Talk:Red garra

Circular Reference

Why does the Cyprinion macrostomus redir to this page? The text of this page says specifically that the C. macrostomus is not discussed here. Either we need to add Cyprinion macrostomus info or kill the redir and build an article for the other creature. Pawthorn 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article on fish pedicure needed

A separate article on fish pedicure per se is needed. For example, the chin chin fish is used in China, but it would not fit into the current article, which should be on one species/genus only. A Google search will turn up discussions of sanitation and other issues (http://www.freetalklive.com/ has a video poking fun at New Hampshire's ban but also an article where people cited refer to specific alleged dangers and other problems).211.225.34.184 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's a chin chin fish? Do you have the species name? Nessie (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't have any background in this subject, but using a search engine, I find a lot of mentions of this fish. For example, at Welcome to Doctor Fish 888Alternatives like the Chin Chin fish from the Tilapia family (as seen below), has a biting characteristic and is deemed to cause micro-scopic damage to the ...

www.doctorfish888.com/. One series of discussions (http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175464) also suggests that it might be S.Tilapia. There is also this: Chin Chin Fish : The Imposter Spa FishGara Rufas are expensive, nearly 4 times the price of Chin Chin fish. ... Thus Chin Chin fish are removed from the spas once they grow big and replaced with ... www.garrarufa.com/chin-chin-fish/

and this: Joe Wai Corporation is the parent company of the popular Sampuoton Fish Spa, search for us at Google or Yahoo!. We are the first to expose the differentiation between the fake Garra rufa (chin chin) and Garra rufa in the fish spa industry. Visit..... Joe Wai Corporation Sdn Bhd . And Is the Fish Spa a Con or a Cure?Other fish, like the Chin chin, a species of Tilapia, are being used but it is much scorned by others as an inferior fish. ... hubpages.com/hub/Is-the-Fish-Spa-a-Con-or-a-Cure - And here is a mention in a newspaper, but still with no species: The smaller, guppy look-alikes are chin chin, known in their native China as "kiss kiss" or "doctor fish." Their pricier tank mates are garra rufa, native to Turkey, where Ms. Caldwell says they've been used in whole-body spa treatments and as a remedy for skin ailments such as psoriasis and eczema for more than 100 years. (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/fea/fdshops/stories/DN-fd_fishpedi_1010gd.State.Edition1.1969df9.html). Here is more: “Many fish spas say they use Garra Rufa fish when they are really using the Chin Chin or ‘Kiss Kiss’ fish, a tilapia species from China. These impostor fish mimic the nibbling of the Garra Rufa, but do not provide the same medicinal benefits,’’ Ng claimed. (http://allmalaysia.info/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/3/interests/21074306&sec=mi_interests_spas)

- - That article you mentioned (http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=3fb060f2527f28ce60ad95719b4c1750&t=175464&page=2), though further down, says that the chin chin may be Oreochromis niloticus niloticus. Nessie (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be right. http://princefish.com/about_doctor_fish_garra_rufa.html says that "...Chin Chin fish also known as Kiss Kiss fish comes mostly from China and Taiwan..." - a different fish - a lookalike. If this is right, and I'm not sure it is because the links in the above posts 404 for me, then a little section talking about this might be in order. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banned in several US states?

Why on earth is this? Is it because, as I suspect, the states are worried about the possibility of Garra rufa escaping and becoming an invasive species? Stonemason89 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also heard it may be for health and safety regions - there cannot be chlorine in doctor fish spas as the fish wouldnt live and so this leaves the potential for health and safety issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.191.241.48 (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no there can not be chlorine in fish spas but the must have a filter suitable and also must have a UV filter in which does more than Chlorine does and makes fish spas cleaner & safer than Swimming Pools — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.50.19 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appy Feet?

I wonder if there should be a section on Appy Feet (http://appyfeet.co.uk/), as it is a franchising company that only actually uses these fish as a pedicure device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.239.210 (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning unsupported claims

Under the "Spa resorts" heading, it stated "They are used to help treat patients suffering from various skin disorders, including psoriasis and eczema, since the fish will eat and remove any dead skin." I have removed this statement for two reasons: first, because it claims medical efficacy where none has been demonstrated, and second, because it was unsourced. Bricology (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article also makes a claim to the benefits of outdoor spas to costumers - "...with the outdoor location of the treatment bringing beneficial effects." This claim, too, is not only hearsay but fully unrelated to the fish themselves. Rinn0 04/03/2013 —Preceding undated comment added 14:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image for the infobox

I beleive the appropriate image for the infobox is one that provides a clear view of the fish which is what this article is about. A picture of feet with small little fish fails to provide a clear view of the fish. Furthermore, there is already a phot illustrating its spa usage. We don't need two. I would say file:Doctor fish2.jpg is teh better image for illsutration but in any case, the infobox image should not be one dominated by two feet. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image is well constructed, visually pleasing, and well illustrates what doctor fish are famous for, why they are called doctor fish, how they operate, and what size they are. Apart from alleviating psoriasis in spars, there is nothing of special note about the fish, it is just a tiny minnow of no particular interest. The alternate image you provided is a useful addition to the article, and is prominently displayed at the most appropriate place in the article, where a more general description of the fish is given. But that image indicates nothing whatever about what it is that makes this fish of particular note. There is a further image of the fish in a spar setting in a section where spars are discussed. There is nothing inappropriate or excessive about that. It is important in fish articles to try and capture in a simple and accurate manner, where possible, what it is that makes a given fish interesting and distinguishes it from others. The current placement of photos does precisely that.

Articles about minnow species typically get maybe 300 reader views a month. This one currently gets about 17,000 views a month. That's because there is is something special about this minnow, and readers come here to find out more about that. They come here to see something like the image that is currently in the lead, not your image which indicates nothing special at all.--Epipelagic (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be lesser of evils. We could consider cropping the two-feet image, and presenting it as 300px in or out of the infobox. Showing them practising close up is important because of how they orient their bodies to really get in there.

The single fish image could also use some enlarging because it's a dark fish, and detail at 150px is invisible.

In fact, I think it's worth enlarging anything in the infobx in this case because narrow makes the synonym list wrap, which looks awful. Does larger than 150px really mess up mobile device viewing so badly? I wouldn't know. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I see are two big feet which fails to illustrate the fish and doesn't do a particularly good job of illustrating the skin nibbling although it is better than the other spa photo. -- Whpq (talk) 00:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Do you think cropping and enlarging would help?

It does at least have the advantage of immediately letting visitors know they are on the right page.

I do think that it's more natural and conventional to have a pic of the fish in the infobox and the fish in action further down. Tough call. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of mouth

A close-up. We could really use one for the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Is this the only species known as a doctor fish? The accepted common name according to the IUCN and Fishbase is red garra. Quetzal1964 (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quetzal1964: Well, the hatnote on this article notes that tench are also called doctor fish. And I wouldn't be at all surprised if there are mutliple Garra species that are used in pedicures (thus deserving the name "doctor fish"). Plantdrew (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]