Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/May 26, 2023

Title page of first edition

A History of British Fishes is a natural history book by William Yarrell, serialised in 19 parts from 1835, and then published bound in two volumes in 1836. It is a handbook describing every type of fish then known to occur in the British Isles. Yarrell was a London bookseller and newsagent with the time and income to indulge his interest in natural history. He was a prominent member of several natural history societies, had an extensive library and collection of specimens, and a wide network of naturalist friends who helped him garner material for his writings, notably his book on fishes and the 1843 A History of British Birds. He followed Thomas Bewick's example with up-to-date data, accurate illustrations, and detailed descriptions. The woodcut illustrations were drawn by Alexander Fussell, engraved by John Thompson, and published by John Van Voorst. Yarrell died in 1856; the third edition was produced posthumously. The book was a commercial success and became a standard reference work. (Full article...)

Recently featured:

hist

edit

plural of "fish"

pursuant to this earlier discussion on wp:errors regarding the plural of "fish", i am raising this point again to confirm that the blurb's current use of the word "fishes" is acceptable, and to provide a discussion to reference if someone mentions it on wp:errors on the day the blurb is on the main page. (the first instance of the word is in the title of the featured book, so that instance is not in question, but the second instance is in wikivoice.) my understanding of the previous discussion is that "fishes" may be used when discussing multiple types of fish, which is the case here. in fact, the example quoted from lexico, "freshwater fishes of the British Isles", is coincidentally a subset of the subject of the featured book.

pinging the participants of the discussion at wp:errors (Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, Sca, and Bazza). courtesy pinging the fac nominator (Jimfbleak). dying (talk) 00:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for ping. Fish has two plurals, the -es version is prefferred, but not manadatory, for multiple species, and appears in the title of the book, not clear what there is to discuss, it's not like sheeps, deers... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Jim. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the book title is 'Fishes' -- which if memory serves appears in the King James Bible. But in current speech and publishing, 'fish' is correct, as in "How many fish didya catch?" -- Sca (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dying: I agree with @Jimfbleak and @Cwmhiraeth.

@Sca: If it was titled History of British Fishing and the Number of Fish Caught, I'd agree with you. But it isn't, and the situation now is the same as it was before: "fishes", when referring to types of fish, is fine in British English (if not others), which is the variety appropriate for this book. Bazza (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As said above, I agree that 'Fishes' is correct for the book title. Not sure about 'fishes' in modern British English, but then I'm not British -- civis orbis sum. -- Sca (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC) ;-)[reply]

Sca Chambers Dictionary "Fish" entry has pl Fish, Fishes with no qualifications. Now, back to my loaves and fishes... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:59, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fin wif me, chum. -- Sca (talk) 14:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]