![]() | A fact from Coral reef fish appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 February 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Ii has been suggested that the name of this article should be "Coral reef fish" rather than "Reef fish". It would be good to have a discussion on this. If we are to have an article on "Coral reef fish", then parhaps another article is needed to cover "Rocky reef fish". My initial impulse is to retain the current title, "Reef fish", but to cover both types in the same article. Is there not a significant overlap in species which inhabit both types of reefs, with some inhabitants commuting between the two? And a section contrasting what the differences between the two habitats mean for fish might be quite interesting. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
google.com (common usage) |
google scholar (academic usage) |
google books | |
---|---|---|---|
Coral reef fish | 150,000 | 10,200 | 890 |
Rocky reef fish | 227,000 | 653 | 275 |
Tropical reef fish | 1,030,000 | 1,340 | 646 |
Temperate reef fish | 129,000 | 1,130 | 449 |
Aquarium fish | 1,410,000 | 5,980 | 819 |
Jamie: On what basis do you suggest that the link you removed ( http://www.coral-reef-info.com/coral-reef-fishes.html) does not conform to the established guidelines for adding external links? These guidelines state (Under "What should be linked"):
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues..."
The link that you removed certainly conforms with the above. I am the author and sole copyright holder of that material, reworded from material originally published in my book "Pisces Guide to Caribbean Reef Ecology" published in 1994 and referenced numerous times in this article (ref #13). The page to which you removed the link definitely fits the Wikipedia criteria "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". The material is also not readily available to most Wikipedia users as the book is out of print.
As a former Professor of Marine Biology who spent over 30 years researching coral reef fishes and published over 30 peer-reviewed articles on that topic in international journals, I find it incredibly surprising that you took it upon yourself to make such a change to this article, which I helped to develop over the last 6 months. Surely, you can find more appropriate ways to spend your time as part of the Wikipedia "spam police". All you are accomplishing here is to discourage contributions from qualified authorities.2ocean7 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)'
Another opinion: Not sure why there's a 3O for this page given that there are three editors active here, but I agree with those who removed the spam. This is not the place for self-promotion, and as such, adding a link to that coral reef site is uancceptable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, i don't know where to mention this and don't think it really matters, but: Today i watched a Lets Play on Youtube featuring the online game CounterStrike:Global Offensive.
There is a Zoo Map with an Aquarium which obviously includes textures with texts from this article on them.
Heres my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJzb3rzWAPA , Time: 2:56
Is this use case covered in any way by the lizense?
(More asking because of personal interest but anything else)
-- 78.53.212.68 ( talk) 22:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coral reef fish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Coral reef fish appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 5 February 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Ii has been suggested that the name of this article should be "Coral reef fish" rather than "Reef fish". It would be good to have a discussion on this. If we are to have an article on "Coral reef fish", then parhaps another article is needed to cover "Rocky reef fish". My initial impulse is to retain the current title, "Reef fish", but to cover both types in the same article. Is there not a significant overlap in species which inhabit both types of reefs, with some inhabitants commuting between the two? And a section contrasting what the differences between the two habitats mean for fish might be quite interesting. -- Epipelagic ( talk) 21:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
google.com (common usage) |
google scholar (academic usage) |
google books | |
---|---|---|---|
Coral reef fish | 150,000 | 10,200 | 890 |
Rocky reef fish | 227,000 | 653 | 275 |
Tropical reef fish | 1,030,000 | 1,340 | 646 |
Temperate reef fish | 129,000 | 1,130 | 449 |
Aquarium fish | 1,410,000 | 5,980 | 819 |
Jamie: On what basis do you suggest that the link you removed ( http://www.coral-reef-info.com/coral-reef-fishes.html) does not conform to the established guidelines for adding external links? These guidelines state (Under "What should be linked"):
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues..."
The link that you removed certainly conforms with the above. I am the author and sole copyright holder of that material, reworded from material originally published in my book "Pisces Guide to Caribbean Reef Ecology" published in 1994 and referenced numerous times in this article (ref #13). The page to which you removed the link definitely fits the Wikipedia criteria "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues". The material is also not readily available to most Wikipedia users as the book is out of print.
As a former Professor of Marine Biology who spent over 30 years researching coral reef fishes and published over 30 peer-reviewed articles on that topic in international journals, I find it incredibly surprising that you took it upon yourself to make such a change to this article, which I helped to develop over the last 6 months. Surely, you can find more appropriate ways to spend your time as part of the Wikipedia "spam police". All you are accomplishing here is to discourage contributions from qualified authorities.2ocean7 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)'
Another opinion: Not sure why there's a 3O for this page given that there are three editors active here, but I agree with those who removed the spam. This is not the place for self-promotion, and as such, adding a link to that coral reef site is uancceptable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 03:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, i don't know where to mention this and don't think it really matters, but: Today i watched a Lets Play on Youtube featuring the online game CounterStrike:Global Offensive.
There is a Zoo Map with an Aquarium which obviously includes textures with texts from this article on them.
Heres my source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJzb3rzWAPA , Time: 2:56
Is this use case covered in any way by the lizense?
(More asking because of personal interest but anything else)
-- 78.53.212.68 ( talk) 22:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coral reef fish. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)