TMzander

Welcome

Thank you for your contributions. Please note that in a species list, the last species in the list should use the splast template instead of sp. This will avoid having a hanging dash at the end of the list. See also some of the changes I've made at Prionurus to see additional ways you could contribute in your entries. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

References

Please do not remove important taxonomic references from articles as you did at Rhabdoblennius. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomic references do not become obsolete. We want to include information about where the name was published. We also include major revisions, no matter how old they are, especially if they include newly described species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

ITIS

ITIS, the reference you are using for your conclusions about Trichogaster and Colisa, is badly outdated in many cases. FishBase and Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes are better and more up-to-date, and both of these better sources list Colisa as a synonym of Trichogaster. What was considered Trichogaster for many years is now recognized as Trichopodus. Catalog of Fishes provides references for original papers (in 2004, 2008 and 2009 (2009 by Maurice Kottelat)) to support that conclusion. If you know of a more recent paper contradicting these, please provide that reference instead of ITIS. Koumz (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

ITIS is not reliable and it is not a Refrences but a Link. So please placed them under == Links ==

Fishbase is allso a link

PeterR (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Eleotris

In your edit of this page, you eliminated the correct genus template, incorrectly altered a section header, and converted a standard formatting template into a bare link. None of this is a good idea. Please do not do this; it is not an "improvement". --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

ITIS is always a "link", but we don't always use the "Links" header. See Help:Reference section. When there is just an ITIS link and nothing else, it is fine to list it under "References". "Links" is not a standard header, but some people use it as a subheader under "References" when the list grows and needs to be subdivided. The subdivisions vary from editor to editor, but the main header is still "References".

It would be better to use FishBase for fishes, and not use ITIS at all. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you try the FishBase links on the Help page I listed above? If you cannot find a name in FishBase, it may not be a valid name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've used an example FishBase template on Mogurnda. You have to use the "genus" template for a genus entry. Does that make sense now? You simply use the genus name in the template, instead of worrying about its ID number. --EncycloPetey (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bostrychus

You've started adding lots of content that shouldn't be there. The species list on the genus page should NOT include the taxon authorities. That information belongs on a species page.

Also, a genus with multiple sepcies should have its own template. And if you link to ITIS then you sould use the ITIS template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bostrychus page is a genus. A genus page has a list of species. The list of species should not name biologists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)