Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes

Requested move at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis#Requested move 29 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis#Requested move 29 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Scaevius milii#Requested move 13 November 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scaevius milii#Requested move 13 November 2023 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'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alomomola_and_common_names_of_fish. 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)

@Wikishovel: 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)

@Wikishovel: 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 Wikipedia: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)

@Wikishovel: 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)

@Wikishovel: 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)

@Wikishovel: 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 | 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#Alomomola and common names of fish, 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; doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-122120-122554), 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 | 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 | talk  14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The paper is now published as Near and Thacker (2024). —  Jts1882 | talk  07:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

References

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 | talk  13:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that the problems began with this edit followed by 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 | 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 | 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:

1. Change the groups included/excluded headings to remove the default cladisitically excluded text. See this edit.
2. Use |informal=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 | 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 | 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 | 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 | talk  10:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Molly Miller#Requested move 9 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Molly Miller#Requested move 9 January 2024 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:

• 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).

I hope this can be a productive endeavor. I'll also try to contribute as well. Geekgecko (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Geekgecko:, 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 | 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 | talk  09:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

References

"Kanpachi" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 5 § Kanpachi 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 |mode=cs1 for pages using {{cite web}} and other CS1 templates or |mode=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:

• 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.

Any comments?  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Parachromis managuensis#Requested move 13 May 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Parachromis managuensis#Requested move 13 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe^{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#Subspecies 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)

@Mike Cline: 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. —  Jts1882 | 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.  —  Jts1882 | 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.  —  Jts1882 | 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.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Fish taxonomy and this project

The 5th edition of Fishes of the World is now nearly a decade old and it seems unlikely that there will be a 6th edition in the near future. The taxonomy used is now very divergent with the current databases, mainly Fishbase and Catalog of Fishes. Should we now consider changing the taxonomy used? I find that new editors are unaware of that the project follows FotW. I am also aware that this would involve a lot of work by editors involved in WikiProject Fishes. I am not making a formal proposal but trying to open up a discussion to see if there is an appetite among editors for this change? My own position is ambivalence. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same. Nelson made the point in 2006 that the taxonomy in the 4th edition hadn't caught up with the molecular work and they kept his conservative approach when finishing the 5th edition after his death. Without Nelson, it wouldn't be as authoritative, even if there was a 6th edition.

There are two taxonomies that are good candidates as a replacement. The one in ECoF, which is largely followed by Fishbase, or Near's new taxonomy. The latter is partially phylocode, although while formally rankless, it does use names with traditional endings (e.g. -iformes, -oidei, -idae) and avoids nesting such names within another with the same ending. It also gets rid of monotypic taxa and doesn't use taxa with order, family or genus names if they would be monotypics, i.e. it reduces redundancy. The Near taxonomy lumps a numbers of traditional taxa, notably Lophiiformes and Tetraodontiformes, which are treated as clades with suborder names in an expanded Acanthuriformes, where they are nested (phylocode would allow the names Lophiiformes and Tetraodontiformes within Acanthuriformes). The change from a very traditional taxonomy to a more controversial one may be a step too far. Deepfin's phylogenetic classification is another possibility but it is also quite dated (published in 2017). It is a splitters taxonomy and leaves many taxa incertae sedis. I think ECoF is probably the best choice. Although they don't publicise updates, the taxonomy has been updated to reflect recent changes (e.g. an expanded Acanthuriformes is the same as Near's apart from the exclusion of Lophiiformes and Tetraodontiformes, which retain their traditional ordinal rank). It is also largely compatible with Fishbase which we use for genera and species.  —  Jts1882 | talk  12:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Quetzal1964, I believe you have done more work than anybody else to bring Wikipedia's high level taxonomy of fishes to its current state. If you think it is time to move on from FotW5, I defer to your judgement.

Phylocode+dropping monotypic taxa is a step too far for me, so I wouldn't favor Near.

ECoF would be a good choice, especially if it aligns with Fishbase. Using different sources for high level taxonomy and species level taxonomy is messy (as far as I'm aware flowering plants and fish are the only groups where Wikipedia uses different sources for high-level and species-level taxonomy). Plantdrew (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Jts1882, Plantdrew Thank you for the responses and for the link to the Near & Thacker paper. I like the PhyloCode classification because I think it better fits the reality iof phylogenetics. However, PhyloCode is, I understand, still controversial and not universally accepted by Taxonomists. It may also be difficult to understand for general readers, of which I regard myself as one, as all the stages would be described as clades rather than the more generally understood family, order etc. I agree that if we do move to change the taxonomy used then the more traditional ranked taxonomy of Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes would be my preferred choice.Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The ECoF classification is probably fine for medium-level taxonomy (orders and families etc.), but most higher-level taxa aren't represented in this system. Even Actinopterygii and Chondrichthyes are missing for some reason. Also, treating bichirs as a separate class is definitely a weird move. So if we end up using this classification, we probably need to supplement it with something else. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Trilletrollet Thank you for you comments. If we go with the ECof classification, whatever weirdness, I would prefer to stick to the single system. The issues surrounding any classification would be explained in the articles about the taxa concerned. For example, and this is just off the top of my head:

"the bichirs are classified by some authorities as the class Cladisti, although others regard this as an infraclass, the Cladistia, within the Actinopterygii or as a distinct clade, Polypteridae, nested within Actinopterygii..."

It would be the Taxoboxes and Taxonomy Templates where the classification would be used and would be consistent. As Peter coxhead explained to me, when I first started editing Wikipedia, the article should explain the taxonomic alternatives or controversies in the text. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Very valid points. This why it always takes so long to change from a recognised authoritative text when it becomes outdated (e.g. MSW3, FotW5). None of the alternatives give everything. Extinct taxa is something else missing from ECoF/Fishbase, where FotW5 is probably still the best general source. There is an essay on Fishbase explaining the tradeoffs in their choice of classes for their simplified system (they have ten classes after splitting Actinopteri into three, while ECOF retain it in their eight class system) (see Changes in February 2023). It's not that they don't recognise the higher taxa they've just changed ranks to keep it simple. We certainly shouldn't drop the taxa above the classes of ECoF/Fishbase as they are widely recognised. The problem is how do we mix sources without violating Wikipedia rules on OR. POV etc. Near's system using ranks for order, suborder and family would work very well but wouldn't be true to the source.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

If we adopt the PhyloCode classification of Near and Thacker, that would include extant and extinct taxa and that is a clear advantage for that approach. My concern is, however, would be that I am not aware of that approach being taken in other Tree of Life projects. Would that be an issue?Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The phylocode and absence of monotypic taxa would be a big change from the systems used in taxoboxes where the major ranks are always shown. While Near & Thacker use some traditional endings (-idae, -oidea, -oidei, -iformes) these would have to be labelled as clades. The system is also restricted to ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii), which would mean phylocode for only part of the fish classification.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I thought I'd try and summarise the pros and cons of different systems:

• Fishes of the World (5th edition, 2016)
  • Pros: comprehensive, covering extinct forms and all fish lineages including jawless fish and cartilaginous fish; full taxonomy.
  • Cons: a bit dated and not incorporating some major changes based on molecular data; unlikely to be a 6th edition
• Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes Classification (2024)
  • Pros: regularly updated, covering all fish lineages; largely congruent with FishBase.
  • Cons: taxonomy above ordinal level restricted to classes, where they use a simplified "flat" eight class system. Only includes extant taxa.
• Deepfin: Phylogenetic classification of bony fishes (2017)
  • Pros: phylogenetic classification
  • Cons: restricted to bony fishes (Osteichthyes); taxonomy is heavily split with many groups incertae sedis; a bit dated now and doesn't look like there will be further updates
• Near & Thacker (2024)
  • Pros: phylogenetic classification; includes fossil fish; up to date and likely to see revisions
  • Cons: restricted to ray-finned fishes (Actinopterygii); unusual phylocode-like system with no monotypic taxa, so traditional families and orders will be absent; in contrast to Deepfin, this is a lumped taxonomy with many familiar names used for broader groups

Please made suggestions as I'm sure I've missed a number of things. I don't mind if anyone edits the above. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:20, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I have added another con for ECoF in italics. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I am beginning to formulate a proposal, it's certainly not perfect, but I think it avoids violating Wikipedia rules or any original research. ECoF is used for extant taxa and for extinct taxa, not definitely included within any ECoF's classes, we continue to use the 5th edition of Nelson. Wherever Deepfin and the Near & Thacker classification differ from this it should be stated and referenced in the article. Thoughts? Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Formal Proposal to change Taxonomic authorities used by WikiProject Fishes

I propose that we change the taxonomic authority used in WkiProject Fishes. The reason is that the current authority, the 5th edition of the Fishes of the World is nearly a decade old and is very conservative in its taxaonomy. It mainly sticks to non molecular phylogeny and its taxonomy is not supported by more recent molecular studies.

1. That we have a unified taxonomy for all extant taxa of fish, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (Ecof) https://www.calacademy.org/scientists/catalog-of-fishes-classification/ and that this is followed from the species level to the higher taxa. The taxonomy used in taxoboxes for extant taxa should be based on Ecof,

2. That for extinct taxa, i,e, where that taxon is not included in Ecof, then we should follow the the 5th edition of Fishes of the World. For example the for the Placoderms we would follow Fishes of the World but for the genus Jefitchia, a sciaenid we would use Ecof's taxonomy because that taxon is within an extant lineage.

3. The Taxonomy section in an article should note different classification schemes, where relevant, particularly where Ecof differs from Fishes of the World, Deepfin https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3 and Near & Thacker's Phylogenetic Classification of Living and Fossil Ray-Finned Fishes (Actinopterygii) https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-peabody-museum-of-natural-history/volume-65/issue-1/014.065.0101/Phylogenetic-Classification-of-Living-and-Fossil-Ray-Finned-Fishes-Actinopterygii/10.3374/014.065.0101.full

Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Plantdrew, Jts1882, Trilletrollet I am paging you about this as the lack of comments lead me to conclude that I have not followed the accepted procedures on this. Please help! Quetzal1964 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm a bit distracted by other things at the moment, as well as uncertain as the best approach following Wikipedia procedures.Some quick thoughts:

• I think the ECoF classification is the best for ordinal and below, as it's complete for extant fish and compatible with FishBase.
• However, if we follow ECoF for classes we lose important taxa. Using class Actinopteri as the parent of the orders would mean no Neopterygii or Teleostei or Euteleostei. Above Euteleostei FotW and Deepfin agree on the topology and taxa but differ in ranks used (need to check if N&T24 also agree).
• As we probably need to continue to use FotW for extinct taxa, perhaps the policy (for taxobox and page titles) should be to continue to follow FotW5 for supraordinal classification (although they don't name Actinopteri). There may be a case for making exceptions for certain groups where a newer sources has been assigned (e.g. sharks and rays or ray-finned fishes).

The problem is whether this counts as original research. We have to make choices for page titles and the taxoboxes. You could argue that the whole automatic taxobox system is OR because its structure is not found in any one source. However, if each taxobox template is properly sourced (as it should be) I don't think this counts as OR and alternative taxonomies should be discussed in the text of articles.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Jts1882 N&T24 include Neopterygii, Teleostei and Euteleostei as clades, see the cladogram on page 11 of their paper. Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned about how fossil taxa will fit in. Continuing to use FotW5 for supraordinal classification as Jts1882 suggests may be the way to go. Plantdrew (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

So I should revise the first and second points to

1. That we have a unified taxonomy for all extant taxa of fish below the level of order, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (Ecof) https://www.calacademy.org/scientists/catalog-of-fishes-classification/ and that this is followed from the species level to the higher taxa. The taxonomy used in taxoboxes for taxa up to and including order should be based on Ecof.

2. That for extinct taxa, i,e, where that taxon is not included in Ecof, and the levels above that of order then we should follow the the 5th edition of Fishes of the World. For example the for the Placoderms we would follow Fishes of the World but for the genus Jefitchia, a sciaenid we would use Ecof's taxonomy because that taxon is within an extant lineage.

And the third to

3. The Taxonomy section in an article should note different classification schemes, where relevant, particularly where Ecof differs from Fishes of the World, Deepfin https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3 and Near & Thacker's Phylogenetic Classification of Living and Fossil Ray-Finned Fishes (Actinopterygii) https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-peabody-museum-of-natural-history/volume-65/issue-1/014.065.0101/Phylogenetic-Classification-of-Living-and-Fossil-Ray-Finned-Fishes-Actinopterygii/10.3374/014.065.0101.full The taxonomy template should be referenced to Ecof for taxa at and below the level of order, and to Fishes of the World 5th ed for taxa above the level of order. Quetzal1964 (talk) 09:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

As there has been no further responses to this since the 15 August I guess there is no appetite for this change so I'll drop my proposal. Geekgecko suggested that a new edition of Fishes of the World was expected in 2 years time but didn't say what this was based on. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry about not responding, forgot about this. I'm pretty sure "Fishes of the World" publishes in 10-year timespans, as the 4th edition was published in 2006 and the 5th in 2016, and thus the next should be published in 2 years. I'm not opposed to still changing the taxonomic authority for extant taxa to something more current for the sake of accuracy, though there are many fossil taxa (i.e. many Neogene "perciform" taxa) who are currently classified based on the sensu lato interpretation of many of these orders, and I don't know when a study would be published that would reclassify these under the new taxonomy (if that ever happens, since these orders are primarily based on genetic data). A major issue with the current FOTW classification, which would make me lean towards changing it, is that there has been a lot of family-level reshuffling in orders like Cyprinidontiformes recently (with many members of Poecilidae being split into their own families), but the requirement that family-level taxa follow only FOTW has stifled making these changes. Geekgecko (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm also sorry for not responding further. I generally agree with your proposal and would vote to adopt it. The reservation is that there isn't simple straightforward answerer, e.g. follow FotW6, so it needs different policies for different taxa. I'd be surprised if there is a FotW6. The 5th edition was finished posthumously building on the draft left by Nelson (one reason they stayed so conservative) and that sort of work is better online where it can be updated.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Nutritional information

Is it common to add nutrtional information to articles about fish like was done here in Sablefish? Such sections seem to be potential WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:MEDRS problems, and in this particular case the "Exact Scientific Services" source cited seems like it might be a bit of WP:CITESPAM given that a new user showed up out of the blue just to add it and "Nutrition" related sections to not only Sablefish but several other articles about fish. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Marchjuly I understand your concerns and share them. The information was commissioned by Positively Groundfish https://www.positivelygroundfish.org/nutrition, a non-profit established to support fishing communities on the west coast of the US (I assume that's what the "country" they are referring to is). Jana Hennig is the Executive Director. The tests were commissioned to provide information to use in the promotion of "West Coast groundfish" as food by a commercial lab, commissioned by an organisation which seems to be some sort of trade association set up to promote the fishing communities of that fishery. Maybe borderline as WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:MEDRS. However, nutritional information sometimes appears in other articles on fish and has done for some time, see Haddock. It also appears to be WP:SPA and maybe WP:PROMOTION. Have you made an attempt to contact WilliamZ7140? Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd support removing that section. There is a template, {{Infobox nutritional value}} for this kind of data, so a custom table is not needed to present that information if it is going to be kept. Most of the articles with a nutritional value infobox get the data from the USDA (https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/), which doesn't have data for sablefish. There are 10 fish articles with a nutritional value infobox, although there are other fish for which the USDA has data that don't have the infobox. Plantdrew (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I've started a discussion about the website cited as the source for all these edits at WP:RSPAM#Possible cite spam by User:WilliamZ7140 and the only response received so far was from an IP account subsequently blocked for repeated vandalism. I can't say whether the IP was WilliamZ7140, but as pointed out above, the WilliamZ7140 account showed up a few days ago for about an hour to make these edit and hasn't edited since. FWIW, I only stumbled upon this while cleaning up citations added to section headings, which is what WilliamZ7140 was doing. After seeing the same thing being done on several other articles, I figured I'd ask about it here. I'm quite happy to defer to the members of this WikiProject with respect to this since I don't really have any experience editing this genre of article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Perritos de sandia

Hi all, I just came across the article perritos de sandia, purportedly an undescribed species of extinct Cyprinodon from Mexico, and it's a bit of a mystery to me. The name "perritos de sandia" apparently means "watermelon puppies" in Spanish, and googling it will result in cute photos of dogs wearing watermelons on their heads rather than information on extinct pupfish. The article was created by Polbot back in 2007 based on an entry on the IUCN Red List (see archived version[1]) that is now a dead link. It doesn't appear to have an entry on the current iteration of the Red List website: the extinct/extinct in the wild Cyprinodon species currently listed there are Cyprinodon alvarezi, Cyprinodon arcuatus, Cyprinodon ceciliae, Cyprinodon inmemoriam, Cyprinodon longidorsalis, and Cyprinodon veronicae, none of which seem to be a match for these perritos de sandia. I was considering WP:PRODing this article, given that it is an undescribed species with seemingly little to no coverage, but I wanted to bring it up here first in hopes that one of you might know more about this fish. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 11:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I think you should take it to AfD rather than PROD. A few articles on undescribed fish species have been previously deleted via AfD (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov.), but there are many more in Category:Undescribed vertebrate species, most of which were created by Polbot on the basis of entries in the IUCN Red List. I don't think we should generally have articles on undescribed species (they don't meet the logic of WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES), but those with Red List entries often have articles in other languages (Perritos de sandia has articles in Portuguese, Serbian and Vietnamese). Some undescribed species may be notable; Suncor nodosaur was notable as an exquisitely preserved fossil before it was formally described, and Dermophis donaldtrumpi is probably notable on the basis of the name proposed for it. I'm not saying that IUCN/Polbot articles for undescribed fish are likely to be notable, but the IUCN record is at least a source that provides a little bit of information about the undescribed species.

I voted to delete Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. on the basis of it no longer having a record in IUCN. I started PROD nominations for five other IUCN/Polbot undescribed fish species, thinking that the IUCN records for them had been deleted. However, I found that IUCN does (at least sometimes) retain records that can't easily be found by searching. Pachypanchax sp. nov. 'Sofia' is one of the articles I had PRODded. The DOI link in the IUCN reference there just goes to the IUCN homepage. The IUCN ID #44486 in the taxonbar goes to an error page. However, the first link in the IUCN reference goes to a live page with a URL ending in 44486/10899847. Many articles with an IUCN reference had the reference updated in 2021 to include a link with additional numbers (e.g. 10899847) beyond the ID # in the taxonbar (e.g. 44486). I have no idea how to find live IUCN records with the additional numbers for articles that have not had the IUCN reference updated, but I am no longer confident that the IUCN actually deletes records (as opposed to making them undiscoverable via the search function and breaking DOIs). If the IUCN does actually delete records, and it is the only source in the article, there is grounds for deleting the article on the basis of WP:V. If the IUCN only obscures records, WP:V may not apply (although not meetinging WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES may still offer grounds for deletion. It's also possible that IUCN deletes some records and obscures others; as the Perritos de sandia article last had the IUCN reference updated in 2014, it's possible that the IUCN record for it was deleted between 2014 and the large-scale update of IUCN references in 2021. Plantdrew (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Retry proposal to change the Taxonomy used by Wikiproject:Fishes

Plantdrew, Jts1882, Trilletrollet, Geekgecko, Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins, Elmidae, AryKun, Simongraham, Naldo-Crocoduck, Abdullah raji,

Apologies to pinging all of you but I would like this to move forward. Any comments annd votes are most welcome, please bring this to the attention of anyone you think may be interested

The 5th edition of the Fishes of the World is nearly a decade old and is very conservative in its taxonomy. It mainly sticks to non molecular phylogeny and its taxonomy is not supported by more recent molecular studies. As Joseph S. Nelson, the principal author of Fishes of the World, is no longer with us then there is unliklely to be a 6th edition.

I propose that we change the taxonomy used by this project to the following:

1. That we have a unified taxonomy for all extant taxa of fish below the level of order, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes (Ecof) https://www.calacademy.org/scientists/catalog-of-fishes-classification/ and that this is followed from the species level to the higher taxa. The taxonomy used in taxoboxes for taxa up to and including order should be based on Ecof.

2. That for extinct taxa, i,e, where that taxon is not included in Ecof, and the levels above that of order then we should follow the the 5th edition of Fishes of the World. For example the for the Placoderms we would follow Fishes of the World but for the genus Jefitchia, a sciaenid, we would use Ecof's taxonomy because that taxon is within an extant lineage.

3. The Taxonomy section in an article should note different classification schemes, where relevant, particularly where Ecof differs from Fishes of the World, Deepfin https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3 and Near & Thacker's Phylogenetic Classification of Living and Fossil Ray-Finned Fishes (Actinopterygii) https://bioone.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-peabody-museum-of-natural-history/volume-65/issue-1/014.065.0101/Phylogenetic-Classification-of-Living-and-Fossil-Ray-Finned-Fishes-Actinopterygii/10.3374/014.065.0101.full The taxonomy template should be referenced to Ecof for taxa at and below the level of order, and to Fishes of the World 5th ed for taxa above the level of order. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree FoTW5 is amazingly hard to use, especially online. Despite years of searching, I have yet to find a full, free version online, and I don't want to buy the book!. ECoF updates quickly and often, far more than FishBase (which often links back to ECoF for new species, anyway). I have no interest or experience in fossils, but as long as the new consensus (if such is agreed) is available to all users in a sensible, easy, way; I'm good. I have fallen foul of hidden agreements about Taxonomic treatments before: See 'Bird taxonomy' on my talk page. Such decisions need to be visible to all concerned editors Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You should be able to get a full copy of FoTW5 by logging into the Wikipedia Library (https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/) and going to https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/doi/book/10.1002/9781119174844 Plantdrew (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I was trying to find that for Big Blue Cray(fish) Twins last week. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The summary classification that was posted on the now dead FotW Google site can be found on archive.org.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that taxonomy ought to be updated.

Catalog of Fishes has a sensible taxonomy right now that mostly follows the molecular results, and it is worth noting that they are followed by biodiversity websites such as iNaturalist.

I would rather use a database like this one, that is regularly updated, as a reference, rather than a single paper (such as the Near & Thacker) that may be outdated soon and contradicted by other authors. Naldo-Crocoduck (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support following ECoF's taxonomy for taxa up to and including orders, while continuing to follow FoTW5 for groups known only from fossils, and mentioning different classification schemes in articles when relevant. There is still going to be a problem with fossil taxa in extant groups; i.e. when the only taxonomic source is =Fossilworks/PaleobDB following Sepkoski, where Sepkoski has much broader circumscriptions of some orders (e.g. Perciformes) than Wikipedia/FoTW5 do (I raised this point at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes#Fossil_fish_page_revamping_project). But the problem of placement of fossil Perciformes doesn't change if we follow FoTW5 or ECoF. Plantdrew (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Support using ECoF for the same reasons, though with an exception for the fossil taxa placed under sensu lato definitions of orders. Depending on how FoTW6 (which I assume will be released in 2 years) pans out, we could return to that eventually, but using a taxonomic source that updates only every 10 years is definitely too unsustainable. Geekgecko (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Nelson commented about being conservative on changes brought about by molecular studies in both the 2006 and 2016 versions, so the taxonomy in FotW5 is more than a decade out of date. ECoF is the only alternative that covers the full range of fish (from jawless to anglerfish) and largely follows recent phylogenetic evidence up to order. The taxonomy is intermediate between the splittist Deepfin and lumpy Near-Thacker. It is also mostly congruent with FishBase, which we follow for species. Keeping FotW5 as the default guiding source for fossil fish makes sense, but perhaps with the proviso that other sources can be used if consensus is gained on the relevant talk pages when FotW5 can be shown to be out of date. In practice fossil fish already diverge from FotW5: e.g. Sclerorhynchoidei in Rajiformes for families placed in the Pristiformes of FotW5. Under the new circumscription, fossil perciforms are probably more likely fossil percomorphs.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. It's perhaps worth re-iterating the point that although the text of articles can, and should, discuss all reliably sourced taxonomy, taxoboxes by their very nature can only show a single system. I rarely edit fish articles, so have no view on which is the best source, but support the general principle that a frequently updated, modern taxonomic database is the best source of taxonomy in taxoboxes. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Support as per Peter coxhead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Support as per all above. FotW is outdated in many respects and the chance to use an available resource to achieve a unified taxonomic structure is a benefit to the project. Loopy30 (talk) 11:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Support as per Peter coxhead, i.e. this sounds reasonable but I'm not familiar enough with the specific sources to comment on their reliability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. I'm no expert but this seems like a good proposal that has been sufficiently discussed, and would allow us to move forward with a more up-to-date taxonomic framework that is widely cited elsewhere. William Avery (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been open for two weeks now, I think I will leave it open for another week. Is the next step to change the Taxonomy section on the Project page or does an admin need to do that? Quetzal1964 (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No admin is needed. Plantdrew (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This proposal is now closed. It has been open for three weeks and has unanimous support from editors who have taken part in the discussion. Thank you to everyone who participated, I will now update the Project Page. Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment from Hemiauchenia

It seems a bit strange for WP:PALEO to not have been consulted regarding the taxonomy of fossil fish when they also clearly come under the scope of that project. In contrast to living animal based projects, it is standard for paleontology articles, where classification schemes often change, to have no fixed classification source, and to rely on what recent scientific papers had said about the classification of a particular taxon. As Jts1882 has said, FotW is often outdated or makes idiosyncratic choices regarding the classification of fossil fish. If taxonomic claims by FotW are uncontroversial I have no problems following it, but I would be opposed to following it if the researchers who actually study these taxa do not follow it, or there is a lack of taxonomic consensus regarding the placement of certain taxa. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposal was noted at WikiProject_Tree_of_Life.

For the fossil fish, perhaps it would be better to say FotW5 should be the default source to follow. As with all these guidelines, exceptions can be made if there is consensus. The whole intent of the proposal was to move on from FotW5 because it was outdated in many places. The problem for fossil fish is there appears to be no suitable general alternative, leaving FotW5 as the best overall source spanning all fossil fish despite its limitations.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, there is Van der Laan's "Family-group names of fossil fishes" and its addenda, but I think this is more about the proper names than updating the taxonomy.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for you comments, as Jts1882 says these are guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules, where exceptions may be made with consensus.Quetzal1964 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

That's OK, I just wanted to make sure, as other WP:PALEO members like @Gasmasque: have also expressed concerns, particularly for groups such as Sclerorhynchoidei. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Merger of Manta ray into Mobula

There is a great deal of overlap between these two artcles and there should be a single article covering the genus Mobula. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Dasyatis gigantea, Hemitrygon akajei, and Bathytoshia brevicaudata

I just stumbled across the giant stumptail stingray article (identified in the text as Dasyatis gigantea) and upon attempting to update its Red List status found that the IUCN now considers Dasyatis gigantea to be a synonym of the red stingray (Hemitrygon akajei) based on ECoF... however, ECoF lists both Dasyatis gigantea and Dasyatis akajei (synonym of H. akajei) as possibly being synonyms of Bathytoshia brevicaudata. I am completely lost. Do all of these articles need to be merged? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

FishBase recognises all three with a note on Dasyatis gigantea "Issue: This species is a junior synonym of Hemitrygon akajei according to CofF (version 31 May 2017)." According to my reading of ECoF, it has Dasyatis gigantea as "Current status: Uncertain as Bathytoshia brevicaudata (based on a 2016 reference) and Dasyatis akajei as "Current status: Valid as Hemitrygon akajei".

So the articles for red stingray (Hemitrygon akajei) and Short-tail stingray (Bathytoshia brevicaudata) should certainly exist. The status of giant stumptail stingray (Dasyatis gigantea) remains uncertain. As there is a difference between ECoF and FishBase I would keep the status quo for the Wikipedia articles (i.e. no clear reason for a change).

Incidentally, before our recent change in the taxonomy sources, FishBase was the guideline source for species articles. In the update this seems to have changed to ECoF, although I don't think this was actually discussed. The discussion was on higher taxonomy. Most of the time, they agree so it doesn't matter, but this is one of the rare cases where it does.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with that, but what should we do about the IUCN status for giant stumptail stingray, given that assessments for Dasyatis gigantea no longer exist on the Red List website? I did find an archive of the 2007 D. gigantea assessment, but it feels a bit odd to continue to include it in the speciesbox when the IUCN now lumps it in with the red stingray. Would it be best to just remove the IUCN status from the speciesbox entirely and explain it in the text? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 00:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I've mixed feelings on including old archived assessments (valid reliable source versus dated information), but in this case it is DD so doesn't add anything useful. I'd remove it.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)