The bulk update request #10843 has been rejected.

create implication eelpout (1) -> scorpaeniform (125)
create implication lumpsucker (9) -> scorpaeniform (125)
create implication scorpionfish (5) -> scorpaeniform (125)
create implication snailfish (1) -> scorpaeniform (125)
create implication stickleback (2) -> scorpaeniform (125)
create implication stonefish (2) -> scorpaeniform (125)
create implication wolffish (5) -> scorpaeniform (125)
create implication atlantic_wolffish (2) -> wolffish (5)
create implication striped_wolffish (1) -> wolffish (5)
create implication wolf_eel (1) -> wolffish (5)

Reason: Slotting various small fish tags into the tree.

EDIT: The bulk update request #10843 (forum #444913) has been rejected by @pleaseletmein.

Scorpaeniformes according to Wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be a good common name for the order that we can use, so this is a case when we'll pretty much need to stick to the scientific name.

Something to note is Wikipedia is outdated when it comes to ichthyology.

As per Encyclopedia of Life, FishBase, and Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes, Scorpaeniformes is not an accepted fish order. Interestingly - so it is according to SOME Wikipedia pages. For example the Wikipedia article for the Wolf Eel has correct taxonomy for it - putting it under Zoarcoidei of Perciformes. The only larger source that seems to recognise Scorpaeniformes is GBIF, but GBIF is very often outdated by several years (or decades in some instances)

What I am saying is none of the fish in the BUR are scorpaeniforms because scorpaeniforms aren't really a thing nowadays. The fish in the BUR all belong to either Scorpaenoidei, Gasterosteidei, or Zoarcoidei of order Perciformes. The issue is, the perciform tag seems to not have any implications attached whatsoever. I'd suggest adding suborder-specific tags (zoarcoid, scorpaenoid, percoid) and then having them imply perciform, then in turn having perciform imply fish.

On a sidenote, I'd say using 'wolf eel' as opposed to 'wolf fish' for a tag is the better choice. There is another unrelated species of freshwater fish called a wolf fish. Wolf eel is significantly less ambiguous. Even if not, the last part of the BUR here should be an alias, not an implication.

The bulk update request #10843 (forum #444913) has been rejected by @pleaseletmein.

bugabond said:
Something to note is Wikipedia is outdated when it comes to ichthyology.

As per Encyclopedia of Life, FishBase, and Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes, Scorpaeniformes is not an accepted fish order. Interestingly - so it is according to SOME Wikipedia pages. For example the Wikipedia article for the Wolf Eel has correct taxonomy for it - putting it under Zoarcoidei of Perciformes. The only larger source that seems to recognise Scorpaeniformes is GBIF, but GBIF is very often outdated by several years (or decades in some instances)

What I am saying is none of the fish in the BUR are scorpaeniforms because scorpaeniforms aren't really a thing nowadays. The fish in the BUR all belong to either Scorpaenoidei, Gasterosteidei, or Zoarcoidei of order Perciformes. The issue is, the perciform tag seems to not have any implications attached whatsoever. I'd suggest adding suborder-specific tags (zoarcoid, scorpaenoid, percoid) and then having them imply perciform, then in turn having perciform imply fish.

On a sidenote, I'd say using 'wolf eel' as opposed to 'wolf fish' for a tag is the better choice. There is another unrelated species of freshwater fish called a wolf fish. Wolf eel is significantly less ambiguous. Even if not, the last part of the BUR here should be an alias, not an implication.

You seem to be much more knowledgeable on fish taxonomy than me, so I'll leave fixing those tags to you :P

(Though the wolf eel is a specific species of wolffish, idk why wikipedia has that as a name for the whole group)

pleaseletmein said:
You seem to be much more knowledgeable on fish taxonomy than me, so I'll leave fixing those tags to you :P

I can try and put a BUR for perciforms today evening if all goes well.

pleaseletmein said:
(Though the wolf eel is a specific species of wolffish, idk why wikipedia has that as a name for the whole group)

I looked closer, and I have to admit that yes, you are right. Back when I last looked at that fish family I only came across two species (the Bering and Atlantic wolffish), but there appear to be five. The term "wolffishes" and "wolf eels" is pretty often used exchangeably to refer to the family, but there is indeed a specific species that's also just called a wolf eel, while the other four in the family are only regarded as wolffishes. This complicates things, because 'wolffish' is also a term used to refer to trahiras, so the tag could end up being a source of confusion. I suppose we just have to end up hoping nobody posts trahiras.

clawstripe said:
Scorpaeniformes according to Wikipedia. There doesn't appear to be a good common name for the order that we can use, so this is a case when we'll pretty much need to stick to the scientific name.

It is worth noting that even the subtitle for that Wikipedia page says "Obsolete order of ray-finned fishes", even though the article text itself doesn’t seem to state that it is obsolete.