Talk:Flowerhorn cichlid

Fishes Mid‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aquarium Fishes High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Aquarium Fish articles 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.Aquarium FishesWikipedia:WikiProject Aquarium FishesTemplate:WikiProject Aquarium FishesAquarium Fishes articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

POV

The whole second half of this article reads in a very partisan way. I'm sure there are legitimate reasons not to promote these fish, but some of the ones given are rather flimsy (esp. the first, which is blatant guilt by association). In any case, they're all unsourced. Deranged bulbasaur 16:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it as much as I could. Criticism is now a new section and is more concise. I made it clear where the fish is popular and where it is usually criticized. The article still needs sources though. And I believe there are several notable variants of this fish like the one called "Red Texas" for example. Also, the relationship between this fish and the blood parrot cichlid could be explained. Can anyone who is knowledgeable help add more info? --Melanochromis 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that original author added flowerhorns to fish taxa. Taxa were created to catalouge living things found in Nature. Flowerhons are not found in Nature, unless released by humans. Therefore, the entire flowerhon entry should be removed to another section of Wikipedia. Regarding evidence that flowerhorns are released to Nature ^[1], which will be added to entry.Bobrfish (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)bobrfish[reply]

The Red Texas is not a variant of Blood Parrot. A texas crossed with a Blood parrot is only one of the ways the the red texas is created.FishFreak95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The first half of this article reads like a sales pitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.72.42 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/01027/environmental.html

External Links

Since flowerhorns are becoming more popular so have the issues of people getting ripped off or finding misinformation. The links posted are to other flowerhorn sites where people can get additional information about flowerhorns as well reliable source to purchase fish and won't get ripped off.

Vandalism

There has been issues with people reverting the document and removing all the information added and I am new to Wiki so do not know where to start by preventing it from happening. We have worked very hard to get this information by speaking with breeders to get the correct infomation.

Well, unlike a personal or company website, no one really "owns" a particular Wiki article. You might try adding some inline references (not just a list of external links) to show where you got the information. And please sign your comments so other people will know who you mean by "we". Mild Bill Hiccup (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bill. I think that, if the text can be brought up to the quality of the photographs, this page has the potential to be really excellent! When I have some time, I will help with the copy editing and lead. However, I do not have the references. For help with how to make the inline references, please see here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the information is its been trade secrets and there isn't a lot of published information published and what little information is its incorrect or biased against the flowerhorn. A member of FlowerhornCraze.com has been working with breeders, books and translating videos to piece the puzzle together and create a comprehensive document outlining the fish. What I have been trying to do is take the information from his thread located here http://www.flowerhorncraze.com/Flowerhorn-101-t43104.html and put it in wiki format. Forgive me this is my first attempt at a wiki article :) --Inkpassion (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your efforts here. I think we all appreciate them very much! I've been trying to help make the article read better, but if I've created any inaccuracies, please let me know and we'll correct them fast. If the thread at that site is the main source for now, then that's ok for now. If you can help provide the referencing where it is needed, I'll be glad to help with the formatting. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the FlowerhornCraze.com link, and realized that much of the text and images on this page (before copyediting) were simply copied and pasted from there to here. Do we have a copyright violation problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I own FlowerhornCraze.com and the writer is an admin and has given permission to republish as well permissions from the various breeders for pics.--Inkpassion (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Thank you. If possible, please ask the writer about whether there are further sources we can cite. Perhaps even a link to a breeder's page would help, if the breeder is the source of the information. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

Would it be better to rename this page as "Flowerhorn cichlid?" --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestors

The section on history is just plain wrong. There are no native cichlids in Malaysia. The ancestors of this ghastly hybrid were likely Amphilophus citrinellus and Cichlasoma trimaculatum, both from Central America, not Malaysia. Cheers, Neale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.210.149 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The present version of the page does rely too much on a single source. If you can find a source for what you say here, I would be very happy to incorporate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to mention something about their origins over at Wetwebmedia. Final paragraph, in the breeding section. As for the lack of native cichlids in Malaysia, Fishbase should be good enough for that. It's common knowledge, like saying there are no kangaroos native to Canada. Cheers, Neale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.210.149 (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flowerhorn cichlid.

Even though the Flowerhorn was created by a mix of different cichlids, its not considered a cichlid, It would be better to be called, Flowerhorn, Flowerhorn Hybrid, or Flowerhorn Fish —Preceding unsigned comment added by FishFreak95 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be making WP:OR. Can you provide reliable sourcing for that claim? --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Google gives about 428,000 hits for flowerhorn cichlid, but only 204,000 for flowerhorn fish and 121,000 for flowerhorn hybrid. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium flowerhorn

Can someone add onto Titanium under the breeds section? And yes i added it.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Flowerhorn cichlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090312093706/http://www.flowerhorncraze.com:80/Flowerhorn-101-t43104.html to http://www.flowerhorncraze.com/Flowerhorn-101-t43104.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probable copyvio

The bulk of our article appears built from a copy-paste of this "source" (someone's pseudonymous blog post), then slightly modified. This appears to be too close a paraphrase, but I'll leave that determination up to those who more often check out WP:COPYRIGHT stuff. PS: The sexing image also appears to have been taken directly from the source cited in its caption, with some additional text overlaid on it, then uploaded to Commons, though it is possible that the owner of that site uploaded it to Commons (or that whoever created the image originally provided it to both sites). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there is a tremendous backlog at the copyvio investigations, so I feel some responsibility to evaluate this myself. (I took an interest in this page because I think the images are really nice, but the text is a mess.) Because these fish are raised mostly in the Far East, we get editors from that region showing up from time to time and dumping kludgy text on the page. I've tried somewhat to copyedit it, and I have a feeling that that's where the close paraphrasing may have originated, having started from what I now fear was a crude copy-paste. I'll look further into it, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original version of the sections on The origin of the flowerhorn and Arrival in the US seem to be a straight copy-paste introduced in this edit. Apart from the copyright violation, the source is dubious and promoting a particular view. The changes also don't seem to be an improvement on the previous version. It might be better to remove and try and recover an appropriate version from 2009. Jts1882 | talk 12:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say. I'm pretty sure, in retrospect, that edits subsequent to that also were copy-pasted, stuff about the various breeds. (I had just started watching the page around 2009, and I was a newish editor who didn't yet appreciate fully the copyvio issues, which embarrasses me now, and saw it mostly as a matter of copyediting out of pidgen English.) I do think there are a lot of really excellent photographs, and they should be preserved. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citable source?

@Tryptofish sorry to bother you with yet another question: is this a citable source? If yes, I plan to use it to improve this article on Flowerhorn cichlids. LaivineOrodrim (talk) 16:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an article from a magazine (distinguishable from a website that sells fish or products) is a reliable source. I'd be very happy to see this page worked on; I've long thought that it's an interesting subject and that the page could be improved a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/01027/environmental.html

[1]