Talk:Siamese fighting fish

User link

I really don't like the idea of linking articles to User pages. I think I'm going to change that link. RickK 03:52, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

safe plants

Are there some plants that can harm Bettas? I don't think so, not through ingestion. Bust some plants could harm bettas by fouling the water or throwing off the nitrate levels, etc. AmyEruna (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got an amazon sword in with mine - neither are dead yet :) 173.22.123.35 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing water

How often does the water need to be changed?

• As a general guide I hear 1 gallon (4L) per Betta per week. So if you have a 20L divided tank with 2 bettas in it, take out about 8L or about 50% per week. In 2L jars (or smaller) well, you need to change it every day or two. You have to make sure the water going in is as similar as possible to the water that came out, in terms of temperature and PH etc. Also better to "age" water a while before putting it in tanks. Remember that even considering this, water changes are always stressful for fish. People who keep Bettas in small containers are really not responsible. They're either stressing the fish with constant water changes or letting them suffer with poor water quality. These people tend to think a Betta in a champagne glass or vase is a decoration, not a PET. No idea why someone would want a sad, droopy betta in a cup when a happy, healthy fish with his fins shimmering like silk gliding back and forth in even a small 10L tank is so much better. Less work for the owner too, as the bigger the tank is, the less often you need to change the water.

• I actually believe that it doesn't matter what size the tank is, water changes should happen at least every other week. Depending on the size of the tank and how many fish are in it, however, the amount of water changed varies. You should never change more than 50% of the water because no matter how careful you are, that will change the temperature, PH, and other factors too much and cause the fish stress. If you change all of the water, you will kill off the bacteria that's needed to process the amonia created by the fish's waste. In tanks that are ten gallons or larger, you can easily change just 10-20% of the water every other week. If there isn't already a Wikipedia article on fish care and the importance of regular water changes, perhaps I'll write one soon. For now, I won't go into the details.

Also, aging water does no good if you're just doing it in a jar. You have to remove the clorine and there are products you can purchase to do that. The only reason to "age" water is if you're setting up a new tank and you need to give the water time to develop bacteria. This is a process that takes at least a week.

(user:Timothy woodell Or WHEN THE WATER GETS MURKY OR HARD TO SEE IN TO. THE FISH NEEDS TO BE SCOOPED OUT AND TO BE PUT INTO ANOTHER CONTANIER WITH THE SAME WATER IN IT TO MAKE SURE YOU DONT THROUGH THE FISH INTO SHOCK. Its just like us humans if we hop into a cold shower or tub we get cold and hop right back out but fish they cant wich either leads to damage or death. If they start to float side ways get some thing parrel and hold it upright for at least 30-35 minnets this way it can breath and get back normal.)

(user:Timothy woodell To change water most people say dont use tap well thats a good saying because of the clorinene in it can be harmfull to the fish or betta, but you can use it You want it as close to the same tempeture as it is in the contanier that had the same water in it from the aqurim before so thein if it is in a small conatnier you want to stick it in about half way in and hold it thier from 1-5 minnets to addapt thein stick the fish in. You want non cloreine water that can be bought at wal-mart in the water jug isle or you can take a empty clean jug and fill it full of tap water and let it sit in the open for at least 24 hours before use this way the clorrene can settle down and wont be that dangerous to fish.)

Evilcarp

I'd like to add that rain water is best if you have it. Bettas and perhaps all tropical fishes love rain water. So if you are not in a place where rain comes with acid or industrial pollution, please use it for your bettas. They would be happy. Make sure the water is heated up to the right temperature. It's Ok to feel by hand to see if the new water is nearly same temperature with existing water. I find that rainwater is the only water that is least likely to give your bettas a shock even with 100% water change. It's great for spawning bettas.

dmaivn

More about betta illnesses

There are many more popular diseases for bettas especially when they are kept in more artificial environments like Aquariums in cold climates of Western countries. The information about diseases in the main page is far from adequate.

Swim Bladder Disorder or SBD in short: This is only a disorder. This is a problem of a fish which cannot swim properly due to a problem with the swim bladder. It might be floating or sinking. This problem might be caused by overfeeding, poor diet or bacterial infection. It's a major problem for fry and juvenile bettas of fancy traits which are very inbred. The most effective way to deal with it is to prevent it by keeping water clean, avoid overfeeding and avoid feeding too much of food too rich in proteins.

Dropsy: The fish looks too fat and the scales stick out like a pine cone. This does not appear to be contagious. It might be the result of some organ failure. Most affected fish will die even though they would eat normally until the day before they fall dead. In some rare cases they recover in a very clean new environment. To avoid this problem, keep water very clean and do not overfeed.

Depression: This is a very popular problem with bettas. They get depressed very easily in drastic change of environment. For example if a betta is raised in a non-transparent tub, it will get a big shock when moved into a glass tank. Bettas generally do not like transparent glass tank unless they are moved into glass containers fairly early in their lives. A depressed bettas can become happy again within 10 minutes if it is returned to a familiar environment. So when a betta is moved, good water and similar temperature are not all to keep in mind. A depressed betta can suffer bacterial infection very easily and die very quickly that even antibiotics would not be able to prevent death. dmaivn

I agree. There is definitely a lack of information regarding treatment of illnesses or illnesses unique to bettas. We should also have photographs of bettas showing symptoms of illnesses. --SquatGoblin 01:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Combine the articles

This article really needs to be combined with the Betta fish article -- they need to be merged. Some have suggested linking them together through a See Also section, but that section seems to have disappeared. If you don't feel that the two pages should be merged, please explain why.

I'm in favor of a merge. I have set up a new page called Betta (Siamese Fighting Fish) and have the identical information in it. We should just get an admin to delete the old pages. After that we cna hash out the new article (as some minor differences do exist) Any objections?Gator1 17:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we just make redirects? Cmouse 20:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I just don't see why we need two pages that are about the exact same thing. Do you? Why don't you check out the merged page I am proposing. Betta (Siamese Fighting Fish).Gator1 22:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

After no objections, I've gone ahead and merged the pages into Betta (Siamese Fighting Fish and provided the appropriate links. Hope no one will freak out. lolGator1 00:29, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I've now turned the original "Betta" page into a page for the genus Betta, and renamed this as Siamese fighting fish, which is more consistent with usual practice for species with well established common names. It's a bit of a compromise given that "betta" is so often used to refer just to this species, but anyone who looks it up will be sent here pretty promptly anyway. I hope this is all right with other contributors here. seglea 23:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Broken Link

There is a link to a government website in the References section, named "Betta splendens" (TSN 172611). If anyone knows the correct link that is supposed to go there, please fix it. Aznph8playa2 08:49, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

someone must have fixed this because it is working ok now. Or, ITIS does sometimes go off the air for an hour or two, so you may just have tried it when it was in a mood. seglea 23:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Some new Pics in the german wikipedia

Hello, we have got some new pics in the german wikipedia. A fine female betta and a male betta with an foam-nest. perhaps you would like to use these for the englisch wiki. greetings

Links

I added a link to the International Betta Congress website. This is a very important resource for people interested in Bettas as they handle the judging district and international shows as well as the pseudo parent (they have no real authority over individual clubs) to clubs in the US and Internationally. They set the standards for showing Betta Splendens and form the districts through the judging board.

Stepsinpuddles 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Replaced AusAqua. net in external links as it is an active site. Goldenblue 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

External links

Wikipedia:External links

I think the link "Tropical aquarium fish blog" looks quite spammy. It has a lot of affiliate-links and no real info that haven't been fetched from product reviews from the 'net. I didn't remove it though, I'll let some of the more experienced decide whether to keep it or not. Regards, Andreas

Do you think that Betta Fish Blog is worthy of being included in the external links section?

As per Wikipedia policy I have cleaned up, deleted and sorted the external links. Many of the links were garbage links to retailers/advertisers that did not add any info, one was a German language website, etc. We have to keep an eye on this section of the article, as many people are exploiting Wikipedia for free advertising. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I also have replaced Ausaqua to the external links as it is a purely Australian site for Australian hobbyists and breeders. The AusAqua site is useful for Aussies as they use measurements in the metric system (compared to the USA and other sites that use gallons etc etc) and use Australian medications and illness treatments.

With kind regards Goldenblue - 19th April 06

There is a ghost IP address that is tampering with the external links page regarding discussion forums. E-mail has been sent to Wikimedia discussing this problem. Page now protected due to vandalism by this ghost IP address. With kind regards Goldenblue - 1st May 06

Protected

I have temporarily protected the page to stop edit warring over the AusAqua link. Please discuss the issue here. Note that the protection does not imply endorsement of the current version. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: AusAqua site.

AusAqua and Betta Australis are valid sites and are being edited by the owner of another site on the discussion forums. Neither sites contain spam and the owner is deleting the links to erase any competition for his websites.

AusAqua has been on the net for a year, is a purely Australian site for Australian hobbyists. My reasons have been explained above as per Wiki guidelines.

Regards Goldenblue 12:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the discussion fora, general information, and webrings all fail WP:WEB and should be deleted. The breeding sites are arguably related enough to overcome WP:SPAM, though I could see how arguments could be made in the other direction. JDoorjam Talk 14:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought WP:WEB was for determining if a website deserved it's own article, not if it could be in an external links section. WP:EL is the guideline to apply. Either way, it looks like the External links section of this article could use a pretty good trim. Ehheh 20:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If Discussion forums fail the Wiki guidelines, then all forums should be deleted from the page. AusAqua was added as another site for hobbyists to see along with the other sites on the page.

I rather agree with Ehheh above; Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the current External links section is getting rather close to being one. Most of those links could be replaced by a single link to dmoz.org, which is a web directory. The whole section could perhaps be trimmed down to just two links:

• International Betta Congress
• Bettas at Curlie

plus possibly some "general information" links that satisfy points 5 or 6 of WP:EL#What should be linked to (though it would generally be preferable to add such information to the article and cite the links as sources). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Golednblue is the Internet pest

If you view the history of both 'Siamese Fighting Fish' & 'Discus Fish' you will see tht Goldenblue is the user responsible for removing existing links. For almost, if not over 2 years, a couple of prominent sites have been listed on Wikipedia, yet a few small minded people decide they want to play musical chairs and start deleting sites, and adding links to firstly a site that does not exist (refer: www.betta-australis.com) it isnt even a valid or live site, then to another site at the expense of other sites with publically available data, whereas they keep all relevant information hidden in some secret fashion that is not in the spirit of sharing information freely.

Goldenblue also makes slanderous comments against the person who owns several of the other sites, who has nothing to do with these eidts, stating that they hack into sites etc etc. Making such a public claim is slander without proof, something which they will not have, as no website has been affected at all by the person or persons they claim against.

I would be suggesting Goldenblue be removed from using such a resource as Wikipedia, as they have shown they are interested in nothing more than to cause trouble, the history of both pages as mentioned above will prove this without anything else needed to be said.

Matthew

Re: re AusAqua.

No sites have been deleted by myself as "Matthew" states. Matthew has been doing the editing to delete any competition against his site. The history of the page will see that I have never deleted his site "Betta Forums", but he has deleted AusAqua and another site who is in direct competition with him.

Also if you check "Matthew"s history, it shows his role is to harrass AusAqua on this page, where, I have made contributions on Wikipedia regarding other pages.

I am happy to agree with other uses who suggest that all discussion forums be deleted from the site to solve the problem. "Matthew" has been a problem for over a year now with many other Australian sites who refuse to either sell him their sites or shut down to eliminate competition with his websites.

I have been happy to co-exist on this page with Betta Forums, where Matthew has deleted AusAqua continually because AusAqua refuse to close their site down due to his continuous harrassment of AusAqua and their members.

My suggestion is to remove all links regarding Discussion Forums on this page.

Response

Considering that I have only made 3 edits on this page, which is verifiable. I find the claims made by 'Goldenblue' or whoever he/she is quite amusing. Links were removed as they did not meet wikipedia guidelines. As previously mentioned, the link to www.betta-australis.com is not valid or has no website associated with it. Secondly, the AusAqua site is not a publically available site, hiding behind a primative registration process that has to be approved by someone else.

In the interest of sharing information, this website has no place on Wikipedia. All other referenced sites are publically available without having to register.

The claim that I have an affiliation with any of the listed sites is also an assumption, this goldenblue character has no idea who I am, yet he/she clearly makes it appear that he/she does know.

Matthew

---

www.betta-australis.com is a valid site in competition with Betta Forums. The site was down this weekend, but should be back on Monday. Regardless of the process of registering with AusAqua, it is the same process that some sites use, such as posting in the introductory forum before you can post on other pages on the site. Regardless, guests have access to read the site without having to register and I believe that Matthew does not have the authority to say who should be on this page or not. Matthew has been trying to shut down AusAqua and www.betta-australis.com for almost a year now. Though he states he does not know me, he does as I used to be a regular on his site along with the other members of AusAqua, hence his will to delete us from this site.

Betta Forums should be deleted along with other discussion forums except with those concerning the IBC. Matthew also is using a ghost IP traced to iinet in Sydney which is why he has only done so called 3 edits. All the other IP addresses that have deleted the AusAqua and www.betta-australis.com are from the same IP company in Sydney that Matthew uses. For this, he should be banned from this site.

I am still in agreeance that all Discussion forums be deleted from this page and only the IBC used as a reference. Regards Goldenblue

Protection Status

This was "temporarily" protected on 5 May. Is this going to change? Ardric47 06:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I should've kept better track of this but I was distracted by other things. Anyway, I see another admin has removed the protection. Now that the article has been unprotected, I've been bold (as an editor, not an admin) and implemented the suggestion I made above of trimming the external links down to ICB and dmoz.org. I hope this is satisactory to all concerned. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Bringing in material from genus page

Once again a whole lot of stuff about Betta splendens had found its way onto the genus page, Betta. I have removed it, and done my best to merge it in here. Apologies if I have created duplication in the process - this page is quite big and a bit unwieldy to edit. seglea 23:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Move

Moving page back to conform with WikiProject Fishes title guidelines. Tkinias 20:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

B. splendens life expectancy?

Under "Appearance", this fish is given an average life expectancy of two years, three under optimal conditions, whereas under "Lifespan and Diet" it is noted that they can live for 2-5 years, with the maximum reaching as far as eight. I'd assume this is due to different sources being used when creating this article.

Does anyone know which one (if either) is correct? I find it to be too big a discrepancy for them to both be accurate. Emstidor 21:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

In my experience the norm is 1½ - 2 years, three not being too uncommon. My oldest betta is almost 5 and shows no signs of slowing down, but that is quite unusual. As is my understanding, the oldest recorded bettas were nine. Those fish were in a scientific study conducted by a university in which they had a tank of several gallons all to themselves, and exercised each day by being chased around the tank by a student. Those nine year olds were (astonishingly) capable of spawning even at the age of eight! According to autopsies done on bettas that were kept in standard conditions (fish bowls and such) most bettas die as the result of (in essence) obesity, from being confined and understimulated. --Pharaoh Hound 13:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of my breeding bettas have exceeded 3 years of life, but these are also the cream of the fry. Raising the strongest and largest of the fry, and keeping them in optimum conditions with a wide variety of feed and exercise probably extended their lives beyond 2 years easily. Most pet stores, especially chains, tend to stock fish that is raised indiscriminately and kept in less than ideal conditions (how many dead fish have you seen on those shelves with bettas kept in pint containers?). --radiokillplay 01:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Aquarium size

I reverted changes that changed minimum tank size from 10 gallons to 1 gallon. It was correct originally. Bettas are frequently sold and maintained in aquariums as small as 1 gallon, however, this practice is strongly discouraged as it usually results in the death of the fish. The 10 gallon minimum tank size does not refer to keeping only one fish per ten gallons; other species of fish can also be kept in that same aquarium. However, 1 gallon aquariums are so unstable with regards to water parameters (temperature and chemical composition) that it is unnecessarily cruel to the fish. Neil916 15:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get this sort of information from. Betta breeders frequently keep their bettas in containers that are even smaller than 1 gallon - perhaps half a gallon - and these breeders are where the world's most FANTASTIC bettas come from.

A small container is not cruel to bettas as long as you know what you are doing. 1 gallon is acceptable with water changes every 2-3 days. An ideal size is 3-6 gallons. 10 gallons is ridiculously roomy, and I agree that the betta would enjoy that much space, but it is by far NOT required. We are talking about minimum size here, and the minimum size to house a betta is generally accepted to be 1 gallon. You are making up your own rules. This "10 gallon" betta tank does not reflect the view of most who keep and breed bettas. I do not want a revert fight, so I am not reverting for now, but I do plan on making sure that this article is eventually correct in this respect. 10 gallon MINIMUM is such a ridiculous notion. 10 gallons is good but it is not the MINIMUM. -- 69.159.229.226 15:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The best solution would seem to be to identify a credible source (not just a hobbiest website) and list it in the article. If necessary, the controversy about tank size can be added. I don't feel that common practice should dictate recommended practice. If someone wants to keep their fish in a small aquarium, we can't and shouldn't try to stop them. But we don't need to add content here that suggests that it's ok if it's not. Neil916 15:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But it IS okay. Bettas in 1 gallon containers can live for many, many years, healthily and happily. Before I bought tanks, I kept my first betta in 1 gallon. He was active and happy and has never been sick. When I moved him into the new 3.5 gallon, he had TONS of space to swim around, but didn't really change all that much. 3.5 is LARGE for a single small fish. 10 is HUMONGOUS. I am trying to understand what you are talking about but I can't understand. Every fish would love to live in 1,000 gallons of water, rather than the 10-50 gallon common tanks that we keep them in. And in the wild, fish rarely get sick from the diseases that we find them getting in aquariums. But that doesn't mean everybody needs to buy thousand gallon tanks to house their fish! -- 69.159.229.226 15:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think you mean "hobbyist". Hobbiest isn't a word. -- 69.159.229.226 15:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep. I misspelled a word. Here's my source: "The many colorful varieties are popular aquarium fish, however, the holding of the males in very small containers should be discouraged (Ref. 1672). Aquarium keeping: several females for one male; minimum aquarium size 60 cm (Ref. 51539)." [1]. Fishbase's cross reference of the sources identifies ref#51539 as "Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (BMELF), 1999 Gutachten über Mindestanforderungen an die Haltung von Zierfischen (Süßwasser). Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten (BMELF), Bonn, Germany. 16 p.", and ref#1672 as "Riehl, R. and H.A. Baensch, 1991 Aquarien Atlas. Band. 1. Melle: Mergus, Verlag für Natur- und Heimtierkunde, Germany. 992 p.". Unfortunately, I don't speak german, so even if I had access the primary sources, I couldn't cite the exact text.

What's your source? Neil916 15:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They reccomend several females for one male?!!? That completely invalidates this so-called source, as the practice of keeping female and male bettas together is considered inappropriate, as they WILL fight - to breed they are only kept together for a day or two, or even less.

I have not bothered to find a source yet, as I still believe that it is not required, and I feel very strongly that this 10 gallon tank minimum talk is nonsense. But I will search for one later. It should not be hard to find. -- 69.159.229.226 16:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Personally, I would say minimum size is ~2.5USG, or a standard 12x8x8 tank. While indeed, 10g would be a nice minimum, I most certainly don't agree on keeping bettas with other fish. While admittedly it does depend on the betta, it is much better to be safe than sorry, and there is no way keeping bettas with other fish brings any benefits, but dies bring plenty of problems. Aggression of the betta, aggresion of other fish, spreading of disease, etc.... A 2.5 with jsut a betta can be perfectly stable, the only time it isn't is if you put it in a room with madly flunctuating temperatures, but even then, a cnahe of a few degrees isn't going to do much. Providing water changes are regular, the water can be kept perfectly clean and disease free. 6th July---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.75.130 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC-7)

With this extra info, realizing that the original article said 2 gallon minimum, and was vandalized by a questionable anon user, and the fact that a minimum tank size of 10 gallons is WRONG and one should only need a quick look on google to verify this, the minimum tank size is always reported as less than 5 gallons - I am going to revert the changes made by the anon user on the 18th of June to the more reasonable estimate of a minimum of 2 gallons. I believe the addition of this strange information could be considered vandalism, as it is uncommon and there is no valid source for it. The source provided by Neil is unacceptable, as it is inherently vague with much false information. -- 70.49.20.200 16:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with the liklihood that the original change from 2 gallons to 10 gallons is probably the work of a vandal, based upon the other edits that user has made. I can't say that with certainty, since the information cited in Fishbase agrees with it. The information you are proposing may, in fact, be more accurate. I don't know. However, it seems to be a fallacy to simply revert content that is supported by a published source, based upon your criticism of that source, without producing your own, more credible and accurate source (Google isn't one), simply based on common practice and/or personal experience. At the least, I think that whatever information is presented in this article needs to be supported with a credible source. If you disagree with the source cited in Fishbase, (I'm not trying to defend it at all, I don't have enough information on the topic. There are plenty of dubious sources in the world) then come up with a more credible one. In the absense of that, the article should maintain a neutral point of view and identify that different sources (assuming there are some that support 1- or 2-gallon betta tanks) advocate conflicting minimum aquarium sizes and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion. I think the article in the present form needs improvement. Neil916 17:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider registering for an account on Wikipedia. Your IP address changed in mid-discussion and it makes it appear that I'm discussing this with two separate people instead of one. Neil916 17:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have an account but I'm at work and don't want to login on these computers. I will see about getting a source, though, I don't exactly frequent technical and non-"hobbyist" as you say, sites. I doubt there are many sites of this nature about bettas - bceause bettakeeping is just that, a hobby. -- 69.159.229.226 18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A 10 gallon minimum for a betta is usually standard if it is kept in any sort of community or if you have a carded tank with multiple males. While breeders commonly keep males in small containers in a temperature controlled room versus a large tank with multiple compartments, that doesn't mean there aren't breeders who do that. Some breeders prefer to keep 7 or 8 bettas to a 10 gallon tank divided evenly. Rather than frequent water changes, the tank can be given a gentle sponge filter that is kept away from the bettas so the filter won't stress the fish. So instead of changing the water 2-3 days because you keep the bettas in small containers without filtration in a temperature controlled room, you change the water partially maybe once every 2 weeks (depending on filter and fish numbers). Of course, this isn't standard and is done more by prize breeders rather than stock breeders let alone recommended to the average pet owner. --radiokillplay 01:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What happens on the Talk page doesn't matter of course, but could people please remember when adding material to the article itself that

• tank capacities should be given in litres first, with gallonage if needed afterwards in parentheses;
• gallons always need qualifying as either US or Imperial, since they differ by 25%.

Thanks. seglea 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

deepbluebettas.com content

I, the creator of deepbluebettas.com, hereby grant wikipedia the rights to use all betta-related content (pictures, etc) on deepbluebettas.com for encylopedia purposes.

hint: look into my spawning 101 pages Lordkazan 18:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the following line appropriate?

In the behaviour section, the following line appears at the end of the first paragraph.

"In essence, they kill each other. Quickly. Violently. It's awesome."

Is this really appropriate for an encyclopedic article?

Re: 10 tips for a succesful reproduction

Is this section appropriate? I would think it falls under the definition of being instructions, something which Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of. →DancingPenguin 11:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing while reading the article. Remove it? 69.86.108.162 14:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It fits more under Wikibooks... perhaps it can be moved there.. there is already an interwiki link to the wikibook. 206.248.129.130 04:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section, and like mentioned, I think it should be worked into the wikibook... what's there currently is far from professional, by the way.... - Sarranduin ^(Talk)

Photos & possible gallery

I re-arranged the photos to match the suggested right-left-right organization, but there are still some sticky spots - mostly at the top. I think this page might be a good candidate for a gallery section, but wouldn't be sure which photos (and captions) would be best in the article at large. What are others' thoughts on this? Spyforthemoon 17:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a gallery would work well. In fact, I'll probably start it today if no one else does. --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Great gallery for uploading bettas here:Betta photos Bettafishman

National varieties of English

On 26 Oct 2007, User:Rlcantwell altered the article away from the Commonwealth spelling, "colour", in favour of the US variant, "color", with the exception of the section head "Colours". To summarise the article's history, the article was created in 2003 August and remained in what would best be called a pre-stub stage (just a few sentences) until 2003 December.The first real contributor to the article was User:Seglea who expanded it significantly and added a taxobox, etc, in 2003 December. As part of Seglea's edits, several paragraphs were added, all written in a Commonwealth variety of English. The next major contributor to the article was User:Tkinias in 2004 February. Tkinias expanded the article significantly, maintaining the Commonwealth spelling. That state of affairs remained more or less stable until a few days ago. Editors should be aware that, according to WP guidelines, this article should really use Commonwealth spelling. Additionally, the current state is clearly wrong in any analysis simply because "color" and "colour" are used in the same article. This is something for the next editor to keep in mind when making changes. I'd suggest that person should restore the Commonwealth spelling since I can think of no compelling reason to use the US variant. Cheers! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just now, whilst implementing a few other fixes, restored the article to Commonwealth spelling. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 16:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I really wish folks like you both would spend more time worrying about things that matter such as the CONTENT of articles. While I agree with your argument, it's my opinion that people fix stuff like this simply because anal retentiveness is all they have to contribute. Incidentally, some of your edits were purely busy-body. They are fine, but add changing to the words "Due to" added 0 to the readability of the article. Choose more valuable battles, I say. For one, you could rewrite that mess of a section at the end.Denn333 10:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's see. You contend that I added, and I quote, "0 to the readability of the article" in changing "As a result of this genera's social patterns, bettas are difficult to breed" to "Due to their social patterns, bettas are difficult to breed". Firstly, let me point out that genera is plural. The sentence is about one genus, Betta. The word that should have been there, if any, was genus, which is singular. Secondly, there is redundancy in the use of the word in that sentence. Of course it's that genus's social patterns we're talking about since the genus is mentioned in the principal clause a few words along and, after all, the article is, essentially, about that genus. It goes without saying (hence it is redundant to say) that it's not some other genus's social patterns that make bettas (the genus) hard to breed. Finally, there is a subtle semantic difference between "as a result of" and "due to". Perhaps you might pause to consider that difference next time before launching into a rant against a fellow editor who was motivated solely by improving the article. Perhaps you might cogitate upon it fully lest your own edits be disassembled with the same readiness to critique as you seem to wish to apply to mine. Just briefly, and this is all I'll say about it, you might look closely at this edit. Lastly, do you not see the strange irony in the fact that you ignored content while criticising me for ignoring content? Why did you not, instead, invest the fullness of your skills in an effort to "rewrite that mess of a section at the end"? As the old proverb suggests, first cast out the mote from thine own eye. Cheers and have fun with your article; I notice that fully a quarter of your mainspace edits are here... — Dave (Talk | contribs) 14:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

LMAO... Whatever, dude. I don't have time to debate someone with OCD. I edit for the benefit of the average reader--not the anal retentive rule-huggers.

But your defensive response proves that you're going to troll for your fix, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Fish Name

Wait a minute, when I typed in Betta Fish I got Siamese fighting fish. I thought that this fish was named Betta FIsh. Or is Siamese fighting fish its scientific name? Can anybody elaborate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlassDesk (talk • contribs) 20:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

This is all, more or less, explained in the article but... The fish's common name is generally agreed to be the Siamese fighting fish. It is a member of the genus Betta. Its "scientific name" is Betta splendens. I must admit that I've never heard them called Betta Fish but, hey, that's just me. I've heard them called either Bettas or Siamese fighting fish. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed new section: Myths

For some reason, there are a lot of persistent misconceptions about this fish. A few that spring to mind are:

• Bettas can live happily in a small cup because in the wild they live in puddles/seasonally flooded rice paddies
• Bettas can happily live in a vase with a lily, and will eat the lily's roots for food
• Male bettas should be kept in cups right next to one another so they'll flare their fins/stay entertained
• Bettas don't need a heater (ever)
• Bettas should only be fed a few times a week
• Bettas only live a few days/weeks/months

In fact, it often seems like there's more disinformation about this fish than there is information. Given the betta's popularity and availability, I think it's a fair guess that many or most of the people reading this article are looking for how-to content about their new pet. And although we can't give them that, it might be a good idea to prominently debunk the myths that new betta owners may have already heard. Of course, there are already many great websites which do just that, but invariably, curious people end up at wikipedia-- and they rarely read the whole article, never mind the 'External Links' section. Fullobeans (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Type

I haven't had the time to go through the entire article, but on a few occasions, there is mention of "type", where I think "species" would be more appropriate. If anyone can have a whack at this...?

What

Cheers, romunov (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I only see two instances of the word "type". I think the first should be changed to "species". However, the second is refering to color and fin variations of the Betta splendens species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.59.37 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

the tone of this article

i find the tone of this article reads like a pet manual. I propose a section entitled "caring for bettas" and all of the inapropriate verbage placed there. Otherwise this really doesnt sound encyclopedic whatsoever.58.30.7.17 (talk) 16:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Reading the article one could be forgiven for thinking that this is a hobbyist web site. There is far too much information that is simply unencyclopedic. This is after all an encyclopedia. If I get time, I might have a go at copyediting it to fix this. Nick Thorne ^talk 01:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it easy to read. Making it "sound encyclopedic" should not be a goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsuacner (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not? This is, after all, an encyclopedia. Nick Thorne ^talk 06:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Húsönd 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The far more common name for these fish is simply "Betta". There are no foods marketed towards "fighting fish" or "rumble fish", or even "betta fish". Betta is already taken, so this article should be located at Betta splendens, not at a next-runner-up common name. I had possibly encountered the name "Siamese fighting fish" when I was a child, but not since, until I came across this article. It's just silly. A Google search for Siamese fighting fish yields 184,000, but Betta splendens yields 341,000, implying that even the scientific name is more common than this "common name". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Betta "is more common than this common name'," even in causal spoken contexts at least amongst owners or breeders of these fish. — AjaxSmack 03:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Well I feel old. "Siamese fighting fish" was, in my experience, the common name up until maybe ten years ago. But "betta" (usually mispronounced) does seem to have taken over. All of that's original research, of course, but, based on your Google hits, I'd support a move.--Fullobeans (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Raw google is unreliable for many reasons. The most obvious here is that if you limit Betta Splendens to English pages, the count drops to 176,000; less obvious is that Google simply varies: today, I get 488,000 for the link to Siamese fighting fish search above. Scholar Google, much more reliable, suggests that Siamese fighting fish is about equally common as the Neo-Latin, and that fighting fish [which of course includes Siamese fighting fish] is more so (remember to use quotation marks). I suppose that Siamese has been dropped as Thailand has become more common; but I don't see why we should do likewise; "fighting fish" may be ambiguous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• • I am sorry if it seemed that a Google search was a basis for the move request; it was more of a footnote. Siamese fighting fish does not satisfy Wikipedia:FISH#Article titles. "While the species in question may have additional common names, those names are rarely used" - this does not apply to Siamese fighting fish. The most current common name is Betta. "Use the Latin name for any species that fails to satisfy criteria", hence Betta splendens. Further, Google Scholar is not an accurate judge of current usage. Even with this search, "Siamese fighting fish is about equally common as the Neo-Latin", which means that "There is no single common name used for the species in question", hence Betta splendens. This is the most accurate and appropriate title for this species, short of hijacking Betta. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I see no evidence that the current common name is Betta - common names are not capitalized; nor does it appear that the name of the genus is intended to be considered as a common name in the guideline. It does however have a a widely recognised common name that is so rarely applied to other species that confusion as to the subject of the article is unlikely to arise. (Iii)
    • (There may be an argument that fighting fish is a common name; but if so Iiv will probably get us to the present title anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I have raised my opposition, because the guideline, now cited, actively opposes this change; usage, correctly tabulated, does not require it. I do not believe that Fullobeans would support this if the situation had been explained fully, accurately, or clearly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • And right you would be. I completely overlooked the obvious fact that "Betta splendens" is not an English-specific search term. Nonetheless, when the count from an English-only "Betta splendens" search is combined with all the probable variants ("betta fish" "beta fish" "beta splendens"), "betta" does appear to be the more popular term. But that, as JohnnyMrNinja says, is a footnote. I had not, admittedly, read Wikipedia:FISH#Article titles at the time of my original post; now, having done so, I believe PMAnderson makes a crucial point. The guideline clearly favors common names, except in those cases where common names do not exist or are ambiguous. "Betta," although it may be a commonly used name, is not a common name-- it's a shortened form of the scientific name, and properly refers to an entire genus. "Betta splendens" is neither a common name not a particularly commonly used one. To my knowledge, "Siamese fighting fish" remains the only widely recognised common name for this fish; so, until it ceases to be so (which may actually happen), it should remain the article's title per WP:FISH. --Fullobeans (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question - Is "common name" a well-defined term? If a scientific name - or a shortened form of a scientific name - is much more commonly used than a "common name", does it ever become the "common name"? Would we use a seldom used and seldom recognized "common name" over a commonly used and recognized scientific name?

  I'm not saying that's the case here, because I don't know (I've heard them called "Bettas" in non-scientific settings more than I've heard "Siamese fighting fish", but that's anecdotal, and only as useful as my friends are normal o_O), but I'm interested in the general question from a WP:RM point-of-view. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I am curious, why is "Betta" not a common name? It is non-scientific name that is used for one species only. In scientific terms, it refers to a genus. In common terms, it's a betta splendens. Further, "Siamese fighting fish" is not commonly used. Many younger people will probably have no idea what a "Siamese fighting fish" is. I don't think it can be argued that this fish is most famous as a pet - Petco.com "Siamese fighting fish" 9, "betta" 71. Petsmart.com "Siamese fighting fish" 0, "betta" 19. Petfooddirect.com had similar results but I cannot link them. No website will return more hits for "Siamese fighting fish" than "betta", and most will not return anything for "Siamese fighting fish". This term is not used. If anyone does not believe that "betta" is used to mean "betta splendens", I am more than willing to contact the manufacturers. Betta is the common term for this fish, and if a fish is referred to as a betta in common language it is a betta splendens. If it can be proven that "Siamese fighting fish" is "widely used" (notice the current tense is), and by far more common a term for betta splendens than "betta", then by WP:FISH it should be at Siamese fighting fish. If not, it should be at the more accurate (and easily recognized) scientific name. I am requesting input from the relevant WikiProjects, and would request that this discussion remain open for a while longer, hopefully until a clear consensus is formed. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I've been involved with aquarium fish for many years and although the term "betta" is used within the hobby, amongst the non-aquarium keeping population (which is by far the majority of people) the term "Siamese fighting fish" is overwhelmingly the better known. Wikipedia is not just for aquarists. Also, whilst I agree that the forgoing is anecdotal, I must say that the argument put forward for the change seems weak and cherry picks the Fish Project naming standard to suit the proponent's case. Nick Thorne ^talk 13:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Got it, so Australia still uses the term "Siamese fighting fish"? On the west coast of the United States I have not heard or seen this term in over 10 years. To continue the anecdotes, I sell these fish for a living. I order them, their food, books, etc. I have not encountered one customer, breeder, wholesaler, or "average man on the street" that referred to these animals as "Siamese fighting fish". And I apologize if it seems that I cherry-picked WP:FISH to suit my needs, but I was cherry-picking the parts that said to ignore the other parts. Here is the whole thing (please keep in mind I am proposing a move to the scientific name, not another common name):

Use the common name for any species that satisfies at least one of the following criteria:

• 1(i) The species has a single common name that is widely used and never used for any other species. While the species in question may have additional common names, those names are rarely used. Example: Greenland halibut.
  • "Siamese fighting fish" meets this, but so does "betta" (common name, not scientific). Further, I find no evidence that "Siamese fighting fish" is (current tense) widely used through internet searches.
• 1(ii) The species has a widely recognised common name that is so rarely applied to other species that confusion as to the subject of the article is unlikely to arise. Example: Guppy.
  • This would not support "betta", as it could easily be confused with the genus.
• 1(iii) Within the area where the species is endemic and/or of commercial importance, only a single common name is used by the relevant legal, conservation, fisheries or local institutions, even though other common names may exist. Example: Atlantic salmon.
  • Can this be shown to be true of "Siamese fighting fish"? Because I have shown the commercial relevance of the term "betta"

• 1(iv) The species has a common name that is normally separated from similar common names by use of geographical, descriptive, or other modifications to those names. Once differentiated, these names satisfy criteria i, ii, or iii above. Examples: Shovelnose sturgeon, Little shovelnose sturgeon, False shovelnose sturgeon.
  • It is "Siamese", though the problem isn't confusion with other "fighting fish"

Use the Latin name for any species that fails to satisfy criteria 1(i) to 1(iv), including such situations as the following:

• 2(i) The same common name is regularly applied to multiple species. Example: Green spotted puffer.
  • Not a problem
• 2(ii) There is no single common name used for the species in question. Example: Black widow tetra (a.k.a. Black tetra, Petticoat tetra)
  • This is the problem right here, there is no "single common name", there are several. I know the wording might be confusing, but look at the example. This means that if one fish has multiple common names, it should be at the scientific name.
• 2(iii) The species has different common names in different English-speaking countries. Example Plec (UK), Pleco (US).
  • And apparently this one too.
• 2(iv) The species simply has no widely used common name. Example: Dermogenys sumatrana.
  • This one's okay.

Why should this article not be at the scientific name? Can it be shown that "Siamese fighting fish" is a commonly used name? Or that it is used more than "betta" to refer to betta splendens? Or that it is the most commonly used term in every English-speaking country? If not, that means there is room for confusion, and this article should be at the scientific name. Again, I am not supporting a move to another common name, but to the scientific name. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Also, I would just like to point out that betta is not a shortening of betta splendens. The genus is named after the species, not the other way around. The word "betta" (common and scientific) comes from the (archaic?) Thai "ikan bettah", a name for this fish. The common name "betta" came before the scientific name "betta". ~ JohnnyMrNinja 17:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to dismiss my argument because I am from Australia, but then you tell us that you are from the west coast of the USA and seem to think that somehow that makes your opinion more significant. It may surprise you to know that despite the fact that your country holds a "world series" (and conveniently forgets to invite anyone else) that the USA is not the whole world, nor is it even the whole English speaking world. You have done nothing to demonstrate that the term "betta" is used at all by people outside the aquarium hobby, which as I stated before are far more people than those within it. You seem to put much store in the number of Internet sites that use "betta", but if you discount the hobbyist sites the story would be much different. As I said before, Wikipedia is not the private domain of aquarium hobbyists. Nick Thorne ^talk 22:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if there was confusion, but your attitude and comments are very offensive. I took your comments at face value. My point was that Australia calls it one thing, US something else. And again, I am not supporting a move to another common name, I am supporting a move to the scientific name because there is apparently more than one common name. I would appreciate if no more assumptions are made about my opinions or motives based on the part of the world that I live in. This is not the sort of information I usually volunteer on Wikipedia, but I simply thought it would help the conversation. Clearly it was a mistake, and I apologize if any offense was taken on your part. I feel my opinions and interpretation of the guidelines are clear, and I do not wish to participate in this discussion any further. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I intended no offence, I was merely responding to your use of my location as somehow relevant to this discussion. What you have now twice failed to do is respond to the subtantive part of my argument, which is that these fish are overwhelmingly known as "Siamese fighting fish" outside of the aquarium hobby which is the majority of people and hence likely visitors to Wikipedia. Thus, on that basis, there is no case to be made to change the article's name. In other words, most people, as distinct from aquarists who may or may not use either "betta" or "Siamese fighting fish", would expect to find the article under the title "Siamese fighting fish". I see you wish to not continue this line of argument, I assume that means you do not wish to respond to substantive part of my case. Well, that's not my problem, so my opposition stands in lieu of any convincing reason to withdraw it. Nick Thorne ^talk 10:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose in my 15 plus years of being involved with tropical fish, i have always known the fish to be the Siamese Fighting Fish, and in every shop here in the UK, they are marketed as Siamese Fighting Fish. betta/splendens was always the scientific/species name, as is the same with every other tropical fish - their more common name is always used. do you call guppies guppies, or poecilia reticulata?? to be honest, my own siamese fighting fish were always referred to as 'fighters' and not betta splendens. i disagree with the statement - I have not encountered one customer, breeder, wholesaler, or "average man on the street" that referred to these animals as "Siamese fighting fish" - as this is simply not true here in the UK. country differences does not warrant a page rename. i call a nappy a nappy, where as americans call them diapers, yet the page here on wikipedia is under diapers, why should everything be the american way? i'm not being offensive, i'm simply stating the truth - the american way is not always the correct way. if you go up to the average man on the street and say, do you know what a betta splendens is, the answer will most likely be, no haven't a clue. for someone who is not familiar with the fish keeping hobby, how can they determine from betta splendens that it's a fish?? siamese fighting fish they will get, and most will probably be able to explain what they look like, as they are a somewhat unique and amazing creature. we could be here all day arguing about which name to use, but again you could always take tiger as an example. tiger is the common name, panthera tigris being the scientific/species name. how many people do you know call a tiger panthera tigris?? it's the same argument, the common name is used, not the scientific one. also, same as what someone else said, betta is the genus not the species... why just this argument about the siamese fighting fish and not about the other betta species, who are all under their common name and not their species name! leave it as Siamese Fighting Fish. Geeness (talk) 10:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

depression on the bettas

if they get depressed they will decssece or die I cant spell sorry if you dont like that word any ways they will die so yes keep them enterdtained so either buy another one and set it right next to each other or buy a mirred tank or place a mirror inside of it to reflect its image it will be a 100% better and live longer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.212.55 (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

External links - IBC

What happened to the IBC link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.204.59.37 (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Weird Looking content

"Chi can hook you up with all the right supplies, such as water conditioner, blood worms and fake plants. Ruby will be so entertained, plus being wall mounted, the cat cannot easily eat the fish, or drink the fish flavored water, like sophie so often did." -- This looks like an error or vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.80.79 (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese vs Siamese

The fish is referenced a few times as a 'Chinese Fighting Fish.' Don't know if this is a popular misconception or something - but Siamese refers to Thailand NOT China. 173.22.123.35 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)