Talk:Recreational fishing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcvaymt. Peer reviewers: Khs52.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Cross-reference from 'Hunting license'
I have set a see-also cross reference at Hunting license to the Rules and Regulations section of this article. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

News article that might fit here
regarding potential United States federal fishing license.

--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Double image
What purpose is served by having the same picture twice in the same article? Am I missing something here? - Wikigi | talk to me | 20:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is an editing conflict going on with Geronimo20 regarding the use of the same image twice in this article (see discussion here, also here and on my talk page). - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dispute resolved - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead image 1
I find the image File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg far better for the lead than File:Girl with her fish.jpg as it shows the activity rather than the result, has higher aesthetic and much higher technical quality. However my proposal to use it in the lead has been reverted. Comments by other contributors would be welcome. There is a discussion going on at Featured pictures candidates about the merits of the image. Elekhh (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, IMO File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg is a better image for the lead because it shows the process of fishing, while the image that is the lead image now is of a very low resolution, and shows a girl with a fish, but definitely not process of fishing.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As discussed elsewhere, File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg is a sombre image of a man with a rod silhouetted in a murky brown fog. You cannot see the fishing line, or where he is fishing. The image might be appropriate for the article on depression, perhaps with the caption "The twilight of hope", but it doesn't belong here. File:Girl with her fish.jpg shows the joy of a girl who has just caught her fish, holding her rod with one hand, and the fishing line with the other so you can see the fishing sinker and the fish still with the hook in its mouth. In the background are other active fishers. Your image may have merits from the point of view of certain technical aspects or viewed from a particular aesthetic. But this is not relevant to whether it belongs as the lead image on the recreational fishing page. The girl image has an immediate and engaging impact, is helpful in countering the stereotype that only old men fish, and is appropriate to the main theme of recreational fishing, which is fishing for pleasure. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to hear that the image can cause depression, and I wonder if other editors feel the same way? Elekhh (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that this image could cause depression could cause depression, the image itself could not.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I do think File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg is a better lead image than the picture of the little girl, which looks more like a cute family snapshot than a good illustration of fishing. I would suggest using Mbz's image, or another which actually places the focus on fishing. Fletcher (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with what the majority think, File:Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg is the best image for this page. The little girl image looks like a cheesy family vacation photo. To say that the Lake Merced image is depressing is just plain ridiculous. It's calm and relaxing, exactly how recreational fishing should be. It is more generic, as it does not suggest age, ethnicity, or even what kind of fish the person is fishing for. Not to mention it is more aesthetically pleasing. I'll suggest using the image File:Fishing_off_pier.jpg from the angling page instead, as a possible happy medium for the lead image though. It can not be thought as being depressing, and it shows the actual act of fishing. What is everyone else's opinion? If not happy with the the majority's opinion, or my suggested image, please feel free to put forward another image that all users can agree on.(MonkeyMan1984 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Image Caption
The caption on the main image is vague. This article is severely pro fishing, when it should be neutral. I suggest changing it to "Young girl smiling after taking the life of a fish." That's a more descriptive caption.TheiGuard (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article on recreational fishing is simply an account of what recreational fishing is. It is a factual account of the history of recreational fishing, and its techniques etc. It nowhere makes value judgements about the activity, so I have no idea what you could mean by calling it "severely pro fishing". There are many articles within WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing that hit out clearly at the consequences of thoughtless fishing and point to many value issues such as pain in fish, overfishing, sustainable fishing, and fishing down the food web. If you want to address such issues then there are articles other than this one where such concerns can be more appropriately addressed. I understand, from your attempts to insert material in this and other fishing articles that you feel strongly that people should not kill fish. I probably feel as strongly as you do about people who gratuitously kill exquisite and magnificent species such as swordfish for what they call "sport", particularly given the vulnerability of these species and the high tech nature of fishing these days. At the other end, millions of people depend on relatively simple fish like sardines for their survival. Do you advocate that we allow these people to die instead? Wikipedia is not the place for emoting like this. We are here to present the facts and situations which are verifiable, and it is for the readers to form their own value judgements. You must know by now that emotive websites like PETA, which you cited here, are not acceptable as reliable sources. Finally, you want to replace the factual caption "Young girl with her fish" with your pointy "Young girl smiling after taking the life of a fish". In fact, the fish at that stage was quite possibly still alive, and may have been subsequently returned to the water. Further, your sinister insinuation that the girl was sadistically smiling because she had taken the life of a fish is unlikely. She was more likely reacting to the excitement of the catch, and may have never considered the possibility that fish might experience pain. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty dumb I won't add anything to the article anymore. TheiGuard (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
@MonkeyMan1984: I understand you are adverse to the idea that girls or woman might like to fish, and you want a picture of a boy instead. The image of the boy you seem so keen on is already used in the main fishing article, and is the lead image in the angling article. It is overkill to have it here as well. You cannot simply keep trying to impose your personal preference on Wikipedia like this. You have to get agreement with other editors involved with the article. I have added a welcome to your talk page. It links some of the basic guidelines for people who want to contribute to Wikipedia. You should read those. You have the option of finding another image and then getting consensus on the talk page here. Do not continue reverting to the same image, as you do not have consensus for that, and your reverting is becoming tendentious. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: I have no problem with girls or women fishing, where would you even get that idea from? And I am not keen on the boy image, I actually preferred the "Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg" image as the lead image, as many expressed their desire for in the previous Lead image discussion. My only objection to the "Little Girl" image was that it lacked aesthetic appeal (appearing as a typical family snapshot), and didn't show the actual act of sport fishing, but merely the desired end result. It is rather hypocritical of you to accuse me of imposing my own personal preference, as you continually reverted and rejected the majority's input about the lead image. After giving up on your insistent rejection of the "Lake Merced" image, I put forward the "Boy Fishing" image as a possible compromise, as some of your objections was that you wanted to "counter the stereotype that only old men fish", and your complaint that the "Lake Merced" image was "Depressing". After a brief disagreement on that image, you left the article alone with the boy image, and then randomly 7 months later deleted the lead image from the article all together. How is it that my reverting is becoming tendentious, however, your objection to an image, that nobody else had any objection to, and that the image that you desired that many others rejected, is not? I am reverting back to the boy image temporarily until we reach an agreement, however I believe that the Lead Image should be the "Fisherman at Lake Merced.jpg" as many expressed their desire for in the discussion "Lead image 1" above. (MonkeyMan1984 (talk) 05:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Look, this is obviously very important to you. It would have been good if we could have met half way. That's clearly not happening, so I'm letting this article go. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am still willing to meet half way. That's why in our original disagreement, I asked if there was an image you could put forward for the lead image. I do not care about age or gender of the individual(s) in the image, but I do feel that there should be a lead image. All I ask for the image is that it 1.shows the actual act of fishing and; 2.Has a certain aesthetic to it so that it doesn't appear as a simple family snapshot (the individual posing/smiling for the photo). (MonkeyMan1984 (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Well here's a categorized list of images that are currently available and here's a larger list with "fishing" somewhere in their associated text.--Epipelagic (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * How do you feel about Fishing_1.jpg? I see it as a nicely composed image, showing the act of recreational fishing, while also not subjecting to the stereotype of "fishing is only for old men", although this does use a young male (I was searching for a photo with a female subject, however out of the few available, none had the same style). As far as I can tell, it is not in use on any other article as well. What are your thoughts?(MonkeyMan1984 (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC))


 * A lot of fishing images have been added to Commons lately. I looked through the ones that have been added in the last three month, about 2000 of them, with disappointing picking; only two possibilities (below). Anyway, the choices are firstly the one you found (at the left). That's well composed, but is perhaps a little over stylised and very minimalist. It would be good to have more detail, and perhaps a fish or signs of a fish, somewhere in the picture. The middle picture of two boys, with its "No fishing" warning, has good detail and action, but it is badly composed. The third picture is dated and again, somewhat minimalist. The second and third pictures would have to be changed to their mirror images and enlarged relative to the first picture. I perhaps incline towards the image you found, but I would choose the second image if it was better composed. Anyway you choose and I'll agree with your decision. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Of the 2 images you found, I think I prefer the one of the boys fishing, rather than the man. However of all 3 images, I personally would have to still go with #1, although I do agree with you that maybe there should be a fish, or signs of a fish in the picture. But as you said, I feel that the other 2 images are rather dated looking, and poorly composed. So from this, I propose that we use the first image for now, and then maybe look at any new images that become available in the future? Let me know if this works for you, and if so, which of us should make the change to the article.(MonkeyMan1984 (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC))


 * I suggest you change it. I can't think of a good caption. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Change made. Does that caption work?(MonkeyMan1984 (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC))


 * Yes, that's fine :) It's very difficult to find lead images that really work on some of the fishing articles, and everyone has their own ideas. In a while someone will come here and replace the current image with, perhaps, a snapshot of themselves showing off their muscles while they hold up some obscure fish :/ --Epipelagic (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Haha, well I'm sure with the 2 of us watching this article, that person's image will be reverted rather quickly. I'm glad that we were able to come to an agreement on the lead image :) (MonkeyMan1984 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Recreational fishing. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nativefish.asn.au/cr.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513203715/http://www.asafishing.org/asa/newsroom/newspr_092607.html to http://www.asafishing.org/asa/newsroom/newspr_092607.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Review
I think this article has been laid out really well, flows nicely, and is easy to read. I also think that there the pictures that are currently on the page work well with the topic at hand. The captions work well with the images and are easily related to the text. Overall, I think that this article is really well put together and brings in other articles nicely with hyperlinks. I would check the citations though, as one I clicked on did not work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khs52 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 31 March 2018 (UTC)