# Talk:Devils Hole pupfish

redirects: Devil's Hole pupfish, Cyprinodon diabolis, Cyprinodon diabolus

The taxobox listed the species as critically endangered, and provided an IUCN reference for that information.  However, the IUCN and FishBase only list the species as vulnerable.  In the absence of a reference to the contrary, I have downgraded the taxobox to "VU".  Neil916 (Talk) 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad at wikipedia.  Should this page be merged with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_pupfish  ?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.214.64 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 

That other article is about a different species, so I oppose any merge. —hike395 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I propose that we merge Devils Hole into this article. The water-filled cavern would not be notable if it weren't for the pupfish. There is a fair amount of overlap between the two articles. The combination of the two articles would be stronger than each in isolation. comments? —hike395 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that it fluctuates but a chronological order of dates would be helpful. I have attempted this but it needs work. 151.228.136.3 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole article was a mess, so I re-organized it. —hike395 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi watchers, I've had my eye on this little fish for some time and am now beginning substantial revision of this article in anticipation of a GAN later this month. I welcome any collaboration or feedback. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Devils Hole pupfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there a way to link pupfish? I, as a non-native speaker, was wondering what "pupfish" actually means. Edit: Ah now I see, it is the family Cyprinodontidae. Maybe just add that it belongs to "Cypriodontidae, the pupfish family" or similar to the lead.
added to the lead
in Devils Hole, a geological formation in the US state of Nevada – Is it really a Geological formation in that sense? There seems to be a "Devils Hole Formation" but that seems to be located in Colorado.
rephrased
You do a great job of explaining technical terms. Maybe gloss "fecundity" as well?
done
It is at an elevation of 730 m (2,400 ft) above sea level – this refers to the river but should it refer to devils hole instead?
Thanks, phrasing unclear with an ambiguous "it". I meant Devils Hole but it reads like the river. Rephrased.
Research indicates that the annual fluctuates in response to – word missing? The annual … what?
thanks
suggest to also link "Seiche" in the image caption
done
eggs are only removed at times of the year when it unlikely - when it "is" unlikely?
done
Overall, the article sometimes is a bit repetitive, some info is given more than once. Just a problem at all for reaching GA though.
Great work overall, there is not much to complain! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Jens Lallensack thanks for taking on the review! I've addressed your first round of comments. Would be happy to parse down on some of the repetitive content if you'd point it out. Enwebb (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome (and sorry for the delay again). As for the repetitions, I think I noticed it most with the drop in water level, which is discussed at several places (and "groundwater depletion" is linked twice in the body). It is discussed in the "Habitat", "Threats", "Status designations and legal actions", and "in the wild" sections. Not sure if this is too bad though, as it also makes the individual sections more independent from each other (great for readers that do not want to read the whole article). Congrats for the new GA! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I know wiki rules state a person shouldn't have to chase links to find what a 'highly technical' term means, but the number of definitions of fairly simple terms in this article seems quite excessive. Some are terms of art but mast aren't and this article has way more internal definitions than most. At the very least, they're clumsily done. I've gone through and tried to streamline most of the definitions so it flows better.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.57.100 (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 
To clarify, a lot of these seem to fall under the category of WP: OBVIOUS. "However, there is no need to go overboard. There is no need to explain a common word like "car"." Articles about geology don't go out of their way to define a geologist as a 'rock researcher' the way this article does with icthyologist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.57.100 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 

The article as written was done with accessibility in mind. No, this is not simple English. I am not explaining common words like "car" and it's a bit silly to equate explaining "ichthyologist" or "ova" to such a simple word that every elementary age English speaker knows. I am following WP:AUDIENCE--"Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible". If this is "clumsy" for you, then WP:FIXIT, but I don't believe the solution is to make the article harder to understand. Not everyone who reads this article will be a native English speaker. Some will be young. It is reasonable to define scientific concepts. Enwebb (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
The current version (with your edits) is much better. As I said, my issue wasn't so much with explaining the terms (though some definitions did feel unnecessary) as it was with constantly doing so via parentheses. This flows much better and I agree, explains relevant scientific concepts well. 2600:1702:2350:DB0:412E:9987:424A:F87A (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I simply do not get the point of adding glosses to words that are Wikipedia links. Are the readers of this article, and mostly only this article, incapable of clicking on opercles? Or ova? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Jpgordon, WP policy is that the reader shouldn't have to click the link to understand the meaning of a term or sentence. People encounter WP articles on mirror sites and even in print MOS:LINKSTYLE. Enwebb (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Everyone,
The article says the pupfish are endangered by vandals. A little searching turned up this, which I thought was pretty crappy: Hole Vandals Identified and Third Nevada Man Sentenced For Vandalism At Devils Hole.
Should the April 30, 2016 incident be included in the article?

It is. It's at the end of the "Conservation and status#Threats" section. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇  14:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)