Talk:Tigerfish

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd say make it a disambig page with seperate articles for each fish.~Sushi 06:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New structure, disambiguation

message: 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):
.  If anyone disagrees with their inclusion in this article, please explain why before deleting them again.  Thanks! Fairsing 16:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rhamphochromis listing

message: The recent additions from anonymous user 4.67.39.192 appear to be valid content; unfortunately they are direct plagarism -- see source:.  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)
thread_title: Plagarized text

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Aquariasts sometimes erroneously apply the name Tigerfish to..." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Tigerfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111202104600/http://animal.discovery.com:80/fish/river-monsters/goliath-tigerfish/ to http://animal.discovery.com/fish/river-monsters/goliath-tigerfish
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Advice 154.127.12.3 (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  life