Talk:List of freshwater aquarium fish species

Older topics

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. -- [[User::Zhyla|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)

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)

Using the table

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)

I like these changes. The plain list was close to meaningless. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Where do these fit?

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

the pleco situation

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)

kissing gourami

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)

thanks for pointing it out. I already corrected it. --Melanochromis 13:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Common names are not capitalized

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)

Please keep description short

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)

Well, "description" has already become "remarks". I hope this will help with the length control. --Melanochromis 13:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The ones on Chinese Fighting Fish and Myxocyprinus asiaticus are FAR too long to my jaundiced eye!--BCS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.225.118 (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Addition of more rainbowfish

Their is a Boeseman's Rainbowfish, Praecox Rainbowfish, Lake Katubu Rainbowfish, Madagascan Rainbowfish, Australian Rainbowfish and Threadfin Rainbowfish.CorreyBonnick 17:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Madagascar rainbowfish are not in the Melanotaeniidae (Rainbowfishes) or **Pseudomugilidae (Blue-eyes) families and are thus not classified as true Rainbowfish. They belong in the Bedotiidae (Madagascar rainbowfishes) family. Same goes with Celebes rainbowfish, which belong to the Telmatherinidae (Sailfin Silversides) family. They should not be put with Rainbowfishes. Also, there is no "Australian" rainbowfish. That is a blanket name that has been given commercially to at least four different species of bows in the Melanotaenia genera. ** still some controversy, however their placement with rainbowfishes is widely accepted

Rainbowfish common names

Hrm, a lot of the bows are listed with the wrong common names. It stands to reason that if Werner, who first discribed Glossolepis incisus in 1908 as the Salmon-Red rainbowfish, had wanted it named "Red rainbowfish" he would have stated as thus. Same thing goes for the "Dwarf neon rainbowfish" -- it's a Neon rainbowfish sans Dwarf. If no one objects, I'll fix them and list a few. As an aside, quoted sizes I will add to the lists are known sizes reported by rainbowfish hobbyists such as myself and won't even come close, in some respects, to what fishbase may have. Bows are known to grow larger in the tank than they do in the wild. As an example, the much lauded size of 3" max for M. boesemani is far from the 6" it can grow to if it lives 10 years in captivity. My boesemani are about 1½ years old and all are close to 3.5" already Roan Art 02:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Roan Art, you seem to be more knowledgeble on rainbowfish tham most of us. So, I'd say you should just go ahead and edit the list as you see fit. Here's a couple of reminders:

• This list should be consistent with the taxonomy in Fishbase and other articles in wikipedia
• Don't put every existing species, just the ones that are common in the aquarium trade.
• "Description" section in the list is more like remarks. If you have a lot to add, you might wanna consider creating species article.

Have fun with the list. --Melanochromis 04:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Rainbowfish locales

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)

What about mentioning different colorations in the "description" section? --Melanochromis 04:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gourami's

How about adding the Thick-Lipped Gourami to the Gourami list.CourtneyBonnick 01:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hatchetfish

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)

Parachromis dovii

Added under other cichlids as I can't determine the fish's origins from work.

Flying Fox

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)

Lsuacner (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Where are the livebearers? (Guppies etc.)

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

Someone removed the section, why was it removed?--HighFlyingFish (talk) 03:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I put the section back, please explain why it was renmoved. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

More columns

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)

Did the sorting.--HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I add a hardness column? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

more rasboras

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)

Adding the Photos

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)

I suspect no one else will be doing it, but by all means go for it! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

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? --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. WP:BEBOLD. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Care level?

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)

Missing from the List

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)

Care Level

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)

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)

"Tank Type" Sections

After @Antrogh: 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)

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)

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)

Removed it. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement between sources

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)

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)

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)

Here's the first edit, which can be found from the page history: [1]. Generally, if sources aren't cited now, they probably weren't cited before. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that's not as helpful as I had hoped. Thanks. Antrogh (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Size vs. maximum length

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)

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)

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)

Huh, apparently there's multiple ways to measure fish length as discussed here. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Marine aquarium species

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)

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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• T-Bar Cichlid Poland.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• StiphodonSemonildianPrakoso.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced "anecdotes"

Realfakebezalbob, you seem to labour under a misapprehension here. "Useful anecdotes" are not and have never been acceptable on Wikipedia if they are unsourced. Any editor is not only allowed but expected to remove unsourced material because it runs counter our core policies - see WP:VERIFY and WP:OR. This is not a personal preference or a niggle to comfortably edit-war about for a few days. Put another way, if you reinstate that stuff again without providing sources for everything, I will report you for disruptive editing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

instead of removing hours of peoples work why dont we as the editors work together and add sources to the remakes category instead of out right removing it? Realfakebezalbob (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Might I add, YOU personally added lots of "anecdotes" without a source in sight. Please be aware that saying "I will find sources sooner or later" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card here. The standard expectation is to remove unsourced material, and only add it back in once a source is available. Otherwise the entire encyclopedia would look like fandom.com. But okay. I will swing by again in two weeks and then take out everything that is still unsourced. If you want to have the material to work on for finding sources, you can just as well copy everything into your userspace, where it doesn't run foul of some of the most basic WP policies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

also if you have some grievances message me directly instead of using this (which I may add could be considered misuse of Wikipedia's talk function of using it like a forum) also many of the descriptions can be found in the animals wiki article Realfakebezalbob (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

My "grievances" are with your editing practices which are against WP policy and guidelines, and they will stay right here where every other editor who looks at the talk page can see them. As for finding the descriptions in the species articles - well, get porting references if you want them in this one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Refs required same time as content added. Cannot add first and promise refs later. David notMD (talk) 03:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

No, Realfakebezalbob, it's entirely proper to discuss problematic editing of an article in that article's talk page. I don't know what you mean by "the animals wiki article", but wouldn't be at all surprised if some Wikipedia article about animals exhibits the problems discussed here. Famously, Wikipedia contains many articles that have serious problems (and a nontrivial number of articles that are simply bad). Their existence is no justification for adding unsourced assertions, editorial comments, etc to other articles. -- Hoary (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey @Realfakebezalbob, this is actually the best place for this discussion as it concerns a content dispute that's a significant change to the article. It's important to give onlookers a chance to chime in when it's a change of this size. We're all (or need to be) working together towards the same goal in a collaborative manner. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

i agree i just dont like the what i see as an aggressive tone pointed towards me (even if it wasnt intended) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 01:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

although most of it is warranted as I have also have been hostile Realfakebezalbob (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

could some one look at the "description" section and look to see if the sourcing is adequate? thx Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should have added sources , that’s not my problem. My problem was how it is being handled, the hostility of elmidae is what peaves me, I feel this could be handled much more civilized, and instead of wanting to get rid of all the unsourced things why don’t we work to gather to source it (isn’t that an editors job?). Also can we please undo the previous edit and only remove the unsourced material? Realfakebezalbob (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Basically what I’m trying to say is let’s work this out and not have an edit war. I’m fairly new to editing so this is a learning experience for me! Thanks! Realfakebezalbob (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You think that it's fine for you to add unsourced material, it then becomes someone else's responsibility to source it. I'm sorry, but that's not how things work here. Maproom (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

see I agree but the majority of this section was not mine and yes I did edit some and write some new ones but I recently did add sources and it has bean reverted (I am assuming in good faith but they did not see the new sources so I am going to revert and remove any unsourced material) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at the contested content, and it looks to me, based on my own familiarity with the subject, that a lot of it is factually correct and that sources are readily available out there, so restoring it with proper sourcing is clearly the right thing to do. One other thing I noticed has to do with "how-to" content about aquarium keeping. WP:AQUAHOWTO gives a little bit of guidance on how to stay on the right side of WP:NOTHOWTO. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

hey! I edited some stuff (especially in the other section) could you look it over and see if it is not "how to" content also see if the sourcing is good. Thanks! Realfakebezalbob (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll be glad to, but please give me a day or two to get to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

thx Realfakebezalbob (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

would these guide lines given in "when to cite" apply?

• General common knowledge: Statements that the average adult recognizes as true. Examples: "Paris is the capital of France" or "Humans normally have two arms and two legs."
• Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions."
• Plot of the subject of the article: If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information. If the subject of the article is a work that has been published or broadcast in a serial manner, then citing the episode, issue or book can aid comprehension for readers not familiar with the whole of the serial work. It also aids verification if editors are concerned about inappropriate use of the artistic work (a primary source) for interpretation.
• Cited elsewhere in the article: If the article mentions the fact repeatedly, it suffices to cite it once. Uncontroversial content in the lead is often not cited, as it is a generalization of the cited body text. Subleads (generalized opening statements summarizing specific sections, paragraphs, etc.) may also be verified by the citations of the following text. It is permissible to cite such content (including with <ref>Sublead generalization supported by all the citations in this section</ref>), but not mandatory.

Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Realfakebezalbob: I have had it with you. I have left you a formal warning on your talkpage. The next time you add or restore unsourced material to this or any other article, you will be reported. You can then explain your fanciful notions that aquarist how-tos are "self-evident facts" to an admin. If you cannot get your head round our very basic sourcing requirements, you have no business on this project. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

i literally copied and pasted a wiki article Realfakebezalbob (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

also i have never bean directly warned to stop reverts in fact you have not replied when i asked for helpful tips with editing, and "green neon tetras are look like neon tertas with a green stripe" is a pretty easy to understand fact Realfakebezalbob (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Since we seem to be back to the status of "have lots of unsourced crap on the page and maybe there will be sources someday" - I reiterate my intention from above: in two week's time, I shall do another sweep and remove anything still unsourced. This will also include gems like "WILL eat anything that can fit into its mouth", the many, many "words of caution", and other stuff that seems to have escaped from some online aquarist forum. WP:NOTHOWTO very much applies. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Tank size

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)

Removing sourced material

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)

Thesprucepets

Hello @P50rcup1346 and @Elmidae: I think Thesprucepets may be a WP:RS. Their writing process involves veterinarians. https://www.thesprucepets.com/about-us-4776796 — Invasive Spices (talk) 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Junk addition/removal

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)

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)

Right I agree that unreferenced things shouldn’t be added but people are removing things that are referenced on the animals article, it’s a list, it should have short statements pertaining to the individual and have more information on the animals article, also “aggressive” in the aquarium hobby usually means it will eat other fish (is predatory) which can commonly be gather through seeing body structure. Also it’s pretty hard to find non anacdotal/ forum information as that is how a lot of this information is gathered, there aren’t many scientific papers on bettas in 5 gallons! Realfakebezalbob (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

also “aggressive” in the aquarium hobby usually means it will eat other fish (is predatory) which can commonly be gather through seeing body structure... 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)

Basically what I am saying is “it eat meat, so it will eat meat” I don’t think I can dumb it down anymore than that Realfakebezalbob (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Realfakebezalbob, 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)

Yes I have, my question is have you? It states quite clearly that even “untrustworthy/ weak” sources can be used to back undisputed or evident information, in addition most of my sources (i can’t speak for others as I am not them) have been trustworthy sources, when ever I can (sometimes it is harder to find sources for species not commonly kept) common sources I use are aquarium coop (one of the most transparent and community focused organization in the freshwater aquarium hobby) the spruce pets (see discussion made by @invasivespices on the topic) Realfakebezalbob (talk) 14:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Other fish?

I noticed clown plecos were missing, got me thinking what else? any ideas Invasive Spices, The Great Mule of Eupatoria, Ibrahim Muizzuddin, Elmidae, HighFlyingFish Realfakebezalbob (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The list isn’t comprehensive, as there are still more species to be added. If you find more species in the aquarium trade, feel free to add them with the appropriate sources regarding their preferences The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I have added some. Some of them are the most common shrimp and crayfish to See Also. Since there is a separate "invertebrates" list maybe those I shouldn't have done that. Others can decide.

We still lack Green Texas Cichlid (which is a name for two different fish so I'm uncertain what to do here), Scarlet badis, Redeye tetra, and Asian stone catfish. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I think we should stick to fish, but the invert list needs lots of work! Realfakebezalbob (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)