Talk:Gobiidae

The Goby or Mudskipper article did not mention a fact which I think belongs in Wikipedia, but I have no experience of mudskippers. I learned this from a man who grew up in Malaysia: This meant something to me, because in the U.S., Do you think it is appropriate for Wikipedia? The article says that mudskippers live on the coasts of Australia, too. Is it OK to put in this fact? Thank you. 169.207.85.217 18:13, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * A mudskipper can outrun a boy.
 * a rabbit can outrun a boy.

I would put it in with a caveat, e.g. "It is said that..." That doesn't commit us to the detail, but does say that the thing must be fairly fast to have that reputation.

As to the location, there are lots and lots of species of mudskipper, and they're found in all the warmwater oceans of the world.

seglea 20:38, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't think mudskipper should be merged with Goby. Mudskippers are a subtype of Goby that are very interesting in their own right because of their amphibious nature and deserve their own page. Nicolharper 01:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ok by me; not knowing the difference in detail I thought they were the same, and Mudskipper redirects to Goby. Properly we should really move Mudskippers to Mudskipper, but it's easier to redirect Mudskipper to Mudskippers, so if no one has objections I think I will do so.  bikeable (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Goby/Mudskipper revision
The mudskippers now have their own, distinct article. The comments on mudskippers here are now much briefer and serve only to link them in with the gobies. I don't see any reason to merge these two topics: while mudskippers are gobies, they're very distinct from them; would be merge the article on humans with the article about great apes?

Can we remove these articles from the list of articles needed merging?

-- Neale Monks 11:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the merge notice off both pages and redirected Mudskipper to Mudskippers. bikeable (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gobiidae - Genera list
List_of_Gobiidae_genera Should this list figure into this article ? Nhobgood (talk) 10:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

fused pelvic fins
I read about the "fused pelvic fins that form a disc-shaped sucker," and I didn't understand it. I looked at the images but couldn't see where it is or how there is a suction until I searched the web for a while. Perhaps if someone could get the rights to an image like this one: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ckBlasgNSzg/STLpplFP-VI/AAAAAAAAJ5A/OB8A8HaTs-s/s1600/Sirajo+goby.jpg it would be very helpful towards illustrating the fused suction fin.

Peer Review

 * Talk Page: I would suggest adding a segment on the talk page describing what edits you have done.
 * General: Add more hyperlinks to other pages. Also, some links are red, which means that right now, they are not linked to any existing page.  Consider re-formatting these to have them link to actual pages.  Also, all species should be italicized. Make them italicized with double apostrophes on both sides of the name.  Try to incorporate the Research section into other parts of the article instead of giving it its own section.
 * Burrow Building: Double check the phrasing used. For example, consider "helps to provide" as opposed to "helps providing," and "mating opportunities" instead of "mating opportunity."
 * Sex Change: Some of the phrasing is awkward. ("are not that different" instead of "do not differ much." Also consider changing the phrase "fills up for.") Consider changing "in an experiment" to "it has been shown."
 * Sex Determination: Are the quotations around "socially-influenced" necessary?
 * Reproduction: Is mentioning sex changing again necessary? (Consider, "In species with sex changing,...")
 * Symbiosis: Are those terms supposed to be bolded? There are also some grammatical errors. VAleles (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

General Comments/Edits:

•More links in the article to other relevant pages or data would be helpful. It would help others perform their own research and help the flow of the article

•Is it possible to add a few mroe sentences explaining the benefits of cannibalism so that unfamiliar readers can understand?

•I would add more transitions between sentences to help improve the flow and reduce the disjointed feel.

•Also is it possible to remove the standalone research section and incorporate the information into other sections?

•A great article! MLiu19 (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Specific changes: 1) "Gobies use their mouth to dig into the sea bottom, removing dead coral-fragments, rubbles, and benthic algae to build burrows. Gobies maintain their burrows by fanning away sand inside the burrow." --> "Gobies use their mouths to dig into the sea bottom, removing dead coral-fragments, rubble, and benthic algae in order to build their burrows. Gobies maintain their burrows by fanning away sand that is inside." 2) "Since not many males have large bodies, some small males decide to cheat instead of putting energy in finding mates and fulfilling the responsibility as males (i.e., protecting the territory and the female)." --> "Since not all males have large bodies, the smaller ones may cheat instead of expending energy to find mates and protect a territory." 3) "Most sex changes in gobies are female-to-male changes, though male-to-female changes are observed as well." --> "Most sex changes in gobies are from female to male, although the opposite is sometimes observed as well." 4) "They can lay from five to a few thousand eggs, depending on species. After fertilizing the eggs, the male remains to guard them from predators and keep them free from detritus." --> "They may lay from five to a few thousand eggs, depending on the species. After fertilizing the eggs, the male guards them from predators and keeps them free from detritus." 5) "Some gobies remember landmarks within short distance and use the information to get away from predators." --> "Some gobies remember landmarks that are within short distances, and use them to escape from predators."

Other suggestions: 1) The sentence “The mound lets the water flow fast over the mound, creating a low-pressure spot” is awkwardly worded and unclear, and should be changed. 2) The sub-header “Research” should either be taken out from the header “Behavior,” or renamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W.lin17 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

---Thank y'all so much! I made changes that y'all recommended!---Hami910311 (talk

Peer review
I would recommend improving the organization of the Behavior section. Here are my suggestions:

Kleptogamy
 * An alternative subheading: Mating
 * How do non-sneakers mate? Give a general description about mating system and introduce kleptogamy as an alternative strategy.

Use of landmarks
 * An alternative subheading: Navigation (Use of landmarks seems to be a navigation mechanism of gobies. )

Habitat choice
 * Foraging behavior and its relation with predation risk is not explicitly explained in this page. I would recommend changing the subheading to foraging and elaborating more on foraging (explain why there is a trade-off between foraging and avoiding predation). *The cited reference seems to be focusing on effects of predation pressure on foraging behavior rather than habitat choice.

My suggestion is: Mating / Sex change and sex determination / Foraging (If you decide to elaborate more on this topic) / Symbiosis / Burrow construction / Navigation -Allasse0927 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C61:D6E0:7514:1649:3AFA:54CB (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, try reordering the subsections of the Behavior section in the order of importance.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120603075849/http://homepage.mac.com/nmonks/Projects/FAQ/6b.html to http://homepage.mac.com/nmonks/Projects/FAQ/6b.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below; it may be necessary, now, to discuss what to do with the redirect at Goby. Dekimasu よ! 01:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Goby → Gobiidae – The article is about the family, the vernacular name Goby is applied to lots of fish in other families in the Gobiiformes, e.g. Oxudercidae Quetzal1964 (talk)  09:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 18:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not a clear-cut uncontroversial move. Opening for discussion. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Oxudercidae doesn't even have a section at Gobiiformes (yet). I think primary meaning (and WP:UE) can be invoked here to overcome any ambiguity. Srnec (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. As the original proposer I don't know if I can vote support here. The consensus at WikiProject Fishes was that the higher level taxonomy of fish articles (above genus) would follow the 5th Edition of Fishes of the World. This rearranges the families in the Gobiiformes and splits off Oxudercidae from Gobiidae while merging a number of families previously considered valid into Gobiidae. The common name "goby" is now spread amongst a number of families and it could be argued that it could be applied to all families within the order Gobiiformes, albeit with qualifiers. I would argue that using the name goby as the title of an article which is only about the family Gobiidae lacks both precision and clarity.
 * For example "Sicyopus auxilimentus is a species of goby endemic to the Philippines …."


 * I am about to embark on adding Automatic taxoboxes to the Gobiidae articles (I may be some time!) and in preparation I have edited the article Gobiiformes to reflect the 5th Edition Fishes of the World taxonomy, so Oxudercidae now does have a section at Gobiiformes. Quetzal1964 (talk)  19:40, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your support is implicit. The closer will know what you want. No need to vote separately.
 * The problem is that your proposed remedy—moving this article—doesn't solve the Sicyopus auxilimentus problem, since goby will still redirect to Gobiidae. If you are proposing to do something entirely different at the goby namespace (e.g., a WP:DABCONCEPT article ,or a redirect to a different article [Gobiiformes?] or merely a dab page) you should tell us. Srnec (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies, yes that is exactly what I intend to do. If goby is moved I will edit the Goby page to make it a disambiguation page because, as you say, a simple redirect does not resolve the issue with the other families. Quetzal1964 (talk)  04:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is what I would oppose. I do not see how a list of names like Gobiidae and Oxudercidae serves the reader who just wants to know about gobies. How will s/he know what link to click? Srnec (talk) 00:26, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well in that case there would still need to be a disambiguation page and a general article, like Monkey, or do you think that it should redirect to Gobiiformes? Quetzal1964 (talk)  06:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A broad concept article is fine with me, but so is a redirect to Gobiiformes. The lead would need to be tweaked. Monkey is a good example: a list of families would not be helpful. Srnec (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I would prefer a broad concept article, with a hat note directing readers to the Gobiiformes. It would be short but not all Gobiiformes are called gobies so some explanation would be preferable. Quetzal1964 (talk)  10:02, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The subject of the article is the family Gobiidae, not fishes known by the common name "goby". The scientific name is a more precise title. Plantdrew (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. There should be separate articles for gobies in general and the family Gobiidae. This article seems to fit the latter better. The goby article should either be a short disambiguation style article or possibly point to the Gobiiformes with appropriate changes there.  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inappropriate claim
In the section Kleptogamy this passage appears:

"The paired males most of the time think that the sneakers are females"

Because there is no way to determine what a fish thinks, this is entirely inappropriate.

We can report on what a fish does, or possibly what the results are of scientific tests on the fish or its environment.

But we cannot tell what a fish thinks.

I should think this would be obvious to anyone editing Wikipedia. 2601:200:C000:1A0:4174:5FF8:7FA:3410 (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rephrased "Most of the time the paired males mistake the sneakers for females". —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 12:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)