Talk:Parachromis managuensis

article title

I'd like to propose this article be moved, contrary to fauna convention to Parachromis managuensis. There are plenty of different common names and their usage various both within and between countries. This makes the current title (Managuense cichlid) ambiguous. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 19:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this fish has too many common names, but the names are not ambiguous though, as they refer to only one species (unlike angelfish). Personally, I'm familiar with "Managuense cichlid" the most, other people probably have different experiences. I think the reasonable way is to follow WP:Fishes and WP:Aquarium Fishes guidelines which say the article title should be using the Fishbase common name. In this case, it is "guapote tigre". Quite a weird choice in my opinion, but it'll probably do fine as the article title. --Melanochromis 04:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's (guapote tigre) strange alright. I've never heard of it. I'd argue that Parachromis managuensis is universal, accepted by fishbase and, in my opinion, a better title. I cannot see the point in sticking to the convention when it provides an even less universal article title than "managuense cichlid". MidgleyDJ 05:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for using Latin names except where the common name is widely used in standard (rather than hobbyist's) English. Hence "guppy" or "cod" are fine left as common names, but cichlid nicknames, L-number catfish (like "clown plec") and so on should all be Latin names. So yes, switch this to Parachromis managuensis. Cheers, Neale. Neale Monks 17:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote for a change to the taxonomic name. The taxonomic name is unambiguous, is a universally accepted scientific standard, and solves at a stroke any identity problems. In fact, I'm quite puzzled that the article has been titled "Managuense Cichlid" because for years, I've known this (along with many UK aquarists) as the "Jaguar Cichlid" (a name that has to my knowledge been in circulation since the days when the fish was classified as a Cichlasoma species prior to the Kullander revision!), and quite a few of my aquarist correspondents in the States tell me the name has common currency over there too, the only variation on 'managuense' being anything like as common in circulation being "Mannie". More often or not, in hobby circles the fish is referred to simply as a "Jag". As a result of all of this (and the fact that the fish will doubtless have a brace of other common names in other languages) use of the scientific name is preferable because that will be the universal point of reference for anyone regardless of their native language. It will also make life a little easier if anyone from one of the non-English Wikipedia incarnations chooses the article for translation (though I suspect that the German Wikipedia already has its own version of the article, given the bustle of fishkeeping activity in Germany). Calilasseia 19:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved. MidgleyDJ 21:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. I eliminated several double redirects. Now they all redirect to the new name. --Melanochromis 00:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The intro paragraph states they can get up to two feet in length, while another paragraph later on says males can get up to 13 inches and females slightly smaller. Could a someone with a better knowledge of aquatics and sources for aquatics info correct this? Males reach a length of 15-18 inches, females 10-12 inches

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Parachromis managuensis. 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/20060504160130/http://aquaticdatabase.com/wiki/index.php/Parachromis_managuensis to http://aquaticdatabase.com/wiki/index.php/Parachromis_managuensis

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) 23:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Parachromis managuensis → Jaguar cichlid – So, the last time a name change for this article has been discussed was back in 2007 (see "article title" up above). This article used to be named "Managuense cichlid," but was later changed to the Latin name and current title, Parachromis managuensis, on the basis that it was the least ambiguous epithet for the species. Which is true. Latin names are almost always less ambiguous than vernacular names, but they're almost never as concise or recognizable - for the same reason we have articles named Great white shark and Largemouth bass rather than Carcharodon carcharias and Micropterus salmoides, I'm going to propose that this article be renamed to Jaguar cichlid.

For the WP:CRITERIA of recognizability and naturalness, I present the Google Search results for the names listed in the article's lede (in order from most hits to least):

• "jaguar cichlid": ~93,700 results
• "parachromis managuensis": ~40,900 results
• "jaguar guapote": ~9,680 results
• "managuense cichlid": ~8,720 results
• "guapote tigre": ~8,640 results
• "aztec cichlid": ~4,090 results
• "managua cichlid": ~1,470 results
• "spotted guapote": ~812 results

"Jaguar cichlid" is more than twice as prevalent on the web as the Latin name. It's nearly a full order of magnitude more prevalent than the next most popular vernacular name, "jaguar guapote" - and if that's where we draw the line, then names like "managuense cichlid" and "guapote tigre" aren't even in the running. This is supported by Google Trends, which shows that on average, "jaguar cichlid" is searched for 47 times more than "parachromis managuensis" and "managuense cichlid" worldwide. We should name the article accordingly. Simple as. Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Cremastra (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose many vernacular names exist. The number of results reported by Google is not reliable (Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google_distinct page count issues). Ngrams shows both "Parachromis managuensis" and "Jaguar guapote" generally more common than "Jaguar cichlid", and the former scientific name "Cichlasoma managuense" much more common any of the others. The sites I find when searching for "Jaguar guapote" are generally better sources for information about the fish than sites that are returned when searching for "Jaguar cichlid", and I haven't found any sites that are good sources of information about the fish that fail to mention the scientific name. Plantdrew (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

  many vernacular names exist

  I'm well aware, which is why I brought up the Great white shark and Largemouth bass articles (esp. the latter) as examples of species with several vernacular names for comparison.

  The point of contention isn't "does this species go by multiple vernacular names" - if it was, those articles would be titled Carcharodon carcharias and Micropterus salmoides, and we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. The point of contention is "is there a vernacular name that's used significantly more often than any other?" I contend there is, and that it's "jaguar cichlid." You contend there isn't, and that we should use the binomial name accordingly.

  The number of results reported by Google is not reliable (Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google_distinct page count issues).

  I was under the impression a WP:GOOGLECHECK was fair game for this sort of thing?

  Ngrams shows both "Parachromis managuensis" and "Jaguar guapote" generally more common than "Jaguar cichlid", and the former scientific name "Cichlasoma managuense" much more common any of the others.

  I... really don't know what you're trying to do here?

  ...If the majority of hits on Ngrams are for a deprecated Latin name that hasn't been valid in well over 30 years, then that doesn't reflect well on Ngrams. It just demonstrates that it's heavily biased towards outdated historical information, and isn't an accurate reflection of current-day usage at all. If you really looked at that graph and decided it supports your argument, then you're either completely ignorant about the subject at hand, or you're sabotaging yourself. There are no other logical explanations.

  The sites I find when searching for "Jaguar guapote" are generally better sources for information about the fish than sites that are returned when searching for "Jaguar cichlid"

  If you mean FishBase - and I assume you do, since that's what most of our name information on fish is based on - it really isn't the best resource when it comes to Parachromis species. It hasn't updated its pages on Parachromis ‘friedrichsthalli’ or Parachromis ‘loisellei’ to account for the change in nomenclature from 2018. It is 5-6 years out of date at this point.

  and I haven't found any sites that are good sources of information about the fish that fail to mention the scientific name.

  I think you would be hard-pressed to find a good source of information about any species of cichlid that fails to mention its scientific name. That's the sort of glaringly obvious omission that would immediately call that source's validity into question. That doesn't mean every article about cichlids on Wikipedia should be titled by their scientific name - we have articles like Texas cichlid, Convict cichlid, and Green terror because one of their vernacular names has entered common parlance moreso than any other, binomial or otherwise. The same is true for jaguar cichlids, and the article title should reflect that.

  Once again, I direct your attention to Google Trends, which is recommended by Wikipedia:Search engine test#Specific uses of search engines in Wikipedia. If >90% of the English-speaking world calls it a "jaguar cichlid," then it's a jaguar cichlid, full stop.

  Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC); amended at 01:07 01:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment The previous example you link, Talk:Aenigmachanna gollum, mentions the Google test with the caveat that there are admittedly many pitfalls with a WP:GOOGLETEST, one of which is that less reliable sources are picked up with more reliable sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose When multiple vernacular names are used for a taxon, the binomial is the name that should be used. Its important to remember that at no point do anming conventions say DO NOT consider the taxon name as part of the possible names for an article, and they only list the absolutely glaringly obvious examples of vernacular names (chosen nearly 20 years ago) while ignoring the vast gray areas the wording produced at that point. Its not up to WP to choose which vernacular is correct, but it is important to remember that redirects are cheep and ledes mention alternative names. Additionally as Plantdew and Chaotic Enby note, google is far from infallible with the quality of websites and mirrors it will return for a search.

Relisting comment: More participation, and less calling-other-editors-possibly-completely-ignorant, is needed. Cremastra (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. Any closer can close this anytime. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Central America, WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and WikiProject Fishes have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, the binomial is precise and unambiguous. In articles about lesser known species with multiple vernacular names, and where there is no equivalent of the International Ornithological Committee's list of official names, the binomial should be used. Quetzal1964 (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Even if one of the multiple common names is often used as a search term, that can be addressed by the use of a redirect, so readers searching for it will still be brought here. But I agree with editors above, that there are simply too many frequently used common names for this species for us to select one of them as the page name, whereas the binomial is an unambiguous and correct name. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons already covered above. There are too many other vernacular names (see Fishbase for a more complete list). The scientific name is unambiguous and redirects can cover alternative searches,  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.