their input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Enuja 01:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Done, and supported with comments. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sand whiting nominated for GA

I have nominated Sand whiting for GA status; if anyone could check the article out and review it that would be great. Also, if anyone has any idea where i can find free images (apart from flickr) for the species that would be great. Cheers Kare Kare 04:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

GA passed Kare Kare 02:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

afjdfl;kajdfal;kfj —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinomial authorities

Is there an easy online way to find these? Murderbike 05:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes

I notice there are two categories. Should they not be merged? And can one of the members here please archive the page? The length is ridiculous. Richard001 09:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Done archiving, was about time! --Stefan talk 00:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
As for cats, yes they should be merged, but not sure which to which, I have asked User:Twp if it matters to User:PhotoCatBot and will try to merge accordingly. --Stefan talk 01:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for adding the second category; I had not noticed that Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes already existed. I am fine with merging either category to the other, and will adjust PhotoCatBot as necessary to conform with the consensus of the WikiProject Fishes community. Tim Pierce 01:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We should have standards for how to name these categories ... but I guess that is impossible to do in wikipedia today, anyway then I suggest to merge the new category into the old, i.e. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fish to be merged into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes. I will do that unless anyone protests. --Stefan talk 06:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the bot to put articles in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes. I also suggest just redirecting the "fish" category to "fishes" -- no need to bother with the deletion process. Tim Pierce 14:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Standards are certainly possible, though it would take a lot of work to readjust the existing category names. The WikiProject Council and photos project would be suitable places to discuss. Richard001 (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Category:Lamprologini stubs: sanity-check, and defining article, please?

I'm trying to sort out the still-oversized Category:cichlidae stubs; could someone first, confirm that Lamprologini is a "sensible" taxon (tribe), and secondly, if at all possible, write a reasonable-ish stub to define it? It'd look very silly if I end up creating a stub template with a redlinked scoping statement... Alai 06:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"catfish stubs" renaming

Over at SFD, I've proposed renaming Category:catfish stubs to be more in line with the permanent category Category:Siluriformes. I realize I could be rushing in where angels fear to tread on the "common names" issue, but I'd just like consistency one way or the other. (I'd be equally happy with renaming Category:Siluriformes to Category:catfish.) Alai 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Horseface loach

Horseface loach has not been bred in captivity? can an expert confirm? Rich Farmbrough, 20:17 7 September 2007 (GMT).

I'd need to do some further reading, but it's almost certainly true. Very few of the loaches have bred in captivity for reasons as yet unclear. Clown loaches are commercially spawned (as I understand it) using hormones, where their value justifies the expense. But horseface loaches don't have the same value, so this isn't likely to be done in this case. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Do you like this drawing? Or is it 'too kiddy'? --HoopoeBaijiKite 23:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally... no. It looks like it was done in 5 minutes in Microsoft Paint. Nice teeth though... looks like Godzilla. Personally, i find sketching on paper and scanning these hand drawn images into a photoshop type program for further clean up is the way to go to get anatomically correct sketches. Also note that you can't copyright the images if they are to be uploaded to the commons. Cheers Kare Kare 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I could try fixing it. ;) --HoopoeBaijiKite 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but try to keep your illustrations as anatomically correct as possible. If you have a scanner, i would suggest doing as i stated above, but scrap that first image... generally drawing things on a computer gives very poor quality unless you are using top notch programs and are really experienced. We never seem to be overloaded with fish images so anything you contribute helps. Kare Kare 01:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Requesting comments on merge

Requesting wider input on proposed merge of related articles cleaner fish, (with) cleaner shrimp and(/or) cleaner station. Richard001 10:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Pygmy Whitefish

If someone could take a look at this article, it needs SERIOUS help. Murderbike 19:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sea Robin Images

Not sure if you have a use for these, but I've uploaded a few to Commons. I'm not sure which type of Sea Robin it is, it was caught in New Haven, CT.

Sea Robin I, Sea Robin II

I've uploaded a few other weird angle shots to Flickr under CC-BY-SA. My userID is the same there as it is here.. --Versageek 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New user needing a mentor, contribs needing work

There is a new user with a definite interest in fish articles. They need a mentor on how to create a good Wikipedia article. (I suspect copyright violation issues in their work, and it is all completely unwikified.) The new user is User:Aquaticspeciesatrisk. Given the topical interest, can someone from this project help bring them onboard? GRBerry 18:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

category defaultsort

I was about to do a category defaultsort on some fish articles, but thought I'd better ask here first. Would it be OK to do this? it would mean entering (for example)

{{DEFAULTSORT:Halibut, Greenland}}

Making the Greenland halibut under H rather than G, so that all the halibut are easier to find on the category page. This is of course the way it should be done for biographical articles - but why not for biology articles? Opinions please. Totnesmartin 11:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Lets think this through. We have multiple cases, depending on category type (taxonomic category or not) and article naming style (common or scientific name). In this comment I'll use "SN" for "scientific name" and "CN" for common name. Here is what I propose:
  1. Taxonomic category (e.g. Category:Acipenseriformes) - I'd think all articles should be listed under the SN, and if the article is at the CN then also the CN with the SN added. SN articles and redirects get categorized as is. CN get categorized as CN (SN). If a CN article doesn't already have SN redirect, create the redirect (which we should have anyway) and categorize the redirect.
  2. Taxonomic category (e.g. Category:Cichlidae), articles with sub-articles. Sub-articles that are scientific topics (consensus judgment call) get listed in the taxonmoic category, those that aren't don't. If listed, they get categorized as the primary article and the differentiating term So Tilapiine cichlid would be sorted as "Tilapiini" (SN, from the redirect) and "Tilapine chichlid (Tilapiini)" (CN). Tilapia would then be sorted as "Tilapia (Tilapiini)". Tilapia in aquaculture I'd judge not appropriate for the category, and omit. Tilapia as exotic species I'd judge as appropriate and include as "Tilapia (Tilapiini) as exotic species"
  3. Non-taxonomic category (e.g. Category:Edible fish), CNs denote a real relationship - Categorize by common name of the group, then individual common name and possibly derivative common name. Also show the SN. Almost all Mackerel are of the Family Scombridae. So list in the category "Mackerel, Streaked Spanish (Scomberomorus lineolatus)", "Mackerel, King (Scomberomorus cavalla)", and "Mackerel, King, Indo-Pacific (Scomberomorus guttatus)".
  4. Non-taxonomic category (e.g. Category:Edible fish), CNs don't indicate a real relationship - Categorize by CN, show SN, ignore the common feature of the common name. "Whiting" has been used in different countries to refer to several different kinds of edible fish with white meat. Thus, instead of including "Merlangius merlangus" in the category, it should be listed as either "English Whiting (Merlangius merlangus)" or as "Whiting ((Merlangius merlangus)". Similarly, another entry would be "Sand whiting (Sillago ciliata)". We would not want to sort these two as both being Whiting, as Whiting is not a real relationship name, and these two species are of the same Class, but different Orders and Families.
  5. Non-taxonomic category (e.g. Category:Edible fish), article and sub-article - Categorize as the primary article and the differentiating term. So Tilapia gets some sorting, then Tilapia in aquaculture gets the same sorting with "in aquaculture" added on the end.
But, having said this much, I also think that this is a question better posed to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life as it would be best to have a common convention for all the different kinds of biota. Can we move the question there? GRBerry 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with posing the question at TOL, as it applies to birds as well - the question occurred to because i was populating a category about a habitat (Category:British Isles coastal fauna). See you there. Totnesmartin 14:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Southern black bream up for GA

I've nominated Southern black bream for GA, so if someone wants to check it out or review it that would be great. It should pass no problem, as it is comprehensive, well referenced and has had a couple of copyedits during its time as a DYK on the main page. Kare Kare 08:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Identify fish?

Is anyone able to identify this fish for me? I found it washed up on Broughton Island, near Newcastle, NSW, Australia. --liquidGhoul 12:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's "clearly" the "invisible" fish. Seriously, do you have a pic or something? It's gonna be hard to do by remote viewing... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha, you got me. Woops. Here it is.
Thanks --liquidGhoul 13:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
My guess is the "Eastern smooth boxfish". Here's an image of a dried-out specimen found on a beach in NSW. [1]Dave (Talk | contribs) 13:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So, now, who is going to create the article on the "Eastern smooth boxfish"? (And why isn't the species mentioned in the article boxfish?) For this questioner, how do we distinguish the Eastern smooth from other boxfish? Do others live in the area? GRBerry 14:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It appears both the article and fishbase are missing a substantial number of genera. If you want to update the list you'll have to use ITIS. And as for distinguishing it, its like any other fish in the same genera, there are only small features that allow identification between species. In this case, there are a couple of other boxfish in the area but they tend to have eye 'horns' and spiky dorsal protrusions ie they are not 'smooth'. There is also a western smooth boxfish to add to the fun, but it is primarily a WA species. Kare Kare 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know. It doesn't look like an Eastern smooth boxfish to me. Although the specimen you found looks dried out so maybe it's lost some of it's pigmentation. Jnpet 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say that's the case, as it is the only southern boxfish (it definately is a boxfish) that doesn't have a number of cartilaginous dorsal protrusions. That being said, it could be a more tropical species that i can't identify. Also, it appears fishbase classifies boxfish in 2 different families, while ITIS has them in one family and two subfamilies - the eastern boxfish is in the Aracanidae family under fishbase classification. Does someone have the new 'Fishes of the World' to see what it classifies them as? Kare Kare 02:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Category:Syngnathidae is orphaned. Maybe someone here will know what parent category (or categories) it belongs in. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Added to Category:Syngnathiformes. Thanks for the heads-up. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fish stocking question

I was wondering if there was an article to link to for fish stocking (adding fish raised elsewhere to streams or lakes, primarily to be caught by anglers)? I am interested for its inclusion in articles on streams and state parks - another editor used fish stock in White Deer Hole Creek (in the lead, second paragraph " The rest of the creek and its major tributary (Spring Creek) are kept stocked."), but I am not sure this is the best link for the concept. Any ideas or suggestions? If no article exists, can I please request one? Thanks in advance for any help with this, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You can request one. Of course the right response is for us to suggest you create one since you want it. (Wikipedia:Requested articles also exists, but don't expect a new article in the next few months if you use that dusty path. Poking through the subcategories of Category:Fishing, I don't find anything. So please go forth and create an appropriate article. GRBerry 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I will make a stub - was mostly checking here to make sure I wasn't missing the obvious and to make sure the article title fish stocking is OK (in rivers, watershed means different things on different sides of the Atlantic). Thanks again for a very quick reply, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Bermuda blue angelfish

The Bermuda blue angelfish and its synonyn the blue angelfish each have their own article. is there any easy way to fix this, both seem to be mentioned also in their corner of wiki. Ryan shell (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

blue angelfish is a disambiguous page, as there are two species (Holacanthus isabelita and Holacanthus bermudensis) commonly referred to by that common name.Rabo3 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


I've stumbled across stuff talking about a Prosopium snyderi, which is not listed in this article. I'm definitely not a fish expert, so don't really know much about figuring out if it's appropriate to add this species to the family article. Thoughts? Murderbike (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That name is a junior synonym of Prosopium coulterii, so don't add it. Many fish species have been scientifically described a number of times. Only the first correct naming is used as per the ICZN rules. Cheers Kare Kare (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong picture?

There is a question on talk:Thicklip grey mullet about whether the correct picture is being used. Could anyone here help? Totnesmartin (talk) 11:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior AfD

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sturgeon stub

I created a sturgeon stub template and posted on the main Project page. It's my very first totally home-made (i.e. shamelessly plagiarized) template. Then I went through and attached it to all the stubby sturgeon articles (which is about 80% of them), replacing the fish-stubs. I hope that was an appropriate thing to do. Best, Eliezg (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Celestichthys into Danio?

The PDF of the recent study is here. Though the molecular part of the study is not very comprehensive, it seems sufficient as the "core" Danio are all included. And the Celestial Pearl together with "Microrasbora" erythromicron forms a lineage within these solidly enough. They appear closer to the zebra danio than the type species of Danio is. Considering all data now at hand, it appears as if one of 2 courses of action needs to be followed:

  1. merge the CPD and the "microdanio" into Danio
  2. make Danio monotypic

I don't think anyone would suggest the latter; after all that Danio has gone through, it deserves a bit of dignity ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Is this project going to get an assessment system running soon? Writing articles on all the world's fish and fish related topics is a huge undertaking, and an assessment program is essential for any serious effort. At the moment one has to use the animals template to add a rating, and there plenty of other animals to worry about without adding fish to that list. Richard001 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Mudfish redirect

"Mudfish" redirects to the Neochanna article, but Mudfish is also a common name for the "Bowfin"... What exactly are you supposed to do in this case? 8thstar 02:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a disambiguation page at mudfish. Judging by Google, the bowfin seems to be the fish most commonly meant by the name, but I was impressed how many other fishes are also known as mudfish. Qatter (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance

The article on Misgurnus anguillicaudatus is currently at weather loach, even though the article itself says that that is an ambiguous name. I've suggested a move on the talk page, without objection (or other comment). Either Misgurnus anguillicaudatus or dojo loach seem like preferable titles, but unfortunately both redirects have a history, so I cannot do the move myself. Am I right about the move? Could an administrator lend a hand? Thanks - Qatter (talk) 06:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, I believe cave catfish should be moved to Clarias cavernicola. I'm happy to create the disambiguation pages and do whatever other clean up is appropriate, if someone with the keys can do the move. Thanks again - Qatter (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Move of the first done. Regarding cave catfish, let me know what other contenders are for the common name and I will move that as well. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. The most prominent other contender is Horaglanis krishnai. Minor contenders include Prietella species [2] and Trichomycterus itacarambiensis [3]. And there's also the generic use, analogous to cave insects. Qatter (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Shyamal (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maluku frogfish

Hello...I'm wondering how I can find the species release papers on this fish. They haven't come out yet, but I'm wondering when/where I can expect to find them, since I'm working on the fish's writeup. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


Image:SchizothoraxPithoragarh.jpg is apparently a Schizothorax. This was from the Goriganga river in the Central Himalayas of India. Locally called Asela and Snow trout. If someone can put a better id and use it, please do feel free to do so. Cheers. Shyamal (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Endothermy in sharks

As I understand it, many sharks display endothermy. Fish says that they do. Chondrichthyes says that they don't. We need to reconcile these. See also Talk:Chondrichthyes. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


Question - What is this Image:DSCN0437.JPG? ~ JohnnyMrNinja 01:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Betta, got it. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 5450 articles are assigned to this project, of which 267, or 4.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Need redirect from Giant perch

Need redirect from Giant perch. Should it redirect to [[Barramundi] or Lates? Badagnani (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should link to Barramundi, unless you have reason to link it to the genus. Kare Kare (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

help identifying pufferfish species

Green pufferfish?

Hi, I recently took the image at right in the New England Aquarium, where that tank was labelled as the Green pufferfish (Tetraodon fluviatilis), along with some other clearly non-pufferfish species in the tank (Monodactylus and Scataphagus spp.). However, comparing this photo to other photos posted on the web of T. fluviatilis, it looks a bit different! I'm wondering whether the tank was mislabelled (I've noticed that the aquarium is not always careful about keeping the labels up to date as they move fish around), or whether there is just a lot of variation in coloration within this species.

Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks! —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagle shark

Header says it all, please comment. I assume it is a hoax, but am happy if anyone can find a reference. --Stefan talk 14:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Arctic freshwater fish and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic

Would people here be able to help out with some work on Arctic fish? I (and others) have been working on Category:Arctic and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic, but we really need someone who knows about fish and the Arctic to check out Category:Arctic freshwater fish (it looks rather good at the moment) and related areas. What we really want to do is identify the truly Arctic species and where the borderline areas are. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rename Siamese fighting fish -> Betta splendens

There is currently a conversation about the future name of Siamese fighting fish. Those interested please weight in at Talk:Siamese fighting fish#Requested move so this conversation can reach a consensus. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Fishes

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


I have recently created a category for fish videos. Richard001 (talk) 03:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an animation image Glasseelkils.gif. -- Suntag 05:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


Can someone put a name on this grouper mistakenly identified here as a coelacanth ? The grouper images on seem to have gone completely cranky (apparently since January of this year!). Shyamal (talk) 05:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Presumably Epinephelus lanceolatus. (I don't know the Dr. who identified it as a coelacanth, but I sure hope he isn't a doctor in anything fish-related!). • Rabo³ • 14:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

new article

Gigantactinidae was originally a copyvio, but the use of ref syntax and the fact that it's real leads me to AGF and rewrite it in a very basic way to keep it around. Please take note of its existence, as I know too little about fish zoology to flesh it out any further. Thanks, Steven Walling (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to fishes. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/FishesSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Hello good people, I just wanted to draw your attention to MarLIN - the Marine Life Information Network for Britain & Ireland [4], established by the Marine Biological Association. It may be a useful resource to members of this project. I'll just add that I have no connexion, financial or otherwise, with it - I just find it useful myself. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


I have been having a bit of a dispute with User:Cygnis insignis (Talk) who has moved this article to Lepidogalaxias salamandroides. I moved the article back, requesting that he discuss it before making such changes in the future, but he simply re-moved, again without discussion. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page and he has rasied a number of ideas that were dealt with a long time ago here in the discussions about naming conventions for fish articles. I would appreciate some assistance in dealing with this issue. Thank you. Nick Thorne talk 07:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

naming conventions.

It has been suggested that Wikipedia should change its naming conventions for organism articles to require scientific names, and this suggestion is being discussed fully at Wikipedia naming conventions. Just a head's up, since this would affect you guys. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphan tags on species stubs

Discussion and note here. --KP Botany (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sardine article

Cross-posted between WikiProjects Fisheries and Fishing, Food and drink and this one.

I have some information to add to the article Sardine. I have both scientific, commercial and cultural-related edits to make but my obstacle is that the article is a a bit of a mess and would like to know about your opinion on what is the best approach to take. To be as simple as possible, the article as it is now have an intoduction discussing the commercial use of the Sardines; a section in the form of a list concerning the scientific classification; another one called 'Sardine in popular culture' (a bizarre mix of sardine's cans and art, sardines in countries' culture and a history of fishing per country) and finally comes the tiny 'nutrition' section. I hope you've already got the picture of the mess.

So, what can be done with that article? My opinion is to split the article but I prefer to hear about other alternatives, if there are any. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

New page: List of Washington freshwater fish

I just created this article and would like it to be part of this project. What do I need to do?--Busaccsb (talk) 20:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:09, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why this project doesn't subscribe to the alerts? I can help set them up if you have trouble doing so. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of widespread CopyVio problems in fish articles?

Not to alarm you nice fish people, but over at WikiProject Gastropods we are dealing with a massively widespread CopyVio problem created by User:Graham Bould. Our page for this is here: [5]

I notice that GB also started, or contributed to, a fair number of articles on Fish (of New Zealand and Australia mostly I think). I have only looked at a few of those very quickly and the ones I did see fortunately did not have much text, and were mostly long species lists and so on. Nevertheless, you may want to check and see what you have that was started by GB or has major contributions by him. Check blocks of the text against whatever reference he gave for the possibility of his having copied some of it.

There is a list of his contributions other than the ones we are immediately working on at [6], but at the moment we don't have a list of only those articles that are in your fisheries project. Good luck with this, I hope it turns out not to be a big deal for you. Once you have some idea if you also have a copyvio problem or not, please can you also let us know, on our copyvio clean-up page [7]

All best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There are almost 1,000 fish articles, which are very likely to have copyright infringing content. More information can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage for organizing CopyVio Cleanup -- it seems we will stay there even though gastropod articles have now been cleaned. Helping hands will be warmly welcomed, especially if you have some of the books GB used. – Sadalmelik 20:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I have seen some fish media by this contributor where the source seemed legit. There is fish content from different works than the infringing gastro content, and some IIRC was from PD US sources. IONO exactly where, it might have been some NAm cyprinid. Not a catfish, cichlid or marine and most likely a Holarctic taxon. Don't know if this helps to locate it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Symphurus thermophilus

Do you have a section to suggest GA candidates? This article is wonderful! It might be a candidate for GA, a little expansion perhaps, a good Pacific map with relief and currents maybe, but in most respects it only needs some polishing. The info is complete. Sources cited in the original description etc could be checked out; they might have info still missing.

Keep up the good work folks! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Sea Rabbit? image

Hi, wikipedians! I found, perhaps, a rare photograph of sea fish, but I do not know exactly what is the fish (License:by/3.0/ This image may be a good application to the article about that animal, if there will be experts able to identify its species. And of course the picture is suitable for Wikimedia (commons). -- (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Much thanks to Invertzoo! He helped me with the picture. Now, if someone interesting, it's here: File:Nudibranchia (Hamed Saber).jpg -- (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Please help ID fish

Here it is. The image was taken in Papua New Guinea. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute at Talk:Koi

Could people who know about the latest in fish taxonomy have a look at the request for comment at Talk:Koi? The RfC is here. The question is "Should Family information and different species information be in the Origins Section of a separate species?" The issue appears to be whether and in what detail, to correct common misunderstandings in the Koi article. Plus maybe a bit of uncertainty over what the latest research shows. I'm not entirely sure I've represented the dispute correctly, so if people here who know about this could give their opinions over there, that would be great. I'm asking here, because the listing of the RfC hasn't got any outside input at all yet. Carcharoth (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Fish familiy format

I’m planning to revise some fish family pages. In particular I want to organize the genus-species list. I made a revision to the Scophthalmidae and Polyprionidae families and would like to receive some feedback as to the table format. Do you think it satisfactory, or maybe some changes are needed? Before my revision, it was just a plain list which was difficult to follow. Mariusm1 (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what was wrong with the list. Using a table the way you have it set up would make it much more difficult to update it with taxonomic changes and still maintain formatting. For example, if a new species were discovered and put into the middle of the table, the colors for every row beneath it would have to be manually adjusted. -- Yzx (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I listed below 3 option for species organization (In fish family pages):

  1. A list as is currently displayed in fish-family pages.
  2. A colored table.
  3. A colorless table. (Easier to maintain when a species needs to be added).

I think the table format is much better, because:

  1. The binomial and common names are clearly separated and can be distinguished with one look.
  2. With many species, it becomes difficult to follow a list.
  3. More fields and notes can be easily added - such as range, size etc.

Original list format:

Table with colors:

Genus Species Binomial name and Author Species Common name
Oken (ex Cuvier) 1817
P. americanus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Atlantic wreckfish
P. moeone Phillipps, 1927 Bass groper
P. oxygeneios (Schneider & Forster, 1801) Hapuku
P. yanezi de Buen, 1959
Ayres 1859
S. doederleini Lindberg & Krasyukova, 1969
S. gigas Ayres, 1859 Giant sea bass

Colorless table:

Genus Species Binomial name and Author Species Common name
Oken (ex Cuvier) 1817
P. americanus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Atlantic wreckfish
P. moeone Phillipps, 1927 Bass groper
P. oxygeneios (Schneider & Forster, 1801) Hapuku
P. yanezi de Buen, 1959
Ayres 1859
S. doederleini Lindberg & Krasyukova, 1969
S. gigas Ayres, 1859 Giant sea bass

Mariusm1 (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The second table addresses some of my concerns; the headers could be simpler, and if you take out the colors for the genera it would make the coding clearer to see for editing purposes (see example below).
Genus Species Common name
Oken (ex Cuvier) 1817
P. americanus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Atlantic wreckfish
P. moeone Phillipps, 1927 Bass groper
P. oxygeneios (Schneider & Forster, 1801) Hapuku
P. yanezi de Buen, 1959
Ayres 1859
S. doederleini Lindberg & Krasyukova, 1969
S. gigas Ayres, 1859 Giant sea bass
Yzx (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yzx, I'm willing to accept your proposal, but would like to add 2 more columns:

  • Taxon author to be in a column of his own.
  • Environment column.
Genus Species Taxon author Common name Environment
Oken (ex Cuvier), 1817
P. americanus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Atlantic wreckfish Demersal; oceanodromous; marine; deep-water.
P. moeone Phillipps, 1927 Bass groper Reef-associated; marine; temperate.
P. oxygeneios (Schneider & Forster, 1801) Hapuku Demersal; marine.
P. yanezi de Buen, 1959 Demersal; marine; subtropical.
Ayres, 1859
S. doederleini Lindberg & Krasyukova, 1969 Bathydemersal; oceanodromous; marine; deep-water.
S. gigas Ayres, 1859 Giant sea bass Demersal; marine; subtropical.

If you accept this I'll start working on the pages. It would be nice to make it a standard for all fish pages. Any comments from someone else? Mariusm1 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm relatively new at this, having done only one article (List of Washington freshwater fishes), but really like tables. When I made my page It was strongly recommended that I follow other list formats, so I did, but there is a lot more useful information that would be easy to add to the page in a tabular format. Of the formats you have presented, I like the last one best, the first one least. Colors are fine, but function and ease of editing need to be the primary considerations. One comment on what you did: in the environment block, I would reorder the material. I'm much more of a freshwater person than a marine one, so am unclear how to order some of the terms, but I would think the first thing to mention would be marine/fresh (although that gets complicated- how would you deal with salmon?). I would also add a column for range/distribution. I like the separate column for authority. I'm not taxonomically inclined, so am seldom interested in this stuff, but need it available when I do need it. This format keeps the species name from being "littered" with the authority citation, yet makes the citation available. talk--Busaccsb (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't like putting species authority in a different column; I don't think it looks good and why would species authority have a separate column but not genus authority? And the environment column is an exact duplicate of the info at FishBase, which is dodgy from a copyright perspective (because this isn't just a taxon list but actual interpretive content), and I don't think we need to turn a simple species list into a duplicate of FishBase. Anyway, if you're looking for more columns to add you should look at the biology Featured Lists like List of cetaceans or List of Anuran families. Note though that neither of those lists actually add on that much more info other than the scientific and common names. Certainly nothing that would require a lot of writing. -- Yzx (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm in agreement with Yzx, there is no need for a separate authority column, it is customary to simply have the author following the species name. The environment column is also not necessary - this is only a list of species, if we include environment we might as well also include diet, amount taken in fisheries etc. Lets keep it only as a simple list of the species name (common and scientific). The less columns, the less cluttered the table looks in my opinion. I agree the format proposed by Yzx should become the standard... do we need to put this to a vote or are we all ok? Kare Kare (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
So what is the format proposed, the last table with the environment and authority fields gone, no authority in the genus field, and just authority listed in brief with species; (e.g. Polyprion, P.americanus (Block & Schneider 1801), Atlantic wreckfish), and will this be a table?--Busaccsb (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A couple of additional points for consideration:
1) Eventually we need to create a separate page for each and every fish genus, and produce there a species table. The family page would then contain only the genus list, with no species.
There are fish families which contain hundreds of species and tens of genera, so it would be wiser to include only genera at the family level. This will produce two different tables:

One at the family page:

Genus Taxon author Species
Common name
Polyprion Oken (ex Cuvier), 1817 4
Stereolepis Ayres, 1859 2

One at the genus page (for Polyprion):

Species Taxon author Common name Environment & range
P. americanus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Atlantic wreckfish Marine; deep-water.
P. moeone Phillipps, 1927 Bass groper Marine; reef-associated.
P. oxygeneios (Schneider & Forster, 1801) Hapuku Marine.
P. yanezi de Buen, 1959 Marine; subtropical.

2) What about adding a column for "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" status, and a column for subspecies count?

Comments? Mariusm1 (talk) 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about the overall plan here, but in terms of minimal information to put on genus pages besides the authority stuff (which I now agree should not be a separate column, but rather included parenthetically with the species name), I think it is entirely reasonable to state whether the species inhabits marine, estuarine, fresh, or a mix (catadromous, anadromous, others?), roughly where in the world it occurs, and the IUCN status. I would not do a column for subspecies. Naming subspecies seems to be a very unevenly applied concept, and you could get very misleading impressions of the amount of diversity in a species this way. --Busaccsb (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe something like this:

Genus Species Common name IUCN status
Oken (ex Cuvier) 1817
P. americanus (Bloch & Schneider, 1801) Atlantic wreckfish Data Deficient (DD)
P. moeone Phillipps, 1927 Bass groper Not Evaluated
P. oxygeneios (Schneider & Forster, 1801) Hapuku Not Evaluated
P. yanezi de Buen, 1959 Not Evaluated

There could also be additional columns for "environment" (marine, freshwater, anadromous, etc, though I feel that would be redundant for most families since there are very few fish families that have more than one kind), "image", and "range" (only if maps are available). I don't think adding any more than that would be a good idea (I agree that subspecies are too inconsistently applied to be worth putting here). -- Yzx (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with all your suggestions----Busaccsb (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Made a genus page - Parupeneus based on the above recommendations; would like to read your comments. Mariusm1 (talk) 10:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the table: I removed the head column (which I thought was unnecessary and would complicate adding more columns), incorporated the footnotes into the table itself, and limited the "environment" to just "marine" (I've expressed my reservations about taking passages verbatim from FishBase). I also changed the taxobox image to the type species, since there was one available, and removed the table width parameter to make it fit beneath the text. -- Yzx (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I must disagree with your observations on two points:
  1. The table should be spread on the entire screen to make it more compact vertically, so it won't stretch extensively downward. This shortcoming would be more pronounced when dealing with genera which contain a hundred species or more.
  2. I don't see the point of omitting such basic information as tropical/subtropical or oceanic/reef dwelling. This is definitely not copyright infringement, as the same information is present in lots of sources and publications. This isn't even a sentence but a single word, and an essential feature of the species.
  3. It would be nice to make this sort of table a standard across Wikipedia animal pages. I'm waiting to hear other opinions on theParupeneus page. Mariusm1 (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I didn't see this before Yzx edited it, so am not sure what to say about table width and length (is there a way to see that?- I'm still unfamiliar with a lot of things around here), but I like the basic stuff on region and habitat preference to be here. I'm not concerned about duplicating stuff in FishBase at this level. --Busaccsb (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Yzx asked me if I could share my opinion on the copyright aspects of this. Above, Yzx indicates that this is interpretive content. I'm not sure how creative this content is. If it's completely their own ideas, I wouldn't have any concern about utilizing a few words. However, it it's a few words on hundreds of different fish in a list, it could be a larger concern. Mariusm1 seems of the opinion that this is not creative text, but common knowledge. I really think it might come down to that. If the same information can be found in lots of publications, you should be fine. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Moonriddengirl's read on this is invaluable, since she appears to be an expert on the subject. I agree with Mariusm1 that this is common knowledge. My question is, are all the environment entries actually going to be taken from FishBase? I have a couple concerns: 1) the information may be incorrect; and 2) if everything on a Wikipedia genus page is available in FishBase, why are we doing this? The same question, of course, could be posed to authors of many Wikipedia articles.--Busaccsb (talk) 00:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be cautions about using the IUCN red list. My area of interest is Australian native freshwater fish and the red list has Murray cod Maccullochella peelli as critically endangered. This is arrant nonsense - the species has never been worse than vulnerable - and illustrates the problem of relying solely on a single source. Also, why simply duplicate the red list, when anyone interested in it can simply go there and have a look themselves. - Nick Thorne talk 07:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. I made some changes to Parupeneus to reflect my original intention.
  2. Fishbase are referencing their "environment" data to publications and books. In the case of Parupeneus they refer the data to : Randall, J.E. 2004: Revision of the goatfish genus Parupeneus (Perciformes: Mullidae), with descriptions of two new species. Indo-Pacific Fishes, (36): 64 p. So this information is a second-party information, and not their own: they just collected and assembled it. No-one "invents" a species to be a "tropical" or a "subtropical" species -- it is an essential piece of info, and a scientific fact.
  3. The added value of Wikipedia is in the organizing the FishBase information in a clear and concise format, and in mixing it with other pieces of data (such as IUCN red list) and pictures, to make a more illuminating and comprehensive presentation. Mariusm1 (talk) 08:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I struck a nerve. Although FishBase has a lot of info, I don't find it easy to use, and like your presentation better. I just think it is worthwhile to ask once in a while why we are doing this; it has stopped me a couple times. I am a fishery biologist, so understand what the information was. As for IUCN listing, I'm sure there are a number of cases in which the red list. rating is at odds with the opinions of some experts, and there may be cases where the rating is 'errant nonsense'. Nevertheless, given the imperiled situation of many fish species worldwide, a rating system that is applied everywhere makes sense, so the IUCN red list. I don't think there is anything better out there, is there?--Busaccsb (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
My objection to using the IUCN Red List is twofold. Firstly I do not believe is is wise to rely on a single source, after all, if the information in Wikipedia is simply a reproduction of info from somewhere else, why other having it in Wikipedia at all, why not simply link to it? Secondly, the Red List has had a number of well publicised questionable entries made and I would question its reliability and although accuracy seems less important to verifiability in many editors' minds, it is possible in many cases to verify the information elsewhere, so again, why proscribe just one source? For example, and to go back to my area of interest, the Australian Government Federal Department of Environment and Heritage maintains a list of threatened taxa that is kept more up to date regarding endemic Australian species than the Red List. In the case of any disagreement between the DEH list and the Red List, I would back the DEH list. In any case, why limit editors to a single source? Many editors here are experts in their respective fields and will often have access to more recent, more complete and more accurate information then that provided by any single source, whether it be the Red List or Fishbase or whatever. - Nick Thorne talk 10:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Having seen the table, I like the list better, it's not so cluttered-looking. It's also a trouble magnet to duplicate so much info from genus and species articles, particular in cases where range and habit info are not accurately summarized in a 3-word catchphrase. The table format also tends to force pointless redundancy; if every member of a family is marine, then is there really any point to saying "Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine Marine ..." instead of just "all species are marine" in the lede? Stan (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  1. An important reason why I'm emphasizing on the need of comprehensive genus-tables like Parupeneus is this: There are more than 28,000 extant fish species, of which, I estimate, only about 500 species have a distinct page in Wikipedia. Consequently I find it desirable to at-least display their minimal information in a clear and concise format. This gap of providing a separate page for each species won't be filled for a very long time, so concentrating first on the tables is a good idea.
  2. As User:Busaccsb says, I too find FishBase cumbersome, and difficult to use, while Wikipedia is much more user-friendly, and can be negotiated effortlessly from order level down to family and species.
  3. To User:Stan_Shebs: I find the simple list format difficult to use: it has no clear-cut distinction between the various fields; the common and scientific names, and no room for additional information. With the table format one can comprehend instantly what is going on, and to focus speedily on the area of interest. I agree that the repeated "marine" doesn't look nice, and maybe it can be omitted and placed in the introduction. Mariusm1 (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The assessment counts over 6,500 articles. If they're stubs, let's add to them, not put all the species information in other articles. Stan (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Chinook or Coho?

These two images are used as the lead images in their respective articles. Does anyone know which image is which? --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  • This is not a wonderful rendering, but appears to be a male Chinook in freshwater spawning condition. Although colors may vary regionally, Chinook tend to be brown or green brown, with kypes that are not overly developed. Coho, on the other hand, tend to be very dark with red highlights, and kypes are quite developed, even to the point of recurving. Also, spawning coho are very deep-bodied-- Busaccsb
Thanks. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Need some help on Koi

We could use some expert help on the page about koi (Japanese Carp). Are they Cyprinus carpio, Cyprinus rubrofuscus, or Cyprinus haematopterus? Various sources are contradictory. Please have a look at the bottom of the talk page. Much thanks, --LK (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Including data from FishBase

For all I know including data from FishBase is permitted. The following statement is taken from their home page [8]:

"You are welcome to include text, numbers and maps from FishBase in your own web sites for non-commercial use, given that such inserts are clearly identified as coming from FishBase, with a backward link to the respective source page." Mariusm1 (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow copying of content placed under a non-commercial license. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. -- Yzx (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FishBase problem w. genus

I have just checked a bunch of genus articles that have fishbase links in the reference list both using the standard template and using other reference formats. None of them work (Anemonefish, Stegastes, Ammocrypta, Pterois, Carcharhinus and many more). The species and family links to fishbase are still fine. In a few of the genera I tried to correct it but was unable to find any genus articles on fishbase. Are they completely gone? (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i noticed the same thing a few days ago... maybe they are doing away with the genus pages... or they might be reformatting them or something. Whichever, it leaves a whole heap of dead links throughout our articles. Kare Kare (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Pygmy seahorse

I could do with some advice with this article in which I'm unsure how to solve a problem. Previously there was only one species of pygmy seahorse - the one in this article. More recently others have been discovered. I'm not sure whether to create a separate article on them (I've started one here: User:smartse/pygmy), create a section in Hippocampus (genus) or make a disambiguation page. I've been in contact with a researcher in the field (Rudie Kuiter) and I have a source which suggests that they may belong in a separate genus - the embryos appear to develop in the trunk region of the female and not in a pouch of the male and there is no evidence that eggs are transferred from female to male in any of the species. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it is the same case, but look at e.g. scalloped hammerhead, which used to be only one species, but recently it was discovered that there are two species. --Stefan talk 00:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

FishBase - Wikipedia integration proposal

I've been in contact with FishBase about using their images on Wikipedia. I thought this project would be interested in the discussion:

From: Rainer Froese To: Diaa Abdelmoneim Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 4:17:33 PM Subject: Re: Integration of FishBase images on Wikipedia

Dear Diaa, We are not very far away in our views of a collaboration, but since we will give you a lot for free, we must maximize traffic from Wikipedia to FishBase. As you know, every additionally needed click means that you lose about half of the potential users (exponential decline of usage with number of clicks needed). Very few people will go to the bottom of any web page.

Your citation style with numbers is fine in the text but unsatisfactory for large, regular contributors to standardized sections such as the taxon box. I realize you may need to change slightly the format of your Taxon box, but the least I expect is a 'Source: FishBase_' in the header, sub-header or footer of the respective section in the Taxon box, where the underline _ would be your sign for outward linking, connected to the respective pages from where the data originate. I am pretty sure that such upfront recognition of contributors would bring you more input, such as about 50,000 non-fish species classification etc. from SeaLifeBase (I am their scientific advisor).

I see that range maps are also a regular feature of the taxon box. As I said, we can provide you with over 9,000 such maps (see given that there is a direct link to the respective species pages in FishBase or SeaLifeBase.

As for the photos, we have some that are CC-BY, and I believe we can give you also the CC-BY-NC. We just went through the painful process of getting such copyright standards implemented, and we do not intend to go back and ask for another type of licence (CC-BY-SA). Aque (cc) will explore the advantages of CC-BY-SA, so we may ask for that in the future if it is better than CC-BY-NC.

But again, most of our providers and photographers would like to see their name with link displayed right away, as is standard in print media, not hidden somewhere on a subsequent page.

I am sorry for being complicated, but a little number jumping to the bottom of your page (somewhat confusing), with the need then to again search for the proper link to click on, is just not good enough.

I notice that uploading of photos and maps may have to go through your Wikimedia commons system, which I believe would not be a problem.

Greetings Rainer

Diaa Abdelmoneim wrote: Dear Rainer, To review the offer I will go point by point:

  • "'Scientific classification' and binomial name of all 31,000 fishes, if

you state FishBase as source of the information within the respective box" This would always happen. The information that is available on Wikipedia should always reference where they got it from. So for example in the Scientific classification would have on it's right a reference, which when clicked would go to the bottom of the page where the link to your site is available.

  • "As another addition to your Taxon Box, we could provide a list of

common names, with country and language, again under the condition that we are clearly identified as source with link to our respective list of common names which includes additional information." The same here. We would reference you however the common name on the english Wikipedia should only contain the one for english and on the French Wikipedia it would contain the French common name. You would always get referenced. 3."As for photos, we can offer the ones that are under a CC-BY-NC license. We then have to agree on what is displayed once users click on the 'Enlarge' icon." These photos would have to be relicensed to . Each image would have a description box linking to the original place of the file on your website, the author's name and a dedicated template saying "donation by the FishBase website" or something like that. The template would be on each file's page like what can be found in a file like this,_Bonn,_Franz_Stadler,_Hans-Dietrich_Genscher.jpg which was donated by the Bundesarchiv.

  • "Finally, we can also offer distribution maps for the many species where you have none."

We would be very happy to have such maps. The Files would have the same properties as mention in point 3.

Thank you, Diaa Abdelmoneim

Fishbase does not own copyright over scientific names, nor of common names. Consequently I am opposed to providing more than standard Wikipedia referencing for such information. Fishbase is not entitled to demand what form of identification of the source we provide for such information, nor where such identification is placed. As for photos, either Fishbase donates them under the standard terms for Wikipedia or not at all. Wikipedia is not a place to promote other web sites. - Nick Thorne talk 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Gosh, Fishbase is willing to explore the possibility of a collaboration with Wikipedia! This is the best news there could possibly be for Wikiproject Fishes.
I'm surprised by your comments, Nick. It sounds like you think Fishbase is approaching Wikipedia and asking Wikipedia to promote it. It's more the other way round. Fishbase is absolutely entitled to specify what terms it wants if Wikipedia is to be allowed to forage on it's massive database. The issue is whether Wikipedia policies are sufficiently flexible and negotiable to allow a workable solution for both parties. You say "Wikipedia is not a place to promote other web sites". In the context of fish, Fishbase is not just "another web site" and it doesn't need Wikipedia to promote it. It is the web site, the definitive resource, worldwide, for fish. Wikipedia is not the definitive resource, Fishbase is. Like Wikipedia, Fishbase is essentially a free resource. The motivation of the people behind Fishbase is to make the information available, not to make money. But we are the junior party here, and we need Fishbase more than Fishbase needs us. Specialists in fish will always use Fishbase before Wikipedia. But what Wikipedia can do is write articles on fishes that are more accessible to non specialists. And if they can be backed by some of Fishbase's marvellous resources, such as their distribution maps, then it takes Wikiproject Fishes to a whole new level. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In any case tell me an appropriate proposal to send it to them. I'm think the maps would benefit us a lot and the access to all these species too.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Nick is right as far as the taxon box goes. Fishbase does not own copyright over scientific and common names, and cannot expect special credit for that. The distribution maps are different, and can clearly fall under copyright. Any images we used for the distribution maps would just be static snapshots taken at a particular point in time. Is there enough room around this to find a compromise which would work. For example, if was agreed that the project could use the maps providing the caption to the maps stated the date of the map and provided a link to the updated map? Or that the maps themselves were date stamped? --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps FishBase might be willing to release date stamped distribution maps under CC-BY-SA or CC-BY? --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think they might agree to the distribution maps if we add a link to the site in thumbnail caption on the page. I could inquire about that, since in a cc-by-sa or cc-by license the way of attribution may be specified. Something like placing "XX" in the near vicinity of the image.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Images published in Wikipedia must be freely available for anyone to use for any purpose - the only exceptions that I am aware of is when an image is not available in a free form and it is necessary for a particular article, for example images of the heraldic crests for Royal Navy ships - and in each use a non-free use rationale needs to be provided. In the case of distribution maps it is not that difficult to make your own, so the "no free alternative" rule does not apply. I run a web site dedicated to Australian native freshwater fish and when I post distribution maps on that site I make my own. In the Wikipedia context this would be simple enough and then Fishbase can be referenced in the usual way as the source of the information. At the end of the day Geronimo20 (talk) is right that Wikipedia is not "the" reference for fish. Instead it is "the free encyclopedia" and serves a different purpose to that served by Fishbase. I do not agree that we should seek to change the purpose of Wikipedia and I remain opposed to posting information that is not in the public domain. - Nick Thorne talk 23:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Fishbase is also a free resource. Where was this issue raised by Nick Thorne (talk) about changing "the purpose of Wikipedia" discussed? The few "distribution maps" currently drawn for Wikipedia are rough and amateur, and do not convey anything like the information shown on the professionally presented, colour coded FishBase maps, computer generated from up to date databases. If Nick is willing to undertake the task of drawing himself, to a more professional level than the current attempts, the 9,000 maps that Fishbase is offering, then I suppose that would be a second best solution. But before that, it would be much better to see whether a way can be found within established procedures in Wikipedia which also satisfies FishBase. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've been discussing this on wikipedia-en irc, and they referred me to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Geronimo20 could u explain the case there? The idea is that they want in each image's caption (Source: Fishbase) with a link to the source. I don't see why that would be against our policy anyway. In any case, their distribution data is available online and if someone is good with programming he could create better svg maps than the ones they have.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 07:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Free images!

Hey all,

If anyone is interested, the University of Washington has a library full of images regarding oceans and fisheries. All the images in that library are public domain. That library is being closed soon, so if there's anything you need a picture of, check quickly... Here's the link to their library: [9] and a link to brose the collection: [10]

Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can upload via a batch upload to commons. Go to and add a new request.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks; I've put in the batch request at commons:Commons:Batch uploading/Freshwater and Marine Image Bank. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Species tables

Is there a consensus for using species tables such as this one? I have many issues with this format. The "Taxonomic status" column is redundant and unnecessary; why not just list valid taxa and restrict synonyms to the species articles? The "Conservation status" column seems like overkill for a general article about the genus. This leaves the binomial name, common name, authority, and year of description, all of which can be presented much more neatly without a table. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus (though there was some discussion of species tables earlier, proposed by a different user). I agree that the list is better than the current table, and that invalid synonyms should not be included. I would support reverting to the previous format. -- Yzx (talk) 07:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)