Talk:Cypriniformes

Editing comments from 2003

So I don't understand why the officially recommended style [[loach]]es was changed to [[loach|loaches]], which is longer, more complicated, and more errorprone. Stan 20:27 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

There's never a good reason for that. It's one of the things I don't even bother to mention if I fix a few while I'm editing for another reason. -- John Owens 20:35 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand. This page started with [[loach|loaches]], either because the compact form wasn't available or wasn't widely known yet, and then was changed to [[loach]]es.

OK, I'm not being mocking here or anything, but do you mean you don't understand why/how it was changed (apparently by you) from [[loach]]es to [[loach|loaches]], or why it was changed from [[loach|loaches]] to [[loach]]es in the first place, or something else I'm not getting here? -- John Owens 20:48 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

I meant I didn't understand the complaint about what I did. I changed it in the proper direction.

Oh jeez, I misread the diffs again - that's twice in two days. Never mind! Sorry about the wasted time! Stan 20:54 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

LOL, I fell for it too, though I might have the excuse that it was suggested by you. ;) -- John Owens 21:47 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

---

Stan, I am curious about the classification system you are using. The traditional, and still most wide-spread, system is to have a class Osteichthyes with a subclass Actinopterygii. I really like the idea of treating Actinopterygii as a class, but it seems to me that the main advantage in this would be to eliminate the paraphyletic Osteichthyes, which are being kept as a superclass. Normally those stay out of the placement in taxoboxes anyways unless unusually important - do we want to stress use of Osteichthyes? Reforms to vertebrate taxonomy can be sticky, and it would be nice to know exactly what class system you are using. After all, it may have some good ideas about how to treat the amniotes!

-- Josh

It is pretty confusing! I was following ITIS - 161061 says Actinopterygii is a class. I'm no biologist, and will give precedence to your suggestions, but ITIS claims to be authoritative and up-to-date, and it seems like wikipedia should use the latest taxa possible so it doesn't get outdated too quickly. (Perhaps a forlorn hope in this age of reassessment!) In the case at hand, Osteichthyes was only in there because it was the class, while Actinopterygii had an article, then I tweaked to match ITIS, and now Osteichthyes looks unnecessary. I'm starting to see the maintenance value of leaving out taxobox lines for groups that are churning... Stan 21:31 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Ah. Well, despite ITIS' claims, there are a number of points on which it is non-standard or obsolete, and I would in general strongly recommend against following it without comparing to other sources. Their scheme for the vertebrates appears to be the traditional one for the most part, except for the peculiar promotion of the Osteichthyes. A quick search shows that some other sources do take the same approach, however, so it might be OK to follow it. I do agree that in general, wikipedia should use the most recent taxa, but the vertebrates are a special case. It would be nice to know what other people think on the matter.

ITIS is not much good for birds, and certainly shouldn't be used in that area without checking other sources. (There is a list of useful ones at Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds.) I don't have the knowledge to comment on other classes in ITIS, though a quick look just now at the marsupials (which are fresh in my mind because they are where I'm working at the moment) is encouraging. Tannin 01:50 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Bala Shark?

I seem to be suffering from some confusion. Is the Bala Shark a member of Atheriniformes or Cypriniformes? Thank you!

Australia etc.?

I think it could be misleading to say that the Cypriniformes are absent from Australia. From a "natural" distribution and dispersal perspective that is true, but there currently are introduced populations of at least common carp in Australia. I wouldn't be surprised if other species were also successfully introduced. Could this be clarified by replacing "absent" with "historically absent"? Brk828 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct Textbook graphic

Can someone able please correct the infobox. It shows the Cypriniformes appearing first around 60 million years ago, yet the article states they evolved 190 million years earlier, around 250 million years ago. Learningnave (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cypriniformes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130211134858/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s26/Conspectus_cobitidum.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s26/Conspectus_cobitidum.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)