Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes/Archive 1

message: Question: Should this project cover only the Actinopterygii, or should it also include other taxa called "fish" -- the Chondrichthyes, Actinistia, Dipnoi, and maybe even Cephalaspidomorphi and Myxini? —Tkinias 08:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: All the taxa - general icthyological references always seems to include all these groups. Stan 14:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope 

message: So that I can continue to work on articles while we discuss citation format, I've created templates for the references.  I will update the project page to explain their usage.  For now, the text they produce is equivalent to my last suggested format, but that can of course be changed. —Tkinias 09:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference templates 

message: why not WikiProject Fish? Pedant 02:05, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
:The other analogous projects use the plural (birds, mammals, cetaceans), and fishes is customarily used to refer to multiple species or types of fish: cf. the largemouth bass and the smallmouth bass are two fishes in the sunfish family and I caught two fish this morning. See also Fish#Note on usage: "fish" vs. "fishes", which I am trying to follow. —Tkinias 02:49, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just like the famous Godfather quote: "Luca Brazzi sleeps with the fishes." If there had been only one species in that river, they'd have said "fish" instead of "fishes". :-) Dave 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Pedant|Pedant]]'s question on project name 

message: I see that the project states to Categorize under either the common name or the scientific depending on circumstances.. I wonder why you do not categorize under both.  For the casual user of wikipedia, the common name is often beneficial, but for a student doing a project, being able to follow links by the scientific taxonomy holds a lot of value.  Because there are 2 classification schemes common and scientific, why not follow both? Sortior 23:12, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
:Seems kind of confusing - at least it confuses me. :-) Common names for classifications are more accessible all-around, because a scientist can see "catfish" and think "siluriform", while the reverse is unlikely to be true of a lay person. Note that I'm assuming we use official taxonomic criteria for categories; while one could create a :Category:Sardines to include everything ever named sardine by anybody, I think that way lies madness; categorization is binary, doesn't allow for explanation of the nuances (for this fish it's a market name used by unscrupulous businesses, for that fish it's a traditional Sicilian term, etc). Anything that needs an explanation should be in an article, not in the category system. Stan 00:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your question on adding category to redirect pages, I don't know that there is a specific policy on this. In my opinion, it completes the category list by giving both the common and the scientific name. Anyone doing a search by category can then find the species both to the common name as well as the scientific name. Although the redirect pages contain no material, if you click on these links from the category page, you will automatically be redirected to the actual article. In effect it completes the index. In particular, this could be helpful for wikipedians of other languages in that even if they can communicate in English, they may not know what the translation of a common name may be. For example, Sattel-Spitzkopfkugelfisch is german for Valentinni's sharpnose puffer, even the most advanced German english speaker (or vice versa), would be hard pressed to know the german-english translation for this, but the scientific name connects the two and so the scientific name should be included in the category list. I would suggest that this be done for all species and if it needs a policy, please let me know where I can go to propose it. To be honest, I think a separate scientific name index would be valuable as common names are not always the same. The above mentioned Valentinni's sharpnose puffer for example, is the official common name given on fishbase but it is far more commonly known as a black saddled toby. Which one is right? Regards Jnpet 02:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: I am currently working on an article on grunion. So far, I've only put up the beginnings of the article (intro + infobox) as a subpage of my User page (see User:BlankVerse/Grunion). If anyone has any suggestions about article organization, sources for images, etc. that would be greatly appreciated. BlankVerse ∅  17:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Grunion

message: I have just written and tested a robot that can read an article, find a taxobox, get the genus and species and add a reference link to fishbase. I have permission to run this for one weeks test and have successfully done so for some of the shark articles. If the taxobox does not contain both genus and species it does nothing. It should work for all fish articles also. The robot is User:StefanBot see edits to check pages it have changed. The bot have a few issues. 
* For now it can only handle 2-3 versions of the taxobox templates, I'm fixing it as I find more versions. For a unknown taxobos the bot just ignores the article.
* It have problems with pages that have no header for external links, references, related articles or see also, if non of these exists the robot will add the reference section last in the article which is some cases places it after the fish_stubs templates, I will fix this, but I must list ALL templates by names to know what the bot shall put the text before, for the shark articles I have monitored this by hand, but for fish articles I do not think I can do that, which means that you who probably look at the fish pages more that I must do these fixes. I can change the bot to not update any articles that does not already have any of the headers mentioned above if that would be preferable. now fixed.
* The bot adds the references as a * text, this does not look so good if the reference templates have been used in the article, I guess I can find ref and ignore the article but I have not found so many artciles yet that uses this so not sure. See for example of problem failed edit
Except for that the bot seams to do a OK job, I will not run it on the fish articles unless I get majority of positive responses here, please add comments.
Also I plan to try to make it add marine bio references later, but that is when I have had time to learn more python. Stefan 05:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea! About placement, it doesn't concern me so much; it's more important to get the reference in there than to worry about positioning. (There have been periods when I've preferred to have the stub note in front of other end matter anyway.) A more serious question is how to ensure that the link is actually checked to see that it works; imagine a misspelled genus name for instance. It would be helpful to have the bot add  a special-purpose category like "Unchecked FishBase references", requiring a human to actually verify that the link goes to the expected page before removing the category from the article. Stan 15:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that should be resonably easy to implement, I will work on it, fishbase gives a special page if the species does not exists, so I will modify my bot so that if the species does not exists in fishbase I will add a special category instead of the link. Stefan 09:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK now implemented and tested. I named the category "taxobox binomial name does not exist in fishbase" which is more descriptive I think, but I'm fine with any name. Also fixed the fish_stubs problem, now I insert the reference section before the fish-stub. Stefan 11:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fishbase references robot 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

message: Hello - I recently been doing some work on fishes and related articles - just wondered if anyone is here at the moment - maybe you could check some of my articles for errors etc.
Things I've done so far:
Added disambiguation pages for armoured catfish, sailfin catfish, suckermouth catfish
Moved 'plecostomus' articles to their respective scientific names - left the plecostomus page as a general page for Loricariidae catfish (especially those common in aquaria/pet shops)
Added to Loricariidae, created a Pterygoplichthys genus page.
Fish anatomy - created pages on Omega iris, odontode, suckermouth.
Fish keeping - created pages on related terms such as bogwood,aeration and L-number
If anyone is out there I'd appreciate you checking for errors / giving feedback etc. Otherwise I'll just carry on.HappyVR 18:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks OK. Don't forget to italicise genera and species. Gdr 19:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hello - anyone here

message: I've added a new genus article - acanthicus - maybe someone could check it.
I've also got a few questions about formatting/page layout:
Is there any preference for a 'prose' article vs. a headed list eg:
Distribution South east asiaHabitat Mountain streamsDiet Small crustaceans
vs. "This species is found in mountain streams in south east asia and feeds on small crustaceans."
The headed list seems easier to use to find info. but the 'prose' version looks more readable. Any comment/advice?
Also the family Loricariidae contains links (mostly red) for all its genera - should all these genera have separate pages? As web sources/references for most of these pages are the same three sites maybe the family page should just contain a link to the sites without having a page for each genus - any thoughts?HappyVR 10:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I favor the prose version. The headed version looks semi-illiterate, as if the writer couldn't manage to produce actual sentences. Plus you miss out on some explanatory opportunity (presumably the "small crustaceans" in mountain streams are amphipods rather than king crabs, etc :-) ). On genera, we actually want articles for all of those with more than one species; not just for navigational convenience (why hunt through a long family article?), but also because each genus needs at least an explanation of its circumscription, etymology, and rationale, which often includes some interesting ichthyological history too. You won't find much good genus detail online, but books and journal articles are a great source. Stan 12:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ok prose it is then - I've already have one person say they don't like the headings so two makes it final. And I'll continue adding genera as time allows. Is this page a good place to 'announce' new fish pages for checking? previously I've used Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science but the page is pretty busy. I don't think I make many mistakes but it's better if someone looks at the page early on to check for obvious mistakes that the writer overlooks.HappyVR 12:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions about format - new genus article

message: May I request the Seahorse page to be :-
* brought upto the high stds of WikiProject Fishes. It doesnt have a taxobox.
* edited by someone to give the article a good opening. The opening paragraphs of the article in its present state are ambiguous to a person who expects to find a generic article on sea horses but comes up against a genus-based article.
* more photos and information please.
The WikiProject may consider putting up a section/project page for suggestions, requests, development and cleanup.
I am of the opinion that Seahorse is one of the most important pages of this WikiProject since mamy children, parents or students would be drawn to this unusual and attractive group of fishes. I am ignorant about fishes in general and usually inhabit WikiProject Lepidoptera and its domain and sometimes venture to other articles. 
I'm also impressed with the quality of the WikiProject Main Page and commend all concerned.
Regards, AshLin 02:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the taxobox.HappyVR 11:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, looks better now, I've edited the opening sentance. Regards, AshLin 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seahorse, a request

message: I was thinking about attempting to complete the list of genera for the family loricariidae - however quite a few of the genuses have very little info available (and some are now possibly invalid) - apart from adding a taxobox and a link to fishbase and basic region found information many would contain very little info. otherwise. Should I go ahead and create these genus stubs or not bother or do something else?HappyVR 12:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Opinions differ, but I think a good-quality stub is better than nothing at all - not only does it add more facts than there were before, the linking in and out is useful in many ways (not least that it forestalls the creation of a bad stub by somebody else). I guarantee there are printed references out there that discuss the genus in some detail, for instance the taxonomic works justifying the definition of the genus in the first place. Stan 12:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unfortunately the papers are not always in English - often Spanish (could that be Portugese?) or French, a translation by me would be very slow and quite probably wrong (one word at a time via a dictionary)HappyVR 13:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say go for it.  Think of the stubs that you create as a big welcome sign to everybody out there shouting out "ADD TO ME!".  There are people who know some things about genera or species, but don't feel confident starting articles from scratch, or perceive that the lack of an article indicates a lack of interest in that article.  Even if they are able to add a short reference from another source, having the framework there is more inviting for someone to throw in a bit of information, or a photo. Neil916 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This project's page in the "taxonomy" section seems to state that Fishbase should be the de facto reference point for taxonomy.  I've been interpreting that to mean that if a genus or species is no longer considered valid in Fishbase, it shouldn't be included here.  This seems logical since Fishbase is updated regularly and can reflect the newest consensus in the scientific community, whereas my reference book from 1994 could be horribly outdated.  If it were me, I'd create a redirect to the new genus or species and add a sentence or paragraph in the new article discussing the reclassification.  (example: Tiger Barb has redirects from Barbus tetrazona, Capoeta tetrazona, and Puntius tetrazona, among others).  Chime in if I'm wrong... Neil916 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've been using fishbase as a source (mentioning differences when discussing old or now invalid genera). It seems widely used and accepted (even being used as a reference in popular fishkeeping magazines). There is a point I've been wondering about though - regarding the classification system: Is there an official board or similar organisation that decides when a new classification is valid. Some of the reclassifications I've seen seem to be based on published papers - which makes sense since these things are peer reviewed - but surely getting a paper published is not all that it takes - maybe some sort of consensus rules here, I've honestly no idea how it works in practice - I assume differences of opinion do arise? If no-one has the answer here I'll try on the science help desk. Can't find anything on wikipedia?HappyVR 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no centralised authority for taxonomy, any more than for any part of science. In many well-studied areas, there's a consensus. However, there are always areas where scientific opinion differs. What this means for Wikipedia is that (a) we should say whose taxonomy we are following; and (b) we should document differences between experts. Gdr 17:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. that gives me the info I need, thanks.HappyVR 17:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Redirects (or even disambigs!) from synonyms are highly desirable; they help prevent creation of duplicate articles for instance. Genera and higher taxa that have been broken up or entirely abandoned may actually need to have their own taxobox-less articles that tell readers what happened to them and why, and most importantly, how to find all the ex-subtaxa in WP; see Violales for a (poorly explained) example of a former plant order. Stan 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub genera

message: Hello. I've expanded upon the category list for this project a bit. Some of the categories I've added don't exist yet but I've every intention of using them later on. Here's a summary:
Added Category:Poeciliidae for live bearers and added species to this new category. The 'old' category 'live-bearers' is unchanged but now does not specifically just mean the family:Poeciliidae. Also added new categories Loricariidae and Callichthyidae as sub categories of 'armoured catfish'.
I've also added 'Geographical categories' - some of which don't exist yet. I think all species/genus articles should be in one of these (list not complete yet).
I tried to collect all the 'relavance to mankind' categories. I'm not sure about the category 'cold water aquarium fish' - should this be a list - I will change it if anyone wants.
I've also added lists relevant to this project as it seemed sensible.
O.K. First of all I'm sure I've missed a lot - please start adding more stuff.
Secondly is it ok, feedback please etc..HappyVR 22:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy, It sometimes helps to stand back and look at some other category scheme for ideas. It may suggest a better way to organise or some new category such as 'fish-scientists' or 'fish-books' , yes, I dont know the correct terms for these. I suggest you take a look at Lepidoptera category and its sub categories. Its not yet completely done but we have done some house-cleaning in it. Also see draft guidelines for categorisation (at present of butterflies only) which can be accessed here.Regards, AshLin 04:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, category fish-scientists is a good idea - they're called ichthyologists, I guess butterfly scientists are called Lepidoptorists?HappyVR 13:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like :Category:Ichthyologists? :-) Stan 16:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of fishproject relevant categories

message: I've created a :category:poeciliidae and put added the category tag to all the articles about this genus I could find. Further to this I've added non Poeciliidae genus live bearing fishes to the :category:Live-bearers. Finally I've added a request that the :category:live-bearers be renamed :category:Ovoviviparous fish. Which all made sense
to me. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 25. Hope this is ok.HappyVR 16:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: category:viviparous fish and :category:live-bearing fish also now exist.
My suggestion is that if the exact type of parental support is unknown the fish be placed in :category:live-bearing fish otherwise :category:viviparous fish or:category:ovoviviparous fish should be used. Livebearers of the guppy, platy, and molly type should also go in :category:Poeciliidae. Hope I've got that right.HappyVR 03:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Live bearers category

message: Note: for anyone using a link to the term barbel, I have disambiguated it.
New pages Barbel (fish species)  Barbel (anatomy) and Barbel (disambiguation)
Thank youHappyVR 20:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged the Barbel (fish species) article into Barbus barbus and further modified the disambiguation page. Neil916 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Barbel

message: Seems quite a few people are working on categories at the moment - here's a note for anyone who knows their "European fish" - if you have time - there is a new category :Category:Fish of Europe. ThanksHappyVR 13:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories - Europe 

message: Re:Categories: Is there a term that describes (species) that are found in the pacific,indian and atlantic oceans (but not artic ocean), also is there a simple term that includes tropical and sub-tropical fish ie a replacement for :category:Pan-(subtropical and tropical) fish?
:Why not just list it in the indian ocean category, atlantic ocean category, and pacific ocean categories? Neil916 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll do thatHappyVR 15:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: oceans

message: Is there a way to use the fishbase template to get a sub-species?HappyVR 14:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: trinomial fishbase

message: I've added a 'to-do' list as suggested by User:Lethargy, probably a better way than adding stuff to the bottom of the main page. There should be a link from the talklist on the main page. I'll copy the current list over as well.HappyVR 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do list

message: Thanks to Neil916 for adding the tag to the talkpage. My last message got wipe on editing accident. Sorry this is so short.
See my notes on Salmon and classification of government websites and bystate.
See my Mad Cow Page for and example of what the classification will look like.
--meatclerk 19:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: Expert advice needed re. possible merging of two articles. Please see talk page: Talk:Atlantic Spanish mackerel. Thanks! --Velvet-Glove 18:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update to the above: article merge has now been completed. --Velvet-Glove 00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate Spanish Mackerel article? Help needed 

message: We currently have a Tilapia page which discusses tilapiine cichlids (Tilapia, Sarotherodon and Oreochromis) under the common/trade name for these fish - tilapia. This is a confusing situation (see Talk:Tilapia). I was wondering whether I could get some advice from the WikiProject Fishes participants as to how to fix it?
Given the ambiguity of the common name (eg: tilapia vs Tilapia), I would suggest that a new page "tilapiines" or "tilapiine cichlids" be created to include most of the information on the tilapiine group as a whole (including information on aquaculture/invasive species) with links to three separate genera pages (eg: Tilapia, Sarotherodon and Oreochromis). 
Thoughts/Suggestions? MidgleyDJ 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tilapia should talk about the group as a whole - the name in that sense is just *so* common - and focus on the food and commercial aspects. Use Tilapia (genus) or Tilapia (fish genus) for the genus proper, give it more of the science, such as systematics and common characteristics of the genus. Stan 12:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tilapia advice 

message: Hi WikiProject -
I'm having some trouble with a user (User: 69.232.73.33) continuously reverting changes to cichlid. The user wont discuss the change (*which involves the listing of the genus Maylandia over Metriaclima*). Maylandia is the name given in fishbase - and the contentious nature of the genus is discussed adequately (and in a NPOV) on the Maylandia page itself.
So I'm asking for your advice in dealing with this person? MidgleyDJ 09:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Contribution history shows this is not the first time a problem has arisen, and yet this editor has not made a single edit to any talk page - ever. The editor does seem to know something of the field, so I hate to block summarily. Let's do a last warning. Stan 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This particular editor has a long history of making edits that seem fairly minor, yet when you look deeper into his edits, many of them seem (to me) to be malicious in nature, while others are entirely constructive edits.  MidgleyDJ certainly has memories of his robotic reversions of commentary about the accuracy of photos on Fishbase, which led to 2 3RR blocks of his anon account.  His other edits to the Cichlid page in particular raises an issue, since this Wikiproject uses Fishbase as the ultimate authority on taxonomy.  Most of his edits to Cichlid are additions of various genera that are in a state of transition.  Fishbase doesn't acknowledge almost all of them, yet other authorities (i.e. IUCN) do.  It's an issue I've deliberately kept away from since I'm in no way any type of authority on taxonomy, but today I decided to take a look at many of his recent edits and found that several were flat-out wrong (malicious? can't tell, he doesn't use edit summaries, ever.) such as the removal of asian arowana from the Endangered species article, changing species names in articles, and his arbitrary changing a caption on a photo in the Halfbeak article.  I guess it wouldn't be so annoying if he would just respond to attempts to communicate with him on his talk page and article talk pages.  That is why I would characterize many of his actions as malicious in nature.  Even when he got blocked, he was right back as soon as the block expired with the same exact behavior without as much as an edit summary comment to defend his actions.   Neil916 06:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what its worth, I too had a review of this user's history and even if he does seem to have some knowledge of the subject, the fact that so many of his edits seem to be non-verifiable or flat our wrong and especially the fact that he refuses to engage in any discussion about his edits makes me feel less inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt.  How many warnings does someone have to have before he gets shown the door.  If it were in my power I would ban him outright.  Perhaps it is better that it is not in my power <grin>.Nick Thorne 12:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've posted the final warning. It's very rare to run across someone who does deliberate but subtle injection of bad info into WP, and there are reasonable edits mixed in, so it's hard to be certain of malice. Behavior strikes me more as someone who's utterly convinced of the correctness of his alternate reality. But in any case it sucks up too much time reviewing and re-reviewing un-discussed edits, we don't need that. Stan 12:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think your warning worked.  Neil916 15:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The user has again made unexplained edits (this time removing all of one side of the story) to Maylandia, and also to cichlid. MidgleyDJ 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do- Reverts and Edits 

message: Hi!
We are trying to get Oceanic whitetip shark to FA status, please review and update. Thanks! Stefan 03:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Oceanic whitetip shark]] to FA 

message: There is an odd reference to a submarine at the end of the coregonus article that probably doesn't belong there.  I've left it there, but someone might want to have a look.
The reference to blackfin cisco being extinct is incorrect, and is in fact contradicted by the blackfin cisco page.  I'll make the correction.  The status of this group is problematic.  The proliferation of cisco species in the Laurentian great lakes is based on the work of a single researcher and the subject of debate.  Some note might be made of that, but since it's all pretty up in the air, maybe not.  I'm new to this encyclopedia business.
I will also clean up the capitalized species names in the section.--Peter3 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Coregonus]] 

message: After trying to get enough people to join for a long time I have now made Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks official, if anyone is interested please come join us! Stefan 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks|Project Sharks]] 

message: This has been bothering me for some time having worked on numerous fish articles.  We often list the water conditions, such as what temperature and pH should be used.  But these are often only averages.  Fish in the wild are never exposed to the same conditions at all times.  Temperature and pH change with the weather, especially different from dry and wet seasons.  Really serious aquarists who do breeding and other such things will take the time to vary the temperature, water level, pH, and so forth to imitate the changing seasons, but if you read the average fish article you would have no idea about this.  Some articles say something like "Fish in the aquarium should be kept at these conditions...", but that isn't necessarily true.  Maybe the articles should be changed to say something like "average" temperatures.  I'm not really sure.  Right now our articles are great for people who want to keep fish, but maybe not as much as for scientific studies.  Maybe that kind of information isn't well-known, however. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Water conditions 

message: I've requested a peer review for this article at WP:PR and was hoping to get someone from this project to have a look.  I'm hoping for featured article status on this one.  All comments appreciated! Mmoyer 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Yellow clown goby]] 

message: There is a project at :Wikipedia:Wikiproject Improving Fish Articles which covers substantially the same ground as this larger project.  I suggest that whatever content is appropriate from the other page be merged into this one.  Badbilltucker 20:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any content of value in the other one - looks like someone not knowing what we already have. Stan 22:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger proposal 

message: *I just noticed that the flying fish page didn't have a fishes project tag, so I added it to the project and reorganized the paragraphs into the general order recommended. However, the article still needs work that goes beyond my knowledge. In particular I can't figure out what to do with the fishbase referencing; the month and date fields are confusing. (I'm new to this project) =Axlq 05:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Flying fish]] and [[Ocean Sunfish]]

message: Is there a way we can contribute images for easy use?
Have a number of photos which I'd be happy to share, but not sure how to label them for easy search and use for anyone wanting to create an article on a specific marine creature.  Perhaps an image request list would be beneficial.  Jnpet 07:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place for them is the [Commons], which is the Wikimedia-wide image repository. Upload the photos and then either add them to existing galleries and categories, or create new categories for taxa not already there. For fishes, start from :commons:Category:Chondrichthyes and :commons:Category:Osteichthyes and work your way down to see what we have already. Generally article writers know to swing by commons and see what we have in our "stock photos" when putting together the article. Stan 13:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Uploads 

message: I took some photos at an aquarium yesterday, and did a little work on images in the Pipefish article earlier.... I boldly replaced the infobox image, which I thought had a dubious claim to fair use, and added a couple of others. I've labelled two of those photographs as Alligator Pipefish (I previously knew only that they were Pipefish) solely on the basis that they look exactly the same, to my inexpert eye, as the creature in the original infobox image, which was labelled as such. I'm sure this must be correct, but if possible, I'd like for somebody who knows their pipefish to confirm that this is the case.
Also, I wonder if anyone can identify these strange beasties?
TheMadBaron 12:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipefish and.... erm.... 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 23:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: There is currently a barnstar proposal at :Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wildlife Barnstar 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Hi WikiProject,
it seems there's a duplicate article in your project scope:
* Misgurnus anguillicaudatus
* Weather loach
I've marked the articles for merging and thought I'd let you folks know here, too, so that it can be swiftly resolved. Thanks for all the hard work! -pinkgothic 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think perhaps the reason for this was that "Weather Loach" can be used generically, but the article was written for a single species.  As a result I've merged the articles.  I can't say its the best merge, but it will have to do until someone else comes along and updates it. -- RM 20:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that explains why there were two articles - thanks for letting me know. And of course: much thanks for the merge. -pinkgothic 16:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weather loach 

message: thumb|200px|A. pictus or A. commerson
Frogfish seem very difficult to identify because the vast variety in camoflage coloration even within one species. Therefor, I thought perhaps someone here could help with the identity of this beauty. Initially, I tagged it as an A. pictus, but on further consideration, I'm starting to think it could be an A. commerson.  Would highly appreciate a confirmation, correction or an alternate possibility.  FYI, on this specimen. About 15 cm from head to tail and location is North Sulawesi, Indonesia.Jnpet 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antennarius 

message: I notice that down at the bottom of their main page , they are asking people to include citations of their "main ref" and "data ref" publications. Makes sense, because FishBase is like us, they just aggregate other people's data. Only downside I can see is that we're adding refs to works we probably haven't seen ourselves - although I've done it before, I don't think every editor agrees with the practice, so we'd have to establish an explicit rule that it's OK here. Stan 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FishBase references 

message: I have developed Asian arowana pretty extensively. Currently I'm soliciting other editors to review it, with the hope that it may reach FA someday. Any comments or contributions would be appreciated. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of [[Asian arowana]] 

message: There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Veterinary medicine project 

message: Just to let you know that I have created the fish portal. Here are the current contents of the portal:
* The fish portal
* Selected article of the month (this can be anything: fishing, fishkeeping, fish in culture, etc.)
* Selected fish of the month (this can be a species, a genus, or a family of fish)
* Selected picture of the month
* Fish news 
* Did you know...
* Selected quote of the month
* Categories
* Fish lists
* WikiProjects (links to WikiProject Fishes and WikiProject Sharks)
* Related portals (links to the Sharks Portal, the Marine Life Portal, and the Biology Portal)
* Selected topics about Fish (with 6 groups of topics: Fish biology, Fish taxonomy, Fishery, Food fish, Fishkeeping, Aquarium fish, and Others)
* Things you can do (this is a link to tasks)
* Web resources (FishBase and ITIS)
* Associated Wikimedia
As the fish portal is just started, I took the liberty of choosing the December article and the picture of the month myself. But from now on the portal is open for nomination. Is there anything else I should include in the portal? Any comments would be appreciated --Melanochromis 00:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fish Portal created 

message: Hi, User:Melanochromis has done a great job getting the Fish Portal up an running.  At this point, more sets of eyes can help make it even better. If you can offer some tips on the portal talk page about how to improve Fish up to "featured" quality, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 13:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was impressed as well, and very pleased to see Asian arowana as the featured fish. --Ginkgo100 talk 21:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fish Portal 

message: Hello there, I am aquarium fish lover, I wish I could  keep some with me but I am afraid to mange them and feeding and I do not know what steps to take, I used to play tycoon fish game so that I can get idea of keeping aquarium fish, is not it funny ,well that game idea did not work. So still I am waiting to get strong to fulfill my hobby of keeping  aquarium  fishes .anyway I have to talk about topic ,I am just wanted to ask you, have you add  Fish( Pala, this fish is only found in river Indus. if not then I request you to add it. Please). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Khalidkhoso (talk • contribs) 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fishbase shows that there are many fish with the common name Pala. But the one you are talking about is probably Tenualosa ilisha, also known as Hilsa, which is the national fish of Bangladesh. The Hilsa article says that the fish is also called "Palla" in Sind. Is this the same fish? If you are interested in the fish, I suggest you can help expanding the Tenualosa ilisha article. --Melanochromis 08:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you add Pala(the fish found only in river indus) 

message: Hi guys, I'm working on sorting out the ~6000+ photo requests currently in the :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs, so I have among other things created :Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes. Populating it now by running AWB though the category and updating the photoreq template where I find your project banner. Just figured you guys might be interested (it's better to keep photo requests by subjects so interested parties can easily see what we want photos of rater than having to sift though one massive category full of "unrelated" stuff). Put  (or if the subject already have a fair use image, and is too rare to qualify as  outright: ). On article talk pages add them to the category. Hope some will find it usefull. --Sherool (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes]] 

message: Hello all, just like to let you know that the WikiProject Fishes has a new descendant project: The Aquarium Fishes Wikiproject. Check it out here !! --Melanochromis 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes|WikiProject Aquarium Fishes]] 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 17:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The fish portal only has three users regularly voting for the selected article, selected fish, and selected picture.  Come place your vote, or nominate your favorite article/fish/picture! --Ginkgo100talk 20:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Fish]] feature nominations 

message: Hi, anyone willing to start a stub on that critter? There is currently a major taxonomical dispute raging, and I have the papers and would like to put them somewhere. Being not very firm as regards gobies, I don't dare to start the article myself.
BTW, I have put a number of descriptions of new species (mainly catfish and tetras from South America) as annotations in the family or genus articles; check out the source code. Most should be online for free. If you're in the mood, grab that stuff and edit away. Dysmorodrepanis 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[Gobius lagocephalus]]''

message: Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 22:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Microformat

message: If someone can think of a good title for a single article on internal fertilization in fishes, we should go ahead and create an article. Claspers, Gonopodium, and Andropodium are all stubs, and their concepts overlap rather well. Although I'm no expert, the articles give some indication that, at least, gonopodium and andropodium are relatively similar organs. Anyone else got any ideas? MiltonT 07:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal fertilization 

message: I came across this via newpages.  It seems like a good start to an article, but I'm not sure about the title (aside from the capitalization issue).  Should it become something like Fishing in Wyoming?  There aren't any similar articles for other U.S. states or even countries that I've been able to find, and this isn't a subject I'm familiar with. —Celithemis 06:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wyoming Game Fish]] 

message: * Articles on fish species should be titled using the FishBase preferred common name, if one exists.
* If Fishbase does not list any common name, use the scientific name. (note that Fishbase doesn't provide common names for many fishes).   
* If the FishBase preferred common name is mostly an unknown name, measured by Google search that yields less than 500 results, use the common name listed in FishBase that yields the most google search results.
* If no common names yield more than 500 google results, use the scientific name.
* If the FishBase preferred common name is single-country specific, use a more internationally-known common name, as measured by references from governmental or respectable non-profit sources from at least three different countries.
* If no common names are available (taken by another article, or disambiguation page), use the scientific name.
* In the case that the fish is of very low importance to humans (no values for aquaculture, fisheries, sport fishing, aquarium, culture, etc.), the article may use scientific name even if there is a FishBase preferred common name.
* In the case that is beyond or not described by this policy and consensus can't not be reached how to name the article, respect the choice of the first editor of the article.   
--Melanochromis 09:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Melanochromis - no, I'm afraid I have some issues with it. But I appreciate the effort you've put into it! Using fishbase as a source of "commonsense" common names doesnt make sense. Here's an edited proposal of mine. I think common names should be used where they are sensible and I think this largely reflects that. The fishbase common name is frequently not sensible, universal or unambiguous and we (in my opinion) should not tie ourselves to the use of it. MidgleyDJ 10:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FishBase common names aren't "commonsense". Each common name listed there has a reference and each name would be sorted methodologically into ranks (there're 6 ranks or something like that). It's a system of standardization of fish common names, probably the only one in this scale. Although not the perfect one (I don't think any system is), it's not bad at all. That's why I think FishBase is very useable. Besides, if we don't stick to FishBase, what else are you gonna use to decide which common names to use. There'll be tons of editing disputes, this I forsee. --Melanochromis 10:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction - I think there are 3 ranks of common names in FishBase. They also identify whether the common names are unique to a particular fish or not. So there's no worry that FishBase names would be ambiguous. --Melanochromis 11:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles of fish species articles (draft)

message: *Use the common name where:
#Only a single common name is used for a species, and that common name is not otherwise used for any other species. Example: Greenland halibut.
#Only a single common name is used for a species, and that common name is demonstrably only used for other species is used so rarely that confusion is unlikely to occur. Example: Guppy.
#Only a single common name is used by the relevant legal, conservation, or fisheries institutions in the region where the species is endemic and of importance, even though other common names may exist. Example: Atlantic salmon.
#Only a single common name is used for a species, and similar names can be separated from it by appropriate use of geographical, descriptive, or other modifications to those names and where these differentiated names satisfy criteria 1, 2, or 3 above. Examples: Shovelnose sturgeon, Little shovelnose sturgeon, False shovelnose sturgeon.
*The Latin name should be used as article titles where:
#A species shares a common name with one or more other species. Example: Green spotted puffer.
#A species lacks a single, universally recognised common name. Example: Black widow tetra (a.k.a. Black tetra, Petticoat tetra)
#A species has different common names in different English-speaking countries. Example Plec (UK), Pleco (US).
#A species has no widely used common name. Example: Dermogenys sumatrana.
Regardless of the title used, all articles should include the scientific name in italics and all English common names in bold in the first paragraph (preferably the first sentence) of the article, and all reasonable attempts should be made to include disambiguations to species with which the present one might be confused. Hence articles on the silver freshwater hatchetfish should disambiguate to the silver marine hatchetfish and vice versa.
Neale Monks 20:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me Neale. Thoughts Stan, Terrapin, Melanochromis, Others? MidgleyDJ 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles of fish species articles (draft V)

message: *Use the common name where:
#A single common name is used for a species, and that common name is not otherwise used for any other species. Other common names, if they exist, are rarely or insignificantly used. Example: Greenland halibut. (Note: excluded "rarely or insignificantly used" names because even fish like the Greenland halibut has "rarely or insignificantly used" other common names. Ed.2: Added "they"
#A single common name is used for a species, and that common name is demonstrably only used for other species so rarely or insignificantly that confusion is unlikely to occur. Example: Guppy. (Note: fixed a typo.)
#A single common name is used by the relevant legal, conservation, fisheries or local institutions in the region where the species is endemic or of importance, even though other common names may exist. Example: Atlantic salmon. (Note: added international. Ed.2: Changed the international part - relevant is probably all that's required.)
#A single common name is used for a species, and similar where similar names can be separated from it by appropriate use of geographical, descriptive, or other modifications to those names and where these differentiated names satisfy criteria 1, 2, or 3 above. Examples: Shovelnose sturgeon, Little shovelnose sturgeon, False shovelnose sturgeon. (Tweaked "and" to "where".)
*The Latin name should be used as article titles where:
#A species shares a common name with one or more other species, and confusion is likely to occur. Example: Green spotted puffer. In such case, also create a disambiguation page. (Ed.3 Note: distinguished this from common name#2, disambiguation)
#A species lacks a single, universally recognised common name. Example: Black widow tetra (a.k.a. Black tetra, Petticoat tetra)
#A species has different regional common names, each significantly used in different English-speaking countries. Example Plec (UK), Pleco (US). (Note: prevented the "three Barbadian fishermen vs all other people" case)
#A species has no widely used common name. Example: Dermogenys sumatrana.
#A species is virtually known only by ichthyologists and has no anthropogenic human or commercial importance in terms of fishing, fisheries, aquaculture or the aquarium hobby as described in the Fishbase. (Note: added more possibility where the Latin name is preferred. Ed.2: Changed to "anthropogenic". Remove "etc.") (Changed anthropogenic, since that means from human activity, not for human uses.) 
Regardless of the title used, all articles should include the scientific name in italics and all significant English common names in bold in the first paragraph (preferably the first sentence) of the article.
All reasonable attempts should be made to include disambiguations to species with which the present one might be confused. Disambiguations can be done by; (Note: added detail.)
* explanation of the ambiguity in the first paragraph of the article with links to other fish. Example: tilapia.
* addition of a disambiguation tag: Example: freshwater hatchetfish. The following is a simple format of disambiguation tag.  
::This article is about the <put text>; for the <put text> see <put link>.
* creation of a disambiguation page especially in the case that the ambiguity involves many fish. Example: tigerfish.
Orginally drafted by Neale Monks, edited by --Melanochromis 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some minor eds by under "Ed.2" otherwise unchanged. Looks good to me now. Would this resolve the Talk:Mayan_cichlid issue ? MidgleyDJ 03:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ed.2 is good with me. I just added things that I forgot to add with Ed.1. See Latin name#1. So the draft is now 5.03. Re: Mayan cichlid, that article will probably be the first to get to test this policy. --Melanochromis 03:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles of fish species articles (draft 5.03)

message: # Support The proposal addresses the problem with common names while retaining their use where the common name is widespread and accepted. It also deals with the issue of "common names beause fishbase says so" which results in some silly choices. Given the proposal maintains the use of common names where they are actually common, and encourages the use of disambiguation pages it also (in my opinion) addresses the "audience" concerns. ie: what's being searched for at google/insert other search engine. Finally it also includes a final point to WP:FISH were consensus cannot be reached. I think the proposal is a sensible, constructive improvement in the way Wikipedia deals with the most diverse (and probably most poorly studied) vertebrate group. MidgleyDJ 03:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: if it is not too much trouble, could someone find the binomial authority for the deep sea frill shark? i'd like to at least finish the info in the taxbox before i start to wrie in depth.
-thank you
Ryan shell 02:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this could help with your article :-) --Melanochromis 02:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deep sea frill shark

message: I'm happy to announce that the Fish Portal has added a new feature - The Fish Quiz!! Come test your knowledge, interact with other fish editors, try to win the game and have your name honored in the Hall of Fame, and have a fun break from editing wikipedia. Cheers --Melanochromis 08:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:Fish/Quiz|The Fish Quiz]] 

message: Someone look into this Prairie fish article. I have no doubt that this fish is not supposed to be Neoceratodus forsteri, the Australian lungfish. However, the article is sourceless and gives a scientific name that I can't find. Since I don't know much about NA natives it's possible the "prairie fish" common name refers to a completely different fish. Therefore, I don't know if the article should be edited or purely deleted; I'm relatively sure it's the latter, but I'd like someone else's confirmation. MiltonT 19:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a fake fish. Somebody has too much free time! And it's pretty ironic that that article is more interesting to read than many real fish articles. --Melanochromis 23:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I summarily vaporized it. Stan 12:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prairie fish]]? 

message: I know it's not technically part of this WikiProject but:
Aquarium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
MidgleyDJ 05:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feature article review for: [[Aquarium]] 

message: Greetings, all! Just a heads up that I left a message at Talk:Rasbora concerning the structure of the article titles and would appreciate any thoughts an input before I took any action since I'm not familiar with naming conventions your project might use. In my search for guidelines on article naming, I noticed the following sentence fragment on the project's main page:
:Articles on taxa above the generic level should be titled with the Latin form of the name and not the anglicization, e.g. Cyprinidae not cyprinid...
Even though this is written as an example, the article title is at cyprinid and not Cyprinidae. Should it be moved? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or... if I had only read several discussions above this one! I see you're in the process of revising the naming convention. For the record, I like what WP:BANKSIA has done. All articles at scientific names with common name redirects, which are then categorized into :Category:Banksia taxa by common name and duplicated in a list, I believe. (Obvious exceptions excluded, of course, to adhere to Wikipedia's main naming convention.) Though I'm not a part of this project, there's my two cents worth. --Rkitko (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Rasbora]]'' 

message: This articles appears to be about aquarium fish diseases and treatment. I'd like to move it to an article with that name. I think the article fish disease should be about the immunology and parasitology of fishes in a broad biological context, though reference to aquaculture and aquarium care towards the end would not be out of place. Thoughts? Neale Monks 10:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea Neale. The article you are proposing could simply link to Diseases of aquarium fish or perhaps Aquarium fish health? Cheers, David.MidgleyDJ 11:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fish diseases]] 

message: I think most people have expressed their views on the new naming guidelines for articles on fish. Most people appear supportive of the proposal, and in my view the majority of concerns have been addressed. Should we move to incorporate the changes to WP:FISH now? MidgleyDJ 22:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Nick Thorne 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, consensus is for the change, despite my objections.  Neil916 (Talk) 16:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Go for it. Stan 15:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming proposal adoption 

message: I see the renaming of articles is already starting, with blackline penguinfish renamed as Thayeria boehlkei. But doesn't our new policy state that "Before renaming articles, discuss the reasons for doing so on the Talk page"? I'd really appreciate if the editors propose it first in the article talk page or this page. Why did we have to spend all the time and energy creating this new policy if it's gonna be ignored? --Melanochromis 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Melanochromis, the article itself was a direct copy from fishbase. If you'd like to see how I've changed it here's the details. To my mind this is a perfect example of why the guidelines were changed. It has multiple not-in-common-use common names ie: blackline penguinfish, blackline Thayeria, hockey-stick tetra, penguin fish and penguin tetra. I personally have never seen it as the blackline penguinfish - it's always sold as the blackline tetra or hockey-stick tetra in Australia. If you have a problem with the renaming of this article - perhaps we should discuss it on the articles talk page. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that this was one of those cases were the common name was not appropriate. It's my view that the discussion re: naming guidelines has had plenty of time to people to mull it over, and I'll be honest: I'd rather spend my time constructively improving articles. Is it your concern that this change doesnt conform to the guidelines? MidgleyDJ 01:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies to anyone concerned about this change: I've placed a discussion point on the Talk:Thayeria_boehlkei. If you'd like to discuss it there please do so. I'll make sure I do this prior to title changes in the future. MidgleyDJ 01:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Sorry if my post sounded harsh. I was looking at my watchlist and all the sudden Thayeria boehlkei showed up which I did not remember adding to my watchlist (well, there're like 800 fish articles in my watchlist. I like to play memory games and such but 800 Latin names to remember isn't that fun.). --Melanochromis 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Melanochromis, no apology needed. I've just re-read my post and it was a little hastily written too :). I know we are both in this for the right reasons! MidgleyDJ 07:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I also turned Parrot cichlid from a redirect into a disambiguation page. Is there concerns about this also? MidgleyDJ 01:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the fishkeeping trade -- that is collection and retail -- the penguinfish can be either  Thayeria boehlkei or  Thayeria oblique. No attempt seems to be made to separate them, and unless aquarists have a sharp eye for detail, they're easily mixed up. Baensch pages 312-313 explains the differences quite nicely, but I'd be tepted to keep a simple penguinfish article that disambiguates to the two species and perhaps also explains how to tell them apart. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not too fast with that renaming 

message: I'm planning to create some articles for the other two parrot cichlids ie: Hoplarchus psittacus & Hypsophrys nicaraguensis
Fishbase lists the common name of Hypsophrys nicaraguensis as Moga (also Nicaraguense, Butterfly cichlid, Nicaragua cichlid) all things I've never heard of. Other common names for the species include "parrot cichlid" "macaw cichlid" "Spilotum". According to fishbase Hoplarchus psittacus has no common name - despite Baensch (vol II) using Parrot cichlid.
In my view the new guidelines suggest to use latin names. Parrot cichlid is now a redirect (as above). Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 01:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to me to be a clear cut case where the common name must be a disambiguation page, leading to articles entitled Hoplarchus psittacus, Hypsophrys nicaraguensis, and Parrot cichlid (hybrid). Baensch sometimes "creates" common names by translating either the Latin or colloquial German names into English, and almost certainly that's how Hoplarchus psittacus became parrot cichlids (from the Latin name in this case). In the UK trade at least, parrot cichlids are normally the hybrids. As and when we get around to it, at least two cichlids are called chocolate cichlids, so that would be another case for a disambiguation leading to Latin name articles. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parrot cichlid articles done. MidgleyDJ 10:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parrot cichlid now leads to Hoplarchus psittacus, Hypsophrys nicaraguensis and blood parrot cichlid. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 10:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parrot cichlids - what to call articles? 

message: We need more general info on practically every animal article I have seen, but most of all in fish. 
Information on things such as diet, size, weight and the like tend to be more important than what the fish is theorized to be related to.  Also I think it would be nice to have some of the more exotic and/or deepsea fish articles have more pictures and info.  I know that deep sea fish pictures are hard to take, as deep sea fish tend to live deep down in the sea, but that is what would be nice.
Thank you all!
Zantaggerung 03:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, more info would be good. On picture, many deep-sea fishes are "reconstructed" from pieces, having exploded or come apart on the way up, so for many the only depiction is going to be a drawing. Stan 21:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More info

message: The following books will be of interest
* Fishes (1889) Day, Francis, 1829-1889 Volume 2
* Fishes (1889) Day, Francis, 1829-1889 Volume 1
Among many other gems now available in public domain on www.archive.org.
Some of the images have been extracted and have been uploaded by me . Its tiring, and need more hands and more importantly a knowledge of fish. Cheers. Shyamal 13:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And many more Fish related books Shyamal 14:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this, the images may be useful. I did a glance and saw a diagram of Clariidae's labyrinth organ, which would be a useful picture, among other images. MiltonT 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References in public domain

message: Should Wyoming Game Fish have its own article? I turned it into a redirect to Game fish but an anon editor feels differently so I thought I'd bring it to this project for discussion. MidgleyDJ 19:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created the article and think it has information that merits an article. However, I don't think that only Wyoming should have its own article. Since each state has its own regulations, etc., I think there would be merit in creating one for each state. And if enough information can be gathered, pages for nations other than the U.S. certainly deserve mention, as well. If the articles for each state are created, a list by state could be added to the Game fish article for navigation. If it's decided that there shouldn't be a separate page for each state and/or country, then Wyoming Game Fish should be deleted, rather than redirected.Ninjatacoshell 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps merge the material into Wyoming and Game fish I personally dont think there is enough information to warrant the inclusion of this article in WP. MidgleyDJ 22:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ironically Wyoming Game Fish is a better developed article than Game fish. Redirecting this to game fish without transferring its content is practically deletion of an article. If it is to merge with another article, then please find a way to save the content. Also, you might want to consider renaming the article to Fishing in Wyoming as proposed earlier by User:Celithemis. --Melanochromis 22:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Any objections? Ninjatacoshell 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: "Fishing in Wyoming" seems like the right kind of umbrella. Each U.S. state has a unique subculture and government agency governing fishing, most have at least one multi-hundred page book on the subject that would be the main authority for an article. Stan 18:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. Ninjatacoshell 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wyoming Game Fish]] 

message: ===Family level names===
Should Cichlid and Cyprinid redirect to their latin counterparts? Characin, for example, does already ie: Characidae. I've no strong feelings on this myself - but I'm wondering whether there's a consistent usage at the family level? MidgleyDJ 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Cichlids are always called cichlids as far as I know, and the same with cyprinids. The cases where the formal family names would be preferable would be where the same colloquial name is used for more than one family, e.g. hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae versus Gasteropelecidae), soles (Achiridae versus Soleidae), etc. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming queries 

message: Should Cichlid and Cyprinid redirect to their latin counterparts? Characin, for example, does already ie: Characidae. I've no strong feelings on this myself - but I'm wondering whether there's a consistent usage at the family level? MidgleyDJ 23:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Cichlids are always called cichlids as far as I know, and the same with cyprinids. The cases where the formal family names would be preferable would be where the same colloquial name is used for more than one family, e.g. hatchetfishes (Sternoptychidae versus Gasteropelecidae), soles (Achiridae versus Soleidae), etc. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Family level names

message: We are currently discussing what to do with the name of this article at Talk:Three spot gourami. Feel free to join in! MidgleyDJ 21:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Three spot gourami]]

message: I have just created the page Three-bearded rockling and I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to check it out or improve it as I am unsure as to the standard conventions for fish articles. Thanks. Bass fishing physicist 23:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Three-bearded rockling]] 

message: I had a found a photo of Paratilapia polleni on Wikipedia or the Commons and was going to add it to the cichlid article. I have, however, lost it and cant find it now. If anyone could point me to it I'd be most appreciative.
Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost photo of Paratilapia polleni 

message: Hi all. This is my first time writing an article about a fish, so I wanted to ask more knowledgeable editors --- is FishBase's list of synonyms considered authoritative? I'm particularly confused by , which would mean that the fish in question is not unique to Korea, contrary to widespread belief.
Incidentally, is the article at the right name? Wasn't sure whether to use the scientific name or not. "Korean splendid dace" is the "English name", but I don't know if it really qualifies as the common name among English speakers; it appears to be Latin translationese made up by Korean academic authors, and outside of English abstracts of Korean journal submissions, the only place I see it used is in some genomics database. The indigeneous name Shiri/Swiri isn't used in English either except in connection with discussion about the Korean movie of the same name (in which the fish plays a major role). Thanks, cab 07:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Cab - Fishbase is just a collection of information and references, sadly it's not an authoritative source in and of it's own right. I think the scientific name is probably the best name for the article (as the fishes common names in english arent in "common use" or widespread. Do you have a picture of the species by any chance? MidgleyDJ 08:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''[[Coreoleuciscus splendidus]]'' 

message: I recently proposed a Wikiprojet: north american fresh water fishes. if any one would be interested in joining, please sign your name Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. thanks, Ryan shell 21:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  North American Fresh Water Fishes Project 

message: Unless anyone can reasonably support otherwise, I propose merging Syngnathiformes into Gasterosteiformes. References I have to validate this include Helfman, et al. "Diversity of Fishes", Nelson "Fishes of the World", ITIS, and at least one scientific paper  that discuss their phylogeny. Helfman himself left a comment on the talk page of Actinopterygii. These sources move the fishes previously classified in Syngnathiformes into Gasterosteiformes. FishBase in this case does not seem to be the source to go by, especially since it cites both the Helfman and Nelson texts on the Syngnathiformes page yet continues to treat it at as a separate order. 
However, this would require a rather big change. Family level pages would have to be re-categorized into Gasterosteiformes, and all Syngnathiform pages would have to have their taxoboxes fixed. Although this is a change that I'm supporting, I would rather not start doing all that work if people disagree with this change. MiltonT 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in two minds about this. I haven't read these papers, but have been aware for some time that the seahorse (Syngnathiformes) and stickleback (Gasterosteiformes) groups were very closely related. Rather than merging the two groups, I'd suggest renaming the Syngnathiformes to Syngnathoidei and adjusting taxo boxes accordingly. Provided the seahorse group is a clade, then treating them as a separate entity within Wikipedia makes practical sense. The Gasterosteiformes article could then be changed to incude discussions of both groups and the phylogentic analyses, and the original, stickleback-centric info for Gasterosteiformes could be moved to Gasterostoidei or whatever. Simply conflating the two articles would seem, to me, to be muddying the waters even if technically more accurate. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is another possible route, but it is not very different from my own in the end. All Syngnathiform and Gasterosteiform articles would still have to be edited to reflect this taxonomy in their taxoboxes and their categories. It would seem to make not much of a difference except in the "main" Gasterosteiformes article. Hmmm... MiltonT 02:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syngnathiformes 

message: Can someone point me in the direction of a list of fish species native to Michigan?  I need it for a  school project.  Thanks Corvus coronoides ContributionsMGo Blue 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There appears to be a list here at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query about native fish to Michigan 

message: I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:TOL template

message: Hi there. I noticed the discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes#Rasbora up above, and thought  people here might be interested in the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Categorizing redirects. From what I know of fish taxonomy and common names, trying to bring order to the bewildering array of common names might be a fruitless task, but just wanted to let you know about that discussion anyway. Carcharoth 12:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorising redirects 

message: specifically, it says: 
:Many sources will claim that crucian carp are the wild version of the goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus). The wild form of the goldfish is however Carassius auratus gibelio, or rather Carassius gibelio with auratus as the subspecies. While they are certainly closely related, they are different species which can be indentified by the following characteristics: 
:*C. auratus has a more pointed snout while  the snout of a crucian carp is well rounded. 
:*The wild form of the Goldfish C. auratus gibelio or C. gibelio often has a grey/greenish color, while crucian carps are always golden bronze. 
:*Juvenile crucian carp (and tench) have a black spot on the base of the tail which disappears with age. In C. auratus this tail spot is never present.
:*C. auratus have less then 31 scales along the lateral line while crucian carp have 33 scales or more.
Despite what the article says, if the goldfish is Carassius auratus gibelio and the Crucian carp is Carassius auratus auratus, they really are the same species, just different subspecies. (I added the  in there...)  Someone who knows more about this please clarify what's going on?  Here, on my talk page or in the article?  Please?  Thanks, Tomertalk 21:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  internal inconsistency at [[Crucian carp]] 

message: :Miranda 11:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea. But "Love oceanography? Enjoy marine life?" sounds more like an ad for WikiProject Marine life. --Melanochromis 02:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! May I use it on my user page? I'll be sure to credit you. FireFly5 05:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sure. Ads can be used in userspace. And, dead or alive, fishes exists in marine life, too! :-D Miranda 08:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad 

message: The following discussion was brought up due to a question posted on Portal:Fish/Quiz.
I thought it appropriate to move this over here to open it up for discussion in the proper forum. Any input would be appreciated. --Jnpet 07:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really look like one. The colour on the snout is too bright, the pectoral fins shouldn't be yellow, and the shape is a little off. Besides, black percs are only found in the reefs around Darwin Australia. I doubt one would be found in Indonesia. It looks like an amphiprion polymnus to me. According to this site: http://www.nhm.ku.edu/inverts/ebooks/ch2.html#polym saddleback anemonefish that inhabit heteractis crispa anemones are usually entirely black with a few yellow markings...  FireFly5 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could also be amphiprion sebae? The black melanistic variety of course.
FireFly5 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From images I've seen of amphiprion polymnus, they lack the white band at the base of their tail as in the specimen on this picture. Can they vary that much? As for amphiprion sebae like the Mauritian, they're in the Indian Ocean, whereas this specimen was encountered in the Western Pacific off the coast of Sulawesi. Darwin would be closer...--Jnpet 07:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. It may well be amphiprion ocellaris, but the yellow pectoral fins really point to something else. So does the white tipping of the dorsal and caudal fins. For people not previously involved in this discussion, I'll repost the pics of my black false perc...
left|thumb|Jazzy
FireFly5 17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm starting to think this could indeed be a saddleback, from my search it appears this species have a lot of melanistic variety. I also found that there is a wiki article on this species, but I think the section on appearance would need to be updated. And as there is currently no image, if we all agree this image is indeed a saddleback, we can pop this one into the taxobox.  Thoughts? --Jnpet 08:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I wish I could find a good picture of a black saddleback anemonefish for comparison. The best I could find is this: http://www.aquamarinediving.com/images/DFugitt_ClarkFishCleaner.jpg. In the end, it's really up to you: you saw the fish in person. If we say it's a saddleback and it turns out not to be, oh well. It looks sufficiently like one that no one is going to blame us for the mistake. We both spent a lot of time trying to figure this out, (you much more than me, admittedly).  FireFly5 19:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help FireFly5! I have updated the appearance section in the Saddleback clownfish article and added the image as well. Cheers! --Jnpet 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphiprion species identification 

message: Just want to let everyone know that ocean sunfish is now a candidate for featured article. Feel free to come support, oppose, or make comments at the nomination page here. --Melanochromis 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ocean sunfish is now a featured article. Congratulations to all the editors involved with the process. --Melanochromis 18:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ocean sunfish|Featured article candidates/Ocean sunfish]]