Talk:Cleaning station
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Cleanup
editThis article should be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
- Images should be thumbnailed and moved, probably to the lefthand side of the article. More than one image is not (necessarily) needed.
- Citations (references) would also be great, for statements like the unnatural posing of a fish-to-be-cleaned. PaladinWhite 02:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
|
This discussion have been (modfied slightly) and moved to Talk:Cleaner_fish, this text is keep here as a history, please do not modify it MergeeditI suggest merging into cleaner fish - that article itself is in need of greater detail. Richard001 08:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Edit: Ah, I speak too soon... Since there are non-fish 'cleaners', what it really needs to be merged into is a more general article on the concept, but I can't find anything else, and cleaner (disambiguation) didn't list anything until I added it myself. Something such as cleaner species, cleaner (animal), would be suitable. Since cleaner fish and shrimp are not specific taxa they could be merged into it too. They all have a similar niche, and none of these articles is particularly large. Richard001 09:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Against unless it can be shown that the distribution of cleaner-shrimp and fish are restricted to cleaning stations. This doesn't appear to be the case, as there are cleaners that follow whales and sharks in open waters. I think the subjects are clearly delineated. Bendž|Ť 10:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Against. Cleaning stations are used by a subset of fish that are cleaner fish. In other words, not all cleaner fish occupy cleaning stations. As far as I know, cleaning stations are completely marine phenomena. The cleaner fish that inhabit brackish and freshwater habitats do not use cleaning stations. So while the two articles should certainly be developed alongside one another, with editors contributing to both and use the one to explain aspects of the other, they definitely are NOT sensible merge candidates. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You still fail to convince me. The cleaner station phenomenon is clearly limited to cleaner species (fish and the few non-fish cleaners). It doesn't have to occur in all species - this can be explained easily enough in the article. Secondly, this article is absurdly stubbish, and half of the material just replicates that at other articles anyway. Let me clarify things visually if you need it:
If there were non-cleaner species the objection would be more valid, but at present it's like suggesting Batesian mimicry should have its own article because not all species are Batesian mimics. Richard001 09:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC) |
Images
editOne cleaner wrasse cleaning station is fine. We don't need three, and they don't need to be so big they fill the screen. There's nothing "rare" about cleaner wrasse stations. Neale Monks 16:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I assume you took quite a few images of the cleaning station in the wild and really know what you are talking about.Can you, please, share with us these images. I just did search at Flickr for "fish cleaning station" and I found 233 images, most of which have nothing to do with cleaning station. So I do believe the images at the page are quite rare. I also believe the vievers and readers of Wikipedia have the right to see all the images to decide for themself which one they like--Mbz1 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- It's not up to me to demonstrate whether they're rare or not. We have a whole Commons Category of cleaner fish photos, so linking this article to that category does the job fine. Wikipedia is ABSOLUTELY not a place for big collections of photos. You're mistaking it for Wikimedia Commons. People can go there and choose the ones they like. If you want to add pictures to articles, stop and think about what they're adding. Are the species identified? Is the caption properly written and precise ("Cleaners got inside a gill" doesn't really mean much -- cleaner what? wrasse? shrimps? gobies?). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you ever tried to click at your link before posting it? Well, I did and I've got a bad title page. I know my English is far from perfect, maybe that's why I could not understand what you meant under:"If you want to add pictures to articles, stop and think about what they're adding." Who their you are talking about and why should I think what "they're adding."?Cleaner fish and cleaning station are not the same things. Many wikipedia articles have galleries. Pleas stop removing valid images from the article. The article is not about specific fishes. It is about cleaning station in general. The picture, which shows cleaners in gill has more value than other pictures because it shows how cleaners are getting inside cavities.Please notice that the pictures displayed at the page are the only high resolution pictures with absolutely free licence.--Mbz1 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Please be nice! For the link that Neale misstyped see [1]. I agree with Neale that we do not need 4 pictures in this small article. What Neale is trying to say is that to add more pictures they(the pictures) should give value to the page. Now there is 4 pictures with not so good english in the comment. One of these pictures shows what the page is all about, there is no need to have all displayed, if you would NOT remove the link to the commons pictures the user can decide on his own if he wants to see the extra pictures. --Stefan talk 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please be civil and please stop criticizing my English! Besides the fishes at cleaning station are being cleaned, not groomed, at least most people use word "cleaned". Oh, and btw, it is better not to put a name of the fish at all than to put an absolutely wrong one as you did, when you, for some uknown to me reason, called Dragon Wrasse a parrotfish. I guess you did it to demonstrate your knoledge in English. Because of people like you I wonder sometimes, if I should continue to contribute my rare images to Wikipedia at all. The link you provided has 4 pictures in it (2 of them are mine , one does not have a free licence and the last one neither shows cleaning station nor even cleaning action). The cleaning station images are rare and I see none but mine on Wikipedia so far. Before I uploaded my pictures there was none in the article. Many Wikipedia articles have galleries. I see nothing wrong, if this article will have a gallery too or you suggesting removing all galleries from all articles? I have not removed any links in purpose. I just undid somebody else revision to add the pictures back and maybe by acident removed the link. My images are rare and informative and they should stay, where they are.Please, let me take interesting pictures and upload them to Wikipedia instead of taking my time to write responces to not valid edits.--Mbz1 02:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Sorry to offend you, I did not intendt so sound uncivil but if you though so please forgive me I had no bad intent. I copied the wrong text, sorry my misstake, that was not done with any bad intent or to prove anything. I understand that you took the commons link away by misstake, I just tried to point it out to you (so that you might not revert my edits). I do not think we should have ALL pictures and this is a wiki so I have the right to have that opinion, and yes there are many pages with galleries and I might not nessesarily think they should all be there, and in this case I do not think that the extra 3 pictures add much, obviously you do not agree, so lets discuss and see what other people think and come to consensus, and sorry for commenting on your english it was NOT criticizing just commenting, you yourself admitted that it was far from perfect and neither is mine, again this is a wiki and we are supposed to help each other make things better, you have some pictures and someone else can help writing texts, ok? --Stefan talk 06:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Greetings. I have nothing against photographs being added to articles where they're relevant, and if the only problems are spellings and grammar, I'll fix them. I have just done this with the existing caption. No, my problem is when images are added for no particular reason than they look nice and the user wants their picture on an article instead of someone else's. Also, it doesn't help where that image mangles existing text or formatting (see recent edits to Sea urchin) or the image doesn't contribute as much anatomical (or whatever) information as the picture it replaces (as with recent edits to Moray eel). Galleries in articles are, apparently, frowned on, with preference being given for separate articles. I was told about this while editing Halfbeak and encouraged to move the non-critical images off to a new article, Gallery of beloniform fishes. I think that would work quite well here, too. The Gallery of cleaning stations article might have one section for cleaner wrasse, another for cleaner shrimps, another for cleaner gobies, and so on. This may of course duplicate a Commons category, and some might consider that a better option. The advantage with either a gallery page or a formal Commons category is users are able to add as many pictures as they want. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Neale Monks. In my opinion, if you believe that the image of a sea urchin does not contribute much anatomical information to the Sea Urchin article, you are wrong. It is the only image at Wikipedia, which shows the anus of sea urchin and in my opinion it is interesting information about an animal, which have very few parts of anatomy. I added the image back to the article. I believe it would be removed once again and I'll let it go, but I'd like it to be present in the history. In my opinion it is also important to show wild animals and not aquarium ones, whenever possible. The other picture of sea urchins, which was removed from the article shown sea urchins community in their natural habitat.Cheers,--Mbz1 22:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Greetings. I have nothing against photographs being added to articles where they're relevant, and if the only problems are spellings and grammar, I'll fix them. I have just done this with the existing caption. No, my problem is when images are added for no particular reason than they look nice and the user wants their picture on an article instead of someone else's. Also, it doesn't help where that image mangles existing text or formatting (see recent edits to Sea urchin) or the image doesn't contribute as much anatomical (or whatever) information as the picture it replaces (as with recent edits to Moray eel). Galleries in articles are, apparently, frowned on, with preference being given for separate articles. I was told about this while editing Halfbeak and encouraged to move the non-critical images off to a new article, Gallery of beloniform fishes. I think that would work quite well here, too. The Gallery of cleaning stations article might have one section for cleaner wrasse, another for cleaner shrimps, another for cleaner gobies, and so on. This may of course duplicate a Commons category, and some might consider that a better option. The advantage with either a gallery page or a formal Commons category is users are able to add as many pictures as they want. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to offend you, I did not intendt so sound uncivil but if you though so please forgive me I had no bad intent. I copied the wrong text, sorry my misstake, that was not done with any bad intent or to prove anything. I understand that you took the commons link away by misstake, I just tried to point it out to you (so that you might not revert my edits). I do not think we should have ALL pictures and this is a wiki so I have the right to have that opinion, and yes there are many pages with galleries and I might not nessesarily think they should all be there, and in this case I do not think that the extra 3 pictures add much, obviously you do not agree, so lets discuss and see what other people think and come to consensus, and sorry for commenting on your english it was NOT criticizing just commenting, you yourself admitted that it was far from perfect and neither is mine, again this is a wiki and we are supposed to help each other make things better, you have some pictures and someone else can help writing texts, ok? --Stefan talk 06:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Please be civil and please stop criticizing my English! Besides the fishes at cleaning station are being cleaned, not groomed, at least most people use word "cleaned". Oh, and btw, it is better not to put a name of the fish at all than to put an absolutely wrong one as you did, when you, for some uknown to me reason, called Dragon Wrasse a parrotfish. I guess you did it to demonstrate your knoledge in English. Because of people like you I wonder sometimes, if I should continue to contribute my rare images to Wikipedia at all. The link you provided has 4 pictures in it (2 of them are mine , one does not have a free licence and the last one neither shows cleaning station nor even cleaning action). The cleaning station images are rare and I see none but mine on Wikipedia so far. Before I uploaded my pictures there was none in the article. Many Wikipedia articles have galleries. I see nothing wrong, if this article will have a gallery too or you suggesting removing all galleries from all articles? I have not removed any links in purpose. I just undid somebody else revision to add the pictures back and maybe by acident removed the link. My images are rare and informative and they should stay, where they are.Please, let me take interesting pictures and upload them to Wikipedia instead of taking my time to write responces to not valid edits.--Mbz1 02:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- Please be nice! For the link that Neale misstyped see [1]. I agree with Neale that we do not need 4 pictures in this small article. What Neale is trying to say is that to add more pictures they(the pictures) should give value to the page. Now there is 4 pictures with not so good english in the comment. One of these pictures shows what the page is all about, there is no need to have all displayed, if you would NOT remove the link to the commons pictures the user can decide on his own if he wants to see the extra pictures. --Stefan talk 01:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- Have you ever tried to click at your link before posting it? Well, I did and I've got a bad title page. I know my English is far from perfect, maybe that's why I could not understand what you meant under:"If you want to add pictures to articles, stop and think about what they're adding." Who their you are talking about and why should I think what "they're adding."?Cleaner fish and cleaning station are not the same things. Many wikipedia articles have galleries. Pleas stop removing valid images from the article. The article is not about specific fishes. It is about cleaning station in general. The picture, which shows cleaners in gill has more value than other pictures because it shows how cleaners are getting inside cavities.Please notice that the pictures displayed at the page are the only high resolution pictures with absolutely free licence.--Mbz1 23:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1
- It's not up to me to demonstrate whether they're rare or not. We have a whole Commons Category of cleaner fish photos, so linking this article to that category does the job fine. Wikipedia is ABSOLUTELY not a place for big collections of photos. You're mistaking it for Wikimedia Commons. People can go there and choose the ones they like. If you want to add pictures to articles, stop and think about what they're adding. Are the species identified? Is the caption properly written and precise ("Cleaners got inside a gill" doesn't really mean much -- cleaner what? wrasse? shrimps? gobies?). Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Article
editI see a good article on JSTOR on this subject. Might be useful if anyone has access to it.
- Cleaning Stations as Water Holes, Garbage Dumps, and Sites for the Evolution of Reciprocal Altriusm?
Dennis L. Gorlick; Paul D. Atkins; George S. Losey, Jr. The American Naturalist > Vol. 112, No. 984 (Mar., 1978), pp. 341-353
More extensive information available? "Truce" amongst species?
editIt seems to me that the really interesting aspect of the cleaning station is the cooperation amongst the different species of fish. Not only are the cleaner fish left unharmed, but the other fish congregating seem to hold to a truce amongst themselves and if any fish violates this, they are ganged up on.
I am not certain of the foregoing but I believe there are sources that describe this and I think a discussion within the article of this would be nice.--Jrm2007 (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cleaning station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112224209/http://eng.hrosi.org/?id=34 to http://eng.hrosi.org/?id=34
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)