Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes

The article Chlorurus frontalis is rated as Start class but it seems to meet all the B class criteria. Can anyone please reassess it? TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 14:24, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you need more prose to get a B-class. I feel like the references need to be pared down as well Anthropophoca (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice but could you please clarify what you mean by 'pared down'.

Thank you again!

TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 13:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

One suggestion would be to replace references 5-19 and 20-25 for territories and seas where it is found with the territories and ecosystems pages on Fishbase.^[1][2]  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

As Jts suggested, you should pare down the references to a useful amount so that reading flow is smoother. And you should go into more detail about the animal as well by including more information from the references you already have. Anthropophoca (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

thank you for the advices. I will try to implement them TrueMoriarty Talk | Contribs 04:16, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Similar to Cuttlefish and Sepiidae along with Coelacanth and Latimeria, I intend to rework the pages Torinae and Mahseer and am considering whether to merge the two. However, "mahseer" as a common name is only applied to a part of Torinae, with other common names being used for the family (e;g yellowfish for Labeobarbus). Unlike the cuttlefish situation it isn't so cut and dry, so I'm asking whether it would be warranted to merge the Mahseer page into a section of an expanded Torinae. Due to Mahseer being a page about a common name (and thus being prone to article rot), I figured I could just move a lot of the information off to a more relevant article without consulting, but I thought I better ask before committing a merge or something with a similar impact.

Feel free to tag me. Anthropophoca (talk) 07:39, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

This was done btw Anthropophoca (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I had to undo an attempt to merge Megaleporinus into Arrhinolemur by just transferring the text. The articles do need to be sorted. One issue is spelling: Arhinolemur vs. Arrhinolemur. CoF has the former if you search. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This level-5 vital article is of mid-importance to this project. The sentences use inconsistent British and American spellings, and it also needs additional citations. I've nominated it for improvement at WP:AFIN#Sailfish. 2600 etc (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Might start doing a new thing here; i think posting CC-BY papers which have good figures will be helpful.

• "Unveiling fish diversity in the Parque Nacional dos Lençóis Maranhenses and adjacent areas through DNA barcoding, Northeastern Brazil". Biologia. 81 (142). 19 May 2026. doi:10.1007/s11756-026-02217-1.

Anthropophoca (talk) 07:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• "Ichthyofauna of Serra do Divisor National Park, upper Rio Moa, Rio Juruá basin, Acre State, Brazil". Biota Neotropica. 26 (2). 4 May 2026. doi:10.1590/1676-0611-BN-2025-1837. Anthropophoca (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Just noticed this while patrolling redirects: @RYT3012 recently moved Acrossocheilus longipinnis to Masticbarbus longipinnis, however, Acrossocheilus longipinnis is still listed as the valid name for this taxon in FishBase/WoRMS. I'm going to mark the redirect as reviewed for now, but I would really appreciate it if some users more knowledgeable on fish taxonomy could weigh in on this and make sure this article is located at the valid name. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:16, 9 Masticbarbus longipinnisJune 2026 (UTC)

ECoF has Masticbarbus longipinnis, see spid=28779. Fishbase tends to lag behind ECoF changes because they have a large number of biology tables to update in their database. Fishbase also states "Species name is not in the public version of FishBase" for Masticbarbus_longipinnis.html, which I think means it is a change pending.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hey, folks. Would anyone care to leave a peer review of Poecilia velifera at Wikipedia:Peer review/Poecilia velifera/archive1? The request has not been answered for two weeks :( Surtsicna (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2026 (UTC)