Talk:Mayaheros urophthalmus

message: #Oppose, although I don't deny that there are several common names for this fish.  I just really think we should be sticking to the species-article naming standards that all other articles follow, which calls for a common name as the title.  Moving to the scientific name may be necessary in some extreme cases, but I don't think this is one of them.  Also, the term Mayan cichlid does appear to be used in academic papers (based on the quick search that I did), by non-profits, and American gov't agencies.  It even appears that the fish is better known either for its invasive status in some places, or simply as a subject of study in its own right.  This doesn't appear to be an extremely common aquarium fish, and the argument that the term 'Mayan cichlid' is too aquarist-centric, I feel, is not very compelling.  So yes, there are several common names, but Mayan cichlid is by far the most common name that came up in my searches, and not from hobbyist websites.  Again, it's important to be consistent with wikipedia standards with the exception of 'extreme' cases, of which I really feel this is not.  As for Fishbase, I'm not really sure about that situation, but they do provide Mayan cichlid under the list of common names, but happened to elect Mexican mojarra as the Fishbase name.  This may be an issue where Fishbase chooses only one common name for all of their language entries, whereas wikipedia maintains several language versions.--Terrapin83 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and I'd contend that the common naming standard on Wikipedia refers to "english in common usage" like white pointer, bronze whaler, perch, whiting etc. Using ambiguous common names like "Mayan cichlid" that arent universal in english does nothing to improve Wikipedia. This species is relatively common in the cichlid keeping hobby in Australia and I've never seen it called the "Mayan Cichlid" -- the scientific name is used here, or simply "uro's". In my view the scientific name is universal (even across languages - making links to other language versions of Wikipedia easier) and unambiguous. I think it's a case for WP:IAR. Sticking to this guideline (assuming it applies, and I'm not sure it does), just because it's a guideline isnt in the best interests of Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment My worry is that standards used by birdwatchers are being applied to other groups, including fish and cephalopods, and in such cases they cause problems. Birdwatching isn't really a good template to use: birdwatchers have largely agreed on common names through their clubs and societies and since there are comparatively few bird species (at most 10,000 species versus at least 23,000 fish) using common names is manageable. Practically every bird is watched by some amateur birdwatcher somewhere (even ones that are extinct if that woodpecker in Arkansas is anything to go by!). The situation is completely different with fish and cephalopods. The vast majority of both groups are only seen by people working directly with them, i.e., fishermen and scientists. Most are known only by Latin names, and dozens of new species of fish are discovered annually. There are no "fishwatching clubs" or "squidwatching clubs" to manage the use of common names, but people in certain localities (wrongly) assume that the common names they use are the same ones everyone else uses. To take an extreme example, the name "gar" can be used for literally dozens of species across at least half a dozen families. Amateurs (e.g., aquarists) can often use totally different common names to professionals (e.g., scientists): the classic example is for Danio rerio, known universally as the "danio" in the aquarium hobby but the "zebrafish" in science where is it the standard animal for working on various aspects of developmental biology and genetics. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move