User talk:Kerripaul

Redirect is done by. Just so you know. :P &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks


 * No problem but remember to always sign any comments with, otherwise it's tedious to look in the history page to see who wrote it. And usually you add a new section to someone's talk page with  . BTW welcome to wikipedia... &mdash; flamingspinach | (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Bass
On your travels through the waterways please bear in mind that what you know as bass (fish) to others may appear to be bass (musical term). 'Bass' as a Wikilink is ambiguous, so you should always link to a specific bass; if necessary pipe the link so it appears as just 'bass'. It seems to have fallen to me to be the disambiguator... Brequinda 09:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Ichthyology
I noticed that you removed the from the Ichthyology category. My mistake for putting it there. Perhaps you could add something to the category's talk page discussing what would be appropriate under that category, and clarify whether corydoras panda and Nothobranchius should or should not remain in the Ichthyology category so I and others like me won't also make that mistake... ?  Neil916 01:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Danionin
For the time being I held off on the other Danionin genera because the information is rather limited, as far as I know. Information on Devario aquarium requirements can probably be collected, which is why I made an article for it. However, many of the other Danionins are rather rare in the hobby and therefore, unfortunately, don't have as much importance. However, you're free to start up some articles for the other genera if you feel that it would be a good idea.

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
Hi Kerripaul. I found your danionin article when I was updating the list of freshwater aquarium fish species. Your article helped my a lot. Anyway, I just created the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. The guidelines draft is just finished. I wonder if you'd want to join it and help starting the project. And also just wonder if you know other editors who might be interested. Thanks a lot and cheers, --Melanochromis 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the WikiProject Aquarium Fishes !! --Melanochromis 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: December 2006
--Melanochromis 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: January 2007
--Melanochromis 04:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: Febuary 2007
--Melanochromis 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: March 2007
--Melanochromis 22:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Fishes
There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of a project whose naming conventions would be affected (WikiProject Aquarium Fishes), your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Neil916 (Talk) 00:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: April 2007
--Melanochromis 22:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Aquarium Fishes Newsletter: May 2007
--Melanochromis 19:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes June 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, remove your name from here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 20:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes July 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, remove your name from here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Anhalter Bahnhof
I note your additions to the Anhalter Bahnhof article regarding the comparison in roof size with St. Pancras station in London. This roof is indeed a fair bit longer and wider than the Anhalter although not quite as high. In the UK there are other station roofs of impressive dimensions. Liverpool Lime Street (still open) and Manchester Central (now the G-Mex Exhibition Centre), both have roofs that are wider than the Anhalter although not as long, as once did the now demolished Glasgow St. Enoch.

The Anhalter Bahnhof roof was certainly the biggest in Continental Europe at the time of its construction, but the Koln Hauptbahnhof at 255 m long and 64 m wide greatly exceeded it, and in floor area is even larger than St. Pancras.

Hope this is of interest. Tonythepixel 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Danionin stuff
I'd like to inquire into some of your edits.

First, I am curious why you removed information about Microrasbora erythromicron being classified as a Danio species under a particular study; this is valid cited information. I see that further research on your part is on the way, but the scientists have done that for us. Here are some quotes from the paper that I referenced: "Danio erythromicron is clearly placed within Danio and not Microrasbora, as has been previously hypothesized for this species" and "...the genus Microrasbora is not a monophyletic group and does not include Danio erythromicron." They also have this paragraph: "Danio erythromicron, a species originally described in Microrasbora, is found to be more closely related to D. rerio than the putative species of the non-monophyletic Microrasbora resolved herein. Although the resulting placement of this species in Danio may be somewhat surprising to some, this species was recently referred to Danio by Kottelat and Witte (’99). These authors reassigned D. erythromicron on the basis of a suite of morphological characters, but also indicated that this change should be further verified with additional data; herein their conclusion is strongly supported by our molecular sequence data and analyses." This information indicates that not only is D. erythromicron not part of Microrasbora, but that it has already been reassigned to Danio for eight years before their analysis. What this means is that Microrasbora erythromicron is an invalid synonym of Danio erythromicron; perhaps there may be some sort of revalidation in the future, but it is not currently Microrasbora erythromicron and hasn't been for years. Maintaining the old name gives a distorted view of the relationships of this fish species and the evidence that has been found. As taxonomy is always changing, wikipedia articles should follow suit and indicate and follow these changes.

Secondly, I am unsure as to the usefulness of restoring the list of species and synonyms in the danionin article. First of all, the validity of danioninae as well as what genera actually belong to Danioninae is in question. The whole group is ill-defined and many of its relationships are still unknown. Different studies have given conflicting data for the relationships of danioninae (which I attempt to summarize in the taxonomy section). This is why I separated the list from danioninae from the first place, as whether or not the genera listed are danionins seems to be unknown. Secondly, the same information, minus common names, is now reproduced on the individual genus articles. Many of the synonyms are on the relevant species pages. Any information in these lists that is not already in a more specific page should be moved there, rather than remain on the danionin page where it is unknown if this information even belongs there, supposing some of those genera aren't even danionins. As a last note, I have never seen Tanichthys referenced as a danionin group in any of the scientific papers I have read so far about the phylogenetics of the danionin group; most papers make no mention of the genus at all, and the few mentions I have ever seen of both Tanichthys and Danio indicate that they are not closely related.

Thanks for your time. MiltonT 04:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I accept the fact that the generic status of Microrasbora erythromicron is not clear. But rather than removing information discussing its generic placement, we should add information so that readers can understand why its taxonomic placement is unclear. I'll drop this point about your removing this informatino from the Danio article as I suppose the discussion of this subject is more rightfully placed on the Microrasbora erythromicron article, where this information is now included.


 * When the paper says "Danio is identified as a monophyletic group sister to a clade inclusive of the genera Chela, Microrasbora, Devario, and Inlecypris, not Devario nor Esomus as hypothesized in previous studies." it means that Danio is not a sister group to Devario alone, but rather, it is sister to clade with the four listed genera together. Although perhaps ambiguous in the way they said it, this was their meaning.


 * I do not see the value in retaining the danionin list of every species on the danionin page, simply because we can discuss (and IMO, should discuss) the information pertinent to each genus in the actual genus page. Probably when you were told this list was useful was prior to each genus page being created. IMO, this is the place where discussion of the species in each genus should be had. Whether or not something is a danionin is argued on the genus level, not the species level (even with monotypic genera). As you and I know, scientists are not even sure about what genera should be included. If someone wants to see a list of, for example, Esomus species, they should go to the Esomus page. The danionin page can discuss whether or not Esomus is or is not a danionin, but the Esomus page can easily discuss its species. We already discuss in the taxonomy section that Esomus species have been considered closely related to Danio, with a wikilink to allow readers to easily access the Esomus page where they can find a list of species of Esomus. To me, the list section clutters the danionin page, another reason I divided it up and moved much of the information to separate articles.


 * I can accept your view of maintaining the species list of Danio species and do not argue against your restoring the list on the page. In any case, I believe it is preferably placed on the Danio page rather than the danionin page.


 * The fact that the white cloud is not a danionin is more than enough reason not to include it among the danionin list of genera. I am aware the average aquarist may believe that they are closely related to danionins, but since they are not, why include them in the listing of danionins categorized by genera? Making a mention that it is not a danionin and referring them to the correct page can be done in a sentence with a wikilink in it, as has already been done in the taxonomy section. This is simple enough.


 * I am unsure as to the value of the synonym list. The main danionin page is not the page for synonyms of species and I have never seen an article with such a large devotion to names no longer used of subgroups. I chose to hide the synonym page instead of actually removing it so that, in the event that more of the relevant species articles were made, synonyms could be moved to these pages conveniently. With the list hidden, I felt it could be used as a checklist to see what synonyms still needed a page to be placed on, slowly removing its pieces until all of the synonyms were on their respective species pages. It was not that I did not believe these to have been scientific names at one point, but I was removing unnecessary information from the list that was being stated elsewhere. The fact that I hid it only after I began to remove parts is irrelevant to the fact since I perceived that the entire list would be gone in the future and broken into the relevant pages. I don't believe the list means much to most readers and only seems to clutter the page. A wikipedia search of an old synonym should lead a person to the species page if that synonym is listed there. This also works vice versa; if I want to know the old synonyms of a species, I go to that species page. I don't see the value in summing up all the synonyms of previously accepted danionins on the danionin page. Even genus articles do not have large lists of synonyms of its species, nevermind theoretical subfamily groups.


 * I guess the basic theme of my argument is that the information should be broken down into its parts. First of all, it clutters the danionin page. Now that its been broken up into generic pages, I do not believe the entire list is necessary. The species list is categorized by genera, but we already have a list of genera in the taxobox, and each of these genera now has a list of species no different from the list on the danionin page, except for lack of common names, which are listed on the danionin common name list. Having one enormous list is unnecessary; it doesn't say anymore than when it is broken into separate pages. Some other information the list gives is a bunch of lengths of different species, but this is also information which shouldn't be included on the danionin page but, rather, on the species pages. Secondly, it seems that we are still unsure what genera are danionins, listing even genera on the danionin page is dubious, never mind what species. What we can say is what species belongs to each genus. Instead of having such a large and unncessary list on a page where we don't even know the species belongs, I moved information from the species list to the genus pages where (except for M. erythromicron) we actually do know where they belong. Breaking it down to the more specific genera pages (genera that we're not even sure are all danionins anyway and a genus, Tanichthys, we know is not) makes the danionin page cleaner and less cluttered.


 * MiltonT 16:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The danionin page does look a lot cleaner this way. On a separate page, the synonyms list is more acceptable. This makes it a much more acceptable article. Also, I probably put PDF in the Roberts reference due to habit; so no, I didn't mean to put a link. Yes, more research is needed, but that's the fun of science, isn't it? MiltonT 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am unaware of a free location to access that paper. I am accessing it through my university library. MiltonT 21:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquarium Fishes August 2007 Newsletter
You are receiving this newsletter because you have signed up for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes. If you wish to stop receiving this newsletter, remove your name from here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 21:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Saccopharyngiformes


A tag has been placed on Category:Saccopharyngiformes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Centracanthidae


A tag has been placed on Category:Centracanthidae indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 16:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)