# Talk:Alligator gar

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Alligator gar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130209014936/http://www.wapt.com/Vicksburg-Man-Catches-327-Lb-Alligator-Gar/-/9157628/5991148/-/iqeqgv/-/index.html to http://www.wapt.com/Vicksburg-Man-Catches-327-Lb-Alligator-Gar/-/9157628/5991148/-/iqeqgv/-/index.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506052518/http://sdafs.org/alligar/docs/Missouri%20Alligator%20Gar%20Management%20and%20Restoration%20Plan.pdf to http://www.sdafs.org/alligar/docs/Missouri%20Alligator%20Gar%20Management%20and%20Restoration%20Plan.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104045227/http://www.sdafs.org/alligar/index.html to http://www.sdafs.org/alligar/index.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/huge-once-hated-fish-now-seen-as-weapon-against-asian/article_471ed568-2b6f-583d-b5c9-0b490a9d48e5.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104045227/http://www.sdafs.org/alligar/index.html to http://www.sdafs.org/alligar/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

between 75.111.203.5 & Atsme
Lots of things:
Guess what...you both are wrong. The article has just now been locked by an admin/sysop. So read on, stop reverting back & forth and discuss your issues here on the talk page. First. 
You both were in clear and present danger of going over the Three Revert BRIGHT LINE.
A few points:

Singular subject/singular verb -
Evidence suggests not Evidence suggest.
Declining populations[plural subject] of alligator gar throughout their historic range have[plural verb]... This is correct.
Declining populations[plural subject] of alligator gar throughout their historic range has[singular verb]...And this is not.
Comment on the edit not the editor. Edit summaries saying things like "inept editor are not needed or helpful.
"that" or "which". Take a look at this Oxford Dictionary article on "that" or "which" and decide.
"numeral before unit per MOS?" Kind of not...Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers states "figures or words may be used with unit names"
As the edit-warring over "abbreviate vs. abbreviated" continued I had to wonder if anyone actually read the source material for the description to see how the Florida Museum used the wording?
Anyway, it seems to me that you both care about the subject and about editing Wikipedia, you should discuss your concerns and be able to come to a consensus about this article. Shearonink (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I beg to differ with your accusation about who was wrong, Shearonink, and please tone down the condescension. The IP just started editing - I've been around nearly as long as you have. Oh, and for future reference, it's a big no-no to address other users in a heading per WP:TALKNEW. As for edit warring, the IP made 3 reverts, I mistakenly counted the first edit as a revert which would have been 4, and reported it. I rarely ever file at the noticeboards so that was a lucky break for the IP. I had not seen the "inept editor" comment they made until you brought it up above and forgot to include the diff.
I am quite familar with this article, its terminology and the sources used, although it has been quite a few years since I helped promote it to GA and DYK. This is one of several GA/FA articles I keep on my watchlist. This article attracts vandals from time to time, and that's what I thought was happening after I saw the mistakes that were added followed by edit warring. Improvements are always welcome, and I'm usually quite welcoming to new editors who are here to collaborate but as you can see on this IP's TP, their behavior has been problematic from the get-go. You were right about there being "lots of things", but wrong about what those things are so I'll provide a list using the edits in this diff:
IP's first edit: Anecdotal evidence in several scientific reports suggests that an alligator gar..... When you have "anecdotal evidence in several reports", in is used as the modifier to connect evidence to several reports; therefore, evidence in several reports suggest... is correct. It is also correct to say "anectodal evidence in a folder suggests" and "anecdotal evidence in several folders suggest" or "anecdotal evidence in a report suggests" or anecdotal evidence suggests, but the latter changes the meaning somewhat because it doesn't tell us what evidence or where.
IP's incorrect edits to change "which" to "that":  grammar 101 says if the sentence doesn't need the clause that the word in question is connecting, use which.
IP's edit changed the sentence from "but they will also ambush and eat water fowl and small..." to "but they also ambush..." In this case, it changed the meaning because "will" is used as a modal verb expressing future tense; i.e., if the opportunity presents itself in the future they will, indicating that it's not customary behavior.
IP's edit also changed the meaning from "...the Lacey Act, which makes it illegal to transport certain species..." to "...the Lacey Act, which makes transporting certain species of fish in interstate commerce illegal... In other words, the species is what speaks to the illegality, not just the act of transporting them. When I first expanded this article, I was very careful to make sure the wording was as the Lacey Act intended.
IP changed correct terminology from "and their caudal fins are abbreviate heterocercal and incorrectly made it abbreviated-heterocercal See the Dictionary of Ichthyology
IP's edit was a misspelling and again attempted to change "which" to "that": "fore gut by a small pneumatic duct tha allows them"...
IP incorrectly changed life history cycle to lifecycle which again changed the meaning.
IP incorrectly changed primetime to prime time - primetime being a ubiquitous term used to depict a specific time period for television programming.
If the IP had made productive edits to improve the article, we would not be having this discussion. Considering they are relatively new to WP editing, and have already been warned and advised on their TP, it would be wise for them to slow down and consider taking some of the good advice they've been offered. Atsme Talk 📧 08:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
So. I was being condescending and I'm guilty of a no-no. As to the "no-no" I wanted the IP-editor to understand that a discussion was taking place here on this talk page about their recent edits & their behavior. Though I do have to say, just because someone is editing from an IP doesn't necessarily mean they're necessarily new or inexperienced...and since I named the both of you it seemed neutral and about the edits but point taken. As to your asserted condescension on my part, not intended but that's your interpretation - sorry if I offended you. As to the recent behavior in the article, when you two started reverting each other, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:75.111.203.5 reported by User:Atsme (Result: protected) this talk page would have been a good place to discuss your concerns. And I disagree with your evidence suggest/evidence suggests but do as you will. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 13:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Atsme, please don't get mad at me for commenting about this, but I'm puzzled about your point #1, about noun-verb singular/plural. The way that I learned it, and I'm pretty sure that I learned it correctly, is the opposite of what you say. Phrases beginning with "in" are prepositional phrases, and are not part of the subject. Noun phrases and prepositional phrases are different things (compare the "Phrases" sections at English grammar#Adjectives and English grammar#Adverbs, with that at English grammar#Nouns). So it is correct to say: "Populations of alligator gar have been..." and incorrect to say it with "has been", because "Populations of alligator gar" is a noun phrase. However, it is correct to say: "Anecdotal evidence in several scientific reports suggests" and 'not "suggest", because the sentence subject is "Anectdotal evidence", whereas "in several scientific reports" is a prepositional phrase. You can test it by reversing the order of the subject and the prepositional phrase – "In several scientific reports, anecdotal evidence suggests", not "In several scientific reports, anecdotal evidence suggest". (Similarly, it's "Alligator gar populations have been" and not "Alligator gar populations has been".) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I have never been mad at you, Tryp - I am always open to being corrected by any certified grammar expert who is more advanced than the experts who taught me - that's how we grow. I'm certainly not perfect but I am of the mind that it should be written evidence in several reports suggest rather than evidence in several reports suggests. I think what some may find confusing is how we use Collective Nouns; i.e., as a collective, or individuals within the collective.  A common example: "the family belongs to group 1" uses the singular verb. When using a collective noun to refer to several in a group, we use a plural verb; i.e. "my family have been prominent in group 1 for decades", or "evidence in several scientific reports suggest..."  I imagine that you could probably run both versions through grammar checks and neither would raise a red flag, not unlike homonyms that depend on applicability. If you think it's worth recruiting a grammar expert, I will graciously accept whatever is determined to be the correct version, and if both are acceptable then let the long standing version remain. Atsme Talk 📧 01:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It hadn't occurred to me to use online grammar checkers, but that struck me as a very good idea. So what I did was to make this text: Anecdotal evidence in several scientific reports suggest that an alligator gar can grow up to 10 feet in length. Anecdotal evidence in several scientific reports suggests that an alligator gar can grow up to 10 feet in length., and put it through some checkers that I found through a Google search. These all gave me results for suggest-versus-suggests: [1], [2], [3], and [4]. They all say that "suggests" with an "s" is the correct version. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I have downloaded versions & plug-ins of Grammarly & Hemingway and they approved both versions. I tried Scribens per your recommendation and it brought back Anecdotal evidence in several scientific reports that an alligator gar can grow up to 10 feet in length.  Scratch that one. I was able to duplicate your findings in Ginger & Reverso which are now part of my arsenal - they appear to be most dependable. I will relent and accept your version, Dr. Tryptofish. I just don't want to lose site of the fact that several reports suggested (not all based on the same evidence) the up to 10 ft in length scenario based on anecdotal evidence. We're not looking at a controlled study, or an article published in a reputable journal or a Cochrane systematic review - oh, how I wish... A few examples of what we're dealing with is more along the line of a phone call to a FWS field office by a bowfisherman (after finishing off a case of Budweiser) who swears he measured the fish before disposing of it and follows up with photographs. Another example - a huge gar caught in a net (by poachers who weren't supposed to be using gill nets) and the guys swear they measured it alongside the boat before releasing it, or another that was found in a pond on some remote farm in Podunk, IL and they measured the gar before animal control moved it to the river, etc. - nothing officially weighed or measured. Atsme Talk 📧 21:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I simply wanted to give input about the grammatical stuff, and as for all of the rest – I totally defer to you! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Atsme Talk 📧 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't like reducing "in several scientific reports suggest" to "suggests" - that sounds like trying to turn a widely held viewpoint into a fact, which is generally a bad idea. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I don't think that's what anyone is proposing here. I'm not seeing anyone wanting to leave out "in several scientific reports". Rather, it is "Anecdotal evidence in several scientific reports suggests" versus "Anecdotal evidence in several scientific reports suggest". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Tryp, in an effort to make things short and simple, when the PP is removed, I will change that part in the lead to read, (and I'm asking you now if we can call reports from USF&WS + state resource agency biologists "scientific reports"?) Several scientific reports (or just Several reports) suggest that an alligator gar can grow up to 10 ft (3.0 m) in length ...and cite it to FWS, Indiana DNR and California Wildlife? Atsme Talk 📧 20:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Sure, that's certainly an easy way out. I'd probably just call them "several reports". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie: @Tikroute: Without this article there is no mention of its presence in Iran anywhere on this page. In some way or other the invasive and introduced ranges need to be discussed. Given that there are few reliable sources about its presence in Iran a BBC article looks like a really good choice. Certainly something needs to be here. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Please be a bit more specific by adding the WP:RS that you've seen articles about alligator gar in Iran. If it is verifiable, well-sourced, in proper context and complies with WP:DUE, we should certainly add the information. Atsme 💬 📧 00:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
I've restored it (I'd reverted it earlier, not realizing that addition was in the context of invasive species sightings). OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)