Talk:Fishkeeping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Aquarium Fishes WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
Contents |
[edit] Notice to advertisers
Please note that Wikipedia isn't a place to add links to, or advertisements for, your company. The external links offered here are ones to informative sites. You are free to sponsor those forums and sites, or to advertise on them. But simply uploading an external link to your company's web site is pointless because one or other Wikipedian is going to delete it very quickly.
To find out more about what is and is not acceptable for inclusion on Wikipedia, please see what Wikipedia is not.
Neale Monks 11:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's a commercial site?
Rabid, on the history page for Fishkeeping you make a valid point: you could define a commercial site as any making money, in which case it is debateable whether or not they need an external link on a wikipedia page. Most of the pages linked here are run by hobbyists (e.g. Planet Catfish, Wet Web Media) and only incidentally advertise services, books, etc. I think most wikipedians would be happy about leaving them here.
The fishkeeping magazines are different, they are obviously commercial. On the other hand, they also run informative web sites (especially PFK, TFH less so) offering freely available articles on fish and other aspects of the hobby. So they're certainly a 'resource' in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia.
My deal with simply adding a company's web page is that they don't add anything unique to the article and they certainly don't offer any free information or services. If said company was sponsoring a hobbyist convention or web site, providing detailed articles on keeping fish, or any other kind of free, unbiased service then perhaps they would fall into the same category as the magazines listed here. But so far the only company to try -- repeatedly -- to add a blatant link is Aquatic House. I don't see anything on their site any different to any other that makes them a unique resource. They haven't added information to the article, uploaded pictures, or done anything to improve the article except to post an advertisement. And if we add Aquatic House, should we add all the other fishkeeping companies?
-- Neale Monks 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- You made some very valid points. I disagree with the statement that these sites only "incidentally" advertise. That is the nature of their existance. The site owners put banners, Google adsense, and other ads on their website that earn them money based on the amount of people that visit their site. Site on Wikipedia = more visiters to their site = more money in their pockets. Adding AquaticHouse doesn't earn money. Only if someone purchases something. If someone who is interested in the hobby of fishkeeping visits that article, is it not valuable information as to where they can get supplies for their hobby? Rabid 05:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Rabid, the page for Apple Computers doesn't have links to Macintosh resellers, and the page on Ford doesn't have lists of automobile dealerships. Likewise, there's no reason on the fishkeeping page to put links to companies that sell fish or aquaria. Should those companies wish to advertise on some of the sites or magazines referenced, then that's fine and proper.
-
-
-
- Besides, since Wikipedia is a global resource, putting up a supplier that caters to just one market, the US, doesn't really add anything for other users.
-
-
-
- Another issue is the way you've gone about doing this: repeatedly adding just a link to Aquatic House and no other content while vandalising other links in the process. If you want to make the case to remove links to some of those fishkeeping magazines and web sites, then make it on the Fishkeeping:Talk page and I would certainly read it and comment. Any susbequent edits or deletions would therefore be out in the open for other people here to approve, reverse, or whatever.
-
-
-
- Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Wikipedia is not a collection of links - Discuss
The collection of external links is growing. That's fine if the links are to places that expand the detail contained in this topic, but some of these links aren't doing that. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Those can go on Yahoo. See especially What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:External links On the latter page, take a look at Links to normally avoid, specifically:
- Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming. - Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. - Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
I've certainly added one or two links that would fall under these categories, and am considering removing them. For example, the fishkeeping magazines are debateable. While PFK does have a lot of freely accessible information, as well as news articles, the TFH site has very little, and is essentially advertising from top to bottom. Certainly the link for TFH should go.
Fish clubs (we have two in the US listed already) are another debateable point. I looked these over, and neither has any compelling information that stands out as a unique resource for fishkeepers. If we're to have clubs at all, I'd argue they should be ones providing unique information on specific types of fish, for example the Australia New Guinea Fishes Association or the British Livebearer Association.
We've had problems in the past with people posting links to commercial sites, shops basically, and so the more we focus the links on non-commercial, information sites, the easier it is to justify treating those commercial links we don't like as spam.
Unless I hear compelling arguments to the contrary, I propose to prune back the links significantly, leaving only ones with unique content and little or no advertising. Comments?
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. You're one step ahead of me, Neale. I'd been contemplating the very same pruning action myself...I just hadn't mustered up the courage to do it yet, though I recently did the same on the Corydoras page. Hack away. Neil916 14:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, I've removed all the links. Difficult to find useful criteria for which ones to keep versus which ones to bin. Any ideas? Neale Monks 21:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] External Links
What I've done is removed the media ones. All these do is attract other magazines, which is fine, but then we'd end up with dozens most of which are only sold within one nation. So, even though I write for a couple of them and want them to do well, I've deleted them. Likewise, no sites primarily designed as trading web sites.
Now, the remaining links I think should be general ones covering the trade from various perspectives (pro/con) and links to encyclopaedic sites with information on specific topics not covered on Wikipedia. So forums and the like are out.
Is this too arbritary? Any thoughts?
Neale Neale Monks 10:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] wild-caught versus captive-bred
I had an edit in the conservation section. The FAO doc stated that most freshwater ornamentals are captive-bred. THis report [1] claims that the opposite is true for marine ornamentals. Matthias5 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Nice reference. Thanks for adding it. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
