Talk:Starfish

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Starfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203052738/http://www.royal-navy.org/HMS%20Strongbow,%20Admiralty%20R%20class%20destroyer to http://www.royal-navy.org/HMS%20Strongbow,%20Admiralty%20R%20class%20destroyer

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:11, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Starfish → Sea star – Starfish are not fish, even though fish is in the name. Fish are vertebrates, while starfish (sea stars) are invertebrates. I think the article title should be called sea star because it doesn't have fish in its name. 192.107.120.90 (talk) 14:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; the most likely search term would be 'starfish'. Eagleash (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Counter propose move to Asteroidea. As the introduction to this article makes clear, both "starfish" and "sea star" are ambiguous, "Common usage frequently finds these names being also applied to ophiuroids, which are correctly referred to as brittle stars or "basket stars"". This is an obvious example of Commonname producing misleading and unencyclopaedic results. DuncanHill (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - this very thoroughly reviewed article uses a very well established common name, per policy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as per above arguments. I'd even go so far as to suggest WP:SNOWBALL may be applicable here. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose as having a snowball’s chance. Jellyfish aren’t fish either, and efforts to move their article to a taxonomically “more correct” but uncommon name have not gathered anything remotely resembling consensus. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. It's getting SNOWy in here._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Apart from jellyfish, shellfish, crayfish and cuttlefish aren't fish either. So the "not a fish" argument just doesn't hold water. And the proposal above to move to Asteroidea has little alignment with how terms are actually used, even on Google Scholar where the term starfish is much preferred to Asteroidea. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: You mean "Asteroidea" is a serious suggestion? I thought it was a joke... Chaheel Riens (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course it is a serious suggestion. The current title is ambiguous. Using the scientific names would avoid that ambiguity. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It would avoid minor ambiguities at the expense of introducing major obscurities. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, likewise for Asteroidea; next editor WP:SNOW close please. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose As somebody pointed out in the last discussion, neither are they luminous balls of plasma. William Avery (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we have reached a WP:SNOW consensus to OPPOSE this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

A starfish in its natural habitat

• Oppose per Kanye West. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. No reason why something shouldn't be called by its name just because it's a misnomer; peanuts aren't nuts, but they're still called peanuts. jamacfarlane (talk) 23:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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

as said before, star fish should redirect to sea star and not the other way around.

tbh for biological reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.230.148.43 (talk • contribs)

Not done See compelling consensus above on this. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  10:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Reverted lead sentence changing order of naming

@Countryboy603: I have reverted your good faith edit to reorder the lead sentence to put more emphasis on sea star, with a note to explain the scientific inaccuracy of this. This is a long established featured article, and as you will see from the move request above there is clear consensus to use the common name for the title, as is policy on wikipedia - even where it is scientifically incorrect. This applies to within article use also, and I think your change gives undue weight to what is generally a niche issue of nomenclature. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  08:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Please remove: Infraclass Concentricycloidea: Peripodida

Xyloplax was shown to belong to Velatida (Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 115 (2017): 161–170). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawid Mazurek (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Under digestion, Astropecten and Luidia are NOT "primitive starfish" this has been disproven by modern work for several decades (see Blake 1987 or Mah and Foltz 2011). I suggest removal of this term which is problematic for any number of reasons. 2600:1700:6F81:430:8809:6225:CFA8:CBD8 (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Change title to “Sea star”

I don’t know how to request a page move, so please tell me how

“Starfish” aren’t fish. They don’t meet the requirements to be classified as a fish. And, the most reliable sources call it “Sea star”. Britannica, National Geographic, IUCN, ITIS all call it “Sea star”. GenZenny (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see the above section, where strong consensus was reached about this issue. — Jumbo T (talk) 08:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sea star is still a common name though, and it is what's used by reliable sources. Unreliable sources tend to use Starfish. 64.185.38.66 (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of both? Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Sea star is the most commonly used name in reliable sources, just like you stated. 206.190.231.82 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

So the title SHOULD be changed. 206.190.231.82 (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

When you search “Sea star”, you get reliable, published, expert reviewed sources. “Starfish” gives you random lists and blog posts that are most likely self published and not reviewed or fact checked. GenZenny💖 (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Searching “Starfish” also gives you a bunch of irrelevant results that have nothing to do with the animal. “Sea star” dosen’t. GenZenny💖 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of both? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I already did… GenZenny💖 (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Where? Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I see lots of claims, but not much to back them up. No reason to entertain discussion when there is nothing new presented. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

There are

A search on Google Scholar for "Starfish zoology" returns some 18,400 results, so the term is certainly well used in zoology journals. "Sea star" zoology gets under 6,200, so the term is in use but less common among scientists. This offers no justification for a move. On-Wiki, the move discussion above decisively rejected the same proposal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Starfish is the common name. Amogus girl (talk) 22:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose if that's not already clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Even if we did have it at "sea star" people will still refer to them as "starfish". People are not going to change what they call the creature because of the title of a Wikipedia article. Marsbar8 (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2023

To answer the question "do starfish feel pain"?

There is still much debate and limited research on whether starfish can feel pain. Pain is a subjective experience that requires a complex nervous system, and starfish have a decentralized nervous system with no brain. However, recent studies suggest that starfish may have the ability to sense and respond to potentially harmful stimuli.

One study published in the journal "PLoS ONE" in 2012 found that starfish have specialized cells called sensory neurons that can detect mechanical pressure and temperature changes. These neurons are located in the arms of the starfish and are connected to a decentralized nervous system. The researchers observed that when the arms of the starfish were exposed to hot water or high pressure, the animals responded by curling their arms or moving away from the stimulus. This response suggests that starfish may be able to sense potentially harmful stimuli and respond accordingly.

Another study published in the journal "Frontiers in Zoology" in 2018 found that starfish have a unique set of genes associated with pain and stress responses in other animals. The researchers suggest that these genes may play a role in the starfish's ability to sense and respond to potentially harmful stimuli.

Ultimately, it is important to note that these studies do not definitively prove that starfish can feel pain. Pain is a complex experience that involves emotional and psychological components, which cannot be studied in animals with decentralized nervous systems. 151.239.65.27 (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify - I assume you're looking to append this to the 'Sensory and nervous systems' section. Could you also please provide links to the studies cited so that this can all be verified before its inclusion in the article and include appropriate references when added? Tollens (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Typo under "Lifespan"

The text reads "larger starfish species typically live longer than their younger counterparts." This should be "live longer than their smaller counterparts." The proper version of the sentence is what is in the attached citation (55). 2601:602:8900:39C0:9916:A7E7:5896:B4E7 (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixed that typo like an ornery sharpei. Mr Fink (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Huamobel

Quoted from the featured article candidate discussion for this article:

• From "Human relations", subsection "As food": "but on "Huamobel" the people cut them up." What/where is "Huamobel"?

The original text from which this comes, Herbarium Amboinense, says this:

• Men plant het met enkelde leden, die men ſchuins in de aarde ſteekt, men vind het op Manipa en Huamobel, als mede in de Uliaſſers, alwaar het Tomu ſchittoe, in 't Maleits Buluſchit biet.
  • It [reed] is planted with single members, which are stuck diagonally into the ground; it is found on Manipa and Huamobel, as well as in the Uliassers, where it is called tomu schittoe, [or] buluschit in Malay.

Manipa is an island in the Maluku Islands, and the Uliassers (an old name for the Lease Islands) are nearby. I'd guess, going off that, that Huamobel is also in the Maluku Islands, and Ambelau resembles that name quite a bit. Hoping for some input before I change it, though. Saph668 (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC)