Talk:Tigerfish
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
| Disambig | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale. |
| NA | This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Comment
I corrected the page a bit with some information from the external links. Pre-edit, the fish was said to be up to 30 cm long, but according to the external sources, the maximum size of the fish is 40 inches for a male, and 30 inches for a female (hence the incorrect length I think).
[edit] New structure, disambiguation
I came across this page, and re-worked it because the name "Tigerfish" is ambiguous. It can refer to several different types of fish, as I have noted in the article. The question is, should this really be an article at all, or would it be better to re-structure it as a disambiguation page, with separate articles for all three genuses of "Tigerfish" (Rhamphochromis, Datnioides, Hydrocynus)? None of these currently have articles, so if simply re-done as a disambiguation page it wouldn't point anywhere. But perhaps the solution is to create three stubs and then point the disambiguation page to the three stubs. Any thoughts? Fairsing 19:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say make it a disambig page with seperate articles for each fish.~Sushi 06:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rhamphochromis listing
The data on rhamphochromis was deleted by an anonymous editor. Because the same editor made a second (sensible) edit, I am assuming this was a well-intentioned edit and not vanadalism. But I did put the information back because I believe it to be correct. Here are two independent sources that indicate rhamphochromis spp. are commonly referred to as "tigerfish" (and thus should be listed in the article): [1] [2]. If anyone disagrees with their inclusion in this article, please explain why before deleting them again. Thanks! Fairsing 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plagarized text
The recent additions from anonymous user 4.67.39.192 appear to be valid content; unfortunately they are direct plagarism -- see source:[3]. Thus they have been removed. Perhaps re-worked content with appropriate sourcing would be possible as an altnerative? Thanks. Fairsing 19:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Aquariasts sometimes erroneously apply the name Tigerfish to..."
Two things.
First, what is meant by "erroneously"? If I call a tiger a lion, then that's an error. But if the name "tigerfish" is widely used for a species of fish, whether or not it causes confusion with other tigerfish is neither here nor there. Comparison could be made with "gar", a name used (at the very least) for 'true' gars, needlefish, halfbeaks, and at least two families of characin. Likewise "St Peter Fish" is used for a marine perciform and a freshwater cichlid, and perhaps others. So, either the name has been used mistakenly (i.e., in the same sense as me calling a tiger a lion) or it is used, just not very helpfully (i.e., as in the case of gar). If the latter, "erroneously" should be deleted, and if the former, it's unnecessary, since we aren't here to catalogue mistakes!
Second, why is the common name "tigerfish" capitalised. This isn't standard scientific practise, and isn't normal in English either. A formal scientific group, like Crustacea, should be capitalised, but an informal name, like crustacean, shouldn't be.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm for removing the "erroneously" tag for the reasons noted by Neale Monks above. Any objections, or reasons why we should keep that word in? I don't have an opinion on the capitalization issue, so NM if you feel strongly pls. go ahead. Fairsing 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
