Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing/Archive 2

Progress report
Navigation panels are now installed on most of the fishing and fishery articles. The information on the project main page has been updated and the sidebar has been revamped.

There is also a start on a sortable table of the project articles, including their traffic statistics. There are fewer than 300 pages in the project, so it should be quite easy to maintain a list including all the articles. There are three utility columns (called status1 to status3) which can be resized and renamed on different occasions for different purposes. This should make it much easier to do things like assessment drives. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Virtual population analysis
Virtual population analysis seems to have sat there for two years in defiance of some basic Wikipedia conventions. I've done some cleanup on it, but it could probably still use more work. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Active/Closed Deletion Debates To Project Page
You'll note that I have added a section near the top of the project page to draw attention to any ongoing deletion debates that may involve Fishing Project articles. In the past I had solicited support for my position on deletion debates from individual editors. This was in violation of WP:CANVASS guidelines which I personally was unaware of until recently. In contrast to personal canvassing, friendly notices via Project Pages are permitted and this is my attempt to institute that approach here. Whenever a Fishing Project editor notices a related article subjected to a deletion proposal, list it on the project page so we may all be aware of the debate. Hopefully all the fishing project related article remain worthy of the encyclopedia and no deletion debate need occur. --Mike Cline (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Pawistik Lodge
Pawistik Lodge fishing lodge has been nominated for deletion. It was written by user new to wikipedia who is not familiar with notability, writing format concerns or replying to AFDs. Is there any precedent set for fishing lodges in general? SriMesh | talk  02:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A discussion
An important discussion on " Should WikiProjects get prior approval of other WikiProjects (Descendant or Related or any ) to tag articles that overlaps their scope ?  " is open here . We welcome you to participate and give your valuable opinions. --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) -, member of WikiProject Council. 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Ribbon fisheries article created
I have created an article entitled: Blue Ribbon fisheries. I would encourage fishing project members aware of officially designated Blue Ribbon fisheries to add them to the list with proper sourcing.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fisherman or fisher?
Should fisherman be referred to as fisherman or fishers? This issue was raised recently here. (Woman have traditionally been associated with gathering seafood, and the seminal essay on recreational angling was written by a Benedictine nun, Juliana Berners). So let's get some numbers to crunch on:

Using google to establish the relative usage of these terms on the web is not simple: "fisherman" gets 19 million hits and "fisher" gets 116 million hits. But "fisher" is a common surname, so this doesn't really tell us anything. Nor is google trends particularly helpful. However more focused searches are somewhat useful: So in general web use, fisherman and fisher are roughly level pegging with a small edge to fisherman. This does not tell us anything about the trend – though I would suspect it favours "fisher". I supose "fisher" is now the politically correct term, and will be the term preferred by official and government web sites. The nearest we have to a definitive official source is the FAO, the source of most statistics used in this project. A search on their site produces 707 hits for fisherman and 5,000 hits for fisher. Checking my end of the wood, the New Zealand government website on fisheries returns 164 hits for fisherman and 710 hits for fisher. Pulling this together, I propose that we establish as a guideline that "fisher" is the preferred term for this project. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "fisherman AND fishing" gets 6.8 million hits while "fisher AND fishing" gets 5.6 million hits.
 * "fisherman AND angling" gets 646 thousand hits while "fisher AND angling" gets 435 thousand hits.
 * "fisherman AND trawling" gets 159 thousand hits while "fisher AND trawling" gets 102 thousand hits.


 * First, I think the Google hits approach is fraut with problems since a Fisher is also an animal in the weasel family. Second, if the sole objective is to be Politically Correct (whatever that really means) then I suspect Fisher is the more PC of the two terms but requires so many caveats to deal with the other meanings of the word.  You are not going to find a lot of sources using the word, so interpretations will be arbitrary.  The definition of fisherman is a PERSON who fishes while the definition of a fisherwoman is a WOMEN who fishes.  I would oppose the wholesale substitution of the word fisher for fisherman in every fishing project article just to be PC.  As regards recreational fisherman, the substitution of the word Angler is far more accurate and not based on any arbitrary PC criteria.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that Google hits is a useless way to resolve this issue. If you seach Google for chimpanzee, you get thousands of hits refering to President Bush, so the relevence of the results is as important as the number. I agree that it might be a problem just switching to fisher since people are not used to that word, but I think that the change should be made; otherwise we should go back to calling female police officer policemen, postal delivery persons mailmen, etc. The change isn't just to be politically correct, it is to be correct. Misidentifying all people who particpate in some activity as male diminishes the many women who do the same activity. Most occupations, recreations, sports, etc. are now well represented by females so it does them an injustice to ignore their gender for convenience or habit. Bob98133 (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Bob, I don't agree at all that Google hits are "useless" – just that they need to be used with caution, and sometimes they are useless, and sometimes they are very helpful. And Mike, yes we can use "angler" for recreational fishermen, oops fishers, but what then do we use to refer to people who fish with spears or traps or nets or by using their hands. And that still leaves commercial and artisan fishermen. Fisherman/fisher is the generic term, and the way we are using it at the moment we might as well just toss a coin. Is the cause of "fisherman" a lost one because the long term trend is that "fisher" will replace it? My point is that the pressure being exerted by official and government web sites etc will eventually determine the issue (though if Wikipedia adopts that approach, is that furthering the acceptance of "fisher" as the "correct" term?) It's a mess, but because we don't take a position, editors at present, particularly those without accounts, are randomly changing one to the other. And does it matter anyway? Should we just let it be? --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Angler -- my point was only that in the proper context the used of the term Angling and Angler are essentially gender neutral and accurate. A fly fisherman, a fly fisher and a fly angler are one in the same whereas a spear fisherman, a spear fisher and a spear angler are not. I don't believe the wholesale replacement is appropriate as long as the terms that are used are acceptable and accurate.  As far as establishing a guideline, I don't really know that it would work as any editor can literally make any change they want, and debating the use of fisherman (when that's how most sources will use the term) against fisher (which will be mostly unsourcable) is problematic.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So are to we to adopt, as a de facto guideline, that the use of either term is acceptable? In that case, like British and American spelling, should we have a guideline which states that either term is acceptable, but that a given article should not mix them. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (this thought got waylayed by an edit conflict) As I was thinking about this, another issue comes to mind--that of Historical revisionism (negationism). Many articles in the Fishing Project convey a lot of history about the topic at hand and certainly most fishing history uses the term fisherman, not fisher. I think we should be careful (ie very selective) as to where we use the term fisher when dealing with historical (not contemporary) content to avoid the appearance of Historical revisionism (negationism)--Mike Cline (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree that either term is acceptable, to include angler given the proper context.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a very good point about historical revisionism, and one that has bothered me too. --Geronimo20 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Geronimo, what I meant about Google being useless is that it must be interpreted carefully, as you said. It seems that most of the editors in this discussion are male, so it would be useful to have some female editors comment, if there is a gender difference in how this issue is viewed. I don't think that historial revisionism is a reason to be politically incorrect or anachronistic in using language, or else we'd see a lot more of the dreaded "N" word which was widely used but is generally not used now, even if the source used it. In this cae, since fisherman is not so emotionally charged, I would see no problem using it in a quote or noting that the word was used by the source, but I think any contemporary mention should be gender-neutral. Bob98133 (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Bob98133 - Would you agree that Angler is gender neutral?


 * Just my opinion, but I think that angler is gender neutral.Bob98133 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 907 articles are assigned to this project, of which 247, or 27.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 2008-07-14.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Beginning Return to Wikipedia
I've been on an extended Wikibreak, which started from circumstances beyond my control. That break began just as the assessment drive for articles was ending. It will be a little while before I'm ready to come back into the Project again, but I'd be interested in cleaning up the end of the assessment project (if it wasn't finished, relocating assessed articles, etc.) And I know the Project has grown as well, and I'm not up to speed yet, also. At any rate, just wanted to let the other members know that I'm almost ready to come back again. Thanks! Laughing Vulcan 01:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello! themcman1  talk 12:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! How'd I miss this?  Good to "see" you again!   Laughing Vulcan  23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to start a little work to clean up the end of the assessment drive from last year (we had several articles left to quantify / list the consensus / move to done status at the end of the drive.) Laughing Vulcan  23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

(I found out that all of the articles remaining in the "to be done" section of the Assessment Drive had been rated, with the exception of Trout Unlimited. So I graded that one.  Next task with the assessment drive will be moving all the discussions there to the Archive page, so that the Assessment Drive page is clean to do another drive -- someday (probably on getting rated-but-no-importance and importance-but-no-rating cleanup.)  Laughing Vulcan  00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Question About Project / Grading Template
And, while running through the assessment drive / cleaning up, I happened to notice that our project template ( Template:WPFISHING ) suggests that discussion of importance / rating should occur on a separate talk subpage of the article where the template is transcluded. It gives a link (usually a redlink) to any such discussion.

When I designed the assessment template and project template, I remember reading that this system was deprecated back then. Without technobabble: Rating and importance discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article, not a Talk Sub-page.

Should the WPFISHING template be edited to reflect this - change from saying, "Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page." into, "Please explain ratings on this page." ?

(And, yes, this properly belongs in Assessment, but I don't know that we still have enough members to do that. ;) )  Laughing Vulcan  00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Vulcan, and welcome back. I agree with you. I think our effort at this stage should be directed at finding better sources (too many poorly sourced articles), generally improving existing articles, and adding missing articles. When, if ever, we come to an end of that, will be a good time for detailed navel gazing at how we assess them :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Geronimo, and thanks! I think I take your point, though I don't believe there will ever really be an end to doing what you describe (general good article improving.)  I agree that we (and I in particular) could spend more time editing the articles themselves.  But the specific change I have in mind is to replace in the template itself:
 * with
 * This brings it into compliance with Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, I believe. Doesn't seem like much of a change to me, but I'm certainly willing to follow consensus on this.  Laughing Vulcan  01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This brings it into compliance with Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, I believe. Doesn't seem like much of a change to me, but I'm certainly willing to follow consensus on this.  Laughing Vulcan  01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This brings it into compliance with Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, I believe. Doesn't seem like much of a change to me, but I'm certainly willing to follow consensus on this.  Laughing Vulcan  01:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Fishing
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image needs replacement - Gotthilf Hempel
Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Gotthilfhempelkils.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

New Book Article - Feedback Desired
I've just created an article entitled: Minor Tactics of the Chalk Stream along the guidelines WikiProject Books lays out for non-fiction literature. As I hope to create many more such articles on fly fishing related literature, I would appreciate any feedback on the above article. In addition, several days ago I created the article George Edward MacKenzie Skues and would appreciate it if someone could find and upload a public domain version of the only known image of Skues. It exists in a number of books and websites, but I have been unable to find a public domain version of this image. You guys in England probably know where to get it.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Mike. I'm not quite sure what sort of feedback you are seeking. Do want feedback on whether such articles are a good idea, or whether this particular article can be improved? The principle of you creating more such articles seems fine to me. But then I can't speak for the deletionists. As far as this particular article goes, a couple of minor points: I would remove the image of the book cover unless you can considerably lighten it - it looks pretty much like black space on my browser. And you might consider using a more straightforward style, as used here, for your review section.


 * Bye the way, have you seen that recent research suggesting that liberal and conservative mindsets are a matter of which genes you carry? If the attitudes are hardwired, that goes some way to explaining why it is such waste of times arguing about them. Maybe the difference between inclusionists and deletionists is also genetically hardwired - which would explain why deletion debates can be so crazed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am an inclusionist by nature but I do find deletion debates both simulating and entertaining.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Proper use of navbox

 * Geronimo20 has asked me to continue this conversation here. NJGW (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop interfering with the fishing navigation template on algaculture. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean, your edits keep inserting large amounts of whitespace into an article algae so that a fishing navigation template can have a prominent position. That's a strange trade off.  I think it would be better to have a picture of an algae farm at the top of the article, as that's what the article is about (with the added bonus of a better layout).  NJGW (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Is the TOC not displaying in parallel with the template on your browser? You mentioned earlier that you use firefox. I also use firefox, on Mac OSX, but there is no white space problem there. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * When the algae farm picture is below the navbox, whitespace appears after the navbox. With the algae farm picture on top, the navbox gets pushed down and fills this whitespace.  That's purely asthetic... I think it's more important to have a representative picture at the top of the article.  It's like having a solarsystem navbox at the top of an article for one of the planets, pushing a picture of that planet out of the lead.  The picture used in the fishary navbox isn't really valuable to the algaculture article, and it doesn't hurt the functionality of the navbox to have it 150px further down the page.  NJGW (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well over 900 fishing articles have been templated that way now for some time, and you are the first to come up with that one. It arises occasionally on articles with a short lead and a long TOC. The best way to fix that, if you find it untidy, would be to write a longer lead (which an article with a long TOC should have anyway). But if you misalign the template the way you did, then the template loses its easy navigation utility across articles - which has resulted in a huge traffic increase across fishing articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, I'm not really sure how algaculture got mixed up with fisheries... and secondly, I looked over some of the articles in the navbox and noticed that you've pushed a lot of images to the left side of the article. This is highly advised against in the MOS, and extremely unusual in the lead (as far as I can tell).  I'm also not sure why we need both the 'fiseries' navbox and the 'fishing and fisheries' template... seems like overkill.
 * Have a look at Agriculture, and the navbox there. As you travel through the articles, when there is a representative picture it is placed on top of the navbox, and there are never pictures on the left side of the lead.  This is standard practice.  NJGW (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I didn't answer your latest concerns because you seemed to be shifting ground and raising other issues instead of trying to resolve the initial issue. But if you have a considered position that certain articles don't belong here, and that a better job can be done with the templates, then I'm definitely interested. It would be good if you would raise these issues at WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, so other people interested in this area could have input. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My latest concerns consisted of they many issues raised by your aesthetic preference: a) your need to have the navbox so proponent in the article flies in the face of the fact that algaculture is very loosely connectible to fisheries b) it goes against the convention of having a representative picture on top c) it also goes against the convention of making navboxes secondary to the article they are in (particularly in agriculture articles) d) many times you are inserting images on the left side of the lead (which goes against the MOS) e) most of the time you are inserting needless whitespace into leads f) writing a longer lead is not the default answer to poorly placed navboxes... for a short lead you can always put it after the first header (so it appears after the TOC).


 * You did something very strange here... you mention above that you did not answer my concerns, but then you made an edit at the article where you said you had . It's a bit odd and quite patronizing.  NJGW (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well I did answer you above on 13 October, and you did not respond to this, but moved onto other matters. Then I replied to you again earlier on 19 October above, before I made that edit. So maybe it is your own edit summary, that is, to use your own words "very strange" and "a bit odd and quite patronizing". I gather your opening position is that, before discussing anything, you will place the navbox where you damn well please, and that I had better not touch it. Okay, put it where you want. Can we move away from the name calling and general tone of outrage, and see if we can discuss things on a more neutral ground. You have raised many issues, some of which need more than a brief reply.
 * You raise a concern about algaculture being part of fishing and fisheries. I see from your edit history that you are interested in peak oil, and maybe see algaculture as part of an energy solution. So I appreciate you could be irritated coming to the article, with a focus on bioenergy, and finding a prominently positioned fishing template of no interest or relevance to bioenergy. This is the main drawback with navboxes, that some topics can be viewed from a number of perspectives, but plastering them with different navboxes for every perspective makes a mess. It would be nice if we had navboxes that automatically configured according to out personal interests. Fishing can be a tricky project to try and organise, because it is multidisciplinary, with more overlaps than most projects. I use the FAO as the guide for organising the fishing project. This is the one comprehensive and authoritative source that monitors and guides the international fishing industries. The FAO organises fisheries and aquaculture as one department, and it doesn't seem possible to deal coherently with this stuff unless you organise it all together. Tradition fishing includes not just wild fish, but any sea or lake organism of interest, including mollusks, crustaceans and seaweed. Likewise, farmed fisheries, in the extended sense, include the farming of all fresh or salt water organisms of interest, including algae. There is a problem with how the fishing project should be named. A clearer name for the fishing project would be "Fishing, fisheries and aquaculture" – but that name seems just too long. But the scope of the project is made clear on the main project page. So I hope that answers your question as to "how algaculture got mixed up with fisheries".


 * Yes, though I would suggest that for the great majority of Wikipedia readers, associating it with Agriculture might be more beneficial... which isn't to say both associations could not be present. BTW, your assumption of my perspective is incorrectly influenced by your reliance on my "edit count summary" vs. an investigation of my actual editing history.  There's a big difference, and it's a shame that's how you've proceded from here.  Looking at my activities on the Algaculture article itself might have been much more illuminating.  NJGW (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well okay. I had already noted you reverted some vandalism. Looking more closely I see you also added an image from wikimedia and also added a sentence. I have no idea what you think this illuminates. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A lack of editing related to biofuels maybe? NJGW (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is very tedious. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the issue of which navboxes should take precedence on which article can be vexed. And I certainly relate to your annoyance at coming to an article which you have a certain perspective on, and finding it seemingly pre-empted by some other project arrogantly parading itself. I hate that kind of project imperialism myself, and find it quite sobering trying to organise fishing in an optimal way without being overly imperialist. I mostly don't see perfect solutions only a series of compromises. Still I would suggest that algaculture is unambiguously a core article within the scope of the fishing project, and that if navboxes are to be used then fishing navboxes are the most appropriate. On the other hand, I wouldn't put a prominent fishing navbox on the article for fish or for cod&mdash;even though these are core topics in the fishing project, the fish project clearly has the priority stake. In a similar way, I suggest that if you want a higher profile for algaculture as a biofuel, you can add a section within the existing article, or create a separate article, and the fishing navbox is not really getting in your way.


 * Again, it's too bad you're hung up on the biofuel thing... I never even suggested adding a different navbox (much less mentioned biofuel), only saying that having a picture of algaculture up top is prettier and standard practice and removes whitespace: in my mind a trifecta of good reasons. NJGW (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not hung up on the biofuel thing, it was just a guess that is what interested you. If that it not the case the comments still stand as examples. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your comments relate to your assertion that your navbox should take precedence over other navboxes. Fine, but what has that to do with the issue at hand?  I never took the navbox out, moved it out of sight, or put another navbox on top of it... you seem a bit over-protective of your navbox.  NJGW (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The agriculture navbox uses a different approach. It lists major articles within the agriculture project, and is not primarily concerned with leading you through the articles most immediately relevant to the one you are looking at. The agriculture navbox takes up a huge amount of room compared to the fishing navbox, which is only 100 px wide. This leaves plenty of room for a left justified image and the matter is discussed further here. Anyway, I left your right justification of the image alone, so I'm not clear why you keep going on about it.


 * I don't follow you here... just because you can have a left justified picture doesn't mean you should. The guidelines you point out do not negate or supercede what the MOS says: "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image. This image is often resized to about 300px" and "Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other." It's pretty black and white, and it even looks better than having extra whitespace.  NJGW (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The guidelines are merely general guidelines which should be followed in the absence of a compelling reason to do otherwise. They are not written in stone. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying there's a compelling reason beyond the fact that having a picture of algaculture up top is prettier, as well as being standard practice, and placing it there removes whitespace? NJGW (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * See below. I agree prettiness is nice, but so is convenience and utility. This is not a matter of rights and wrongs and focussing on just a few details,, but getting a balance in the overall picture. This means compromise.--Geronimo20 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * White space issues can arise, particularly when the TOC is very long, as it is in the case of algaculture. You haven't particularly cleared the problem up by pushing the navbox down further. Many FA articles, without navboxes, have worse problems with white space&mdash;just look at any with long TOCs.


 * With the Spirulina picture on top, the navbox gets pushed into the whitespace... which makes less whitespace. Is it different on your browser?  The problems of other articles are not our concern.  NJGW (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I commend you for setting a higher standard than featured articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You've just ignored my point with sarcasm. Great strategy.  Just because an article that's better for various reasons has an asthetic problem doesn't mean all articles must have that same problem.  NJGW (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You want to position the navbox a bit down the page. The whole point in having all the navboxes in the same position is that as you navigate across different articles the navbox remains static. You don't have to search for it, and each menu items remains steady in the same position. This makes surfing the project, often just looking at the leads, very simple and intuitive. If you reposition the navbox on algaculture, it breaks that flow. If all the navboxes were arbitrarily positioned, they would lose most of their effectiveness and might as well be abandoned altogether.


 * You seem to have little faith in the surfing abilities of the average reader, as well as too much faith that anyone looking at Algaculture is interested in fish. This is not an issue of arbitrary possitioning, but an rather the fact that someone coming to the algaculture article will want to know what such an operation looks like (hence the Spirulina farm image). NJGW (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand you are very concerned about having an image there. It was there originally&mdash;it just happened to be on the left. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it was originally on the right, but you moved it in April. Placing it on the left is a clumsy (and advised against by the MOS) solution to allow you to place your navbox at the very top.  In fact, I see you've been doing that to all the fishing articles since March of this year.  But back to my point which you have ignored, how does having a picture of an algaculture farm on the top of the algaculture article (while following the MOS guideline of starting with an image on the right) take anything away from your template?  NJGW (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * MOS does not set guidelines for narrow width right sidebars. If you had bothered to read my reply earlier, you would know the answer to the question which you claim I ignored. So, here it is again for you: "You want to position the navbox a bit down the page. The whole point in having all the navboxes in the same position is that as you navigate across different articles the navbox remains static. You don't have to search for it, and each menu items remains steady in the same position. This makes surfing the project, often just looking at the leads, very simple and intuitive. If you reposition the navbox on algaculture, it breaks that flow. If all the navboxes were arbitrarily positioned, they would lose most of their effectiveness and might as well be abandoned altogether." --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree most of your points have some degree of validity, particularly looking at it from your point of view of coming to algaculture out of interest in biofuels. My perspective is from the point of view of trying to keep some consistency and ease of navigation around the fishing articles. Since the navboxes were installed, six or seven people have criticized some particular navbox. Most of the criticisms have been on a different point of style. One editor was furious that the menu items are not capitalised. Another (highly respected editor) ripped me up for using piped links to make simple menu items. He insisted I use the full article title, so for example, the "multi-trophic" item on the aquaculture navbox would become "Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture". This resulted in navboxes wider than the agriculture one, and very ugly to boot. Another editor wanted to change the alignment. And several editors have repositioned the template arbitrarily down the page. None of their points are invalid from the perspective of this particular navbox or that particular article, but at the end of the day they are just preferences. None of this stuff is required by the guidelines, and for every person who wants it this way there is another who wants it that way. If editors arbitrarily edit navboxes, each to suit their own idiosyncrasies, the project would become a mess of inconsistency. I don't disagree particularly with anything you have said about the aquaculture article. It's just that I disagree from the perspective of trying to keep consistency and a middle ground across the project as a whole. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again with the biofuels? I'm interested in this article (as with all the other articles I've edited) as they stand on their own.  Any article which does not stand on its own should be merged with one that can, while those that do should be viewed as parts of the Wikipedia project.  On its own, algaculture is part of the agriculture, aquaculture, biofuel, nutrition/seafood, environment, and maybe others.  I see an argument for aquaculture (not fisheries) having priority, but not an argument for letting the project take priority over the individual article.  I'm not editing your navbox, I'm editing the algaculture article which stands on its own, and I think there's a big difference.  NJGW (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are missing a key point: the navbox you are so upset about is an aquaculture template. If you actually look at the template and try it out, you will find the lead article is aquaculture and the rest of the articles in the main group are all articles about different aspects of aquaculture. It is a minor point that the navbox is also part of a wider fishing/fisheries/aquaculture project. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The template should be an aquaculture template, but the heading says "Fisheries". I have tried out the navbox, and find the grouping of topics a bit forced.  Do we really need a navbox for 2 types of things grown in water, 3 variations of these farms, 2 ways of saying multi-organismic farms, one way of heating the farms, one list of organizations, and one stub with no references?  These should all be summarized in the aquaculture article anyway, not promoted at the top of every tangentially related article.  Done correctly, there's no need to navigate to all the articles since it should all be covered at the main one.  NJGW (talk) 04:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, the template fills other functions than the alternative you are suggesting. You are steadily widening your "concerns" again, aren't you. Never a single concession. Yet more issues&mdash;there can be no end to this. This is not productive time. Yes you are right. The articles are not perfect. Most articles in Wikipedia need more work, and the aquaculture ones are not an exception. The aquaculture template keeps them together, so it easy to see what is there and what needs to be done. I've explained in detail why, in a broader sense, it is a "Fisheries" template, but you don't seem to read my replies. Large scale aquaculture is a relatively recent development. It has come to be paired with fisheries&mdash;the two go together. For example, these organisations. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Fishery templates (mirror discussion)

 * This section is a copy of a conversation initiated on the Help desk and then continued in the following sections.

The fishery articles use a number of fishery templates to form a somewhat hierarchical network across the articles. Since these have been installed, the traffic for fishery articles has much increased, particularly for the lower level articles. However, every now and then, someone comes along, and wants, usually without discussion, to introduce their own idea of layout, or simply removes templates or pushes them out of the way. Sometimes editors come along who seem malicious. Is there some forum where I can get these issues properly considered by capable editors without axes to grind? --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing - why not bring it up there? WikiProjects are ideal when you need to discuss such things with the big picture in view. &mdash; Sebastian 02:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, you've already done that, and it seems you feel that the discussion is getting nowhere. My impression is that this is because there seem to be only two editors involved. Are there no more editors in this project that could help you find a compromise? If not, you could maybe ask for a third opinion or any of the other paths listed at WP:Dispute Resolution. &mdash; Sebastian 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is the problem. The discussion you mentioned was with an editor who is not a member of the project. The trouble is that there is currently only one other (occasional) active member. Right now, there is an insufficient support base for fisheries, which means the project templates can be vulnerable to an editor bent on his/her way, but with no commitment to what is best for the project. Which is precisely what is happening with another editor right now. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

(The following was originally posted with the headline "Is your project in the directory?", but it's rather a continuation of the preceding.)

I was just looking for your project in WikiProject Council/Directory, but couldn't find it. If you're listed there, where are you? &mdash; Sebastian 02:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, though it's difficult to know where it should go. I put it here under "History and society#General topics", not because I thought that was a good place, but because agriculture was there. I also put another entry here, under "Sports#Water" for the recreational fishing part.


 * Ah, I see now. Yes, if these two projects are there, then that's a good location. It's just that any industries wikiprojects are few and far between. I wonder why that is. One thing I would do, though, is look a bit across the fence and see how related wikiprojects are doing - some wikiprojects have "sister projects"; that might also be a good pool of editors to ask for a third opinion when you have problems like the one in the previous section. &mdash; Sebastian 03:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. There was what appears to be a bully attack back here, and a current outside editor operating here and here, is now enlisting the support of the editor of the bully attack here, apparantly winding up for a concerted attack. I did try to enlist, at least a third opinion, here, but he declined. In the absence of support for the project, it is maybe best to just walk away and leave it to the wolves. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Geronimo, it makes me sad when I see a conflict like this. Obviously, you care for Wikipedia, and we would like to keep you here. On the other hand, it is not appropriate to call anyone here a "wolf". We're all humans here (apart from the bots, who are not in charge yet). Because we're human, we tend to get angry (I've been there myself), and that's why WP:DR recommends as one of the first steps to walk away for a while. (that doesn't mean everything is just lost, because everything is in the history and can be retrieved later, when the waves have calmed down.) Please, do read WP:DR and follow its recommendations. (Please also note that asking some selected editors on their talkpages is not Third opinion.) &mdash; Sebastian 04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fisheries templates
Well I've done pretty much what I can to try and set up some forum where a consensus can be reached by editors on standards for the fisheries templates, and I have to admit I don't know how to do this, or even if it can be done. Since March, the project has expanded from 260 articles to over one thousand. The templates have resulted in a huge increase in traffic, particularly on the lower level articles which typically get four times the traffic they use to get.

In the absence of regular active current members in this project, and some agreed upon set of standards, the support is not there to protect against arbitrary changes by outside editors who want to impose this view or that view on how the templates are used. I feel somewhat burnt out trying to keep them together, and have to admit defeat. So what will happen now is that one editor will remove some or all of the the lead pictures from the lead articles in each of the sixty templates, another will bump the templates down the page and make the lead image right justified. Fine of course, from one point of view, but it makes the templates ineffective. A third editor will capitalize some or all of the templates. A fourth will remove the pipes, and have the templates straggling across the page. A fifth will remove the areas that don't yet have lead articles, instead of attempting the hard work and writing the missing articles. A sixth will add, or delete, inappropriate items... Every one of the individual edits might have a degree of justification, but the overall effect is another matter. The bigger picture is lost.

Anyway, there it is. I will still be around, just not doing that tedious vandalism patrol every day, and not attempting to protect the integrity of the templates. Big relief really.

I'm writing this, because it may be in time that several useful editors committed to the project turn up, and can establish the necessary standards and defend against non-project editors who want to chip away in an ad hoc way to suit their personal preferences. Good luck! --Geronimo20 (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Geronimo20. I'm sorry that you've reached a point of frustration and feeling of defeat. I've looked at the changes you have made to the articles, and they do not appear to be in agreement with the Manual of Style (MOS). While you could propose an WP:Ignore all rules reason why fishing-related articles need not follow the style guides used on Wikipedia, I don't think that a good reason exists. Ultimately, the MOS is a collaborative project by all Wikipedia editors to provide a consistent look to the whole encyclopedia, and should be followed. In regard to your examples, allow me to consider each:
 * ...one editor will remove some or all of the the lead pictures from the lead articles in each of the sixty templates...
 * The MOS:IMAGES indicates that images should not be left justified in the lead. These edits are done in accordance with established guides, and provide (based on Wikipedia-wide consensus) the best format.
 * ...another will bump the templates down the page and make the lead image right justified...
 * The template should remain at the top, right justified, and no image should be placed above it (particularly, not the same image!)
 * ...Fine of course, from one point of view, but it makes the templates ineffective...
 * Agreed.
 * ...A third editor will capitalize some or all of the templates. ...
 * They probably should be capitalized. When listing article names, one would typically capitalize the titles.
 * ...A fourth will remove the pipes, and have the templates straggling across the page...
 * Again, this is common throughout the Wikipedia and quite alright.
 * ...A fifth will remove the areas that don't yet have lead articles, instead of attempting the hard work and writing the missing articles...
 * Do you mean stubs? Typically red links are discouraged in Navigation templates, and links should be added after the stub is created.
 * ...A sixth will add, or delete, inappropriate items...
 * That's how Wikipedia works! There is no ownership of articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you need to be willing to accept the constructive, good faith edits of other editors. Clearly, if someone vandalizes an article (and be careful not to call a good faith edit "vandalism", as you have done), you may revert the vandalism. If a good faith edit is against policy, particularly consensus, then it may also be reverted. Please let me know if my explanation is clear or if there is any part you disagree with. I am just another editor trying to improve the project. Thanks! (EhJJ)TALK 14:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the topics be capitalized?

 * This (slightly modified) discussion has been moved from Template talk:Fishing topics

Shouldn't the topics be capitalized? If not, why not? (EhJJ)TALK 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi EhJJ. As far as I know there is no guideline that says they should be capped. The topics in the templates are not necessarily the title of the article, since the template itself already provides a context. The topics are brief pointers to what the article is about. For example, fishing topics is clearly set in the context of "fishing". So "vessels" is a sufficient pointer to Fishing vessel. And "environmental" points well enough to the article called Environmental effects of fishing, with its template on environmental matters. Substituting the full title of the articles can hugely widen the template, looks very ugly and will contain a lot of redundancies. There are other fishing templates where the topics are place names or personal names, and those templates are capped and left justified, as here. Lowercase topic lists are widely accepted around the web, and in paper publications, as well as in Wikipedia. From a personal preference point of view, I think the lowercase versions have a better visual flow. You, I presume, do not. So that really is a matter for wider input.--Geronimo20 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find a guideline supporting capitalization, either. While I agree that there is no need to put the entire name of the article into the template (as the template would then be much larger), I still think it would look better to have the items capitalized. However, I must admit that is entirely a personal opinion which I believe is more popular throughout Wikipedia, with the notable exception that you pointed out. Perhaps someone else knows of a style guide that can help, or we can decide it here based on user input. At least, then, we'd be able to say that the consensus is X and all of the templates could be maintained in that format (pending a new discussion and consensus, if that ever occurs). (EhJJ)TALK 00:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN

 * This discussion has been moved from Talk:Fish farming, and refers to the positioning of the template used on Fish farming. I have moved it here, since to Wikigi this is what he calls debate from good faith edits and he considers future inquiries on the subject should be able to refer to it. Wikigi also considers that because I deleted this, to me, non-constructive type of bullying confrontation, that I am trying to suppress these issues. As the third party intervenor said, the discussion was not "what this talk page is for". --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the page history, User:Geronimo20 seems to own this article. If so, he should provide his credentials for keeping the page in its current sorry state. Who allowed him to rollback good-faith edits and clutter the lead with identical images? --Ghirla-трёп- 05:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have replied to this here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just think that having two identical pictures in the lead, aligned left and right, is sort of... well, weird. Left-aligned images are better avoided, and there is nothing wrong with moving it into the text below. But as long as the Sochi image remains, I don't really care. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about the image, but I think the OWN accusations are not needed. See WP:NPA. I moved the image.--agr (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think WP:OWN (or referring anyone to the page) is a vehicle for personal attacks, you should list it for deletion. As for (mis)use of rollback, see WP:ROLLBACK. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to make sense, Ghirla. Perhaps a wikibreak would help you. And no-one used rollback. My reverts used undo and explained why in the edit summary. If you bother to actually read WP:ROLLBACK, you will find it says: "If there is any doubt about whether an edit should be rolled back... use the undo feature instead, and add a more informative edit summary explaining your revert." --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would help if both of you stopped commenting on the other and returned to improving the article, which is what this talk page is for. --agr (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What purpose is served by having the same picture twice in the same article? Geronimo20 stated that "no-one has ever complained before", well that 3 contributors just here. The same goes in all articles regarding fishing (Recreational fishing, Fishery, Fishing industry, Fishing, etc..)- Wikigi | talk to me | 23:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we consider that so far 4 contributors (Ghirla, agr, EhJJ and myself) are in agreement to remove the left-aligned images from the articles lead? - Wikigi | talk to me | 12:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, though people who are happy with things as they are are less likely to comment. There have been about 30 million views of fishery articles since the templates were installed. However, I somewhat agree with you. It seems to me there are three options...
 * the status quo, where the lead image of the lead article is the same as the image on the template. The basic idea here is that as you move down the topics in the template, the image at the top of the template keeps the same visual clue connecting you to the lead topic. The drawback with this approach is that some people, such as you and three declared others, find the duplicate images on the lead topic offensive. But looking at the whole picture, maybe compromise counts too.
 * the template can omit the image. The trouble with this is that, often, when you click on a topic, it goes to another template. It is best if the template then has an image that changes, to give a definite visual clue to the user that the template has indeed changed. For that reason, I favour retaining images at the top of templates.
 * your preferred option, which is that the lead image on the lead article of a template is omitted. I would fight that option, except for one thing. High level articles, such as fishing, are a dead loss here, because nearly every time you click on a topic, it takes you to a lower level template which uses a different image. Thus, when you are operating at a high level, the idea that the image on the template keeps you connected with the lead topic is nonsense. When you travel down the hierarchy of templates to a low level template, such as fish farming, the notion works fine, because every topic listed there, stays connected with the same template.
 * For consistency, you need to keep the same schema across all the templates, whether they are high level or low level. If they were all low level templates, I would definitely fight to keep left justified images on the lead articles, as a visual reinforcement as you move down the template. But because there are also high level templates, where that is not so important, I am somewhat neutral on the issue. So my final position is: what's the big deal? I personally don't think the duplication of a large image on the left and a small mirror on the right matters a toss. You, and three others clearly find it offensive. But is that a proper poll? If it's four to one, and actually a considered position by those four, and no one else in Wikipedia gives a toss, then I don't give a toss either. --Geronimo20 (talk) 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this a positive answer? - Wikigi | talk to me | 19:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If several other people consider the matter first, and then agree with you. I notice you are repeatedly canvassing the two editors at the top of this section, and I wonder if that is a fair approach. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion
Hello everyone, I've come here via the link on WP:3O. It seems to me that the images in question are of a high quality, and it's a shame they've been reduced in size so much to fit the infoboxes. This is especially problemmatic on commercial fishing as they same image is repeated three times; once in the lead, once in the infobox and once again in the template at the bottom of the page. There really isn't any need to repeat images when there are so many available on Commons (for example, trawlers). One question I need to ask is this: is there any need for the infoboxes at all? Would expanding the fishing template to include all the relevant articles instead be seen as a reasonable compromise? By doing this, the left-aligned images could then be moved to the right and the whole thing would look neater. Bettia  (rawr!)  13:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a reasonable approach to me - Wikigi | talk to me | 14:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I want to walk away from the whole issue of side navigation panels and having to fight the savageries that erupt in Wikipedia. There is no will at all for discussion of their advantages or how they work across the project as a whole. I will convert the sixty templates to bottom templates, reposition them on 1000 articles (not "several" as Wikigi stated) and be done with this most miserable business. --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rejig of templates
The navigation templates have been rejigged as bottom templates and conform to rigid interpretations of the guidelines. This will hopefully proof the project somewhat from tampering by obsessive single-issue editors. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New infobox
There is a new infobox for fisheries, which is documented here and can be viewed here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)