Talk:Goldfish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleGoldfish was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 17, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 25, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 14, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
July 27, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 29, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 7, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 10, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Delisted good article


Origin of 'goldfish memory'[edit]

Is it known when, where and why someone got the idea that goldfish have real short memory? Hexmaster (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that goldfish have a memory of approximately 3 months Seárlas Ó Andarsan (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Wild Form/Prussian Carp[edit]

It seems to me that the section "Wild goldfish and relationship to Prussian Carp" should be merged into the "Wild Form" section. Also, as has been noted elsewhere, there seems to still be a little confusion regarding wild vs. feral vs. ancestor species. If there are no objections, I'll give it a shot. -- Robertmacgrogan (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I'm uncomfortable with the removal of so many images in this edit: [1]. At least some of them do not seem to me to have been clutter. I particularly think the historical image, and the image from Japan with children, added context to the page. And I'm ambivalent about whether the carp image is really WP:OR. I'd like to know what other editors think about it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Gee, don't everyone talk at once! Seriously, though, I'd really like to decide about this. Since I started this talk thread because another editor disagreed with me, I'm hesitant to unilaterally put the images back, but I would like us to consider doing so. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I've looked back carefully at the edit summary, and here is what I think:
  • The Prussian carp image: restore it, but move it to the Wild forms section, and shorten the caption to simply: "A wild Prussian carp". That removes any possibility of OR from the caption, while restoring an informative image.
  • The 1850s aquarium image: restore it, but place it more clearly in the History section. No valid reason for having removed it.
  • The "two goldfish" image: not an important image, so leave it deleted (likewise for the video of fish at the surface).
  • The "goldfish scooping" image: restore it. I see no valid reason for deleting it, as it illustrates something that is discussed right there in the text.
I'll wait one more day before doing this, in case anyone objects, but I think that this is entirely reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with your analysis. Please go ahead with it. However, wish to note that most wild prussian carp are silver. There are many photos of those in commons, may be better to use one of those. Thanks, LK (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks much. I'm glad that you pointed that out, about the carp. I didn't know that, and it helps me better understand how the yellowish image had been OR. I'll definitely choose a more typical image for that, as you suggest. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Feeding habits[edit]

There are no sources citing the claim that goldfish will feed themselves to death. This claim also seems hard to beleive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.245.62 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You are right that this point, as well as a lot of other things in the article, could use better sourcing. I know that I've seen lots of sourcing for problems with overfeeding, but I'm not sure about literally eating to death (although I bet it has been known to happen!). Therefore, for now, I've modified the wording to be less hyperbolic. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I read somewhere that goldfish don't have stomachs and must constantly eat to survive. Perhaps we could add that in somewhere? ~Excalibur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.186.97 (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Goldfish eat more plants when the water is too dirty and/or the tank is not properly cycled. They eat far less if the water is clean, although, if you feed them very little, they will attack the plants because they are hungry. Mine love red leaf lettuce, as long as you attach the leaf securely to a rock at the base of the leaf so they can yank it off properly.

It should be noted that goldfish get very bored with their limited environment in an aquarium tank. Even though they are, by nature, bottom feeding scroungers, another reason that they tend to go on eating as long as they can find food is because they have been conditioned to expect no other stimulation. Their "begging" may be misinterpreted as being for food when, in fact, they are begging for attention and stimulating activities. As long as they are accustomed to your maintenance schedule, they actually look forward to it, rather than being stressed by it, as long as they recognize their owner and you tell them, in soothing recognizable tones, how beautiful they are and compliment them on their antics. They beg for these things as well, and if you have already fed them, and they are still begging, try talking to them and moving things around to change the scenery. They take inventory sometimes with great interest when you rearrange the furniture. This has been my experience. In fact, they even get different expressions on their faces according to whether they like how you are changing their tank. Spottacus gets very attached to his bushes and doesn't like it if his parking place gets altered, although yesterday, he discovered that he can use the current from the aerator to hold up his humongous tail, and he has suddenly started parking over by that with his tail in the air. It's obvious that he's doing it deliberately, and it is hilarious that he figured it out and remembers it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.72.33 (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

New Citation needed[edit]

Link #19 has nothing to do with 'negative consequences for local ecosystems' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.13.34 (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right. It looks like the reference was added for what the earlier sentences in the paragraph say. I've replaced it with a much better source. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Pompom by bristol aquarists society.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Pompom by bristol aquarists society.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Shukin-japanese-goldfish.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Shukin-japanese-goldfish.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Tamasaba goldfish.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Tamasaba goldfish.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Two wakin goldfish.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Two wakin goldfish.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Jikin goldfish.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Jikin goldfish.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Imperial goldfish.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:Imperial goldfish.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Validity of "Meteor Goldfish" variety[edit]

The "Meteor Goldfish" is not real. There are only a few sources to be found regarding the "Meteor Goldfish" variety, and none can produce any pictures. Searches through online and written literature reveal no pictures of this variety. Indeed, most sources say it "may be a rumor". Could we please remove this variety from the chart and stop perpetuating this? Puargs (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the first source says "Many other varieties of goldfish have been reported" and lists it without a photo, and the other says "although this may be a self-perpetuating rumour; the Website Author has yet to see a photograph of such a fish, either in books or on the Internet". Is it maybe more useful to the reader to mention its probable hoax status, than to avoid mentioning it entirely? --McGeddon (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like a fabulous idea, McGeddon. Puargs (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Breed hardliness[edit]

I'm suprised there is no further mentioning that some of the breds actually increase the chances of the fish getting internal dieases (the squeshed body ones for instance). Its left at their not hardy enough to survive in the wild instead of mentioning that even in the tank they may suffer because of breed implications. 86.139.196.204 (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Twits[edit]

Apologies - I've no idea how to edit an article; but in the reproduction section it says that pregnant goldfish are called twits. Goldfish don't get pregnant, so this can't be true. Cheers 92.29.249.177 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)George

Thanks, that's a good point! I fixed it. Perhaps whoever made that mistake was the real twit! (just kidding) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, apparently it's an urban legend extent in Australia, that's not found in any reference book. See Is a pregnant goldfish called a twit? LK (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I agree with you, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 July 2012[edit]

In section "Varieties of domesticated goldfish", you can add a reference :

[1]

Anemone-clown (talk) 08:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The page you suggest is entirely in French and contains unwanted (if not malicious) code, overriding my pop-up window blocker. In any event, you haven't specified what content you think needs a reference. Rivertorch (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mapping relationships between each variety of Goldfish (fr)

Edit request on 5 October 2012[edit]

Gabrielgfish (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)hello in the goldfish article the black moors eyes are not potrouding i just thought it might be an error

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean. Black moors' eyes are protuberant. The image doesn't show that very well; a head-on view would be better. In any event, if you have a specific request for a change in the article, please reopen this request or begin a new one. Otherwise, it's not necessary to use the Edit request template merely to discuss the article. Rivertorch (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
I think that the issue was that we needed a better image, with a head-on view. I looked around Commons and found one, so I substituted that one on the page. I think that this new image should take care of the problem, and I agree that it's an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Yup, that's better. Thanks—that's one less item on my to-do list for today! Rivertorch (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

goldfish[edit]

I think that most people find that Goldfish are boring, dull, and ugly. But I think that they can be one of the most intresting animals you can have if you get to know them.Goldfish5a (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Great. How do you like the article? Do you think it could be improved? Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Some goldfish find people to be boring, dull, and ugly. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If you can find a reliable source for that, it could be invaluable in improving Human, whose talk page is typically brimming with allegations of pro-human bias. Rivertorch (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Those talk page allegations have been written by fish, and I have documents to prove it! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


Reference Replacement Request[edit]

http://abcnews.go.com/story?id=4803721 to replace reference 28's dead link.75.239.124.4 (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Done! Many thanks, great work. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Goldfish as invasive species?[edit]

Should a section be added about Goldfish as an invasive species? This is alluded to in the "Mosquito controll" section, but I think the mention in the Mann Lake article might mean this could be an interesting topic that is well-sourced. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Update the size section[edit]

It seems that Lake Tahoe has monster goldfish. I believe these new fish may well out-do the largest size mentioned as the images I am seeng and hearing about seem much larger than what is mentioned on this page. Check it out. [Monster goldfish]--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure they aren't koi? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Japanese[edit]

There isn't the link to japanese lenguage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.27.97.164 (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Goldfish preying on young - reference[edit]

I have searched all over the internet, and I have not been able to find any scholarly article referencing the eating of young goldfish by the adults of the species. Although, one can reference many an enthusiast site mentioning this habit.Jason Young - Denmark, Western Australia (talk) 11:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Further to the information above, perhaps the following source could be used to credit that statement: http://thefishvet.com.au/pdf/Care_Gf_byRL.pdf Jason Young - Denmark, Western Australia (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added that cite to the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2014[edit]

File:Goldfish Memory.gif
Taking a stand against the misconception about goldfish memory.

I would like to add this gif to the Intelligence section of this article. The gif is my own work. I believe adding it to the article will increase visual interest and will bring the readers attention to the common misconception about goldfish memory. Polina ka (talk) 04:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's supposed to present facts in a formal (to put it bluntly, boring) tone. This image doesn't seem encyclopedic. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014[edit]

Hello,

   I would love to improve on your page about the gold fish. I happen to love fish and have 17 gold fish in a 35 gallon tank at my living arrangements. So I do know a lot about the fish. There are a few key points that you did not cover in your page. I was just hoping that I could help improve knowing that there is much more to know and the gold fish is such a popular fish around every day life.

Edit31 (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 23:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Goldfish food[edit]

The article claims that goldfish food, "... is sold in two consistencies—flakes that float, and pellets that sink."

This is not true. Floating pellets are actually very common. There is also a newer type of food called, "Sticks" or "Stix".

Laguna floating pellets Kaytee floating pellets

Wardley Pond Stix Tetra Floating sticks

In my opinion, that statement should just be removed instead of being corrected. But if corrected, it should be more general. Something like, "They are sold in several varieties, such as floating, sinking, flakes, pellets, and sticks." or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.3.88 (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The wording you suggest seems a bit vague and potentially confusing, but you're absolutely right: the current wording poses a problem. The flakes do sink eventually (if they're not gobbled up first) and some pellets do indeed float. I've just gone ahead and removed the offending sentence, which was unsourced. Rivertorch (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014[edit]

Somehow add to the bubble eyed goldfish section noting that their eyes are fragile in some way and easily popped. Coo coo pigeon (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of Goldfish Bowls[edit]

We must edit the Goldfish page so that readers or people who want to know about goldfish can learn things from different points of view. They are of course, all factual. I am from Japan, which is the kingdom of goldfish, and I have a different view on goldfish bowls. What do you goldfish fans think about goldfish bowls?KaznoN (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, what matters is what the reliable sources think, not what editors think. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

is bob really a goldfish/

people have been debating if he is a cat or a gold fish

gold fish- there was a song wrote about a gold fish called bob on youtube

cat- there are books about a cat called bob on amazon

they cant have the same name because if a cat named bob ate a fish called bob then he would be eating his own name???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.127.91 (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Minor corrections to units of measurement....[edit]

In the following sentence, under Cultivation:

have about 20 US gallons (76 l; 17 imp gal) of water. Fancy goldfish (which are smaller) should have about 10 US gallons (38 l; 8.3 imp gal) per goldfish. 

The "l" should be made UPPER-CASE as in "L"... not a big deal but it is best practice...

corrected wording should read:

have about 20 US gallons (76 L; 17 imp gal) of water. Fancy goldfish (which are smaller) should have about 10 US gallons (38 L; 8.3 imp gal) per goldfish.


Armeniki (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Use in aquaria[edit]

It should be added goldfish can also be used as food in aquaria. The world's largest Cabela's sporting goods store in Hazelwood, Missouri has an alligator snapping turtle that will eat "feeder" goldfish (such named for obvious reasons) put in its tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.68.2 (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Goldfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016[edit]

The page contains an apparent contradiction in that goldfish, stated as being egg-layers, cannot be considered to be able to become pregnant in the commonly accepted manner (no gestation of live young). Later, the article states that a pregnant goldfish is called a twit, and cites a highly dubious page of trivia. I suggest that this latter statement regarding pregnant goldfish be removed along with the cited page.


46.235.152.84 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Indeed, this claim is very dubious. Some places calling the claim into question are here and here. Plantdrew (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
And it has also previously been removed from the article. I guess a better term for fish would be gravid, if the state of being laden with eggs needs to be referred to. Samsara 11:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Conservation status[edit]

In the box at the top-right of the article, the "Conservation status" is listed as "Domesticated". But "Domesticated" is NOT a Conservation Status, and in fact, the word "domesticated" doesn't even appear once in the "Conservation status" article. I think someone should find out what the conservation status of goldfish is, and correct the article. Thank you. --Keeves (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Task force?[edit]

@Lawrencekhoo: @Tryptofish: @Huw Powell: I just saw that several users interested in aquaria and/or goldfish had recently been active, and was wondering if there would be interest in assembling a task force to get this important article back up to current GA standards. Thanks and regards, Samsara 11:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes, I'll help at this page here (but at the moment I'm not very motivated to be involved in audited content processes). I've been distracted from aquarium fish pages for the past year or so, due to other Wiki-stuff, but I've been meaning to get back to more content editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@HighFlyingFish: perhaps this might interest you, too. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
What would this entail? What needs to be done to get this page to GA status? How does this process work? I'm interested but my time is limited so I'd like to know what needs to be done before committing. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Part of our task will be to set out a list of things that need to be done. Looking at the demotion and subsequent rejected GA candidacy, it seems that references were the main problem at the time. Last I checked, GAN had a backlog, so I'm actually not too fussed about going through the process, but it would be nice to be able to objectively assess it as having reached the GA quality standard. Samsara 14:34, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I can do a limited amount of looking for more and better sources, but I'm unlikely to do all of it alone. I'm pretty good at cleaning up text, where it is badly written etc., so I can do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Goldfish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Removing the Clear Messes Up the Table[edit]

NoClear.png
YesClear.png
GoldfishWhiteTelescopeNoClear.png

@Elmidae: and @Esszet: This is a comparison between the Goldfish article without (top) and with (middle) the clear, as it appears on my device (a Lenovo Laptop). As you can see, removing the clear causes the table to become compacted and cramped, which seems to me to be a greater problem than the whitespace the clear introduces. As the last image shows, removing the clear creates an even worse problem with the last row of the table: One cell gets pushed onto its own row. Thus, the clear should be restored. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I haven’t touched it since you reverted me. Esszet (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Another editor reverted me and I just pinged everyone involved in the edit chain to make sure everyone concerned about this was notified. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Hm. Neither solution seems optimal, really. How about moving some text from below the table to above it, to provide some filler material before the table hits? Or, which might be an even better solution, pre-collapsing the synonyms list and/or moving the 1850s aquarium image somewhere else? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I switched Biology and Classification around. That makes the table less compressed though the poor White Telescope is still stuck in its own row. IDK what to do about that. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks okay now I'd say. With a number of table entries not divisible by 3, there will have to be this trailing entry - nothing to be done about it :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps should menion: popular belief that the common goldfish is the only animal that can see both infrared and ultraviolet light[edit]

This is from another wikipedia article Visible_spectrum#Animal_color_vision might be worth mentioning here and perhaps expanding:

The popular belief that the common goldfish is the only animal that can see both infrared and ultraviolet light [1] is incorrect, because goldfish cannot see infrared light.

Robert Walker (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I tried to follow that link and it tells me "Maintenance mode is on Website will be available soon". Do you have another reference for this? If so then I'd support inserting it. If not, then maybe we should wait until that website is up again. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh - I copy / pasted that text from the other wikipedia article. It has now been updated in Visible_spectrum#Animal_color_vision to archive.org but it is a low quality cite. Not sure what is the best way to support a popular belief. Anyway this is what the text there says now:

The popular belief that the common goldfish is the only animal that can see both infrared and ultraviolet light [2] is incorrect, because goldfish cannot see infrared light.[3]

This may be a better source, to show that at least some people beleive it: a Physics handbook that claims it as one of several "Did you know" facts AP Physics B Handbook - easy to find other pages that say this, however, I'm not sure what is acceptable as a source for a "popular belief" except just to go with what that other article said and maybe add this book as an extra source??. Robert Walker (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The Neumeyer source looks good to me, so I think its safe to add that. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "True or False? "The common goldfish is the only animal that can see both infra-red and ultra-violet light." – Skeptive". Retrieved September 28, 2013.
  2. ^ "True or False? "The common goldfish is the only animal that can see both infra-red and ultra-violet light." – Skeptive". Archived from the original on December 24, 2013. Retrieved September 28, 2013.
  3. ^ Neumeyer, Christa (2012). "Chapter 2: Color Vision in Goldfish and Other Vertebrates". In Lazareva, Olga; Shimizu, Toru; Wasserman, Edward (eds.). How Animals See the World: Comparative Behavior, Biology, and Evolution of Vision. Oxford Scholarship Online. ISBN 978-0-19-533465-4.

Synonyms[edit]

Please provide sources stating that the synonyms you are trying to remove are not valid synonyms for C. auratus. If there aren't sources backing it up, we can't change it. If there's sources that go both ways (I know there's sources supporting those being synonyms, e.g. here http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1021998 and here http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1021999 I don't know of any sources that don't support those as synonyms) you can add a "Taxonomy" section explaining the scientific controversy. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Sir, I have proceed to found a Japanese site that apposes the synonyms that what you had concluded. It is right there, but I suggest you should translate this :. http://www.kannousuiken-osaka.or.jp/zukan/zukan_database/smart/tansui/3850b2c288a93a2/6750b6f58957101.html http://www.kannousuiken-osaka.or.jp/zukan/zukan_database/smart/tansui/2150b2c26b1c855/4050b5a0e04cf39.html (these two sources only locates to the Nigorobuna and the Ghengorobuna, aka c.a.Cuvieri). I won't be completed wrong what you said, but as I continue to state this, there is a possibility that the fish could be a seperate subspecies, not synonyms. They are not a cryptic species(they do not show same slight morphologic colors or body configuration), same length as to the cyprinids are, and nevertheless, have no same diet(from the source I remember, the Nigorobuna are somewhat filter feeders, because they have more gill rakes than the actual goldfish.) My suggestions are for finding the source you would tad much accepted, and put to Wikipedia so that they will realize more about Japanese native fish. Thank you for reading this. ZeZeNapsid002 (talk) 00:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for posting these! I sent messages to users in the category of editors available to translate from Japanese to English to help out with translating them. In the meantime, could you help me understand something: Are the sources saying that the Nigorobuna (Carassius auratus (?) Grandoculis) is a separate species from Carassius cuvieri (the Japanese white crucian carp which is acknowledged by Wikipedia, fishbase, and WoRMS as a separate species) and from the common goldfish (Carassius auratus)? Or is the first source saying that Nigorobuna should be regarded as Carassius cuvieri instead of Carassius auratus? Or that Nigorobuna is a variety of Carassius auratus (that's consistent with WoRMs)? Or something else? Sorry for my confusion, there's just a lot of varieties and I'm working off of what Google Translate can give me. Hopefully someone will be kind enough to translate the sources to english. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 08:43, 30 August 2018 (UTC)