The bulk update request #9652 is pending approval.

create implication cartilaginous_fish (2) -> fish (82370)
create alias chondrichthyes (5) -> cartilaginous_fish (2)
remove implication shark (56345) -> fish (82370)
remove implication ray_(fish) (949) -> fish (82370)
create implication shark (56345) -> cartilaginous_fish (2)
create implication ray_(fish) (949) -> cartilaginous_fish (2)
create implication chimeraforme (0) -> cartilaginous_fish (2)
create alias ghost_shark (14) -> chimaeriforme (0)
create alias ratfish (1) -> chimaeriforme (0)
create alias spookfish (1) -> chimaeriforme (0)
create alias chimera_(fish) (2) -> chimaeriforme (0)
create alias chimeraforme (0) -> chimaeriforme (0)
create alias longnose_chimera_fish (1) -> long-nose_chimera (0)
create implication long-nose_chimera (0) -> chimaeriforme (0)
create implication short-nose_chimera (0) -> chimaeriforme (0)

Reason: all extant species of fish fall under either the Chondrichthyes "cartilaginous fish" (sharks, rays, chimerae) or Osteichthyes "bony fish" (everything else) classes, however we currently have all families/species of fish directly imply fish. I propose that we clean out the implications from fish and have it only implied by the classes instead (and, like, fictional species that aren't well classified, I guess).

BUR part 1 is just handling the cartilaginous fish.

• I went with chondrichthyes rather than cartilaginous_fish for the tagname partially because "cartilaginous" just kinda reads weird to me and the former is _slightly_ more populated. I really could go either way on this, though.
• going with chimaeriforme over any of the more colloquial names for the order for being concise while being relatively distinct, all of the common names are kinda a mess.
• ray and shark could also technically be split off again into Elasmobranchii, but I don't think that chimaeriformes are likely to ever be prominent enough for that split to really make sense.

The bulk update request #9653 is pending approval.

Reason: BUR part 2; part 1
deboning fish

The bulk update request #9654 is pending approval.

remove implication mahi-mahi (2) -> fish (82370)
remove implication perch_(fish) (5) -> fish (82370)
remove implication pike_(fish) (15) -> fish (82370)
remove implication pollock (0) -> fish (82370)
remove implication pomacentrid (210) -> fish (82370)
remove implication salmonid_(fish) (486) -> fish (82370)
remove implication sardine (33) -> fish (82370)
remove implication scombriform (229) -> fish (82370)
remove implication scorpaeniform (114) -> fish (82370)
remove implication serrasalmid (478) -> fish (82370)
remove implication stomiiform (15) -> fish (82370)
remove implication syngnathiform (452) -> fish (82370)
remove implication tetra_(fish) (2) -> fish (82370)
remove implication tetraodontiform (227) -> fish (82370)
remove implication tripod_fish (6) -> fish (82370)
remove implication trout (39) -> fish (82370)

Reason: BUR part 2; part 2
deboning fish (cont.)

The bulk update request #9655 is pending approval.

Reason: BUR part 2; part 3; part 1
boning fish _{ʚ(ϵ⁰ʷ⁰)϶}

The bulk update request #9656 is pending approval.

create alias osteichthyes (0) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication mahi-mahi (2) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication perch_(fish) (5) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication pike_(fish) (15) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication pollock (0) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication pomacentrid (210) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication salmonid_(fish) (486) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication sardine (33) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication scombriform (229) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication scorpaeniform (114) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication serrasalmid (478) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication stomiiform (15) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication syngnathiform (452) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication tetra_(fish) (2) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication tetraodontiform (227) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication tripod_fish (6) -> bony_fish (0)
create implication trout (39) -> bony_fish (0)

Reason: BUR part 2; part 3; part 2
boning fish (cont.)

salmonid_(splatoon), sharq, gajau are all copyrighted fictional species, not sure if these could imply either class or should be left implying fish directly.
werefish and fish_humanoid are left as-is for obvious reasons.
dunkleosteus are an extinct species of fish, and they're considered "armoured fish", another, separate class from the ones that are still around, not sure what to do with this.

if I made any mistakes in the BURs let me know.

edit: I guess jawless fish is also separate thing, entirely diffrent infraphylum from the rest of the vertebrate world.

maryland_p_sevenson said:
I went with chondrichthyes rather than cartilaginous_fish for the tagname partially because "cartilaginous" just kinda reads weird to me and the former is _slightly_ more populated. I really could go either way on this, though.

big +1 for bony_fish and cartilaginous_fish if we implement these class tags, we're trying to move toward common names where possible

This whole thread looks rather fishy to me.

maryland_p_sevenson said:

• I went with chondrichthyes rather than cartilaginous_fish for the tagname partially because "cartilaginous" just kinda reads weird to me and the former is _slightly_ more populated. I really could go either way on this, though.

Cartilaginous_fish is fine. We've gone with such words before, like unguligrade.

• ray and shark could also technically be split off again into Elasmobranchii, but I don't think that chimaeriformes are likely to ever be prominent enough for that split to really make sense.

To be fair, we don't really need to recreate the taxonomic tree in full, painstaking detail, just enough so that it makes some bit of sense for the average User. I doubt we need to lump sharks and rays in together any more than we need to lump cetaceans and even-toed ungulates or birds and dinosaurs together, though it can certainly be discussed to see if it would be worth it.

salmonid_(splatoon), sharq, gajau are all copyrighted fictional species, not sure if these could imply either class or should be left implying fish directly.

I'd just leave fictional species alone, keeping them implying nothing finer than fish.

dunkleosteus are an extinct species of fish, and they're considered "armoured fish", another, separate class from the ones that are still around, not sure what to do with this.

Unless there are other armored fish uploaded onto the site, then it probably wouldn't be worth it yet. Maybe revisit it once the extant species are all worked out.

maryland_p_sevenson said:

BUR part 1 is just handling the cartilaginous fish.

• I went with chondrichthyes rather than cartilaginous_fish for the tagname partially because "cartilaginous" just kinda reads weird to me and the former is _slightly_ more populated. I really could go either way on this, though.

Wait they why did you alias the former to the latter, only to have implications pointing to the former

snpthecat said:
Wait they why did you alias the former to the latter, only to have implications pointing to the former

because I somehow managed to edit the BUR wrong.

I was for the current BUR at first, but then I started thinking about the phylogeny. Just moving things one level up into bony fish or cartilaginous fish doesn't add much categorization in the long run. Looking at bony fish: is it a ray-finned fish or lobe-finned fish? Are they acanthomorphs? God forbid percomorphs?

Fish, unoccuivically, are tagged too broadly and ambiguously, and there's a whole bunch of holes.

• The orders Characiformes, Cypriniformes, and Gymnotiformes (the one with electric eels) share a superorder called Ostariophysi, and are thus all ostariophysians. Even then, they are a part of a clade with the suborder Clupoidei which hosts the whole mess that are the herrings, the sardines, and the anchovy family.
• ...but that gets into arguments of where parent tags should be set, and what would be tag bloat...
• Speaking of Characiformes, only 1 post is tagged with it. It's family Serrasalmidae has 467 posts, while the type family Characidae (common name "characin") doesn't exist as a tag.
• The loach (suborder Cobitoidei) doesn't imply to Cypriniformes.
• Anguilliformes aliases to eel, when rather they are "true eels". Fish called "eels" have convergently evolved in Notacanthiformes (deep-sea spiny eels), Synbranchiformes (earthworm eels, spiny eels, swamp eels), and miscellaneous families.
• There is no bass family; bass are polyphyletic percomorph bastards. Centrarchidae? "Sunfish". Lateolabracidae? "Asian sea bass". Moronidae? "Temperate bass". And then a bunch of species thrown about different families. At least the four-or-so different diamondback rattlesnakes had the decency to stay in one genus.
• The cod order (Gadiformes), type family (Gadidae), and even the type genus (Gadus) have not been tagged in a single post. There's only five instances of a "cod", and it's the ones from Minecraft.

I've been rooting through Wikipedia, WikiSpecies, WoRMS, even a bit of Encyclopedia Britannica, to try and map out the phylogeny. I'm 90% confident in what I have below, but everything gets contradictory looking into Percomorpha, which most of the order-level tags in your BUR (Istiophoriformes, Scombriformes, Scorpaeniformes?, Syngnathiformes, Tetraodontiformes) appear to be somewhere in.

I've made this drop-down three god damn times only to start over when I get to the perch family, Perciformes, and their related families (if they even are distinct and not subfamilies). And I haven't even looked into the lobe-finned fish yet, let alone the cartilaginous fish. It's gonna be a big project to tag fish properly.