Talk:Surfperch

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 01:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Embiotocidae → Surfperch

• Request move from scientific name to unambiguous common name, currently a redirect here. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 18:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• These fishes are not among the groups the most commonly spoken and known of :: leave them at the scientific name? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever do you mean? The name is used commonly enough, and by FishBase. It doesn't refer to any other fish as far as I can tell from Google Scholar, and all Embiotocidae with common names seem to be called surfperches. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: those listed here with names other than "surfperch" have alternative names including this and/or similar names. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN. No evidence of ambiguity has been presented in the weeks since the nomination. — AjaxSmack 03:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edition: LLM?

@RoundSe404 made a very large addition to the article recently. I am bit concerned it was generated by a Large Langue Model, like ChatGPT. See Wikipedia:Large language models and Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing. LLMs will introduce errors and make stuff up. For example the article says "are easily found by a scaled ridge along the dorsal fins" but the citation just says "a single continuous dorsal fin". LLMs can be useful, but only if each source and statement has been verified by a human (which naturally happens when a human writes anyway). Can we have confidence in this addition? Commander Keane (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bloopityboop: I see you extensively edited the article. Did you check RoundSe404's additions per my comment above? Commander Keane (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, like you I also suspect it was LLM generated. I made an attempt to correct as much inaccurate information as I can. Some of the claims actually only pertained to one particular species, and I removed those where I found them. However, I suspect the reproduction section still has such issues. The conservation section also still needs proof-reading. The claim about the scaled ridge was correct, just phrased badly. Bloopityboop (talk) 03:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Bloopityboop. You can, and should, viciously remove anything suspect - basically anything introduced by RoundSe404. It is now impossible to see what has been checked and what is made up. Commander Keane (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Finished. There remains one claim that seems correct to me but has an irrelevant citation. Two more that also seem correct but need verification as I have only a partial copy of Inland fishes of California. These I have marked. Edit: I have attained a copy of the book, and verified them myself. Bloopityboop (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Awesome :-). Commander Keane (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)