Talk:Diversity of fish

Great article
Hey Geronimo!

Enjoyed this article a lot, especially the great pictures. But are you sure you really want that stir-fried hagfish one there?

I'll keep watching for the sex section - oops! I mean reproductive strategies of course. . . Awien (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Stir-fried hagfish, yum. Actually you will find the sex life of fish is a bit of a yawn. Nowhere nearly as exciting as gastropods. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I know! I did some biology translation long ago - what an eye-opener! Pity about fish, though. Awien (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Diversity of fish
Not sure the move is appropriate. I suggest that Categorisation of fish or Classification of fish would be a better title. Awien (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Most poisonous
We have both the puffer fish and the reef stonefish named as the most poisonous fish. . . . Awien (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The article distinguishes poisonous and venomous. The puffer fish is the most poisonous known fish and the reef stonefish is the most venomous known fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! Teach me to read not just skim. Thanks. Awien (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about burdening...
You stated in your last revert a few minutes ago: yes, the terminology was sloppy and I have corrected it so it means something. But even if "primitive fish" was a legitimate term, articles should not be burdened with templates and categories for every descriptive word or phrase. The template is a navigational aid, it is legitimate, and it serves a beneficial purpose. For you to eliminate the term "primitive fishes" all together, you would have to remove all references to "primitive" from reliable sources too numerous to mention, including published books, scientific journals and reports, and multiple articles on WP, to name a few. You would also have to re-program fisheries biologists, WP editors, journalists and authors who work in mainstream media, the latter of which includes altering the thinking of scriptwriters for independent production companies, especially those working for/with Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, and PBS. To be quite frank, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The best shot you have at informing the public to your way of thinking is to continue using terms most Wiki readers know and understand - "the hook" if you will which is an integral part of DYK - and then explain the differences under the Evolution section of each article. You cannot force an overnight miracle. AtsmeWills  &#9775; talk  21:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Might we hope, Atsme, that you will eventually tire of your relentless campaign to impose sloppy terminology on Wikipedia and spread it everywhere? Then you could perhaps become an asset to Wikipedia instead. If you are serious about improving Wikipedia coverage on early fishes and fishes which are "living fossils", I would be happy to work with you. But you would need sometimes to listen to other editors, particularly when they are in consensus, and not just assume that you, and only you know what is correct or the best way forward. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't tire when I'm right, but I do concede when I'm not, and to date, I've not seen anything that makes me feel the need for concession. I know you disagree, and I respect your opinion, but I strongly believe the template and category are excellent navigation aids that will serve a greater benefit in navigating to different articles in the series.  Think of it as a type of cladogram, but not as scientific or extensive.  I understand why you think the name is problematic, and I have always remained open to changing the name unless it distracts from the category's/template's original purpose.


 * The general public is simply not as aware of these magnificent creatures as they could be, and the sad part is that we are continuing to lose significant populations due to development, dams, and major alterations of our rivers, despite restocking efforts and conservation programs, so the time may come when there simply aren't anymore as with the Chinese paddlefish.


 * I'm trying to contribute the best I can to help make more people aware of the extant relict fishes, and how they've survived for millions of years with relatively few morphological changes. Terms like living dinosaurs, primitive fishes, and living relicts may not be scientifically accurate on a taxobox, but they are definitely a "hook" to draw readers to the article, and perfectly acceptable for a navbox.  The knowledge, or "science" is contained in the article itself, but what purpose does it serve if no one reads it?  I'd be willing to bet that few average readers will even bother to read an article that begins with the term "basal bony fish" unless they think they've stumbled across a cooking recipe.  And Epi, don't forget, the "sloppy terminology" to which you refer was right here on the very article you created and/or edited.  There are many more articles on WP that use the same term, which begs the question, why target my work when there is work of much greater importance to tackle?  I'm improving the articles I've been editing, and I thank you for your offer to collaborate.  Let's start by improving on the "hook", and making the template a better navigational aid.  AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  04:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I admire your enthusiasm about these indeed awesome creatures, but we're not here to create "hooks" to draw readers to articles or to push an agenda, no matter how admirable. We are here to build an accurate encyclopedia. The stuff you add is scientifically and factually inaccurate and wrong. Please stop. -- cyclopia speak! 14:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. 7. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. Sorry, but if you find such a simple concept difficult to understand, you are wasting valuable time that should be spent editing.  AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand it perfectly, but this doesn't justify the inclusion of errors. You know, you can write things in plain terms without introducing egregious errors. What you do, instead, is introducing wrong information. If you find such a simple concept difficult to understand, you should not edit, per lack of competence. -- cyclopia speak! 16:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Tell you what I'll do...if you can get the Oxford and Webster Dictionaries to change their definitions, and delete all references to "primitive fish", I'll concede. AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  23:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oxford and Webster dictionaries are not scientifically reliable sources, and even if they were, it would be a mistake of theirs.-- cyclopia speak! 23:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fish and tank top for everything
Fish and chips and salsa dancing with you do for me and the boys are in a good place to start and I will send you the update on the below email and I will be at Thanks for your help 41.115.55.81 (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)