Talk:Siamese tigerfish

Binomial confusion
The species D. microlepis redirects here, and there are parts of the article that appear to pertain to this species. On the other hand, the taxobox says D. pulcher and some of the article appears to pertain to that species. D. microlepis and D. pulcher are not synonymous. Presumably the confusion arises from the similarity of their common names. Anyway, it seems appropriate (and easier) to keep this article for D. microlepis and create a separate article for D. pulcher. Some editors may also wish to visit the possibility of changing the article title from the common name to the scientific, since there is apparent confusion. Richigi (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Interlanguage links
All of the interlanguage links from this article (and also likely to it) are to the incorrect fish species (Datnioides microlepis, not Datnioides pulcher). Can someone who speaks those languages please fix the articles on the other wikis, and the corresponding links from and to here? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In the Aquarium
Several people have commented out the "in the aquarium" section, without explanation. Why is this? What specifically looks bad about the section? The information their is sourced, and can be useful to readers. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC) It reads as a manual or how-to, which Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like: 1.Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.[4] Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead. I did not edit it out, but did clean it up. 66.61.92.158 (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair point. Is the way it is currently written better? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)