Talk:Cherax

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Cherax is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Cherax image

I have uploaded and image of a Cherax which may be a destructor. Can some one with a bit more knowledge, identify it and add it to the correct species please?

Macr237 07:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one has answered so I have moved it into Destructor. --Macr237 22:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a photo of a Cherax crayfish. It is a picture of an Euastacus crayfish, which is the other major genus of aquatic crayfish in mainland Australia. The carapace spines on the claws and tail are a dead give-away. So this picture belongs on the Euastacus page, not this page. Sorry, don't know what Euastacus species it is off the top of my head; there are many. This specimen appears to have multiple parasites of some kind hanging off it, which is not nice to look at.

Mix-up with C. dispar, and possible copyvios

Much of the content of this article looks as if it may be copyvio, but not properly cited, and in addition most of it seems to describe one species rather than the whole genus. A new article could be created for this species and the relevant material cut and pasted there, or perhaps it should just be deleted for now? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Laterthanyouthink: Can you please give some more information on your suspicions? If it's true, there is a specific process that should be gone through. I don't want to Class=Start that process myself right now, because I don't know where the article might have been copied from. I've taken a look using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, but it doesn't turn anything up—the top hit is clearly copied from Wikipedia, the second-top hit is the Penn State article that's cited at the bottom of the page, and nothing else I saw matches anything of relevance. -- Perey (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Perey, it's been a while and I'll have to come back to this, but I think it was just the tone of the language and the lack of citations that struck me as I hit the article in passing. Now that I examine a few of the citations, I think that it is beset with a different set of issues. That Penn State article doesn't mention Cherax, and is a very general article. The Journal of Zoology article about choice of mate only mentions one cherax species in passing, and does not support the content. The BMC Biology article is a general one about crayfish, no mention of cherax. As mentioned above, a lot of the content refers only to C. Dispar, and should probably be moved into a new article. I might get back to this one day. Thanks for doing the copyvio check - probably not worth following up on in that case. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio evaluation: It looks like these additions are the concerning ones. The first paragraph there is a copyright violation as it is nearly word-for-word identical to the abstract of the cited source (Coughran). I don't have access to Beatty. The first paragraph of reproduction closely paraphrases the source. The material cited to Aquiloni & Gherardi and to Berry & Breithaupt seem to be fine. At this point I'm blanking the page and sending it to WP:CP. It looks like the rest of it can and should be evaluated on a source-by-source basis. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]