Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Aquarium Fishes WikiProject

Please feel free to post any question, suggestion, or comment. If you'd like to help the project, please sign up at the members section in the main page. --Melanochromis 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr pictures

Flickr has many wonderful pictures of aquarium fishes and some of those are under creative common licenses. So is there probably a possibility of using them in wikipedia? Has anyone ever used Flickr?

Anyway here are some really good pictures under creative common licenses:

All of these gorgeous pictures have some kinds of creative common license. I really hope we can use them somehow. Can someone give advice how to do this appropriately? --Melanochromis 12:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to approach the owners of these pics and ask if they can be donated to the Wikimedia Commons. After all, Flickr accounts can fall into disuse (including accounts whose creators are deceased) and so a permanent collection of pictures based in the Commons is probably the way to go. I'm planning on uploading some of my own aquarium photographs from the past 12 years to accompany various articles (including ones I've performed major recent revisions on, that happen to be focused upon species that have occupied my aquarium in that period) and photographs I've taken elsewhere when touring various public aquaria etc. Since these photos will be my own work, and I've no qualms about donating them free and gratis, I'll probably licence them on the basis of them being freely distributable. Calilasseia 22:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right. Maybe I'll join Flickr and see if I could persuade some to upload their pics to wikicommon. --Melanochromis 11:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm StubbsUK, please feel free to use my image http://www.flickr.com/photos/stubbsuk/134108495/. Contact me via Flickr if you require a larger version. StubbsUK 23 Dec '06

Thanks StubbsUK. I think your picture is a juvenile Red Sea sailfin tang. I just sent you a Flickr mail how to upload the picture. Cheers, --Melanochromis 10:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use any rainbowfish pictures unless the fish is verified not to be a hybrid. Many of the pictures in places like these and out on the web are hybridized rainbowfish. Roan Art 03:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The project focus (moved from Melanochromis user talk page)

Thanks for starting up this project. Long overdue. I'm happy to help. I'd suggest worrying less about trying to be a "how-to" guide (there are lots of those on the web) but focus instead on the background facts. For example, different types of filters and filter media (pros/cons); add aquarium statistics to descriptions of important fish; create or expand articles for aquarium-specific concepts, such as fish-less cycling, filter bacteria, spawning triggers, etc.

There need to be articles about the fishkeeping industry. For example, which countries are most involved as exporters and breeders of fish, which countries buy a lot of ornamental fish, and what the different trends are (e.g., where are marine reefs popular, or arowana, or goldfish?). The value of the industry should be described in terms of money and jobs, and also the conservation issues, fish breeding/farming, release of exotic species into the wild, and questions of ethics (e.g., feeder fish).

We also need our own "stub" with a suitable graphic!

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think I got a bit caught up when writing the project draft. I wanted to keep it short but once I started writing, I just couldn't stop. Feel free to edit or modify the project page though. I trust you. Originally I was hesitating whether to name it wikiproject fishkeeping or wikiproject aquarium fishes, but I chose aquarium fishes to make it in line with other project names (cat breeds, dog breeds, instead of cat keeping, dog keeping). But fishkeeping should still be our main focus anyway.
Like you said I think most fishkeeping-related articles are very much underdeveloped (except a few like marine aquarium). Yesterday I was browsing articles and stubs in the Category:Fishkeeping and realized that we need to come up with a way to do this. The fishkeeping article should probably be the first focus and it can be branched out, many of its sections can be expanded into full articles. At the present (15 December 2006), this article doesn't talk about the science of fishkeeping (water chemicals, filtration, lighting, tank set-up, etc.). Do you want to start with that?
About the fishkeeping industry, the article does have this section but it doesn't cover that much. Maybe we can expand it and/or split it up to a seperate article.
Anyway, I'm putting this fishkeeping article as our project "collaboration" and we'll develop it the way you suggested. And I'm moving our discussion to the project talk page so that other people can see and might be interested to help. Cheers, --Melanochromis 11:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll create the stub template for fishkeeeping articles then --Melanochromis 11:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fishkeeping stub

I created two versions. Which one do you like more?

 This fishkeeping-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
 This fishkeeping-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

credits to Neale for the second picture --Melanochromis 11:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The second version is chosen to be the fishkeeping stub. The template name is {{fishkeeping-stub}}
--Melanochromis 08:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice, though not proposed at the usual venue, and a little on the small side, according to the stub guidelines. I found a couple more, would there be by any chance another half-dozen of these articles rattling around that you could tag as such? Alai 01:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Format

Some of my major recent revisions should give other collaborators some ideas about how to proceed with the task of upgrading the stubs. I've adopted a similar format for my revisions, but of course there's scope for expansion. Other contributors are invited to take a peek and post some suggestsions here with respect to such matters as additional subheadings, additional links etc. Calilasseia 22:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Great jobs, Calilasseia!! The lemon tetra and the rummy nosed tetra articles are such a big improvement from the previous stubs. --Melanochromis 11:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Aquarium box" for fish articles

Hi all. I noticed that the fish articles in several other non-English wikipedias have boxes for aquarium care. This is like taxobox but it includes important aquarium data like temperature, pH, water hardness, size of fish, level of difficulty in breeding, tank size, etc. In my opinion, this box looks really neat, easy to read, saves some space, and reduces the awkward repetitive information in each fish article. Do you think we can create and apply it to our aquarium fish articles somehow? To give you ideas, here're some examples:

I like the Swedish version the best. What do you guys think? --Melanochromis 04:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a great idea. A large number of fish articles pertaining to aquarium fish seem to have information such as this (copied from another website, maybe), and condensing them down to an aquarium box would be nice. I think a mix between Swedish and French would be nice. The Swedish seems just a little too short, but on the other hand the French one is pretty long. Temp, pH, and hardness are all numerical things that can be condensed down, and will usually only pertain to fishkeeping, thus making them good for this sort of thing. Other things such as sexual dimorphism is unnecessary for the box, since they can be usually more easily discussed in the article without fear of stretching out the box. It's nice that the French box puts how difficult the fish is, but I am not sure if that is necessary; if a fish is difficult, it is likely it will be said why the fish is difficult in the article already, so labeling the fish as easy or difficult may be less useful. Natural range where the fish comes from is something that does not need to be covered in the fishkeeping box; it can be discussed in the article itself or included in the taxobox. But yeah, I think it's a good idea to have something like this to get a quick look at a fish's requirements. MiltonT 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree, an aquarium care box would be useful. I think the Swedish box is the most concise. It would save time too when new articles are being written.--Terrapin83 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nano reef article has been nominated for deletion

Can some project members drop by and weigh in on the WP:AFD issue, and possibly help? The primary complaint is lack of good references. Thanks! Mmoyer 18:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Mmoyer. I'm putting this and the link to the vote page in the January newsletter that appears on each member talk page. --Melanochromis 19:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Looks to me like it should probably be merged - unless there is a compelling reason why small tanks cannot be covered in the main article? Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 03:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Breed box" for goldfish breeds

I think it's time for the goldfish breed articles to get their "breed boxes". The taxoboxes aren't supposed to be used for animal breeds (see WikiProject Tree of Life guideline here). Dog breeds, cat breeds, and horse breeds are all using their own breed boxes instead of taxoboxes. And there are goldfish societies out there (e.g. Bristol Aquarists' Society) that set standards for each breed. But I'm not really an expert on goldfish and not sure where to start. Does anyone want to do this breed box? --Melanochromis 16:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Just want to update everyone that the goldfish breedbox has been created by User:DSWebb. Taxoboxes in goldfish breed articles have already been replaced with this breed boxes. --Melanochromis 09:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced, unexplained edits by an editor who will never discuss changes

I am again running into problems with a user who makes repeat, almost mechanical, reversions or changes (see all the various accounts below - all belonging to the same user). This user will not discuss changes and will not use edit summaries. On one occasion he/she was banned for violations of the WP:3RR and discussed the matter with an administrator - so the user is able to use english adequately. Most recently, this user has been active at Lepidiolamprologus where the user continuously adds an unreferenced addition of an "undescribed" species to the species listing.

This user has been variously active in Cichlid (where they continuously altered the number of species to 1900, 2000, 2200 - even 2500!), Maylandia, Altolamprologus and a few other pages. The great shame here is this user seems genuinely knowledgable regarding matters aquaristic - and, in my opinion, would be a asset to this project if they could be persuaded to work in a collaborative fashion. Thoughts on how to resolve this situation would be most welcome.

Most recent activity using:

Other accounts/IPs of the same user:

Anyway - this is probably the best place to list and discuss this problem, as the user seems most active on various aquarium pages. MidgleyDJ 20:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Lepidiolamprologus has been reverted again by this user. I've removed their edits again and requested, again - that they discuss the change prior to making it. I'm not sure what more I can do? MidgleyDJ 03:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
It's hard dealing with this user. I knew how stubborn he was with the cichlid article. He ignored our consensus and would't communicate whatsoever. What we can do is getting a neutral admin to semi-protect the disputed article. This will prevent any anonymous IP to edit articles. If he really want to contribute, he will have to register and hopefully that will get him to talk to us. --Melanochromis 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combine goldfish breed articles?

Okay, I'll admit I'm no expert on goldfish breeds, but the large number of goldfish breed articles bothers me a little. Care requirements for many of these fish also overlap. A good number of them are stub articles alone. This seems to indicate that some of these breeds don't have enough information to be good articles. I'm not saying that a single article discussing goldfish breeds will be enough, but it seems that we have too many. For example, the Telescope breeds could all be combined; for these specific breeds, the fish are almost exactly the same except for coloration, which I am not sure is enough to grant a breed its own article. The same may be with the Comet and the Shubunkin. Also, I'm not sure of the difference between a Crown Pearlscale and a Pearlscale, so someone who knows more about goldfish can investigate. Just my 2 cents. MiltonT 05:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I think some of the breeds do need to be grouped up. The more popular or more standard breeds are probably fine as articles. But other breeds/sub-breeds probably don't need seperate articles.
--Melanochromis 21:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Melanochromis' method that some articles are unnecessary, but I think it really should go on a case by case basis as to what should have its own article and what should just be combined. For example, the crown pearlscale and pearlscale is a good example of two that should just be "Pearlscale", but on the other hand telescope eye and black moor should be separate even though black moor is technically a type of telescope eye. It's simply so popular and old a breed that it deserves its own article. So maybe this is something that should be taken on article by article.--Terrapin83 02:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat disagree about the moor issue. Even though we can say that it has been in the hobby for a long time, this makes very little of its own information to warrant itself its own article. The differences, if any, seemingly could be summarized in a paragraph, unless there is a sort of "history of the Black Moor" that one could write about to reflect this main difference in that specific color morph. Calico fantail is just a color variety of fantail, and we can agree on this. On the other hand, the black moor is also a color morph (if not the most popular color morph) of the telescope eye goldfish. Two articles would probably be redundant, and one should just redirect to the other. If nothing much new or specific can be said about the black moor that would significantly differentiate its article from the telescope eye goldfish article, than they can simply both be addressed together in the same article. MiltonT 05:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Given the recommended article length is 32KB why not make a single breeds of goldfish article. Certainly most breeds dont (beyond stub class, as described previously) have enough information to warrant a full length article and I agree with previous comments re: repetition. One article would, in my opinion, solve the issue. MidgleyDJ 05:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
all extant articles on goldfish breeds could then redirect to this page. MidgleyDJ 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple format for this article may be something like:

  • Breed
    • History, origin and genetics:
    • Known health issues:

Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget these ones too:
  • Breed standards (that are used to judge a goldfish such as Bristol Society's, etc.)
  • Sub-breeds or styles (especially if we are merging crown pearlscale into pearlscale or something like that)
For the black moor and telescope eye issue. I'd like to point out even though people like to think of black moor as a black variety of telescope eye, they are actually treated as seperate breeds and have different breed standards. For example, the black moor is expected to have rounder fins while a telescope eye should have pointed fins and forked tail. Anyway, a single breeds of goldfish article might be a bit extreme at this moment. Just because they are currently stubs, doesn't mean in the future they won't be expanded by editors who are goldfish experts. Most fish articles are stubs anyway. --Melanochromis 13:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
True, but a single breeds of goldfish article would easily accomodate all of the extant material. I know dog breeds etc have their own articles - so there's a precedent for individual "breeds". I just wonder whether a breeds of golfish article could be bought to featured article status. The development of such an article doesnt proclude future splitting of the single article should it grow to an unworkable length. MidgleyDJ 05:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about a list of goldfish breeds instead of an article? I think this isn't such a bad idea considering that the existing articles won't disappear and it's also possible to get a featured list status (it's even more attainable than a featured article status IMO). Here are some examples of featured animal lists;

PS. meanwhile, I'm merging Calico fantail into fantail (goldfish) and crown pearlscale into pearlscale as everyone seemed to agree with this. --Melanochromis 12:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Website references

Previously commercial or general hobbyist websites were usually deleted, while a few websites with good species database like Planet Catfish and Loach Onlines were typically spared. But now it seems like they all have equal chances of being removed from the articles. So, I think there are things we should really establish:

  • What are the criteria to judge whether a website is referenceable (academic, extensiveness of database, usefulness to readers, etc.)?
  • How do we use these websites? As references, external links, etc?
  • Do we have a list of acceptable websites? Actually we already have a good list here, but do you want to reconsider websites in this list?

--Melanochromis 22:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in favour of using hobbyist websites as references. In my opinion, the kind of information that can be obtained from most hobbyist websites is also available in print and I'd feel more comfortable about using print references for the "in the aquarium" sections. Allowing some "good" hobbyists websites is problematic in that it opens the door for the inclusion of many, many, many other hobbyist websites. To give you an example uisng two good websites. I am perfectly comfortable using Dr. Michael Olivers www.malawicichlids.com as a source of information. It's primarily an academic site. In contrast I'm opposed to using Dr. George Reclos's www.malawicichlidhomepage.com as it is primarily a hobbyist website. Both are good sites - but I'd only use the former as a reference. MidgleyDJ 03:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with the above in some respects, since most of the information on rainbowfish that is in print is wrong. IMO reputable web sites (or forums) that cater to specific types of fishes are gold mines of information that you will not find on generalist sites. These are the people that actually keep the fish in aquaria and are the ones who really know what they are doing. That means that some or all of the information isn't listed in some handy-dandy database -- you have to dig for it. Some of the other sites that DO have databases or easy to find information on these types of fish have the *wrong* information. So, do you list a site with easy to find and possibly wrong information, or a site that someone may have to post a question but get the right information? Dat der's the question, I think. I'd think it a shame if my Bowheads! was removed because 75% of the information on rainbowfish out there on the web is wrong. We see it all the time in the forums. Roan Art 03:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
... and I'd argue that the "correct" information you are saying is on your (and other(s) ) website comes from some primary source. If not, it's original research that should not be published in Wikipedia - see WP:OR. MidgleyDJ 03:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that academic sources are best, but if hobbyist/commercial websites are deleted then the user who deletes them should replace it with an academic source. Also, how many academic papers are written on care/feeding/etc of fish species? Maybe hobbyist journals and books would be good sources for this.--Terrapin83 03:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hobbyist websites are quite different to printed material produced for the hobby. Printed material, while it may be wrong, can at least be verified. My concern also is that allowing one (two, three or more) hobbyist websites is problematic (as I've discussed above). We (aquarists) need to be aware that what the fish eats in the wild is MUCH more important than which brand of flakes it enjoys in someone's tank in north-west Queensland. I completely support this project -- and it's important to note that certain species are popular with aquarists -- but we need to remember the articles primarily concern the fishes biology, geography etc. MidgleyDJ 05:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to remember that the articles have to be well-rounded. If a fish is important to humans as game fish, food fish, or aquarium fish, then that is what the article has to be about too. Anyway, back to the topic -- personally I don't think we can delete all the aquarium sources. It should be a case by case basis, and that's exactly why we have this list (which everyone should have look and update it every once in a while by the way). The reality is that there are good quality websites out there among the generic ones, so why not take advantage of them? Especially when the articles don't have any other references. I'd rather see an article with a Planet Catfish reference, rather than an article with no reference at all (not counting the default FishBase reference of course). --Melanochromis 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Just for clarity, I'm not suggesting articles should not be well rounded - or should not include information about aquarium or aquacultural/food use - I'm saying it's unfortunate when the primary focus of the article is about aquarium use only (and implies the fish is only important because it's kept in aquariums). For examples of articles in this sad state see: Trichogaster_leerii, Trichogaster_trichopterus etc.
It remains my opinion that it is difficult to select certain hobbyist websites that are suitable reference sources - while rejecting others. It's not impossible - it's just difficult. I also appreciate the value of planet catfish and loaches online and that they are slightly different from standard hobbyists websites - but they are still difficult to verify (see WP:V). I also agree that some referncing is better than none, but in most cases that is not what has been happening. In many articles hobbyist websites were (and still are in some cases) listed simply in the external links - and are not used as references. Here's a few fairly typical examples: Corydoras_sterbai, Otocinclus_cocama. I personally cannot see the advantage in listing the planet catfish link in this fashion and I dont think it fits in with Wikipedia's external links policy WP:EL. Where I've found this previously, I've removed planetcatfish (and other hobbyist websites) from articles when it is used in this fashion. I've not generally removed it if it is used as a reference - this also applies to loaches online. In saying that it needs to be clear in the article which statements are being attributed to a particular reference. MidgleyDJ 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
IMO, one way we can handle this is by saying something like "there are some sources that say blah blah blah" or "some hobbyists have this experience" and therefore use some aquarium websites as "references." This lets the reader know what sort of credibility such statements have. I'd have to agree that print or scientific sources are better; these sources are indeed more verifiable and generally have well regarded authors. This allows us to cover a broader view. Admittedly this may reduce some of the quality of information, but if information comes from SOMEWHERE, then it should be attributed, even if there isn't credibility. This way, it's less like original research and it's more like an article that actually has citations.
BTW, IMO there are many fishes that ARE only important because they are kept in aquariums. On the other hand, it is quite true that these fish shouldn't have articles only discussing their aquarium habits and how to care for them, but also discuss how these fish would behave in the wild. MiltonT 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect, I have to disagree with the last part of your comment. It's highly homo-centric. Biological species (whether they be fish, plants or whatever) are notable in their own right. Their aquarium use is an aside. I'm not suggesting this aside is unimportant - but it's not the primary focus of species articles. Also re: earlier comments - sources have to be able to be verified, hobbyists websites (for the most part) are not verifiable sources. The information on most aquarium websites has a source -- otherwise it's OR -- and that what's we should be citing. Sure this may mean actually looking beyond google. MidgleyDJ 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
As MidgleyDJ says, it's important not to overstate the value of fish as aquarium pets. Piranhas may be cool as aquarium fish, but their greater importance is as key predators in Amazon ecosystems and as a food fish for local peoples. Some fish also have additional importance as lab animals (e.g. danios, ricefish, poecilids) that is often overlooked by aquarists but crucial in particular fields of biological research. In terms of recommending web sites as references, my suggestion would be to favour sites maintained by authors who have published books or magazine articles. At the least, this would imply their work has reached a certain standard amenable to editorial review. So for example Peter Cottle's Danios & Devarios web site would be 'trustworthy' at some level because his work has been reviewed and published.[1] The same goes for Julian Dignall at Planet Catfish, Bob Fenner at Wet Web Media, and so on. This isn't to exclude sites authored by non-published individuals, but it is at least a verifiable benchmark against which other sites might be compared in terms of quality, scope, reliability, etc. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Neale that's a very good idea, thanks! MidgleyDJ 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Neale's ideas sound like a practical way to do it. In addition to authors with published works as the benchmark, I'll add some more considerations to criteria for aquarium websites;

  • It must be in an article or database format (no forum post, personal blog, online diary or such)
  • When applicable, it must have an author's real name, not a user name or screen name (to be citable or verifiable).
  • It must not be a commercial website.

If everyone agrees on this, I'll put it on the project page as established criteria. And maybe it's time to look at our list of references and get rid the ones that can't be used as references. --Melanochromis 21:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also suggest we make some note about the need for citations in text - ie: it needs to be clear which statements are sources from information at that website. It's not good, in my opinion, to include references in a reference list that are not cited in the text. I'd also recommend that it be made it clear that these sites should be used as references - and not external links (unless they meet the guidelines for external links - WP:EL). MidgleyDJ 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
re: commercial web sites -- I don't think these are necessarily bad or should be excluded out of hand. For example, the PFK web site is a commerical web site, but the news items it publishes are information rich, usually citing scientific papers that wouldn't otherwise be accessible to aquarists. In many places I've used such pages as references, since quoting a fishkeeping magazine web site is presumably no worse that citing any other media web site, like the BBC. Furthermore, most of the larger web sites simply because of their need for bandwidth have some level of commerical business behind them, whether advertising, sales of photographs, links to book stores, or whatever. So rather than excluding commerical web sites, the line should be drawn between commerical sites that offer original information not otherwise available and commerical sites that merely reprint information from other sources. You can also look at the motive behind the link or reference: if the commercial page is clearly relevant, like a magazine web site news article about UK animal protection law and the fishkeeping industry, then it should be included. If the link is not directly relevant but merely to a commercial page designed to get a sale, for example a reference on the protein skimmer page to the catalogue entry of a fishkeeping retailer, then the link should be removed. Where a link is borderline between these two, the aim should be to reject the commercial link if a non-commercial link (or book/paper reference) of equal or better quality and relevance can be found. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me Neale. I've no issue at all with any printed aquarium literature being used as "references" provided it's clear which information comes from that source. MidgleyDJ 09:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
re: commercial web sites I don't think anyone here is opposing the use of PFK and other magazines as references. I'm the one who put PFK in the WP:AQF list of references and I didn't think of online versions of magazines and other news media as commercial websites. The "no commercial" policy was put there to prevent potential spamming. But I think you're right to point out that they are commercial in a way. So when this is added to the project page, I'll make sure the wording is clear that online versions of magazines and other news media are ok to use. --Melanochromis 22:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Announcing WP:Aquarium Fishes Awards!!

I'm happy to announce the new addition to our WP: the awards!! Please have a look at this draft. Let me know if you think the nomination process is practical or not. I just want to let everyone see the draft first before it became official. --Melanochromis 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea, though I think you'll need to wait until there are a reasonable number of members of the group before handing them out becomes practical (or worthwhile). Otherwise, we'll just give each other the awards and be done by the end of the year! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Great! This may encourage the creation of more "featured"-quality articles.--Terrapin83 04:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this awards to the project page with a note that it's on hold until we have more members. --Melanochromis 23:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Aquarium Fishes Awards

Purpose
  • To recognize WikiProject Aquarium Fishes members who greatly contribute to fishkeeping and aquarium fishes on wikipedia.
  • To encourage WikiProject Aquarium Fishes members to produce more good quality works especially the featured articles.
Types of Awards
The Golden Guppy Award
<put text here>
The Golden Guppy Award is given to any member who makes an outstanding contribution to fishkeeping and aquarium fishes on wikipedia. For example, an editor who has single-handedly produced a featured article is qualified for this award.
The Golden Discus Award
<put text here>
The Golden Discus Award is given to any member who makes an exceptional contribution to fishkeeping and aquarium fishes on wikipedia. For example, an editor who has single-handedly produced FIVE featured articles is qualified for this award.
Procedure

1. To nominate a member for an award, please post your proposal on the Wikiproject talk page with a short description of the nominee's contribution to fishkeeping and aquarium fishes on wikipedia. Specify the type of award you are proposing and why you think the nominee should be awarded.

2. All other project members are invited to express their opinions whether they "support", "oppose", or are "neutral" with the nomination.

3. There must be at least 10 members responding to the nomination. If more than 75% of all responding members "support" the nomination, the nominee is given the award. The award will be posted on the recipient talk page. If wished the recipient can place the award to display in his/her user page.

4. The nomination expires in 15 days after the date of proposal. If the nomination expired without gaining enough votes, the candidate is not disqualified for future nominations. He/she can be re-nominated after a reasonable period of time.

--Melanochromis 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayan cichlid move proposal

I've proposed that the Mayan cichlid article should be moved to its scientific name: Cichlasoma urophthalmus. In this case the common name is:

  • not universal in the fishkeeping hobby. Its unheard of in Australia.
  • not used at all outside the aquarium or fishing hobbies.
  • ambiguous - there are many other common names for this species.
  • not the fishbase standard common name.

Please discuss this issue - and your thoughts on the move @ Talk:Mayan cichlid. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Fish Quiz

I'm happy to announce that the Fish Portal has added a new feature - The Fish Quiz!! Come test your knowledge, interact with other fish editors, try to win the game and have your name honored in the Hall of Fame, and have a fun break from editing wikipedia. Cheers --Melanochromis 08:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed fish article naming standards change

WikiProject Fishes is discussing a proposed change in naming standards for article titles. If the change is made, this project's article naming standards would need to be changed as well in order to avoid conflicting guidelines. Your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. -- Neil916 (Talk) 00:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] photo request albino Pelvicachromis pulcher

Does anyone have access to a photo of the albino form of P. pulcher that could be used in the Pelvicachromis pulcher article? Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] feature article?

I'm unsure how Aquarium made featured article status with virtually no in text referencing. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 02:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Listed for Feature Article review. MidgleyDJ 02:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Aquarium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.MidgleyDJ 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Created Filter (aquarium)

I created a short-ish article on aquarium filtration today. Please expand, review and link as you think appropriate. MidgleyDJ 05:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow Midgley, I'm impressed. You did a lot of great jobs lately (I on the other hand have been pretty lazy). Kudos! --Melanochromis 15:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Melanochromis, thanks! It's still very much in a draft format, and definately needs expansion in some areas. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 19:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration on Aquarium

Are we as a group interested in rescuing Aquarium from it's de-listing as a featured article? In it's current state it's not featured article quality and will likely be removed and listed as a former featured article. It's a big article and I dont have time myself to do all of it. If we can get 3-4 editors who are willing to help please indicate your willingness here: MidgleyDJ 23:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to do what I can, but unfortunately I lack textual sources. The Complete Aquarium by Peter W. Scott is a great resource that is listed in the article's references section, however I do not currently have a copy. I am sure a fair amount of referencing could be done with this book in hand. The main thing is that the article reached its featured status years ago, and so it's internet references have all become broken links already. MiltonT 04:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Aquarium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All right, based on some of the recommendations given by SandyGeorgia I have rather heavily formatted the article and played with it quite a bit. A list is given below of some of the items mentioned that I have not done, with my notes:
  • "Because this is the type of article that attracts photo additions, someone should doublecheck FairUse on all images." (I'm not sure how to even do this.)
  • "Blue-linked URLs in References that need to be formatted, see WP:CITE/ES or cite templates." (I didn't format them as the links are all broken and we should replace them with better, live references.)
  • "Incorrect use of WP:DASH throughout; hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes need to be sorted out." (I played around with this, but someone doublecheck that it's correct.)
  • "Attention to Wikilinking will be needed: for example, horticulturists." (Well, I linked horticulturists, but there's bound to be more links necessary.)
  • "Thorough copyedit will be needed." (I haven't read the entire article yet, but I'll try to get to this.)
Of course, our biggest problem is the lack of in-text citations. I've added several, but of course this massive article will need much more.MiltonT 05:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Added one reference and some old images. Working on citations. MidgleyDJ 08:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm also proposing that quite a bit of the content at Aquarium should be merged into Fishkeeping as it's about care of aquarium inhabitants and not about "aquariums" per se. Comments, thoughts? MidgleyDJ 10:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The images are great, MidgleyDJ. I think the work we're doing is great so far. We'll need two new articles to help out, though; we need an aquarium heater article and we'll need a freshwater aquarium article. This will make one of the red links blue (freshwater aquarium) and take out an unnecessary section (aquarium heater). MiltonT 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That's a great picture. Can't believe that was almost a 100 year old. Anyway, Aquarium and Fishkeeping as seperate articles are quite confusing to me, and I'm not so sure how to divide contents into these two articles. They are pretty much overlapping at this moment. A lot of things in fishkeeping seem like they should rather be in the aquarium article, and vice versa. How do we make sense of this? --Melanochromis 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's sort of a fine line between the two articles. Fishkeeping and the Aquarium are almost the very same thing, but do not fit perfectly together as fishkeeping existed before aquaria and the aquarium contain more than fish. Despite this, MidgleyDJ and I came to the conclusion that the aquarium should be about the actual aquarium itself, and related contraptions that are often used with aquaria for the smooth running of things. Basically, the machinery behind the glass box, and some history about its use. Aquarium maintenance concepts were moved to fishkeeping as these dealt with the animals went into the aquarium; sure the aquarium is important, but the argument is that any container, including ponds, will experience these effects. Also, rules about stocking and other such current information were mostly to do with fish anyway. That's the reasoning, I believe. MiltonT 13:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur, it is confusing :-). My view is that Fishkeeping is the practice of keeping fish (which can also be applied to invertebrates). This can be done in vessels other than aquariums (such as ponds). The Aquarium article should be about the design/styles, history of the aquarium (as a fishkeeping device) not about how to keep things alive in water (fishkeeping). It's a fine line I know, but it is such a large topic I think it is best dealt with in this fashion. To compound the confusion "aquariums" are also establishments that contain aquaria (aquatic zoos!). MidgleyDJ 05:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Created Heater (aquarium) and linked to Aquarium. MidgleyDJ 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquarium template

I've worked a little bit on creating a template that can be placed at the bottom of aquarium fish-related pages. I haven't made it into an actual template yet, though. This template is still not complete. Tell me what name we should put the template under (I was just thinking "aquarium" to be simple). Also, tell me any articles that are important yet still missing from this template (or add them yourself). Let me know if you don't even think we should use a template at all. Let me know what you guys think. MiltonT 20:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is really a great idea. Very useful to readers. Here're some fishkeeping magazine articles I found: Practical Fishkeeping, Tropical Fish Hobbyist, Koi (magazine). I also wonder if we can fit a link to fishkeeping in the template somehow. Maybe "Aquarium and Fishkeeping" as the template title? What do you think? --Melanochromis 22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good Milton. re: Nano reef I am currently trying to get this merged into either a much expanded Marine aquarium (which includes Reef aquarium) or at the very least into Reef aquarium. I've discussed this on Talk:Reef aquarium and Talk:Nano reef if anyone would like to offer their 2c. I cant see the point in separating nano, picto, femto reefs from standard reef aquariums (or for that matter from marine aquariums). Otherwise we may as well create the cichlid aquarium, planted aquarium, south american biotope aquarium etc. MidgleyDJ 22:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I added the magazines to the bottom and Fishkeeping as a link in the title. The links to the aquarium types will be removed as soon as the articles are actually merged. Templates are, after all, relatively easy to edit. Anyone else want to input? I'll put it under Template:Aquarium if no one has any qualms with that. I also put hobby in the title so as to exclude public aquariums overall. MiltonT 01:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
See the actual template at Template:Aquarium. Adding this template automatically categorizes an article under fishkeeping, but that can be taken out if it's a problem. MiltonT 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Having the template carrying the fishkeeping category is an innovative idea I think. But I'm afraid it's potentially problematic. The main reason is that people wouldn't expect that a normal template (other than administrative banners and userboxes) is carrying a category. Because of such, deleters might try to delete the template (like they tried with our stub template) without being aware of the hidden category, or categorizers might have a hard time if they dicide to reorganize the cats (merging, upmerging, seperating, creating subcats, or whatever they do). Then there are also the bots who probably aren't programmed to deal with unconventional categorization. The chance of this happening might not be so high, but I guess it's better to be safe. --Melanochromis 18:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
PS. IMO I think the aquarium template should placed before the stub template, so that the stub tag would appear at the bottom of the article. --Melanochromis 19:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I see your point, I just thought it was kind of nifty, lol; I have seen it used previously in other articles. I have made the template collapsible; the template will appear collapsed by default, and can be opened up to see the other links. MiltonT 20:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marine/reef/micro/nano/femto etc aquarium

Afternoon all -

Wondering if anyone would like to comment on the merge proposals for Reef aquarium, Nano reef. Near as I can tell they are both Marine aquariums and should be merged into higher quality, expanded version of that article. If we are to make a featured article of Marine aquarium I think this is the only way forward. Thoughts? At the very least, it's my view that Reef aquarium & Nano reef should be merged. Would really appreciate feedback on this prior to taking any bold action :P Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 05:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forums (and web sites) as references

I'm a little alarmed by recent edits where people have deleted one forum link and replaced it with their own [2], or othewise arranged things so their forum to the top of the list [3].

My suggestion is simple: No forums or community web sites. The temptation is too strong for people to use Wikipedia as a means to get people to visit their web site. Also, forums and community sites aren't really scientifically sound since they are, almost by their nature, run by amateurs and without editorial control.

Further, I'd suggest restricting web sites much more vigorously, to web sites either run by published authors (e.g. Planet Catfish) or where they publish information that doesn't exist in book format (e.g. Loaches Online). Where there is a rich hobby literature (e.g. reef tank fishkeeping) we should simply use books for references.

Otherwise, we have to be making judgement calls on whether a web site is "valid" as a reference, and it ends up with editors simply arbitrarily pruning the list just to keep it short. Except for inline references (which I have no problem linking to web pages) I'd suggest that the vague "external links" section be kept to two or three sites, tops. I'm sure Yahoo has categories for aquarium stuff: direct people there instead of listing things here.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Inline reference, inline references, inline references! No article can have too many! But most articles have too many external references, IMO. ChicagoPimp 15:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There is already an established guideline at Wikipedia:External links. See "Links normally to be avoided", item #9 (Don't link to search engine results, web directories, and aggregated results pages), item #10 (Don't link to social networking sites, discussion forums, or USENET), and #11 (Don't link to blogs or personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority). Feel free to delete such links upon sight, use an edit summary of "Removed inappropriate external links per WP:EL." They are similarly inappropriate as inline citations, as failing the policy at Wikipedia:Attribution (formerly Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Neil916 (Talk) 15:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Right, Wikipedia already discourages external links like these. I have seen a number of links that are quite disconcerting, such as protein skimmer on one page being a direct link to an online store selling protein skimmers rather than a resource discussing what they are. Even with my past affiliation with some of these sites it pains me to see these linked as resources; with articles written by anyone who feels like it, rarely are they any more credible than Wikipedia itself. The lengthy list of links in the Reef article is a prime example of what Wikipedia is not. I agree that, for the most part, we shouldn't have external links at all at most of these pages, just replace these with inline references if they are relevant.MiltonT 16:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Neale, Neil and Milton - I removed all the links from Reef aquarium on April 3rd when proposing various mergers as I believed all of them to be spam. I replaced them with a single link to the Open Directory Project using this template {{Dmoz}}. It's what WP:EL recommends. MidgleyDJ 21:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Also keep in mind that if someone (especially anon editors from changing IP addresses) is persistent in re-adding their links, that there are other anti-spam resources available on Wikipedia, especially the Site-wide spam blacklist which prevents an editor from being able to save any changes that contain a link to their website. The website operators have a financial incentive to be persistent in re-adding inappropriate links, whereas we're all doing this for "fun", so the blacklist tends to even the playing field. If you really want to get a good taste of how nasty some of those people can be, try spending some time cleaning up the links to fishing websites on game fish or angling articles, Bass fishing for example...  :) Neil916 (Talk) 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to cull the references

Hello all. I think it is time to re-do the references. By building a "white list" we're arbritarily choosing some and leaving out others, and so (perhaps understandably) owners of left-out web sites are not just adding links but changing the existing ones. I think that crosses the line.

Let's build up a list of books and magazine articles that we can refer to. Baensch, Aqualog, TFH Atlas, etc. We can arrange them by subject. Instead of web sites, we can use the standard DMOZ external link at the end of each article, and let DMOZ worry about who's a spammer and who's not. There's really no need to use a marine fishkeeping forum as a reference when there are literally hundreds of really good books out there. Thoughts? Neale Monks 14:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a list of "approved" references. It's sending the wrong message that if you use something from these particular sources, they're somehow better than other sources, when that's not necessarily the case. Additionally, it would be impossible to list every possible valid source for information. Providing a reminder for the editors to make reference to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources should be sufficient, with perhaps another reminder that internet forum messages and anecdotal stories, even if they're incredibly useful, don't meet the standards of Wikipedia. When I first started editing here, it was one of the mistakes I made (along with cut-and-pasting large sections of text from websites). Neil916 (Talk) 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but how do we stop the various fish clubs and forums adding their links? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The same way we do now; revert the addition with a polite note that the link is not suitable per WP:EL. Neil916 (Talk) 16:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Also per WP:Spam. Thanks for reverting the recent spams. If this user tries it again. Here's the first warning template {{uw-spam1}} --Melanochromis 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Neale & Neil, I like Neale's idea of a list of useful reference material. I understand Neil's concerns, perhaps the best way to address them is to have a list of Useful reference material instead. That way it's not exclusive, it's simply a list. A section on external links and on the use of websites as references would also be useful. I agree re: the use of {{dmoz}} as it solves most of the problems re: forums, websites and clubs and think it should be used widely to combat the spam problem. MidgleyDJ 21:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What to do with Aquarium_Fish_clubs

Does anyone know what we should do with Aquarium_Fish_clubs. It doesnt look like an encyclopedia article to me. WP isnt a list of aquarium clubs (surely). If it's going to be an encyclopedia article it's going to need drastic re-writing. MidgleyDJ 06:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I trashed it, and created something much simpler, linking to the DMOZ site instead. Neale Monks 08:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I was sure the article was on its way to deletion. Apparently not. If someone can find a longer history for aquarium fish clubs, that'd be cool to add. MiltonT 19:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Aquarium_Fishes_6482.html"