Talk:Coregonus artedi

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elmogeo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Expanding and restructuring this article

Hello - I am going to try and expand and improve this article by adding more info and restructuring it to match the format given on the Wikiproject Fishes page. Elmogeo (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Northern cisco → Coregonus artedi — All the more common vernacular names used for this species also refer to other species, so it should be at its scientific name. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The article states "The northern cisco is one of several closely related North American species. The group is the subject of considerable debate about the taxonomic relationships of different forms, and it has been credibly argued that the species described in this entry is merely one form of a larger species that includes all or some of species such as blackfin cisco and shortjaw cisco. These species are often referred to as the "Coregonus artedi" complex (including the quotation marks)." That suggests that the latin name covers over species, not the other way round. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't entirely understand your comment (the covers "over species" part). The article is somewhat inaccurate; I'll revise it some time (note the refs needed tag). At Wikipedia FishBase names are used by default, and FishBase gives the name that is used most commonly by far, "cisco", which also refers to other species. The next most common usage is lake herring, very ambiguous. What I am most certain about is that the name "northern cisco" should not be used, as it is a very uncommon usage. As regards the taxonomy dispute, the matter is that the distinctive and comparably uncommon forms (which have established common names) are sometimes merged with this species, though this taxonomy is becoming rather rare. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo. Should have been other, not over. Not surprised you were confused! However, I still don't see the point you are making, without knowing what change you intend making to the text. As it stands, the text suggests that coregonus artedi describes all of the northern cisco, blackfin cisco and shortjaw cisco. The reason you give for the move is that all the more common vernacular names used for this species also refer to other species, so it should be at its scientific name. Given that the scientific name seems to suffer the same problem, that doesn't appear to be an improvement. Perhaps when we've seen the changes you intend? Skinsmoke (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. "Northern cisco" does not appear to be a commonly used vernacular name for this species. Lake herring perhaps has the best claim to being an established common name (from glancing over Google Scholar results), and currently redirects here. Is it in common use for other species? Another quick glance at Google Scholar results doesn't reveal any. Ucucha 05:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

In regards to lake herring: it also occasionally refers to the least cisco, according to FishBase, or to herrings found in lakes. Lake herring tends to be used by commercial fisheries, cisco by others (and I will remember provide a reliable citation to that effect). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further discussion

In regards to the concern raised: the text is not factually incorrect or seriously bad, it just presents this differently. As multiple taxonomies are used, and we use the most common by far, and a scientific name is the most appropriate title for an article we use the scientific name that is correct under the currently most predominant taxonomy. So there is no problem. (This was discussed somewhere, on one of Ucucha's oryzomyine articles I believe.) In any case, "Northern cisco" is an artificial common name nearly nobody uses. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)