text:
Richard C. Atkinson

Richard Chatham Atkinson (born March 19, 1929) is an American professor of psychology and cognitive science and an academic administrator. He is president emeritus of the University of California system, former chancellor of the University of California, San Diego, and former director of the National Science Foundation.

Career
Atkinson began his academic career during the 1960s as a professor of psychology at Stanford University, where he worked with Patrick Suppes on experiments to use computers for teaching math and reading to young children in Palo Alto elementary schools. In 1975, Atkinson's career transitioned from research to administration when he was appointed as Director of the National Science Foundation. He later served as Chancellor of the University of California San Diego, and President of the University of California system.

Atkinson is recognized for his scientific, academic, and administrative accomplishments. He has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Medicine, the National Academy of Education (NAEd), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Philosophical Society. He is past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, former chair of the Association of American Universities and the recipient of many honorary degrees. Named in his honor are a mountain in Antarctica, and Atkinson Hall, the home of the California Institute for Telecommunications and Information Technology at UC San Diego.

Research
After earning his bachelor's degree at the University of Chicago and his Ph.D. in experimental psychology and mathematics at Indiana University Bloomington, Atkinson joined the faculty at Stanford University in 1956. Except for a three-year interval at UCLA, he served as professor of psychology at Stanford from 1956 to 1975. His research on mathematical models of human memory and cognition led to additional appointments in the School of Engineering, the School of Education, the Applied Mathematics and Statistics Laboratories, and the Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences.

National Science Foundation
Atkinson was nominated by U.S. President Jimmy Carter to be director of the National Science Foundation (1975–1980). He made history by negotiating the first memorandum of understanding between the United States and the People's Republic of China, which opened the door for major scientific and academic exchanges between the two nations.

Recognizing that research grant clustering among America's top universities negatively impacted the NSF's ability to gain broad-based support in Congress, Atkinson initiated a program called the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (known today as the "Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research"). The program aimed to broaden the geographical distribution of research grants by providing universities in states that received few research grants with advice to help them develop more competitive grant applications.

UC System
When Atkinson left NSF in 1980, he became chancellor of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). During his 15-year tenure as chancellor, he led the university through its biggest growth period and UCSD rose to "top five" status in acquiring federal research funding. Atkinson encouraged technology transfer and active involvement with industry; especially with small, high-technology companies, such as Bien Logic, that were forming around San Diego in the 1980s and 1990s. In 1985, the UC San Diego Extension began running the self-sustaining UCSD CONNECT program. It was successful in helping aspiring entrepreneurs in high-technology fields find information, funding, and practical support for crucial projects such as business plan development, marketing, and attracting capital. It was an advocate on public policy issues that affected business. UC San Diego's faculty, research, and commitment to industry-university partnerships were major factors in transforming the San Diego region into a world leader in technology-based industries. Atkinson's role in this transformation was noted in a recent study of research universities and their impact on the genesis of high-technology centers.

In 1995, Atkinson became the University of California system's 17th president, a position he held until 2003. During this period, Atkinson initiated national reforms in college admissions testing and spearheaded new approaches to admissions and outreach in the post-affirmative action era.

Perry lawsuit
Atkinson's early years at UCSD were rocked by a scandal when a former Harvard instructor, Lee H. Perry, represented by attorney Marvin Mitchelson, sued him in San Diego Superior Court. Perry claimed that she had an intimate relationship with Atkinson for about a year, which resulted in a pregnancy. Although Perry wanted the baby, she stated that Atkinson persuaded her to get an abortion, promising that he would impregnate her again at a more convenient time in the next year. After that promise had not been fulfilled, Perry decided to bring suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, and deceit.

Atkinson denied everything. Before trial, the Superior Court granted Atkinson's motion for summary judgment on the fraud and deceit claim as initially filed, and his demurrer to the claim as amended. In 1986, the case proceeded to trial on the emotional distress claim. After three days, Atkinson settled for $250,000 without admitting liability, but Perry reserved the right to appeal on the fraud and deceit claim. On September 25, 1987, the Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of that claim. The Supreme Court of California denied Perry's petition for review on January 7, 1988, which effectively ended the case.

Personal life and legacy
In 2005, the unnamed Sixth College at UCSD moved to name the college in his honor. Around April 27, 2005, UCSD students were notified that Atkinson had withdrawn his name from further consideration as the future namesake of Sixth College. The decision was an abrupt surprise as Atkinson only a week earlier had told The San Diego Union-Tribune he would be "honored if the name were approved".

Atkinson met his future wife Rita, a psychologist, while attending Indiana University. They were married until her death on Christmas Day, 2020.

title: Richard C. Atkinson


text:
Kumbaya Festival

The Kumbaya Festival was an annual Canadian music and arts festival in the 1990s. It was organized by Molly Johnson as a benefit for Canadian charities and groups doing work around HIV and AIDS.

The festival was broadcast live on MuchMusic each year, with the broadcast including a toll-free number which home viewers could call to make additional donations. Compilation CDs of performances from the festival were also subsequently released to raise additional funds. The festival raised over $1 million during its years of activity.

Each annual festival consisted primarily of musical performers, although each also featured numerous writers reading literary pieces, as well as actors, media personalities, HIV/AIDS activists and other Canadian public figures speaking on the importance of the HIV/AIDS issue.

Although the Kumbaya Foundation, the organization which staged the festival, is still active in Canadian and international HIV/AIDS fundraising as of 2014, the festival itself has not been staged since 1996. Johnson has, however, expressed an interest in reviving the festival.

Performers and speakers
The lists of participants can be found at the Kumbaya Foundation website.

1993
• Lee Aaron

• Lillian Allen

• Randy Bachman

• Ralph Benmergui

• Blue Rodeo

• Meryn Cadell

• June Callwood

• Andrew Cash

• Tom Cochrane

• John Cody

• Holly Cole Trio

• Cowboy Junkies

• Crash Vegas

• Devon and the Metro Squad

• Eric Dow

• Shirley Eikhard

• Rik Emmett

• Phillip Ethier

• 54-40

• Joel Feeney

• Marlene Freise

• Peter Gzowski

• Infidels

• Rebecca Jenkins

• Clifton Joseph

• King Cobb Steelie

• Kristy Knight

• Leslie Spit Treeo

• Alex Lifeson

• Lost Dakotas

• Lisa Lougheed

• The Lowest of the Low

• Maureen McCall

• Murray McLauchlan

• Mae Moore

• Moxy Früvous

• Mary Margaret O'Hara

• David Ramsden

• Lorraine Segato

• David Sereda

• Sandra Shamas

• Chris Sheppard and BKS

• Shingoose

• Jane Siberry

• Skydiggers

• Dale Smith

• Tarzan Dan

• Tim Thorney

• The Tragically Hip

• Skot Turner

• Cassandra Vasik

• Joey Vendetta

• The Waltons

• Youth Outreach Mass Choir

1994
• Lee Aaron

• Accidentally Cool

• Lillian Allen

• Jann Arden

• Chantel Aston

• BKS

• Randy Bachman

• Barenaked Ladies

• Micah Barnes

• Jaymz Bee

• Ralph Benmergui

• Barney Bentall

• Moe Berg

• Big Sugar

• Blue Rodeo

• Sara Botsford

• Meryn Cadell

• June Callwood

• Stuart Cameron

• Change of Heart

• Tom Cochrane

• John Cody

• Holly Cole

• Simone Denny

• Devon and the Metro Squad

• Dream Warriors

• Pye Dubois

• Erica Ehm

• Rik Emmett

• 54-40

• Joel Feeney

• Fifth Column

• Andy Frost

• Lawrence Gowan

• Danny Greenspoon

• Peter Gzowski

• hHead

• Tomson Highway

• Rebecca Jenkins

• C. David Johnson

• Kit Johnson

• Taborah Johnson

• Jughead

• Leslie Spit Treeo

• Alex Lifeson

• Lost Dakotas

• Ashley MacIsaac

• Peter Mansbridge

• Shannon Maracle

• Cindy Matthews

• Michelle McAdorey

• Kevin McDonald

• Murray McLauchlan

• Kim Mitchell,

• Moist

• Moxy Früvous

• Billy Newton-Davis

• Mary Margaret O'Hara

• Prairie Oyster

• Punjabi by Nature

• David Ramsden

• The Rankin Family,

• Jimmy Rankin

• Lisa Rendall

• Kathryn Rose

• Lorraine Segato

• Shadowy Men on a Shadowy Planet

• Sandra Shamas

• Jay Sharp

• Jane Siberry

• Kurt Swinghammer

• Chris Tait

• Randy Taylor

• Tim Thorney

• Cassandra Vasik

• Don Waboose

• The Waltons

• The Watchmen

• Vivienne Williams

• Shelley Wright

• Lori Yates

1995
• Armed and Hammered

• Margaret Atwood

• Barenaked Ladies

• Micah Barnes

• Jaymz Bee

• Ralph Benmergui

• Salome Bey

• Bitch Diva

• Blue Rodeo

• The Boomers

• Bootsauce

• Meryn Cadell

• June Callwood

• Change of Heart

• Holly Cole

• Les Colocs

• Crash Vegas

• France D'Amour

• Jennifer Dean

• Dream Warriors

• Shirley Eikhard

• The Fabulous Freaks

• Joel Feeney

• Furnaceface

• Doug Gilmour

• Peter Gzowski

• Jeff Healey

• Orin Isaacs

• Jingle Dancers

• Gordie Johnson

• Clifton Joseph

• Junkhouse

• The Killjoys

• Andy Kim

• George Koller

• Daniel Lanois

• Leslie Spit Treeo

• Alex Lifeson

• Lost Dakotas

• Ashley MacIsaac

• Cindy Matthews

• Maximum Fine

• Sarah McLachlan

• Melleny Melody

• Michie Mee

• Derek Miller

• Moxy Früvous

• Billy Newton-Davis

• No Mans Land

• Odds

• Robert Priest

• Carole Pope

• The Pursuit of Happiness

• The Rainbow Choir

• David Ramsden

• Ellen Reid

• Kathryn Rose

• Lorraine Segato

• Skaface

• Skydiggers

• Slowburn

• Bob Snider

• Spirit of the West

• Ian Thomas

• The Toronto Tabla Ensemble

• Cassandra Vasik

• Wild Strawberries

• Vivienne Williams

• Lori Yates

1996
• Angel

• Jann Arden

• Erin Benjamin

• Barney Bentall

• Barstool Prophets

• Bass Is Base

• Beautiful Joe

• Blackie and the Rodeo Kings

• Captain Tractor

• Tom Cochrane

• Bruce Cockburn

• Jim Cuddy

• Devon Martin

• Annette Ducharme

• Duotang

• Earthtones

• Joel Feeney

• Danielle French

• Lennie Gallant

• Jeff Healey

• Hunnytruck

• Marc Jordan

• Junkhouse

• Leslie Spit Treeo

• Kevin McDonald

• Murray McLauchlan

• Merlin

• Pamela Morgan

• The Paperboys

• Punchbuggy

• Jimmy Rankin

• Salmonblaster

• Sianspheric

• Amy Sky

• Kinnie Starr

• Kim Stockwood

• Sunfish

• The Super Friendz

• Tariq

• Leslie Taylor

• Tristan Psionic

• Umoja

• Universal Honey

• Keith Nakonechny & Jason Plumb of The Waltons

• Wild Strawberries

• Tom Wilson

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Kumbaya Festival


text: User talk:70.57.114.167

title: User talk:70.57.114.167


text:
Talk:Technical communication tools

FrameMaker
FrameMaker is a "wordprocessor"?

Word processor is two words?

—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:02, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

 * Just following what is shown at Word processors as regards Frame being a processor. I've always considered it to me two words.  Did I accidently type it as one word somewhere?--GeoffPurchase 04:16, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

 * Ah. I guess I haven't had to use that word in a long while—figured it would have evolved into one by now :D.

 * Though I guess we need to look at those classifications a bit. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Comparisons
Is this article the place to compare the strengths and weaknesses of different tools (like say, oh...Word vs. Frame :D)? —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:56, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah yes... I wonder how long it will be before someone adds their POV, rather than a NPOV. After having seen some of what goes on in other areas of wikipedia, I'm sure it will reach us at some point.--GeoffPurchase 12:21, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Basic Tools
Shouldn't there be some mention of pen and ink ?Frelke 01:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Unclear
The article is titled "Technical communication tools" but begins "Technical communicators use". Is the article about (1) communication tools that happen to be technical or is it about (2) the tools that a technical communicator uses? They are not the same thing. If the answer is (2) the article title should revised.

How is a "Technical communicator's" toolset different from a "Communicator's"? toolset? Writers, editors, illustrators, architects/planners, experts, and their tool requirements would seem to be common to most professional non-fiction writing tasks. 69.106.246.15 (talk) 08:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Chobbs405 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)I believe this whole entry would be strengthened by combining the topic with technical writing and broadening it. See Solving Problems in Technical Communication, JohnDan Johnson-Eilola and Stuart A Selber, eds. for updated material (STC is good but not all there is--some academic sources would be helpful as well.) It just seems that both these entries are pretty shallow alone. Why is one writing and one communicating? What is the hierarchy? Chobbs405 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Most commonly used XML editors
I haven't been able to find substantiation in the sources given for the statement, "The most commonly used XML editors are Arbortext, Oxygen, Syntext Serna, XMLmind, and XMetaL. ". Can anyone quote the passages from the sources that backs up this claim? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LaTeX
Why is LaTeX not mentioned here? After all, it is one of the most popular programs used for technical reports in academia, as well as for typesetting technical books. 130.15.53.171 (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested merger
Being a technical communicator myself, I find it odd that our tools would deserve a separate entry on Wikipedia. If a tool is notable enough, it can have its own entry. A simple paragraph on the main Technical communication entry mentioning that we use these tools would be enough. Unfortunately, the creator of this entry hasn't been active for six years so there doesn't seem to be any way to ask him for his justification. I think we ought to just merge this as a section at technical communication, the main article which is already threadbare as it is. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me like the merger has already occurred. This article (Technical_communication_tools) now redirects to Technical_communication. Bill (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Technical communication tools


text:
Yegor Titov

Yegor Ilyich Titov (Егор Ильич Титов; born 29 May 1976) is a Russian football coach and former player who played as an attacking midfielder. He was known for his playmaking abilities, vision, ball control and accurate passing.

Career
Born in Moscow, Titov spent the majority of his club career at Spartak Moscow, starting in 1995, helping them to six consecutive league titles, and winning Russian Player of the Year in 1998 and 2000. He played for Russia at the 2002 FIFA World Cup and has amassed over 30 caps for his country. After a Euro 2004 playoff against Wales he was tested positive for the banned substance bromantan and received a 12-month suspension. Later, former Spartak players Maksim Demenko and Vladyslav Vashchuk along with physio Artyom Katulin blamed Katulin's assistant Anatoly Schukin, who allegedly acted on behalf of manager Andrey Chernyshov. In 2008, Titov had made similar statements in his interview to Sovetsky Sport. After the ban, he has continued playing for Spartak and has been a major figure for the club when Spartak managed to finish 2nd in the 2005, 2006 and 2007 seasons, thus qualifying for the UEFA Champions League.

In 2002, Titov was reportedly close to a move to La Liga side Atlético Madrid, but eventually decided against joining the Spanish outfit.

Titov, who was just several years ago was considered one of Russia's key players stopped playing for the team when he refused to be called up for a Euro 2008 qualifying match against Estonia, saying the reason was because his wife was pregnant and he wants to spend more time with her.

Due to several factors, including a recent severe loss of form and conflicts with Spartak Moscow's manager, Titov became unsettled and, in August 2008, left to join Khimki.

In the beginning of 2009, Yegor signed with the newly formed club Lokomotiv Astana. He joined the Kazakh side with his former teammate Andrey Tikhonov.

He retired from professional football in early 2010. In early 2012, he played several games for Arsenal Tula which played in the fourth-tier Russian Amateur Football League at the time and was managed by his former Spartak and Russia teammate Dmitri Alenichev. Alenichev hired him as his assistant when he was hired as the manager of Spartak Moscow in the summer of 2015.

International

 * Scores and results list Russia's goal tally first.

Honours
Spartak Moscow
 * Russian Premier League (6): 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001
 * Russian Cup: 1997–98, 2002–03

Individual
 * CIS Cup top goalscorer: 2000 (shared)

title: Yegor Titov


text: User talk:67.101.163.7

title: User talk:67.101.163.7


text: User talk:209.167.234.36

title: User talk:209.167.234.36


text: User talk:68.102.13.123

title: User talk:68.102.13.123


text:
User:Mrzaius

 SEMI-RETIRED

Not terribly active on Wikipedia since late ~2009, but still around if needed.

My scratch pad -  My sock puppet (Block him if you like)

In the interest of disclosure: I am an employee US Department of State, a Foreign Service Specialist IT-guy. No edits I've ever made to this project or others were motivated by anything other than my personal interests, and the vast majority of my edits were performed prior to joining the Foreign Service.

Contributions

 * Merged the the articles for USB enclosures and removable hard drives into a fresh and almost completely rewritten article at disk enclosure.  25 September, 2006.
 * Wrote WIN.INI, SYSTEM.INI & SysEdit, and expanded msconfig, AUTOEXEC.BAT, and CONFIG.SYS. October 31, 2006/November 1, 2006.
 * Merged several in-article lists into the pre-existing list of whisky brands and created list of bourbon brands. November 6, 2006
 * Harvested the out of control See Also sections from a half dozen TV series and novels about nuclear war and rounded 'em all up in List of nuclear holocaust fiction. February 8, 2007.
 * Rewrote the bulk of trailer (vehicle) from scratch. 2007 March 13
 * Reached 2000 edits: 2007 March 24.
 * Rewrote Drought, Netiquette, and several others, put in over a hundred substantial edits to United States and daughter articles, broke 10000 edits, quit editing, resumed just long enough to update this. Semi-retired. MrZaius  talk  16:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

title: User:Mrzaius


text:
Wikipedia talk:GFDL Compliance

What does High compliance mean?
What do we consider as high compliance? Is it sufficient if, on each page, they credit Wikipedia, link to the original Wikipedia article, and link to a copy of the GFDL? Is anything more required? Is less than this acceptable? -Rholton 03:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some issues to consider:
 * are the links to GFDL and/or the source article only available through Java/Javascript? If so, is this a significant difference?
 * or putting it another way, must GFDL/Wikipedia be in the source code for the page so that those (such as search engines) have some dynamic functions turned off still pick the text up? --Henrygb 17:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The notice must be visible to those without scripting support. Superm401 - Talk 02:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The GFDL's requirement to include a list of original authors is a condition met by essentially none of the sites currently categorized as 'high' compliance. While a link to the original article could be seen to alleviate this problem, it is dubious for the same reasons that the GFDL requires local hosting. I'm not sure that anything can be done about this, but perhaps this detail should be clarified on the project page. Feezo (Talk) 00:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Compliance
Id like to move this subpage to Wikipedia:Compliance. I understand how all the listings are organized under Mirrors and forks - Im just talking about the GFDL compliance subpage. Objections? -SV|t|th 21:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Needs coordination with mirror list
We have a mess when it comes to reporting GFDL violations. The mirror list lists biography.ms, as does Non-compliant site coordination, but this page does not. All of these are hard to find with google. I've put a link from Copyright to Copyrights, and I'll put a link from there to the pages that deal with /other/ people violating /us/, but it really needs to be organized. Lunkwill 03:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Print Violations
Something that came top my attention recently; how are we to deal with offline violations of Wikipedia content? A local business directory was recently delivered though my letterbox that contained a fair chunk of the article text about my local area, verbatim and without attributation. I noticed this as I actually wrote a chunk of the printed text!

Admittedly this is only an extremely minor violation ( and it's nice to be a published writer :) ), but the point remains as I was unable to find any articles detailing Wikipedia's policy on this type of violation. May be something to consider in the future. MrJRT 01:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * To my knowledge, there's no separate place for offline violation. They're rarer, but should go in the same place (here). Superm401 - Talk 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikitruth?
Wikitruth.info is publishing the former content of Justin Berry, but is licensed under cc-by-sa. This would appear to be a violation of the GFDL. Is this being discussed somewhere else? --Philosophus 08:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They seem to be using the GFDL now, but there's no on-site copy. I've added them at Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz. Superm401 - Talk 05:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
Should we remove articles that are archived from this page (GFDL Compliance)? Superm401 - Talk 05:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I see the former users section. :) Superm401 - Talk 05:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Another fork
Hey guys, I'm totally lost looking at this page, but I wanted to point out another fork, which I don't think has been mentioned: www.the-planets.com/. In question is the article www.the-planets.com/star-biography/Penelope-Cruz-Biography.htm, which clearly has copy and paste sections of Wikipedia's text of Penelope Cruz (article history shows it's clearly them copying us - for example, it has the text They are also distant cousins of Alexandra Cruz., some nonsense added by an anon on Feburary 14, 2006: (it was later modified)). The site appears to use texts from other sources as well. Thanks ahead of time. Patstuarttalk 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Added to Mirrors_and_forks/Stu. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 07:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Medium vs. High
I have a question about the "medium" vs. "high" descriptions on this page. Specifically, what the hell does "May link to offsite GFDL" mean? I saw no description of "offsite GFDL" on this page or on WP:MF. Thanks. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 21:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Offsite GFDL simply means that the page links to a copy of the license stored on a different server. For example, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt. The GFDL requires that the license be reproduced in its entirety. — Feezo (Talk) 04:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Violation
I am not sure if this site was report before, but has copied our content, verbatum, of the Flag of Belgium and Coat of arms of Belgium. No mention of Wikipedia is made and the web owner is copyrighting all content from 1995 until 2007. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 23:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Another violation
I found a possible copyright infringment: the page at http://www.essential-architecture.com/ROME/RO-HIST.htm is probably copied by the article History of Rome (less probably the other way around).

Is this the right place to signal the violation? Is there anything it is possible to do?--151.50.30.98 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sites that use individual articles
(CC to Wikipedia talk:Mirrors and forks)

Hi, this (and Mirrors and forks) appear to be places to report sites that fork Wikipedia content, but what about a web site that only uses a couple of articles without attribution? Should they be mentioned here as well? (if you want to look at the specifics that I'm looking at, please see this and this. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could put them here, but they'll be a low priority, just because there are still so many full, non-compliant mirrors. It's better to track down the authors of those pages and get them to do something directly.  Superm401 - Talk 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A book?
See Village pump (miscellaneous) (permanent link) Nil Einne (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

3Phasepower.org
It might be the case that a page has duplicated content from Electricity distribution without satisfying the GDFL requirements, as per this discussion (here) - A course of action would be really nice! Do we take matters into our own hands and talk it over with the host?? User A1 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Offline author non-compliant with GFDL
I'm a longtime reader/user of Wikipedia and recently purchased an ebook in which two appendices have been lifted verbatim from Wikipedia, one of them from a section on memory, another on mindmaps. The material wasn't similar in tone to the rest of the book, so I put it into a search engine and turned up the Wikipedia source. When I contacted the author, the author said it was an oversight and will now cite Wikipedia as the source, though presumably he will continue to sell the material and put his own copyright on it. So he remains noncompliant with the GFDL.

I have posted on the discussion pages for both topics. What do you do about this? What does anyone do about this? Is anyone interested in taking this up as well? You would probably want to verify my claim; I'm happy to provide evidence.

I might also mention why I care: because I admire Wikipedia and believe in building the cultural commons, I find this sort of piracy repugnant.

UPDATE: OK, I just added the name of the offender to the low compliance list.

OrangeBlueRed (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Please also insert the details of the publication. With the nice way wikipedia jumps up search engine rankings, this should be near the top of anyone typing the book details into a search engine, so they are quickly alterted to the plagarism, and don't buy the publication. User A1 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * There was a happy ending. I confronted the author directly, and after going back and forth via email, he agreed to remove the Wikipedia material from what he was selling.

OrangeBlueRed (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Cuil
Unsure whether anything should be done with it (and equally unsure how to validate), but Cuil's "categorisation" model seems to closely follow the Wikipedia cat structures, names and contents - without any reference to GFDL or Wikipedia. Take a Cuil search on "Dublin Ireland". The categorisation widget which appears on the righthand side of the result-set looks more than a little familiar. It's titles, labels, contents, and sub-cats very closely match the Category:Dublin cat and its sub-cats. The labels that really leap out (because the naming scheme is otherwise pretty unique to Wikipedia) include "Buildings And Structures In Dublin" (equiv to Category:Buildings and structures in Dublin, "Squares In Dublin" (equiv to Category:Squares in Dublin), etc. It's possibly a coincidence, and, even it it does leverage WP content, it may not be worth pursuing as a GFDL compliance issue; Given that Cuil (and other SEs like Google) composite all kinds of licensed content from all over the web. I'm also not entirely convinced that it's a direct correlation anyway. (Given that not all labels are identical, EG: Wikipedia's cat is titled "Transport in County Dublin", where the equivalent on Cuil is titled "Transport in Dublin"). But I thought it worth mentioning. Guliolopez (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its absolutely lifted. Try hovering your mouse over "Dublin Aiport" - Wiki:
 * Dublin Airport (IATA: DUB, ICAO: EIDW), or Aerfort Bhaile Átha Cliath in Irish,
 * Cuil:
 * Dublin Airport EIDW, or Aerfort Bhaile Atha Cliath in Irish...
 * Busarus, on Wiki:
 * Busáras is the central bus station and hub for intercity and regional bus services operated by Bus Éireann in Dublin, Ireland
 * Busarus on Cuil (tooltip)
 * Busaras is the central bus station and hub for intercity and regional bus services operated by Bus Eirann operated by Bus Éireann in Dublin, Ireland
 * Their "Categorisation" algorithm is simply looking up wikipedia. This is a clear GDFL violation -- well spotted. User A1 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * My advice is to boycott the cuil search engine until they meet GDFL compliance. User A1 (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

local hosting?
This article used to indicate that local hosting was required by section 4(H) of the GFDL; however, it seems to me (according to a literal reading) that it may be required by section 2 instead. Am I reading it incorrectly? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

QQ: Isn't this all OR?
Has anyone ever got a legal opinion on what criteria are here called "highly compliant"? It seems to me to be matched to the desires of the community on Mirrors and Forks but shouldn't really be called GFDL compliance whilst it contains areas which do not seem to be directly derived from GFDL; or at least please provide some well sourced opinion that these are implied by the GFDL to be included. We wouldn't accept such a high degree of original research on our articles so we shouldn't on our license, could someone point me to a good third party source explaining to which elements of WP which passages of GFDL apply or change the title of this page to read "compliance to community wishes on mirrors"? --BozMo talk 21:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Birdforum Opus
Found various articles in this Bird Encyclopedia which are at least partly copied from Wikipedia. There is no link or reference to Wikipedia. What to do? Martin, 18 November 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.209.88.154 (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Confused
I'm thinking of creating a mirror and want it to be all above-board. I saw that there are API's (google search "wikimedia api") which seem to be written to *encourage* mirrors to grab data directly in realtime from wikimedia. However, from this community, it seems like that's highly discouraged, that mirrors should download everything all at once and serve it from local copies. But then what's the point of the API? I can't find anything anywhere in official project pages saying we're not allowed to use the API to grab content in realtime for a mirror, however, I've seen specific projects where Wikipedia stops sending content and sends the "Leech (Computer)" notice instead. Again, I'm trying to be above-board here so please don't clump me in with all the obnoxious spammers, the mirror I have in mind would add real value and not just be another wikipedia copy. It's just that it would be infinitely easier for me to do this if I can use the API's... Glowing Face Man (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Bump. Anyone able to answer the above?  Glowing Face Man (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Flashgame caesary uses Wikipedia texts
The Flashgame caesary uses Wikipedia texts ingame, while not mentioning the source at all. www.kongregate.com/games/caesary/caesary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.111.43 (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

co.tv problems
I just found http://chinese-speech-synthesis.co.tv/ which is an outdated mirror of the Chinese speech synthesis article. Presumably they have also registered lots of other .co.tv domain names corresponding to Wikipedia articles. They do acknowledge Wikipedia as the source, but they do not mention the GDFL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.5.210 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:GFDL Compliance


text:
User talk:Engelkussen

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:09, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hey there. I just noticed that your Animas Trujano article was imported from IMDB. If you own or have permission to use the copyright for this material, please indicate this on the talk page. Otherwise, we can't accept it here. If you want to rewrite the article in your own words, please do at Animas Trujano/Temp. Also, regardless of whether this article infringes on copyright, we welcome any other original contributions you may wish to make. Thanks! - Vague | Rant 03:50, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Engelkussen


text:
Universal science

Universal science (Universalwissenschaft; scientia generalis, scientia universalis) is a branch of metaphysics. In the work of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the universal science is the true logic. The idea of establishing a universal science originated in the seventeenth century with philosophers Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes. Bacon and Descartes conceptualized universal science as a unified approach to collect scientific information similar to encyclopedias of universal knowledge but were unsuccessful. Leibniz extended their ideas to use logic as an "index" to order universal scientific and mathematical information as an operational system with a universal language. Plato's system of idealism, formulated using the teachings of Socrates, is a predecessor to the concept of universal science and influenced Leibniz' s views against materialism in favor of logic. It emphasizes on the first principles which appear to be the reasoning behind everything, emerging and being in state with everything. This mode of reasoning had a supporting influence on great scientists such as Boole, Frege, Cantor, Hilbert, Gödel, and Turing. All of these great minds shared a similar dream, vision or belief in a future where universal computing would eventually change everything.

title: Universal science


text: Category:Geography of Afghanistan

title: Category:Geography of Afghanistan


text:
American Government (textbook)

American Government is a textbook, now in its seventeenth edition, by the noted public administration scholar James Q. Wilson and political scientist John J. DiIulio, Jr. DiIulio is a Democrat who served as the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives under president George W. Bush in 2001. Wilson, a Republican, chaired and participated in numerous White House task forces and commissions, and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George W. Bush in 2003. Wilson died in March 2012.

The book examines and analyzes the government of the United States, covering every aspect of government from elections to interest groups. The current edition, American Government: Institutions and Policies also lists co-authors Meena Bose and Matthew Levendusky. It is published by Cengage Learning.

This book is currently used in both college and Advanced Placement high school courses across the United States. The book is roughly 780 pages and includes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Bill of Rights, outcomes of various elections throughout U.S. history, and famous court cases. It is accompanied by a companion website that features practice test questions and detailed explanations on each chapter.

Controversy
The textbook became an item of national news coverage in April 2008. Matthew LaClair, a New Jersey high school senior, expressed concerns to the think tank Center for Inquiry regarding what he felt was conservative bias in the textbook and inaccuracies about its coverage of global warming. He wrote an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times. The group issued a critical report on the textbook. The group's criticism of the coverage on climate was buttressed by a few scientists and then additional criticism from legal scholars, who claimed the book presented a skewed view of separation of church and state. The publisher, Houghton Mifflin, announced that it would review the book, as did the College Board, which oversees college-level Advanced Placement courses used in high schools.

Wilson responded to the complaint in an editorial, arguing both that the text is not unduly biased and falsely claiming that dispute with regard to global warming is considerable.

title: American Government (textbook)


text:
Manu National Park

Manu National Park (Parque Nacional del Manu) is a national park and biosphere reserve located in the regions of Madre de Dios and Cusco in Peru. It protects a diverse number of ecosystems including lowland rainforests, cloud forests and Andean grasslands.

History
Manu National Park was established by decree on 29 May 1973; during the dictatorship of General Juan Velasco. In 1977, UNESCO recognised it as a Biosphere Reserve and in 1987, as a World Heritage Site. In 2002, the Peruvian government increased the extension of the park to its current area.

Geography
Manu National Park covers an area of 1716295.22 hectare which comprises mountainous areas (traversed by creeks and valleys) with elevations close to 4000 m above sea level and a portion of the Amazon Basin plains.

The national park is divided in the following areas: the restricted use zone (with pristine forests and native communities, access is granted to researchers only); the reserved zone (for recreation and research); the recuperation zone (for the recovery of disturbed areas) and the cultural zone (for human settlement and most activities including nature tourism ).

The 190 km Manu road is the only link between the highlands of the park and the lowlands where the mouth of the Manu River is located.

Climate
Climate in the park is highly variable, with the amount of rain depending on the elevation. The southern section (mountainous) has an annual precipitation between 1500–2000 mm; while in the middle section it is between 3000–3500 mm and in the northwestern section the annual precipitation reaches 8000 mm or more. The less rainy season is from May to September, accompanied by lower temperatures.

In the park, the mean annual temperature in the lowland rainforest is 25.6 °C, while in the Andean zone it is 8 °C.

Plants
Vegetation types inside the park include puna grassland (in areas over 4000 m), high Andean forests, cloud forests and lowland Amazon rainforest. This variety of vegetation types is represented in 162 families, 1191 genera and 4385 identified species of plants, with as much as 250 tree species in one hectare. A study found a total of 1108 species of trees inside the park, from several plots between the mountain tree line and the lowland forest.

Plant species found in the lowland rainforest zone of the park include: Bertholletia excelsa, Nectandra spp., Cedrelinga cateniformis, Socratea exorrhiza, Eugenia spp., Cedrela odorata, Brosimum lactescens, Iriartea deltoidea, Protium spp., Poulsenia armata, Cecropia spp., Inga spp., Margaritaria nobilis, Ceiba samauma, Solanum grandiflorum, Annona excellens, Calophyllum brasiliense, Simarouba amara, Maxillaria spp., Virola calophylla, Ficus spp., Trema micrantha, Hevea brasiliensis, Piper spp., Mauritia flexuosa, Clusia spp., Euterpe precatoria, Jacaranda copaia, etc. Plant species found in the mountain zones in the park include: Podocarpus oleifolius, Prunus integrifolia, Cyrtochilum aureum, Escallonia myrtilloides, Hesperomeles ferruginea, Otoglossum scansor, Baccharis salicifolia, Cinchona pubescens, Oreopanax spp., Polylepis pauta, Alnus acuminata, Retrophyllum rospigliosii, Vallea stipularis, etc.

In 2021, the so-called “Manu Mystery Plant”, a small tree, with tiny white flowers and ribbed, bright orange fruit, was determined to be a distinct genus, which was named Aenigmanu (the enigma of Manu). The plant, first collected in 1973 by Field Museum ecologist Robin Foster, had puzzled experts for decades. DNA analysis revealed it to be related to the Picramniaceae; but unlike this family, the Aenigmanu has stipules on its stems where the leaves emerge.

Fauna
About 160 species of mammals have been reported in the park. Mammals found in the lowland rainforest zone of the park include: the jaguar, the tayra, the giant armadillo, the puma (also present in mountainous areas), the ocelot, the collared peccary, the giant otter, the Peruvian spider monkey, the Mexican free-tailed bat, the jaguarundi, the capybara, the tufted capuchin, the white-lipped peccary, the greater bulldog bat, the Southern Amazon red squirrel, the marsh deer, the water opossum, the red brocket, the brown-throated sloth, the black-capped squirrel monkey, the South American tapir, the southern tamandua, the moustached tamarin, the pacarana, etc. Mammals reported from mountain zones in the park include: the white-tailed deer, the Andean fox, the mountain paca, the long-tailed weasel, the montane guinea pig, the spectacled bear, etc.

More than 1000 bird species have been estimated to exist in the park. Birds reported for the lowland rainforest in the park include: the great tinamou, Spix's guan, the rufescent tiger-heron, the blue-and-yellow macaw, the silvery grebe, the harpy eagle, the long-billed starthroat, the snowy egret, the king vulture, the scarlet macaw, the roseate spoonbill, the blue-crowned trogon, the turquoise tanager, the Amazonian pygmy owl, the blue-headed parrot, etc. Birds present in the mountain zones in the park include: the Andean tinamou, the great horned owl, the torrent duck, the yellow-billed pintail, the amethyst-throated sunangel, the Andean guan, the puna ibis, the golden-collared tanager, the Andean condor, the collared inca, the solitary eagle, the Andean cock-of-the-rock, the mountain caracara, the mitred parakeet, the sapphire-vented puffleg, the giant hummingbird, etc.

The 155 amphibian species found in the park include: Atelopus erythropus, Bolitoglossa altamazonica, Chiasmocleis ventrimaculata, Dendropsophus acreanus, Dendropsophus koechlini, Dendropsophus rhodopeplus, Hyalinobatrachium bergeri, Leptodactylus didymus, Oreobates cruralis, Oscaecilia bassleri, Pipa pipa, Pristimantis buccinator, Pristimantis cosnipatae, Pristimantis danae, Pristimantis olivaceus, Rhinella veraguensis, Telmatobius timens, etc. There are 132 species of reptiles in the park including: the spectacled caiman, the black caiman, the northern caiman lizard, the mata mata, the boa, the shushupe, the green anaconda, the tree boa, the yellow-spotted river turtle, the lancehead, the aquatic coral snake, etc.

In addition, 210 species of fish, 300 species of ants, 650 species of beetles, 136 species of dragonflies and more than 1300 species of butterflies have been reported in the park so far.

Anthropology
Among the native peoples living inside the park are: Yora, Mashco-Piro, Matsiguenka, Harakmbut and Yine; plus other human groups living in voluntary isolation.

Facilities
There are five areas open to tourists where local biodiversity can be watched along paths, swamps, oxbow lakes and river shores. In the lower basin of Manu river there are also: 5 camping sites, 4 viewing points (one of them an 18 m tower), 3 lodges and a canopy walkway.

Scientific research is also done at the park, with many research centers in or around the area.

title: Manu National Park


text:
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes

Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a class parameter to WikiProject banner shell, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to WikiProject banner shell, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass WPBannerMeta a new custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Eques (fish) and Equetus
FishBase places the spotted drum (E. punctatus) in the genus Equetus and the jack-knife fish (E. lanceolatus) in Eques. The type species of the genus Equetus is Equetus americanus which is a synonym of Eques lanceolatus. FishBase has made a clear error here and Catalog of Fishes has both E. punctatus and E. lanceolatus in the genus Eques. I think we should follow Catalog of Fishes in this case. Thoughts? Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 * This is a problem in a number of cases. Another is here where I provided the info, but it was subsequently "corrected" with the page moves eventually overwriting the actual, correct version. In that case, FishBase decided against following the 2006 taxonomic review where Ophthalmolebias was coined, but when O. ilheusensis was described as a new species in the genus in 2010, FishBase used the genus for just that one species. In direct conflict with the ICZN Code. It's the same way where we get the complete mess in the current versions of Simpsonichthys and related genera. These splits are a bit messy anyway (some unresolved poly/paraphyletic issues), but not as much as the current wiki treatment based on FishBase randomness without scientific support.
 * It usually happens when FishBase follows separate authorities without noticing that they conflict. For example, taxonomic authority 1 splits genus X into two, keeping some species in genus X and moving some species to the new genus Y. FishBase decides to adopt this treatment. Later, taxonomic authority 2, who disagrees with the changes made by authority 1, publish a description of a new species that is part of subgroup Y. However, because they don't recognize the genus split, they describe it in genus X. FishBase simply follows taxonomic authority 2 for the new species, not noticing the issue related to the genus split that they adopted earlier. In other cases, it is related to complete vs. national taxonomic reviews (e.g. adopting a complete taxonomic genus review, then later reversing this for a few species by following a review that only deals with species in one country), or taxonomic reviews where only some species were sampled (in most genera the subgroups are quite well-established and you only really need a genetic sequence from one species in each subgroup to get the full picture). Sometimes I've emailed FishBase about such issues and they've generally been responsive (e.g. they recognized Brochis [which almost certainly will become valid again for "Corydoras lineage 8" when the full review eventually is done] and Theragra [which is gone for good], but in both they used them without the type species). However, I don't really have the time to contact FishBase each time I notice an issue.
 * CoF has its occasional issues too (often caused by the same things as the FishBase problems), but they're rarer and typically correct themselves within a few months. FishBase is an excellent resource, by far the best single resource when it comes to basic info on appearance, behavior and distribution for fish species globally, but their taxonomic issues are more widespread and tend to stay up for longer. In taxonomy and nomenclature, the superiority of CoF became clear years ago. However, the format of FishBase is much more accessible to people without a deeper understanding of these things. RN1970 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support following CoF for taxonomic issues, at least some of the time. My understanding is that Fishbase uses the CoF classification and they diverge in two main cases, to which I'll add the above mismatch due to conflicting authorities.
 * CoF makes a change and there is a lag before Fishbase adopts it because Fishbase has far more information to update (i.e. on the biology and ecology).
 * There is a taxonomic issue that needs resolving before CoF makes a change and Fishbase has the biological and ecological information ready; in this case, Fishbase goes ahead to put the information out there. This is often new species, but there are also a few new families that Fishbase recognises that isn't in the CoF higher classification (I don't think this updated as often as the genus/species nomenclature information).
 * Errors due to Fishbase following conflicting authorities (see above explanation by ).
 * In the first case we can follow CoF in the expectation Fishbase will eventually follow, in the second it's the other way round. In the third we can expect Fishbase to eventually follow, but they may need prompting.
 * I wonder if its worth creating a hidden category and template to flag pages where the Fishbase and CoF taxonomy doesn't match. —  Jts1882 | talk 08:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeking help with Elisabeth Lippitsch
In taxa such as Mbipia and Haplochromis redlinks are made to Elizabeth, rather than Elisabeth Lippitsch. Her Wikispecies bio uses "s", as does her LinkedIn Profile and ResearchGate entry and the articles accessible there. As this is not my normal field of editing I thought I would raise it here, rather than simply being bold and making all the changes straight away. Oronsay (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I changed the spelling in Haplochromis. It was already correct in Mbipia. The links are still a redlinks, though. I wonder what the policy is for interwiki linking and whether it is appropriate to link to the Wikispecies bio page. —  Jts1882 | talk 06:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will make changes to other taxon articles where that link has been entered in the next day or so. I haven't come across links to Wikisource bios in en:wiki and hers has little information in it, so I think it's probably best left as a straight redlink. Oronsay (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Melanotaenia fluviatilis that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Scaevius milii
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Scaevius milii that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Help wanted with mass cleanup of vandalism to fish articles
Hello WPF. I'm here to ask for help with a big cleanup of vandalism to fish articles: please see WP:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. If it's not clear what the problem is after reading that, I'm happy to supply examples of what needs reverting. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Thanks for mentioning this here. I have been working on some of the cleanup tonight, but as someone who lacks extensive knowledge about fish, it is a rather difficult and time-consuming task. Hopefully, someone with fish expertise will be able to help. I will also post the request on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life page as well. Thanks again! Wikipedialuva (talk) 05:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. I'm no fish expert either, so you're right that the search part is difficult and time consuming. Didn't know there was a separate Marine Life project, and thanks very much for the post there: will keep an eye on it for advice. Wikishovel (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that the fake common name "Bicolor conger" page title needing to be moved to the scientific name "Rhynchoconger bicoloratus" page is the last page move that needs to be done for this user's fake name vandalism. Since there was a redirect from the scientific name to the fake common name, I can't move it. I put in a move request at Requested moves/Technical requests, but thought I'd let you know as well since you are a page mover. There is still work to be done on article bodies, but I believe this is the last of the moves that will need to be made. Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Good catch Wikipedialuva, thank you. User:The Blade of the Northern Lights, could you please move Bicolor conger to Rhynchoconger bicoloratus without redirect? Thanks in advance, Wikishovel (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, I spoke too soon. "Brazilian puffer" also needs to be moved to "Sphoeroides camila" as well. It turns out there is more than one species commonly known as the "Brazilian puffer", but "Sphoeroides camila" does not appear to be one of them. Thanks again! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How about we convert that into a disambiguation page then, listing the species that have that as a common name? So far, I can only see that in RS online as a common name for Colomesus asellus. Wikishovel (talk) 09:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked into it more (as I noted earlier, I am far from a fish expert), and it appears that the different names I was seeing are all the same species: "colomesus asellus". (Colomesus asellus has been listed under different scientific names, including "chelichthys asellus", which I initially thought was a different species). When the current page "Brazilian puffer" (real name Sphoeroides camila) gets moved, the page can then be made to a redirect to the real "Brazilian puffer" (colomesus asellus) if that sounds good to you. Thanks again for all your help! Wikipedialuva (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * User:The Blade of the Northern Lights has just moved Bicolor conger as requested above (thanks!), and for now I'm going to move Brazilian puffer to the now-G6'd Sphoeroides camila without a redirect, on the grounds of reverting vandalism by a blocked vandal. I'm no fish expert either, and would prefer to do the least harm possible while reverting vandalism. So I hope members of this WikiProject will feel free to create either a redirect or a disambiguation page as they see fit, if they can find RS to confirm the common name in the article(s) linked, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the move! I found a reliable source for the common name for "colomesus asellus" having the common name "Brazilian puffer" and added it (with WP:RS) to the article. If there are no objections, I'll create the page "Brazilian puffer" with a redirect to "colomesus asellus". Thanks! Wikipedialuva (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The source describing Sphoeroides camila (Araujo et al 2023) gives proposed English (Southern bandtail puffer) and Brazilian (Baiacu-pinima) common names. These are not common names in the Wikipedia sense, as the scientific name is currently the most used name. It's a new fish species, recognised in Catalog of Fishes (which doesn't give common names), but not yet by Fishbase (which does). These two fish resources are usually in agreement, but Fishbase is more comprehensive and tends to be slower. I've remove Brazilian puffer from the Wikidata entry. There are quite a few common names edits at Wikidata Contributions:Alomomola. —  Jts1882 | talk 10:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jts1882, I haven't even begun to look at cleanup of their Wikidata vandalism. Wikishovel (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The ANI discussion has now been archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1143, thanks again. Wikishovel (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

New phylogenetic classification of ray-finned fish from Thomas Near
There is a new phylogenetic classification of Actinopterygii. It's in press but a preprint is available at Zenodo. There are some twitter posts on it: Sept 16 and Nov 27.

The classification is unranked, but may not be strictly Phylocode (at least many definitions say "not defined using the PhyloCode"). It avoids redundancy so monotypic taxa are not assigned higher taxa, e.g. Lepidogalaxias salamandroidea and Polymixia are listed as such and not assigned families or orders which would have the exact same content. The Percomorpha part of this classification was summarised in Dornburg & Near (2021; ), but this new paper includes the complete descriptions for all Actinopterygii, plus some changes in the Percomorph classification in Dornburg & Near (2021).

Apart from the classification itself, the paper could be a valuable resource. Each definition comes with a reference phylogeny, which in most cases is a recent study. Of particular interest is the inclusion of about 20 figures with fossil taxa added to the molecular phylogenies for different parts of the tree. —  Jts1882 | talk 16:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The monograph should be published this week (18 April). For anyone interested, Thomas Near gave a presentation on this work last week and it is available online at YIBS Seminar - Thomas Near, Challenges and solutions in converting phylogenies to taxonomies in ray-finned fishes. —  Jts1882 | talk 14:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The paper is now published as Near and Thacker (2024). —  Jts1882 | talk 07:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Taxonomy issues near Istiophoridae
I had to make a quick edit at Template:Taxonomy/Istiophoridae because some other changes had caused a rank order error. Someone needs to investigate the taxonomy templates in this region of fish classification. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably should put it back to Istiophoriformes, as that is the classification followed by Fishes of the World (still the project preferred taxonomy) and Deepfin, although there is a newer lumpier classification from Thomas Near which places it in Carangoidei in Carangiformes. The Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes classification also puts it in Carangiformes, although in suborder Menoidei. Not sure what classification uses Xiphioidei, although Google throws up a few uses. It's a shame people are reluctant to source taxonomy templates.
 * The fish classification used has been discussed a few times, with the suggestion being it should move from FotW5 (2016) to Deepfin (2017), although now the Near classification needs consideration and ECoF (and hence Fishbase) are moving in that direction. —  Jts1882 | talk 13:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Given that the problems began with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATaxonomy%2FIstiophoridae&diff=1191047274&oldid=825301790 this edit] followed by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATaxonomy%2FXiphioidei&diff=1191069106&oldid=1191046258 this one], restoring to Istiophoriformes seems sensible. I'll leave it to members of this project to deal with.
 * I do wholeheartedly agree that It's a shame people are reluctant to source taxonomy templates. Just a URL is enough to allow other editors to see where the classification comes from. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored Istiophoriformes (consistent with FotW5 and Deepfin4), although I'm inclined to think a Carangiformes sensu lato with an appropriate suborder is the taxonomy that will probably become widely used. But we must follow. —  Jts1882 | talk 17:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this and following WoRMS (in turn following Fishbase), where Xiphioidei has been moved to the Family level. However, that change postdates the 5th edition of Fishes of the World, which I believe is preferred here for taxa above genus level. I can't find a reference to Xiphioidei by Eschmeyer. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ECoF uses suborder Menoidei, incuding three families Medidae, Ziphiidae and Istiophoridae, presumably because Meneis the sister of the latter two in the phylogenetic analysis by Ghezelayagh et al (2022). It seems Xiphioidei was created when it was decided that Xiphiidae and Istiophoridae were different from the other Scombroidei (e.g. see here), where they were place in FotW4. The Deepfin classification didn't use it as their Istiophoriformes just contains the two families, i.e. Xiphioidei is a synonym (although why Istiphoriformes and not Xiphiiformes?). —  Jts1882 | talk 18:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know, sorry for any problems caused. Presently, the taxobox on the billfish page seems to inaccurately classify the group as paraphyletic with respect to barracudas, even though all studies consider it a monophyletic group, with the most commonly-used name I can find for this clade being Xiphioidei. Xiphioidei is not used by taxonomic authorities, but I don't know how much of that is a consequence of the constantly changing order for the group. Papers that deal with the fossil members of the group still use it (see here, here, and here), so there doesn't appear to be any debate over its validity. For this reason, to properly define billfish as a monophyletic group and also have a taxon to keep stem-billfish under, I believe Xiphioidei should be used. There is also the fact that billfish are now classified in Carangiformes over Istiophoriformes but that's different debate. Geekgecko (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Paraphyletic group is used in two different ways. One way is for paraphyletic groups that been named scientifically. Crustacean is an example of this. The lowest rank in the infobox is the scientific name, in bold and not a clickable link (this is set by using taxon). The other way the paraphyletic group template is used is for common names that don't correspond to any scientifically named taxon. The common name concept might be paraphyletic, or even polyphyletic. The lowest rank in the taxobox in this case is a clickable blue link (this is set by parent). Barracudas do not have bills; they aren't included in the common name concept of "billfish". Istiophoriformes is a separate article that covers billfish+barracudas, and it can be accessed by clicking the link in billfish. Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, but in any case I don't think we should necessarily define the group as such when a proper scientific term for the group already exists that just happens to be used more in paleoichthyology and mostly ignored by authorities for modern taxa that don't incorporate extinct groups. Geekgecko (talk) 19:15, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 * We shouldn't get hung up on the name of the template, as its not reader facing. Paraphyletic group just provides alternative taxobox display options. I've demoed two options for billfishes:
 * Change the groups included/excluded headings to remove the default cladisitically excluded text. See this edit.
 * Use billfishes to show they are a subgroup within Istiophoriformes. See this edit.
 * There might be a case for using "xiphioids" for the informal name. They definitely are described as xiphioids in the literature and we don't need to refer to a formal taxonomy, which we would if using suborder Xiphioidei. I've made this change in this edit and left it as the live version (please revert as appropriate). Somewhere in the article it should mention that billfissh have sometimes being place in suborder Ziphioidei in Perciformes and referred to as xiphioids. —  Jts1882 | talk 13:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Brackish category
Hey, people. Is there a reason why Category:Brackish water organisms is nearly empty and Category:Brackish water fish not even in existence? I reckon that many articles would fit there. Even Category:Euryhaline fish might be useful. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I assume it is because there is no editor interested enough to add the categories. As Category:Brackish water organisms is sparsely populated there is no need for subcategories. It certainly makes sense to create Category:Brackish water fish as a subcategory of Category:Fish by habitat if you are interested in working on this. FishBase has this information so there must be plenty of candidate articles. —  Jts1882 | talk 16:33, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Teleosteomorpha taxonomy template
The taxonomy template for Teleost cannot be changed, so I can't list its parent as the stem-group clade Teleosteomorpha (containing Aspidorhynchiformes, Pachycormiformes, and a bunch of Triassic fish groups), which I hope to create a proper page for later. Could someone else with admin permissions do this? Geekgecko (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made the change as its part of the Fishes of the World (5th ed) classification, although I don't see why you need to change the Teleostei template until the Teleosteomorpha page is available for linking. However, as the templates for Aspidorhynchiformes, Pachycormiformes and Aspidorhynchei already exist, we may as well complete the FotW5 hierarchy.
 * P.S. When making such requests, you should provide a source. —  Jts1882 | talk 16:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I keep forgetting! Geekgecko (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Similarly, Acanthomorpha is directly classified as a subgroup of Teleostei, when Ctenosquamata, Eurypterygii, or Neoteleostei (in decreasing order of precision) should be the more immediate parent. Source: https://repository.si.edu/bitstream/handle/10088/9759/1/vz_92_Johnson.pdf . Geekgecko (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added the rest of the classification as given in FotW5, which is compatible with the Deepfin topology at these levels. Most of the templates were already set up, but for some reason Acanthomorpha and a few others skipped some levels (possibly because they are protected pages). I did skip Zoroteleostei as that is where FotW5 and Deepfin disagree (on position of Argentiniformes and Galaxiiformes; the new Near classification has yet another topology there). Some of the ranks may not match FotW5, so let me know if you see discrepancies. —  Jts1882 | talk 10:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Molly Miller
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Molly Miller that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:39, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Fossil fish page revamping project
Hey all, I have a project for everyone, based on a long-running problem that hasn't received much attention. There are over 630 stub pages for fossil ray-finned fish taxa. Many (though not all) often have outdated taxonomy or are lacking other crucial information. Most can be accessed via this category. Hundreds of pages makes it very hard for me to do on my own, so I would like the whole community's help for this.

At a minimum, each page (that doesn't already have one) needs: I hope this can be a productive endeavor. I'll also try to contribute as well. Geekgecko (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy updated to our modern understanding, preferably via using the most recent scientific study that addresses it but Fossilworks/PBDB may also suffice otherwise.
 * The taxobox replaced with either a speciesbox or automatic taxobox (depending on if it's monotypic or not), and the according changes to the internal taxonomy system.
 * The actual species in the genus added to the taxobox, as many of these are exclusively just mentions of the genus with no reference to the species within it.
 * The author and describing year of the taxon should be added to the infobox, as many of these are missing these as well. If the genus happens to contain multiple species, try to add these for each species if you can.
 * Add the page to the category "Fossil taxa described in year [x]". Also advisable but less necessary is "Fossil taxa described by [author]" if they have such a category.
 * If an image of the genus is present on Wikimedia but isn't on the page for whatever reason, it should be added (this happens more often than you'd think).

 * , if you want this to be a collaborative effort, there should be a list somewhere for tracking progress. We don't want to have multiple editors checking the same article only to found another editor has already improved it. The list could be in your user space or a subpage of this WikiProject.

 * Or, if some other editors are interested in working on this, you could discuss with them about splitting up the articles somehow (e.g. you work on articles starting with A and they work on articles starting with Z and you both work towards the middle of the alphabet).

 * I am not interested in working on this myself, but I do think it is good that you proposed this. In the last couple of weeks, I've been working on replacing manual taxoboxes with automatic taxoboxes in the (few) remaining living fish that have manual taxoboxes. In the process, I've looked at well more than 100 articles on fossil fish. Most of them aren't linked from any higher taxon (they are usually linked from List of prehistoric bony fish genera, so at least they aren't completely orphaned). Many are placed to a rank no lower than order on Fossilworks. Ordinal placement on Fossilworks is often cited as "according to J. J. Sepkoski 2002". Sepkoski is apparently using older, broader circumscriptions of (at least) Perciformes and Beryciformes, which are different from what Wikipedia is following. So Fossilworks may not really suffice in the absence of a recent scientific study. Dealing with fossil fish stubs properly is going to involve a pretty deep dive into the literature. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if there are probably hundreds of articles to correct, I probably wouldn't be able to create an individual list of each one to get to as opposed to just linking to the lists that have the relevant taxa (the page you linked is good, but there are also lots of pages on the stubs category as well as the fossil ray-finned fish genera category that aren't on it). But I would be interested in just referring to it on my page or as a subproject; how do I do that? I've had no real experience with this previously.
 * For now my plan is to just do it myself over an indefinite period of time unless someone else also wants to join in, but I'm definitely open to others helping out too.
 * Strangely, for all its other shortcomings, PaleoBioDB (which is very similar to Fossilworks but just slightly different and actually citeable nowadays) appears to be quite up to date when it comes to fossil fish taxonomy (although I would still absolutely not trust its occurrence data for specific taxa as it often includes misattributions from the original literature), and it also links the most recent study that has dealt with the taxonomy of the genus at hand. I wouldn't call it the end-all-be-all, but I am comfortable using it as the default taxonomy source based on the few pages I've updated so far.
 * Geekgecko (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the FAQS on Fossilworks it is uses the same database as PBDB, or more precisely a mirror that is updated each day. There are differences in the presentation and there are a few minor differences in the content (e.g. in the ecology section), although I've not seen a disagreement on taxonomy.
 * A problem with the taxonomy of fossil fish is that it relies on morphology, when the taxonomy of some groups has been radically changed due to molecular studies. Most of the change is within acanthomorphs and especially percomorphs, although FotW5 also lags behind here. The new review by Near and Thacker (see preprint) has a series of figures with phylogeny based on molecular work where they have incorporated fossil taxa, so this might be useful for fossils, at least within crown taxa. In terms of converting taxoboxes, that is a major task. Most are genera so each will need at least one taxonomy template. —  Jts1882 | talk 09:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For sources there is also Family-group names of fossil fishes, which has an online addendum at Catalog of Fishes (last updated Jan 2024). —  Jts1882 | talk 09:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"Kanpachi" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kanpachi&redirect=no Kanpachi] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. asilvering (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Tagging this wikiproject in for assistance since I don't know how many people familiar with scientific names of fish are watching RfD. Thanks in advance for any input! -- asilvering (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Help in creating/improving "Fishing industry in [country]" articles
Hello, I've come here to ask for assistance in creating "Fishing industry in [country]" articles! I'm well aware that this subject more of fits the Fishing and Fisheries wikiproject, however, that project seems to have little to no activity, so I doubt that the topic I made over there will get any attention. Some background as to why I'm asking for help:

I've noticed that many countries are missing a "Fishing industry in [country]" article, many of which are very deserving and needing of such an article. I've also noticed that, for the few that do have an article, many do not go in-depth or sufficiently cover the topic very well. Some even only have as far as a couple sentences.

This is why I'm asking for assistance in creating/expanding/improving these articles. I simply cannot do it by myself, and considering I've already taken 3 months creating a draft for the fishing industry in Peru, it's obvious that I can't do it alone. Hopefully people can partake in helping, thank you! (P.S., I noticed that a similar topic above has pointed out that a list needs to be made to record progress, so I've created such a page here. Join in helping if you want!) SonOfYoutubers (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Should this monotypic taxon article be about a genus or species?
I wrote Ombilinichthys tonight. It's a genus with only one species. Should it be renamed to refer to the species? Zanahary (talk) 06:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The standard setup for monotypic taxa (up to any degree of monotypy) is to place the article at the genus level, and note the species in the article, and the taxobox if desired. So your current configuration is fine (including the redirect from the species name). - Just FYI, note that for fossil taxa, the article is generally kept at the genus level even if there are multiple species, unless there is an unusual amount to say about a species. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Potential significant change to species notability
Over on Wikipedia talk:Notability, several editors are working on a draft proposal to replace our current notability guidelines for species (all species are notable) with something much more restrictive (only species that go beyond certain limited pieces of information would be allowed their own articles). If you have opinions on this issue, now would be a good time to weigh in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose merging Halieutopsis vermicularis with Halieutopsis nasuta, although FishBase still has a separate entry for H. vermicularis it does have a note that it is considered to be a synonym of H. nasuta, as does the IUCN Red List page for H. vermicularis. Catalog of Fishes is more definite. To discuss go to Talk:Halieutopsis nasuta.

Quetzal1964 (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Conversion of FishBase Citation templates
I propose to update fishbase templates to using a module, which will generate CS1/CS2 compliant citations (e.g. cite web). I initially wrote the module for the Catalog of fish templates (Catalog of Fishes, Cof species,Cof genus, etc.), which needed additions to make permalinks. These have been in use for five years. I made an option for FishBase in the sandbox at the same time but held off making the change because the template is high use. Now I propose to make the change as I’m confident it should be functionally transparent for existing uses (apart from some minor formatting changes consistent with CS1/CS2) while conferring several advantages.

Some advanatages will be
 * consistency with CS1/CS2 citations,
 * easier updates when fishbase make changes
 * the ability to use all the other citation template parameters when required (e.g.
 * setting |access-date,
 * selecting the citations style used by and article: e.g. setting cs1 for pages using cite web and other CS1 templates or cs2 for pages using citation or name-list-style for pages using Vancouver style
 * using |quote
 * using archived pages
 * allowing other pages on Fishbase to be cited by setting a title and url, with the template automatically providing the other cite web parameters (author, website etc). Such pages include common names lists, synonym lists, notes on the Fishbase classification.

There are a number of issues that should be addressed:
 * The templates default the month and year to April 2006. I think it would be better to omit this, as some later citations incorrectly default to this, but its retained in my current version so existing citations will be unchanged.
 * FishBase subspecies is no longer useful. The subspecies links now go to the species page (FishBase made this change sometime between 2015 and 2017)
 * FishBase family has options for parameter ID and familyname. I found two pages with the ID and both also have family meaning the ID was never used, while familyname is not used. This option will be dropped unless there is demand.

While I intend to keep the suite of fishbase citation templates (for backward compatibility), all the functionality will be available in the FishBase template, as follows: Any comments? —  Jts1882 | talk 14:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * using genus and species) will behave like the current FishBase
 * using genus without species will be equivalent to FishBase genus
 * using family will be equivalent to FishBase family,
 * using order will be equivalent to FishBase order,
 * and so on.

Requested move at Talk:Parachromis managuensis
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Parachromis managuensis that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari Scribe <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Edits! Talk! 16:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Redband trout
I was gnoming around upgrading taxoboxes, and came across Redband trout. I am not sure if this is a subspecies group (like a species complex i guess) or just a collection of common names. Can someone with more knowledge of fishes take a look please? Thanks a bunch. awkwafaba (📥) 15:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Rainbow_trout lists 7 redband forms, not all of which have "redband" in the common name. I think redband is perhaps a morphological feature shared by several subspecies that aren't necessarily a clade. I'm not sure an article is warranted; it could be merged to rainbow trout or converted to a SIA or disambiguation. Plantdrew (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There are ten more sources on the talk page, so it may be an actual thing, even if it's not a clade. Mainly wanted to know if the taxobox and taxobar should stay or go. awkwafaba (📥) 16:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * can you illuminate us? awkwafaba (📥) 19:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What specifically are you interested in learning? Indeed “Redband” is a common name but does in fact represent three valid subspecies of O. Mykiss.  Is Behnke’s reference invalid?  As to subspecies now recognized as species, an article update may be justified if the sources are reliable. Mike Cline (talk) 22:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The introduction of a recent study by Campbell et al (2023) provides a short review of the Redband trout, which consist of three subspecies that were not thought to form a natural group. However, based on their results there may be a natural Interior Redband Trout subspecies group, comprising the Columbia River Redband Trout (O. m. gairdnerii), the Great Basin and Upper Klamath Lake Redband Trout (O. m. newberrii) and Sacramento River Redband Trout (O. m. stonei), but only after splitting O. m. stonei and recognising a new subspecies for the McCloud River Redband Trout (O. m. calisulat). The phylogenetic position of this subspecies is uncertain. To confuse matters, the Wikipedia article on McCloud River redband trout covers O. m. stonei, which is the Sacramento River Redband Trout in the Campbell study.
 * The rainbow trout article says the subspecies and groupings are based on Behnke's Trout and Salmon of North America. Does anyone have access so we can verify this? Googlebooks only has limited coverage. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882 | talk 15:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A little more reading suggests that the rainbow trout and related articles are out of date.
 * Fishbase and ECoF now recognise the River Kern/Golden trout group as a species, Oncorhynchus aguabonita. ECof includes subspecies gilberti and whitei.
 * ECoF now recognises the Baja rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss nelsoni) as species, Oncorhynchus nelsoni, although Fishbase hasn't followed yet.
 * ECoF now recognises the subspecies O. m. calisulat, the McCloud River Redband Trout of Campbell et al (2023). This corresponds to the Sheepheaven Creek redband trout (O. m. spp. in the table in the rainbow trout article).
 * The article McCloud River redband trout covers O. m. stonei, which is the Sacramento River Redband Trout of Campbell et al.
 * I wonder what other changes have been made or are in the pipeline. If the golden trout subspecies group is now a species, a revised Redband group might be another possible species. I suggest delaying any drastic change to the Redband trout article. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  | talk 17:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Giuris
Can someone please double check if this page I created is accurate? It was originally a redirect as monotypic, but the reference I found seems to say there are now 8 recognized species of this genus. However, fish base and itis still show Giuris margaritaceus as the only valid species. I’m not familiar with taxonomy, so I’d appreciate a second opinion. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 12:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We generally follow Fishbase for species recognition. However, Catalog of Fishes recognises the eight species, which usually means Fishbase will do soon. Fishbase has much more biological information than the purely taxonomic CoF, so tends to be a bit slower. A genus article listing the new species seems appropriate, but I'd wait for more information before creating articles for the other species.
 * I've made a few changes to the Giuris, adding the CoF reference also recognising the eight species, a statement that the genus has been considered monotypic, and an image to the taxobox. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  | talk 13:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thank you! ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 00:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis	--> Oncorhynchus virginalis (Girard 1856)
I found a draft for a new name at Draft:Rocky Mountain Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus virginalis), and I'm not sure how to proceed. Some but not all species directories such as https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1316977-Oncorhynchus-virginalis say that Oncorhynchus clarkii virginalis has been renamed to Oncorhynchus virginalis. I think that some other Oncorhynchus clarkii subspecies (such as Oncorhynchus clarkii utah) have been reassigned to Oncorhynchus virginalis (as Oncorhynchus virginalis utah for the example). Should Rio Grande cutthroat trout be edited to use the Oncorhynchus virginalis name? Another editor has created Draft:Rocky Mountain Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus virginalis), and I don't know whether the information in the draft should be promoted to mainspace or incorporated into Rio Grande cutthroat trout. I won't be offended if someone says that we should wait a few months to see whether the new name is accepted by other databases. LeapTorchGear (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Fishbase doesn't recognise Oncorhynchus virginalis, but ECof does with subspecies bouvieri, macdonaldi (now extinct), pleuriticus, stomias and utah. Rio Grande cutthroat trout seems the established name for the subspecies (e.g. Behnke, 2002 and Pritchard et al, 2009 ). The new species, though, is more broadly defined with addition subspecies, some of which have articles: Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri, Oncorhynchus clarkii macdonaldi,  Oncorhynchus clarkii pleuriticus, Oncorhynchus clarkii stomias and Oncorhynchus clarkii utah
 * So an article covering the new species seems reasonable, which probably should use the scientific name. Where does iNaturalist get Rocky Mountain Cutthroat Trout? I think some of these trout articles are oversplit (see discussion on redband trout above) and would be better handled in a broader article. But as the articles exist, and are more than stubs, a merge might be more difficult, unless there is a lot of overlap in those other subspecies articles. — <span style="white-space: nowrap;font-family:Arial;background:#d6ffe6;border:solid 1px;border-radius:5px;box-shadow:darkcyan 0px 1px 1px;"> Jts1882  | talk 09:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes


text:
Members of the Australian House of Representatives, 1990–1993

This is a list of members of the Australian House of Representatives from 1990 to 1993, as elected at the 1990 federal election.

 * Menzies Liberal MP Neil Brown resigned in early 1991. Liberal candidate Kevin Andrews won the resulting by-election.
 * Wills Labor MP and outgoing Prime Minister Bob Hawke resigned in early 1992. Independent candidate Phil Cleary won the resulting by-election, only to have the result overturned by the Court of Disputed Returns in the landmark case Sykes v Cleary on the grounds that Cleary, a school teacher, was in the employ of the government at the time. Another by-election was not held due to the proximity of the 1993 election, where Cleary, having resigned his teaching position, again won the seat.
 * Capricornia Labor MP Keith Wright was charged with sex offences in late 1992. He subsequently lost preselection to recontest his seat at the 1993 federal election, and was expelled from the party on 20 February 1993 after nominating to recontest his seat as an independent.


text:
Turneraceae

Turneraceae Kunth ex DC. was a family of flowering plants consisting of 120 species in 10 genera. The Cronquist system placed the Turneracids in the order Violales, but it is not currently recognized as a family by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group in the APG III system of 2009, which includes the taxa in the Turneraceae in Passifloraceae as a subfamily (Turneroideae).

Description
Most species in Turneraceae are tropical or sub-tropical shrubs, with a few trees. Half of the family's species belong to the genus Turnera, including the herb damiana (T. diffusa, T. aphrodisiaca), the yellow alder (T. pumilea), which is not really an alder, and the "ramgoat dashalong" (T. ulmifolia). Another type of plant in Turneraceae with a vernacular name is stripeseed, which is actually three different species of the genus Piriqueta - the pitted stripeseed (P. cistoides), the rigid stripeseed (P. racemosa), and the purple stripeseed (P. viscosa).

Genera
The genera typically included in this family are:
 * Adenoa
 * Erblichia
 * Hyalocalyx
 * Loewia
 * Mathurina
 * Piriqueta
 * Stapfiella
 * Streptopetalum
 * Tricliceras (Wormskioldia)
 * Turnera

title: Turneraceae


text:
File:Ellipse Animation.gif

You can find a smaller version of this animation here.

An animation that explains what my math teacher explained to me today about ellipses. The two points marked by small squares are called the "foci" of the ellipse. --NoPetrol 03:29, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This animation was created and uploaded by Michael Kossin (User:NoPetrol) on December 1, 2004 ce.

title: File:Ellipse Animation.gif


text:
Crab Pulsar

The Crab Pulsar (PSR B0531+21 or Baade's Star) is a relatively young neutron star. The star is the central star in the Crab Nebula, a remnant of the supernova SN 1054, which was widely observed on Earth in the year 1054. Discovered in 1968, the pulsar was the first to be connected with a supernova remnant.

The Crab Pulsar is one of very few pulsars to be identified optically. The optical pulsar is roughly 20 km in diameter and has a rotational period of about 33 milliseconds, that is, the pulsar "beams" perform about 30 revolutions per second. The outflowing relativistic wind from the neutron star generates synchrotron emission, which produces the bulk of the emission from the nebula, seen from radio waves through to gamma rays. The most dynamic feature in the inner part of the nebula is the point where the pulsar's equatorial wind slams into the surrounding nebula, forming a termination shock. The shape and position of this feature shifts rapidly, with the equatorial wind appearing as a series of wisp-like features that steepen, brighten, then fade as they move away from the pulsar into the main body of the nebula. The period of the pulsar's rotation is increasing by 38 nanoseconds per day due to the large amounts of energy carried away in the pulsar wind.

The Crab Nebula is often used as a calibration source in X-ray astronomy. It is very bright in X-rays, and the flux density and spectrum are known to be constant, with the exception of the pulsar itself. The pulsar provides a strong periodic signal that is used to check the timing of the X-ray detectors. In X-ray astronomy, "crab" and "millicrab" are sometimes used as units of flux density. A millicrab corresponds to a flux density of about $~3$ ($~1.6$) in the 2–10 keV X-ray band, for a "crab-like" X-ray spectrum, which is roughly power-law in photon energy: I ~ E−1.1. Very few X-ray sources ever exceed one crab in brightness.

Pulsed emission up to 1.5 TeV has been detected from the Crab pulsar. The only other known pulsar with emission in this energy range is the Vela Pulsar at 20 TeV.

History of observation
The Crab Nebula was identified as the remnant of SN 1054 by 1939. Astronomers then searched for the nebula's central star. There were two candidates, referred to in the literature as the "north following" and "south preceding" stars. In September 1942, Walter Baade ruled out the "north following" star but found the evidence inconclusive for the "south preceding" star. Rudolf Minkowski, in the same issue of The Astrophysical Journal as Baade, advanced spectral arguments claiming that the "evidence admits, but does not prove, the conclusion that the south preceding star is the central star of the nebula".

In late 1968, David H. Staelin and Edward C. Reifenstein III reported the discovery of two rapidly varying radio sources "near the crab nebula that could be coincident with it" using the 300 foot Green Bank radio antenna. They were given the designations NP 0527 and NP 0532. The period of 33 milliseconds and location of the Crab Nebula pulsar NP 0532 was discovered by Richard V. E. Lovelace and collaborators on 10 November 1968, at the Arecibo Radio Observatory. The discovery of the pulsar with such a short period proved that pulsars are rotating neutron stars (not pulsating white dwarfs, as many scientists suggested). Soon after the discovery of the Crab Pulsar, David Richards discovered (using the Arecibo Telescope) that it spins down and, therefore, loses its rotational energy. Thomas Gold has shown that the pulsar's spin-down power is sufficient to power the Crab Nebula.

A subsequent study by them, including William D. Brundage, also found that the NP 0532 source is located at the Crab Nebula. A radio source was also reported coincident with the Crab Nebula in late 1968 by L. I. Matveenko in Soviet Astronomy.

Optical pulsations were first reported by Cocke, Disney, and Taylor using the 36 inch telescope on Kitt Peak of the Steward Observatory of the University of Arizona. This observation had a audio tape recording the pulses and this tape also recorded the voices of John Cocke, Michael Disney and Bob McCallister (the night assistant) at the time of the discovery. Their discovery was confirmed by Nather, Warner, and Macfarlane.

Jocelyn Bell Burnell, who co-discovered the first pulsar PSR B1919+21 in 1967, relates that in the late 1950s a woman viewed the Crab Nebula source at the University of Chicago's telescope, then open to the public, and noted that it appeared to be flashing. The astronomer she spoke to, Elliot Moore, disregarded the effect as scintillation, despite the woman's protestation that as a qualified pilot she understood scintillation and this was something else. Bell Burnell notes that the 30 Hz frequency of the Crab Nebula optical pulsar is difficult for many people to see.

In 2007, it was reported that Charles Schisler detected a celestial source of radio emission in 1967 at the location of the Crab Nebula, using a United States Air Force radar system in Alaska designed as an early warning system to detect intercontinental ballistic missiles. This source was later understood by Schisler to be the Crab Pulsar, after the news of Bell Burnell's initial pulsar discoveries was reported. However, Schisler's detection was not reported publicly for four decades due to the classified nature of the radar observations.

The Crab Pulsar was the first pulsar for which the spin-down limit was broken using several months of data of the LIGO observatory. Most pulsars do not rotate at constant rotation frequency, but can be observed to slow down at a very slow rate (3.7 Hz/s in case of the Crab). This spin-down can be explained as a loss of rotation energy due to various mechanisms. The spin-down limit is a theoretical upper limit of the amplitude of gravitational waves that a pulsar can emit, assuming that all the losses in energy are converted to gravitational waves. No gravitational waves observed at the expected amplitude and frequency (after correcting for the expected Doppler shift) proves that other mechanisms must be responsible for the loss in energy. The non-observation so far is not totally unexpected, since physical models of the rotational symmetry of pulsars puts a more realistic upper limit on the amplitude of gravitational waves several orders of magnitude below the spin-down limit. It is hoped that with the improvement of the sensitivity of gravitational wave instruments and the use of longer stretches of data, gravitational waves emitted by pulsars will be observed in future. And erratum in The only other pulsar for which the spin-down limit was broken so far is the Vela Pulsar.

In 2019 the Crab Nebula, and presumably therefore the Crab Pulsar, was observed to emit gamma rays in excess of 100 TeV, making it the first identified source of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays.

In 2023, Very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) was used to conduct precision astrometry using the radio giant-pulse emission of the Crab Pulsar, thus measuring a precise distance to the Crab Pulsar.

title: Crab Pulsar