Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Assessment

A general plea! Does anyone interested have the patience and the knowledge to add importance to the template? I would, but i'm not sure how long it would take! themcman1 Talk 12:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Sorry but what exactly do you mean by patience and the knowledge to add importance to the template. Please elaborate further. tnx... 12:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Fishing

Hello everyone! At last our Fishing Portal is up and live, please check it out and contribute further. Cheers! Bu b0y2007 14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The below quoted exchange resulted from the deletion of some fishing related information from the Striped Bass article. Out of this exchange, the suggestion was made to create Fish Fishing articles and remove most of the angling information from the Fish Biology articles. As an example there would be an article entitled: Brown trout devoted to the biology of the fish and another article devoted to to angling for the brown trout Brown Trout fishing. This would eliminate the current conflicts between the "Biology" aspects and the other cultural, recreational and economic aspects of individual fish species in the current articles. The "Biology" proponents will always view the cultural, recreational and economic aspects of a fish species as subordinate to the "biology", whereas myself, as a recreationalist, consider the "biology" a minor and subordinate aspect of the fish species. I would appreciate any comments and ideas.--Mike Cline 13:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Focus?

I intend to trim the stuff about angling way back. It's totally out of proportion for an article about the biology of a fish. Take a look at Atlantic salmon or Common carp and you'll see a much more realistic balance between general biology and angling. If people prefer, we could always divest the angling stuff to its own article (say, Striped bass fishing). But as it stands now, there's a huge amount of unreferenced, chatty stuff about angling. Naming brands of lures and suggesting warm footwear really isn't relevant to the article at all. Much more valuable would be referenced quotes on the value (in dollars) of the striped bass fishery, the environmental impact of introducing striped bass on native fish faunas, use of striped bass by native peoples (if any), and so on. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neale I am going to agree with you on this one and actively follow-up on your suggestion:

If people prefer, we could always divest the angling stuff to its own article (say, Striped bass fishing).

The biology of a fish is the biology of a fish, whereas the cultural, recreational and economic aspects of a fish, especially one such as the Striped Bass are so exceptionally diverse, evolving and complex that trying to include them in an article purportedly devoted only to the biology of the fish is very difficult. Your comment:

Take a look at Atlantic salmon or Common carp and you'll see a much more realistic balance between general biology and angling.

Illustrates my point to in the best possible way. The history of Atlantic Salmon angling is storied and is a basis for much of our angling traditions today. There are even today, evolving recreational fishing opportunities and techniques for Atlantic Salmon, especially the Landlocked strains. On the Carp side, here is a fish that today is becoming one of the hottest tickets in fly fishing--the Golden Bonefish--It is a challenging and difficult fish to catch on a fly. In both cases, the articles are clearly imbalanced toward the biology of the fish--a biology that is pretty much fixed, known, yada, yada. Whereas, the economic, cultural and recreational aspects of this fish word for word, makes their biology a minor bit of information.
So Neale, I would encourage your support and the support of others involved in the "Fishes" project to concur with and support the creation of Fish Fishing articles and removing the angling aspects from the Fish Biology articles. --Mike Cline 13:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, Mike. To me, the articles are about the Fish, which would logically include (some) information about catching them by fishing (and not just angling in some cases.) I'm not in agreement with the notion that the article about the Fish should concern itself solely or only with the biology. Separating each one into a "Fishing" article would seem like a content fork to me, unless it was a summary-style fork. I'm also concerned that this isn't used for POV-forking by anti-fishing activists. Can you provide some diffs which include the problem - I agree that the Carp article is just fine, but the Atlantic Salmon article contains zero information on fishing that I can see. But I do agree that the Fish article shouldn't be primarily or overwhelmingly about the fishing, either (and there may be articles whose fishing-content needs to be trimmed back, summary forked, or specific bits of information on how-to removed.) Also, can you provide a link over to where this discussion is going on? Thanks. LaughingVulcan 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Correction - Found discussion at Talk:Striped bass (and linked it in the first paragraph above.) Also contributed my opinion there, and I think you and I are in agreement, Mike. LaughingVulcan 16:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
LV Thanks for chiming in so positively. My contention (and it grows as I think and do more searching) is that an article about the fish, should be about the Fish and articles about how the fish is [used] as a resource should be separate when there is a considerable cultural, recreational or economic aspect of that resource. There is an article about Wildlife in WP which describes the general concept of Wildlife. There is also a legitimate article on Wildlife photography and and article about Nuisance wildlife management. These two articles could be part of the Wildlife article, but they make better sense separate. Wildlife photography is a major amateur and professional pastime. The Wildlife are only a part of the whole story--there is technique, equipment, locations, history, major players, etc. The same holds true for the Brown Trout - Brown Trout Fishing idea. The biology of the Brown trout might be summarized in 100 words, but the history, techniques, equipment, personalities,etcs. would take 100 times as many words to do it justice. Brown Trout fishing is not about the fish, but the cultural, recreational and economic aspects of the sport--its people, places, things and fish. I am not concerned about content forks that might POV against fishing, the facts will speak for themselves. I also don't anticipate that we would see articles entitled: Long-Eared Sunfish Fishing. But we would eventually see articles that talk about fishing for the major freshwater and saltwater target game fish world wide. My contribution to this thread for now. Off on an airplane to Montreal.--Mike Cline 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
LV Had a bit of time of the plane to think about this a bit more. In my opinion, there is no reason not to reference "fishing" or any other aspect of the resource in the biology article on a species of fish. I trust my desire for separate Fish fishing did not imply such. However, I do think that trying to "Balance" information in lieu of having separate articles on the significant cultural, recreational or economic aspects of a fish species with its biology is problematic. What are we balancing? What is the underlying theme? If it is biology, then the more important cultural, recreational and economic aspects with get short shrift.--Mike Cline 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we should take this either to the Striped Bass talk or to User Talk? (Not sure if this is 'WProject' talk material or not, now that we've made its' existence known...)

But anyhow, I'm not sure about completely separate articles. I believe the underlying theme of the base article on the Fish is "the Fish", not solely its' biology. Dropping separate orphaned articles is a no-no, I believe (and I'll have to look up and reference why tomorrow.)

If I understand Neale correctly, what we're trying to balance is the sheer amount of coverage in the Striped bass article in each section. There should be section(s) on morphology, biology, habitat, fishery issues, and the fishing (plus anything else I forgot aside from routine Intro/See Also/etc.) Neale's point seems to me to be that the "fishing" parts of the article make up well over 50% of the article at present, which is pretty large and dominates the other aspects of an article on Striped bass. Following what I know about Wikipedia Manual of Style conventions, the options available to balance the fishing against the rest of the article are: a) Trim out the fishing parts by removing unnecessary and redundant material (to make the article have parity in all aspects of coverage,) b) Add relevant material to the other sections to bring them up to parity with the Fishing section, or c) Split the articles, in which case the article should reference the split and vice-versa. I think c) is the way to go. Anyway, more tomorrow since I'm dead tonight.  ;) LaughingVulcan 05:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The more I look at it, actually, I do see what you mean. Going through fauna articles, the article about the animal is separate about the article about hunting it (if there's enough material on both aspects.) I'd still like to see either at the top of page or in a fishing subheading "For information about fishing Striped Bass, See Striped bass (fishing)" (top of page makes more sense.) And, any kind of split will still require a new intro and TOC for the fishing article. Let me see if I can work it into the test pages I set up (see the S.B. talk page for the links) later today. (Or you can certainly play with the sandbox pages...) LaughingVulcan 12:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

do you think we should set up a side bar similar to WPP:BIO? we could have main page, proposlas and assesment (for moving info about the assesment side of the template). I wouldn't be able to code it, but does anyone think it's a good idea? themcman1 Talk 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My gift to you.

Enjoy. Miranda 10:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, this is for WP:FISH, but please share the wealth. Miranda 10:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fish factory

Fish factory redirect needed. I failed to quickly find any fish processing wikipedia articles. Please do something. Please do not redirect to Fish industry without expanding the latter, because such redirect will be more harmful than useful by hiding the mising topic. `'Miikka 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fishing gear

I don't know how interested people in this project are in commercial fishery methods.. but there's a large number of commercial fishing techniques that seem to be lacking articles. This is my own list.. some have articles, some don't.. some might be covered by broader topics.. some aren't (like trap and pot) but for the most part it looks like a lot of work to be done. I don't know if this list belongs here or somewhere else, so I'm dumping it here anyway. —Pengo 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

(highest impact to lowest)

  1. Scallop dredge, dredge
  2. Seafloor trawl, Seafloor trawler, or "deep sea bottom trawling"
  3. Seafloor-set gillnet, Seafloor gillnet
  4. Seafloor-set longline, Seafloor longline
  5. Driftnet gillnet
  6. Drifting longline
  7. Beach seine net, Beach seine
  8. Dropline
  9. Pots and traps (pot, trap)
  10. Trolling
  11. Lampara net (Lampara)
  12. Purse seine net
  13. Dive fisheries, dive fishery
  14. Handline and rod and reel (fishing rod)
  15. Squid jig

existing articles:

More listed:

from Seachoices.org:

Glossary terms

Missing fishing topics

Greetings. My page about the missing topics related to fish includes also topics about fishing so I wonder if anyone would be willing to have a look at it. Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Howdy. I am in the process of adding the following navigation bar to the bottom of the relevant articles on recreational fishing: {{recreational fishing}} It is more complex than I thought when I started (otherwise I mightn't have started). I have tried to order the topics as logically as I can. So there it is – up for comment. At least it makes it easy to see where new work needs to be done. As easy to remove as to add. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Geronimo20- Great Job, the nav bar has highlighted the existance of many fishing related articles that I was previously unaware of. On the subject of TOPICS, I would recommend deleting the topic: Famous fisherman. Famous is a very subjective term. An individual maybe famous, but that fame is related to some other activity. Most of those listed would fit nicely under the topic: Recreational fishing writers, photographers and other personalities. (Note the change to the topic Writers on Recreational fishing.) Then an article for anyone included would have to stand on its own merits--famous or not.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that Mike. I had the same difficulty, not being able to see what was actually on offer. I agree with your suggestion about combining topics, and I have done that. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added another template for the fishing industry... {{Fishing industry}} This one is more disappointing than the recreational fishing one. Although some areas, like trawling and some historical items, are covered quite well, some other areas are, well, what can one say, almost embarrassing. However, if an article exists and it is in the area, then I have included it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The above two have a lot of white space in my opinion. I would consider having the text aligned to the left and starting a new topic on the same line where possible. Richard001 (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi Richard. I did just what you suggested with the third bar below. It turned out that the vertical height occupied by the expanded topics was reduced by only about 20%. And it seems to me that the left justified format is a little more difficult to read. So that's why I didn't reformat the earlier bars. But of course this stuff is subjective. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with white space as such - we can make as much "room" as we want in this electronic medium; we're not trying to save paper here.
What I would like is some help from editors on optimising the classification of topics. I've just made a crude first pass. It's easy at any stage to reformat these topic indexes in different and better ways. You're more than welcome to do that yourself, bye the way. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And finally here is a template for environmental effects on fisheries... {{fishing sustainability}} Some patient trolling around Wikipedia to pull this one together. Mainly minnows and the occasional fat snapper. Your feedback and constructive edits are welcome. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Commercial fishing

I assume this project covers the commercial as well as recreational aspect of fishing, but this isn't reflected in the project's 'parentage'. I suggest adding something appropriate (e.g. Business and economics?) Richard001 (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but this is tricky. I would like to see a proper discussion on this with hopefully some input from industry players. As the article on fishing says: "The term fishing is not usually applied to pursuing aquatic mammals such as whales, where the term "whaling" is more appropriate, or to commercial fish farming."
Fishing is the active process of catching fish. As such it certainly includes recreational fishing and commercial activities such as trawling. But it does not, on the face of it, include such things as farming fish, or processing or marketing fish. These areas are somewhat orphaned at the moment, since no wikiprojects seem to want to know about them. Yet, the article on the "fishing" industry merrily details precisely these things.
I am in the process of attaching small navigate panels to the top right of the "fishing" articles. I have changed the heading for some of these panels to "fisheries" since it seemed more appropriate.
I have the impression that the original instigators of Wikiproject:Fishing just had recreational fishing in mind; it is listed under Cultural:Hobbies!
To move the discussion along, I propose that Wikiproject:Fishing be renamed Wikiproject:Fishing and Fisheries, and take under its umbrella all aspects of recreational and commercial fishing, including fish processing and marketing. Maybe whaling has to be left in the cold - at least it has it's own template! And as for poor seals - buggered if I know (I'm a New Zealander, and the foregoing phrase is an an honoured, revered and accepted part of our cultural and spiritual heritage). I recently added a section on seals into history of fishing and I am awaiting some outraged response. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I will concur with the renaming of the Project and point out that from the fishing historians point of view the boundaries between Commercial, Subsistence and Sport (Recreational) fishing are very indistinct and blurry. There are no absolutes in the world of fishing, because fishing isn't always about fish (See Alaskan king crab fishing).--Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a proposal to the WikiProject Council about changing the name of WikiProject Fishing to WikiProject Fishing and fisheries, so its scope will extend naturally to the areas detailed above. Please go to this proposal and add your name and/or comment if you are interested. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I personally know of several WikiProjects which have changed their names entirely on their own without consulting anyone else. There is in fact no requirement to contact anyone else. All that would be required would be for someone to use the "move" tab to move the page to the right address, and then, presumably, move any related pages, like the talk page, userboxes, and the like, as well. If you think you would have any reservations about doing so on your own, please let me know and I'll try to do whatever is required tomorrow. John Carter (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I've renamed it Fishing and Fisheries. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Then flicked it over to Fisheries and Fishing. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fisheries_and_Fishing/Archive_1&oldid=1137383624"