Talk:Cetomimidae

Would it be better to have this page at Cetomimidae with Flabby whalefish as the redirect? Personally, I find it quite ridiculous to have "common names" for poorly known marine organisms, given that these common names will almost never show up in conversation, while almost all discussion of the organisms takes place in scientific literature where the scientific name is used.

I know google hits aren't the be all and end all, but there are 48,000 google hits for "whalefish" (many of them unrelated to Cetomimidae), 1,530 for "flabby whalefish" (many of them mirroring Wikipedia), and 102,00 for Cetomimidae. It seems like a joke to pretend that "flabby whalefish" are what this group of fish is most commonly known as.

Also, today's news articles about the Johnson et al. paper use Cetomimidae far more than "whalefish" (and don't use "flabby whalefish" at all). However, the news articles I saw seem pretty confused; it appears the journalist believes Cetomimidae is a species ("a type of whalefish"). While this is an example of usage of "whalefish" as a common name, it's presented in such a misleading way that I got a much better idea of what was going on through the scientific name.

Spade-toothed whale (Mesoplodon traversii) is a particular egregious example of this phenomenon; it's known from 3 specimens and has never been observed alive. It's not like anybody is having a conversation saying, "I saw a spade-toothed whale today". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious Second Source

One of the sources for this page, MetaPress, looks suspiciously not credible. I'm not sure if it was once hosted an article that was credible, but it doesn't look that way now. 2600:8807:C191:D100:850B:F63E:2271:399A (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Mirapinnidae and Megalomycteridae

I merged in the page for Mirapinnidae and redirected all the formerly-thought-separate names into this page. I took a stab at rewriting pieces but am not sufficiently expert to know what is true only of one morph and what is true of the whole family (and perhaps even the experts don't know). I also left the old classifications in because I wasn't sure how they mapped to the cetomimidae classifications (and maybe they don't, yet). Anyway, this all still needs more work. /blahedo (t) 04:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cetomimidae. 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/20040406211016/http://www.amonline.net.au:80/fishes/about/research/paxton4.htm to http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/about/research/paxton4.htm

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) 20:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)