Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 June 8

< June 7	June 9 >

June 8 edit

Template:Primitive fishes edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. The ultimate issue is there is no distinct criteria for what is or isn't primitive. The editors have pulled various sources that describe individual articles (I can't even say species of fish technically) of fish as "primitive" but there is no indication of what criteria those authors are using. I question how one can make a connection to form a series of articles based on (a) one class Chondrichthyes; (b) a subclass that is not part of the prior class Chondrostei and (c) an infraclass Holostei that is part of the same class as (b) but a different subclass entirely. What is the defining characteristic? This feels more like a method to WP:SYNTH a criteria rather than actually examining a criteria. If there existed a single source that said "here is a definition of what criteria transformed fish from being primitive to what "not primitive", then there is a logical progression. Examining Evolution_of_fish, it seems that a possible criteria could be following its timeline of Pre Devonian, Devonian, the fish to tetrapods period and then the post-Devonian era. Even then the Pre-Devonian section has no actual text and that would be the appropriate place for an independent article and where this template would be appropriate. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Primitive fishes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Apparently arbitrary grouping of articles, with probably little biological sense. cyclopia ^speak! 20:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary, no. Little biological basis, yes. It's seems to be based on the use of the word primitive. Sturgeons for instance being the most ancient ray finned fish. Alligator gar being virtually the same as they were over 100 million years ago. Simply this about really old fish. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyclopia Please see the discussion at User_talk:Apokryltaros#What_do_you_think_about_creating_a_template.... which took place before the template was created. It is not arbitrary rather it is a systematic grouping of primitive fishes in a series. AtsmeWills☯ talk 02:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While, yes, the grouping is arbitrary, the intent of this template is to help the readers look/notice/search for primitive extant fishes and notable "living fossil" fishes, i.e., sturgeon, alligator gars, bowfins and bonytongues.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "primitive" has little to none meaning in a biological context. More than that, it is misleading. It implies some sort of evolutionary ladder with species more and less evolved, and this is simply nonsensical: all species are evolved the same. See Primitive (phylogenetics)#Modern usage and views. It is a misleading, ill-defined and deprecated concept. --cyclopia ^speak! 09:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this template. The nominator's rationale, that the grouping has "probably little biological sense," demonstrates that he/she hasn't bothered to check whether it has biological sense or not. As a matter of fact, sources show that it does: [1], [2], and so on. Here: [3] is one that criticizes the notion of primitive fishes, but even that's not an argument for the deletion of the template. If a biologist takes the time to write an article criticizing the notion of primitive taxa of fishes, and Elsevier takes the trouble to publish it, there's a reasonable chance that a reader will want an easy way to read through the articles on these (possibly putative) primitive fishes. Furthermore, some evolutionary biologists try to draw conclusions about the evolution of this or that trait of fishes from primitive fishes, while others make cyclopia's argument against this practice; that all "species are evolved the same." On the other hand, the fact that this very argument is ongoing in the literature using the phrase "primitive fishes" shows that this template is useful, regardless of the correctness of cyclopia's view. See the basic google scholar search here for hundreds of examples: [4].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your check only shows that very few, very old papers used this nomenclature, not that it is actually meaningful or that scientific consensus endorses it. You can find papers that endorse homeopathy on PubMed, but this doesn't make it any less pseudoscientific. Now, about the "bothering to check", I am a biologist, so I think I have some vague idea of what makes biological sense or not. And in fact, if you look for "primitive species" on Scholar, for example, hits are very few and old. The concept of "primitive" has been practically abandoned in the scientific literature. There is no meaningful concept of primitive in modern biology, and there is no biologically meaningful relationship between the taxa included in this template.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a biologist so you don't have to check the literature? That's a good one. First of all biology, like any modern science, is complicated enough that specialists in one area often have little idea of what their colleagues in other areas are up to, and they have to check the literature. Second, once an editor invokes the argument from authority they've essentially already lost. Nevertheless, how old is the literature?

2014:

And so on. There are others from 2014, although in fairness many (not all) of them are citations of older (although not that much older) articles. You're just wrong, biologist or not, about the usage of this term in the literature when discussing fishes in terms of the recency of the publication date. It's not very few sources, and they're not all old. There are a number of fishes that are consistently grouped as primitive in the literature, even if only to argue against the classification. Is it not clear that a reader might like an easy way to read articles on all of these species? There may be no "biologically meaningful relationship between the taxa" in the template according to you, the putative biologist, but evidently other biologists find the concept important enough to write about regardless of their position on the concept. The rest of your argument is a straw-man. Obviously you're right about the concept of primitive in modern biology. Being right is irrelevant in this case because we're talking about a navbox. And who cares how many hits one gets for "primitive species"? This isn't about "primitive species," it's about "primitive fishes," on which there is an extensive (and recent) literature. And who cares about homeopathy? A navbox isn't endorsing the scientific validity of its subject. Why don't you go try to get Template:Pseudoscience deleted on the same grounds? It's a frigging navigation aid. Obviously there's a coherent subject to navigate here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And also, even if we steel-man your argument by assuming that at this point in time biologists universally agree that the term "primitive fishes" has no sensible reference, the fact remains that it has been in widespread use in the scholarly literature since at least the 1880s see ngram viewer results and that it is therefore entirely plausible that a reader, coming across the phrase, will want to get some sense of its scope. E.g. I read that an alligator gar is a "primitive fish." I look up alligator gar on WP. I wonder what other fishes are known as "primitive." I use the navbox. Voila.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're a biologist so you don't have to check the literature? That's a good one. - Quite the opposite, I am a biologist so I know how to interpret the literature, its weight and its context, something that apparently you don't know all too well. Yes, it didn't escape me that some recent papers still use the term. Yes, some recent papers still talk about lots of wacky pseudoscientific things -this does not make them believable as such. Individual scientific papers mean nothing - scientific consensus does. Finding only about 30 papers which talk about "primitive fish" in a biological context in all of 2014 so far kind of makes this point clear -the scientific community has practically abandoned the term. The example of homeopathy was to clarify that sources make sense in a context, and the context here is that consensus in the biological community is that terms as "primitive", applied to a taxon, are best to be avoided, and mostly devoid of meaning. About your example for Template:Pseudoscience, that template makes perfect sense because it clearly calls such things pseudoscience. Here instead we are leading the reader to think that "primitive fish" is a meaningful, up-to-date concept -which is not. If we want to call the template "Fishes that were called primitive according to obsolete terminology", then we may begin to agree, but what would be the meaning of such a template? Note that I would perhaps agree with an article on Primitive fish, because it is probably a notable concept, even if problematic scientifically. But an article can explain that, a template/navbox doesn't. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC) - Add: By the way did you click your own ngram link? It clearly shows that usage of the term collapses after the 1960s. --cyclopia ^speak! 17:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I will agree that this is not a useful biological term, I also am a biologist, I know little about fish - am a herpetologist. It comes up in herpetology as well. By that I mean its not phylogenetic as in referring to a related group of species. The thing is though this is an encyclopedia, not a research work on fish. So my question is also not whether or not its arbitrary, but is it useful to the encyclopedia. If it is then keep it, but I think making it clear its not a biological term is reasonable. If it has no navigational use then discard it. Our purpose here is to make it easy for people to "further read" on possibly related subjects. If they are interested on the actual biological relationships then they can read the relevant articles. So I think your both right, but aproaching this from different perspectives. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 18:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you implying the ichthyologists with doctorates who probably wrote much of the documentation/research you studied while obtaining your degree in biology (in what field?) are incorrect when referring to primitive fishes, or ancestral fishes? I think not. You may not like the title, but that is not a valid reason to delete the template. AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am a molecular biologist (with a doctorate and in process of getting a second one), but evolution and evolutionary terminology is the same in biology, regardless of them being fishes or yeasts. The point is not that I don't like the title. The point is that there is no such grouping. That a few papers here and there use it does not make it right, just like a few papers here and there do not demonstrate anything in science. "Primitive fishes" is a made-up group, something that you pulled out of your hat. What is the criteria to put species in the template? Primitive with respect to what? Would a species which is "primitive" (that is, I guess, basal, in itself a not-so-well defined term) with respect to a non-"primitive" fish group be included? Would a basal Perciformes be included, for example? @Faendalimas:, the problem is that it makes it easy for people to further read on a completely arbitrary classfication of taxa, giving the impression it is a real thing. If tomorrow I made a navbox about "strange fishes", claiming that scientific literature uses the term, I would rightly be deemed insane and the navbox killed. This is no different.--cyclopia ^speak! 10:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: I get that my question was a genuine question, I wanted to know if it had navigational benefits. Based on what I see now I suspect not. The question arose from my trying to put myself in the shoes of readers. I was thinking that could this lead to an interesting assemblage of fish that for some reason are labelled as primitive. But I gather that this may not be the case. I think you need to be cautious though you seem to be trying to use biological definitions and uses only, that may not be the best way to go. So based on what I see here now I would say Delete maybe when there is sufficient content a useful cat can be developed, maybe more aptly named also. But for now I don´t see its value.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Faendalimas (talk • contribs) 14:56, 27 May 2014‎ My apologies I must have forgot to sign this.. Faendalimas ^talk 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia, I did read my own ngram results. I understand that the use of the term is declining. I understand your arguments as to why that is and why that should be. The fact remains that it was a widely used term, and it remains a regularly used term. It must have meaning of some sort because scientists wouldn't keep using it if it didn't. As late as 1985 Springer published an entire edited volume on the topic: [5]. You can't seriously argue that Springer's going to publish an edited volume on a topic which had no clear definition at the time, even if that definition is now deprecated. If the topic was notable then, and clearly it was, it's notable now. If the subject was clearly delineated then it's clearly delineated now, even if the delineation is no longer found useful. Finally, your arguments are all theoretical: "'Primitive' is a useless concept in evolutionary biology, so it must be a useless concept in the evolutionary biology of fishes." This the fallacy of division. It seems to me that evolutionary fish biologists have a use for the concept of a primitive fish, and it may be that you're parsing it as a determiner+noun phrase, where "primitive" is modifying the noun "fishes" and they're using it as an atomic noun, "primitive fishes," in which case your theory is off-point. Anyway, the main points are that (a) the concept is used a lot so readers might want to browse amongst the fishes and (b) your argument falls prey to the fallacy of division.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alf.laylah.wa.laylah - Fallacy of division does not really enter here. What is true for evolutionary biology in general has to be true for individual taxa, otherwise it would not be true for evolutionary biology in general - if you read fallacy of division here you find an example that conveys the real meaning of the fallacy. Now, about your book source (1)yes, I contend that Springer can publish absolute nonsense (e.g. this), let alone something terminologically debatable (2)the very book you link (which is actually acts from a symposium) starts with the sentence What,precisely, is a primitive fish? Most biologists would agree that the living cyclostomes, selachians, crossopterygians, etc. cannot be considered truly primitive, indicating that it is not a biologically sound definition, more of a way of lumping together stuff for the sake of brevity (3)its definition, judging from the articles in the book, for example is not consistent with the one of the template, indicating that it is an ill-defined concept.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're arguing that because the material in the template is inconsistent with the articles in the book the concept itself is ill-defined? That's novel. Also, now you've moved from an argument from authority to an argument that your authority as a biologist trumps wikipedia policy about reliable sources? In any case, the sentence you quote is merely a warning to the reader against being duped by the etymological fallacy, which you have been. So primitive fishes are not truly primitive? So what? I addressed this above. You're treating the word "primitive" as a determiner which modifies the noun "fishes," in which case you're obviously right that the concept doesn't make sense. The fact is, though, that the ichthyologists who are using the term "primitive fishes" are using it as an atomic lexical unit, so any argument based on the fact that all extant species are equally evolved and that the concept of "primitive" is useless and misleading in evolutionary biology is fallacious, even though that's obviously true. "Primitive fishes" is a single word here. You might as well go try to argue that most "people's republics" aren't actually republics.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you're arguing that because the material in the template is inconsistent with the articles in the book the concept itself is ill-defined? - I am arguing that at the very least the template is original research, and at worst it is an hopeless non-concept.
Also, now you've moved from an argument from authority to an argument that your authority as a biologist trumps wikipedia policy about reliable sources? - Not at all. I am arguing that sources need to be understood in a wider context, and this is failing miserably here.
You're treating the word "primitive" as a determiner which modifies the noun "fishes," in which case you're obviously right that the concept doesn't make sense. - How else should one treat that? And even if it was in another sense, how is the reader going to know from the navbox?
the ichthyologists who are using the term "primitive fishes" are using it as an atomic lexical unit - This is total nonsense. They use it to clump together for the sake of brevity (or by being simply inaccurate) a bunch of basal taxa within a larger taxon, and/or taxa (perhaps) showing (some) ancestral features that were probably also present in the common ancestor of the group. That is the meaning of the modifier "primitive" they are using.
that the concept of "primitive" is useless and misleading in evolutionary biology is fallacious, even though that's obviously true. - If you agree that it is useless and misleading, why are we giving it to the reader as it was a legitimate concept? That is the point. I am not going to argue that at some point in history biologists didn't use "primitive fish" in their terminology. It is that a navbox presents it with a distinct lack of context, legitimizing a poorly legitimate concept. At the very least you might concede it might confound readers. Why not at least renaming and restricting the template to "Basal ray-finned fishes" , which has a better definition, is a more modern and meaningful term used in the scientific literature, and is less misleading? --cyclopia ^speak! 17:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made a successful argument that "primitive fishes" is a "hopeless non-concept." You've at best established that it was widely used in the past and is somewhat less widely used now. You've asked us to take your explanation of this on faith because you're a biologist. The sources actually disagree with you about the nonconceptuality, as you've at least tacitly admitted by saying that the concept of primitive fishes could support an article.
I don't know how to respond to this one. You're arguing in the face of high-quality academic sources about primitive fishes that there's no such thing as primitive fishes. Where are the sources that support your argument?
How else one should treat "primitive" in the phrase "primitive fishes" is as nothing. It obviously isn't a determiner modifying the noun "fishes" since, as everyone here agrees, the fishes aren't primitive. You should take my example of a "people's republic" seriously. This happens all the time. Lexical units are formed from multiple words which lose their semantic contribution to the construction. Think of putting someone on. What does that have to do with putting?
It's not nonsense. Why else would the editors of that volume be able to say that primitive fishes aren't primitive? If "primitive fishes" weren't atomic, that is, if the component "primitive" retained any semantic content, it wouldn't make sense to say "primitive fishes aren't primitive." This is linguistics 101. Are you a linguist too?
Now you're committing the fallacy of equivocation. I agree that the concept of "primitive" in evolutionary biology is useless and misleading for all the reasons you give. This doesn't mean that the concept of "primitive fishes" is useless and misleading and I never said it was. When you accuse me of "giving it to the reader" your "it" means "primitive" as wrongfully applied to species in evolutionary biology. I'm opposed to that, yes, but that's not what's going on in the phrase "primitive fishes," about which you seem to have been blinded to the content of the sources by your eagerness to stamp out the progressive fallacy in evolutionary theory (or whatever it's called). Now, I will actually admit that it might confound readers, and that an article on the subject would be most welcome in mitigating that risk. I don't know enough about fish biology to know whether "Basal ray-finned fishes" is an appropriate substitute, but I will say that the fact that you've conceded that your problem with the template might be solved by renaming it, a matter of ordinary editing, seems to me to be an admission that the template ought not to be deleted. We don't delete things if their problems can be fixed by ordinary editing. It seems to me that you've conceded we're dealing with a content dispute here, and TfD is not the place to settle such matters.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the point of this confused template, which currently sits on a number of inappropriate articles. I was somewhat dismayed when it first appeared. There is not even an article on Wikipedia called "Primitive fish". There is however Template:Evolution of fish, which already adequately covers much of what might legitimately be regarded as "primitive" fish. Instead of an unhelpful template vaguely dedicated to "primitive" fish, perhaps a short article could be written explaining some views on the use of the term "primitive fish". --Epipelagic (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (definitely) There are many educational courses that refer to "primitive" and "primitive fishes" in Ichthyology classes. For example, the Concept of Primitive Vs Derived [6] which states: Relative primitiveness, in an evolutionary sense, is measured in terms of similarity to a common ancestor; the more primitive an organism is the more similar it is to its hypothetical ancestor. The template doesn't attempt to define the biology of ancestral fishes, rather it identifies certain species that have evolved relatively unchanged. AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:00, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is an intrusive and unprofessional template, arbitrarily cobbled together in an ill-defined manner. There might be a case for the template if there were a well written article on primitive fishes, and if the notion of primitiveness was appropriately developed in supporting articles. But that is not the case here, and it seems that no background effort has been made at all to write the sort of material that might justify the existence of the template. Even so, it is not appropriate to develop templates to cover every wrinkle a subject might take. There is already a problem with inappropriate template creep in parts of Wikipedia, and this template is a prime example. The topic of "primitive fishes" perhaps requires an article of its own. It does not require a template. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intrusive? I disagree. The template is extremely useful in that it links articles in a relative series. For example, bowfin to alligator gar, both of which are primitive fishes that have remained relatively unchanged. That is extremely useful information in determining the concept of primitive Vs derived. Perhaps if more readers understood the primitiveness of these magnificent relics, they could develop a better understanding and appreciation for their existence. The template includes a list of primitive fishes that are now extinct which adds more weight to those species that have survived. – added by AtsmeWills (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then do some work and write the article on primitive fish, instead of messing up other articles with a useless template that fails to deliver anything. The template is also outright misleading. There is is no "series" of articles on primitive fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Everyone seems to agree that the concept of "primitive fish" could support an article. If there were such an article then this template would certainly meet the five criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX. The fact that there is not yet such an article therefore should not be an obstacle to keeping this template, as there almost certainly will be such an article at some point. Once there's an article, obviously readers will want to be able to navigate amongst the kinds of fishes described by the article. Why would they not want to do so now, before the article is written?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the template does not meet any of the five criteria listed in WP:NAVBOX. If there were a properly developed article on the topic, it would be largely self-contained and would not require a template. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The template simply links to other articles about ancestral fishes that have remained relatively unchanged; i.e. Concept of Primitive Vs Derived. It is helpful, not a hindrance. Also keep in mind that many of the articles link to a finite group of primitive fishes, the majority of which mention "primitive" in their respective articles. See the following list of articles that are linked in the template:

The Paddlefish article leads in with "Paddlefish (family Polyodontidae) are primitive Chondrostean ray-finned fishes."
The Acipenseriformes article leads in with "Acipenseriformes /æsɨˈpɛnsərɨˈfɔrmiːz/ are an order of primitive ray-finned fishes that includes the sturgeons and paddlefishes, as well as some extinct families."
The [[Sturgeon}} article states, "In that time, sturgeons have undergone remarkably little morphological change, indicating their evolution has been exceptionally slow and earning them informal status as living fossils." Not sure if "living fossils" is the correct term to replace "primitive fishes".
The Bowfin article leads in with "The bowfin, Amia calva, is a primitive species of bony fish related to the alligator gar in the taxon Holostei."

And so on down the list. The template is definitely relative to "primitive fish species", and quite useful in that it links a finite group of ancestral fishes that have remained relatively unchanged from the earliest fossil record. AtsmeWills☯ talk 02:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're grasping at straws. Do the work and add appropriate material to these articles if you want, but don't pretend that useful material is already there and that the template is pointing to it. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atsme for giving me a list of articles to fix. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It could be that Atsme means actually to group "non-teleost fish". See Fig.1 here. This would make more sense, since it is at least a somewhat well defined group. But in this case it would make more sense to divide Holostei and Chondrostei, not having a single template. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclopia When did you become the sole authority on primitive fishes, and templates? There are other editors with far more knowledge and experience than you have displayed who agree with the template, and the concept of primitiveness, and their beliefs are backed by mountains of acceptable WP sources. Please point to the sources that validate your position over the one you are challenging. Anyone who believes primitive is derogatory doesn't fully understand the meaning of the word, and will be well served to read the articles and follow the links included on the template. Wiki has policies that ALL editors are supposed to follow. I have followed policy, referenced reliable sources, and have avoided original research. What you are trying to impose on this template and the articles that are linked to it goes against WP:NOR. I counsel you to rethink your position. AtsmeWills☯ talk 15:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When did you become the sole authority on primitive fishes - Never. I am not the sole authority on anything; I just state what is the scientifically sound terminology. You now had two biologists here agreeing however that the usage of "primitive" to indicate that subset of fishes is not scientifically correct. If you want a template on non-teleost fishes, then perhaps we can discuss it. About WP:OR, it refers to the content of articles, not to editorial judgement. And if anything, you are engaging in WP:OR in clumping together a bunch of non-teleosts and calling them all "primitive fish", misleading the reader. The problem is that "primitive" is also a relative term; in fact according to whoever uses it, you find even trouts (belonging to a lineage first documented in the Eocene) defined as such. Could we at least find a clear definition of what do you mean to put in the navbox, and refer that? --cyclopia ^speak! 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a fair reminder to all of you biologists. Your expertise is prized and valuable and thank you so much for taking part in wikipedia, however your expertise doesn't amount to a trump card. I have not scanned thru every argument of why the primitive fish template should be removed but I notice one is backed by information published in a blog. Why should that self published source be taken into consideraton? Serialjoepsycho (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serialjoepsycho. This is a fair comment. I understand this difficulty. However the self published source we talk about is actually written by a prominent philosopher of evolutionary biology, and if you look at it, it refers to several books, by authors like Stephen Jay Gould, to support its claim. I understand however that it would help to find more material about the issue. --cyclopia ^speak! 23:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia:, while I appreciate your suggestion for a template on non-teleost fishes, it has no relevance to the primitive fish species (living fossils?) in existence today that have survived millions of years relatively unchanged.[7] You stated, The problem is that "primitive" is also a relative term; in fact according to whoever uses it, you find even trouts (belonging to a lineage first documented in the Eocene) defined as such. I invite you to read the information at the following link which explains why the salmonidae family phylogenetic portrait doesn't justify inclusion on the template. [8] The intended purpose of the template is to link articles about "primitive fish species", or you could say "ancestral species, or "living fossils" as long as the species has remained relatively unchanged since the earliest fossil record.

A Navbox doesn't have to be scientifically correct as would a Taxobox. There is as much difference between the two as there is between a large mouth bass and a pallid sturgeon, the latter of which is a "primitive fish species" which further justifies the template. I actually have done a great deal of research on ancestral fishes that are in existence today with relatively few morphological changes since the earliest fossil record, (notochords, heterocercal tails, bony plates, cartilaginous skeletons, etc.). Back in the early 1990s, I consulted with world renowned experts in the field of ancestral fishes including but not limited to the following renowned scientists who are pioneers in fisheries research, have written numerous books and research papers, and have been instrumental in promoting conservation efforts that have saved numerous populations of ancestral fishes around the world:

Serge Dorochov, [9] U.C. Davis
Patrick Foley, [10] U.C. Davis,
Paolo Bronzi,[11] ENEL S.P.A., Milano, Italy,
Vadim Birstein, [12] - among the scientists who helped developed DNA fingerprinting of sturgeon eggs to identify where a tested caviar egg originated, (he is one of the Wiki articles I have in the oven);
Sarwar Jahangir,[13] - Sarwar's "Starwar Project" helped developed the process for field testing sturgeon DNA to identify specific populations of sturgeon, part of the research that expanded into linking caviar to a specific sturgeon population;

Pat Foley preferred the term, "ancestral fishes" over "primitive fishes" because like you, he felt the word primitive would be misunderstood. I disagree with eliminating the word "primitive" all together because it's not our place as Wiki editors to create new phrases when there exists long established, widely accepted terminology. Books, published research, and well-sourced articles substantiate the correctness of the template, and that it follows policy.

Your argument about "grouping", or that there are no benefits to a series linking to other ancestral fishes may not take into consideration the key words, relatively unchanged since the earliest fossil record.

I certainly welcome your collaboration in helping to make the template better, but I strongly disagree with your request for deletion. AtsmeWills☯ talk 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is way over the top Atsme. Even if your claims that you consulted with some biologists are true, that is of no relevance to this discussion unless the biologists indicate themselves what they really think. And even if they did, their opinions would be of little value without supporting sources. Your navigation template is in fact not a navigation template at all. It pretends to navigate to a non-existent "series on primitive fish species". Even the subject of your template, "primitive fish", does not exist as an article on Wikipedia. In short, there is currently nothing relevant for your template to navigate to. You have been asked several times to deliver some substance by writing the article on primitive fish, or whatever it is that you think should be there. Then there might be a starting point for productive discussion. Instead you avoid delivering substance, and just go on and on, becoming more and more insistent about keeping the mess the way it is. There are five criteria which a navigation template should fufill listed in WP:NAVBOX. Your template satisfies none of them and needs to be deleted. The foundation work for this template is simply not there. If you write a coherent article on primitive fish then there might be a case for adding the article to Template:Evolution of fish. Without a lot more further work properly developing supporting articles, the topic would not warrant a special navigation template of its own. This is the laziest attempt at a template I have seen on Wikipedia, a template for which no groundwork has been done at all. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted User:Epipelagic, but it doesn't change my position, and it certainly doesn't provide a valid argument for deletion of the template, much less a general consensus. AtsmeWills☯ talk 02:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that your template fits none of the requirements of a navbox in our guidelines is a completely valid argument for deletion.--cyclopia ^speak! 12:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misdunderstood WP policy regarding templates. Anything that can be included on a normal page or article can be included on a template, including other templates (called subtemplates).[14]AtsmeWills☯ talk 14:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Atsme, are you kidding me? That is a help page, not a policy page. What it means is that there are no technical limits about what you can put in a template. Guideline-wise, instead, you have to refer to WP:NAVBOX.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: The facepalm graphic is adorable!!! Yes, it was a "help" page because I was trying to help you, but it obviously didn't work. It appears you still require more information so let's start with the following: Navigation templates provide navigation between related articles. The relationship has already been established over and over again throughout this discussion, but for some reason, you refuse to accept it. Let's keep it simple, "primitive fish", or even "fish with primitive characteristics", or "fish" by itself establishes the relationship. For complex topics in science, technology, history, etc., a navigation box can provide a comprehensive introduction to a topic. [15] I have already provided examples of how the template can link to your basal vs primitive argument, and also let readers know that basal isn't a herbal seasoning. There are many more references in the guidelines that support the template. What you appear to be having trouble with is accepting WP policy and guidelines even though your issues have been adequately addressed. AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: - And another fail, since you quote and link an essay, not a consensual guideline or policy. Not that your quote means anything: given that there is no real topic to have a comprehensive introduction to. Again, the guideline is WP:NAVBOX. There are five points for a navigational template that should be met. Your template meets none. I guess that if there is someone having problems with guidelines and policies, it is not myself, given that you consistently fail even at linking one of them. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~One last comment in my closing argument~~ - many scientists seem to harbor the idea that '"basal"' is the proper replacement for '"primitive"'. Basal VS derived relates more to the order of divergence, while primitive VS derived relates more to the degree of morphological change. The intent of the template is to link articles about fishes that have remained relatively unchanged. In this sense sturgeon, paddlefish, alligator gar, bowfin, sharks, etc. are indeed "primitive" compared with most other extant groups, and why it justifies a template (navbox) that links these magnificent living fossils in a series on primitive fish species. AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will answer to the rest of the thread tomorrow, but this comment: "The intent of the template is to link articles about fishes that have remained relatively unchanged." demonstrates that your concept of the template, Atsme, is hopeless nonsense. All species of fishes, by definition, remained "relatively unchanged", otherwise they wouldn't be the same species anymore, basically. Haddock didn't change since it emerged as haddock -or did it? and if it did, why is it still called haddock? Or maybe you mean "relatively unchanged" since some arbitrary amont of time? And viceversa: how did sharks, as a group, remain "relatively unchanged"? Didn't they evolve? Did no new shark species appear? --cyclopia ^speak! 23:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also: it's not our place as Wiki editors to create new phrases when there exists long established - It is our place however to choose the best, less misleading, more correct terminology. Now you say that even experts you consulted advised against "primitive" as a term. We could therefore at least, if we really want to keep this arbitrary conglomerate of unrelated taxa together, make the editorial choice of preferring another term to "primitive". "Ancestral" doesn't strike me as really good, but it is perhaps a bit less misleading than "primitive". "Basal" would at least have some clear-ish phylogenetic meaning. --cyclopia ^speak! 23:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned earlier, I am not opposed to changing the title. I don't think basal is the proper term because it is far more controversial and misleading than the ubiquitous term, "primitive", which can be more readily understood by Wiki readers, the latter being of primary concern. Furthermore, it doesn't make any sense to stop using an established term for fear someone may misunderstand it to mean undeveloped, or the like, and replace it with a term few will even understand, especially one that is far more misleading and questionable. To quote Ronald A. Jenner, it's "basal baloney". [16]. There is also a WP article that further validates my point, [[17]], and the questionable use of the term. Are we in agreement to change the title to read, Part of a Series on Ancestral Fishes? AtsmeWills☯ talk 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just printed yesterday the article by Jenner, for my own reading :) - I know "basal" is too a not 100% proper concept (and in fact I remarked it above). Still it is better than primitive where you can read too here why and how it is avoided (and also read the summary I linked above on the abandonment of the term). I totally object that "primitive" is "more readily understood". It is more readily misunderstood, meaning that the reader will attach, in their brain, some meaning to that, and most probably this meaning will be misleading. It makes a lot of sense to stop using a term if it misleads readers: are we here to inform readers, or to keep readers within their misconceptions? Basal, at least, will be an unknown term, and will lead the reader to click it, so that they understand what we are talking of. A brief explanation could be included in the template.

Thinking it through I am not sure if "ancestral" is a really good change, however, and it is perhaps even more misleading. "Ancestral" means that it is at the root of a phylogenetic tree, that they are the taxa from which other taxa evolved from. I am not sure one can say that, and for sure one cannot say that for the species. Perhaps, paradoxically, the most precise term could be the simple "ancient", which is immediately understood, and refers to the fact that such clades exist since a long time.

But again, it strikes me as a completely arbitrary clumping together of species/groups. In general, I object to the whole point of the template, that of (mis)leading the reader into thinking that these species have some particular relationship with each other apart from "not belonging to a recent teleost group". Do we need this? What is the help to the readers? Are we providing them educational information, or are we misinforming them? Why not having a general template on taxa/evolution of fishes, instead?--cyclopia ^speak! 12:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An example of the problem with "primitive", and why we have to be very careful instead of blindly trusting every source. Atsme added a source on paddlefish being called primitive. I do not dispute that -the source indeed calls it as such, others probably do, and so saying "it has been called a primitive fish" is entirely correct. However look in the source at the motivation: "The paddlefish is a primitive fish--a survivor of an ancient fish fauna whose earliest fossil records date from the Late Cretaceous period". And now look at Gadiformes, the order to which cod belongs. Hmm, the earliest species of the group are from... the Late Cretaceous as well. So why aren't they considered primitive as well? The point is that the explanation of the source is a very simplified, to the point of being wrong, popularization (being someone who also does popular science, I know this happens all the time, even in very reliable publications). Truth is, the group to which paddlefish belong (Acipenseriformes) can be considered "primitive", very roughly speaking, because it split from other ray finned fishes before teleosts did and begun to diversify, and retains some characteristics that probably belonged to the ancestor of both groups. But most probably paddlefish are a quite recent, and quite evolved case of these "primitive" fishes. I hope this explains the mess we are in. --cyclopia ^speak! 13:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your concerns,Cyclopia, but there actually are extant species that have remained relatively unchanged since the earliest fossil records. I have seen the fossilized remains of paddlefish first hand, and I have seen and netted paddlefish in the field. During my long spanning career, I have spoken at length with Mr. Paddlefish himself, the late Kim Graham with the Missouri Dept. of Conservation, and Dennis Scarnecchia with the Department of Fish & Wildlife Sciences at the University of Idaho. I have had the opportunity to work with paddlefish experts throughout the U.S., some of whom were pioneers in paddlefish reproduction and restocking programs, and I can assure you, paddlefish morphologically speaking have remained relatively unchanged since the earliest fossil records. They are an absolute modern day marvel. I can appreciate your brilliant scientific mind, and understand there are evoluntionary changes and genetic adaptations that the average person doesn't see, but that is information better left for scientists to utlitize. This is more a case of WP:NOTEVERYTHING - a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text. AtsmeWills☯ talk 14:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I didn't explain myself. I try again.

there actually are extant species that have remained relatively unchanged since the earliest fossil records. - As I remarked above, practically ALL species, in general, have remained relatively unchanged since their earliest fossil record. This is trivial, if they did change remarkably then they would be classified as different species (the one exception are probably domesticated species which underwent a lot of artificial selection in a very short period of time). What you mean in your confused mind is that such species retain morphological features that were shared by the common ancestors of them and other, more modified, species - that is what would be called plesiomorphic characters, technically. I fully agree that such creatures are biological marvels, and I share your enthusiasm, in having such "windows to evolution" alive and swimming in our rivers and seas. But this has little to do with scientific correctness and encyclopedia building.
I am aware of WP:NOTJARGON, but one thing is to avoid specific technical knowledge, another is to mislead the reader. I know, it is hard to retain scientific accuracy while being still accessible to the average reader -it is a conundrum I always meet when writing popular science articles. But one has to strive for it, and not just choose the easiest but wrong solution. And in this case (i) "Primitive" will mislead the average reader into thinking that such species are somehow "less evolved" than others, which is pure nonsense, but easy to fall into nonsense (ii) whatever wording we choose, we are still leading the reader into believing that this particular grouping has some deep meaning which it hasn't.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument still doesn't justify deletion. Again, it's the Concept of Primitive Vs Derived which states: Relative primitiveness, in an evolutionary sense, is measured in terms of similarity to a common ancestor; the more primitive an organism is the more similar it is to its hypothetical ancestor. Furthermore, to simply assume "Primitive" will mislead the average reader into thinking that such species are somehow "less evolved" than others, and then assuming they will understand "basal" is far from justification for deletion. It may prove beneficial for you to update the article on Basal_(phylogenetics)[18], add a section that better explains why basal is a better term than primitive (and make sure your update is sourced much better than what you have provided here in the event it is challenged), add the template to that article so readers who are interested in basal vs primitive will have easy access to the links in the series on primitive fish species. The template will actually help accomplish your goal far better than wasting our time with your request for deletion. AtsmeWills☯ talk 15:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact that is not my (main) justification for deletion. My arguments for deletion are that it is an entirely arbitrary set of articles clumped together under what is also an utterly misleading term, and that the template does not follow any of the navbox criteria. As I repeated above, I object to the whole point of the template. Changing the terminology would mitigate the disaster that this template is, but it is not a solution I see as positive for readers. --cyclopia ^speak! 15:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to admit it is hard to find scholarly sources about what is more of a shared zeitgeist among biologists, but I hope this can help people understand why the concept of "primitive fish" is a terrible idea in general. On one thing Atsme is right: not even changing to "basal", as I proposed, is actually going to be a good idea. So there is no other thing to do than to get rid of the template. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here it is well explained why "primitive" is a terrible idea when applied to taxa:

“

Are there primitive and advanced species, just as there are primitive and advanced characters? No. Not all characters evolve at the same rate and at the same degree in different lineages [...] so it is inappropriate to speak of plesiomorphic (or "primitive") and apomorphic (or "advanced") species.

”

--cyclopia ^speak! 16:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is also another interesting read on the mess between "basal" groups, and their being "primitive".--cyclopia ^speak! 16:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And another book source: "we cannot call species primitive or advanced". --cyclopia ^speak! 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And another: "clades themselves cannot be ancestral/primitive ("lower") or derived/advanced ("higher") as each clade will have a combination of ancestral and derived character states.--cyclopia ^speak! 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have already commented with regards to science in Wikipedia, and I've already quoted WP:NOTEVERYTHING for your benefit. Wrap your thoughts around what Wikipedia is not, and please try to understand that what you consider to be a terrible idea is not justification for the removal of a beneficial template that links a series of articles about primitive fishes. The fact remains that use of the term "primitive" has long been established, is properly sourced, and is still in widespread use. Webster defines "primitive" as relating to, denoting, or preserving the character of an early stage in evolutionary, or historical development of something: primitive mammals... The linked articles themselves provide the detailed explanations of the respective species. The template is not a Taxobox, nor does it make any such implication. Give Wiki readers credit for knowing how to read and use the template. Bowfishermen, snaggers, and anglers could care less about the argument over "basal" vs "primitive". Middle school and high school students will probably be googling "primitive fishes", not "basal ???". Again, refer to what WP is not.

You have not substantiated through the use of reliable sources that "primitive" is falsifiable with consistent accuracy, or that "basal" is the best substitute when it clearly is not as you've since conceded;
Your argument is not well-supported by many independent reliable resources, rather than a single foundation which in this case, includes your opinion and a few books that promote the controversial basal theory, which actually has nothing to do with the template itself;
Your argument is not consistent with pre-existing theories about "primitiveness", or its ubiquity and continued usage in highly reputable sources as what WP guidelines and policy recommends;
Your argument does not prove the template to be in violation of Wiki policy, much less contrary to science, or unacceptable, contentious, discriminatory, or detrimental to Wiki readers, the latter of which ranks high in importance. AtsmeWills☯ talk 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the fact that you want to quote WP:NOTJARGON, not WP:NOTEVERYTHING (which has nothing to do with this), Atsme, the point is not one of jargon, the point is that there is no such thing as a "primitive fish", and sources above state and explain very clearly why it is not a concept you can apply to species or other taxa. Now, listen to me very carefully: that a wording is used does not mean that such a wording is correct. We exercise editorial judgement in these cases. Who cares if the template is not a taxobox? The template is factually and scientifically wrong and misleading, as shown (finally) by several sources on the topic, and creates a concept of "primitive fish" where there is none. I conceded and agree that using "basal" is not a good idea either. The only good idea is to get rid of the thing completely. The "few books" actually do not promote anything, they explain that words like "primitive" can at best apply to characters, never to taxa. That something is ubiquitous does not mean that it is accurate. If you are worried about kids googling "primitive fish", no problems: it is a redirect to Evolution of fish, as it should be: plausible search term, redirecting to the correct article. --cyclopia ^speak! 21:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And not only that, but all your arguments are against the term "primitive," which evolutionary biologists, rightly so, rail against as applied to species. The real question is about what ichthyologists think about the term "primitive fishes," in which "primitive" is not a semantic unit, as proved by your above quotation of a source that states that "primitive fishes are not primitive." Everyone here understands and agrees with the point that no extant species is primitive from the point of view of evolutionary biology. The dispute is over whether there is a useful ichthyological concept of "primitive fishes." It seems to me that sources show that there is.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia: Maybe the following will help put the template in perspective...[19]. I don't agree with "prehistoric", but hopefully it will divert your attention from pure scientific theory and the applied sciences of molecular biology, which WP guidelines actually suggest we avoid per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'm using the link simply to demonstrate the "series concept" of the template as it relates to fishes that have remained relatively unchanged since the earliest fossil records, not to mention the popularity, notability, and ever-increasing interest from the general public with regards to these living fossils. The template doesn't distract from the Taxoboxes, or mislead anyone into believing something they shouldn't. The template simply provides links to articles that will actually provide some of the "science" you are so determined to share. AtsmeWills☯ talk 20:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme: Yes, it puts it in perspective. The perspective is that your link demonstrates there is people doing a terrible job at explaining science to the public, and that you want to do a terrible job here as well. Do you want links to articles on the evolution of fishes? There is a already a template doing that. Your one adds nothing, and still leads people to believe, like you, that "primitive fish" is a biologically sound concept. That you are victim of a misconception does not mean we have to propagate it.--cyclopia ^speak! 21:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyclopia:, you really need to read WP:CCPOL -

In its earliest form, the policy singled out edits for exclusion that:
Introduce a theory or method of solution;

Introduce original ideas;

Define existing terms in different ways; or introduce neologisms;

and established as criteria for inclusion edits that present:

Ideas that have been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal; or

Ideas that have become newsworthy: they have been repeatedly and independently reported in newspapers or news stories (such as the cold fusion story).

And when you've finished reading the above, read the following: WP:NOR

"No original research" (NOR) is one of three core content policies that, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, determines the type and quality of material acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three. For questions about whether any particular edit constitutes original research, see the NOR noticeboard.

Now if you will please excuse me, there are articles I need to be working on. AtsmeWills☯ talk 22:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what are you thinking when linking to me another essay that you seem to mistake for a policy, and WP:NOR - that I know very well, thank you. Nobody is proposing any original research here except for you. It is you who did the template following a concept that it is sourced as deprecated and misleading, when dealing with taxa, in evolutionary biology books. The burden of proof is on you to defend it. Whatever articles you are working on, I hope you don't taint them with similar disasters.--cyclopia ^speak! 22:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake Atsme, please stop this empty grandstanding and get some perspective yourself. There are countless other fish topics that have just as much a case for having intrusive side templates like your one. We could have, for example, a series of articles on Amphibious fish. Then why not one on Aquarium fish? Then as we get in our stride, we can plaster templates everywhere on fish articles. Any of the following would have at least as good a case as Primitive fish: Bait fish, Blind fish, Bottom feeding fish, Cleaner fish, Coarse fish, Coastal fish, Coldwater fish, Coral reef fish, Deep sea fish, Demersal fish, Electric fish, Epipelagic fish, Euryhaline fish, Farmed fish, Filter feeding fish, Flying fish, Forage fish, Freshwater fish, Game fish, Genetically modified fish, Groundfish, Hallucinogenic fish, Large fish, Migrating fish, Mouthbrooding fish, Oily fish, Rough fish, Paedophagous fish, Polyandrous fish, Pelagic fish, Predator fish, Scale eating fish, Schooling fish, Tropical fish, Venomous fish, Walking fish, Weird fish, Whitefish... and I don't think that begins to scratch the surface. Then following your modus operandi of creating templates that point to articles that don't deal in any comprehensive way with the topic the template claims to be about, we could dispense with actual content in the fish articles. We can just have templates pointing back and forth.

If you really want something on primitive fish then write the article. There is no need to impose this inappropriate template on otherwise inoffensive fish articles. Were you to succeed with that, it would be a triumph of flamboyant but empty style over substance. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, do we not think this may be getting a little out of hand. I came to this as opinion was asked for. I am a biologist but I am not an expert on fish, as I pointed out earlier I am a reptile specialist (taxonomist/ paleontologist). I think it is clear that most want this template gone. I am in agreement with Epipelagic in that templates like this are of little benefit, articles are better, and also with cyclopia in that the template is not entirely correct and makes assumptions that probably should not be presented considering we are trying to further knowledge. In reference to Serialjoepsycho's point I tried to keep my perspective on Wikipedia, not my views as a taxonomist, which of course would be much stricter. We are here to provide information for a general audience, it is not Bio 101 or a text book. We biologists, as in all specialists on WP have to be wary of not overstepping that issue. But there is also the case of arguing till something becomes almost pointless. I think this discussion has reached that point. Statements like grandstanding, cluthing at straws etc, demonstrate this. Might be time to close this one and I think a good case for Deletion has been made. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 23:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll simplify for the few who are unable to step outside the complexities of scientific theory, or who are simply unable to grasp the concept of WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and what is actually appropriate for inclusion in a WP article.

The following excerpt is from the preface of a book explaining the author's reason behind choosing the term "primitive fishes" for the book's title. The explanation further validates what other editors have been saying in support of the primitive fish species template, and further justifies the templates use in Wikipedia. Combined with all the sources that support the template along with WP policy, I see no reason to belabor the point. The template is legitimate, and there has not been one valid argument to justify its deletion.

Fish Physiology: Primitive Fishes: Primitive Fishes

"Primitive fishes" is a loose denomination that is typically used to describe species from taxonomic groups which appeared in vertebrate evolution earlier than the modern elasmobranchs and the teleosts. In this context, the term "primitive" is synonymous with the more scientifically correct "plesiomorphic", which indicates the possession of primitive morphological characters, hence characters that occured earlier in the fossil record than those by which dominant modern groups are defined. In most cases, primitive fishes are the extant remnants of taxa that dominated periods of the fossil record but comprise a limited number of species today. This has led them also to be described as "living fossils", "evolutionary relics", or "anciety fishes". Therefore, by selecting primitive fishes, we elected for a simpler descriptor, rejecting the more scientifically robust or more emotive terms. [20]

If the above reference isn't enough, following is an excerpt from another book: Primitive fishes are a relatively untapped resource in the scientific search for insights into the evolution of physiological systems in fishes and higher vertebrates. [21]

Other sources (and there are MANY) follow:

Genetic Switch for limbs and digits found in primitive fish - Science Daily - University of Chicago Medical Center - July 11, 2011 [22]
Primitive Fish Reveals How Humans Developed Faces, Study - University Herald - Feb 14, 2014 [23]
A primitive fish close to the common ancestor of tetrapods and lungfish - Readcube in association with nature.com - Chinese Academy of Sciences [24]
Primitive Fish Hold Key to Healing Spinal Cords? - Science Magazine [25]
Primitive fish used to develop treatments for humans - The Science Show - ABC News - Feb 11, 2012 [26]

In light of the above, I am of the opinion that the argument in favor of keeping the template has PREVAILED by a landslide. AtsmeWills☯ talk 00:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop patronising. None of this has anything to do with whether there should be a template. No one is stopping you from writing the article, though it will have to be written carefully if it is not to be misleading. If nothing sensible is going to prevail I might write it myself . --Epipelagic (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not actually, discussions like this are about achieving concensus, and the arguments of one does not represent concensus. Many of the arguments are off topic, as this is about the request to delete a template. As Epipelagic has stated you have a lot of info here with which to write the article. But I see nothing in what has been written that is an argument for keeping the template. Faendalimas ^talk 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the reason stated for the templates deletion - "arbitrary grouping of articles, with probably little biological sense" - which is simply not true. In the over 10,000 words in this discussion, it has become rather obvious that the real reason behind the request for deletion is the fact that a couple of biologists dislike the term, "primitive fishes", and/or the inclusion of any template in an article that isn't a Taxobox comprised of purely scientific terminology. That is hardly justification for removal of the template, especially considering reliable sources have been provided to justify the term which is a simple descriptor, ubiquitous, and easily recognized by most Wiki readers. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING and What_Wikipedia_is_not. The template serves a benefit by providing links to other articles about fishes with primitive morphological characters that occurred in the earliest fossil record which separates them from those defined by dominant modern groups. It's just that simple. The links in the template are not random, arbitrary or unrelated. The linked articles themselves are what satisfy the criteria for making "biological sense", the latter of which is not the primary purpose of a navbox. AtsmeWills☯ talk 12:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it has become rather obvious that the real reason behind the request for deletion is the fact that a couple of biologists dislike the term, "primitive fishes" - No. The real reason behind the deletion is the fact that the term "primitive" is deprecated and misleading, because there is no such thing as a primitive fish. Characters are primitive, not species. Yes, the term is "a simple descriptor, ubiquitous, and easily recognized" - and also scientifically nonsensical when applied to species, as shown above by sources on terminology. So, the problems are two: the template groups together animals which have no real relationship whatsoever between them apart from them being fishes (even belonging to different classes!), and it uses a word that cannot be applied to species or taxa. Let's put it this way: If one made a template with a bunch of amphibia and reptiles, and called it "Primitive tetrapods", it would have the exact identical scientific (non)sense of this one. Would we want such a template? --cyclopia ^speak! 16:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your reasons for deletion of this template, and now the primitive fishes category are unwarranted, and your persistent push for deletion has now made it a WP:POV issue on top of everything else, not to mention a waste of time that could be devoted to editing. Consistent and current scientific and mainstream media use of the term "primitive fishes" has been provided in multiple reliable sources that dwarf the few sources you have provided to support deletion. Click on the following link for even more evidence that supports the use of the template (and the category) - [27] - you cannot change the fact that the category qualifies under WP policy and guidelines even if it doesn't meet your scholarly scientific expectations, POV, or theories. – Unsigned comment by Atsme (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and think about what the other editors have said to you Atsme. There is no point in continuing with your obstinate stone wall of unresponsive text. You need to look in a mirror if you want to find who is pushing POV and wasting editor time. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to article, then delete or straight up delete. Read the above novel of a discussion for the basis for my rationale. Sincerely, Steel1943 (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that a similar category is also being discussed for deletion.--cyclopia ^speak! 17:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is bizarre that this has been relisted, since the consensus could hardly have been clearer. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a strange turn of events this template has been duplicated and renamed Template:Living fossil fishes Serialjoepsycho (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus isn't that clear, Epipelagic. It's mostly you and Cyclopia using the argument from authority and the fallacy of division against a mixed bag of genuine sources that contradict your position along with a lot of incomprehensible jibber-jabber on everyone's part (and I include myself). I think relisting was a reasonable choice.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This really doesn't seem to be a very useful template. I do have to question the encyclopedic value here. This whole thing is based around informal and nonscientific language or ideas. Living Fossils being the basis. So what is the encyclopedic here? To me this is a subtemplate more than specifically a template. A template made for the fish category of living fossils. wp:undue comes to mind. Not only are we giving weight beyond the article level for living fossils but we are giving it a subcategory level. wp:geval comes to mind as well. Why give equal validity here? Painted on the walls like that this actually kind of seems scientific. this stands as undue legitimization.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox domestic cricket season edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge if feasible, but let me know if there are any serious difficulties. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox domestic cricket season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Infobox cricket season (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Propose merging Template:Infobox domestic cricket season with Template:Infobox cricket season.
The redundant 'domestic' template has only 12 transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:!mark edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:!mark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:!!mark (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused, so it seems this is solving a problem that doesn't exist. 198.102.153.1 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as "!" and "!!" have special meaning in Wikicoding of tables, they should exist in an escaped template form, same as "|" and "||" already do. They should be documented into the template set {{((}} {{))}} {{(}} {{))}} {{!)}} {{!}} {{!!}} {{(!}} {{!)}} to indicate they exist -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- if this is so critical, why isn't it in use? 198.102.153.1 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably because it isn't documented properly -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And because it did not work. I fixed the templates including their documentation. You can have a look at them. Petr Matas 08:40, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note the purpose of this template is completely unrelated to the supposedly similar templates listed. If this were useful, it would be used. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's unused now, delete it and we'll see if someone else comes up with a use later. It's the equivalent of keeping red links versus mass creating very poor articles via a bot or something. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to do something to stop this PHP-esque band-aid approach to character escaping. That implies not inventing new unused conventions and hoping they get adopted. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:User name of box edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User name of box (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not exactly sure what the point of this template is... It seems like it would be appropriate for a user page, but a template? Thanks, Lixxx235^{Got a complaint?} 20:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes no sense, and userboxes should be separately applied, not as a group. It also appears to have hijacked a user's userpage, since the creator of this template is Wit of a twit (talk · contribs) and it was created in 2013, but the only person using this template is Yhuo (talk · contribs) who hasn't editted since 2011, therefore this is breaking a user's userpage by replacing their content (whatever that was in 2011) with something new they didn't add themselves. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The creation of this page appears to have been a misunderstanding. In fact, templates by this name have been created and deleted three times before, and none of the prior versions were appropriate as templates either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Rodrigo Cortés edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rodrigo Cortés (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Only two entries —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WPFF Welcome edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPFF Welcome (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no need to keep a welcome for a historical project. Frietjes (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WPFF Announce 2 edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPFF Announce 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WPFF Review edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPFF Review (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

project has been absorbed, template no longer needed. Frietjes (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vietnamese Americans by location edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vietnamese Americans by location (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

no enough working links. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:WTMED TOC edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:49, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WTMED TOC (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:X-American-list-end edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:X-American-list-end (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused. Frietjes (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is part of a set, {{X-American-list-start}}, {{X-American-list-entry}} -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:YouTubeSubject edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:YouTubeSubject (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

unused in article space; probably because generic search links are discouraged per WP:ELNO. Frietjes (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Location map Pallavi International edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete; deleted as G7 by RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Location map Pallavi International (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Not used in any articles, purpose unknown.

Wikicode is not large, can be placed by itself in articles without a template if needed RaviC (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Waterson edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Waterson (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

I'm not sure about its scope but it's orphaned now. It's basically falls under WP:T3. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As creator I've got no objection to it being removed. It was intended to standardise biographical articles but we went another way about doing it and I forgot to clean up. Orderinchaos 04:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and unorphan it. It's not honest to orphan these things and then use that against it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.216.32 (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Main-PierClosure edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Main-PierClosure (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned template that is just a hardcoded instance of a citation. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Lunar crater references edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Lunar crater references (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Similar to the comment I made for Template:Latin phrases references, I don't think it's good practice to have a series of citations locked as a template instead of being substed. This is used in a lot of articles. This was discussed in 2008 but it's been six years and it doesn't look like there's been a gradual replacement with inline citations. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until substed It would need to be subst'd first into the 1433 articles that use it. So if you go ahead and do the job then sure it can be deleted. Otherwise deleting now will just cause damage to over 1000 articles. If you can make a bot do the job, then may as well! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. The question is whether to keep the template at all. For whatever reason, the discussion here is going the other way and I can't figure out why nine articles need a template while over 1400 don't. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (after subst) - This text is article data and belongs in the articles. The presence of this in template hurts the ability of new users to edit (as they have to figure out its a template, track it down, and edit it), and any change to the template could invalidate a particular citation on one the the pages using it (such as when a new edition of a publication is released). I notice that the references are kept intentionally vague becuase they are used so broadly, when we should be as detailed as possible; for example, citing the exact page of a reference in the particular edition it was taken from. -- Netoholic @ 03:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See, for example, this edit where I link to the actual page for the crater rather than the search engine that's cited here. We wouldn't make a template that lists "Library of Congress" or "Smithsonian" rather than cite the specific pages that are relevant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.