Talk:Mbu pufferfish

Tetraodon mbu is not the only FW puffer
As far as I am aware, T. mbu do not have the common name "Freshwater Puffer Fish". There are over a dozen freshwater puffers, including T. lineatus, T. cochinchinensis, T. palembangensis, and so on and so forth. Thus I cannot think of a reason why T. mbu would have inherited a misleading and ambiguous common name as "Freshwater Puffer Fish". All this notwithstanding, why shouldn't this article be titled after the genus & species? I am reverting this article to the previous name Tetraodon mbu. BFD1 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows Fishbase, & there it is known as 'fresh water puffer fish', take a look. Titles of fish articles use the common name (with a redirect from the scientific).  I have created or worked on hundreds of fish articles & that is the accepted norm.  I don't make the rules, but it is better if we all follow certain standards ie your original article did not even have a Taxobox.  If we all follow Fishbase then there will be less reason for controversy.  GrahamBould 19:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding the taxobox. Here is my concern in a nutshell: there are a number of puffers which live in freshwater. An article by the name of "Freshwater pufferfish" should deal with them as a whole, not a single species. This is a disambiguation issue, mostly. A google search of "freshwater pufferfish" yields a great list of results, but only a few pertain specifically to T. mbu. All of this is just to say that it's not that common a name for the mbu. "Giant freshwater pufferfish" would be better, though most folk just refer to it as the "Giant puffer". Whatever title we finalyl settle upon, I would like to see a redirect from Tetraodon mbu' in place to help with this confusion. BFD1  19:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think there is any confusion. I think your suggestion of a compromise common name of "giant freshwater pufferfish" is good, should satisfy everyone, & is quite descriptive. A redirect from the scientific name is standard practice.  As we all know, many, if not most, fish have more than one common name.  In an encyclopedia you have to have one for the article name, but then have redirects from all the other common names.  Technically, it would be better to use scientific names, but then no one apart from specialists would be able to find anything.   I regret sounding hard-line before - actually the choice of common name is an area that we don't always need to follow FishBase slavishly (but wherever possible we should, as it is a central point where common names are not duplicated).  I'll have a go at sorting the article out. Cheers  GrahamBould 07:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work, and thanks for your help! BFD1  11:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Massive revert
While I appreciate 87.74.226.255's preference for his much earlier edit here, I don't like seeing the work of several editors over several weeks undone without any prior discussion. In the past few weeks the article has been wikified and made more encyclopedic by removing Original research and unverifiable claims. If User:87.74.226.255 has any concerns about these changes, I would ask him to please address them here before making reverts back to his earlier version without discussion or explanation. Thank you. BFD1 13:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)