Talk:List of freshwater aquarium fish species

message: I started adding some structure to the listing, mainly grouping by family. Expansion with more species would imho be better to place in articles on the respective families. -- OlofE
Maybe the list should be just a hiearchy down to the level of families and sub-families/logical groups?  For instance, instead of a dozen cichlid species, maybe just say something like this for the cichlid node of the tree:
*Cichlidae
**African Cichlids
**American Cichlids
One downside with this is the list is supposed to be targeted towards aquarists but a family page won't be. -- Zhyla
actually, splitting cichlids between american and african might really help aquarists because it is easier to keep african cichlids with african cichlads and americans with americans, they are less likely to beat on each other.  and then the african cichlids could even be split up by native lake..  i'm still learning about cichlids but that is what we keep.  ours aren't even listed yet, but if/when i find out what they are i will take pictures and add them.  we only have african ones.Loosgroov 23:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In my experience, a list grouped by family is most useful, because even if a specific fish is not on a list or in a reference book, similar fishes will be easier to find. Listing by region is less helpful, and an alphabetical listing (whether by scientific name or, worse, common name) is useless -- and yes, I do have a book arranged that way. On another note, maybe instead of just a list there could be section headings for each family, which would generate a table of contents. Ginkgo100 23:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older topics 

message: I'm converting the list to the table format just like the one used for List of marine aquarium fish species. Also I'm adding a picture of each fish if it's available in wikipedia. This is a lot of editing works but at the end it should help readers. Sorry for the inconvenience if you find this format harder to edit.--Melanochromis 07:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like these changes. The plain list was close to meaningless. --Ginkgo100 talk 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent job, Melanochromis.  I know you are putting painstaking hours into fixing this.  This list is easy to read and user-friendly.  And I'm working on that rosy-red minnow pic. --Terrapin83 24:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the table 

message: Where would a Peacock gudgeon fit on this page ? Thanks. JimmyOrangeSeed (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where do these fit?

message: This is supposed to be a list of species. But when it comes to the suckermouth catfish, species list is simply not possible and not practical as their taxonomy is not well-structured and many fish share the same common names. So I mostly list the genera instead of species unless it's a well known species. And I doubt an average fish keeper would need to know more than the genus level anyway. --Melanochromis 08:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the pleco situation

message: the link to kissing gourami actually takes you to black ghost knife fish.  This should be addressed sometime soon.--Terrapin83 10:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks for pointing it out. I already corrected it. --Melanochromis 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: kissing gourami

message: Just want to remind people that fish common names are not capitalized (with a few exceptions). It's neon tetra, not Neon Tetra. See the guidelines of common names and scientific names here.
PS. the scientific names in the list will probably have to be italicized. 
--Melanochromis 06:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Common names are not capitalized

message: I don't think it should be longer than 10-30 words. Personally, I even want to change "description" to "remarks". Things that should be in the description are:
*Possible confusion with other species (and ways to identify them)
*Strains, breeds, subspecies, or hybrids
*Warnings (legal status, dangers to keepers, etc.)
*Brackish/marine nature (some fishes commonly sold as "freshwater" fishes are actually brackish or marine; some other "freshwater" fishes migrate to brackish/marine when older) 
Other aquarium care information should be added to the articles, not to the list. 
--Melanochromis 23:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, "description" has already become "remarks". I hope this will help with the length control. --Melanochromis 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please keep description short

message: Another comment: rainbowfish of the same species can look totally different depending on the locale they are from. For instance, my Melanotaenia affinis are Pagwi, from Goo obo Falls in PNG and they do not bear much of a resemblance to the Bluewater Creek or Standard variety. There are no less then ten different variations of Melanotaenia trifasciata (and more could be discovered in the future). YOu can see them here, 'cause I'm not gonna type them all out ;) :
http://members.optushome.com.au/chelmon/Trifas.htm
Commercial fisheries have a nasty habit of selling bows with their locale as their common name (ie: Goyder River rainbowfish instead of Regal rainbowfish, Goyder River). It is very important that these locales be noted and tracked by hobbyists/breeders and that people be encouraged not to hybridize the fish. Can a new column be added to the rainbowfish section for locale? Roan Art 02:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about mentioning different colorations in the "description" section? --Melanochromis 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbowfish locales 

message: I was just passing through, looking up fish info, and noticed that the Black-winged Hatchetfish wasn't listed.  I added it, and filled in the info for it and the Marbled.  I'm a big fan of the Black-winged.  ;)  I like Pencilfish a lot as well, and might be back to flesh that out sometime.  Pencilfish are super shy, but can swim backwards.  :)  Thanks for the cool Wiki page!  --Dulcimerist 04:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatchetfish 

message: The link for the fish "flying fox" redirects to the article about the mammals (flying foxes). Please edit the redirection.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betawarrior60 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying Fox

message: Why aren't the guppies, mollies etc listed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.93 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the livebearers? (Guppies etc.) 

message: Shouldn't there be columns in the tables for things like pH, temperature, and water hardness? Also, the sorting function would be nice in these tables (eg. so users can sort the groups and see which ones are the biggest). Abyssal (talk) 13:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: More columns

message: Boraras_brigittae might be a nice one to add to the Rasboras section. I'll try to expand it's page a bit. ATuin-hek (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  more rasboras 

message: Well I have nothing really better to do, I'll start adding the photos to the fish in the db. Many are missing but we have photos of almost all. If anyone wants to join in, start from the bottom and I'll go from the top and meet half way! King (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect no one else will be doing it, but by all means go for it! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the Photos 

message: I believe that the "remarks" category as well as others that sometimes have nothing for some species. Furthermore, the wording for some of the "remarks" categories needs to be changed because it has an amateur tone where it should be more like an encyclopedia entry. Anyone agree? --<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: Turquoise">GouramiWatcher</span> (Gulp) 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. WP:BEBOLD. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: I am concerned about the care level column. Things like aquarium size, pH and hardness are all objective facts that can be cited and quantified, but "care difficulty" depends highly on the person, and is merely a subjective reflection of the above factors, so any estimates are likely to be uncited and uninformative original research. So I would suggest removing the care level column, and adding pH, hardness and aquarium size columns instead, to increase the objectivity and verifiability of this list. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Care level? 

message: How about these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freshwater_butterflyfish  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iambarryr2 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing from the List 

message: Should this page even have a "care level" column? I feel like care level is subjective and ill defined, and thus is Wikipedia:Original research, and fails Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO. Additionally, it clutters up an already complicated and hard to read table. Every care level given here is unsourced. I don't see that column turning into anything useful. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 09:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I posted the same thing 2 years ago... When/if I have time, I'll be WP:BOLD and remove it. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Care Level 

message: After  took the initiative to start removing "Care Level" columns (see discussion above), I finished that. Now I would like to ask the community about another column that's been bugging me: "Tank Type". Unlike things like pH, Hardness or Temperature Range, Tank Type is hard to verify, and indeed, all entries in that column are unreferenced. While some species notoriously don't get along well with others, all fish coexist in the wild, so evidently an expert-enough aquarist could keep anything in a big enough community tank. Overall "tank type" seems pretty subjective, hard to source adequately and WP:HOWTO. But what do you think? Should that column be next? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't respond to the earlier discussions, but I think that you raise a good point. It's a close call about tank type, and WP:AQUAHOWTO is relevant, but I'm inclined to err on the side of removing stuff that veers towards how-to, so I'd be inclined to remove it. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it seems bizarre. Why are these the tank types, and not things like "freshwater river" or "blackwater"? There's a lot that needs to be gotten rid of in articles about aquarium fishes. Antrogh (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tank Type" Sections 

message: Many sources on these fish disagree with each other. For instance, the size listed here for the Senegal bichir (no source given) is not the same as the one from Fishbase. Which sources do we trust in these disputes? Antrogh (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well in a dispute between source (Fishbase) and no source, go with the source IMO. If two sources are in dispute, depends on the sources. Fishbase is pretty good though, and tends to be up-to-date. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Does anyone know who made the list originally? There were almost certainly sources involved, especially in the case of involved commentary like what there is about the size of the Senegal bichir, but finding them now is difficult. Knowing where the citations came from would help. Antrogh (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the first edit, which can be found from the page history: . Generally, if sources aren't cited now, they probably weren't cited before. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's not as helpful as I had hoped. Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement between sources 

message: Could we change the label of the box from "Size" to "Maximum length"? Maximum length is far more easily found on Fishbase, from what I've seen, and just saying "Size" is ambiguous about whether we mean size at maturity, size for males or females, size at death, etc. Antrogh (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is sourcing that actually says it's the "maximal length", then yes, keeping in mind that there tend to be, well, "fish stories" about anomalously large individuals that are unrepresentative. Otherwise, an option would be to leave it at "size", but with a footnote from where it says "size" in the header, that indicates that it is "size at maturity". --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fishbase tends to list maximum size, with question marks for size at maturity. I've only found one source with a specific size at maturity so far. (Granted, I haven't worked on sourcing very much of this list yet.) Antrogh (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size vs. maximum length 

message: The list of marine aquarium fish species article has issues that are similar to those of this article. Do I assume that the conclusions made here about care level sections, etc., also apply over there? Antrogh (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It never hurts to ask on the talk page there anyway, but basically I would say yes. It would be good to have consistency among these list pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marine aquarium species 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Let’s move all of the info on tank size in the description to the “tank size” column Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank size 

message: I understand the removal of the unsourced material, but people are removing sourced material as well, there reason because “not reliable sources” I guess one of the best most respected aquarium companies and the US government is not reliable Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing sourced material 

message: I note that unreferenced commentary continues to be added. Of course, it shouldn't be. And of course, the fact that other, similarly unsatisfactory stuff exists is no justification for adding more unsatisfactory stuff.
Still, what's already present but not referenced should be removed. (Lengths aside. These aren't referenced, but the reader will assume that they'll be referenced in the specific articles.)
I read that one fish is "Highly predatory" and that another is "A small shell-dwelling cichlid from Lake Tanganyika. Very similar to N. multifsciatus but similis has striping from the body continue [sic] to the head". No reference is provided for either. That the stripes continue to the head is clear from the photo, but neither predatoriness and nor a Lake Tanganyika origin may be seen from a photo. 
And a lack of referencing isn't the only problem here. I'm also surprised by the imperative ("don't house") within "In an enclosed tank habitat, the fish’s territorial, aggressive nature is heightened, so don’t house angelfish with shy species that are intimidated by pushy, boisterous fish." 
How about no more additions of advice or unreferenced material, and from December a ruthless removal of (1) any assertions (lengths aside) that have remained unreferenced, and (2) any remaining material that seems less suitable to an encyclopedia than to a how-to manual? -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I already did a similar sweep back in August, but stuff keeps being added back in. I don't know what it will take to drive home the point that this is not Unca Bob's Fish Breeding Blog but a thoroughly referenced encyclopedia. We're getting onto four pages of making that point to the same parties now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:35, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

text: ... this is original research and you cannot use it in an article. If it's not written down, published and referenceable, we don't want it. This must be like the fifth time you are being told this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

text: , please read WP:Verifiability. After you've read it, a couple of questions: Do you understand WP:Verifiability, and do you agree to edit in accordance with it? -- Hoary (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Junk addition/removal