The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mayan cichlid → Cichlasoma urophthalmus — Mayan cichlid is not universally used in the fishkeeping hobby (unheard of in Australia). Mayan cichlid is different from the common name given on fishbase. Many common names exist for this species. Common name is not in common use (or at all) outside the fishkeeping hobby MidgleyDJ 04:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support. The golden rule has to be use a Latin name unless there's an overwhelming case to use a common name. I don't think anyone would argue that "goldfish" is better than Carassius auratus but quite clearly in this case "Mayan cichlid" is not a ubiquitous name but just one of multiple names widely used. Given Fishbase uses a different name entirely, there is obvious scope for confusion. It's also worth noting that TFH Magazine recommends writers use Latin names and Fishbase common names (see writers' guidelines, here [1]). In the UK this fish is normally sold as C. urophthalmus and apparently Mayan cichlid isn't the name used in Australia, so while Mayan cichlid may be common in tropical fish shops in the US, it clearly isn't the standard name in the aquarium trade across the English-speaking world. The Fishbase name "Mexican mojarra" presumably has at least widespread if not universal use in science and fisheries management, so anyone using Wikipedia for research of that type rather than fishkeeping is going to expect to find content under than name or the Latin name rather than Mayan cichlid. In short, since it isn't even the standard name in the hobby, let alone fisheries management, ecological sciences, taxonomy, conservation, etc., the only safe option is the keep the content in Cichlasoma urophthalmus and relegate any and all common names to 'redirects'. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment. I'd like to point out that the golden rule isn't to use a Latin name. If there's such thing as "golden rule" for fish articles, it'd actually prefer common names over the Latin ones. Let's look at some related wikipedia policies:

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) - use a common name in English, follow group (wikiproject) standards, use the scientific name only if there is no common name, or if the only common name would be taken by a higher-ranked group, or if the only common name is needed for another article or a disambiguation page
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes and Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes - use the common name from FishBase, use the scientific name if there is no "official" common name. Use scientific name or another common name, if the preferred common name is taken by another article.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life - "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise"
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks (not directly related to this, but is also a parallel policy) - "Species articles should be named by the English name, not the scientific (unless there is no common English name)."

So, according to these policies, the argument for this article shouldn't be about whether the fish should use a common name or a Latin name, but should be about which common name to use. The name "Mayan cichlid", although not universial (so do tons of other animal names), it is not ambiguous either, as it refers to only this species (as opposed to names like tigerfish or minnow which can't be used for a species article). The same is true for "Mexican mojarra". But for some reason if "Mayan cichlid" isn't the right title, maybe we should consider another common name, rather than the Latin name. -- Melanochromis 19:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: If we apply the policy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life here (a sensible one in my view) the name of the article would be Cichlasoma urophthalmus. The "common" name in this case is not common (to english speaking countries or otherwise). The species does not have a "formal common name" (as may be the case with some bird species). Neither "Mayan cichlid" nor "Mexican Mojarra" are used in either the UK or Australia. Remember also WP:IAR: Leaving this article with a common name that's not widely used, and is ambiguous, for the sake of adhereing to a guideline (assuming the guideline applies) is preventing an improvement to Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 20:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: Melanochromis -- you've sort of made my point for me. There is no form or official common name for fish, except perhaps within fisheries science where there are standards for what a species is in terms of legality (so Atlantic Cod means just one thing, for example, in EU fisheries treaties). Birds are a special case because there is agreement on common names, as I understand it. My fear is that the special case for birds is being expanded to cover every other taxonomic group on the assumption they're similar; they're not. Trying to create such standards for WikiProjects actually worries me, because in more than one case the rule I know of it has created confusion. By the rules, Spirula (a kind of squid) was originally Ram's Horn Squid a name nobody uses in cephalopod science. Thankfully, sanity prevailed and the rule was ignored and the entry moved to Spirula. The reality is that practically common names are unreliable; even things like "wolf" can mean different things to different people. That's why science uses Latin names -- they're just better in every possible way (except perhaps pronouncability!). Hence my argument that unless there is a clear and unambiguous reason to use a common name, use the Latin name. In this case, the very fact we're discussing it means Mayan cichlid is ambiguous, hence I'd argue it's time to invoke the golden rule: use the Latin name and be done with it. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Neale and Midgley, I hate to keep arguing about this case because this is not a clear-cut one. And it's not that I don't see your points, because I do. I know there's WP:IAR to break various established policies and rules. But in my opinion, WP:IAR should only be applied only to the extreme cases, for example a fish that is known only by ichthyologists (and advanced aquarists), in that case the article should definitely use the Latin name. But from sources I found when I was researching for other articles (U.S. government websites, fishing websites, which use the name "Mayan cichlid"), this fish is also known outside the ichthyologists circle, as it is a game fish, a common invasive fish, and to some degree an aquarium fish. There will be some random readers like anglers searching for this article and I think they will most likely google a common name rather than a scientific name, remember that wikipedia redirects won't show up in google. On the other hand, experts who use scientific names would probably already have other sources, unlike non-expert people, and would not need to wikipedia this fish as much. I think this is the exact reason why various policies prefer a common name over the Latin name as the title. Wikipedia is written by experts and enthusiasts, but it is read by the general public. PS. are we gonna have to do this every time someone proposes a title change? Do you want to discuss about the policy at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) or somewhere else, so that we don't have to argue for each article? -- Melanochromis 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Melanochromis: Perhaps this is something we (all of us) need to take up with the parent project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes for future disputes of this kind. I would very much like to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes adopt a similar policy to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life that is, if the species has a common name which is used universally (ie: all english speaking countries), in common english usage (ie: not by fishing people or aquarists only): use it. Otherwise use the scientific name.

In this case, however, it seems very clear to me that Mayan cichlid is not a formal common name, is not universal (or used at all) in english (outside the US) and should not be used in priority over a name that is universal, is used in all english speaking and other countries. I stress again, no one in the UK, Australia or New Zealand is going to search for "Mayan cichlid" in Google. It is simply never used in these places. Ergo it's ambiguous and should not be used. MidgleyDJ 22:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose, although I don't deny that there are several common names for this fish. I just really think we should be sticking to the species-article naming standards that all other articles follow, which calls for a common name as the title. Moving to the scientific name may be necessary in some extreme cases, but I don't think this is one of them. Also, the term Mayan cichlid does appear to be used in academic papers (based on the quick search that I did), by non-profits, and American gov't agencies. It even appears that the fish is better known either for its invasive status in some places, or simply as a subject of study in its own right. This doesn't appear to be an extremely common aquarium fish, and the argument that the term 'Mayan cichlid' is too aquarist-centric, I feel, is not very compelling. So yes, there are several common names, but Mayan cichlid is by far the most common name that came up in my searches, and not from hobbyist websites. Again, it's important to be consistent with wikipedia standards with the exception of 'extreme' cases, of which I really feel this is not. As for Fishbase, I'm not really sure about that situation, but they do provide Mayan cichlid under the list of common names, but happened to elect Mexican mojarra as the Fishbase name. This may be an issue where Fishbase chooses only one common name for all of their language entries, whereas wikipedia maintains several language versions.-- Terrapin83 01:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

and I'd contend that the common naming standard on Wikipedia refers to "english in common usage" like white pointer, bronze whaler, perch, whiting etc. Using ambiguous common names like "Mayan cichlid" that arent universal in english does nothing to improve Wikipedia. This species is relatively common in the cichlid keeping hobby in Australia and I've never seen it called the "Mayan Cichlid" -- the scientific name is used here, or simply "uro's". In my view the scientific name is universal (even across languages - making links to other language versions of Wikipedia easier) and unambiguous. I think it's a case for WP:IAR. Sticking to this guideline (assuming it applies, and I'm not sure it does), just because it's a guideline isnt in the best interests of Wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment My worry is that standards used by birdwatchers are being applied to other groups, including fish and cephalopods, and in such cases they cause problems. Birdwatching isn't really a good template to use: birdwatchers have largely agreed on common names through their clubs and societies and since there are comparatively few bird species (at most 10,000 species versus at least 23,000 fish) using common names is manageable. Practically every bird is watched by some amateur birdwatcher somewhere (even ones that are extinct if that woodpecker in Arkansas is anything to go by!). The situation is completely different with fish and cephalopods. The vast majority of both groups are only seen by people working directly with them, i.e., fishermen and scientists. Most are known only by Latin names, and dozens of new species of fish are discovered annually. There are no "fishwatching clubs" or "squidwatching clubs" to manage the use of common names, but people in certain localities (wrongly) assume that the common names they use are the same ones everyone else uses. To take an extreme example, the name "gar" can be used for literally dozens of species across at least half a dozen families. Amateurs (e.g., aquarists) can often use totally different common names to professionals (e.g., scientists): the classic example is for Danio rerio, known universally as the "danio" in the aquarium hobby but the "zebrafish" in science where is it the standard animal for working on various aspects of developmental biology and genetics. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC) reply

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Neutral but here's some interesting info I found: "Mayan cichlid" is used by Belize Biodiversity Information System, American Fisheries Society, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and other U.S. organizations. It also seems to be the name used by anglers. "Mexican mojarra", which is the literal translation of its local Spanish name, is used by FAO's Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Information System. -- Melanochromis 11:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

The name "Mexican mojarra" is also used by Fishbase. MidgleyDJ 11:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC) reply

A general discussion on the naming of fish species articles is available: here. Please feel free to join in! MidgleyDJ 00:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC) reply

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