Template talk:Diversity of fish

Deletion of "Fish groups"
An editor has removed, without explanation, the section called "Fish groups". It is not clear to me why this deletion is a good idea. However, the section was not named appropriately. A better name would be something like "Commercial fish (main groups)". --Epipelagic (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed it because something called "Fish groups" would appropriately be at least a partial taxonomy of fish, and such a section would indeed be welcome (i.e., is conspicuous by its absence), but entirely unlike the deleted section. A list of the major groups of Commercial fish does of course make sense; whether the old list was the best that could be done for that purpose is another question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I have reinstated the section. It is based around another template called Commercial fish topics. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with reinstating something, but not that particular list. Have had a quick stab at listing farmed and wild by tonnage, i.e. by commercial importance. I grouped the farmed carp, can readily list those by species instead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was in the process of considering similar changes. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Reorg

 * I agree with the general tenor of what you are trying to do, though with reservations. First, in regard to commercial fish, there are articles already written that specifically summarise and provide production charts for some of the principal commercial species groups. I have substituted these (though not all significant groups have articles... notably missing is aquaculture of carp, currently a redirect). Second, in regard to formal taxonomic groups, I think their inclusion here is out of place and is resulting in an unwieldy template. This template is aimed at the more general reader and to this point has avoided formal taxonomic names. A better way to deal with formal taxonomic groups would be to expand evolution of fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the commercial fish, the list now corresponds only weakly with the species that are actually commercial.
 * On the major groups, we can certainly avoid most of the latin names; avoiding all the clades is possible: I'll think about what best to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles included clarify the commercial species and provide production charts for 50 years. Have you actually read them? Just listing commercial species "by tonnage" is misleading, as the tonnage can fluctuate wildly over the years. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Splitting the fisheries (demersal, etc) by type does make sense (it's a taxonomy after all), and is more stable than tonnage. I do think, though, that more of the "heavy" fish should be in there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well yes, but appropriate articles just haven't yet been written in some areas. You dismiss the template as a "ragbag without taxonomic knowledge, and it seriously needs tidying up". It is not attempting to be a taxonomic template. There are other templates that do that. "Fish" includes about half of all vertebrate species. It is a huge area that is not going to covered adequately by a single template, unless the template size is allowed to expand out of control. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, you took that personally, for which I'm sorry. I see now that there are at least 5 fish templates, and several include some taxonomy, so we do need to reduce overlap. It is a large template and I make no apology for wishing to add structure to it. Sometimes those new to an article or template can see simple things that experts familiar with them overlook. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I'm happy with the changes you've made now. On a (very) minor point, as a personal preference I lower the case of parenthesised entries, as in "Cartilaginous fish (chimaeras sharks rays)". Do you have opinion or preference on that? --Epipelagic (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * None whatsoever, but the thought police probably favour lower case! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)