Talk:List of marine aquarium fish species/Archive 1

Deletion discussion

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion July 4 to July 12 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Guanaco 03:45, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. If we're to transwiki this, we should do the same to List of freshwater aquarium fish species and similar articles, see aquarium. But, the others seem quite useful articles to me. So this just needs cleanup, and renaming to List of marine aquarium fish species. It's a shame it is taking so long, yes. Andrewa 22:06, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Concur. -- Jmabel 03:05, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - expandable Buster 07:11, Jul 9, 2004 (UTC) (Vote moved here from vfd main space by Graham ☺ | Talk)

End discussion

Very incomplete

This article is very incomplete, such as to be mostly useless in its current form. I vote to either set some sort of deadline for finishing it, or deleting it. Comments?

Mmoyer 02:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Major expansion

Major expansion is mostly complete. Much needs to be done re adding descriptive info on each species. Also, each species could (should?) get their own article if they do not have one already. Mmoyer 19:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism

User JarolToe made an edit to Cortez Angelfish that is a plagiarism taken directly from www.marinecenter.com. Mmoyer 01:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Article Renovation

I have adopted this page via WikiProject Marine Life, and plan to completely revamp it. This article needs some serious help. I have copied it in it's entirety to a subpage of my user page where I will be working on it until it's done, hopefully by the end of June. You can view my progress here: User:FireFly5/MarineFishList. I plan to do the following things:

• Fill in all blank spaces
• Update information and/or delete incorrect information
• Add new or conspicuously absent species
• add as many pictures as I can find
• Add citations and sources (I am using The Consciencious Marine Aquarist and FishBase as my sources)

I may also do some rearranging, for example I'm going to split Angelfish into Angelfish (Large) and Angelfish (Dwarf) Anyone who would like to help me is welcome to, just contact me via my talk page. Given that I hope to simply be able to copy and paste the code from my subpage to the article when it's time, it'd be great if any edits, minor or otherwise, would be made to my subpage instead of article directly, or they will end up being reverted when I make the switch. If I find people aren't doing this, I'll just have to go through the history and make the changes myself before switching over, but I'd rather not have to do that!!

Thanks so much!! FireFly5 21:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

p.s. as of August 14th I am L'Aquatique

Okay, at User:Mmoyer's advice I have begun moving over sections that are finished. So far, I have Angelfish-Batfish. I'm going to get a jump back on this, since I had taken a break and worked on other stuff. FireFly5 22:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sections, signed when they are finished

1. 1 Angelfish (Large) FireFly5 30 June 2007
2. 2 Angelfish (Dwarf) FireFly5 32 June 2007
3. 3 Anthias FireFly5 22:20, 27 June 2007
4. 4 Bass & Groupers FireFly5 30 June 2007
5. 5 Basslets & Assessors FireFly5 7 July 2007
6. 6 Batfish FireFly5 22:20, 6 July 2007
7. 7 Blennies FireFly5 02:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
8. 8 Boxfish L'Aquatique 17:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
9. 9 Butterflyfish L'Aquatique 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
10. 10 Cardinalfish FireFly5 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
11. 11 Chromis L'Aquatique 18:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
12. 12 Clownfish L'Aquatique ^talktome 18:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
13. 13 Damsels
14. 14 Dragonets
15. 15 Eels
16. 16 Filefish
17. 17 Gobies
18. 19 Hawkfish L'Aquatique ^talktome 02:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
19. 20 Hogfish
20. 21 Jawfish
21. 22 Lionfish
22. 23 Pipefish
23. 25 Pseudochromis & Dottybacks
24. 26 Rabbitfish & Foxfaces
25. 27 Rays
26. 28 Seahorse FireFly5 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
27. 29 Squirrelfish
28. 30 Tangs
29. 31 Tilefish
30. 32 Triggerfish
31. 33 Wrasse

Removal of wikilinks for species?

I noticed that with the revamp, all of the inactive wikilinks have been removed. I know of at least one bot that runs over fishbase and creates article stubs for many species, and my concern is that because these inactive links are removed, when the articles are created no one will know. I propose that all species names be wikilinked whether an article exists or not. Thoughts? Mmoyer 17:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can put them back in if the consensus is that. Red links just drive me batty. On the other hand, if you can tell me the bots name I can just watch its contributions and update the list as needed. L'Aquatique ^talktome 18:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Major revamp of the page

I made some pretty significant changes to this page, and thought I should list them in case there is a consensus I did something wrong.

I tried to try to standardize the format of the tables on the page. Each type of fish had a different format for presenting information, and deciding what information to give about the fish. I picked the format used by Dwarf Angelfish, and applied it to all other species as best I could. This format includes: the common name an image(if available) the scientific name is it reef safe? Care level? A Description Maximum size This seemed the basic information that anyone considering a fish would want to immediately know. You can rule out most fish as being what you want with just that information. Hopefully more information than that is included in the page on the particular species although I realize that is often not true.

I made some exceptions to this format, with certain species you want to know other information, such as water temperature with seahorses. I considered adding tank size to all species, but that is a can of worms I do not wish to open, and I would prefer this battle took place within the page of each individual species. Images in particular didn't look very nice when they were in a different format for each species so those have been mostly standardized across the page.

I added sections for Frogfish, Jacks, Dartfish, Hogfish, Goatfish, Flatfish, Pipefish, Scorpionfish and Hamlets. Some of those do not make particularly good pets, but if someone happens to run into them on an online supplier or pet store it makes sense that they should be able to find out here that they make poor pets and why.

I found pictures for at least 20-30 fish on the wikipedia commons. This was mostly Moray eels, groupers, Puffers, Hawkfish and triggerfish although I did include a few others.

I added at least fifty species of fish. There were many missing species that are quite common(Panther Grouper, Zebra Moray, Fire Fish), while many more rare species were included(Round Stingray, Port Jackson Shark, Crosshatch Trigger). I see more damage from having too few common species than too many rare species so I listed as many of the fish species I saw on liveaquaria.com, bluezooaquatics.com and saltwaterfish.com as I could.

I created stubs for every species listed on the page that did not already have one.

I am not good at writing descriptions, that work can be taken up by someone who is. It seems to me that a picture is worth a thousand words, so I will try to find more pictures of fish.

It needs better sources, I am using Reef Aquarium Fishes 500+ Essential-To-Know species to try and get sources for the care level. Most of those came from commercial pages and are uncited so I am trying to get more credibility to that information.

Glmory (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Mollies

There are definitely enough sources to suggest mollies can live and even thrive in marine conditions all around the internet...so why was the section about mollies removed? Here are a couple of links to such sources: http://www.saltcorner.com/sections/zoo/mollies.htm (best source) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Uzu1LKgNkw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTTRoAYSO0I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdmik7TLBEI&feature=related http://forums.tfhmagazine.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=22351 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.116.32 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Youtube and forums are not valid sources. Saltcorner itself lists the species as a brackish species that can tolerate salinity, and regardless does not seem to be an authoritative source. Cmiych (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See List of brackish aquarium fish species Cmiych (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A new section for "Assorted/Other/Various/Unclassified"?

Pholidichthys leucotaenia aka engineer goby aka convict blenny is listed in both the goby and blenny sections. It is neither, but is a related perciform that is often confused and categorized as either. Since it is the only member of its family in the aquarium trade it wouldn't seem to warrant a whole category. Suggestions for a single category name for all species who's families that don't have enough members to for their own category? If there is no response by November 20, 2011 I will create a category "Other" and place P. leucotaenia in that category bondolo (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. Are there other species that would go in this section?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the sections that it is moved from need a note so as to not confuse those who do not know about the special classification of this fish.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, including "Other" as well as the notes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)