This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fishes Low‑importance 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.

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]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes has agreed to use Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes as it's source for the taxonomy of extant fishes up to the level of order. ECoF continues to recognise the snail darter as a valid species, that may change in the future. The latest edition of Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico also recognises this as a valid species. To merge the article on snail darter with stagazing darter while ECoF regards snail darter as a vaild taxon requires consensus. I, therefore, oppose this merger until ECoF recognises that Percina tanasi is a synonym of P. uranidea. Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Gottsegen source? If the argument is that an honest assessment of the reliable sources indicates that there is a dispute about whether there is a snail darter species, then I think it makes sense to keep the separate article. But we can't just give a special status to a single source for convenience. And if there is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to do so, that doesn't override WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS. --JFHutson (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]