Talk:Devils Hole pupfish

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

Too many definitions in parentheses
I know wiki rules state a person shouldn't have to chase links to find what a 'highly technical' term means, but the number of definitions of fairly simple terms in this article seems quite excessive. Some are terms of art but mast aren't and this article has way more internal definitions than most. At the very least, they're clumsily done. I've gone through and tried to streamline most of the definitions so it flows better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.57.100 (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, a lot of these seem to fall under the category of WP: OBVIOUS. "However, there is no need to go overboard. There is no need to explain a common word like "car"." Articles about geology don't go out of their way to define a geologist as a 'rock researcher' the way this article does with icthyologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.57.100 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article as written was done with accessibility in mind. No, this is not simple English. I am not explaining common words like "car" and it's a bit silly to equate explaining "ichthyologist" or "ova" to such a simple word that every elementary age English speaker knows. I am following WP:AUDIENCE--"Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible". If this is "clumsy" for you, then WP:FIXIT, but I don't believe the solution is to make the article harder to understand. Not everyone who reads this article will be a native English speaker. Some will be young. It is reasonable to define scientific concepts. Enwebb (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The current version (with your edits) is much better. As I said, my issue wasn't so much with explaining the terms (though some definitions did feel unnecessary) as it was with constantly doing so via parentheses. This flows much better and I agree, explains relevant scientific concepts well. 2600:1702:2350:DB0:412E:9987:424A:F87A (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I simply do not get the point of adding glosses to words that are Wikipedia links. Are the readers of this article, and mostly only this article, incapable of clicking on opercles? Or ova? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , WP policy is that the reader shouldn't have to click the link to understand the meaning of a term or sentence. People encounter WP articles on mirror sites and even in print MOS:LINKSTYLE. Enwebb (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

2016 vandalism by three subjects
Hi Everyone,

The article says the pupfish are endangered by vandals. A little searching turned up this, which I thought was pretty crappy: Hole Vandals Identified and Third Nevada Man Sentenced For Vandalism At Devils Hole.

Should the April 30, 2016 incident be included in the article?
 * It is. It's at the end of the "Conservation and status#Threats" section. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)