Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Limia melanogaster

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Limia melanogaster

(
)
Male (left) and female (right) blue-bellied limia
Male (left) and female (right) blue-bellied limia

Created by Surtsicna (talk). Self-nominated at 18:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Limia melanogaster; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

  • Largely looks good to go. QPQ is extremely close to done so that it's fine. New enough, long enough, referenced, neutral, cites sources. Picture is adequately licensed and used in the article, although the lack of EXIF metadata is a little odd for a self-taken picture from 2009, most cameras had such metadata at the time, but oh well. This is seriously a no-fun comment, but is this actually a picture of a courtship display? The Commons description doesn't say that. I guess there's a 26/60 chance of this being correct given the hook suggestion, and it's cute even if not technically true, but just pointing this out if the promoter wants to play it safe and just say (pictured) rather than (courtship pictured). But if you're willing to vouch that this is courtship, then that's fine too.
    • ALT0a... that male blue-bellied limias (pictured) spend over 26 minutes per hour courting females? ...If we aren't sure if this is actually depicting courtship.
  • Hook ALT1, I'm not so sure of. Is the statement in the WP article that Melanogaster or other livebearers were "commonly kept in aquaria" really backed up by https://www.tfhmagazine.com/articles/freshwater/7-forgotten-livebearers-full-article ? All it says is that it suggests that "aquarists 60 years ago kept many different livebearers", which is not quite the same as saying that any of those livebearers were kept commonly. But moreover it's just basing this belief on the fact that a 1948 book was more comprehensive than a recent book. Maybe this is still true that melanogaster really was "commonly" raised, of course, but I'd want to see it come from a different source. I checked the 1966 edition of the book (available on archive.org, p. 353) and it doesn't say anything about melanogaster being common; rather, it just says that they are "not very durable." Lastly, I realize that the article does use the word "fancy" once, but I think this is overplaying it - guppies are far too common to be "fancy", and the article mentions that if anything guppies are considered a little vulgar by aquaculture connoisseurs. So I'd loosely recommend:
  • Nitpicks: I made one minor edit to the first sentence of the body. I would loosely recommend that - even if just for DYK purposes - that the first sentence be made a little "friendlier" to a non-academic audience, so spelling out for casual readers what basal means and perhaps using "other organisms in its genus" rather than the obscure and jargony "congeners". Can always revert it after it had its main page appearance, worst comes to worst. Also, there's a redlink for "Blue Hole River", but the reference is to an offline German source - are you sure something wasn't lost in translation here? Blue holes are a known phenomenon in the Caribbean, as are rivers, but Google Maps isn't coming up with any specific river called "Blue Hole River." Maybe it meant rivers near blue holes in general? I'd suggest double checking the source. For the hook fact, it would be nice to actually check Farr 1984 if possible to make sure that the 1989 book isn't leaving out any important disclaimers, but this is more like a nice-to-have rather than mandatory. Lastly, the comment on the Fish Hobbyist Magazine article makes it sound like "the 7 forgotten livebearers" are an independent category that exists; I'd suggest rephrasing it as more like "wrote an article titled '7 Forgotten Livebearers'" to show that it was just this one author.
  • Despite the nitpicks, great work overall! SnowFire (talk) 05:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

SnowFire, these are no nitpicks. This is the most thorough and most constructive review I have had at DYK. So, in order:

  1. The photo I found Googling, then found the photographer on Facebook, and asked him whether he would like to share it with us. He did. (Full disclaimer: I have been begging people for their photographs for years now. I am most proud of these♥).
  2. The no-fun comment is actually amusing. I cannot vouch that this is courtship because these fish were not mine, but it is what courtship looks like: the male colors up, flexes his fins for the female, and does a little dance. If that is not enough, I suppose "pair pictured" would work fine. In any case it should be clear that the photo shows a male and a female, not two males.
  3. I agree with dropping "common".
  4. "Fancier varieties" refers to fancier varieties of guppies, which look drastically different from wild type fish; and they definitely were fancy back in the day when they displaced limias! See animal fancy (which might be a good link to have) or fancy rat, for example.
  5. I fully agree about "congeners". I am not, however, sure how to replace "basal" since any explanation looks either even more complex or overly simplified (such as saying primitive). I will try to think of something.
  6. I too am puzzled by "Blue Hole River". The source is actually very specific: Quellbereiche bei der Stadt Black River sowie Sumpfgebiete im Bereich von Middle Quarters, Black-River-Drainage und Blue Hole River, südöstlich von Ferris Cross, sowie kleiner Bach nahe Amity Cross an der StraBe von Banbury, Jamaika. What I see southeast of Amity Cross is a fork of the Black River.
  7. I did look for Farr's paper to see if there is anything else interesting in it, but it does not appear to be available online.
  8. I have made it clear that "7 forgotten livebearers" is Monke's category. Surtsicna (talk) 07:59, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the changes, they look good! "Blue Hole River" will remain a mystery for now, it seems. Very cool you convinced the picture-taker to share it on Commons. I've struck ALT0a if you're confident that is indeed a courtship display. And on "fancy": ah, I get it, it's a pun. Fair enough, then! I'll offer this variant that still removes "once-popular" but keeps the alliterative "fancier fish":
  • ALT1c: ... that the blue-bellied limia (pictured) is now a "forgotten livebearer", displaced from mainstream fishkeeping by fancier fish?
  • Original hook & ALT1c are approved. (To the promoter: I technically wrote 1c myself, but it's only two words different from ALT1, so hopefully should be fine to approve). SnowFire (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Limia_melanogaster&oldid=1153546719"