Talk:Tetra

This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fishes Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Aquarium Fishes High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hi all - does anyone know if there is a rationale behind some of the binomial names being red-links while their common name pages exist (and vice versa)? If no one has strong opinions on this, I'll reconcile them with some redirects. Debivort 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debivort - Wikipedia standard practice is to use the the common name over the scientific name. I often use the scientific (genus) name if the genus is small in preference as many of the common names are ambiguous. I think some of the common names eg: congo tetra, neon tetra, cardinal tetra are fairly standard - but there are some fish which have a number of common names (which vary by country) and so it might be better to use the binomial name in these cases. Hope this helps! MidgleyDJ 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It does help a bit, but my question primarily refers to cases such as Buenos Aires tetra Hyphessobrycon anisitsi in which the common name does not seem to be ambiguous, and yet the scientific name doesn't redirect to that article. Is there a rationale for this, or is it a missing link I could help with. FWIW, I think it was a mistake for Wikipedia to use common names as the primary article titles. Debivort 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Tetra (alga). Anybot (contact operator) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article says: "It is short for tetragonopterus, the former genus name of this group of fish...". Obviously there still is a genus in Characidae named Tetragonopterus. And as late as 2004 a new species was described , Tetragonopterus rarus, and according to Fishbase the genus still seems valid. The statement thus seems to be a bit incorrect...--Episcophagus (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. The genus still exists, as you point out, but it now only applies to a small group of fish, not to all of the tetras. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the oldest genus in Characidae (hence the name) is obviously Charax which was described in 1777 by Giovanni Antonio Scopoli and also at least Serrasalmus (1803) predates Cuvier's Tetragonopterus(1816). So to be correct... "most of", perhaps? ;-) --Episcophagus (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point. I made it simply "many of", to fudge the issue even further. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 9 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmaley2 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ashven20 (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]