![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I've gone through the effort of splitting Coelacanth into four articles, adapting the new articles Latimeria, Latimeria chalumnae, and Latimeria menadoensis from previously written text which used to appear on Coelacanth. There is plenty of room for improvement, so if anyone knows about either species of Latimeria, don't hesitate to take over. I've done all I can without doing further research. Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:LOTM) 04:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
A compilation of highly-cited biology-related missing journals has been uploaded at on the WP:BIOL talk page. Some entries are fish-related (about 6-7 of them) so I'm letting you know. There is a writing guide to help you write the stubs. Thanks. Headbomb { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Whale shark has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 12:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi folks, I am currently updating Barbus. My sources suggest that the Barbinae are a junior synonym of Cyprininae, or otherwise it'd have to be restricted to about 2 dozen barbels in Barbus and a few other genera. The small African barbels may be a distinct subfamily, but carps are closer to Barbus barbus than to these (which are about equidistant from carps + typical barbels as is Garra, and thus the decision of a new subfamily or not basically depends on whether you accept Labeoninae as cdistinct or not).
So, should I sink the Barbinae on Cyprinidae and elsewhere, and if necessary merely remark that Cyprininae possibly contain this "African small barb" subfamily?
(I do not think that group has a name yet - "Pseudobarbinae" would come naturally as the ?clade clusters around Pseudobarbus, but no such taxon exists and we can't create it) Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Background:' The following articles contain empty tables of prehistoric genus of varying types of creatures. A bot has been written by me that can fill them in using data from paleodb.org and Sepkoski. The task is currently stalled due to some concern about my own lack of expert knowledge on the subject.
Needed: I need someone eith "expert" knowledge (defined as a passion for the subject matter & the ability to easily spot blatant errors) to review the potential bot output of any one of the following articles of his or her choosing:
The articles:
Sample page: A sample page is available for viewing here. This is provided to give you an idea about what the output will look like, but shouldn't be viewed as a final product as it (currently) includes at least one error that will be corrected shortly.
What I want: Basically, I want someone to look over an entire table (of their choice) and say either "I don't see any obvious errors" or "there are a few errors such as X,Y,Z." I will then figure out the cause of the errors (if any), fix the code, and re-run to make sure the errors are gone.
Reward: Wikipedia gets a lot of valuable science content. I get this stalled project off my to-do list. You get a "warm fuzzy" for helping improve Wikipedia in a significant way, my gratitude, and a token of my appreciation.
Let me know if interest, ThaddeusB ( talk) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Cichlid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. -- Malleus Fatuorum 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The article guidelines here are in some need of improvement. It certainly is near to useless for me. A "section entitled 'In the aquarium'"? Is this a very encyclopaedic heading? Tell me if I'm wrong. A trivia section for each article? Doesn't Wikipedia try to avoid trivia listings? I just corrected the example genus heading, which started with an unitalicised "Barus." Conservation status "Secure"? Can somebody redo this entirely? innotata ( Talk | Contribs) 01:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I've made a request for Wikiproject Fishes to be included in the Popular Pages wikiproject. This shows which Wikiproject Fishes pages receive the most traffic and where improvement efforts would be best directed. The toolserver will automatically update a page located at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Fishes/Popular Pages beginning in a month or so. Neil916 ( Talk) 20:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I've decided to update European Perch and I have found very interesting fact there. "...reach a maximum weight of around 10.4 kg (23 lb) in Australasia..." Isn't it a myth? Is it possible? Are there any reliable sources to prove this fact? From Fishbase.org: "max. published weight: 4,750 g." -- Lime82 ( talk) 14:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
The article Yellowtail amberjack, relevant to this WikiProject, has been proposed to be split. You may wish to comment here. Please move this to the correct location if this is misplaced. Thank you, Intelligent sium 21:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not a member from this WikiProject, I am a editor from Spanish Wikipedia, but I see the article Acanthognathus and we can read:
Acanthognathus is an extinct genus of bony fish. It was first named by Mayr in 1887, and contains six species, A. brevicornis, A. lentus, A. ocellatus, A. rudis, A. stipulosus, A. teledectus.
and the references of the article are www.discoverlife.org.
Well, all the information are correct but about a genera of ant, and the taxobox seems it's false, because the family of fish Sparidae I think not include a genera Acanthognathus. Before there is a "clarification" in the article and talk about the real genera of ants, but it's confuse, because the previous information it's not true.
Sorry if this page are not correct for comment this, but I don't know what to do. Greetings, -- Furado ( talk) 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Free photos of 45 fishes from Belize are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/smithsonian/sets/72157607254072541/ -- Snek01 ( talk) 14:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Fishes to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 06:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed deleting Category:Fish nervous system.
See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 7#Category:Fish_nervous_system, where your comments would be welcome. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, just a note that Portal:Sharks has been nominated for featured status. Comments are welcome. J Milburn ( talk) 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the disambig template {{ fish-dab}} over at Template talk:Disambig#The other disambig templates. We could use the input from some of you guys about what to do with that template.
-- David Göthberg ( talk) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Project Activity
- Please Confirm your WikiProject's Activity by changing the status from "Unknown" to "Yes" on
this page, this is to assist the Coordinators of WikiProject Animals update the directory listing on the WikiProject Council Directory. If your project is NOT updated within 1 (one) week of this notice it will be assumed the project is inactive and the project page will be tagged as such. If you have any concerns please contact me on my talk page.
Zoo
Pro
04:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC) |
active=yes
" over at that directory. And he did that update just 35 minutes after the above template was placed here.I have proposed a change to {{ FishBase species}} ( here), to use italics for scientific names. To me, it seems uncontroversial, but since it is used on nigh on 5000 articles, I figured I'd best check first. Any input gratefully received. -- Stemonitis ( talk) 08:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
For this new article Akame. It doesn't even have binomial nomenclature. Thanks! 82.32.238.139 ( talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Great, I've added a pic from commons. Nice work us! 82.32.238.139 ( talk) 17:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The article has now been nominated for DYK. — innotata ( Talk • Contribs) 01:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
FYI, {{ Fish-dab}} has been nominated for deletion. 76.66.194.32 ( talk) 04:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Ciao! This is Belugaboy with the Post! I was wondering if you have a coordinator, director, or some particularly active members that would be willing to answer some questions for an upcoming WikiProject Report! Thank you very much, Belugaboy Talk to Me! 20:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Is more important Chilodontidae (gastropods) (more species) or Chilodontidae (fishes) (8 species)? Corresponding categories could be Category:Chilodontidae (gastropods) and Category:Chilodontidae (fishes). Can gastropods occupy Category:Chilodontidae based on more numerous taxon? -- Snek01 ( talk) 12:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
With most of my work being ornithological, I find the adoption of the FishBase naming convention odd... sure, for birds we do have unequivocal common names for each and every species, while for fishes we have not. But, as can be seen by the considerable number of within-genus duplicates, FishBase common names are neither consistently maintained, nor did FishBase ever put unification/standardization of common names high on their priority list. They simply picked up what they came across while collecting other data.
And after all, a species-specific common name can be considered a proper name... that is at least the ultimate rationale why common names of bird (and increasingly other, such as mammal, plant, amphibian...) species are capitalized. Related is the scholarly discussion (within the scope of phylogenetic nomenclature, usually - see e.g. doi: 10.1007/s10539-005-8240-2) of whether above-species taxa are epistemological "individuals" or " sets" - i.e., whether they are monolithic entities, or collections of such entities. Nonwithstanding the dispute about what higher-level taxa are, it is widely accepted that species are "individuals". And thus, a species name (if it is unique) should be capitalized, just as a person's name or a place name or an organization's name.
The practical advantage is twofold - for one thing, it allows to distinguish between species and superspecific taxa. For another - and this can be very helpful in the scope of Wikipedia - it allows to distinguish between a species-specific (unique) common name and a common name that is shared among several species but does not refer to a superspecific taxon.
Using capitalized names for fish species has not been common in the past, but it seems to have become quite frequent in the peer-reviewed literature in recent years and the USDA for example seems to be shifting towards it. I ran a Google Scholar search for "blotchside logperch" - just a random example I picked off the top of my head -, and the difference between pre-2005 and subsequent results was very conspicuous. If not already prevailing usage in the scholarly literature, capizalized species names for fishes have become about as common as noncapitalized ones in the last years, while one decade ago they were rarely ever used.
And if we'd ever get a consistent naming convention for WP:TOL, it would be capitalized species names anyway, since there's no way the ornithologists are gonna ditch their practice ;-) In any case, if the current trend holds (and I see no reson why it shouldn't), in a few more years we'll be hard pressed to claim that non-capitalization is the prevailing usage among the authors of reliable sources. Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 18:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Recently, I had been helping Gastropod project with creating species and genera articles. The bot has created about 12,000 species stubs till date. I use World Register of Marine Species as a reference to create the articles. Since the source is a database of marine species, the bot could be of help to this project as well. So I created some sample articles in my userspace for your review. They are all species in the family Petromyzontidae.
The bot works with a pre-defined template and CSV data downloaded from WoRMS. I would like to get some feedback whether this is something you are interested in. — Ganeshk ( talk) 20:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
User:ManfromButtonwillow/Sandbox1
What do people think? I stole the design from wikiproject elements. ManfromButtonwillow ( talk) 21:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a new WP:JCW report.
Out of the 500 most highly cited missing journals, here's a few that fall into your scope, or near your scope.
See the writing guide if you need help with those. Some of these might be better as redirects ( Guide to redirects). Feel free to remove those which you think are too far from ichthyologyfrom the list. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hallo I'm an italian ichthyologist and I wrote several hundreds of fish articles in the Italian wikipedia. I'd like to translate them ut I'm not sure of my english...I'll probably make many mistakes. Do you tink I can create these pages in ns-0 (someone will corect them) or maybe before in a sandbox? Thanks-- Etrusko25 ( talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)-- Etrusko25 ( talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Templates for external links. -- Snek01 ( talk) 17:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I just copyedited the article but it is quite unbalanced - i.e. lacks a description section. i am not too good on fishes so some basic buffing would be much appreciated :) Casliber ( talk · contribs) 08:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Where do you do that exactly? I cleared the list of copy-edit requests and am doing other things, but I haven't "signed up" because I don't understand the protocol. Thanks! Lfstevens ( talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Should an article about a specific Species have information on the Family of that species, particularly when at article exists for the Family? Additionally, when the information on the Family and specific Species appears to be getting convoluted and comingled, to the degree that it becomes difficult to discern the differences, should the Family level background information be reserved for the article on the Family, while the article on the specific species focuses only on the background information related to the species? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.48.52.241 ( talk) 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.
We would like to ask you to review the Fishes articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.
We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!
For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
FishBase is horribly inaccurate and un-updated when it comes to shark and ray phylogeny. The modern classifications have the Tiger Shark in its own family (Galeocerdidae, disputed), same for Loxodon/Rhizoprionodon (Rhizoprionodontidae, together, disputed), spearate from the Carcharhinidae. In the Triakidae, the Galeorhininae is now a family, Galeorhinidae, so each of the tribes in each pf the families are now subfamilies. Chlamydoselachidae is in its own order, Chlamydoselachiformes, separate from the Hexanchiformes. Same for the Echinorhinidae, in its own order the Echinorhiniformes, instead of the Echinorhinidae. Carcharias is in its own family now, Carchariidae, separate from the Odontaspididae. Rhiniformes and Rhynchobatiformes are among the Ray orders. The species lists are also un-updated not accurate at all. This is just the beginning of the issues. I request permission to clean this all up. I don't have to actually delete the FishBase classifications, but I could make a new section on each page called "Modern Taxonomy" or something. Jntg4Games (Not Logged In) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.203.26.117 ( talk) 02:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are a couple of discussions that you might find interesting:
There is already an outline on a certain type of fish: see Outline of sharks.
Would an Outline of fishes be useful to your wikiproject?
The Transhumanist 20:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick ( talk) 19:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Little tunny is getting a peer review, your input would be welcome. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Anyone know precisely what species this would be? The context in which this was uploaded means it would have been on display in Washington, D.C. some time in the second half of the 19th century. Is this a Lophius piscatorius, or might it be the "Fossil Monk Fish, Squatina alifera" referred to in Frederic Tabor Cooper, Rider's Washington; a guide book for travelers, with 3 maps and 22 plans, New York:Holt, 1922? - Jmabel | Talk 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! This month, we have a large number of links to disambiguation pages about fish. We at the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate any help you could give us in fixing ambiguous links to the following pages:
Cheers! bd2412 T 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{
citation}}, {{
cite journal}}, {{
cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id=
(or worse {{
arxiv|0123.4567}}
|url=
http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567
), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567
, likewise for |id=
and {{
JSTOR|0123456789}}
|url=
http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789
→ |jstor=0123456789
.
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The usage of Black Caviar is under discussion, see Talk:Black Caviar (horse). 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 04:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F -- Philcha ( talk) 12:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP ( talk) 10:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Does this project have its own barnstars yet? I can't seem to see any. Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the recommended naming convention here ? Shyamal ( talk) 12:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Consensus_how_scientific_names_are_displayed_in_the_lead_of_species_articles_listed_under_common_names to get an idea of whether we should streamline. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I've been concerned for some time that the project uses FishBase as a standard for all fish systematics, because the site is run on a volunteer contributor basis and so is unevenly updated. It's very good at the species/genera level, but the higher-level taxonomy is often outdated (for example, it doesn't include the Order Myliobatiformes, which almost all post-2000 sources have as a valid group). So, I propose that, for fish taxonomy higher than genus rank, that instead of FishBase we default to the 2006 fourth edition of Nelson's Fishes of the World as a standard reference, since that book is already used as such a standard in ichthyology. -- Yzx ( talk) 20:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any relevant contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 06:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I hope it is good place to report this as there is no "report error" page on enwiki Bulwersator ( talk) 22:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
There is an image in article, named Mustelus mustelus described as Mustelus asterias - is this change correct? Bulwersator ( talk) 10:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include many about fishes. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
We could use some help in identifying the fish on commons:Category:UShaka Sea World (unidentified), taken at UShaka Marine World in Durban, South Africa. Some of the images already have suggestions on their talk pages. Lupo 07:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | Hello WikiProject members and others. As part of a
discussion at WikiProject Animals, a number of editors have indicated that the presentation of the current guidelines on the capitalization of common names of species is somewhat unclear.
We wish to clarify and confirm existing uncontroversial guidelines and conventions, and present them in a "quick-reference" table format, for inclusion into the guidelines for the capitalization of common names of species. Please take a moment to visit the draft, and comment at talk. Your input is requested to determine whether or not this table is needed, and to ensure that it is done in the best way possible. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 03:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
Dear friends! I would like to discuss the title of the article about the scorpionfish species Scorpaena scrofa. We have two propositions:
1. To use the vernacular name according to FishBase, Red scorpionfish, because this name is used more often in scientific literature, also used as official in FAO. Also, the rule of main of scientific journals is to use the vernacular names according to FishBase, www.fishbase.org (or any mirror) 2. To use scientific name as title, because there are also the other common names in English (you could check the list of common names).
We started the short discussion on the talk page of the article, but would like to discuss it here. We are waiting for your ideas. Sincerely Yours. Ykvach ( talk) 13:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Please help - we need your expertise to fix the large number of disambiguation links to Chub ( 41 links), Sea bass ( (39 links), and Bullhead ( 38 links). Cheers! bd2412 T 20:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Plecostomus appears to be an aquarium related version of Hypostomus plecostomus, which is rather poor (note the number of references, random images of other species, lack of taxobox, etc). I propose that it is merged into Hypostomus plecostomus and Loricariidae. I would be happy to do the work myself, of course.
Also, pleco currently redirects to plecostomus, but it is used as common name for all Loricariidae (as is mentioned in the article), so I have proposed that the redirect is changed.
Comments and feedback would be appreciated for both.
Kat ( talk) 10:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
I propose that all Trichopodus species articles should be moved to their scientific names because all have multiple common names (see naming guidelines). Please add your views on this to the individual articles:
Kat ( talk) 12:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the subject matter but a " single-purpose account" seems to be converting the Spring cavefish article into a description of a plan for monitoring the fish population in Missouri ( diff). Could someone check out the edits to see whether they are reasonable please? - Pointillist ( talk) 23:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Debate on taxonomy sections listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxonomy_vs_Classification_vs_Systematics_vs..... It follows on from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#General_structure_for_plant_articles_and_lists cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if any of you all know what's going on here:
It seems to be a bunch of students pasting term papers into fish stubs. Probably it's a class project or something. Maybe there are more, but these are the ones I noticed. I'm just not sure what to do, or if anything should be done. Anyway, if it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter, but I wanted to let someone know.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 02:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
There's this, too: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Weird_activity_on_fish_stubs— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 02:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The class is an upper-level undergraduate class at the University of Tennessee (I'm a graduate student of the professor). The articles aren't term papers, exactly. It's a multi-year project to get all the of 324 fishes of Tennessee onto Wikipedia - we like the fishes in our state a lot, and want to put the information out there. Once the semester is over it's extremely unlikely that any of the students are going to respond to information requests, unfortunately. I'd very much like to get these pages more in line with the standards of the Fishes project, and we never meant to step on any toes. I compiled a list of all the pages from this year here: User:Sclemm/Fishes of Tennessee (I'll get lists from previous years from my professor soon). Any advice on the first steps I could take to clean up the existing pages, and what I can do to coordinate better with the project, would be greatly appreciated. I haven't done a lot of editing in wiki before (and my professor has done even less), so I'm really sorry for the mistakes. - Sclemm —Preceding undated comment added 00:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
I have proposed northern bluefin tuna is renamed to Atlantic bluefin tuna. Considering the importance of the species (B-Class), I'm also adding a note here. The main discussion is here. RN1970 ( talk) 12:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi guys,
I was hoping you could help me identify the fish in the following images:
They were all taken at the Melbourne Aquarium in February 2009. Cheers! -- Fir0002 12:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
I find articles for Rama rama and Chandramara chandramara, with redirects to the latter from Pimelodus chandramara, Pimelodus rama, Leiocassis rama, and Rama chandramara. Scotcat [6] lists Rama chandramara as senior, with all the other names as synonyms. Fishbase [7] lists Chandramara chandramara as senior, with Pimelodus chandramara, Pimelodus rama, and Rama chandramara as synonyms. IUCNRedlist [8] says Chandramara chandramara may be a synonym of Batasio, with Rama rama likely a synonym of ''C. chandramara. It looks like the Rama rama and Chandramara chandramara articles should be merged, but I don't feel qualified to judge which name should be primary. Maybe someone who knows more about it can sort it out. -- Donald Albury 00:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. Tiktaalik and Amphistium are cited as examples of transitional fossils and make up two subsections of the article. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. -- Harizotoh9 -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 00:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Howdy, I wonder if we should remove the stub list; it is woefully incomplete and out of date. It would not be overly difficult to create a new list, but it would be much longer and not a table. We should also use the magic word {{PAGESINCAT:fish stubs}} to automatically update the numbers (eg, there are 35 pages in the Fish stub category). Thoughts on removing the entire list or updating it? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to
HighBeam Research.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Over at the
talkpage of
Acrossocheilus formosanus, it's been suggested that it's now thought to be a junior synonym of
Acrossocheilus paradoxus. What's the best solution? Delete? Redirect? Ditto for
A. labiatus.
bobrayner (
talk)
22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Taxonomy/Teleostomi#Skipping Eugnathostomata where we are discussing how to handle the display of Eugnathostomata in the automatic taxobox. Bob the WikipediaN ( talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
The Dutch Journal "Zoologische Mededelingen" published the research article "An illustrated translation of Bleeker’s Fishes of the Indian Archipelago Part II Cyprini" Everything published by this journal is Creative Commons Attribution 3.0, including text and images. Interesting for your wikiproject perhaps? See: [9] Ruigeroeland ( talk) 07:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Shrimp#Caridea, Dendrobranchiata, Shrimp and Prawns. Does the term shrimp refer to a taxon or to a common name, and what is the scope of the shrimp and prawn articles? –
Epipelagic (
talk)
03:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a notification that a range of fish-related articles are about to be tagged by my WikiProject tagging bot, User:Tom's Tagging Bot. If you have any questions, suggestions or issues, please feel free to raise them on my talk page. — Tom Morris ( talk) 10:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Should articles on seafood be given titles that restrict them to cuisines, as a user maintains in this thread? There is a referral for comment on this issue where members of this project are invited to give their views. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 22:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Can someone verify this species, I saw it when looking through recent changes and it smells a bit... fishy. Rgrds. -- 64.85.221.220 ( talk) 17:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a basa catfish but I'm not sure. Fish was found in India. Can some one good at this stuff ID i so that I can put it up on the article?
Thanks. Staticd ( talk) 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a link at Category:Fishes articles needing attention that goes to Category:Fish articles needing expert attention which is empty. There is, however, a non-empty Category:Fishes articles needing expert attention. Seems wrong, Richigi ( talk) 21:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
There is an image of Sea devil (according to its official description, Ceratiidae) which seems so strange to me. On its official description page it says, 'A mummified specimen of this exotic fish was presented by Dr. Muhammad Farhad Rahimi to the museum of Astane Qudse Razavi in 1999.' and in the museum the description card says Dr. Muhammad Farhad Rahimi bought the taxidermied animal from France in 1970. I put the image on the article. Are there any comments from experts?-- Taranet ( talk) 05:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
According to Fishbase valid as Poeciliopsis sonoriensis. The article has been updated, but it needs to be moved to the appropriate lemma. Regards, -- Dbr de ( talk) 16:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
There's a current RM that may interest members of this project. Your input is appreciated at Talk:Percula clownfish#Requested move. -- BDD ( talk) 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a notification that what appears to be two student groups have started editing articles on marine life: EcoWikiGroup13 ( talk · contribs) at Oncorhynchus, and Group9ecology ( talk · contribs) at Coccolithophore. Their instructor doesn't seem to have notified anyone at Wikipedia that this would be happening, and so far the first group, EcoWikiGroup13, have been non responsive at attempts to communicate with them. The edits so far seem fairly competent and Copyscape doesn't detect plagiarism. However, the names they have chosen suggest there may be 13 or more groups involved, so this may be the start of considerable activity. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 04:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
An issue has come up with one of the AfC submissions. Please see the discussion in my talk page, I'd appreciate your input. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Any objections to adding: or "In aquaria", for the section heading for aquariums? Also, adding "or in a fish farming or hatchery section" about feeding and breeding. Many fish are bred and/or raised in a fish hatchery, and then re-stocked into the wild. A vastly increasing percentage of fish for food are raised in fish farms. Apteva ( talk) 14:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pre-spawn Mortality in Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) might be of interest. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 13:23, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I believe the two names above refer to the same species - the latter variation is linked from Blind fish and Eleotridae, but I'm not sure the former name is correctly spelled. Can any expert here check the authoritative name (Petit, 1933) for me please? - TB ( talk) 20:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello all - I'm a non-member, but have a passing interest in fish. After reading up on a new blenny species described several months ago, I took the liberty of creating the Haptoclinus dropi article, and in seeing that the Haptoclinus genus article was a redirect, I made that a formal article as well. I'd appreciate any and all comments, including any of the blunt "you're doing it wrong" sort. Cdtew ( talk) 18:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this certainly a Greenland cod (Gadus ogac, Richardson, 1836)?
I would like to upload the image to commons, crop and rotate the fish, and add it to a planned image column at Cod.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 06:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
image:Silvershiner.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 09:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
See discussion at Talk:Goblin_shark#Removal_of_size_comparison_image - discussion over whether this diagram should be in the taxobox, elsewhere or not in the article at all. All input welcomed. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, the GA nominator of Great northern tilefish has apparently just retired from Wikipedia, before addressing all my recommendations in my review. Anyone feel up to finishing it up? FunkMonk ( talk) 20:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I just tried to link Manta ray to the Spanish project's Manta birostris article, but couldn't because that article is already linked to Giant oceanic manta ray. I don't know enough to know whether I'm just mistaken, or whether Manta and Giant oceanic manta should be merged, or what. Any help available? Thanks, Awien ( talk) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Fish - Skysmith ( talk) 09:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed a discrepancy in Wikipedia's coverage of lampreys. The Pacific lamprey is cited as Entosphenus tridentatus, which is in line with usage in a scholarly work I came across. However, the species is listed as a member of Lampetra in the template {{ Petromyzontiformes}}. As a librarian, I work with Library of Congress Subject Headings, which prescribes Lampetra for Entosphenus as well as Eudontomyzon and Tetrapleurodon. It's very likely that LCSH is simply behind the times, and that Lampetra has been broken down, but if that is the case, our lamprey template is outdated as well. -- BDD ( talk) 21:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I just created a new article List of fish species that protect their young and was curious if anyone knows of additional fish species that could be on that list. Their young being eggs or hatchlings. Dream Focus 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this ID correct? J Kadavoor J e e 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
These two pages have very similar texts: Trematomus and Trematosus. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 20:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been upgrading the Rainbow trout article for the last couple of weeks. Essentially it was very unbalanced with too much emphasis on steelhead, instead on the type species Oncorhynchus mykiss and associated subspecies. The Rainbow trout is a complex topic and I trust I've made sufficient changes to warrant Good Article status. Any suggestions or help from this project would be appreciated.-- Mike Cline ( talk) 02:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just completed the overhaul of Cutthroat trout and put it up for GA. Any feedback will be appreciated. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a confusing situation developing regarding the Sunapee golden trout and it's exact relationship to the Arctic char and the Silver trout. See the talk pages of the Sunapee and the Silver trout as well as Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 1#Sunapee trout. Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I'm writing an article on a fish species. It also has a few subspecies. Where can I find the best online source for species naming (as well as who named it, and when)? Sources tend to contradict one another, and FishBase seems to give a dubious answer as well. Thanks, Bananasoldier ( talk) 06:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Draft:Doryrhamphus excisus
Category:Introduced freshwater fish (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) has been proposed for deletion, as well as all sub-cats, including:
Category:Introduced freshwater fish by country,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of South Africa,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Argentina,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Australia,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Chile,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Madagascar,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of New Zealand,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Papua New Guinea,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Ukraine,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of the United States,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish by continent,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Africa,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Oceania,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of New Guinea,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of South America,
Category:Introduced freshwater fish of Hawaii.
Anyone wishing to comment may do so at
the categories' entries for AfD.
__ E L A Q U E A T E
18:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Cutthroat trout has been nominated for a peer review Wikipedia:Peer review/Cutthroat trout/archive1 in preparation for a FAC push. Any inputs welcome. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 22:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I've discovered that there was likely a class project relating to the fishes of Tennessee without any guidance from Wikipedia's education folks. There are MANY articles with a similar format (I'm still compiling the list) that have a lot of good content from what I can tell, but sometimes the references are badly formatted and they tend not to be wikified. There is also a good deal of essay content (the students' management recommendations for their species) that needs to be removed. I'm going to try to clean up some of them, starting with Bantam sunfish, which I'm still working on. Anyone who would like to help can see my list so far (I'm still adding to it!) at User:Calliopejen1/to do/Fish article cleanup. I'm not positive these are all part of the project (I'm just copying in what is hitting my google search terms), but most should be. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 00:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Have just loaded up Cutthroat trout at FAC. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cutthroat trout/archive1 All reviews welcome. -- Mike Cline ( talk) 18:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD ( talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This edit unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:25, 16 April 2014
The distribution of the species in the article is outdated, as of 2012 Xyrauchen texanus was found in Grand Canyon National Park. There is now an ongoing project to determine the population in the park. Please update the article according to the information I left at the talk page. -- h-stt !? 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
As part of an effort to improve my article-writing skills, I have written an article on the peacock flounder (Bothus lunatus) which is currently in my userspace ready to replace the present stub in mainspace. Please could someone look at it and see if it is up to scratch? Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 06:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just nominated Brook trout for GA review. Any willing reviewers from this project interested? -- Mike Cline ( talk) 17:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The template is under discussion at TfD, expert biological input is welcome.-- cyclopia speak! 16:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
A similar issue is now present at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29#Category:Primitive_fishes. Please contribute to the discussion. Many thanks! -- cyclopia speak! 17:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
how bouut u shhut up about fish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunshinelov ( talk • contribs) 22:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought anyone involved in this project might be interested in the discussion on upmerging the fish by country of Europe distribution categories. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 2#Category:Fish of Liechtenstein. Any comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Category:Unreferenced Fishes articles, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for Deletion by another editor. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Any idea about the name of these species? Materialscientist ( talk) 07:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. Thus, for example, none of the articles in Category:Fish anatomy are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 09:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)