This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Diversity of fish article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
fisheries,
aquaculture and
fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to
Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at
WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
A fact from Diversity of fish appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 July 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that there are many diverse types of fish, including
sea dragons(pictured) camouflaged to look like floating
seaweed?
Not sure the move is appropriate. I suggest that Categorisation of fish or Classification of fish would be a better title.
Awien (
talk)
16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)reply
The article distinguishes poisonous and venomous. The puffer fish is the most poisonous known fish and the reef stonefish is the most venomous known fish. --
Epipelagic (
talk)
00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)reply
You stated in your last revert a few minutes ago: yes, the terminology was sloppy and I have corrected it so it means something. But even if "primitive fish" was a legitimate term, articles should not be burdened with templates and categories for every descriptive word or phrase. The template is a navigational aid, it is legitimate, and it serves a beneficial purpose. For you to eliminate the term "primitive fishes" all together, you would have to remove all references to "primitive" from reliable sources too numerous to mention, including published books, scientific journals and reports, and multiple articles on WP, to name a few. You would also have to re-program fisheries biologists, WP editors, journalists and authors who work in mainstream media, the latter of which includes altering the thinking of scriptwriters for independent production companies, especially those working for/with Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and PBS. To be quite frank, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The best shot you have at informing the public to your way of thinking is to continue using terms most Wiki readers know and understand - "the hook" if you will which is an integral part of DYK - and then explain the differences under the Evolution section of each article. You cannot force an overnight miracle. AtsmeWills☯ talk21:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Might we hope, Atsme, that you will eventually tire of your relentless campaign to impose sloppy terminology on Wikipedia and spread it everywhere? Then you could perhaps become an asset to Wikipedia instead. If you are serious about improving Wikipedia coverage on early fishes and fishes which are "living fossils", I would be happy to work with you. But you would need sometimes to listen to other editors, particularly when they are in consensus, and not just assume that you, and only you know what is correct or the best way forward. --
Epipelagic (
talk)
21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I don't tire when I'm right, but I do concede when I'm not, and to date, I've not seen anything that makes me feel the need for concession. I know you disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I strongly believe the template and category are excellent navigation aids that will serve a greater benefit in navigating to different articles in the series. Think of it as a type of cladogram, but not as scientific or extensive. I understand why you think the name is problematic, and I have always remained open to changing the name unless it distracts from the category's/template's original purpose.
The general public is simply not as aware of these magnificent creatures as they could be, and the sad part is that we are continuing to lose significant populations due to development, dams, and major alterations of our rivers, despite restocking efforts and conservation programs, so the time may come when there simply aren't anymore as with the Chinese paddlefish.
I'm trying to contribute the best I can to help make more people aware of the extant relict fishes, and how they've survived for millions of years with relatively few morphological changes. Terms like living dinosaurs, primitive fishes, and living relicts may not be scientifically accurate on a taxobox, but they are definitely a "hook" to draw readers to the article, and perfectly acceptable for a navbox. The knowledge, or "science" is contained in the article itself, but what purpose does it serve if no one reads it? I'd be willing to bet that few average readers will even bother to read an article that begins with the term "basal bony fish" unless they think they've stumbled across a cooking recipe. And Epi, don't forget, the "sloppy terminology" to which you refer was right here on the very article you created and/or edited. There are many more articles on WP that use the same term, which begs the question, why target my work when there is work of much greater importance to tackle? I'm improving the articles I've been editing, and I thank you for your offer to collaborate. Let's start by improving on the "hook", and making the template a better navigational aid. AtsmeWills☯ talk04:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry but
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I admire your enthusiasm about these indeed awesome creatures, but we're not here to create "hooks" to draw readers to articles or to push an agenda, no matter how admirable. We are here to build an accurate encyclopedia. The stuff you add is scientifically and factually inaccurate and wrong. Please stop. --
cyclopiaspeak!14:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. 7. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. Sorry, but if you find such a simple concept difficult to understand, you are wasting valuable time that should be spent editing. AtsmeWills☯ talk16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
I understand it perfectly, but this doesn't justify the inclusion of errors. You know, you can write things in plain terms without introducing egregious errors. What you do, instead, is introducing wrong information. If you find such a simple concept difficult to understand, you should not edit, per
lack of competence. --
cyclopiaspeak!16:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Tell you what I'll do...if you can get the Oxford and Webster Dictionaries to change their definitions, and delete all references to "primitive fish", I'll concede. AtsmeWills☯ talk23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Oxford and Webster dictionaries are not scientifically reliable sources, and even if they were, it would be a mistake of theirs.--
cyclopiaspeak!23:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)reply
Fish and tank top for everything
Fish and chips and salsa dancing with you do for me and the boys are in a good place to start and I will send you the update on the below email and I will be at
Thanks for your help
41.115.55.81 (
talk)
11:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)reply