Talk:Common bream

message: The German Wikipedia says the female lays 100,000 to 300,000 eggs (the figure I've gone with here), the French Wikipedia says 50,000 to 60,000, and the Esperanto Wikipedia says 100,000 to 150,000. If anyone can find an authoritative source for the actual approximate number, that would be great! --Angr 18:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eggs

message: These are the other languages of bream. 
:be-x-old:Лешч 
:da:Brasen 
:de:Brachse 
:eo:Bramo (fiŝo) 
:es:Besugo 
:nl:Brasem 
:no:Brasme 
:sv:Braxen 
So at least, da, de, eo, nl, no and sv of this page should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.126.26.43 (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe they should be removed from bream. Any article in another language that refers specifically to Abramis brama should be linked here. —Angr 09:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki links 

message: This topic needs to include a section on North American Bream, a group of sunfishes including Bluegill, Red-Ear, and others.  American readers will expect that information, not a discussion of a European group of carp.
Loganvtn (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about Abramis brama: those species belong in the dab, and I've moved them there.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: North American bream

message: This article is currently called Carp bream, and the intro says (or said) "the carp bream (or simply bream in the UK)".  As a Brit I have never heard this fish called anything but "common bream", "bream", or occasionally "bronze bream", and nearly all the Google hits for "carp bream" produce "carp, bream" (that is, the two separate species of common carp and common bream, in a list).
Which English-speaking area is it that calls it "carp bream"?  I notice that the article includes material translated from French and German – have we perhaps translated one of their common names too?  If, as it seems, the only English-speaking area where this fish occurs is the British Isles, then should we not be using "common bream", the usual British English name in the English Wikipedia? Richard New Forest (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who started the article and translated it out of German and French. But that was almost five years ago, and I don't remember where I got the common name "carp bream" from. I probably googled "Abramis brama" and went with the most commonly occurring common name I could find. If there's evidence that "common bream", or "freshwater bream" (which is what this page calls it) is more common, I have no objection to moving it. —Angr (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Googling Abramis brama now produces "common bream", "freshwater bream", "bream" and a lot of stuff about a band.  The only hits for "carp bream" seem to be WP or derivatives, so perhaps you've generated a new common name...  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly didn't make it up. FishBase gives "carp bream" in addition to other common names. —Angr (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are two more pages calling it "carp bream": , . —Angr (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll let you off, you didn't invent it!  The last two of those do look as if they might have used WP as their source, especially the last, which is full of web-facts: and I don't believe any British person would use the name like that spontaneously.  The Fishbase one does look more convincing, though no source is given.  Either way it seems that "common bream" is by far the most usual vernacular name.  Richard New Forest (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The fishing in Devon site may well have used Wikipedia as a source, but I really doubt the research paper in the journal Helminthologia did. It was published in 2007 based on research conducted in 2002; they wouldn't have changed the common name they were using on the basis of a Wikipedia article that wasn't started until 2006. The paper was probably already being reviewed by then. —Angr (talk) 23:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you may be right – they could perhaps have used an American dictionary. Hardly mainstream though.  Richard New Forest (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion