This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A fact from Vision in fish appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 October 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Title
editShould this be "vision in fish" or the current "vision in fishes"?
Not sure if the term used generally would be fishes (plural) in this context. Robertlerner (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- My impression is that the entire article is written using cute language. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. "Vision in fishes" is abnormal English, but not overtly incorrect. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)