Talk:Stargazing darter

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Merge proposal

I propose merging Snail darter into Stargazing darter. Recent research finds that these are not two separate species but are the one and the same[1].Thenightaway (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One IP commenter on the Snail darter talk page supports the move[2]. Thenightaway (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable thing about the species is the pretending-it's-a-different-thing-for-conservationist-reasons bit. Perhaps more notable than the actually valid species. So, eh. Probably should be merged but is the most notable aspect. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia currently follows Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes for taxonomy; I would say we Wait for now but I would Support the merge whenever this change is incorporated in there, unless they hold off on it due to all the political controversy surrounding this species. Most of this page is life history info that would help the rather barebones stargazing darter page, assuming both populations have the same life history. The stargazing darter doesn't even have its own image. The political significance can be on the Snail darter controversy page. For now I would wait until ECoF comments on this though. Geekgecko (talk) 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be relying on a single source for something like this. If the reliable source consensus is that the fish is not a distinct species, we should reflect that accurately and not wait for an "authoritative" tertiary source. -- JFHutson (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfhutson - just a note that it's not a single source and that an earlier source from 2018 (Gottsegen), which is cited here, makes the same argument. I'm not sure how long it might take for us to reach consensus since it's uncertain how many future papers on the same topic will be published. I agree that we should Wait for the time being. Kazamzam (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]