Talk:Siniperca chuatsi

Untitled
Does that fish look like a plate to anyone else? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.146.31.149 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 18 May 2006   (UTC-7)
 * It certainly does. The plate depicts the mandarin fish.  Please BE BOLD and replace it with a better photo.  Neil916 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck finding one. I've asked the person who appears to be license-holder for one of the better images out there if they would be willing to release it under a free license, but haven't heard anything yet.  There appear to be no other free images around that aren't of cooked foods containing this fish. -- Landauer 20:28, 3 August 20

ok i need help to make a mandarin fish but i dont know how....any ideas???
06 (UTC)
 * well we Chinese eat guiyu intensively, and i have photos, but all are after they are cooked... I'll try photo some fresh ones next time go shopping.
 * is this one ok? it seems gov job, though i dont know whether PRC gov's work is in PD

Is the Mandarin fish ? George (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 20 September 2017

 * 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 to modified proposal  Dr Strauss   talk   12:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

– Many books also call the first species (Siniperca chuatsi) "Mandarinfish" (see ) and many more call the second species (Synchiropus splendidus / Pterosynchiropus splendidus) "Mandarin fish" (see ). Mandarinfish and Mandarin fish should both direct to the same disambiguation page (as well as Mandarin-fish). There's also golden mandarin fish. Timmyshin (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mandarin fish → Chinese perch
 * Mandarinfish → Mandarin dragonet


 * Move to scientific names and disambiguate mandarin fish/mandarinfish. "Chinese perch" gets 515 Google book results, "Siniperca chuatsi" gets 1560 results. "Mandarin dragonet" gets 629 results and "Synchiropus splendidus" gets 1330 results. The "name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources" (what WP:COMMONNAME is actually seeking) for both of the species is the scientific name. The only way to come close to fulfilling the article title criterion of a PRECISION in an encyclopedia covering 20,000 fish species is to use scientific names in most cases. The majority of articles on fish species use the scientific name as the title; it's already the more CONSISTENT practice. RECOGNIZABLE? Well, "mandarinfish" is probable the most recognizable name for both species. "Mandarin dragonet" might suggest a fire-breathing lizard from fantasy novels to people utterly unfamiliar with the topic. "Mandarin goby" is perhaps slightly recognizable as being a fish to the general population at large (and mandarin goby is not far behind mandarin dragonet in Google book results). However, RECOGNIZABLE is for somebody "familiar with although not necessarily expert in the subject". Synchiropus splendidus is a popular aquarium fish, and there are 8 common names listed in the article. Somebody who has enough familiarity with the subject to recognize that green dragonet, striped dragonet, mandarin dragonet and mandarin goby all refer to the same animal is likely to recognize the scientific name. Somebody who doesn't have that quite level of familiarity is likely to be more mystified by Wikipedia serving up an article on "mandarin dragonet" when they searched for "mandarin goby" than if Wikipedia served up an article on Synchiropus splendidus. The proposed vernacular names are slightly more CONCISE by character count (but not by word count), although "mandarin goby" shaves off even more characters than "mandarin dragonet". NATURAL? I think I've mostly covered that under RECOGNIZABLE, but the only reason common names work remotely well as titles for birds is mammals is that they have official lists of common names. For fishes, the closest thing to an official list of common names is produced by the FAO, and the FAO uses the name "mandarin fish" for Siniperca chuatsi. I'm sympathetic to readers who will be using common names to search for information on these fish, but creating redirects from common names to scientific name titles is a far more sensible and sustainable practice than arbitrarily picking one of several not especially commonly used common names to serve as the title. Plantdrew (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my original idea as well, but I'm not sure about "The majority of articles on fish species use the scientific name as the title" because I see titles such as Nile perch, European perch, Yellow perch, Golden perch, Japanese dragonet, Ocellated dragonet, Picturesque dragonet, Starry dragonet, etc. WP:NCFAUNA seems to discourage the use of scientific names over vernacular names unless "there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to". I certainly have no objections to scientific names, but I hope things are done consistently. Timmyshin (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to binomial names (aka scientific names) of the species. Only neat solution, solves the problems of geographical ambiguity neatly. Andrewa (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Uninvolved comment What are the scientific names/targets? Are all three of you saying the articles should be moved to scientific names? — usernamekiran (talk)   21:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * , yes, I believe all three of us are saying to move to scientific names (I certainly am saying so myself). Targets are:
 * Mandarin fish → Siniperca chuatsi
 * Mandarinfish → Synchiropus splendidus
 * Plantdrew (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Andrewa (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2017 (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.