Talk:Devils Hole pupfish

Untitled

redirects: Devil's Hole pupfish, Cyprinodon diabolis, Cyprinodon diabolus

---

Critically endangered?

The taxobox listed the species as critically endangered, and provided an IUCN reference for that information. However, the IUCN and FishBase only list the species as vulnerable. In the absence of a reference to the contrary, I have downgraded the taxobox to "VU". Neil916 (Talk) 17:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Death Valley pupfish?

Bad at wikipedia. Should this page be merged with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_pupfish  ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.214.64 (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That other article is about a different species, so I oppose any merge. —hike395 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

I propose that we merge Devils Hole into this article. The water-filled cavern would not be notable if it weren't for the pupfish. There is a fair amount of overlap between the two articles. The combination of the two articles would be stronger than each in isolation. comments? —hike395 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Population

I understand that it fluctuates but a chronological order of dates would be helpful. I have attempted this but it needs work. 151.228.136.3 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The whole article was a mess, so I re-organized it. —hike395 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Going for GAN

Hi watchers, I've had my eye on this little fish for some time and am now beginning substantial revision of this article in anticipation of a GAN later this month. I welcome any collaboration or feedback. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Devils Hole pupfish/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait. Reading now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a way to link pupfish? I, as a non-native speaker, was wondering what "pupfish" actually means. Edit: Ah now I see, it is the family Cyprinodontidae. Maybe just add that it belongs to "Cypriodontidae, the pupfish family" or similar to the lead.
  • added to the lead
• in Devils Hole, a geological formation in the US state of Nevada – Is it really a Geological formation in that sense? There seems to be a "Devils Hole Formation" but that seems to be located in Colorado.
  • rephrased
• You do a great job of explaining technical terms. Maybe gloss "fecundity" as well?
  • done
• It is at an elevation of 730 m (2,400 ft) above sea level – this refers to the river but should it refer to devils hole instead?
  • Thanks, phrasing unclear with an ambiguous "it". I meant Devils Hole but it reads like the river. Rephrased.
• Research indicates that the annual fluctuates in response to – word missing? The annual … what?
  • thanks
• suggest to also link "Seiche" in the image caption
  • done
• eggs are only removed at times of the year when it unlikely - when it "is" unlikely?
  • done
• Overall, the article sometimes is a bit repetitive, some info is given more than once. Just a problem at all for reaching GA though.

• Great work overall, there is not much to complain! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Jens Lallensack thanks for taking on the review! I've addressed your first round of comments. Would be happy to parse down on some of the repetitive content if you'd point it out. Enwebb (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome (and sorry for the delay again). As for the repetitions, I think I noticed it most with the drop in water level, which is discussed at several places (and "groundwater depletion" is linked twice in the body). It is discussed in the "Habitat", "Threats", "Status designations and legal actions", and "in the wild" sections. Not sure if this is too bad though, as it also makes the individual sections more independent from each other (great for readers that do not want to read the whole article). Congrats for the new GA! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Devils Hole pupfish males

• ... that the entire Devils Hole pupfish species is down to less than 200 individuals? Source: "The official result of the recent survey, 136 observable pupfish, is the highest count recorded during the springtime since 2003"
  • ALT1:... that a court case about the Devils Hole pupfish went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States? Source: "The circuit court decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which, on 7 June 1976, upheld the permanent injunciton, returned the allowable water level to that originally set by the district court, and directed the district court to review the facts and establish a final minimum water level that would tend to ensure survival of the pupfish?"
  • ALT2:... that in a battle over water rights for the Devils Hole pupfish, a county commissioner printed "Kill the Pupfish" bumper stickers, and a newspaper editor encouraged poisoning them? Source: "A Pahrump newspaper editor even threatened to throw the pesticide Rotenone into the sunken cave to “make the pupfish a moot point"; "...Rudd was the Nye County commissioner who ordered up those infamous "Kill the Pupfish" bumper stickers at the height of the Devils Hole pupfish controversy"

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shailaja Acharya

Improved to Good Article status by Enwebb (talk). Self-nominated at 14:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC).

• Article promoted to good article status 8 December 2019. Prose size (text only): 27433 characters (4477 words) "readable prose size". Meets core policies and guidelines, is neutral, cites sources with inline citations. QPQ done. Image is free, used in the article, and shows up well at small size

All three hooks are short enough and well-formatted. All three are interesting to a broad audience and cited with inline citations in the article. The main hook and ALT1 are both accurate and neutral and do not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people. ALT2 could be negative depending on your point of view, but seem to be accurate representations.

Unfortunately is not free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations, or plagiarism. This should be corrected. --Nessie (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL, existing in the article since before I edited it, but I assumed it was fine to leave it since it is in the public domain as a work of the US Federal government? Enwebb (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: I'm sure it was pre-existing. Looks like you are mostly correct, according to Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Copying material from free sources. However, the copied text needs {{Citation-attribution}} or {{NPS.Gov}}. --Nessie (talk) 14:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL I had Template:PD-notice that was just replaced by Template:NPS, but the effect is largely the same. The citation in question (27) has "This article incorporates public domain material...." at the beginning. Enwebb (talk) 15:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: Ah, I hadn't seen that template. For some reason I thought it would display in the body. However, that entire paragraph preceding your edit is entirely from the NPS source. It's the first paragraph in the In the wild subsection. It currently only uses the NPS citation for the last sentence. Personally I think it'd be easier to rewrite it. What do you think? Is it clear that the notice/citation applies to the entire paragraph? --Nessie (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL alright, that paragraph is mostly rewritten, with some more duplication of the NPS reference for good measure. Hopefully that suffices. Enwebb (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: you are now clear for takeoff. Good work. —Nessie (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Too many definitions in parentheses

I know wiki rules state a person shouldn't have to chase links to find what a 'highly technical' term means, but the number of definitions of fairly simple terms in this article seems quite excessive. Some are terms of art but mast aren't and this article has way more internal definitions than most. At the very least, they're clumsily done. I've gone through and tried to streamline most of the definitions so it flows better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.57.100 (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, a lot of these seem to fall under the category of WP: OBVIOUS. "However, there is no need to go overboard. There is no need to explain a common word like "car"." Articles about geology don't go out of their way to define a geologist as a 'rock researcher' the way this article does with icthyologist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.57.100 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The article as written was done with accessibility in mind. No, this is not simple English. I am not explaining common words like "car" and it's a bit silly to equate explaining "ichthyologist" or "ova" to such a simple word that every elementary age English speaker knows. I am following WP:AUDIENCE--"Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible". If this is "clumsy" for you, then WP:FIXIT, but I don't believe the solution is to make the article harder to understand. Not everyone who reads this article will be a native English speaker. Some will be young. It is reasonable to define scientific concepts. Enwebb (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The current version (with your edits) is much better. As I said, my issue wasn't so much with explaining the terms (though some definitions did feel unnecessary) as it was with constantly doing so via parentheses. This flows much better and I agree, explains relevant scientific concepts well. 2600:1702:2350:DB0:412E:9987:424A:F87A (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I simply do not get the point of adding glosses to words that are Wikipedia links. Are the readers of this article, and mostly only this article, incapable of clicking on opercles? Or ova? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Jpgordon, WP policy is that the reader shouldn't have to click the link to understand the meaning of a term or sentence. People encounter WP articles on mirror sites and even in print MOS:LINKSTYLE. Enwebb (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

2016 vandalism by three subjects

Hi Everyone,

The article says the pupfish are endangered by vandals. A little searching turned up this, which I thought was pretty crappy: Hole Vandals Identified and Third Nevada Man Sentenced For Vandalism At Devils Hole.

Should the April 30, 2016 incident be included in the article?

It is. It's at the end of the "Conservation and status#Threats" section. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)