Talk:Barbus

About the references vs. external links, I removed the external links because the references with internet references are just as much references as the book reference, if not more. Fishbase itself is quite a good resource for reference quality information. The citation is in a proper format as a reference too. External links are more for related information, such as the "International Barb Foundation" (not that such a thing actually exists) which may not contain Wikipedia encyclopedia content but may be interesting nonetheless. --Ram-Man 12:26, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

While I can see your reasoning, I don't think that it's a standard interpretation of "reference" vs "external link"; in fact there are only a small number of articles that follow your rule. It looks like Wikipedia:Guide to Layout to layout is ambiguous; both the Reference and External links sections both say to add "web sites that you used or recommend", with no preference indicated. Personally I find "External links" handy as "look here for things you can click on right now" while "References" is "plan to visit bookstore or library at some point". Stan 15:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Those few articles may be the ones I am working on :) Let's see... under "References" we have "any books, articles, web pages, etcetera that you used in constructing the article" and under "External links" we have "web sites that you have used or recommend for reader". In the latter case, does "used" even mean "used in the article" or just used in general? I also understand your reasoning too. In any case, FishBase is actually a published CD-ROM so that in particular to that reference, the citation can refer to something other than an internet location, so in that respect it is best place as the reference that it is. Still I am not going to try to step on any toes and if the standard changes or is made clearer (by consensus) then I would be happy to consent to that. See Zebra Danio for an example of what I believe is a more consistent usage of the terms. --Ram-Man 16:21, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

The "References" section in the style guide goes on to say "and/or recommend", which is the source of the ambiguity. Stan 18:24, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Barbus vs. Puntius

In order to conform with the style guides prescribed by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes which uses Fishbase as the authority for taxonomic classification, I am in the process of adjusting the genera of the species to Puntius, which is how Fishbase is classifying these species. Neil916 20:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Changes

Added list of species - hopefully this is up to date - if not please tell me. Haven't checked through the list for synonyms etc. Also if a list with linked species names is wanted I can supply that.

Moved mentions of Puntius reclassification to a separate section

The article needs more info on the genus in general - if anyone else is working on this please let me know. Otherwise I'll try to add the 'standard' info eg lengths, breeding, food etc.HappyVR 17:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Also have linked to as yet unmade page "Barb (fish species)" this would be a page to deal with fish commonly known as barbs - possibly with emphasis or section on tropical aquarium barbs. The page should contain links to the relevant genera etc. Any ideas?HappyVR 17:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Authorship

According to "Catalog of Fishes" the correct author for the genus name Barbus is Daudin, 1805. http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp 77.186.55.70 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

List of species

The list of species seems outdated. "Catalog of Fishes" might be a good starting point. http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp

or Fishbase http://www.fishbase.se/Nomenclature/ValidNameList.php?syng=barbus&syns=&vtitle=Scientific+Names+where+Genus+Equals+%3Ci%3EBarbus%3C%2Fi%3E&crit2=CONTAINS&crit1=EQUAL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.187.226.42 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

77.186.55.70 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)