Talk:Bar jack

A fact from Bar jack appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 October 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the majority of St. Thomas' ciguatera cases are linked to the same species of fish, the bar jack, or Caranx ruber?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/October.

Wikipedia

Common names

Can you pick out the most commonly used 5-7 names and integrate them into the prose, probably under the taxonomy section. The list of common names isn't really helpful, as many fish (particularly carangids) share many of these names, and it creates a list which doesn't look great. You could also integrate the etymology section into taxonomy (maybe under a subheading), as it's really quite small. Kare Kare 03:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive made the edtions youve suggested. let me know if there's anything else i may be able to fix. user: ryan shell —Preceding comment was added at 17:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is, the genus this species belongs to is Carangoides, not Caranx. It is not an either/or situation. Fishbase and ITIS both list Caranx ruber as an invalid synonym, therefore could you make sure any mention of the true binomial name is Carangoides ruber? You could talk about the synonyms in the taxonomy section and/or have the synonyms listed in the taxobox. I would do it but i know you really want to ;). Anyway i'm going to see if i can whip up a picture of the species. Kare Kare 10:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, i think i changed all of the mentions but i'm going to go over the article a few more times just to me sureRyan shell 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know Ryan, after researching the species, it seems certain the bar jack should be placed in the genus Caranx, a genetic study even placed it there recently. I wonder when fishbase and itis will catch up? Anyway, you have Caranx ruber redirecting here, so its not really a huge issue. Kare Kare (talk) 07:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool! i guess we'll have to keep an eye on fishbaseand itis. i'll change the latin name for now, but if any paper gets published suggesting the contrary, we'll have to wait to see academia will resolve everything. peace!Ryan shell (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up, i didn't suggest we change the Latin names, i was simply remarking on the issue. We follow fishbase and itis on classification matters unless an undisputed taxonomic paper is released (which fishbase and itis will pick up on anyway). That has never happened for this species. Leave it in Carangoides for now, it saves messing around all the parent taxa pages. William Smith-Vaniz issupposedly working on a taxonomic revision of Carangoides or Caranx, it should be resolved then. Cheers Kare Kare (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thanks for undoing those edits for me. peace. Ryan shell (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yag?

Yag redirects here. Is that another name for this fish or something? ChaosMaster (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it's another name, but if it means something else, feel free to turn yag into a disambiguation. peace. Ryan shell (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure its not some kind of joke? Yag backwards is...

Kare Kare (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

pretty sure, i took it from one of the external links. by the looks of things though yag is portuguese, which shouldn't be here anyway- my mistake. i still think the page still has potential as a disambiguation page for other topics though, i mean its a three letter combination, there's probably some group or something, i'll look into it. Ryan shell (talk) 11:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so i found a page called YAG, and i moved the redirect there. doesn't look like it creates any problems..... Ryan shell (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

iucn status

Before i hacked up this page (sorry Ryan, i tried to keep as much of your prose as possible), the taxobox had the species as 'least concern' in the scheme of the iucn, with a reference which was just the iucns homepage. I did a search there and found no mention of this species, so it hasnt been evaluated, in which case the status should not be included in the taxobox according to WP:TX. Kare Kare (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cool. i learned about that a while back, i'm just havent gone through all my articles... i guess i'll have to start looking, thanks. oh, and by the way, don't worry about hacking my articles up, i see it more a "plastic surgery" when someone who knows what they're doing. peace! Ryan shell (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]