Talk:Sea louse

Untitled

Not being a expert in the subject, I found the following problems with the article:

• "species of parasite" - that is not a scientific classification, what's the family?

• from a quick look at available sources, there are possibly differences between the Atlantic and the Pacific, which are not mentioned in the article

• there are a number of mention in the WWW to problems related to sea lice originating from fish farming affecting wild salmons, and this seems to be an important issue

http://www.greenspiritstrategies.com/D146.cfm references to scientific papers on this issue.

• the "Marine Institute" and other regulatory references: to which country they apply?

Xis 03:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image is not of either species mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.27.151 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not an expert either, but it seems there is a typo. Salinity above twenty-five percent seems unlikely, as in: "How planktonic stages of sea lice disperse and find new hosts is still not completely known. Temperature, light and currents are major factors and survival depends on salinity above 25 ‰" Jornadigan (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The value is 25 ppt, not per cent. The correct amount and symbol have been replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sealice (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The additional reading reference to Marty Krkosek's article is Science was deleted because it was already in the references Sealice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)SealiceSealice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sea lice life cycle.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Sea lice life cycle.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The best first step is to see if the image can also be sourced elsewhere. If for example can it be be found on a (Federal) government website (all of their images are free to use publically, if for nonprofit reasons), or on a state website (only if) it is a state where it's online government images are considered to be "public commons" usable (a legal copyright designation) allowing free and largely unlimited use-- for nonprofit purposes. Then you can just add it to Wikimedia commons that way. Otherwise, these are the same sources where you could find a good substitute image.

In particular, look for "Department of Natural Resources" or agency names similar to that, on Federal government websites (or states that have "public commons" use policies for their online content). Then look for articles in those department on the Sea Louse. Of course focus on states that have a sea coast!

Then (important) 1) save these images to your desktop and then (2) upload them to Wikimedia commons (can be done very quickly). You will have a few information feilds to fill out but it's very simple and straightforward. They will need a link to where you found the image as well, just cut and paste that for conveneince, then you won't have to write out a long web address. 66.27.48.50 (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

frwiki

This page should be linked to https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pou_du_poisson.

Readable by Laymen

I changed the first paragraph to read "family of small crustaceans" rather than "copepods". People shouldn't have to follow links to understand what articles are talking about when there are common understandable words that can be used. I included a link to copepods if people want to read more details about small crustaceans. Encyclopedias are supposed to be readily readable by laymen, and Wikipedia's rules even state this. People need to stop writing articles like they are doctoral dissertations. Trying to sound smart is not the same thing as providing information. Pardon the rant here, but I am increasingly peeved as I find I have to look up the meanings of words just to understand an article, even though there are understandable words (not just Latin) to describe what needs being described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 17:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Needs Fixing or Create New Page for Other Types of Sea Lice

This article says that it focuses only on Salmon related sea lice. If this is the case, another article needs to be created to discuss other types, or the article needs to be expanded to include other types. There are no other pages for this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theshowmecanuck (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Size of a sea louse

How big are sea lice? There are different varieties, old and young, male and female, but I nowhere in the article get to read: "Sea lice range in length from X micrometres to Y millimetres" (or similar). Please could this missing information be added? --Wavehunter (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I had begun a new section to ask the exact same question, until I found Wavehunter's version of it. Let me second it and thus maybe draw more attention to it. One would think this would be a basic part of the article. Dgndenver (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

I suggest visiting the salmon louse talk page to discuss a merger between the articles sea louse and salmon louse. --Wavehunter (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)