Talk:Hanako (fish)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hanako.jpg

The dates don't add up
The age analyses (which I understand are not gospel) don't all correlate with the rest of the age data. I had instinct to correct this, but am not feeling bold and would like to leave it to someone more familiar. 79.69.45.60 (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If a good high age is at 50 years, then +200 is ... very, very strange. There has to be better documentation before we can accept such claims IMO, such as date of birth certificates that are reproducible. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:A023:1A46:73DC:AD2 (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A birth certificate for a fish? EEng 00:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The source disputing the validity of the age claims doesn't mention Hanako
Looking at the source disputing it, it doesn't even mention Hanako. It's a study about the accuracy of otolith age determination of a different species of carp. The proposed 226 year figure wasn't determined using otoliths but rather through analysis of scales. 88.129.109.236 (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

poor evidence of the claims of its age — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newrednight (talk • contribs) 17:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)