Talk:Peacock bass

Proposed alteration of the article

I like to propose this article be slimmed down to reflect only the normal use of the name (as it applies to several species of game fish). Taxonomic, feral status and other information would be better in Cichla. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 03:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Another option would be to merge this article entirely into Cichla. Thoughts? Walrus heart (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Peacock bass species are so popular among anglers that I believe this article deserves its own article. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree since all species in the genus Cichla are referred to as peacock basses. There are 15 species of peacock basses and there are 15 species of fish in the genus cichla, so that means all cichla species are peacock basses. This article also should be a redirect to Cichla.SuperPayara123 (talk) 19:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Expert needed, possible merge

Resolved

This is in part a continuation of the previous section, but I've started a new as quite some time have passed and the three people that commented on the previous either have been inactive on wiki for a long time, or have been blocked.
A large part of this article deals with the entire genus Cichla, meaning that we essentially have a content fork. Secondly, I am not aware of any evidence that the all members of the genus are known as peacock bass. To my knowledge this name is used to perhaps a handful of the species, especially Cichla ocellaris. IMO this leaves us with two main options:

• 1) Provide a citation that supports the all members of the genus Cichla are known as peacock bass, and the two pages should be merged, per WP:CFORK.
• 2) If only a few species are known as peacock bass, info that specifically is about the entire genus should be moved to the genus page (Cichla), leaving the only info about the species known as peacock bass in the peacock bass article.

Further comments would be appreciated. RN1970 (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Having only just stumbled across this article, I took a look at the edits made since this tag was added. Besides some minor rewording and linking, no real change has been made to the content of the article. I've updated the tag to link into Wikiproject Fishes in a hope that an expert will find it and make the necessary changes. drewmunn (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the full article, but it looks like S. O. Kullander & E. J. G. Ferreira may have coined "foo peacock bass" common names for every species of Cichla in this paper:[[1]]. Uptake of these names is nonexistent; Fishbase doesn't recognize. If "common names" change with every scientific revision, it defeats the whole reason to favor vernacular/common names in the first place. Plantdrew (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Seeing that a full solution to the issue hasn't happened 5+ years after I added the expert needed tag and initiated the discussion, I'm going to be WP:BOLD and redirect Cichla to Peacock bass, as it is now clear that the common name is used for the entire genus (I'll add supporting refs later today or within the next few days). This makes the two articles WP:CONTENTFORKs. Furthermore, virtually everything in the short genus article was already in the common name article. RN1970 (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest redirecting Peacock bass to Cichla. At the moment, all cichlid genera listed under Category:Cichlid genera - Wikipedia are there with their scientific names, except for the type genus of the family. Arjan Kop (talk) 08:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Removed Malaysia and Singapore categories and project banners

I removed the categories Fish of Malaysia and Fauna of Singapore as well as the Singapore and Malaysia project banners. As far as I can tell these species do not occur in either Singapore or Malaysia, either naturally or introduced. Neither country is mentioned in the article. I suspect these were mistakes, possibly related to the common name, peacock bass. If restoring the deleted templates, please provide rationale. Richigi (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Peacock bass. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100211121007/http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Nonnative_FW_PeacockBass2008FlWildlifeMag.pdf to http://myfwc.com/docs/WildlifeHabitats/Nonnative_FW_PeacockBass2008FlWildlifeMag.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)