Talk:Frogfish

Strike
The article represents the "strike" of the frogfish as "the fastest movement in the animal kingdom", we had a quibble on the Fish Quiz about this item. Wouldn't it be better to say "strike" because there are other external movements in the animal kingdom that are quicker, eye movements were the example i gave.....?As stated i think it creates confusion.Dwaink 05:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

warty frog fish
I think the warty frog fish is really neat. You see my class and I were given an asinment to pick a sea animal and do some reach on it.I had no Idea what I was going to do, so I looked at this book about sea animals and found this very werid looking one that I have never seen so I did it and just doing some reach on it the warty frog fish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.50.99.2 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

(Various questions)

 * ''The struck thru content within the following contrib was improperly placed, unsigned, within the contrib, creating a forgery. That material is

I have some questions for whomever is editing this website:

What does the Frogfish eat? the frog fish will eat any piece of fleshy material it can fit in its mouth, including other frog fish.

The colors. . . do the Frogfish have chamelon-like or octopus-like abilities to allow them to change color and blend? Or did each species evolve to match just one type of coral background? it is a mixture of your last two. you see certain frog fish, like the saragasum frog fish, have evolved to suit their environment by looking more like their surroundings. however most use theiur amazing cromatophores, like octopus, and possibly chameloens, to change color. chromatophores are skin pigments that shrink and expand.

The method of locomation is a little unclear, could it be cleaned up? Is the article basically stating that the Frogfish uses it's appendages to "jump" at it's prey? thats about right. they can swim, but not very well, most often they crawl on their modified pecoral fins, or just lay about waiting for a meal.

I don't object to the number of photos. This is an extremely varied animal; the photos serve an educational purpose.

Thanks. And I apologize if I've broken any Wiki rules. This is my first time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.132.1 (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) --Jerzy•t 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the provocative questions, 99/Hauer. Your IP-address sig was added by a bot; please sign with ~ (as now described in the first multi-line box above -- and in the first one on any edit-page for a WP discussion page) on your future contribs. --Jerzy•t 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At 21:27, 18 February 2009 an IPuser whom i will not explicitly identify answered several of another IP's questions by inserting responses among those questions. Altho new users are extended considerable latitude to make good-faith mistakes, this one's recklessness was so great that their good-faith contribution here should not be permitted to stand without that recklessness being stated. I'm not talking about making unsigned contributions. The carelessness of editors who start typing in the edit pane on a discussion page that virtually starts with a box that clearly says
 * remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ).
 * and neglect to sign is, well, embarrassing for our species, and whether they need to feel embarrassed as individuals is IMO an individual concern. What the reckless IP did goes well beyond that. It's hard to imagine they failed to notice that the series of questions was followed by a notation beginning
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by ...
 * and any reasonable person should have construed that as a certification that what preceded it, back to something reasonably demarcating the "[formerly] unsigned comment", was in fact the product of the person who controlled the specified IP address in the seconds preceding the specified time. And such a reasonable person should have reflected on the fact that anything inserted into that product, without itself being clearly demarcated from it, would in essence be a forgery, a false representation that something (actually uttered by the forger) had been uttered (at an earlier time) by the person specified in the "signature". In this case, a very careful reader might discern that the un-self-identified contributor (the reckless IP, as it turns out), in contrast to 99/Hauer, has a keyboard with a broken shift-key, a little better command of grammar, a little less care against typos -- but certainly no sign of taking care to make a clear distinction between them. In glancing thru (looking for missing sigs and confusing formatting before making my own contrib, and noting in this case that more info about the translation was worth eliciting) i construed 99/Hauer as incoherently thinking out loud as if trying out answers to their own questions, and lowered the priority i would give 99/Hauer's curiosity and specific questions; i might very well never have looked carefully enuf to suspect 174's misdeeds and to consult the edit history. It's important to distinguish the reckless IP's offense from vandalism. But it is also important to distinguish it from the normal growing pains of new users. A deeper acquaintance with how WP works will not suffice to make the reckless IP a colleague to either new or established users; a change of attitude will be needed.
 * Another IP had answers, at 21:27, 18 February 2009, for 99/Hauer's questions above:
 * 1) 99/Hauer asked "What does the Frogfish eat?"
 * The other IP answered
 * the frog fish will eat any piece of fleshy material it can fit in its mouth, including other frog fish.
 * 1) 99/Hauer asked
 * The colors. . . do the Frogfish have chamelon-like or octopus-like abilities to allow them to change color and blend? Or did each species evolve to match just one type of coral background?
 * The other IP answered
 * it is a mixture of your last two. you see certain frog fish, like the saragasum frog fish, have evolved to suit their environment by looking more like their surroundings. however most use theiur amazing cromatophores, like octopus, and possibly chameloens, to change color. chromatophores are skin pigments that shrink and expand.
 * 1) 99/Hauer asked
 * The method of locomation is a little unclear, could it be cleaned up? Is the article basically stating that the Frogfish uses it's appendages to "jump" at it's prey?
 * The other IP answered
 * thats about right. they can swim, but not very well, most often they crawl on their modified pecoral fins, or just lay about waiting for a meal.
 * This contrib uses GDFL/CC-BY-SA 3.0 contributions of and the user of another IP address (which may be ID'd by consulting this talk page's edit history entry for the date i specified above), refactored by me. --Jerzy•t 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

translation
I am going to be working on translating the german version of this article hopefully completely within a week. Please find my current draft in my sandbox. --Jieagles (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Some of the more technical stuff about the taxonomy and the anatomy I didn't feel confident translating so I just left it out. --Jieagles (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've already made a substantial and IMO valuable contribution. IMO that contribution would be substantially enhanced if someone (not necessarily you) would add a commentary on it in this talk section. E.g., A diff shows (in the Mediawiki diff) apparent removal of the three paragraphs of the former "Description" section (and the wikEd enhancement of the diff shows the fragments of those 'graphs scattered sufficiently to suggest a profound refactoring as the only other possibility). It is not obvious whether the removal reflects a slip in your bookkeeping as you edited, your judgment that the section was a waste of words, or a refactoring of the section accompanied by enuf rewording to conceal the relationship from our automated tools. (Someone more interested in the substance of the accompanying article than i am may be quickly able to clarify that.) It would also help to have an enumeration of the material that you decided not to try to translate. (Machine and/or hand-comparison of your last revision to a Google translation from :de: might make this quite clear, but that might (or not) involve substantial effort that your account could obviate. The effort you've already made is admirable in any case, and thank you for it in any case! --Jerzy•t 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made sure that all of the information that was in the article before, which as I'm sure you noticed, was very little and poorly organized, remained in the new article. Most of it was also in the German article so I used my translated version.  Other pieces were put in in the appropriate section, probably rewritten by me to match the style and context.  The rewrite was so dramatic that i am not surprised a computer did not recognize the old information.
 * As for the untranslated parts there are two short sections about taxonomy (Aeussere Systematik and Innere Systematik) and a couple sentences scattered about related to parts of fish that I wasn't sure of the English name. Jieagles (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tube worms
In section "Features" in the accompanying article, i am ignorant of whether tube worms within a single taxon are relevant, or the general article Tube worm (body plan) should be linked, and i left the Dab un-byp'd. --Jerzy•t 23:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I sent it to Tube worm (body plan). The variety among frogfish is to great to limit to a single taxon. thanks for the heads up. -- Jieagles (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

link removed by bot
Hi there,

I tried to link a short video that clearly shows both the free swimming and 'jet propulsion' movement of a frogfish. I inserted the link after the word 'propulsion' in the movement section of the article. This link is to a movie I made myself and it is hosted by youtube. I am a avid diver and do all underwater filming myself. A wiki bot removed the link shortly after I had placed it, though I own full copyright. Should I undo the action or not? I think the movie is appropiate (I have read the guidelines about linking youtube movies).Charlesleflamand (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you. The problem is that the bot plays by the strict rules, which say that only copyright-free materials can be used. Therefore, your owning the copyright is a roadblock. If you were to put the video on Commons then you can link it in the article. Hope this helps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Frogfish offspring
Could someone please look at this video and explain why the small brown frogfish is following the larger yellow one? Is it just tagging along looking for food or has it imprinted on the larger one? The video is 40% down the page. http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-weirdest-fish-on-earth-include-some-definite-nightm-1709122107   Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors  (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)