Talk:Fish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleFish was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2007Good article nomineeListed
November 22, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
April 17, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
January 17, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): D.valdez32.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there fish that can walk?[edit]

There is, there are so many species of fish, and weird fish, there is so much more fish that we can discover!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richieboiagve (talk • contribs) 15:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Sick fish" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Sick fish. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 8#Sick fish until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Fish proteins" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Fish proteins and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 1#Fish proteins until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reverse?[edit]

The following sentence is confusing: "The first ancestors of fish may have kept the larval form into adulthood (as some sea squirts do today), although perhaps the reverse is the case." What is the reverse? "The last progeny of fish may not have gotten rid of the adult form into larvahood"? Citizen127 (talk) 01:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just came here to day the same thing. Fish may be ancestors of the first organisms to keep larval form? Lol Bernardo.bb (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The first ancestors of fish may have kept the larval form" implies that they may not have. I'm assuming that's the intention in "although perhaps the reverse is the case," so it's redundant, unnecessary, and confusing. Citizen127 (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are conodonts excluded?[edit]

I can't find any authoritative sources either specifically describing conodonts are being fish or as being excluded from the definition of fish, but it would seem that if they are cladistically included within crown vertebrates then there would be no reason to not regard them as fish. Geobica (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there even a recent formal definition of fish? It seems now to be used as an informal term for craniates that aren't tetrapods. The question is whether conodonts are craniates. If they are classified as vertebrates (as in the cladogram in Conodont), then I think they would generally be considered fish. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have universal agreement.
According to Donoghue et al (2000) and Sweet & Donoghue (2001) the question had finally been settled and conodonts, at least euconodonts, were vertebrates, stem-Gnathostomata no less. However, the discussion in Turner et al (2010, pdf) is equally adamant they are neither vertebrates nor craniates. This is the position followed in Fishes of the World (5th edition), where they are placed as a subphylum of chordates, one of four along with tunicates, lancelets and craniates. Here they would be placed outside the agnathan fish grade. Yet we also have a recent work where they are included in vertebrates (Miyashita et al 2019), among the jawless fish. Until their classification is settled there seems no simple answer. FotW5 refer to them as "eel-like animals" and I didn't see them referred to as fish in any of those works where they are considered vertebrates. The taxobox says they are traditionally excluded, which seems accurate. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of these sources actually state that they're excluded from the definition of fish though, it just doesn't include them, presumably because of the uncertainty of whether they're vertebrates. This still implies that calling them fish is a matter of their taxonomic classification, so writing them as excluded is unnecessary. I'd say that to state that they're excluded there should be a source that gives a positive statement of that, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Additionally, I can find quite a few sources online that refer to conodonts as fish, such as this article which refers to them as "naked agnathan fishes", and The Composition of Conodonts, which calls them "probably fish", implying that their classification as fish is dependent on their classification as vertebrates, in which case they aren't to be excluded no matter what. Geobica (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022[edit]

Similar to whale: Add that's Fish is an informal name in it's infobox? 2601:183:4A80:E570:656C:9BB1:E47D:6EA7 (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But Fish is not an informal classification the way Whale is. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fish[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
Result: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR from 2007, reassesed in 2008. Very important article in a poor state - almost half of the text in unsourced, f.e. half of Etymology, whole Evolution, half of Taxonomy, parts of Diversity, Anatomy and physiology, Muscular system, half of Reproductive system, etc.

Other problems - underdeveloped sections - f.e. Scales, Emotion, and Fishkeeping.

Tags present: dubious – discuss. Article is probably outdated: Conservation section starts with The 2006 IUCN Red List names 1,173 fish species that are threatened with extinction - it's 17 years ago!

I don't usually edit biology articles, so will ping some users who are good in it (hope it's ok, no pressure of course, but would be great to know your opinion): @LittleJerry:, @Chiswick Chap:, @Casliber:

Artem.G (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delist Damn this article is bad. I'm going to preemptively put a delist. Though, if major work on this article begins then consider this vote null until the major work is done. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist per nom, unless serious effort is made to fix the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist choppy paras, unsourced text etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist, extensive work needed exceeding the reasonable scope of GAR. CMD (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The two animal species known to have blue colouring[edit]

One of the captions in the article says:

The psychedelic mandarin dragonet is one of only two animal species known to have blue colouring because of cellular pigment.

I interpreted this as: - There are only two animal species to have a blue appearance - This particular dragonet is blue because of cellular pigment

But that's obviously false as many more species are blue. Guinea fowls, peacocks and surgeon fish come to mind. So apparently the cellular pigment coloring the mandarin dragonet makes it special. But the article is about fish, not about cellular pigmentation and as such, the casual reader may not know what cellular pigmentation is ("aren't all skins made out of cells and aren't all skin colors created by pigments?"). Not being familiar with the topic at all (and stumbling upon the fish article because it's shown as an example on the new design announcement), I wonder how the text could be improved to feature the mandarin dragonet without causing confusion. LongWindingRoad (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question. The cited paper doesn't say only two animal species have a blue appearance. In the abstract they attribute the blue of other animals to interference phenonomena. The paper describes the discovery of blue chromatophores (cells with blue pigments) in two species of fish. They claim that this was the first time that such a pigmented cell had been found in poikilothermic vertebrates. Other previously know chromatophores are "primarily responsible for the dark, red, yellow, whitish and iridescent tones of the skin". The fact they found it in two types of fish doesn't mean they are the only two species. And it's not clear how general it is for animals that are not poikilothermic vertebrates, e.g. there are blue corals, blue insects (butterflies, dragonflies, beetles) and, as you point out, blues in some birds. Are none of these due to a blue pigment?
I did a quick google search and found an article on peacocks and colouration: If you go looking for the blue in a peacock's feathers, you won't find it. Apparently the peacock doesn't contain a blue pigment, but gets the colour because the peacock's tail feathers "contain microscopic ridges, which interfere with light, causing some wavelengths to cancel each other out, and others to be amplified, resulting in the birds' signature iridescent blue color". They also point out that plants are green because that is the one colour they don't have pigments to absorb the light and consequently the green light is reflected. Thus other animals might be blue because they reflect it preferentially or due to interference phenomena.
I think a simple rewording to state what was observed without generalisation might be sufficient. I'll give it a try. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fish&oldid=1135162897"