Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Eques (fish) and Equetus
FishBase places the spotted drum (E. punctatus) in the genus Equetus and the jack-knife fish (E. lanceolatus) in Eques. The type species of the genus Equetus is Equetus americanus which is a synonym of Eques lanceolatus. FishBase has made a clear error here and Catalog of Fishes has both E. punctatus and E. lanceolatus in the genus Eques. I think we should follow Catalog of Fishes in this case. Thoughts? Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This is a problem in a number of cases. Another is here where I provided the info, but it was subsequently "corrected" with the page moves eventually overwriting the actual, correct version. In that case, FishBase decided against following the 2006 taxonomic review where Ophthalmolebias was coined, but when O. ilheusensis was described as a new species in the genus in 2010, FishBase used the genus for just that one species. In direct conflict with the ICZN Code. It's the same way where we get the complete mess in the current versions of Simpsonichthys and related genera. These splits are a bit messy anyway (some unresolved poly/paraphyletic issues), but not as much as the current wiki treatment based on FishBase randomness without scientific support.
 * It usually happens when FishBase follows separate authorities without noticing that they conflict. For example, taxonomic authority 1 splits genus X into two, keeping some species in genus X and moving some species to the new genus Y. FishBase decides to adopt this treatment. Later, taxonomic authority 2, who disagrees with the changes made by authority 1, publish a description of a new species that is part of subgroup Y. However, because they don't recognize the genus split, they describe it in genus X. FishBase simply follows taxonomic authority 2 for the new species, not noticing the issue related to the genus split that they adopted earlier. In other cases, it is related to complete vs. national taxonomic reviews (e.g. adopting a complete taxonomic genus review, then later reversing this for a few species by following a review that only deals with species in one country), or taxonomic reviews where only some species were sampled (in most genera the subgroups are quite well-established and you only really need a genetic sequence from one species in each subgroup to get the full picture). Sometimes I've emailed FishBase about such issues and they've generally been responsive (e.g. they recognized Brochis [which almost certainly will become valid again for "Corydoras lineage 8" when the full review eventually is done] and Theragra [which is gone for good], but in both they used them without the type species). However, I don't really have the time to contact FishBase each time I notice an issue.
 * CoF has its occasional issues too (often caused by the same things as the FishBase problems), but they're rarer and typically correct themselves within a few months. FishBase is an excellent resource, by far the best single resource when it comes to basic info on appearance, behavior and distribution for fish species globally, but their taxonomic issues are more widespread and tend to stay up for longer. In taxonomy and nomenclature, the superiority of CoF became clear years ago. However, the format of FishBase is much more accessible to people without a deeper understanding of these things. RN1970 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support following CoF for taxonomic issues, at least some of the time. My understanding is that Fishbase uses the CoF classification and they diverge in two main cases, to which I'll add the above mismatch due to conflicting authorities.
 * CoF makes a change and there is a lag before Fishbase adopts it because Fishbase has far more information to update (i.e. on the biology and ecology).
 * There is a taxonomic issue that needs resolving before CoF makes a change and Fishbase has the biological and ecological information ready; in this case, Fishbase goes ahead to put the information out there. This is often new species, but there are also a few new families that Fishbase recognises that isn't in the CoF higher classification (I don't think this updated as often as the genus/species nomenclature information).
 * Errors due to Fishbase following conflicting authorities (see above explanation by ).
 * In the first case we can follow CoF in the expectation Fishbase will eventually follow, in the second it's the other way round. In the third we can expect Fishbase to eventually follow, but they may need prompting.
 * I wonder if its worth creating a hidden category and template to flag pages where the Fishbase and CoF taxonomy doesn't match. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeking help with Elisabeth Lippitsch
In taxa such as Mbipia and Haplochromis redlinks are made to Elizabeth, rather than Elisabeth Lippitsch. Her Wikispecies bio uses "s", as does her LinkedIn Profile and ResearchGate entry and the articles accessible there. As this is not my normal field of editing I thought I would raise it here, rather than simply being bold and making all the changes straight away. Oronsay (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the spelling in Haplochromis. It was already correct in Mbipia. The links are still a redlinks, though. I wonder what the policy is for interwiki linking and whether it is appropriate to link to the Wikispecies bio page. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 06:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will make changes to other taxon articles where that link has been entered in the next day or so. I haven't come across links to Wikisource bios in en:wiki and hers has little information in it, so I think it's probably best left as a straight redlink. Oronsay (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Scaevius milii
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scaevius milii that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Help wanted with mass cleanup of vandalism to fish articles
Hello WPF. I'm here to ask for help with a big cleanup of vandalism to fish articles: please see WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. If it's not clear what the problem is after reading that, I'm happy to supply examples of what needs reverting. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning this here. I have been working on some of the cleanup tonight, but as someone who lacks extensive knowledge about fish, it is a rather difficult and time-consuming task. Hopefully, someone with fish expertise will be able to help. I will also post the request on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life page as well. Thanks again! Wikipedialuva (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'm no fish expert either, so you're right that the search part is difficult and time consuming. Didn't know there was a separate Marine Life project, and thanks very much for the post there: will keep an eye on it for advice. Wikishovel (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the fake common name "Bicolor conger" page title needing to be moved to the scientific name "Rhynchoconger bicoloratus" page is the last page move that needs to be done for this user's fake name vandalism. Since there was a redirect from the scientific name to the fake common name, I can't move it. I put in a move request at Requested moves/Technical requests, but thought I'd let you know as well since you are a page mover. There is still work to be done on article bodies, but I believe this is the last of the moves that will need to be made. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch Wikipedialuva, thank you. User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, could you please move Bicolor conger to Rhynchoconger bicoloratus without redirect? Thanks in advance, Wikishovel (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, I spoke too soon. "Brazilian puffer" also needs to be moved to "Sphoeroides camila" as well. It turns out there is more than one species commonly known as the "Brazilian puffer", but "Sphoeroides camila" does not appear to be one of them. Thanks again! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How about we convert that into a disambiguation page then, listing the species that have that as a common name? So far, I can only see that in RS online as a common name for Colomesus asellus. Wikishovel (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked into it more (as I noted earlier, I am far from a fish expert), and it appears that the different names I was seeing are all the same species: "colomesus asellus". (Colomesus asellus has been listed under different scientific names, including "chelichthys asellus", which I initially thought was a different species). When the current page "Brazilian puffer" (real name Sphoeroides camila) gets moved, the page can then be made to a redirect to the real "Brazilian puffer" (colomesus asellus) if that sounds good to you. Thanks again for all your help! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:The Blade of the Northern Lights has just moved Bicolor conger as requested above (thanks!), and for now I'm going to move Brazilian puffer to the now-G6'd Sphoeroides camila without a redirect, on the grounds of reverting vandalism by a blocked vandal. I'm no fish expert either, and would prefer to do the least harm possible while reverting vandalism. So I hope members of this WikiProject will feel free to create either a redirect or a disambiguation page as they see fit, if they can find RS to confirm the common name in the article(s) linked, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the move! I found a reliable source for the common name for "colomesus asellus" having the common name "Brazilian puffer" and added it (with WP:RS) to the article. If there are no objections, I'll create the page "Brazilian puffer" with a redirect to "colomesus asellus". Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The source describing Sphoeroides camila (Araujo et al 2023) gives proposed English (Southern bandtail puffer) and Brazilian (Baiacu-pinima) common names. These are not common names in the Wikipedia sense, as the scientific name is currently the most used name. It's a new fish species, recognised in Catalog of Fishes (which doesn't give common names), but not yet by Fishbase (which does). These two fish resources are usually in agreement, but Fishbase is more comprehensive and tends to be slower. I've remove Brazilian puffer from the Wikidata entry. There are quite a few common names edits at Wikidata Contributions:Alomomola. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jts1882, I haven't even begun to look at cleanup of their Wikidata vandalism. Wikishovel (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The ANI discussion has now been archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143, thanks again. Wikishovel (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

New phylogenetic classification of ray-finned fish from Thomas Near
There is a new phylogenetic classification of Actinopterygii. It's in press but a preprint is available at Zenodo. There are some twitter posts on it: Sept 16 and Nov 27.

The classification is unranked, but may not be strictly Phylocode (at least many definitions say "not defined using the PhyloCode"). It avoids redundancy so monotypic taxa are not assigned higher taxa, e.g. Lepidogalaxias salamandroidea and Polymixia are listed as such and not assigned families or orders which would have the exact same content. The Percomorpha part of this classification was summarised in Dornburg & Near (2021; ), but this new paper includes the complete descriptions for all Actinopterygii, plus some changes in the Percomorph classification in Dornburg & Near (2021).

Apart from the classification itself, the paper could be a valuable resource. Each definition comes with a reference phylogeny, which in most cases is a recent study. Of particular interest is the inclusion of about 20 figures with fossil taxa added to the molecular phylogenies for different parts of the tree. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The monograph should be published this week (18 April). For anyone interested, Thomas Near gave a presentation on this work last week and it is available online at YIBS Seminar - Thomas Near, Challenges and solutions in converting phylogenies to taxonomies in ray-finned fishes. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The paper is now published as Near and Thacker (2024). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Taxonomy issues near Istiophoridae
I had to make a quick edit at Template:Taxonomy/Istiophoridae because some other changes had caused a rank order error. Someone needs to investigate the taxonomy templates in this region of fish classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably should put it back to Istiophoriformes, as that is the classification followed by Fishes of the World (still the project preferred taxonomy) and Deepfin, although there is a newer lumpier classification from Thomas Near which places it in Carangoidei in Carangiformes. The Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes classification also puts it in Carangiformes, although in suborder Menoidei. Not sure what classification uses Xiphioidei, although Google throws up a few uses. It's a shame people are reluctant to source taxonomy templates.
 * The fish classification used has been discussed a few times, with the suggestion being it should move from FotW5 (2016) to Deepfin (2017), although now the Near classification needs consideration and ECoF (and hence Fishbase) are moving in that direction. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the problems began with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATaxonomy%2FIstiophoridae&diff=1191047274&oldid=825301790 this edit] followed by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATaxonomy%2FXiphioidei&diff=1191069106&oldid=1191046258 this one], restoring to Istiophoriformes seems sensible. I'll leave it to members of this project to deal with.
 * I do wholeheartedly agree that It's a shame people are reluctant to source taxonomy templates. Just a URL is enough to allow other editors to see where the classification comes from. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored Istiophoriformes (consistent with FotW5 and Deepfin4), although I'm inclined to think a Carangiformes sensu lato with an appropriate suborder is the taxonomy that will probably become widely used. But we must follow. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this and following WoRMS (in turn following Fishbase), where Xiphioidei has been moved to the Family level. However, that change postdates the 5th edition of Fishes of the World, which I believe is preferred here for taxa above genus level. I can't find a reference to Xiphioidei by Eschmeyer. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ECoF uses suborder Menoidei, incuding three families Medidae, Ziphiidae and Istiophoridae, presumably because Meneis the sister of the latter two in the phylogenetic analysis by Ghezelayagh et al (2022). It seems Xiphioidei was created when it was decided that Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae were different from the other Scombroidei (e.g. see here), where they were place in FotW4. The Deepfin classification didn't use it as their Istiophoriformes just contains the two families, i.e. Xiphioidei is a synonym (although why Istiphoriformes and not Xiphiiformes?). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, sorry for any problems caused. Presently, the taxobox on the billfish page seems to inaccurately classify the group as paraphyletic with respect to barracudas, even though all studies consider it a monophyletic group, with the most commonly-used name I can find for this clade being Xiphioidei. Xiphioidei is not used by taxonomic authorities, but I don't know how much of that is a consequence of the constantly changing order for the group. Papers that deal with the fossil members of the group still use it (see here, here, and here), so there doesn't appear to be any debate over its validity. For this reason, to properly define billfish as a monophyletic group and also have a taxon to keep stem-billfish under, I believe Xiphioidei should be used. There is also the fact that billfish are now classified in Carangiformes over Istiophoriformes but that's different debate. Geekgecko (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Paraphyletic group is used in two different ways. One way is for paraphyletic groups that been named scientifically. Crustacean is an example of this. The lowest rank in the infobox is the scientific name, in bold and not a clickable link (this is set by using taxon). The other way the paraphyletic group template is used is for common names that don't correspond to any scientifically named taxon. The common name concept might be paraphyletic, or even polyphyletic. The lowest rank in the taxobox in this case is a clickable blue link (this is set by parent). Barracudas do not have bills; they aren't included in the common name concept of "billfish". Istiophoriformes is a separate article that covers billfish+barracudas, and it can be accessed by clicking the link in billfish. Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, but in any case I don't think we should necessarily define the group as such when a proper scientific term for the group already exists that just happens to be used more in paleoichthyology and mostly ignored by authorities for modern taxa that don't incorporate extinct groups. Geekgecko (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't get hung up on the name of the template, as its not reader facing. Paraphyletic group just provides alternative taxobox display options. I've demoed two options for billfishes:
 * Change the groups included/excluded headings to remove the default cladisitically excluded text. See this edit.
 * Use billfishes to show they are a subgroup within Istiophoriformes. See this edit.
 * There might be a case for using "xiphioids" for the informal name. They definitely are described as xiphioids in the literature and we don't need to refer to a formal taxonomy, which we would if using suborder Xiphioidei. I've made this change in this edit and left it as the live version (please revert as appropriate). Somewhere in the article it should mention that billfissh have sometimes being place in suborder Ziphioidei in Perciformes and referred to as xiphioids. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 13:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Brackish category
Hey, people. Is there a reason why Category:Brackish water organisms is nearly empty and Category:Brackish water fish not even in existence? I reckon that many articles would fit there. Even Category:Euryhaline fish might be useful. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume it is because there is no editor interested enough to add the categories. As Category:Brackish water organisms is sparsely populated there is no need for subcategories. It certainly makes sense to create Category:Brackish water fish as a subcategory of Category:Fish by habitat if you are interested in working on this. FishBase has this information so there must be plenty of candidate articles. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Teleosteomorpha taxonomy template
The taxonomy template for Teleost cannot be changed, so I can't list its parent as the stem-group clade Teleosteomorpha (containing Aspidorhynchiformes, Pachycormiformes, and a bunch of Triassic fish groups), which I hope to create a proper page for later. Could someone else with admin permissions do this? Geekgecko (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made the change as its part of the Fishes of the World (5th ed) classification, although I don't see why you need to change the Teleostei template until the Teleosteomorpha page is available for linking. However, as the templates for Aspidorhynchiformes, Pachycormiformes and Aspidorhynchei already exist, we may as well complete the FotW5 hierarchy.
 * P.S. When making such requests, you should provide a source. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I keep forgetting! Geekgecko (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Acanthomorpha is directly classified as a subgroup of Teleostei, when Ctenosquamata, Eurypterygii, or Neoteleostei (in decreasing order of precision) should be the more immediate parent. Source: https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/9759/1/vz_92_Johnson.pdf . Geekgecko (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added the rest of the classification as given in FotW5, which is compatible with the Deepfin topology at these levels. Most of the templates were already set up, but for some reason Acanthomorpha and a few others skipped some levels (possibly because they are protected pages). I did skip Zoroteleostei as that is where FotW5 and Deepfin disagree (on position of Argentiniformes and Galaxiiformes; the new Near classification has yet another topology there). Some of the ranks may not match FotW5, so let me know if you see discrepancies. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Molly Miller
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Molly Miller that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fossil fish page revamping project
Hey all, I have a project for everyone, based on a long-running problem that hasn't received much attention. There are over 630 stub pages for fossil ray-finned fish taxa. Many (though not all) often have outdated taxonomy or are lacking other crucial information. Most can be accessed via this category. Hundreds of pages makes it very hard for me to do on my own, so I would like the whole community's help for this.

At a minimum, each page (that doesn't already have one) needs: I hope this can be a productive endeavor. I'll also try to contribute as well. Geekgecko (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy updated to our modern understanding, preferably via using the most recent scientific study that addresses it but Fossilworks/PBDB may also suffice otherwise.
 * The taxobox replaced with either a speciesbox or automatic taxobox (depending on if it's monotypic or not), and the according changes to the internal taxonomy system.
 * The actual species in the genus added to the taxobox, as many of these are exclusively just mentions of the genus with no reference to the species within it.
 * The author and describing year of the taxon should be added to the infobox, as many of these are missing these as well. If the genus happens to contain multiple species, try to add these for each species if you can.
 * Add the page to the category "Fossil taxa described in year [x]". Also advisable but less necessary is "Fossil taxa described by [author]" if they have such a category.
 * If an image of the genus is present on Wikimedia but isn't on the page for whatever reason, it should be added (this happens more often than you'd think).


 * , if you want this to be a collaborative effort, there should be a list somewhere for tracking progress. We don't want to have multiple editors checking the same article only to found another editor has already improved it. The list could be in your user space or a subpage of this WikiProject.


 * Or, if some other editors are interested in working on this, you could discuss with them about splitting up the articles somehow (e.g. you work on articles starting with A and they work on articles starting with Z and you both work towards the middle of the alphabet).


 * I am not interested in working on this myself, but I do think it is good that you proposed this. In the last couple of weeks, I've been working on replacing manual taxoboxes with automatic taxoboxes in the (few) remaining living fish that have manual taxoboxes. In the process, I've looked at well more than 100 articles on fossil fish. Most of them aren't linked from any higher taxon (they are usually linked from List of prehistoric bony fish genera, so at least they aren't completely orphaned). Many are placed to a rank no lower than order on Fossilworks. Ordinal placement on Fossilworks is often cited as "according to J. J. Sepkoski 2002". Sepkoski is apparently using older, broader circumscriptions of (at least) Perciformes and Beryciformes, which are different from what Wikipedia is following. So Fossilworks may not really suffice in the absence of a recent scientific study. Dealing with fossil fish stubs properly is going to involve a pretty deep dive into the literature. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are probably hundreds of articles to correct, I probably wouldn't be able to create an individual list of each one to get to as opposed to just linking to the lists that have the relevant taxa (the page you linked is good, but there are also lots of pages on the stubs category as well as the fossil ray-finned fish genera category that aren't on it). But I would be interested in just referring to it on my page or as a subproject; how do I do that? I've had no real experience with this previously.
 * For now my plan is to just do it myself over an indefinite period of time unless someone else also wants to join in, but I'm definitely open to others helping out too.
 * Strangely, for all its other shortcomings, PaleoBioDB (which is very similar to Fossilworks but just slightly different and actually citeable nowadays) appears to be quite up to date when it comes to fossil fish taxonomy (although I would still absolutely not trust its occurrence data for specific taxa as it often includes misattributions from the original literature), and it also links the most recent study that has dealt with the taxonomy of the genus at hand. I wouldn't call it the end-all-be-all, but I am comfortable using it as the default taxonomy source based on the few pages I've updated so far.
 * Geekgecko (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the FAQS on Fossilworks it is uses the same database as PBDB, or more precisely a mirror that is updated each day. There are differences in the presentation and there are a few minor differences in the content (e.g. in the ecology section), although I've not seen a disagreement on taxonomy.
 * A problem with the taxonomy of fossil fish is that it relies on morphology, when the taxonomy of some groups has been radically changed due to molecular studies. Most of the change is within acanthomorphs and especially percomorphs, although FotW5 also lags behind here. The new review by Near and Thacker (see preprint) has a series of figures with phylogeny based on molecular work where they have incorporated fossil taxa, so this might be useful for fossils, at least within crown taxa. In terms of converting taxoboxes, that is a major task. Most are genera so each will need at least one taxonomy template. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For sources there is also Family-group names of fossil fishes, which has an online addendum at Catalog of Fishes (last updated Jan 2024). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 09:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"Kanpachi" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanpachi&redirect=no Kanpachi] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Tagging this wikiproject in for assistance since I don't know how many people familiar with scientific names of fish are watching RfD. Thanks in advance for any input! -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Help in creating/improving "Fishing industry in [country]" articles
Hello, I've come here to ask for assistance in creating "Fishing industry in [country]" articles! I'm well aware that this subject more of fits the Fishing and Fisheries wikiproject, however, that project seems to have little to no activity, so I doubt that the topic I made over there will get any attention. Some background as to why I'm asking for help:

I've noticed that many countries are missing a "Fishing industry in [country]" article, many of which are very deserving and needing of such an article. I've also noticed that, for the few that do have an article, many do not go in-depth or sufficiently cover the topic very well. Some even only have as far as a couple sentences.

This is why I'm asking for assistance in creating/expanding/improving these articles. I simply cannot do it by myself, and considering I've already taken 3 months creating a draft for the fishing industry in Peru, it's obvious that I can't do it alone. Hopefully people can partake in helping, thank you! (P.S., I noticed that a similar topic above has pointed out that a list needs to be made to record progress, so I've created such a page here. Join in helping if you want!) SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Should this monotypic taxon article be about a genus or species?
I wrote Ombilinichthys tonight. It's a genus with only one species. Should it be renamed to refer to the species? Zanahary (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The standard setup for monotypic taxa (up to any degree of monotypy) is to place the article at the genus level, and note the species in the article, and the taxobox if desired. So your current configuration is fine (including the redirect from the species name). - Just FYI, note that for fossil taxa, the article is generally kept at the genus level even if there are multiple species, unless there is an unusual amount to say about a species. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Potential significant change to species notability
Over on Wikipedia talk:Notability‎, several editors are working on a draft proposal to replace our current notability guidelines for species (all species are notable) with something much more restrictive (only species that go beyond certain limited pieces of information would be allowed their own articles). If you have opinions on this issue, now would be a good time to weigh in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Halieutopsis vermicularis with Halieutopsis nasuta, although FishBase still has a separate entry for H. vermicularis it does have a note that it is considered to be a synonym of H. nasuta, as does the IUCN Red List page for H. vermicularis. Catalog of Fishes is more definite. To discuss go to Talk:Halieutopsis nasuta.

Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Conversion of FishBase Citation templates
I propose to update fishbase templates to using a module, which will generate CS1/CS2 compliant citations (e.g. cite web). I initially wrote the module for the Catalog of fish templates (Catalog of Fishes, Cof species,Cof genus, etc.), which needed additions to make permalinks. These have been in use for five years. I made an option for FishBase in the sandbox at the same time but held off making the change because the template is high use. Now I propose to make the change as I’m confident it should be functionally transparent for existing uses (apart from some minor formatting changes consistent with CS1/CS2) while conferring several advantages.

Some advanatages will be
 * consistency with CS1/CS2 citations,
 * easier updates when fishbase make changes
 * the ability to use all the other citation template parameters when required (e.g.
 * setting |access-date,
 * selecting the citations style used by and article: e.g. setting cs1 for pages using cite web and other CS1 templates or cs2 for pages using citation or name-list-style for pages using Vancouver style
 * using |quote
 * using archived pages
 * allowing other pages on Fishbase to be cited by setting a title and url, with the template automatically providing the other cite web parameters (author, website etc). Such pages include common names lists, synonym lists, notes on the Fishbase classification.

There are a number of issues that should be addressed:
 * The templates default the month and year to April 2006. I think it would be better to omit this, as some later citations incorrectly default to this, but its retained in my current version so existing citations will be unchanged.
 * FishBase subspecies is no longer useful. The subspecies links now go to the species page (FishBase made this change sometime between 2015 and 2017)
 * FishBase family has options for parameter ID and familyname. I found two pages with the ID and both also have family meaning the ID was never used, while familyname is not used. This option will be dropped unless there is demand.

While I intend to keep the suite of fishbase citation templates (for backward compatibility), all the functionality will be available in the FishBase template, as follows: Any comments? —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * using genus and species) will behave like the current FishBase
 * using genus without species will be equivalent to FishBase genus
 * using family will be equivalent to FishBase family,
 * using order will be equivalent to FishBase order,
 * and so on.

Requested move at Talk:Parachromis managuensis
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Parachromis managuensis that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Edits! Talk! 16:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Redband trout
I was gnoming around upgrading taxoboxes, and came across Redband trout. I am not sure if this is a subspecies group (like a species complex i guess) or just a collection of common names. Can someone with more knowledge of fishes take a look please? Thanks a bunch. awkwafaba (📥) 15:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rainbow_trout lists 7 redband forms, not all of which have "redband" in the common name. I think redband is perhaps a morphological feature shared by several subspecies that aren't necessarily a clade. I'm not sure an article is warranted; it could be merged to rainbow trout or converted to a SIA or disambiguation. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are ten more sources on the talk page, so it may be an actual thing, even if it's not a clade. Mainly wanted to know if the taxobox and taxobar should stay or go. awkwafaba (📥) 16:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * can you illuminate us? awkwafaba (📥) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What specifically are you interested in learning? Indeed “Redband” is a common name but does in fact represent three valid subspecies of O. Mykiss.  Is Behnke’s reference invalid?  As to subspecies now recognized as species, an article update may be justified if the sources are reliable. Mike Cline (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The introduction of a recent study by Campbell et al (2023) provides a short review of the Redband trout, which consist of three subspecies that were not thought to form a natural group. However, based on their results there may be a natural Interior Redband Trout subspecies group, comprising the Columbia River Redband Trout (O. m. gairdnerii), the Great Basin and Upper Klamath Lake Redband Trout (O. m. newberrii) and Sacramento River Redband Trout (O. m. stonei), but only after splitting O. m. stonei and recognising a new subspecies for the McCloud River Redband Trout (O. m. calisulat). The phylogenetic position of this subspecies is uncertain. To confuse matters, the Wikipedia article on McCloud River redband trout covers O. m. stonei, which is the Sacramento River Redband Trout in the Campbell study.
 * The rainbow trout article says the subspecies and groupings are based on Behnke's Trout and Salmon of North America. Does anyone have access so we can verify this? Googlebooks only has limited coverage. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 &#124; talk 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A little more reading suggests that the rainbow trout and related articles are out of date.
 * Fishbase and ECoF now recognise the River Kern/Golden trout group as a species, Oncorhynchus aguabonita. ECof includes subspecies gilberti and whitei.
 * ECoF now recognises the Baja rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss nelsoni) as species, Oncorhynchus nelsoni, although Fishbase hasn't followed yet.
 * ECoF now recognises the subspecies O. m. calisulat, the McCloud River Redband Trout of Campbell et al (2023). This corresponds to the Sheepheaven Creek redband trout (O. m. spp. in the table in the rainbow trout article).
 * The article McCloud River redband trout covers O. m. stonei, which is the Sacramento River Redband Trout of Campbell et al.
 * I wonder what other changes have been made or are in the pipeline. If the golden trout subspecies group is now a species, a revised Redband group might be another possible species. I suggest delaying any drastic change to the Redband trout article. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  &#124; talk 17:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Giuris
Can someone please double check if this page I created is accurate? It was originally a redirect as monotypic, but the reference I found seems to say there are now 8 recognized species of this genus. However, fish base and itis still show Giuris margaritaceus as the only valid species. I’m not familiar with taxonomy, so I’d appreciate a second opinion. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We generally follow Fishbase for species recognition. However, Catalog of Fishes recognises the eight species, which usually means Fishbase will do soon. Fishbase has much more biological information than the purely taxonomic CoF, so tends to be a bit slower. A genus article listing the new species seems appropriate, but I'd wait for more information before creating articles for the other species.
 * I've made a few changes to the Giuris, adding the CoF reference also recognising the eight species, a statement that the genus has been considered monotypic, and an image to the taxobox. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  &#124; talk 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thank you! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis	--> Oncorhynchus virginalis (Girard 1856)
I found a draft for a new name at Draft:Rocky Mountain Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus virginalis), and I'm not sure how to proceed. Some but not all species directories such as https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1316977-Oncorhynchus-virginalis say that Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis has been renamed to Oncorhynchus virginalis. I think that some other Oncorhynchus clarkii subspecies (such as Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) have been reassigned to Oncorhynchus virginalis (as Oncorhynchus virginalis utah for the example). Should Rio Grande cutthroat trout be edited to use the Oncorhynchus virginalis name? Another editor has created Draft:Rocky Mountain Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus virginalis), and I don't know whether the information in the draft should be promoted to mainspace or incorporated into Rio Grande cutthroat trout. I won't be offended if someone says that we should wait a few months to see whether the new name is accepted by other databases. LeapTorchGear (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fishbase doesn't recognise Oncorhynchus virginalis, but ECof does with subspecies bouvieri, macdonaldi (now extinct), pleuriticus, stomias and utah. Rio Grande cutthroat trout seems the established name for the subspecies (e.g. Behnke, 2002 and Pritchard et al, 2009 ). The new species, though, is more broadly defined with addition subspecies, some of which have articles: Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri, Oncorhynchus clarkii macdonaldi,  Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus, Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias and Oncorhynchus clarkii utah
 * So an article covering the new species seems reasonable, which probably should use the scientific name. Where does iNaturalist get Rocky Mountain Cutthroat Trout? I think some of these trout articles are oversplit (see discussion on redband trout above) and would be better handled in a broader article. But as the articles exist, and are more than stubs, a merge might be more difficult, unless there is a lot of overlap in those other subspecies articles. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  &#124; talk 09:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)