Talk:Siamese fighting fish/Archive 2

Requested move 26 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Don't sock to gain consensus; this will be seen as a bad faith attempt and a waste of community time. Don't push this. Lourdes 04:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siamese fighting fish → Betta splendens –

I think, according to Wikipedia rules, moving the article name is not mandatory as long as you provided an acceptable reason for the change and else. In case of disagreement then we can have an informal talk. What i moved is from an unofficial name (Siamese fighting fish) to an official one (Betta Splendens). As a matter of fact, the species that used to be called Siamese fighting fish was renamed by an ichthyologist Charles Tate Regan in 1909 to "betta splendens". Many people also prefer the name betta fighting fish. By moving the article to its OFFICIAL name will allow the information from other sources into the article (without limitation to sources from Thailand) and this will also avoid confusion that this fighting fish species can only be found in Thailand (be NEUTRAL) or belong to Thailand.

According to many researches and researchers, we can CONCLUDE that the betta splendens is NOT endemic to Thailand (Siam) although early travelers may found it there when they visited Siam. [1] There are several dishonest editions made by early editors. As in a case, the source mentioned betta splendens distribution to "Mekong Basin" but the text in the article wrote "..Chao Phraya basin". Another case is that a section of this article wrote that betta splendens is "ENDAMIC to Thailand/ Chao Phraya river's basin" without mentioning the rest although the original quote based on Vidthayanon (2013), a Thai ichthyologist and senior researcher of biodiversity of WWF Thailand, the species is “Endemic to Thailand, from the Mae Khlong to Chao Phraya basins, the eastern slope of the Cardamom mountains (Cambodian central plain), and from the Isthmus of Kra.” Now we can see how dishonest are the previous editors.

By the way, I think this Thai editor @Lalalulilalia is too nationalist, not reason-oriented, and aggressive (I can see through his previous discussion). Because, he is from Thailand, so he can't let the article title without mentioned "Siame/Thai". By the way, all my editions in this article are neutral enough with reasons. (Refer to my editions in history section)

Thanks. Hope we will have a consensus for this and be neutral to each sides. Again, I prefer the official name "Betta Splendens" for this species to the article and the reason is simple because it is the official name of the species renamed by specialists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antony Willianson (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have added the Requested Move discussion template. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep existing name First, there is no such thing as "official" names for fish, the comment above about official names are nonsense and typing official in all capitals does not improve the argument. There are scientific names and there are common names. Paraphrasing Wikipedia article naming policy and practice, where there exists a widely used and understood common name in English for something, that common name should be used for an article's title for the subject. In the case of the Siamese fighting fish that name is widely and most commonly used in the English speaking world. Yes, in the USA the name "Betta fish" is often used, but I should not have to point out that the USA is not the whole world. In any case, the proposal here is not to move the article to "Betta fish" and using that name to justify naming the article Betta splendens is a complete non-sequitur. - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per simple Google Oracle - 1.6M hits for "Siamese fighting fish", 900K for "Betta splendens". Now that's one popular fish... but it is significantly more widely known under that common name. Which is generally our guideline in these situations. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support to move the page to Betta Splendens There are some problem arising from the name of this article "Siamese fighting fish". First of all, the fish can be found in many countries including Laos, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, and Vietnam and it is not just native to Thailand.

These few days, I saw some Thai users on facebook took the screenshots from Wikipedia with the title "Siamese fighting fish" to mock other countries that this fish is solely belonged to Siamese (Thai) because the name of the fish is Siamese fighting fish.

It is so disappointing, especially when Miss Grand Laos designed the national costume of betta splendens with three colors (white, red, and blue) representing Laos flag and then the Thai users mocked Miss grand Laos of copying or claiming Siamese fighting fish. By the way, the Thai flag and Laos flag composed of the same 3 colors just arranged differently. Now I added a text from a Thai person “There is no such thing as a Laos Fighting Fish … The only origin of the fighting fish in the world is Thailand.” Now you can see how the confusion became more serious although the fighting fish or this kind is native to many countries including Laos.

To avoid confusion and misunderstanding amongst the Wikipedia readers that this type of fish is solely belonged to Thailand, I strongly support the name "Betta Splendens" instead of "Siamese Fighting Fish" for this article and this will also avoid future arguments by certain people using the screenshot of this Wikipedia article against the countries who have the same species of this fish. The name of this article is causing serious and nationalist confusion among readers.

Please take my voice into consideration also. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vongsa12 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC) — Vongsa12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Support Betta Splendens as the title of this article According to the researchers, betta splendens which also known as Siamese fighting fish is not only native to Thailand but it also native to Malay peninsula. In Malaysia, people called it ikan betta and we prefer the name Betta Splendens for the article to make sure that some groups will not use the title of this article to justify that this fighting fish is originated from Thailand (Siam) alone. The species is not belonged to any specific country. The title of the article matters in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidin112 (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Aidin112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Oppose per the WP:COMMONNAME evidence above. -- Calidum 10:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support to change the title to Betta Splendens Betta splendens is also native to Mekong delta of Vietnam, not only Thailand. I saw how the name "siamese fighting fish" for this Wikipedia article is making trouble and misinterpretation that this fish species is only native to Thailand or belongs to specific country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tran999 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC) — Tran999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Support the title Betta Splendens instead of Siamese fighting fish After seeing the concerns from some of us here that the name of this article would cause confusion regarding the origin of this species of fighting fish in the long term. I believe, we should rename the article with its scientific name or formal name "Betta Splendens". By the way, more articles for the relevant fighting fish with the heading betta...will be in place in the future. For example: Betta smaragdina, Betta bellica, Betta coccina,..etc are already in place. In the future, we will have the article for the one that we don't have now such as betta stiktos and the remaining. All of betta species better start with the title Betta--. THANKS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew 1115 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC) — Andrew 1115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Betta Splendens as the title I saw many Wikipedia articles of other betta species with the title "Betta". Let's make it for this species too. I think the name siamese fighting fish was first referred to any fighting fish found in Siam (19th century) but betta splendens was just one among many other fighting fish speciates can be found in Thailand and other natural habitats across mainland Southeast Asia. :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmaBlake (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)— EmaBlake (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - The Japanese eel can be found in Japan, Korea, China, Vietnam and the Philippines, the Bombay duck is not native to Mumbai (nor is it a duck), and the Portuguese man o' war is found in the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Seems like a silly argument to get blocked for sockpuppetry over. Somebody needs whacking with a wet Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis. nagualdesign 02:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is around zero percent chance I'd ever refer to this fish by its taxonomic name or know what someone was talking about if they said that was the fish they bought. WP:Commonname is clear and Siamese Fighting Fish is the common name. Slywriter (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Neophron percnopterus occurs from the Iberian peninsula to India, and across a broad band of central Africa. One place is does not occur is Egypt; but its common name is nevertheless Egyptian vulture. That is just one, if striking, example; as if plants and animals pay any attention to manmade boundaries. Narky Blert (talk) 04:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony Willianson. Lourdes closed this discussion correctly; the nominator created numerous sock puppets to self-vote this discussion to an actionable close. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal[edit]

@Zurkhardo: I've replaced some of the content you removed, simply because I could see no reason for the removal.[2] The rest of your edit seems good. Could you please explain why you removed that section? Thank you in advance. nagualdesign 16:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]