Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Innotata (talk | contribs) at 20:22, 30 July 2011 (→further rename request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fishes Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Etymology

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

Move request

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0  22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Inconnu → Stenodus leucichthys — The fish has several English names, of which inconnu is not the primary FishBase or FAO name. Olaff (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support "Inconnu" should be a disambiguation page. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support yes, unless someone can show that "sheefish" or another name is the primary one. Suppose "inconnu" should be a disambiguation, though the other topics with articles are all partial matches and less significant even than the fish. —innotata 15:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Stenodus leucichthys nelma.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Stenodus leucichthys nelma.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

further rename request

It has been proposed in this section that Stenodus leucichthys be renamed and moved to Stenodus. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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

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

• Start-Class Fishes articles
• Low-importance Fishes articles
• WikiProject Fishes articles
• Requested moves