This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Shoaling and schooling appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 May 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Congratulations to Epipelagic (by far the lead contributor) for this charming and informative article. Long may he swim in the WP lagoon. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The reference section is strangely called Notes, and then there is another section called "References" that contains unlinked references. I think these unlinked references should just be merged into the Further Reading section Bhny (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not at all "strange", see WP:LAY. The "References" section contains classic references that have (not yet) been integrated into the text. The "Further Reading" section is just that, other references that are useful, but of lesser status. This arrangement is particularly useful to anyone with a serious interest in the topic, or interested in developing the article further. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen a layout like that. The closest I could find was WP:EXPLNOTE part B or D, where you have shortened footnotes in Notes and expanded references in References. This article, on the other hand, has 2 similar sections one linked and one unlinked. Bhny (talk) 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've change "References" to "Reading". Are you more comfortable with that? Footnotes are often called "Notes", which you can check by looking at featured articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that's better. I would also change "Notes" to "References" Bhny (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also can you give me one example where the {reflist} is named "Notes"? Everyone I've seen has a group name like- {reflist|group=notes}
Yes, I see your point :) --Epipelagic (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please let me suggest combining "Readings", "Further readings", and "Recent articles" into a single section of "Further reading" (singular). Doing so would be more logical, and more consistent with WP:LAY. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved also. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth (briefly) mentioning that both words come from the same source (shoal from Old English, school from Middle Dutch, both Germanic cognates. 109.176.224.23 (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
