Talk:Stenodus leucichthys

Etymology
The name almost certainly comes from French: "inconnu" = "unknown". The Jade Knight (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconnu → — The fish has several English names, of which inconnu is not the primary FishBase or FAO name. Olaff (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "Inconnu" should be a disambiguation page. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Support yes, unless someone can show that "sheefish" or another name is the primary one. Suppose "inconnu" should be a disambiguation, though the other topics with articles are all partial matches and less significant even than the fish. &mdash;innotata 15:11, 20 July 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

further rename request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Stenodus leucichthys → Stenodus – Per Naming conventions (fauna), only the genus name should be used for monotypic genera (those with only one species), and the taxonomy used now at least gives Stenodus as monotypic. &mdash;innotata 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The taxonomy is controversial, and evidently in a transition to recognising two species. While the WP approved fish taxonomy authority FishBase currently has a page for one species of Stenodus only, it explicitly states that a page for the other one will be created in future - thus refuting its own current taxonomy in this case. A (temporary) move of the current article contents would thus appear as unnecessary maneuvering at this stage, serving no good purpose. (BTW, we previously used to have entries for two taxa even here). Olaff (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, we can only use one taxonomy as that followed (in things like the taxobox and division of articles) at a time, and calling the article by the species name and discussing both (sub)species also is making use of the classification as one species. That FishBase intends to recognise the split and that it'll become more widely accepted is a bit of prediction, and we should stick to the current situation. So it's not perfectly clear this should be moved, but seems like the best way to treat this to me. &mdash;innotata 20:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sheefish
according to Wikipedia, "sheefish" is Stenodus nelma, a different species. If the taxonomy is confusing or unclear, then sheefish shouldn't be mentioned in the lead, as it becomes gibberish. --142.163.194.130 (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)