Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

List of marine aquarium fish species

I made some fairly significant changes to List of marine aquarium fish species over the past few weeks. If anyone has suggestions as to what aspect of it I should work on next your input would be most welcome.

Also, if anyone knows a good way to compress the references section I would like to know that too, I am citing different pages of the same book dozens of times and would like to find a way to easily combine all references to that book into a much smaller space. Glmory (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. One idea I can offer for the references is, for those that are numbered consecutively, after the first one, just put "ibid., p. ###" for the subsequent ones. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

As I've grown more familiar with things here, I realize that my answer above was a flawed one. If you are still interested, a better answer is at WP:FN#Style recommendations, specifically the strategy using a separate list exemplified at Kepler and Tagore. Sorry if I gave you a bum steer earlier. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:CITE is also invaluable here; if you are using general references then the section heading needs to be named Bibliography or Further Reading rather than References and the article may be at risk of being tagged with the {{nofootnotes}} template. It's better to go with inline citations, where possible, because these pick out specific pages (so the referencing can be more readily verified) and you can use the <ref> tag with an associated ID to duplicate the reference, rather than manually entering 'Ibid' for example. Coldmachine^Talk 22:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

The redirect from WikiProject Aquarium Fishes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes has been nominated for RFD. Stifle (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. No other WikiProjects come up from the search box without WP: first. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Aquarium Wiki Encyclopaedia

I guess everyone knows the Aquarium Wiki Encyclopaedia and the grand work they've done on Aquarium fish and the hobby as a whole?

--Quatermass (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do! I'm the editor who put the link to here today that I suspect you saw. I've also been trying to make sure there are links around here to your excellent site. If you know of places here at Wikipedia where you would like to add links to The Aquarium Wiki, please feel free to let me know. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably you will be doing so in accordance with WP:ELNO and specifically #2, #4, and #12, bearing in mind also WP:COI, otherwise they're likely to be reverted as WP:SPAM quickly enough. Coldmachine^Talk 00:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I think we have a misunderstanding, so please let's discuss this calmly. In my experience, the site to which Quatermass refers is a high-quality wiki site maintained by editors who are specifically interested in aquarium fish. I've looked at WP:ELNO, and, unless there is something of which I'm unaware, there is no problem here. #2 is about factually misleading material; I am aware of no way that that would apply to that site, and I am shocked by the suggestion that it would. #4 is about using links for promotional purposes; as far as I can tell, this would instead be using links as legitimate sources of additional information, as often occurs quite appropriately in "see also" sections. #12 is about active wikis lacking sufficient historical stability and/or sufficient numbers of editors; perhaps there is a valid issue here, so please educate me if so, but it appears to me that the site in question is substantial enough to be appropriate in this regard. Please note that, before I ever became an editor here, this page has had a link to the Aquarium Wiki here, as a useful reference to refer to when researching articles as part of this project! You also suggest that there might be a conflict of interest. I assure you that there is not, at least for me, and I find the suggestion quite disturbing. So, what's going on here? I assume good faith, so maybe there was a misunderstanding, and I hope my explanations are helpful in clearing things up. I suppose that it is also possible that, predating my own membership here, there may have been some differences of opinion about having a separate wiki about aquaria versus pages about aquaria here, and I do realize that there can be issues about duplicated effort. If so, I would be happy to be educated about those issues, but my opinion is that, going forward, I have no interest in fighting about it, and I choose instead to help provide as much useful information as possible with helpful links where justified. If anyone wants a fight, please leave me out. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, and I'm also assuming good faith - it's why I placed a gentle reminder here, instead of waiting until you'd added links before templating your user talk page: no need to shoot the messenger. I believe most of us who are involved in the project here will be members of various forums, communities, wikis, whatnot, elsewhere. What we can't do is be complacent when it comes to the content policies and guidelines here on Wikipedia and those cover the addition of external links. I pointed out WP:ELNO, and if those guidelines are adhered to there won't be a problem. Just remember that your interpretation of an historically stable wiki with sufficient numbers of editors may well be different than the standards editors may expect here on Wikipedia. I also can't think why a link to a related article on Aquarium Wiki would be needed over here if editors were improving article content as they ought to be. Coldmachine^Talk 18:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I was alarmed by your earlier message, and it is helpful for you to explain things further. You say: "no need to shoot the messenger." Fair enough, but (especially as with much digital text communication, where one cannot detect the body language etc. of the sender), a lot of misunderstanding can arise when one reads intent into a comment, and that goes both ways. You felt like I was "shooting" you over a "gentle reminder." I, on the other hand, thought you were "shooting" me with an implied threat that I had a conflict of interest and was promoting blatantly false information, and I thought that I was just explaining myself in my last reply. So it is good to clarify things, and I hope you, in turn, can see where I was coming from. Your gentle reminder sounded, to me, less gentle than what I now understand you intended. Now, that said, I still have concerns from your more recent message. I hope that your going to the effort of referring to templating my user talk page was also meant as a gentle reminder of how processes work, but please understand that, on face-value reading, it comes across as a possible threat. And all because I made what I thought was a friendly, helpful, constructive comment to another editor (Quatermass)! When you say that you "can't think why a link to a related article on Aquarium Wiki would be needed over here if editors were improving article content as they ought to be", that makes me suspect that I was right about there being some kind of past disagreement over duplication of effort at that other site. And what you say about standards, why so indirect? If you have concerns about the editing quality at the other wiki, do please explain them specifically. If I am wrong about the quality of the other site, you would be doing me a favor to educate me, and I do have an open mind. As is, I'm still not sure what to really make of your comments. As I said, I thought I was just making friendly, constructive edits, and never expected a reaction like this. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No reply yet, but I hope we have reached a friendly understanding going forward. Here is what I take to be the take-home message of the other editor's comments to me: "Thank you for your work on this project. Please note that The Aquarium Wiki, as an active wiki, should generally not be cited as a reference to support verifiable material in articles here. On the other hand, links in the "see also" sections of pages can be useful, so long as they are directly relevant and not indiscriminately numerous. If they are too numerous, they may be deleted by other editors, so it would be helpful to exercise discretion about adding them in the first place. By the way, editors who work at the other site are welcome and encouraged to improve articles here as well." That's what I understand, and if others agree, then there won't be a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, no, you misunderstand. I said nothing of your wiki as a reliable source for which the case is more clear cut that we wouldn't be citing it at all; the discussion is in the context of WP:ELNO. It's not about duplication either: I've no knowledge of any past disagreements (or otherwise) on that matter; I'm simply reminding you about WP:ELNO and pointing out that according to this page your wiki wouldn't typically qualify as one with a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" so you may need to consider that while promoting the site in lists of External Links across articles in the mainspace. Anyway, no need to belabour the point: let's just get on with editing. Coldmachine^Talk 19:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's an improvement over WP:ELNO #2 and #4, WP:COI, WP:SPAM, editors improving pages here "as they ought to be," and templating my talk page. And it's not "my" wiki, and I thought that I was just getting on with editing when you entered this talk. Now, I can look forward to just getting on with editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here; I'm trying to help by highlighting some of the possible pitfalls you might face based on the initial posts you made here about promoting the Aquarium Wiki via external links. These are all just policy guidelines to assist. I'm sorry you've misunderstood my attempt to help as being something other than that. Coldmachine^Talk 22:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I think we just had a series of misunderstandings, but both want the best for this site. I'm happy to move on now, very satisfied, and I sincerely hope that you are too. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in here... I and Quatermass founded the site a few years ago. It has taken a while to become the quality it is but I do believe it has reached a good and mature point. A while back we were granted an interwiki link AquariumWiki:Main_Page and I have encouraged my editors to only link from Wikipedia articles which are complete. I have been adding links from Wikipedia to The Aquarium Wiki for a while now and I haven't been messages regarding spam issues. We have also been challenged to join the Wikipedia aquarium fishes project before, however alot of our content is not up to wikipedia's standards... namely we do cite original research, user observations, and vague theories for caring for fish. Long story short... wikipedia simply will not allow all the information required to properly care for many fish species. Take care --Arjes (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that. It helps a lot for me to better understand, and I certainly appreciate the friendly, level-headed feedback. Actually, I first became aware of the idea of linking from talk with you at Aquarium. As I've been looking more into it, I now realize that you have already been making the kinds of links I was thinking of (and the world has not come to an end!), so I'm going to back away from all of that for now. I think there are good reasons here at WP for not giving how-to advice, but I can see the value of a separate wiki where that kind of advice is available to fish hobbyists. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Feedback requested: reinvigorating this project

In the immediately preceding talk section, about the Aquarium Wiki, one other editor discussed with me the possible pitfalls associated with linking to that other site from here. In my limited observation (but I could be wrong!), that other site seems like a good quality source, and some judicious, limited, links from WP aquarium fish pages to there (and from there back to here!) could be useful to readers of WP. But I have better things to do with my time if I'm just going to be reverted. I'd like to ask OTHER editors who are interested in aquarium fish what they think about that, so please say here whatever you think. Also, more broadly, it seems to me like a lot of editors who started this particular wikiproject are no longer actively editing. Are there any ideas about reinvigorating this project? Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; although I seem to have been marginalised or excluded from this call for feedback based on our earlier exchange on the same issue, it would seem that essentially you're calling for a consensus here on the issue, but again I'd point out this page for your information and particularly the opening paragraph which reads that: "Consensus between a small number of editors can never override the community consensus that is presented in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; instead, consensus is the main tool for enforcing these standards. The focus of every dispute should be determining how best to comply with the relevant policies and guidelines. Editors have reached consensus when they agree that they have appropriately applied Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not when they personally like the outcome." Whether or not editors here reach a consensus that linking to Aquarium Wiki is a 'good thing' or a 'bad thing', the community's consensus is overriding of that and therefore the policies/guidelines take precedence. Coldmachine^Talk 15:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! What do OTHER editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In light of the information from Arjes in the section just above, I'm going to back away from my idea of Aquarium Wiki links for now. (My, what fun this has been for me!) But if anyone is aware of possible useful links, it would be very good to start by discussing them here, and I remain happy to help. That said, please let me re-frame my feedback request to focus mainly on the second point I raised: reinvigorating the wikiproject here. Any ideas? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

First we should start off by removing all the members whose pages no longer exist. I've noticed a few of them showing up as red links. Second start an active campaign to recruit more people into the project. Check pages that are about aquarium fishes find who wrote it, and ask them to join up. Thats all I've got for now. Maybe Spam everyone on the wikiproject fishes member list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 07:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My inclination is to steer clear of "spam," in the sense of mass messages, and we should assume that active list members watch the page. But individual messages to page authors and contributors are a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: I looked at the listed members with red links, and all but one have recent user contributions (likewise for the first couple of members on the list), so they are active editors and should not be deleted without their permission. (Some editors just choose not to put content on their user pages, as is their prerogative.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless they posted last night, the last post for the top three members was at the beginning of this month. Its already the 26th. An entire month has gone by without thm posting. How long do they have to not post to be considered "inactive"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drew R. Smith (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, please slow down! Way more than a month. Editors can wikibreak for more than a month for any number of reasons. The idea here is to be inclusive. (By the way, please remember to sign your posts.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Just by way of perspective, administrators, who are expected to be way more active than the average editor, are considered inactive after two months. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a note from Drew on my talk page - persoanlly I wouldn't bother with a newsletter. Alot of work and unclear who will read it (3 or 4 people?). I see someone has linked at the Community Portal page, which is a good idea. Other options are a Collaboration. These can be good at times to produce content. I'd aim to get new articles at T:TDYK for use on the main page. That is new or five-fold expanded articles in less than five days. This will get some fish on the Main Page, and folks will notice that. There might be some better candidates for GA than Violet Goby too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Casliber has made some excellent suggestions. Thank you very much for that. In particular, it might be a very good idea to start using this talk to discuss and identify candidate pages for GA and DYK. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I confess I know very little about fish and aquariums. I had a look at a couple of fish I know - Kissing gourami and Siamese fighting fish and they need quite a bit of work balancing and striaghtening out content. Best for DYK is to look up some fish you know about and can source information quickly which either have no article or are a stub of less than 150 words or so or prose (easy to expand five times :)). Even list some here and then buff them as a group. I can help set up a collaboration for you guys too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ocean sunfish is an example of a fishy featured article. Have a loo and in general it is a good format tomorrow (though obviously the last section will be a captivity or aquaculture and quite detailed. This is an okay template to look at. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

One, the portal was my doing. Two, I got a fish article on the main page today (well yesterday, its after midnight now) about my violet goby as a DYK. So, anybody got ideas for an article we can create/ expand for another fish DYK? I'd love to help with that collaboration. And, on a compeletely unrelated note: OMG I think my pregnant guppy is having her babies tonight!!! (I know the term is fry, but I'm a human, so they're babies) The father was a Golden Swordtail though, so I don't know if she will be ok. I was freaking out when she went past 35 days, cuz they're only supposed to be pregnant for 24-30. So I looked it up for swordtails, and it was around 45 days. sure enough about 40 days after we noticed, she's acting like she's gonna drop em any minute now!D^rew S^mith 12:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Need Peer Review Please.

I need a peer review of my new article Gobioides Broussonneti. This is my first article and any advice or criticism would be greatly appreciated.Drew R. Smith (talk) 07:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Will do (at the page). --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Bred in captivity/endangered or threatened status

It would be nice if we could mark articles (in the infobox?) with whether the fish is more often captured live or bred in captivity. And whether it's in anyway endangered or threatened in the wild.

In most cases aquarium fish are bred in captivity. Only the fish that can't be bred in captivity, aren't. Likewise, conservation is difficut to determine, and in most countries you can't keep endangered or threatened species as pets, so the point is moot.^DrewSmith 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that I'm volunteering to change the infobox, but there are some caveats about that. Some species, such as cardinal tetras, are being caught in the wild as an economically-integrated conservation measure, even though they can be captive-bred; others, such as red-tailed black "sharks," are essentially extinct in the wild, but are captive-farmed. And for a lot of saltwater species, those being sold are a mix, so it's hard to generalize, but it's better to get tank-raised. Thus, I think there could end up being POV issues in reducing a description of commercially-sold species to an infobox category about how they are usually raised. But on the other hand, it would be a good idea to add information about that, if sourced, to article text. And, there are official listings of endangered and threatened species, so it might also be a good idea to incorporate that into infoboxes. If we do that, it might be better to reach out to the Fishes WikiProject first. Do other animal groups indicate endangered status in their infoboxes? (Hey, cool signature, Drew!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(just to start, im about to play a video game, and have my gaming keyboard hooked up, so if my typing sux, thats why) Like I said before, most, if not all countries ban the keeping of endangered species as pets. As far as I know, the red-tailed black shark isnt even considered endangered because they have sufficient numbers in captivity to keep them off the endangered list. I have looked through every book I own, and none of them even mention conservation status which tells me it's just isn't an issue. I do agree, an infobox on captive or wild brred may be a good idea. In my earlier post I did not even think about the saltwater fish. (at least here in hawaii) Saltwater fish are almost always caught in the wild. Even the ones that aren't found here. We've got a harbor goby at the petshop down the road that was caught by a local guy on his trip to New England (supposedly). (jesus, can't even find the tilde key on this keyboard.)^DrewSmith 01:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)P.S. the sig is a work in progress. Thanx for noticing.^DrewSmith 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Aquarium Guide?

Should each article include a guide about husbandry of the fish? WP:NOT a guidebook. mynameinc 15:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good question, but in a sense, you answered it yourself when you referred to WP:NOT. The answer is that, per WP policy, no, we cannot write how-to information about fish care. The reasoning is that, as an encyclopedia, we don't give medical or legal advice, print food recipes, or write how-to information about hobbies. I'm not saying I agree with it personally as it applies here, but that's the way it is. Please see the discussion about it in this talk, above, including the correct way to word articles so as to stay within policy. This is the main reason that a separate wiki was formed for the express purpose of writing about husbandry, but see here how some WP editors have reacted to that! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (No pun intended) mynameinc 18:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In my articles, I try to phrase the breeding section as un-guidbook-like as I can. In my Violet Goby article the breeding routine was so complicated that I couldn't help making it sound like an instruction manual, but no one has chellenged it yet, so I guess [[WP:IAR] would apply here.D^rew S^mith 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(Please note that subsequent edits to that article decreased the how-to aspects. Please check its edit history. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC))

Well thats good. One thing I have noticed though, even real encyclopedias have small how-to style sections for plants or animals that can be kept or bred. I think it would be almost irresponsible to leave something out because you don't know how to make it sound less like a how to guide. Ex. Many fish do great in small tanks until they get larger, in which case they need to be moved to a bigger tank. But we can't really put that in the article because it sounds like a how-to. So someone reads the article about this fish, buys one, and the fish dies a stunted painful death because we didn't put critical information in the article. I think we should include small how-to sections, but try to phrase it in a more encyclopedic way. If anyone challenges it point out the above example and invoke WP:IAR. Just my two cents.D^rew S^mith 00:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we all agree that wording it carefully is the way to go. Here's how-to (oh no!). Using Drew's example: "The fast-growing bigfish has been kept by some hobbyists in small aquarium tanks, but is known to reach a full size of 15 inches in a tank of 200 gallons or larger.(ref)" As for invoking IAR, or talking about "real encyclopedias," you're on your own! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL. But seriously, what about fish that have some pretty specific care intructions that can't be properly translated into a non how to format?D^rew S^mith 02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Likely to be reverted. That's just the way it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats just plain wrong. I don't want fish to die because I'm not allowed to tell someone how to take care of their fish.D^rew S^mith 01:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy can change. Why not pursue this on the WP:NOT talk page and try to raise a consensus for altering the current rule? Perhaps if you made a good enough case for WP:AQF being a special case then the community might adjust the way things are done. To be fair, though, I seriously doubt conscientious aquarists use Wikipedia as their primary source of information...there are hobbyist magazines and websites out there that do this job well enough already and they existed long before. Also, Tryptofish, please stop baiting me; it won't work - I'm not one of the fish you're writing about over at the Aquarium Wiki. That previous discussion concerned friendly advice over Wikipedia's external link guidelines which you were casually ignoring and I've no particular opinion on your wiki side project. Coldmachine^Talk 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(re-indent)Good idea. I'll give it a shot. Maybe you guys could head over there and help me support the change? Also, coldmachine. As a neutral observer it really doesnt appear to me that trypto was baiting you. What did he say, in particular that you thought was baiting? It looked to me like you both slightly misunderstood the others intent, and it lead to one person feeling harassed and the other baited.D^rew S^mith 07:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This edit, which dug up a discussion over 4 months old for no apparent reason. Time to move on perhaps? Coldmachine^Talk 09:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I see. the remark about "how some editors reacted to that", am I right? I don't think he was baiting you, merely making a good natured joke towards another editor. I agree though, it's time to leave it alone, both of you. (jeez, I sound like my mom!)Drew Smith What I've done 10:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok guys, I've talked it over with some people at WP:NOT, and the general consensus was to just do it. They also said, that there are lots of other examples, such as someone dying because of lack of information in a medical article. Obviously there hasn't been any great change in policy, but I'm still hoping.Drew Smith What I've done 10:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff raising it over on WP:NOT. I've read the discussion and there are some really valuable things coming out of it. I don't agree that consensus has already been achieved, in the space of one day, not by any stretch of the imagination. I'd hold off on making mass or radical changes to the breadth of articles affected by this discussion just for now, until there's something more tangible than 5 editors offering their thoughts on what is quite a significant policy issue. No need to be hasty. I personally agree with what two editors think over the use of reliable sources as a means for justifying the inclusion of 'how-to' information where it is deemed absolutely impossible to exclude. That is, if we do decide to include 'how-to' information - e.g. "this fish needs a large tank" - then we'd better be sourcing it to a reliable third-party source where that's been written. Coldmachine^Talk 13:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Drew, thank you very much for raising the discussion at WP:NOT, as well as for your very sensible comments about that other thing. I too have read the talk so far at NOT, and I agree with Coldmachine that the comments there are very helpful, that we should take to heart the advice about sourcing, and that we should take it slow until there has been more discussion of the policy.

I'll also point out, by way of devil's advocacy, that there is some good reasoning behind existing policy, as in the following scenario. A hobbyist reads some how-to in one of our fish articles, applies it (or thinks that they applied it), and then something goes wrong and the fish dies, and the reader gets angry at us. (Even worse if you imagine it as human medical or legal advice.) Of course, I admit that's a far-fetched example, but it could happen sooner or later nonetheless. Past editors seem to have felt that it's wise to avoid giving the impression of giving advice in the first place, and instead to take the posture of giving information. I think the good news is that it's almost always possible to frame advice as information, as in the ways of wording it discussed repeatedly in this talk above.

I think that providing the appropriate how-to information, as information, and sourcing it to a reliable outside source, works very well, and now that editors who are interested in policy have been made aware of the specific concerns we have here, there is less likelihood of anyone nitpicking with us, so that's all good. (What I mean is give the husbandry advice, but make it sound encyclopedic so it doesn't sound like advice. That's really very easy to do, and is unlikely now to lead to objections or reversions.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Offer: If anyone is having trouble writing care information on a fish page, in a way that stays in policy, please just let me know. I'm comfortable with how to do it, and I'm happy to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Active, Inactive, and Former member lists

Mynameinc recently added the Active, Inactive, and Former member lists to the page. I think this is a good idea, but we need to come up with some guidlines describing what constitutes as inactive or former member. Particularly does it require lack of editing on fish articles, or lack of editing on wikipedia in general. And how long? How long can an editor not contribute before (s)he becomes inacive?D^rew S^mith 00:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents:

1. I'm not convinced that identifying editors as "former" accomplishes anything good, or that listing former editors as "active" does any harm. But if I'm overlooking anything, please correct me.
2. Having a category for editors to self-identify as "inactive" might be a good thing for editors who feel like "I want to be part of this project, but I'm so busy with other editing that I don't have time to do much here." And I think it's fine to allow editors to self-identify as "inactive" or "former," although former editors generally won't do so.
3. It will be a hassle for whoever wants to do it (not me!), but, before moving anyone now on the list out of the "active" category, you really should leave a message on their user talk page, saying they'll be moved after something like one week if they don't reply that they want to stay. (Editors who no longer edit probably won't see the message, but that's OK.) It would be impolite not to give notice.
4. I would steer clear of trying to distinguish AQF edits from edits in general when determining activity. Someone who is editing currently is editing currently, regardless of subject matter, and may choose to come back to fish articles at any time.
5. There's no hard and fast rule for how long before being inactive, but I suppose it is reasonable to figure that an editor who has made no edits of any sort for one year is no longer actively editing. (Lots of active editors take a month or two off, so it better be a lot longer than that.)

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree about point #1. The former part may want to be removed, and "Former" editors should be listed under inactive. I'll see what I can do about messaging the others. Maybe we can split up the current members list and have several of us message people. Good point on steering clear of AQF edits vs. edits in general. Just to clarify the point of that was "This project is about fish. If their last post about a fish related article was 3 years ago, shouldn't they be considered inactive in the project?". But yes, I agree with your rationale. And I guess it is agreed that about a year of no edits is considered inactive?(for the purpose of our project, not wikipedia in general)D^rew S^mith 02:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Good, I agree with you that merging "former" into "inactive" would be a good approach. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. mynameinc 22:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now that that's out of the way, what is the official consensus on how long before someone is moved to inactive?D^rew S^mith 01:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish that a year sounds adequate. Coldmachine^Talk 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to make the changes then. Everyone who hasn't contributed at all in the past 365 days will be moved to the inactive list.D^rew S^mith 07:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

We could (probably) make a template for the new fish articles. Just fill in all the fields and substitute the template, then, after saving, the user could add any additional information. mynameinc 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got my own template, but it needs some work, and maybe a total re-vamp, as it tends to divide up the information into a bunch of different headings with small amounts of text. You can check it out here.Drew Smith What I've done 21:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Pop Quiz

DYK ...that the article on the common seahorse, or Hippocampus kuda is a stub? I couldn't believe it! I'm going to start working on it now, anyone up for a collaboration?Drew Smith What I've done 09:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pics!

I took a trip to the waikiki aquarium today, and got some amazing pics (yes, I live in hawaii). Check them out on my Userpage and tell me what you think!Drew Smith What I've done 11:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding pictures: need help

I can help with providing photos (macros, close-ups etc). I have just uploaded to Wikimedia Commons this front-view capture of a black moor (fancy goldfish) and perhaps will add a few more capture of details such as an oranda's wen, and the like. I'll check the articles on Wikipedia to see if there are more specific details/views that are not shown yet but may be useful. I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, though, and I am not sure how to submit pictures I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for consideration in a Wikipedia article. How do I do that? Any help is appreciated. Thanks. ﻯναოթ€ռ (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello and welcome! It sounds like you've already mastered uploading them to Commons (and that moor is gorgeous!). You can put images into Wikipedia articles yourself, without asking for consideration first. Wikipedia:Picture tutorial explains how to do that. Please feel free to ask me if you have questions about layout, captions, and so forth. If you want to know about pages where photographs are needed and have been requested, there is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of fishes. By the way, please see Talk:Aquascaping for some photos that I'm looking for myself! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Cichlid

Cichlid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Important WikiProject Notice

Done (Drew Smith beat me to it. Thanks!) --Tryptofish (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pacu genus and scientific name problem

On the page Tambaqui it says it's the only one in the genus Colossoma. The Red bellied pacu also appears to be in that genus however it's scientific name is disputed between[1][2] and [3][4],this says it's Colossoma macropomum (the Tambaqui)[5][6]. I brought the genus problem up on this talk page but received no answer. See also:Talk:Red bellied pacu.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be a question of evolving nomenclature coupled with imprecise common names. There seems to be disagreement about whether C. bidens is a separate species, the Red bellied, or whether those are all C. macropomum. The common names seem to be used somewhat interchangeably. There is also the Silver pacu, which is either Piaractus mesopotamicus or Colossoma brachypomus ([7] for example). I think the simplest solution is to delete the questionable sentence, which I am going to do now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

newsletter and awards

It looks as if the projects newsletter is not functining even thogh the project page says it is. Also in the awards section it says that: this awards program is on hold. It will come into effect when the project has 20 members or more.The project now has 46 active members and 13 inactive ones. Why are these programs inactive?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

First, thanks for signing up to the WikiProject, and welcome! To answer your question, it comes down to the same as so many other things Wikipedian, ie volunteer, no one is doing it. For a brief while, Drew Smith re-started the newsletter, but both activities have just been sitting undone for quite a while. If anyone would like to step forward and work on them, that would be great! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions about freshwater aquarium invertebrates species

There are aquarium insects?

Aquarista brasileio (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Aquarista brasileio

Not that I know of, although there are certainly many crustaceans. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Many new marine aquarium hobbyists resort to calling small, bug like creatures in their live rock "insects". These are in fact Amphipods, a crustacean that will help keep your tank clean, as well as provide food for many 'picky-eaters' and fish that are not fed regularly. I don't know much about freshwater systems but I would imagine there are similar entities and are most likely more beneficial than harmful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimberlee3 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Newsletter

I would like to bring it to the worlds attention that I have made a new newsletter for the project. How does the Newsletter system work?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for doing that! Perhaps there is an automated way of distributing it to everyone on the active members list, but I don't know how to do that. I just did a quick look around, and did not find anything about it, but please let me know if you'd like me to look some more. Beyond that, I suppose one could manually add it to each member's user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for the Barnstar. I would like you to look some more if you could, on the outreach page it says it's automatic. If it comes to doing it manualy when should I do it? P.S. I will try to continue the newsletter but it's hard to do alone.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I've looked around and found Category:Newsletter delivery bots. I guess you would have to look these over, select one, and set it up for this use. Despite what it says on the project page here, I suspect that, if it ever were automatic, it's no longer set up that way. As for how frequently to do it, there's no rule that I know of, so let your available time and energy decide that, and know that anything at all is appreciated. If I become aware of something like an FA, I'll let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Got it! Looks good! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Did it manualy, thanks for the continued support.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry last time I only sent it to those who were on the subscribe list. Not members and banned users. Sorry :( HighFlyingFish (talk)06:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Drew R. Smith

An unban disscussion has started on the Administrators' noticeboard for the user Drew R. Smith. Your contributions and comments are welcome.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 09:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fire Eel

I read the current fire eel article, and I'm left wondering: Why is there a section labeled 'in the aquarium' and why does it mention them as escape artists? Just saying... I think that kind of content belongs on Wikibooks. The reason I haven't edited it is to point out a greater underlying problem: Many of our aquarium based articles give advice about keeping the fish. I think that sort of thing is either good for Wikibooks (again) or The Aquarium Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jourdy288 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at that specific page, but this is something that comes up perennially with respect to aquarium fish pages. See also, for example: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes/Archive 2#Aquarium Guide?. There are a lot of differences of opinion amongst different editors about how much or how little how-to information these pages should be permitted to contain, and I think the best advice I could give is to WP:BE BOLD and change or tag things that look wrong to you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No news

I have tried to deliver the Newssletter every 2 months. But now it seems there is no news to report. In fact it looks to me like the project has become Semi-Active, many of the people here are gone and there are few new faces. Correct me if I am wrong.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for trying anyway. I guess there's no requirement that the Newsletter come at regular intervals. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Please post any news you find here, I will still diliver the newsletter if there is something to report.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have sent out a new newsletter. If anyone did not receive it, please inform me.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Credo Accounts

Editors may be interested in signing up at Wikipedia:Credo accounts. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Cross Breed?

The text on the Three spot gourami article says Healthy three spot gouramis should have vivid blue spots. My image is obviously a three spot gourami, but could it be a cross between a golden gourami that is shown further on the article, because it has yellow spots intstead of blue? GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp)19:04, 5 May 2011

Assuming you are referring to the image shown here (which is also the top image on the page), it sure looks like the typical blue form to me, not a hybrid between blue and golden. The spots in question are: (1) the eye, (2) the eye-like spot mid-body, and (3) the eye-like spot at the base of the tail—in other words, the "three spots" that give rise to the name. I think the confusion here comes from the sentence sounding like it means the speckling on the body, when it doesn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the wording at the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp)19:04, 5 May 2011

Plecos…

Plecostomus appears to be an aquarium related version of Hypostomus plecostomus, which is rather poor (note the number of references, random images of other species, lack of taxobox, etc). I propose that it is merged into Hypostomus plecostomus and Loricariidae. I would be happy to do the work myself, of course.

Also, pleco currently redirects to plecostomus, but it is used as common name for all Loricariidae (as is mentioned in the article), so I have proposed that the redirect is changed.

Comments and feedback would be appreciated for both.

Kat (talk) 10:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that there has been only positive response, I will start merging the articles soon. Kat (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Trichopodus gourami article naming

I propose that all Trichopodus species articles should be moved to their scientific names because all have multiple common names (see naming guidelines). Please add your views on this to the individual articles' talk pages:

• Trichopodus leerii
• Trichopodus microlepis
• Trichopodus pectoralis
• Trichopodus trichopterus

Kat (talk) 12:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

One thing to bring up is that the three spot gourami (as well as several other gouramis)is often referred to its common name instead of by its scientific name. It may be like having the 'dog' article moved to "Canis lupus familiaris" . --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 19:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

There are multiple common names which are used: for example, I very often see people call T. trichopterus, "gold gourami" or "blue gourami" and not realise that both are the same species as "three spot gourami". Where I first started keeping tropical fish, the "pearl gourami" was called only "lace gourami", the "moonlight gourami" was called only "silver gourami", etc, and I did not come across the other common names until I spoke with other fishkeepers in other parts of the world. Each of the popular common names I mention in each article is used as a predominant common name in *some* part of the English speaking world, so I don't think we can say that one common name is right over another, even if one is used by a larger number of resources.

I think your analogy is a little flawed: it is currently more like the dog article being named "retriever" and wanting to move it to "Canis lupus familiaris" instead of to "hound" because the word "dog" does not exist. Both groups of the dog are equally valid in their existence, just as each colour morph of the three spot gourami equally exists.

Kat (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Red Zebra cichlid?

Hello everyone!
I came across this image, which is very high in quality, which looks very much like a Red Zebra cichlid. The lead image on the Red zebra cichlid article was taken via camera phone, where there is a lot of blurring and noise. If this image is a red zebra cichlid, I believe that it should replace the lead image. Any thoughts?
--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 18:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at it carefully, and I'm pretty sure you are right, so I would support making that change in lead image. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It does look like the right species and is a better photo, although it is possible that the fish in the photo may be a hybrid and it can be very difficult to tell. I would also support the change. -- Kat (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll change the lead image. Thank you Tryptofish and Kat!

--GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 17:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Question

Hello again! I was inactive on this project for a while and I'm wondering why some of the scientific names for gouramis have changed. Could someone please fill me in on this topic? --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 20:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean why they have been changed on Wikipedia, it's because that's what the sources say. If you mean, instead, why taxonomists have made the change, I don't know offhand (I bet you could Google it), but that's what taxonomists do, all the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The papers for Trichogaster to Trichopodus are all freely available (references link to the PDFs), and I think the Colisa to Trichogaster are also free. In short, around the start of the last century, some ichthyologists decided that the type species for the genera were not what they were thought to be so Trichopodus was moved to Trichogaster and Trichogaster to Colisa. In the last 10 years, a few reviews have been made, including of the original types, and it was decided that the original classifications were correct, so the naming was reverted in 2007. It's taken this long for the changes to start filtering through to the fish keeping community, I only came across them myself when looking for references for some Wikispecies pages. Kat (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's probably a good idea to add the explanation to the Trichopodus and Trichogaster pages: I'll try to get it done in the next few days. Kat (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I really appreciate it! --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 20:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Asian arowana

Howdy, I was considering sending the article Asian arowana over to good article review. It seems like it is missing some key information and generally needs some attention. Anyone keen to take a look at what needs to be done, and/or weigh in on it? Thanks --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In the aquarium

I have encountered many editors who believe that "in the aquarium" sections fall under WP:NOTHOWTO, and require modification or even deletion in order to comply with encyclopedia guidelines. It seems to me that these sections should remain in aquarium fish articles, since from NOTHOWTO, "describing to the reader how other people or things use or do something is encyclopedic", and these sections contain sourced facts (pH, hardness, community preferences, all of which are reliably verifiable from independent secondary sources, and all of which are useful to the reader) about the conditions under which normal aquarium fish thrive. I am starting this section to initiate some discussion on this issue. Do these sections comply with Wikipedia policy? If not, how can/should they be changed across all fish pages (remember, they are basically ubiquitous in pages within the scope of this project)? Does the policy (NOTHOWTO) make sense, given that Wikipedia is suppose to be useful to readers? What are your thoughts on the matter? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but anyway.. This has been an issue about aquarium articles for longer than I've been editing here, and I've always had mixed feelings about it. In my experience, there clearly are editors who feel strongly about NOTHOWTO, so there would have to be a pretty ambitious effort to change consensus in order for this WikiProject to get an exemption. Also in my experience, most edits that I've seen introducing aquarium care sections tend to be WP:OR, which is a genuinely good reason to revert, and makes me somewhat sympathetic to being hard on how-to.

But I've also come to see a work-around, and it's the approach I prefer for all aquarium-related pages. Instead of saying "the way you can take care of this fish is to...", just rewrite it as "most aquarium hobbyists take care of this fish by...". Instead of a how-to, make it a description of common practice, preferably with sourcing of course. That makes the writing much more encyclopedic, and also makes OR more difficult while obviating the NOTHOWTO concerns. In my opinion, that's pretty much always the best way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I just created WP:AQUAHOWTO in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking we change these sections to "In captivity" instead to avoid some WP:NOTHOWTO dispute. What do you guys think? Bananasoldier (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about what to call the sections, and "Aquarium hobby" or simply "In aquariums" might be other alternatives (I've never like the "the" in "In the aquarium"), but my guess is changing the header won't change the problem. I also don't think it's necessary to have the same header on every page, for that matter. As it happens, I've recently had to follow an editor who made a huge number of edits, blanking these sections; I hope they now understand the issue, now that I explained it to them, but I'm not confident. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we do not need to make every section for all the articles the same name (WP:Not every snowflake is the same [or something like that]). Also, Trypto, what you're saying for the "work-around" is to basically reword the sentences but essentially have the same facts? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it's a little more complex than that. In part, alter the wording, to be descriptive of practice rather than how-to instructions, but the other part is to remove whatever is WP:OR. Sometimes, the "facts" are just some editor's opinion about how they, themselves, take care of the fish, and I think it's appropriate to remove that. I guess the way I think about it is that I imagine a "citation needed" tag at the end of the sentence. If I figure there's a reliable source somewhere out there, then I'd be reluctant to delete, but if I figure no reliable source really exists, then I'd probably delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good! Bananasoldier (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Life- reliable?

[8]

Is this website reliable? Thanks! Bananasoldier (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:UGC, it's a source where the content is mostly user-generated, which makes it mostly a source that fails WP:RS. Then again, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, so it may not be a huge problem if the content being cited is non-controversial. But if there is any dispute amongst editors about the specific content, then a better source should be sought. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Maroon anemonefish: AQUAHOWTO

How do we clean up the Maroon anemonefish article to comply with WP:NOHOWTO? Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick stab at it. What you did before me was a good start. Now, it's really a matter of needing to be sourced, rather than being how-to. It's a low priority for me, so I'm not going to watch it; please let me know if it needs more from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

New french public aquarium added

Today, Aquarium de La Rochelle was added to Wikipedia. kind regards Dan Koehl (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of potentially useful secondary references from Google News searches, but all of them are in French and I don't speak it. If anyone here can, I recommend using them to fix the referencing issues in the article.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 12:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I just put it on my watchlist, and I have a moderately good reading knowledge of French. Could you please expand on what you mean about the referencing issues? Where specifically do you see problems that should be fixed? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The references I found in English are all primary (i.e. sourced from the Aquarium itself), which is alright for non-controversial factual information. But it needs secondary sources to establish notability as well as verify (if possible) some of the claims (e.g. the claim of being the first tourist attraction, etc.) Thanks for looking into it.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 02:31, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, now I understand. I'll see what I can do when I have a bit of time for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Help identifying a fish

Hello everyone! At Piaractus brachypomus we need help identifying the top image on that article's infobox (File:Colossoma-brachypomus.jpg). As can be seen on the talk page we are not sure if that is a red-bellied Pacu, or, as claimed on the Pacu page, a black pacu. Any help would be appreciated. Please discuss on the article's talk page. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I send invitations to new members for your project?

Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for your project for a while, and have sent some lists to Antrogh who was willing to help invite those recommended editors. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes on your behalf to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What, if anything, would that involve in terms of what editors here would have to do? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Sorry, I didn't watch the page. I guess when you see new editors show up, just be friendly and help them whenever they need help:) Bobo.03 (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's certainly easy! Please feel free to do that, and thank you for the effort. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wakin listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wakin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Peacock tail listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Peacock tail. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

The collected works of ZeZeNapsid002

ZeZeNapsid002 was a user who edited goldfish related articles who was recently banned for copyright violation. They also added a lot of unsourced content. I've begun going through their contributions, and I've realized there are many pages where they have made dubious edits that either require attention, require reversion, or have been burried by other editors. This is complicated by the fact that some of what they've added is actually constructive. Egg-fish goldfish is a good example of what we've got here: they added two pieces of info, one about the Blue Egg Phoenix, which is substantiated by one of the page's existing sources, and one about the Maruko, which unless its mentioned in the book source, is uncited. I posted on the talk page giving editors there a day to find a citation for Maruko, or I will delete that content. I'm going to try to go through ZeZeNapsid002's other contributions to see which ones are salvagable (like the Blue Egg Phoenix section which I edited) and which need to be reverted. I would appreciate help with this, especially on less-frequented articles. If your willing to lend a hand here are their contributions.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm done going through all of their many edits. I hope I got all of the bad stuff in there, but there may be things I missed or places where I made the wrong judgement call. I encourage others to check my work. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Capitalization of names of standardized breeds

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on capitalization of the names of standardized breeds.

This is a neutral RfC on a question left unanswered by MOS:LIFE (on purpose in 2012–2014, pending "later discussion"). It is now later, and lack of resolution of the question has held up MOS:ORGANISMS in draft proposal state for 6 years.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Goldfish?

I've recently had the misfortunate of needing to sift through our wiki's numerous goldfish articles to vet a large set of dubious edits. That work is now done, but its gotten me thinking about the state of our coverage of goldfish overall. It is frankly abyssmal. Most goldfish breed articles are stubs, and while sources for standards exist they are not applied consistently. I think that getting together a community of people who understand goldfish could be quite helpful in this regard, similar to the existing WikiProject Dogs. Sadly, I am not myself able to take this on. My knowledge of goldfish is limited, and my time has recently become very limited also. So I'm posting up the call to arms, and I'd be happy to hear your thoughts! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Myself, I've never really been into goldfish, so I would be unlikely to participate in that (and we really could use more editors here). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, they need work, but this is already the project for it and it's barely active. The last thing we need is to fork it. Proposals like this at WP:WPPRO generally fail (and most of those that get just enough support to launch then fail the other way, by becoming dead projects within the year).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Flowerhorn cichlid

Some issues of source reliability and, particularly, close paraphrasing that might be copyright violations, have come up. If other editors could take a look and help remove things that need to be removed, I'd appreciate that very much. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Aquarium fish

Portal:Aquarium fish, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aquarium fish and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Aquarium fish during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)