Talk:Fish/Archive 1

message: I went to Wikipedia looking for information on the extent to which the fishing trade had reduced fish populations and harmed their underwater habitat. "Fish" should be considered the main encyclopedic entry. Should there not be a heading such as "Fishing and its impact on Fish populations", which could have a terse but useful list to a number of other wiki pages that are (surprisingly) not linked to from "Fish". E.g.
::Fishing, the hunting of Fish as Food#1 is an ancient and worldwide practice loosely split into Angling (recreational fishing) and Commercial_fishing. Fish contain Omega 3, helpful at preventing heart disease and suggested to aiding general good health, including limiting mental deteriation in old age #2. Unfortunately, human pollution of the seas has led to mercury containation such that pregnant women are advised not to eat many varieties of wild fish. #3
::Commercial overfishing has resulted in significant fish population decline, with a third of fish species collapsing to 10% of their original population since 1950 #4. This has prompted Marine_conservation efforts, breeding fish for food in instead of taking from the wild (Aquaculture), FishingQuotas and efforts to ban controversial forms of fishing, such as Whaling.
#1. redirect to Fish (Food)
#2. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/fishman/2005/fish_brain.html (Hopefully someone can find a more authoritive-seeming reference?)
#3. http://archives.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/parenting/04/12/fish.pregnant/index.html
#4. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm::
What do you people think?? - SigurdMagnusson 21:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a useful addition, and you've provided sources.... so, why didn't you go ahead and add it? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 21:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending breadth of information 

message: Actually, I've double-checked since my "correction" of "imperilled", and apparently either way is acceptable, one 'l' or two (single 'l' is listed first, generally meaning it's preferred, but no biggy). So I'm certainly not going to bother to change it back, but just so you know, my speling wasn't wrong either. -- John Owens 07:15 16 May 2003 (UTC)
If you look at Tuna it states that they are cold blooded. Is it true that all fish are Poikilothermic? Huddy 22:16, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it seems there are just a small number of large fast fish of the open ocean with elevated internal temps. Stan 15:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  imperilled 

message: "Fishes (over 27,315 species) are a paraphyletic group and are divided into the bony fishes (class Osteichthyes, 22,000 species); cartilaginous fishes (class Chondrichthyes, 800 species); and various groups of jawless fishes (class Agnatha, 75 species)"
:Curious to know, what are the other 4,440 not accounted for there? - MPF 14:24, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Osteichthyes number is out of date. Stan 15:29, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; should the numbers be amended? - MPF 14:37, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finessed this by rewriting the lead to give Osteichthyes "all the others". Stan 17:45, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  numbers 

message: Do you think that adding some info on the evolution of fish would be a good idea? Enochlau 09:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution of fish 

message: I've just nominated the sailfish article as Science Collaboration of the Week. Please visit Wikipedia:Science collaboration of the week and vote for the article. Thanks. - Samsara contrib talk 08:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sailfish nominated for SCOTW 

message: How many fish are there in the sea? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.113.104.47 (talk • contribs) .
:There are several ways to answer your question: 1. how many species of fish are there, or 2. how many actual fish are there.  To answer the first one, there are almost 30,000 species of fish in the world (although some are freshwater, and thus probably do not live in the sea).  The short answer to the second question is, no one knows.  This site gives similar information.  Determining how many fish of a given species is one of the great challeges to managing a stock of fish.  One common method for trying to answer that question is called Mark and recapture.  Incidentally, your best bet for asking questions is Wikipedia:Reference desk.  Cheers, --Hansnesse 17:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many fish in the sea? 

message: The question is more complicated than it seems. Your definition of fish relies on two major points : being cold-blooded and having gills. But some fish (the Protopterus or Lungfish) gets only 10% of its oxygen through its reduced gills, and some species of tuna (not only tunas but also other species, as mentionned in the main article and in the above discussion) maintain a temperature which is 20° higher than their surroundings (a fact mentionned in the wiki article on tunas). Still, it is considered without much debate that they're fish. Moreover, what's the rationale for a category containing Chondrictyes, Agnatha and Osteichtyes ; all paraphyletic groups, as mentionned ? Thus, as argued by philosopher John Dupré (in Humans and other Animals), it is highly dubbious that the word 'fish' has any real scientific usage. Whence this question : after all, why can't whales be fish ? It is generaly said that this is because they are mammals. What's the point of this answer ? Why couldn't some animals be mammals AND fish ? Since fish (to say the least) is not a uniform and homogeneous category, we should expect a better reason for ruling this possibility out other than the authority of what is simply said and constantly reassessed.
Fish is a taxonomic classification, requiring such principles as obtaintaing oxygen from water, being aquatic, etc.   Fish are all similar to each other, and belong (I think, any more enlightened users are free to correct me) to the same family.  Whales are mammals, which is another taxonomic classifaction, requiring warm blood, obtaining oxygen from the air, etc.  Whales cannot be fish because fish and whales belong to different taxonomic categories.  Great question!Emmett5 01:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are whales fish ? 

message: The use of fish versus fishes section, which was removed, was a valuable section. Indeed, the American Fisheries Society, for its publication guidelines, laid out very clear guidelines on the use of the terms that was similar to what was there. Some notable authors use fishes as the plural as well. That section helped the reader to understand that "fish" is not the only plural form of the term, which is a common misunderstanding.
:Agree, I put it back! Stefan 12:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did someone remove the fish versus fishes section? 

message: Vandal caused the page to be unreadable, from what seems to be the conversation in IRC. Could not be RVed, needed some amazing tech delete. --Avillia 00:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion. 

message: Does anyone else think there should be a project to improve fish related articles? There are many many articles for different kinds of fish, but those articles are horrible and hardly worthy to be on wikipedia. 
If anyone is interested, please help me improve Goldfish. Thanks! QuizQuick 02:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean a project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes? Stan 06:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject on Fish Articles 

message: The fish talk page was recently shown on this site (8-bit theatre, for those of you who dont recognize).  The article was on a fake wikipedia imitation, Magipedia.  It was stated that fish are like plants that move, and I'm just saying that someone is bound to make an edit related to this.  Thought you'd like to know.DoomsDay349 04:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads Up 

message: The page says, "Fish are the second-most successful group of animals in terms of number of species. Only arthropods are more numerous, partly due to the number of insect species."
This is difficult to support.  "Group of animals" is ambiguous at best.  Vertebrates are more successful than fish, in that they include fish, for example.  It might be better to compare phyla to phyla, order to order, but even there, since none of these groupings are "real" (taxa being a classification convenience), there's really no way to define "group" such that you can make equal comparissons (and fish aren't even a taxonomic grouping, you might as well compare fish to bugs).
Worse for the sentence, there are over 100,000 species of mollusc, making fish, at best, the third most successful "group" of animals.  (And a better understanding of nematodes would probably shove them to fourth.)  I can't think of any standard of "group" that would leave fish the second most successful.
--Suttkus 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Either downgrading to the standard fallback "one of the most" or dropping altogether would be sensible - they're already characterized in the lede as most diverse among vertebrates, and there's really not much point in trying to compare to other taxa. Stan 21:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful groups 

message: The article defines fish as "A fish is a water-dwelling vertebrate with gills, that remains so throughout its life."  This fails to exclude several types of amphibians who also remain water-dwelling vertebrates with gills throughout their lives.  Examples include Axolotl and mudpuppies.  I'm wracking my brain trying to think of a definition of fish that's neither over-inclusive nor too difficult for lay readers.
--Suttkus 21:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Given this page seems to be under some kind of attack by vandals, wouldn't it be appropriate to semi-protect it? --Suttkus 03:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone explain to me why this article is attacked so often?  I mean, it's not like fish is a remotely controversial subject.  Yet this page is hit by vandals more often than any page I pay attention to that isn't actually about a pseudoscience.  What's up with that? --Suttkus 20:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much all of the one-word common terms get the juvenile one-offs - look at "duck", "ball", etc. This article maybe gets a bit more; perhaps there's some grade-school subculture where the word has taken on new meanings recently. Anyway, going by Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy, this one could be a candidate, doesn't hurt to suggest it. Stan 13:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there was this: http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=060815 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.30.21.12 (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing vandalism 

message: Which ones supplied which information?  There are no in-line citations in this article at all. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because the obsession with inline citations is of relatively recent origin. Amazingly enough, people were writing well-sourced WP articles for many years before inlines were even implemented. Stan 20:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that.  It's just a suggestion for an area where this article could be improved.  I could have just added fact tags to everything.  I only noticed because an IP removed the whole reference section and for a moment I thought it was completely unreferenced. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I'm surprised this article doesn't have one of the basic facts about most animals; their lifespan. This article should include the average lifespan of most fish, and then a species of fish that has one of the longest average lifespans, and one that has one of the shortest.
:There is no "average" lifespan. You have species that complete their entire lifecycle within a single year (e.g., annual killifish), and many reach sexual maturity within 3-4 months (e.g., guppies). The annual killifish in particular are adapted to survive in  temporary streams and pools, where the adults die each year but the eggs survive in the mud until the wet season next year.
:On the other hand, there are species that grow extremely slowly (e.g., Anatarctic and deep sea fish) that likely take a decade or more to mature and live lifespans around 30-50 years, with estimates for longevity for some species of Sebastes being in the 90-120 year region. Spiny dogfish are known to live for 70 years, while American and European eels inhabit freshwaters for decades (~40 years) before becoming sexually mature and making their way to the sea for their single breeding event. (For these estimates, see especially p 140 in Helfman et. al., "The Diversity of Fishes", Blackwell Science).
:There are broad trends though: big fish tend to live longer than smaller ones, and fish in cold and/or deep water tend to grow more slowly (and therefore live longer) than similar size fish in warmer and/or shallower waters. As a ball-park figure, you could mention the common goldfish when kept in a pond (rather than a bowl) lives for around 20-30 years with the record being over 40 years.
:Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Australian freshwater fish Murray cod can reach ages of at least 49 years, and it appears larger specimens of yesteryear reached even greater ages.  They are a very long-lived freshwater fish.  Codman 09:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Span 

message: I'd like propose this topic to be included. This article is heavily about biology which is good. But there should be some other dimensions too. More than half of the article is spent on fish anatomy and homeothermy, but only two sentences (in the introduction paragraph) mentioned fish in culture. If the rat article has "rats in culture" and the elephant article has "humanity and elephants", maybe this article should have something similar too. --Melanochromis 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I touched on this in the intro section, but there should certainly be more. The ichthys symbol is certain one of the best known fish emblems, even more so with all the fun Darwin and whatnot versions you see! Obviously there are all kinds of things that could be included, from Henry Williamson's Salar the Salmon novel through to Jaws. All good stuff! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 23:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was going to suggest the same before I saw your post. Perhaps make it a separate article or list, with links to Taiyaki, Bungeoppang, Asian carp/A'Fu etc. – Wikipeditor 02:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish in culture 

message: Just wanted to say, I think this article is looking much better. Thanks to everyone who's making useful contributions. For a group as important as fish, it makes sense that this article is top-quality.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 12:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking much better 

message: The plural of "fish" can either be "fish" or "fishes". I believe we should create redirects to pages about animals whose common name ends in "fish" (for example, create a page named "Crayfishes", redirecting to "Crayfish"). --Crabby 16:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of  "fish": redirects 

message: I want to re-add,
:For the article on the human consumption of fish, see Fish (food).
or something similar at the top to this page, since, fish has two direct meanings, the animal, and the food, and this is unrelated to the very long disambiguation page.   Many other articles do this such as Russia comes to mind do this, with both a direct link to a page and a disambiguation. Epson291 21:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope it's not neccessary anymore. I just did a big clean-up job of the Fish (disambiguation) page, so that the main meanings of the word (the animal, the food, the activity) are clearly separate from all the rest of the stuff. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks much better. I bolded the other two uses of the word "fish" so all 3 are bolded and very clear. Hopefully, this is satisfactory to you. Epson291 05:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-add Redirect 

message: Fish are mammals. This section of the article appears to reflect the writer's opinions on human population, global warming and their effect on fish populations which may be in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. This section should be re-writen to attribute these opinions to others with the appropriate citations given. --Clayc3466 01:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. The writer's opinions are (sadly) probably valid though. Neale Monks 13:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: is it possible to publish a seperate article on  the dangers of these issues to the fish population? Barny-the-barnicle (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Issue with Danger to Fish Populations 

message: What is the name of that species of fish that is not good in the US? It was the like the snake-head fish or something. It could kill anything in the waters.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.66.145 (talk)  05:43, 19 February 2007
:The fish that the media like to run as a scare story is indeed the snakehead fish. There are a few species (notably Channa argus) that live in subtropical and temperate zone climates and could potentially become established in the United States. Without their natural predators, they have the potential to be a serious pest though whether as bad as carp, rainbow trout, tilapia, or Nile perch is unknown (all of those have been introduced into various foreign countries and cause serious harm to the ecosystems in many cases). It is illegal to own live snakeheads in some states (though the laws don't appear to distinguish between the coldwater species and the tropical species like Channa bleheri that couldn't possible become established anywhere except perhaps Florida and the Gulf Coast (for example, the State of New York:). Snakeheads certainly are hardy (being air-breathers) and voracious (eating anything they can swallow) but they aren't ecologically much different to native species of pike or catfish. Even if they were set loose in every river in the Union, they'd do less harm that building dams, removing water for agriculture, pollution, and so on. In other words, compared with human actions, snakeheads are a mere trifle. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: This article has excellent supplementing photographs, good content, excellent references and is laid out in a clear and easy to understand format.  I definitely think this article passes as a good article. Ninja! 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination passed 

message: Do fish feel pain? —Bearmancorn (talk • contribs) 15:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fish do have a central nervous system, so it stands to reason that fish do feel pain like other vertebrates.  Fish also avoid stimulus that could cause pain, which is its primary purpose... the avoidance of injury.  Therefore, I would say that fish are capable of feeling pain.  Of course, this does not mean that the experience of pain is comparable for a fish as it is, say, for a human or other animal.  Humans have more highly developed nervous systems, as well as self-awareness.  Fish have relatively simple brains and short memories... and probably experience suffering on a more basic, survival level.  There is a lot of research that can be done on this. 209.59.32.70 18:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: the differences between a saltwater fish and a freshwater fish. Oidia 11:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There isn't a difference. If you find a fish in the sea, it's a saltwater fish. If you find it in freshwater, it's a freshwater fish. The distinction is one of physiological adaptation: some fish can live in both fresh- and saltwater habitats, while others are restricted to either freshwater or saltwater habitats. The former, able to adapt to changes in salinity, are called euryhaline fish. The latter, unable to tolerate changes in salinity, are stenohaline fish. Most fishes are stenohaline, for example minnows (in freshwater) and most sharks (in the sea). But a sizeable number are euryhaline, either because their life cycle involves migrations between freshwater and the sea (e.g. salmon) whereas others simply move between freshwater and the sea in search of food (e.g. bull sharks). I agree this needs to be explained in the text. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  more info needed on salinity 

message: Please add a section mentioning how fish manage to get into the
remotest water storage tanks (where they end up transparent due to no light -- why too?), and freshly dug hilltop ponds. Eggs clinging to birds feet? Thus into the pond and down whatever pipe into the tank from any surface water? Jidanni 23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do they get into remote ponds? 

message: The intro doesn't currently point out that fish are some of the oldest creatures in Earth's history. Should this be added? Chris Cunningham 16:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention ancient heritage in intro? 

message: Why does this article not have the scientific classification-box?  —Mweites (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read this section, "Unlike groupings such as birds or mammals, fish are not a single clade but a paraphyletic collection of taxa, including hagfishes, lampreys, sharks and rays, ray-finned fishes, coelacanths, and lungfishes.", i.e. in laymans terms, fish is all over the place in the taxonomic tree, see Chordate,  Chondrichthyes are fish, but not Tetrapoda,  Myxini/hagfish is fish but not Conodonta, so what would you put in the taxobox. Good question, I learned something new today!!! --Stefan talk 14:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific classification 

message: Hello, I have requested a peer review of this article (which can be found here.) Thank you Cocoaguy ここがいいcontribstalk   Review Me! 15:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: the article's intro implies to the contrary--Ted-m (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not all fish have scales 

message: I was trying to look up some info regarding the common body shapes of fish, but found no entries that were helpful.  I was wondering if a section on this topic could be added somewhere.  I know 4 terms have been used, but don't know if they're still used.  Below are the terms, but I don't know if I have the right definitions/examples of each (if this terminology is even used, anymore).
To the best of my knowledge:
Fusiform is torpedo-shaped; ex. is a tuna,
Compressiform is laterally compressed; ex. most fish,
Depressiform is dorso-laterally compressed; ex. halibut or flounder, &
Anguilliform is Eel-shaped.
Please comment.  Thanks!
Leia tyndall (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish body shapes 

message: Am I wrong in thinking that there is no such word as "fishes"?  I always thought the plural of "fish" was "fish" yet Wikipedia has many instances of the word "fishes".  Should they be changed to "fish"? 1dragon (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the terminology section (10.1) of the article --Graminophile (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha!  That's interesting.  Thank you, 1dragon (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of fish 

message: Does fish has Cloaca or separated posterior openings for the intestinal, urinary, and genital? Idvash (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: I'm removing the following sentence from the article:
:Other researchers say the question of pain in fish is difficult to answer as fish "pain" may be felt differently than human "pain."
Although cited, the reference is not an authority or a reliable source. Further, the point being made is trivial, and understated at that. It's rather naive to attribute the observation to "other researchers" -- as if any scientist working in the area could think otherwise! Melchoir (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pain reception in fish: "Other researchers" 

message: I have a female that is absolutely bursting with eggs.  Is it possible that she has no channel to the outside?  Can I do anything to help her?  I'm a first time visitor, so if I have committed a boo-boo, please forgive, but I don't know who to ask or where to go to for information. Margaret207.118.166.4 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  goldfish that can't dump their eggs 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Corvus coronoides talk 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: Anybody know what type of fish this is?
DPM 15:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish? 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging 

message: Under taxonomy I notice a section on muscles, but none on skeletons.  I am sure I'm not the only one who has come to this article to find out why fish bones are so flexible after nearly choking on one, and considering the muscular/skeletal system are usually discussed in the same breath, would someone with a generous knowledge of this subject add the info?  I have next to zero knowledge on zoology, so I would not be the man for this job. LeilaniLad (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bones? 

message: Someone has started a wiki about fish on wikia. I think this would be a nice thing to get this done. Unfortunatelly nothing yet. I'll post some content, pls help me expand. No I cant do it.
--Adazarus (talk) 08:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish encyclopedia on wikia 

message: Spelling/Grammatical error:
In the section on the nervous sytem:
"At the front are the olfactory lobes, a pair of structure the receive and process signals from the nostrils via the two olfactory nerves."
"structure the" should be "structures that"  
76.69.74.40 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Edit Requests 

message: I'm not sure if this discussion has been had already or not, but apparently PETA is trying to change the name fish to "Sea Kittens." Should this be added to the article?
Source: http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/-Smashbrosboy (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sea Kittens? 

message: "Nearly all daylight fish have well-developed eyes that have color vision that is at least as good as a human's"
Are you sure? As far as I know, the best fish vision is 3 times worse than human's vision. If this is right, someone should provide a source.
:They probably do have color vision, but I doubt it's quite the resolution of 20/20 human eyes. They best fish eyes could see better than humans with 20/70 vision, if you're right that the best fish vision is 20/60. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.185.77 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Vision 

message: wuu:鱼 THX !! (interwiki link)
: It looks like it has been added. 192.17.199.112 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add IW 

message: There is discussion in the excretory system section about the chemical content of the fish urine, and it is mentioned that some of the waste leaves through the gills, but where does the rest of it go?  Do the have a urethra, or do they diffuse it through their skin?  
Fish expert needed! 
206.53.64.108 (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Room for expansion: excretory system 

message: It might be noted that this is an Old English word with cognates in several other Germanic Languages.  While the "chordate" meaning may predate the word's becoming a scientific, technical term, it should be noted that the original meaning, "aquatic creature", is still very much in evidence today, as in jellyfish, starfish, cuttlefish, etc.  I think some still call the Orca Blackfish.  The point being, these words were formed before the narrowing of the meaning of "fish", and are not some evidence that the Saxons couldn't tell a cephalopod from a fish.  By the way, this may also explain the use of "Fish" in older English versions of the Bible to refer to whales.  Chrisrus (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old English 

message: 30-Aug-09: I have added subheaders above as "Topics from 2007" (etc.) to emphasize the dates of topics in the talk-page. Older topics might still apply, but using the year headers helps to focus on more current issues as well. Afterwards, I cut auto-signed comments and removed 8 vandal texts. Then I added "Talk-page subpages" at the TOC. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the purpose of changing other editors signatures, I can see why for vandal comments? 192.17.199.112 (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrofit talk-page year headers/subpages 

message: The paragraph that starts with "Some speculate that fish" in the evolution section needs either a citation or a  tag.  See WP:WEASEL. 192.17.199.112 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tim Song (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some speculate 

message: The third picture in Reproductive method titled "Egg of shark (?)" (File:Oeufs002b,55.png) is indeed a shark egg, more specifically the eggcase of a Bullhead shark (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullhead_shark) like the Horn shark (Heterodontus francisci) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_shark#Life_history)
Thorke (talk) 20:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the image caption to identify the genus of shark. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of shark egg 

message: Paraphyly does not absolutely prevent a Linnaean rank as polyphyly (no single common ancestor included) does. In fact, ANY taxon with a long enough fossil range for younger taxa to have diverged from it is arguably paraphyletic. For example, the common ancestor of the Kingdom Animalia (and therefore the very first animal) was a member of the Subkingdom Parazoa and Phylum Porifera. The Phylum Placozoa diverged from the Phylum Porifera and is excluded from it. The common ancestor within the Phylum Parazoa is ultimately also an ancestor of the common ancestor within the Phylum Placozoa, and although this makes the Phylum Porifera paraphyletic, it does not negate it as a formal taxon. The same can be said for the Subkingdom Parazoa as a whole, for the Subkingdom Eumetazoa diverged from it. 
Within the Subkingdom Eumetazoa, Superphylum Deuterostoma, Phylum Chordata, and Subphylum Vertebra, why would the same not apply to a Superclass Pisces (and I will point out that it would be a SUPERclass, not a class; the Classes Actinoptyrigii and Chondrichthyes among others are separate at class level) after the Superclass Tetrapoda diverged from it? 
Of course, considering that a single bacterial species (which itself probably started with a single first cell, which I personally like to call "the Unicellular Adam") first arose from the primordial soup at end of the Eoarchean Era and start of the Paleoarchean Era (within the Archean Eon), the biosphere as a whole is actually a giant monophyletic clade. Getting back to the Superclass Pisces, although it has an excluded group (and for another example so does the still formally accepted Class Reptilia, from which the Classes Aves and Mammalia both diverged), the fact remains that all fish share a common ancestor. So, in short, why would the taxon not have the license that the also paraphyletic Domain Bacteria (which excludes the Domains Archea and Eukarya that diverged from it), Class Reptilia, Subkingdom Parazoa, and Phylum Porifera all have? 
All taxa did diverge from other taxa, after all, with the exception of the Domain Bacteria and (within it) an extinct kingdom of bacteria that only used single-stranded RNA (and its ancestral phylum, class, order, family, genus, and the very first species). So, what is the reason for the inconsistency in whether or not a taxon from which other taxa have diverged is "removed from formal classification" for its paraphyly? -The Mysterious El Willstro 71.181.140.237 (talk) 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning paraphyly 

message: : Fish is used either as singular noun or to describe a group of specimens from a single species.
Since when?  I've never heard of the "single species" constraint before.  So if I have three guppies and five trout, what do I have eight of - fish, fishes or something else entirely? -- Smjg (talk) 17:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-worded it a bit.  Is it clearer now? Chrisrus (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have 8 fishes. The same 'rule' applies to fruit. As in 1 fruit, many fruit, many fruits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.248 (talk) 05:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have changed it back, as it correctly described the use among pro's (ichthyologists) and fitted what the associated reference supports. If changing, please make sure the ref. supports the new version, or provide a new high quality ref. that does. • Rabo³ • 21:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural 

message: The first line reads, in part: "FISH SUCK BUTT!..." but, if you read Wikipedia's own definition of vertebrate, only bony fish (Osteichthyes),  sharks, and a very few other fish are considered vertebrate fish. The first line should read: A fish is any acquatic invertebrate animal (except bony fish, sharks, and a few other types of fish)... and the distinction between invertebrate fish and vertebrate fish would be much clearer.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FooeyDooey837 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority are certainly vertebrates by all definitions, i.e. using invertebrate as a primary definition is misleading, as only a very small percentage (<1%; Hyperotreti and alike) lack a vertebrate, and even they have traditionally been included within Vertebrata (as also noted in the classification section in Vertebrate). That said, there is an issue over this small number of species without a vertebrate, and it would be better if this could be incorporated into the lead of the fish article. Cannot think of a "smooth" way of doing it right now, but if I remember I'll get back on it later. • Rabo³ • 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Our problem, I believe, is in the article vertebrate. When it says that "bony fish" are vertebrates it probably meant "all fish with bones", but it links to a particular group called the "bony fish". That's where the fix should probably be done. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bony fish redirects to Osteichthyes, which is correct. This superclass alone includes the vast majority of all fishes (more than 95% of all fishes are members of this superclass). • Rabo³ • 22:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What about fish with lungs, like lungfish?  The first sentence seems to state that fish must have gills.  Are fish not "all vertebrate animals that developed in the sea?" Piepants (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost All Fish Are Not Vertebrates 

message: At 31,500 species, fish exhibit greater species diversity than any other class of vertebrates.
This seems to me to presuppose that we know of every species.  Perhaps "31,500 known species" would be more suiting.
Also, the reference now says 31,600, which I think supports that point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.21.15 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of species 

message: If this is outdated, why is it in the article? Isn't there a "timeline/history of evolutionary theory" article it could go in? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated evolutionary view of continual gradation (animation) 

message: Vertebrates originated about 525 million years ago during the Cambrian Explosion, a singular event in earth history during which many groups of multicellular organisms first appear in the fossil record and underwent rapid evolutionary radiations. The earliest known vertebrates (or craniates) are believed to be Myllokunmingia fengjiaoa and Haikouichthys ercaicunensis from the Chengjiang fauna, found near the city of Kunming, in Yunnan Province, China.  The first vertebrates with a hinged lower jaw (gnathostomes) appeared in the Ordovician Period, and became common in the Devonian Period, often known as the "Age of Fishes".  A total of about 13 distinct vertebrate lineages had emerged by the end of the Ordovician Period (445 million years ago = Ma), of which only four survived to the present (Figure 1); Hyperoartia (lampreys), Chondrichthys (chimaeras and elasmobranch sharks and rays), Sarcopterygii (lobe-finned fishes and tetrapods), and Actinopterygii (ray-finned fishes). 
Most of the early vertebrate lineages lacked a lower jaw (mandible), including Pteraspidomorphi, Thelodonti, Anaspidae, Galeaspida, Pituriaspida, Osteostraci, and Fucrcacuadiformes. Paleozoic vertebrates with dermal armor and lacking jaws were formerly referred to as "ostracoderms", a heterogeneous and non-monophyletic assemblage of jawless fishes. The relationships among these long extinct vertebrate groups is an active area of research, but recent studies suggest that most if not all were more closely related to gnathostomes than to lampreys. Another of these early vertebrate groups were jawed-fishes called placoderms that attained substantial diversity during the Devonian. Placoderms ranged in size from the miniature antiarch Yunnanolepis at 5 cm to the giant arthrodire Dunkleosteus that grew to more than 8 meters. All the other vertebrate lineages subsequently became extinct, mostly during a global mass extinction event that occurred near the end of the Devonian Period (about 364 Ma), although one group of early gnathostomes, the so-called “spiny-sharks” (Acanthodii) survived into the Permian Period (to about 270 Ma). After the Devonian three major vertebrate groups dominate aquatic systems globally; Chondrichthys, Sarcopterygii and Actinopterygii (Figure 2). The Devonian also saw the rise of the first land vertebrates from within the Sarcopterygii: the Tetrapoda. Tetrapods with a hard-shelled egg and an amniotic membrane (amniotes) appeared later in the Carboniferous period (c. 365 -375 Ma). 
The fossil record of fishes from throughout the Phanerozoic shows that fish diversity is bimodal in time. A lower diversity plateau was reached in the middle Paleozoic, from the Silurian to Carboniferous (c. 400 - 300 Ma), with 65 families in the Middle Devonian (377 Ma). A higher diversity plateau was reached in the Cenozoic, from the Eocene to the Recent, with 166 fish families known from the Eocene, 294 families from the Plio-Pleistocene, and 515 families recognized in the Recent. Early Paleozoic (Silurian-Devonian) fish faunas were diverse at a high taxonomic level, with at least eight non-gnathostome clades, and dominance (> 40% in at least one time interval) by pteraspidomorphs (peak of 15 families in the Silurian at about 411 Ma), placoderms (peak of 25 families in Middle Devonian, 381 Ma) and chondrichthyans (peak of 23 families in the Upper Carboniferous, 311 Ma). After the Devonian, fish faunas are dominated by just three clades; sarcopterygians (peak of 13 families in the Late Devonian 367 Ma), Chondrichthyans (peak of 42 families) in the Miocene, and actinopterygians (peak of 250 families in the Plio-Pleistocene). Actinopterygians, especially teleosts, greatly dominated (> 80%) fish family diversity since at least the Eocene (c. 50 Ma), with maximum diversity in the Recent (250 families known from fossils, 515 families known from living forms). 
Vertebrate genome evolution
The nuclear genome is the full compliment of coding genes and non-coding regulatory DNA that occurs on all the chromosomes. Vertebrate genomes range in size from that of the puffer fish Tetraodon nigroviridis (Actinopterygii) with about 385 million nucleotide base pairs (0.385 gigabases, GB) to the African lungfish Protopterus aethiopicus (Sarcopterygii) with about 130 GB. Humans have a fairly typical vertebrate genome; the haploid human genome is about 3.2 GB with about 23,000 protein-coding genes. About 1.5% of the human genome codes for proteins, while the rest consists of non-coding RNA genes, regulatory sequences, introns, pseudogenes (non-functioning gene copies) and (controversially) "junk" DNA. The relatively large and complex vertebrate genome was created in part by multiple rounds of whole genome duplication events in the lineages leading to modern chordates and craniates, again in ancestral gnathostomes, and again in teleosts. These large-scale genomic events contributed greatly to the evolutionary success of vertebrate lineages by providing multiple functional copies of the genes and gene networks used in all aspects of vertebrate tissue development and cellular function.
Regional diversity
Like most groups of organisms on earth, vertebrates exhibit strong latitudinal species gradients with many more species and higher taxa inhabiting warm humid environments at low latitudes (near the equator) than the cold and dry conditions at high latitudes (near the poles).  Latitudinal species gradient are observed in both marine and terrestrial vertebrates, in both the Old and New Worlds, and for all the major groups; i.e., those with many species; elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), teleosts (the largest group of bony fishes), anurans (frogs), squamates (lizards and snakes) and eutherian (placental) mammals.  Among marine fishes regional species richness is highest in the Indo-West Pacific, a broad band of shallow tropical seas, volcanic islands and coral reefs that extends from the Red Sea to French Polynesia centered on the Indonesian and Philippine archipelago from where over 10,000 fish species are known. Regional species richness for continental fishes is centered the humid Neotropics, including about 6,000 species endemic to freshwaters of the Amazon and Orinoco Basins and adjacent river systems of northern South America and Central America. Patterns of regional diversity for terrestrial vertebrates are covered separately in their entries.  
References
Forey, P. L. (1984). Yet more reflections on agnathan-gnathostome relationships. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, 4, 330-343.
Forey, P. L., and Janvier, P. (1993). Agnathans and the origin of jawed vertebrates. Nature, 361, 129-134.
Forey, P. L., and Janvier, P. (1994). Evolution of the early vertebrates. American Scientist, 82, 554-565.
Hardisty, M. W. (1982). Lampreys and hagfishes: Analysis of cyclostome relationships. In The Biology of Lampreys, (ed. M. W. Hardisty and I. C. Potter), Vol.4B, pp. 165-259. Academic Press, London.
Janvier, P. (1993). Patterns of diversity in the skull of jawless fishes. In The skull (ed. J. Hanken and B. K. Hall), Vol. 2, pp. 131-188. The University of Chicago Press.
Janvier, P. (1996a). Early vertebrates. Oxford Monographs in Geology and Geophysics, 33, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Janvier, P. (1996b). The dawn of the vertebrates: characters versus common ascent in current vertebrate phylogenies. Palaeontology, 39, 259-287.
Long, J. A. (1996) The Rise of Fishes: 500 Million Years of Evolution Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 
Løvtrup, S. (1977). The Phylogeny of Vertebrata. Wiley, New York.
Romer, A. S. (1949): The Vertebrate Body. W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia. (2nd ed. 1955; 3rd ed. 1962; 4th ed. 1970) 
Stensiö, E. A. (1927). The Devonian and Downtonian vertebrates of Spitsbergen. 1. Family Cephalaspidae. Skrifter om Svalbard og Ishavet, 12, 1-391.
22:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary history 

message: In this article, it describes Matsya as a merman. I'm not Hindu, but from what I understand, Vishnu's first incarnation was a fish, not a merman. That picture is simply showing that fish to be Vishnu incarnate. I would change it, but I don't know for sure. Could someone who is actually hindu or understands this stuff or both tell me what is the truth? --DidgeGuy (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matya 

message: Maybe of interest to someone http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8063875/New-species-of-fish-found-four-and-a-half-miles-under-the-sea.html Merlin-UK (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: way to niche for this article--FUNKAMATIC   ~talk 22:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  News 

message: The taxonomy section does not list hagfish.  It seems like it should.  I came to the article curious about how hagfish, lampreys and coelacanths  were related to fish in general or the bony fish in particular and it was in the taxonomy section that I expected to find at least some of the answer.
In doing some research outside the fish article it seems there are two theories.  
* The hagfish are a basal group to the lampreys and the Gnathostomata 
* The lampreys and the hagfish form a natural group, the cyclostomata, which is a sister group of the Gnathostomata 
This seems like it is important enough information that it should be mentioned in the taxonomy section or at a minimum a link to the Cyclostomata article should be provided which discusses the issue in more detail.  Based on what seems like the most recent studies, the old idea that the hagfish and the lampreys form a natural group was probably right and the idea that lampreys were more closely related to the Gnathostomata than hagfish was probably wrong.
If there was agreement on the above I would like to edit the taxonomy section a little bit to include this information. If people preferred I would list my proposed edits here before changing the article. --Davefoc (talk) 07:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxonomy presented in this articele doesn't feel right - at least from the evolutionary point of view. Namely, I don't see how a single group can exist containing both Agnatha which belong to Cyclostomata and the members of the Gnathostomata together - Gnathostomata are an older group of vertebrates, from which the first Gnathostomates first evolved. I believe the taxonomy should  separately have the groups Cyclostomata and Gnathostomata, and the fish should be only under Gnathostomata. Pushing Agnatha in the Fish group disturbs that evolutionary order... --Arny (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the hagfish? 

message: 77.97.154.137 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 77.97.154.137, 25 January 2011 

message: I was wondering which species were the most populous; a list, or an explanation that we don't know, would be interesting additions to the article. -- Beland (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of fishes by population 

message: The article says that fish appeared in the Ordovician. Isn't this inaccurate? What about Haikouichthys and Myllokunmingia? 70.80.215.121 (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: My brother won one gold fish at the fair last night and they gave us a free one
:You are asking about sexing goldfish.  It is hard to do and requires mature specimens, which you won't get unless they are reared in large tanks or under actual pond conditions.  If you are worried about names, pick what you like, the fish won't care.  If you are worried about breeding find some better on-line support group, there are plenty of enthusiasts.  But guppies are much more fun if you want to breed in a small tank, and more colorful. μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you know if the fish is male or  female 

message: Note 32 has the incorrect website.
The website is http://www.coloradotu.org/do-fish-feel-pain/
Not http://www.coloradotu.org/do-fish-feel-pain.htm
Can someone correct the problem?
Neosiber (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks :) --Epipelagic (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect note 

message: The Fish article states "Most fish are "cold-blooded", or ectothermic", this seems to infer that some fish are Poikilotherms or possibly Endotherms. Does anyone know which fish are Poikilotherms/Endotherms? Best Regards. DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endotherms/Poikilotherms/Endotherms 

message: Approximately 41% of all species of (present day) fish are freshwater fish. However, I'm having a hard time finding valid data regarding % of species living in sea- and brackish waters. Any good source about this would be welcome. –Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 21:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of species in regards to salinity 

message: It helped me with the fish names!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishlover2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helpful 

message: This article and the "prehistoric fish" article both neglect to discuss the evolution of the internal skeleton of fish. Is this something that an editor here can add to this article? Not my area. -Fjozk (talk) 06:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article clearly misses the skeleton in the organs section.  79.168.9.101 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeleton evolution 

message: Is it worth mentioning somewhere that the word "fish" was previously also applied to many other kinds of animals that lived in water, and that the old usage still shows in names such as "starfish" , "crayfish" and so on? I ask because that is directly relevant to the article List of fish in the River Trent and maybe other articles too. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fish in the old sense? 

message: 107.178.39.130 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: as you have not requested a change.If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2014 

message: This article is missing a huge section, i.e. the Behaviour of fish.  Take a look at the Bird article for comparison.  This has several subsections under "Behaviour" many of which could be directly applied here (I'm not sure about "feather care").  I am prepared to start this section but because this is already a "good article", reluctant to make what will be a large change without discussing first.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is long overdue for restructuring, and a section on Behaviour seems appropriate. I don't think we have to make a big production out of it, and we can just incrementally change things over time. But first, I'd like to see this current discussion about an animal MOS run it's course. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - sure thing. Apologies if I have diverted attention.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Fish behavior would be a huge topic, worthy of an overview article itself, as seen in the many sub-topics already listed :Template:Diversity_of_fish (see Reproduction, Locomotion, and Other behaviors). Much of the information is already on Wikipedia, and any effort to organize it into a single overview article with summary style is commended. In the mean time, a series of "See also" or "Main article" hatnotes might be a good temporary fix. In fact, following summary style, Fish could probably be consolidated a bit by deferring more text to the appropriate sub-articles. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree needs a behaviour section. as 36 kb of prose, so still some room for expansion before it needs carving up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behaviour section 

message: Seems a bit nebulous and I think could be restructured. The first para could go in taxonomy, the second in etymology (after a segement on hte derivation of the word "fish"), the third is on homeothermy (as well as part of the fourth), last para is habitat and there is a bit left on size...not sure where that could go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Diversity section 

message: Epipelagic (talk) has it wrong and so do the cited links. As the links are Google (UK) searches and Wikipedia itself (see WP:NOR, WP:PRIMARY) they are invalid as points of discussion. You cannot use Wikipedia as a place of primary information. The term for "fish" is and always will be "fish". Multiple or one, species or singular, proper English grammar is "fish". What confuses people is the term "fishes" is a proper word. Only, it is the verb (to fish) that gets this distinction.
::"Watch as Bob fishes for compliments." - That is your example of the ONLY way that you can use "Fishes" properly. It is a present tense (or near present tense) verb. 134.240.241.240 (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The answer is only FISH

message: Why is the "proposed class" of Craniata listed but not the two accepted classes  of Osteichthye and Chondrichthye?   Either the Craniata entry should be listed as being "proposed" TOGETHER WITH the two current Classes, OR Craniata should be deleted from the scientific classification box.   LookingGlass (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific classification : Class 

message: interesting-facts-about-fish-you-need-to-know/c17jj/5519912~~~~f0cf21933cd239e3f Interesting facts about fish
Magabby22 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is that reliable ref nor is the interrogative heading correct. Modern fish  are certainly descendants of the earliest vertebrates, but then so is every other vertebrate, ourselves included. I am unclear what you intend by the above message, can you clarify please ?  Velella  Velella Talk   18:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: It was believed that fish is the first animal with backbone, and the most diverse vertebrate of all the animal family?

message: An amazing fish has been found which can live in depths of oceans and is warm blooded. It circulates the blood throughout its body and can live in depth. Read more complete information here:
http://phys.org/news/2015-05-reveals-warm-blooded-fish.html
MansourJE (talk) 08:30 20 May 2015 (UTC)
The opah has been confirmed as a truly endothermic fish. It makes sense to link to opah with a brief explanation of this in the Homeothermy section.
PszNicx (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  First warm blooded fish 

message: i wuld like to know the name of he particular species of fish or parasite that lives in the anus of certain types of larger fish and their types of speces  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.14.83 (talk) 11:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  fish that live in peculiar parts of the body of another fsh 

message: Since "fish" isn't a taxonomic term, should the taxobox be replaced with an infobox?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't use a taxobox, it uses paraphyletic group --Epipelagic (talk) 21:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox vs infobox 

message: Hi,
Under "Sensory organs" it is mentioned that e.g. sharks can spot e/m fields with a special organ. Why not either mention the organ by name or link to its page?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini 
Also, is this article protected? Couldn't see any "edit" tab. If so, sorry to disturb :)
T88.89.5.214 (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sensory organ 

message: A fish is any member of a group of organisms that consist of all gill-bearing aquatic craniate animals that lack limbs with digits. To be honest, this is not a great sentence with which to start the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.9.204 (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well please suggest one you consider is better. DrChrissy (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

text: I can't be sure what the above commenter's problem with the opening sentence was, but I think this sentence is better: "A fish is any gill-bearing acquatic craniate animal that lacks limbs with digits". "Any member of a group consisting of all animals with these properties" is a really clunky way of saying "any animal these properties" 130.225.188.33 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I've made the change. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a great opening sentence. 

message: I have added a picture of fish Market of bengali people. But without giving any reason this pic was removed. My question is why? Here I'm posting the pic :
শক্তিশেল (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mean_as_custard, please enlighten me why you removed the picture. Thanks. শক্তিশেল (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the aquatic creature, nothing to do with markets. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic deleted 

message: How many "fish" are estimated to exist? In: Oceans? Lakes? Rivers? I tried to find the answer the first question, and got only so far; it might be of interest. Hopefully they aren't counting plankton (kidding), or micro-fishes, lol. Misty MH (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: How many valid species of fish are there ?. You can get subdivisions for marine or so on using this page or the search function (start here).  Jts1882 | talk  20:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many? 

message: The lead, 5th paragraph, says:
: "... even hadal depths of the deepest oceans (e.g., gulpers and anglerfish)..."
Neither gulpers nor anglerfish have ever been recorded in the hadal zone. Both families are primarily bathyal, although some species range into the abyssal zone. The few families that have been recorded in the hadal zone are listed in this article (c. 3/5 down the page). The primary and generally dominant family are the snailfish. The next best example would be cusk-eel. The remaining families known from the hadal zone would be less suitable as examples, either because it's only a single species from the family (grenadiers), they're marginal in the zone (hadal limit is disputed, 6000 m or 6500 m) or their record is questionable/abnormal (pearlfish). 62.107.211.90 (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong fish in hadal zone 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Sick fish. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 8#Sick fish until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sick fish" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: There is, there are so many species of fish, and weird fish, there is so much more fish that we can discover!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richieboiagve (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: excluding tetra pods, mudskippers, rock hoper blennies and others can achieve terrestrial locomotion, "walking" in the sense of using legs in in this case fins is not a likelihood as legs are fairly advanced/ specialized  Realfakebezalbob (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there fish that can walk?

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Fish proteins and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#Fish proteins until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fish proteins" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The following sentence is confusing: "The first ancestors of fish may have kept the larval form into adulthood (as some sea squirts do today), although perhaps the reverse is the case."  What is the reverse?  "The last progeny of fish may not have gotten rid of the adult form into larvahood"? Citizen127 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "The first ancestors of fish may have kept the larval form" implies that they may not have.  I'm assuming that's the intention in "although perhaps the reverse is the case," so it's redundant, unnecessary, and confusing. Citizen127 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The reverse? 

message: Similar to whale: Add that’s Fish is an informal name in it’s infobox? 2601:183:4A80:E570:656C:9BB1:E47D:6EA7 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But Fish is not an informal classification the way Whale is. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022 

message: "Tetrapods (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) emerged within lobe-finned fishes, so cladistically they are fish as well."
I'm sure no one uses the word "fish" this way; everyone uses "vertebrate". Why would an article say something like this?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is made very clear in that section (including the very next sentence) that this is not common usage. Following strict cladistics in assigning taxa to everyday categories would force some usages that might seem very odd to us indeed. However, that does not make the statement untrue, and this high-level taxon article is where to put it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not common usage, but is it used by some strict scientists?? Georgia guy (talk) 12:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Hamster = fish" (or rather, jawed fish) is as correct as "bird = dinosaur"; the latter is being used quite a lot these days, the former, not so much. No difference in correctness though, and not a reason for us the mention the one but not the other. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: For this reason, some scientists say "non-avian dinosaur" to mean dinosaur that's not a bird. But no one uses "non-tetrapodic fish" in a similar way. Georgia guy (talk) 19:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to reconsider your dismissal of the phrase "non-tetrapod fish". I find multiple uses of it on a Google search. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 19:05, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is just confusing 

message: They can be found in nearly all aquatic environments, from high mountain streams (e.g., char and gudgeon) to the abyssal and even hadal depths of the deepest oceans (e.g., cusk-eels and snailfish), although no species has yet been documented in the deepest 25% of the ocean.
The hadal zone is surely within the deepest 25% of the ocean. What gives? Aboctok (talk) 14:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seeming contradiction 

message: Change the line "Class Acanthodii ("spiny sharks", sometimes classified under Actinopterygii)" to "Class Acanthodii ("spiny sharks", sometimes classified under Actinopterygii) †" to include the "†" symbol and mark it as an extinct group. 82.211.133.139 (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: BelowTheSun  (T•C) 15:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023 

message: I believe :File:Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper edit.jpg should be the lead image. It better represents what comes to mind when people think "fish". It focuses on one fish but also has schools of fish around it. It was taken in an aquarium but still gives the illusion of being in the deep blue sea. The current image is very dull and unattractive with the rock as the background. The proposed image has more character. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Astonished to hear this at this late state (article is already at GAN after much work). We have a crisp and colourful image, even a dramatic one, of an elegant fish well set off by a much plainer background. It conveys "Fish" loud and clear to visitors, which is exactly what we want here. I have by the way extensively revised the entire article, found dozens of sources, corrected any number of errors, redesigned the cladogram, and illustrated the whole article with informative instances and new diagrams. All of that has some bearing on the choice of lead image, as the images now in the text illustrate many aspects of fish biology including indeed shoaling and schooling, diversity, ecology, and paleontology, so the lead image has been selected to be distinctive and non-repetitive. The proposed alternative, when displayed as a small thumbnail, makes the fish's features almost indistinguishable: there is one blobby dark shape, with fins, body, and tail basically only glimpsed as shapeless out-of-focus smudges, surrounded by a large area of uninformative water with some tiny specks dotted about it: really, not too helpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think the rocky background looks terrible for an official portrait of fish as a group. Fish are known for swimming in the water column. LittleJerry (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're entitled to think as you please. This fish is definitely swimming in the water. But there is no "right" environment: some fish are pelagic, which I guess is your meaning; but others are coastal, many are reef-dwellers, many live in river weed, some in kelp, others in holes in rocks, in caves or on the seabed. A lead image never says everything, and it's foolish to try. Its job is say one thing, to identify the subject, to start, to lead in, and let the rest of the article tell the story. That, this image certainly does. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image