Talk:Fish physiology
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fish physiology. 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/20130207000108/http://216.172.180.32/~pier/userdocs/images/files/scientific_publications/Sepulveda%20et%20al.%202008%20.pdf to http://216.172.180.32/~pier/userdocs/images/files/scientific_publications/Sepulveda%20et%20al.%202008%20.pdf
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120308032620/http://shell.cas.usf.edu/motta/Gardiner%20and%20Atema%202010.pdf to http://shell.cas.usf.edu/motta/Gardiner%20and%20Atema%202010.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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 11:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Fish physiology. 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
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/sears/BlockFinnerty1994.pdf - Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5hn2YJET6?url=http://juls.sa.utoronto.ca/Issues/JULS-Vol2Iss1/JULS-Vol2Iss1-Review3.pdf to http://juls.sa.utoronto.ca/Issues/JULS-Vol2Iss1/JULS-Vol2Iss1-Review3.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608092255/http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Fishwelfare/RoseC.pdf to http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Fishwelfare/RoseC.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 16:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Reference to frog study in fish article edit
Hey all, I removed a reference to a controversial study on frogs from this article, but noted only that I'd removed it because it hasn't been replicated and has generally been questioned in the scientific community (my current understanding is that the author has refused to share his data/methods). Since I removed it I didn't find citations to justify this removal, so apologies for that - I can do this if need be? However, I didn't make clear that a secondary reason is that this is a single, non-replicated study that was performed on a single species of frog. This is a article on fish. If the study was more reliable or notable (other than due to its controversy) then I'd understand it's inclusion. As it is, I really don't, and I don't think it's useful in this instance; I haven't reverted the reversion because I don't want to look like edit warring, but I really don't see why this study is mentioned in this particular article? Does anyone please have any advice or input on what to do with this sentence/citation? Also apologies again for not clearly explaining my edit, I understand why it was confusing. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey again, after leaving the matter for a couple of months I haven't heard back from anyone about this edit. This means I've seen no argument, information or evidence to explain how a single frog (amphibian) study can be directly linked to fish in general (not amphibians). In fact, the wiki on fish explains:
"However, traditionally fish are rendered paraphyletic by excluding the tetrapods (i.e., the amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals which all descended from within the same ancestry)".
I've been asked to provide citations to back up my removal of this study, but the best reason I have is that the studio study involved a completely different animal to the one in the article. I'm also not sir where these citations should go, and what kind of citation would be needed for "frog≠fish".
I'm therefore going to remove the frog study again. If anyone feels it should stay, can they please add some information explaining how a study of frog hormones links to fish physiology please? I'd imagine citations would be needed too. However, this would be a fourth edit, so I'd imagine we should discuss it in the talk page first? Thanks!
ETA: Ah, it appears the wording has been changed. I'm still not 100% happy since it doesn't really appear NPOV, but I don't feel experienced enough to delve into the matter further at this stage. Blue-Sonnet (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)