A fact from Boops boops appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 January 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Boops boops is a species of Boops called "the bogue"?
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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
I strongly support the Boops boops in a bucket platform as I have laughed at this name for a solid ten minutes now. I further propose that perhaps someone might be able to locate a picture of big Boops boops between buckets. Ideally, photographed in a location starting with B. 50.193.47.237 (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply
The bucket is the only visual cue in the photo for judging the size of the fish. Without its mention a reader might assume the fish is in a larger plastic basin and misjudge the species' size to be larger than it really is. "Boops boops in a bucket" is concise, useful to the reader, and should be kept. --78.10.81.112 (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
Having just found this, I honestly think "Boops boops in a bucket" is fine: it's not incorrect in any way and strictly more informative than the alternatives (not including the image, or the needlessly formal and vague "A specimen"). I argue that just because something is kind of funny does not mean we should not include it and just because an edit is mostly made by IP or inexperienced editors does not mean it is incorrect (even if it is arguably disruptive). @Elmidae, as you appear to be the only one reverting the change, I'd like your input on why it shouldn't stand. I may be missing some part of the story here. twotwos (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
None of the editors constantly inserting this wording has anything in mind but being funny at the expense of the encyclopedia. Yes, I am expressly assuming bad faith here. I finally got the article protected to stop this behaviour by IPs. If it now continues by named accounts, this is what is going to happen: warning for disruption at the next edit; straight to AN/I at the following one. I have avoided making a spectacle of this triviality so far, but if this is going to devolve into bothsiderism, wikilayering, devil's-advocate playing, or any other longwinded tactics you may feel like indulging in here, I will just bite the bullet and call in the adult supervision. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
You may be right about the editors making these changes; I'm not going to comment on that. I believe it's the content of edits that matters, not the intentions of those making them. Behaviour of editors aside, I don't see what's wrong with the wording under dispute, and that's what I'd like clarification on if you wish to provide it. (To be clear, I'm not going to edit the article myself because there's active disagreement right now.) twotwos (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why would that change be considered 'at the expense of the encyclopedia'? Genuinely asking here. Just from an objective standpoint, 'a specimen' is arguably less helpful to readers than specifying the species name, since more information is delivered with less context required. Does the additional humor of the phrase nullify its value? Shouldn't we be celebrating something cute that draws people in to learn more about obscure fish?
I don't think they're trying to undermine the fabric of Wikipedia as an institution by changing two words on a page. If anything, they're specifically trying to rile YOU up because you're oddly fixated on this caption. And they're succeeding spectacularly. You're making a big public show of something inconsequential. As far as I can tell, you're not even an admin or anything? You're just some guy? But you're acting like the fate of public information hangs in the balance and you are the only arbiter of justice in a world of filth and lies. There's a lot of attention here now, specifically because of a "Hey, remember that silly fish picture that went around on social media five years ago? One random dude is going on a loud, self-righteous crusade to scrub its existence from the site. Let's come watch the drama." mindset. That's... not what we want people to associate Wikipedia with, is it?
tl;dr: This weird power trip is more damaging to the image of the site than Boops Boops In A Bucket ever could be. Maybe take a breather before this gets out of hand. Chantolove (talk) 14:43, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
It seems silly to not allow "boop boops in a bucket" when the article is named boops boops. If someone finds that alliteration particularly funny, so be it. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:13, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
No. The standard caption used in species articles for such illustrative images a) uses the common name (bogue), IF it uses the name at all; more commonly and usefully the caption b) gives a location or other descriptive information (which is not even available for this image). What we do not do is repeat the scientific name in image captions if the article concerns a single species, just as the caption of the box image does not say "Boops boops off the coast of Greece". Using either the common name, or any phrasing that avoids the scientific name, is an uncontroversial, no-brainer edit to any such image. The only reason it can't be done here is because of the shits-and-giggles brigade spawn-camping this article. And while the caption per se is not a big deal, I will absolutely not tolerate having this imposed because people find the alliteration funny. We are a global information repository, not a playground for the jokers signed above. And the two of you are not doing the encyclopedia any favour by sticking your oar in. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
> The standard caption used in species articles for such illustrative images a) uses the common name (bogue), IF it uses the name at all; more commonly and usefully the caption b) gives a location or other descriptive information (which is not even available for this image). What we do not do is repeat the scientific name in image captions if the article concerns a single species, just as the caption of the box image does not say "Boops boops off the coast of Greece". Using either the common name, or any phrasing that avoids the scientific name, is an uncontroversial, no-brainer edit to any such image.
I really think you're overreacting a little bit, Elmidae, and it's frankly speaking, making Wikipedia look bad, like a place where people cannot accept something which is scientifically accurate if it is phrased in a slightly-amusing way. There is nothing wrong with using binomial names; as a biology enthusiast myself, I use the absolute heck out of them. I'm not particularly familiar with wikipedia policy, I'm just a casual editor, but Wikipedia seemingly does not have a policy of avoiding using binomial names in image captions wherever possible, or if it does, nobody is following it very rigorously.
Binomial names are useful, and if a binomial name is fun to say or interesting, like Boops boops, or Euphorbia antisyphilitica, or Ia io, it gets people interested in a species who otherwise might have been bored by it, I know this firsthand trying to get people excited about biology; its a good educational opportunity. This is why modern biologists love giving newly-described creatures fun binomial names like Heteropoda davidbowie. Lots of people almost certainly only learned bogue was even a thing in the first place because of "Boops boops in a bucket", and that's because it's phrased so humorously.
It actively encourages people to learn, and to explore species on wikipedia, when wikipedia is a pleasant place to browse. That means alot of things, having nice or cool photos for animals rather than lifeless or blurry photos, having articles that don't read like they were written in the 1800s or by an expert who has never talked to an ordinary person in their entire life, and sometimes, it means letting a silly caption stay when brings people to an article they would have never visited otherwise. People want to go "Wow! Look! There's a fish named Boops boops! That's so adorable! Look at this wikipedia article, it even has Boops boops in a bucket!"
There is an enthusiasm for Boops boops. People's enthusiasm is shown by how much they want this slightly silly (but completely reasonable and scientifically, grammtatically correct) caption. And I think that's really cool, that people are so excited about a fish, and it's kind of saddening to see one user, simply because they personally disagree with the idea of wikipedia having a teeny tiny bit of humor in it taking a vendetta against a longstanding public enthusiasm for science, and treating it as a bad thing, as vandalism, when it's not vandalism. By any definition of "vandalism", it isn't: it's not making the page worse or lower quality (like I've said, if anything, it's making the page higher quality, by getting people excited about it) it's not disruptive, it's not inaccurate or misleading, it's not crude or vulgar, it's not meanspirited.
I read a lot of wikipedia, and I have seen plenty of subdued "Wikipedia:Humor". While I have occaisonally run into some that was disruptive and I think made the article worse, when it is subdued and follows the guidelines in the linked page, I appreciate it. This caption is I think a good example of "responsible humor". And looking at the edit history, even wikipedia admin Zanimum doesn't seem to mind, since they at one point restored the caption, so it's not exactly like the Powers That Be of wikipedia would frown upon "boops boops in a bucket" either.
Thanks for reading, those are just my feelings on the matter. I have to go do other things besides argue about a fish over the internet now. Neonpixii (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Summary response to the above inflated essays on crowd psychology, my presumptive state of mind, and some people's conception of Wikipedia as a source of ROFL alliterations: I don't care, and I'm confident that in this I represent that portion of the editorship that cares about article content. I don't usually dig in my heels like this, and I've unwatched more than one article because some local coalition of round-robin backpatters set up camp there, but this particular example really annoys me. If it's all so trivial and not worth fighting over, I suggest people stop writing full-page pop psychology treatises here while defending disruptive editing. I have absolutely no problem taking it to AN/I; try me. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
"Boops boops in a bucket" is not only entertaining, but is also more specific and correct. It would pass in any scientific publication. Why are you having this weird fucking power-trip? "I have absolutely no problem bothering admins about the stupidest hill to die on; try me." Mogery (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm a casual editor not well-versed enough in the world of Wikipedia to understand exactly what that entails, but fine by me. Mogery (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Elmidae: Apologies for bringing this up for the umpteenth time – I reviewed the most recent pending revision of the page before seeing this discussion. As someone else who cares about article content, even trying my very hardest I can't manage to see any specific harm to the article caused by using the binomial name in that image caption; would you mind explaining exactly why you object? (I am absolutely not trying to imply that you're in the wrong, I just am trying to understand where exactly you're coming from.) I don't think it's in dispute that the caption could be viewed as humorous, and in my personal opinion removing something which might be humorous for that reason alone is a bit odd. I agree completely with what I take to be your perspective that there are the occasional inappropriate instances of humor added to articles inappropriately (and disruptively), but I just can't see why this particular case is one of them. Tollens (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is the last time I will be expounding this. The caption is not wrong, it is merely suboptimal; it is not the caption that anyone trying to find a good, informative caption for this image would consider using. If there is an image of the bird Scientific name sitting on a branch, we do not caption it "Scientific name sitting on a branch". If the species has a common name, we rather use that (notwithstanding that someone above knocked themselves out finding individual articles where that has been neglected) if we use it at all, and we title the image "Adult Common Name in location" or "Juvenile preening" or something else informative. Here the pretense for using the image at all appears to be that it is meant for size comparison, so the caption should be "Adult in an x liter bucket" or similar - except there is no such information available for the image, which makes it pretty unsuitable to start with. "Latin name in a bucket" is a crap caption.
The above is a very minor concern in content terms. It becomes a major concern when this incremental improvement to the encyclopedia is prevented by a flock of drive-by editors who think they are funny, and enabled by a second flock of people who principally like to hear themselves talk and profess to consider "what's the big harm?" a relevant argument. There's no big harm; there's a small harm that is attempted to being forced through by people who hold lolcatting to be more important than quality. Caving in to this kind of thing is Bad for the encyclopedia. It didn't work for IP over Avian Carriers because that article has lots of watchers. It's not going to happen here either, and if it is necessary to kick the matter upstairs to that end, I will. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Elmidae, I appreciate the explanation. It seems to me, then, that the caption should be completely changed or the image removed, no? Surely swapping the binomial name for "A specimen" does not make the caption any more helpful – I'll see if I can find another image with a better sense of scale. Tollens (talk) 10:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have found these three images on Commons – any one of them appears to me to provide a better sense of scale than the current image of the fish in the bucket. Is there one in particular that you think would be a good replacement? I'd tend toward the first, but am not sure if perhaps the gravel isn't as helpful as the rock formations/people in the second or third. Tollens (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
As what is now a near-completely irrelevant side note now, your example of IP over Avian Carriers was exactly what I was talking about regarding what I would consider actual disruptive (though still likely good-faith) humor – "what's the big harm?" is a perfectly reasonable argument, in my opinion, when there aren't other substantial issues raised. I'm perfectly happy to drop the matter of the old image caption, though, now that the actual issue has been pointed out. Tollens (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Option 1: it isn't a great photo, but it's the most zoomed in we have, and I assume it represents an older specimen/colour morph than the lede image. Sure, the caption sounds silly, but honestly, for me that acts in its favour and not against it. Option 2 is fine. Edward-Woodrow (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1: One option I somehow hadn't considered in the discussion above is just adding an additional image for scale if need be. There's nothing wrong with the image in question, and certainly option 2 is no better than option 1 in terms of usefulness to a reader. There isn't any more context the caption can provide anyway, since we don't have it, so I'm not aware of any alternate caption that would be of any more use. Even if most other species articles use the common rather than binomial name in image captions, as I anticipate will be raised, there is no policy or guideline I know of which mandates consistency between articles. Similar to Edward-Woodrow above, the alliteration is also a plus for option 1. Tollens (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 4 Another image in the article would be good, but as we already have two close-ups, I would prefer the third of the images placed above [1] which shows schooling behaviour. Otherwise, option 2 should do.
I'll be happy to go with whatever is decided here, as long the decision is made by a representative cross-section of the editorship, and not the conglomeration of drive-by IP shit-takers and enabling wafflers that sparked this issue. To reiterate the reasons for my objection: to neglect replacing a suboptimal image or caption because nobody notices, or nobody can be bothered, is so trivial as to be not worth mention. To neglect to do so because it is being kept in place by trolls who think they are being funny is something to be strenuously avoided. To neglect to do so because said trolls are getting backup from people who like to place page-long essays about how WP needs to be more funny is halfway between disappointing and bloody infuriating. You guys do your own soul-searching on this, and let's have the buck stop here. Out. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 4 or Option 3 (no caption). The bucket photo is a higher resolution than the photo in the taxobox, but [2] is the highest resolution photograph on Commons. I don't see a compelling reason to have the bucket photo instead of the highest resolution photo. I also don't see a reason why the bucket photo needs a caption at all. MOS:CAPTION says captions aren't need when images "are unambiguous depictions of the subject of the article". We don't need to tell readers that an image of a fish in the Boops boops article depicts Boops boops, and readers can see for themselves that it is in a bucket (mentioning the bucket would be appropriate in an image_alt). Neither of the proposed captions conveys any useful information to the reader. I'm not sure that the caption "Bogue for sale in Turkey" is of much value to the reader either; it's not obvious from the photo that it was taken in Turkey, but I think most readers could infer that a pile of dead fish behind a cardboard sign with a number on it are for sale (with the number being the price). If there were a photograph of Boops boops together with Bathycongrus bertini, it wouldn't be an unambiguous depiction of the subject, and an alliterative caption such as "Bathycongrus bertini below, Boops boops above" would be useful to readers (but a better option might be to crop the photo to exclude the Bathycongrus). Plantdrew (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1 or 3 I don't think we really need to clarify that it's in a bucket since it isn't really clear that it's a bucket at first glance. Some1 (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 4. We don't need the image at all. There's a better image for the lead, and the market picture illustrates its use by humans. The article isn't long enough to need more than the two, and keeping a third image is leading to a MOS:SANDWICH issue when using a desktop device. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1: The caption is fine and the fish depicted does appear different in colour to those pictured in the lead image, which I'd say justifies keeping it. If this variation can be better shown in some other image (or is actually some meaningless effect of the conditions of the photo), Option 4 is also okay. As an aside, if we are to introduce another image I fear the discussion that may arise on what to caption it. twotwos (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
This image is currently in the Human Use section. Given its position there, the caption should describe how it is being used, similar to the caption for the image above (e.g. "Boops boops for sale in a bucket"). If we don't know how the fish is being used (and I don't think we do) then I suggest the picture should move to another section. Then, per MOS:CAPTION, I don't think it needs a caption at all. If it must have a caption then "Boops boops in a bucket" seems best. "Specimen" doesn't add anything – you need to know from context that it's Boops boops, which is equivalent to having no caption at all. "Bogue is a bucket" would be fine, but better to be consistent with the article title. So in summary: #3 or no caption or #1. Mgp28 (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1. Caption is perfectly accurate and in line with wikipedia captioning style site-wide, depicts human use of Boops boops, and to be frank, people generally like it, it's harmless, I think it actively makes the article better. I think that it's a good idea to make articles pleasant to read. Neonpixii (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1. The fact that some people think it sounds funny does not prevent it from being exactly specific and in line with policy, and is by no means grounds on its own to remove it. Option 2 in fact seems to call *more* attention to the supposedly humorous nature of the caption by going to awkward lengths to avoid it, something that only makes sense if you've accepted the premise that the name of this fish is somehow inherently unencyclopedic. Personman (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1 all the way. The lone user who originally wanted the caption removed has been behaving supremely unprofessionally in the site's name, including attempting to overwrite the input of an administrator who supported the caption's presence. According to other commenters in the discussions above, their vision for the page runs contrary to both site practice and scientific practice. Allowing them to bully it into reality would set a bad precedent for future edit disputes.
Option 1, 3, or 4. I am indifferent to the image itself, but surveying pages of other arbitrary species, there seem to be four trends for captions: (1) using the binomen, abbreviated or otherwise, (2) using the common name, (3) not directly referring to the article subject, neither by name nor by terms like "a specimen", and (4) no caption. Sequoia sempervirens and dingo, for example, demonstrate all four trends between them. I not yet found any instances of "a specimen" or similarly generic descriptors. As such, if this image is kept, one of "Boops boops", "B. boops", or "bogue" would be most consistent with the apparent trends. Masterzora (talk) 02:06, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Make image gallery There are currently severe WP:SANDWICHING issues in the article. If we are to include any but the lead image, we should creatye an image gallery at the bottom with three or so of the best images. ~ HAL33319:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1. Should we photoshop all the photos of our biography subjects to be frowning? Would that make them better? Would it make them more "serious"? Wikipedia is not a role-playing game, it's an encyclopedia; those who would rather "be serious" than write an encyclopedia are free to go buy one of those games where you play as a prison warden. jp×g🗯️04:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Option 1, I don't see anything wrong with this wording; if it sounds silly that's subjective and also doesn't mean it has to be prohibited. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 23:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)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.
I've added some more information about sizes (without an edit summary). I don’t understand the other text about sizes and there is no source for it. I propose that we remove it unless someone can make sense of it. Mgp28 (talk) 09:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
,_franja_marina_Teno-Rasca,_Tenerife,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2022-01-08,_DD_99.jpg)
,_isla_de_Mouro,_Santander,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2019-08-15,_DD_83.jpg)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boops_boops_shipwreck.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boga_(Boops_boops),_franja_marina_Teno-Rasca,_Tenerife,_Espa%C3%B1a,_2022-01-08,_DD_99.jpg){kind=link}
