Talk:Fish (disambiguation)
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Stubs & Dead Links
editAre all these links to non-exsistant articles so much clutter, or do they retain value as "stubs" for future editors who come to this disambiguation page for information on the topics? --mordicai. 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Problem?
editThis is not a disambiguation page while it leads with the definition / entry for a fish. Somebody clean this up please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.30.112.12 (talk) 21:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't leading with a definition. It says a fish can be an animal, a type of food, an activity, or a bunch of other animals like shellfish or jellyfish. It then goes straight into a list of things with "fish" in their names. Seems fairly harmless to me, if not a perfect disambiguation page. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Disambiguation pages are not articles, they are navigation aids. They should contain nothing more than a list of links, with minimal descriptive material to help the reader to find their way. References and images are right out. —johndburger 23:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
hi i just created this account and it's guy as heck
Fish/ Fish as food/Fishing
editI've put Fish as food and Fishing immediately below the primary topic as they are sort of primary, being very common uses of the word in English, in contexts like "I like to eat fish", "I like to fish", and in many phrases and names for other things. Compare e.g. Mercury with multiple primaries, though it’s not exactly the same as there’s an article Fish.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Fish as food
edit"an important source of protein" sounds subjective, since millions of people get enough protein without fish as food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShalokShalom (talk • contribs) 07:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Removed it, thanks. I think just the title is enough – hardly anyone will not know what 'fish as food' is, so the text was redundant.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well this is all rather trivial, but I was so taken aback this information was removed on the grounds that it was "POV" (in the edit summary) that I have restored it. Since it appears that there are readers who think a fact as indisputable as this one is "subjective" as well as POV, then it is a fact that most emphatically needs stating. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- POV is just shorthand for subjective; saying it’s important a point of view and subjective, per ShalokShalom. Even clearer though it’s unnecessary. Not everything on a dab page needs a description, if it can stand alone it should, and this certainly can, per MOS:DABENTRY. Any reader of English will know what "fish as food" means. Or if they do not know these common words then adding "important" and "protein" is not going to help them. So no matter how subjective it is, it certainly is redundant.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- Well this is all rather trivial, but I was so taken aback this information was removed on the grounds that it was "POV" (in the edit summary) that I have restored it. Since it appears that there are readers who think a fact as indisputable as this one is "subjective" as well as POV, then it is a fact that most emphatically needs stating. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- But you are contradicting yourself. You make it clear on the one hand that you do not know what "fish as food" means, since you claim it is "subjective POV" to think it is an important source of protein. Numerous reliable sources disagree with you, such as this recent report by the FAO. So you cannot claim the statement is redundant. Rather you have highlighted its necessity. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I did not write that I do not know what it means. Here is the relevant bit of the style guide:
- "Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary."
- And "fish as food" is all that’s needed. Anyone who does not understand what "fish as food" means is not going to be helped by the description.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I did not write that I do not know what it means. Here is the relevant bit of the style guide:
- But you are contradicting yourself. You make it clear on the one hand that you do not know what "fish as food" means, since you claim it is "subjective POV" to think it is an important source of protein. Numerous reliable sources disagree with you, such as this recent report by the FAO. So you cannot claim the statement is redundant. Rather you have highlighted its necessity. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
types of fish and their habitat
editthere are plenty of fish like goldfish tropical fish and angle fish but the rarest type of fish is the african american fish they are purple red and gold with crystal blue eyes. they are so rare that when they have kids only 3 of them survive and they have up to 500 kids