Talk:Caridea/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Medical Benifits of Shrimps

I want to know about the medical benefits of shrimps, how it is different from other sea fishes. If it is good for cholesterol or other heart diseases. If there is any health hazard in shrimps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.114.152 (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Islam, Judeae, and Christianity

Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 clearly state that eating shrimp is an abomination of God in Christian society, why isn't it mentioned in this article. It mentions Jewish and Islamic prohibitions but not Christian prohibitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.137 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 June 2012

Thanks for that. I've added that Leviticus and Deuteronomy abominate shrimps. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not generally believed that the dietary laws in Leviticus apply to Christians. See Christian views on the old covenant. TFD (talk) 00:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What is your point? What Christians believe was not mentioned in the article; merely an account of what Deuteronomy and Leviticus said, with an acknowledgement of the translation used. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The IP said there is a Christian prohibition, which is incorrect. The passage read, "According to the King James version of the Old Testament...shrimp are an abomination and should not be eaten".[1] That implies that that it is a Christian prohibition. TFD (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, and which "Christians" are you referring to? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

See the IP's comments above, "Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 clearly state that eating shrimp is an abomination of God in Christian society, why isn't it mentioned in this article. It mentions Jewish and Islamic prohibitions but not Christian prohibitions." (my emphasis.) Those Christians. TFD (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there isn't a general Christian prohibition, and nothing in the article suggested there was. You deleted material from the article with the odd edit summary; "Remove implication that Anglicans may not eat shrimp". But the article doesn't mention Christians or Anglicans. I assumed you came to the talk page to explain your deletion, but it seems you just want to argue with the IP. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The passage read, "According to the King James version of the Old Testament...shrimp are an abomination and should not be eaten". The KJV is of course the original Anglican translation of the Bible. "Old Testament" is a Christian term. Since the prohibition is found in the original text and all reasonable translations of the Bible, the reference to the KJV falsely implies that the prohibition is part of Christian, or at least Anglican, theology, which btw is what this discussion thread is about. I did not delete material but changed the wording so that it was clear that the prohibition is found in Leviticus Is there any reason you prefer that it say "King James version of the Old Testament"? TFD (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The Jewish Kashrut is based on Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Since this is the English Wikipedia, there has to be a translation into English, and the King James version is perhaps the best known one. The abomination of certain seafoods, including shrimp, is one of the better known and more memorable references to marine life in the Bible, and therefore warrants a passing mention in the shrimp article. I mentioned the King James version because I presumed the term abomination originated in the King James version, and may not be found in other versions of the Bible. But I take your point about Old Testament being a Christian term. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are different words used in translation, although "abomination" appears widely.[2] The article on the Old Testament says that Hebrew Bible is the neutral name. TFD (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

What should be the scope of the Shrimp and Prawn articles? The current scopes are not consistent with common usage world-wide, but it's not clear how to modify the scopes in a way to make them more consistent with common usage. There have been a few suggestions to fix it; see the above sections for an extensive discussion of the various problems with making changes. Some possible responses could be to make no change, or to merge the two into a broadly scoped article. Thanks, 24.84.4.202 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This is ridiculous. It is a classic example of the problems we bring on ourselves when we try to nail the jello of common names to the mast of hard biological facts (or should that be the other way round? Dunno. My biological training never extended to what people call shrimps, nor what they call prawns, nor how to nail masts to jello...) Look, the current article refers to shrimps as some members of a few biological classes (not even orders mind you -- classes!) That makes as much sense as calling them "creepy-crawlies" in general, or as speaking of insects as including Araneae and Opiliones, but omitting caterpillars. We have the situation where some "shrimps" are more like "prawns" (whatever those might be) than like other shrimps. And we stand a better chance of collective beatification (or various other biologically implausible fates) than of getting the laity to agree on which is which, let alone stick to their definitions. And serve us bloody right IMO!

I reckon the only rational option is to make sure that we have adequate coverage of the various taxa under their respective taxonomic names and taxoboxes in their respective articles (with appropriate remarks on common names where they would be helpful, just like with other taxa, whether species or phyla). Then put shrimps and prawns in their own combined Shrimp and Prawn article, with no more taxonomic reference or definition than links to the biological articles in individual particular cases where relevant. (They deserve such an article, together with a wide range of redirs and possibly a disambig or two, because, though the distinctions are muddy at best, the popular usage is very large. Lots of folks surely must hit both articles daily, and if we skimp on their means of access we would let them down.) There also is a significant amount of biological, ecological, commercial and industrial information in the current articles as they stand. That must be conserved. Whoever tilts at this particular windmill should consider which parts of which aspects should go into the new S&P article and which into yet other articles, together with copious cross-linking.

This is not my field, so if anyone demands that I proceed to demonstrate how it should be done, I baulk at adopting more than a supportive role, but I suspect that a lot of hot debate will pass over this page before anything like that happens. Good luck all, and cheers for now. JonRichfield (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I have left further invitations to participate in this discussion on the project talk pages for Arthropods, Marine life, Fishes, Fishing and fisheries and Food and drink. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

While biologists draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns, common usage does not. We should use scientific definitions to determine what goes in each article while mentioning how common usage sometimes differs. TFD (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

100% agree with this course of action. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Resumption

Well the request for comment has now run its 30-day course, such as it was. Can we now conclude this issue, and reorganise the relevant articles? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to start work, although I don't know how to interpret the consensus. I struggled to understand the concrete proposals by JonRichfield, other than that there should be a "shrimp and prawns" article. TFD and RunningOnBrains both seemed to favour dividing the articles along taxonomic lines. This is similar to one of the earlier proposals, and would be a course I'd be happy with ("shrimp" covering Caridea; "prawn" unchanged; new "shrimp and prawns" article to cover culinary and fisheries usage). Does that tally with your interpretation? I don't want to get off on the wrong foot here. In any case, that's probably a reasonable way to split the articles, even if we re-title them later. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

TFD's comments is based on a statement which is false ("biologists draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns") and RunningOnBrains offer an opinions unsupported by any argument at all. This is, in any case, not basically a matter for consensus, or at least certainly not a vote which includes people who haven't done the background work. What matters here is what is actually the case. Can you confirm, as you seem to imply above, that WoRMS can be taken as a definitive source as far as the taxonomy of shrimps and prawns goes? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

For "Natantia", WoRMS follows (copies!) the recent Carideorum Catalogus, which is entirely authoritative in terms of taxonomy. (I'm puzzled by your claim that this isn't a matter for consensus. Surely you didn't mean that?) --Stemonitis (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've already clarified that; it's "not a vote which includes people who haven't done the background work". It's hardly surprising WoRMS follows Carideorum Catalogus, because its authors De Grave and Fransen are also the relevant authors on WoRMS [3]. So do you accept that it is De Grave and Fransen who are "entirely authoritative in terms of taxonomy? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You have no basis for claiming that they "haven't done the background work". This is an editorial decision to be achieved through consensus, like almost all decisions on Wikipedia. There was a Request for Comment which ran unhindered, and I think we should abide by its outcomes, as vague as they may be. Otherwise, we can only return to interminable partisan arguments about whose claims are worth considering, which can only result in stalemate and ill-feeling. I think the RfC gives us an opportunity to start afresh. As I stated before, we could at least start off along this route, which I think everyone thinks is necessary – to separate the articles on biological taxa from an article on the culinary and fisheries term which cuts across those biological divisions. If we need to move articles later, that will always be possible.

WoRMS lists De Grave and Fransen as authors because they wrote Carideorum Catalogus, yes. In terms of taxonomy, they are indeed authoritative. So, if you want to know how many genera there are in a given family, or whether a name is a junior synonym or represents a species in its own right, Carideorum Catalogus is the most reliable thing we've got. (I don't think that extends to matters of English usage, however.) Presumably, as taxonomic changes arise, WoRMS will become the more up-to-date source, but for the moment, the printed source is preferable. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The basis for claiming they have done no background work is simple: they offered nothing to support their opinion. You know very well Stemonitis, the consensus on Wikipedia is not just a vote. It is not just a matter of opinions, but of reasoned positions. If you just want to make it a vote, then adding up numbers in the discussion above you have four editors opposed to your position. You are clutching at straws trying to give weight to the comments by TFD and RunningOnBrains. If there is any substance to what they have to say, they should weigh in now with properly sourced arguments. Then there would be something to take into consideration.

I couldn't agree more with your view that statements by taxonomists don't "extend to matters of English usage". This has been my position all along, so it is good we agree. Nonetheless, it is worth knowing what De Grave and Fransen have to say on the matter:

At a higher level in decapod classification it has long been recognised that three distinct lineages of shrimps can be distinguished: Dendrobranchiata, Stenopodidea and Caridea, a system which has not been seriously challenged by recent studies... As discussed above, we recognise herein four major groups of shrimp: Infraorder Dendrobranchiata and suborders Procarididea, Stenopodidea and Caridea.  – In: De Grave S and Fransen CHJM (2011) "Carideorum catalogus: the recent species of the dendrobranchiate, stenopodidean, procarididean and caridean shrimps (Crustacea: Decapoda)" Zool. Med. Leiden, 85 (9), pp. 196–197.

This is the up-to-date position of the taxonomists you have agreed are the "entirely authoritative" ones in this field. Their position is totally at odds with the way you have structured the Wikipedia shrimp article, where you identify shrimps with Caridea, an eccentric position taken only by a handful of Australian taxonomists. So to return to the original position, which has been hammered over and over in the discussion above: Apart from a few Australian taxonomists, what is the basis for your position? Every time you are asked this question, you evade answering. It's time for that to stop now. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the way you are trying to sideline the RfC that you initiated. (If I were being cynical, I might argue that it is because its outcome went against your wishes.) You also underestimate the number and geographical distribution of scientists who follow this sensible division. In researching the Caridea-scoped article (whatever its title might be), I found that most of the sources I was using equated "shrimp" with "Caridea". Even Sammy De Grave in a 2008 publication explicitly equates them (doi:10.1007/s10750-007-9024-2). Moreover, the American shrimp specialist Fenner A. Chace, Jr. uses the same definition. This is effectively global usage among scientists. The fact that De Grave & Fransen chose to keep their subtitle concise by redefining a nebulous term isn't damning evidence that "shrimp" must mean all Natantian crustaceans at all. It was just a convenience, I'm sure.

But the point is that you and I will continue to have different opinions about this, and could continue trying to undermine each others references almost indefinitely. The only way to break the deadlock is to initiate a RfC, which you did, and to listen to what it says. In this case, it wasn't massively clear, but the general trend seemed to be that the articles should follow taxonomic boundaries, and that there should be a new article at "shrimp and prawns" (or similar). The fact that the commentators didn't give as much detail as one might have liked is not especially relevant. Given the amount of preamble, it is enough for them to state which position they agree with, and we must assume good faith, and assume that they had read the background. If you cannot abide that outcome, then don't feel obliged to help with the reformulations that must follow, but please don't try to deny the outcome or to think that it somehow supports an alternative position. There is plenty of work to be done, and I have started to work on it, off-line. Whether you assist in that is up to you, but please don't hinder anyone else who is trying to improve things. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't initiate the RfC. The first opinion made some attempt at a reasoned argument which was clearly against your position. The second opinion states that "biologists draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns" Well of course, that's simply not true, which is why we are arguing. Even if the statement were true, it is is most certainly not an argument for your position, merely an argument for the position that biologists take. Most biologists do not draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns, and when they do, they disagree. The fact is, the carcinologists that you agree are currently the most eminent, do not agree with your position at all, but define shrimp in a way that includes prawns. The third opinion just seems to be a drive-by opinion agreeing with the dubious second opinion. Anyway, whatever spin you put on it, none of those opinions are providing any support for your position. (How can you talk about a "general trend"?)

There is a much more substantive discussion earlier on this page above, including a contributor from ITIS. You rejected everything that was said there as well, again without offering any substantive rebuttals. No one argues that Caridea are anything other than shrimp, and that Caridea are, as it were, the type genus for shrimp. So naturally you will find many article talking about shrimp as though they are Caridea, just as you will find many articles talking about herrings as though they are Clupea. Your reference to Chance is over 30 years old. Would you please quote what he had to say, as that particular section is not online. If his statement there had any real influence, then carcinologists around the world would have quoted it in scientific articles. Where are those articles?

It's clear you are not open to looking at this issue. I suggest we jointly draft a letter to De Grave and Fransen, asking them to adjudicate on the matter. The letter needs to be jointly drafted, so it is not presenting a one-sided and misleading slant. When you talk about those who "hinder anyone else who is trying to improve things", you seriously need to take a hard look in a mirror. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Um, no, I don't think that's a reasonable course of action. Carcinologists deal with scientific names as far as possible, in order to avoid exactly this kind of debate. Taxonomists do not adjudicate on matters of English language (I'm not sure if either De Grave or Fransen is a native English speaker), and certainly do not adjudicate on matters of article scope on Wikipedia. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Fransen is not a native speaker, but De Grave is an Oxford professor. I was pretty sure you would reject this suggestion too, just as you have rejected everything that challenges your original research. If De Grave and Fransen decided against your position, as they would, you would reject that too. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

A clear consensus has been reached on this page. Unfortunately, Stemonitis remains firmly entrenched in an indefensible position. I no longer believe any kind of argument can shift that. Otherwise the consensus is essentially unanimous. Four editors have argued at length against his position, and two have expressed an opinion based on a fallacy. If however, the fallacy was true, that opinion would work in favour of the consensus, and not in favour of the position Stemonitis defends. Accordingly, I will shortly restructure the shrimp and prawn articles, and create new articles for Caridea and Dendrobranchiata. Any assistance doing this, including from you Stemonitis, would be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to work on articles (I have a draft of a Caridea article ready, and Dendrobranchiata is already in place), but I reject your view of the consensus. You insist on rejecting the views of those who disagree with you as much as you claim I do. You cannot call my position indefensible; it is merely one you disagree with. I have tried several times to reach a compromise with you, but you haven't yet co-operated with that. If, as you say, you want to move forward in a collegiate way (which I naturally welcome), then I think that writing the articles first, and then worrying about titling, is the best route to progress. Proposing to unilaterally make sweeping changes is unlikely to be as well received. Please do not touch the prawn article, which was carefully written about a single taxon. If you need to write another article, then please do so, but the contents of that one are right (common names aside). We do not therefore need a new Dendrobranchiata article, and, as I say, I'm writing a Caridea article. Please draft a "shrimp and prawns" article somewhere, and let us take the discussions from there. I will find a space to put my Caridea draft, too. As you say, progress on the titling argument seems unlikely at the moment, so let's get moving on the content, at least. Perhaps that will make things clearer. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Well we need to be clear on the fundamentals. The key point is that the shrimp article should be rewritten to reflect the view implicit in the position taken by De Grave and Fransen, that prawns are shrimps. That view is in alignment with nearly all uses of the term "prawn", apart from Australian taxonomists.

The other key point is that "prawn" is not a taxon, but a loose colloquial term which lacks a formal definition. Often larger shrimps are called "prawns". I imagine this is because "shrimp" colloquially means something small, so you get a problem with marketing large shrimps. "King shrimp" is almost an oxymoron, but "king prawn" sounds fine. The FAO tried, and abysmally failed, to persuade the fishing industry to use the word "prawn" to mean freshwater shrimp. Similarly, some Australian taxonomists have tried to define prawns as Dendrobranchiata. This is misguided, since it is not the business of taxonomists to prescribe how a word that is part of common language should be used. The term "true shrimp" should also be avoided. This term is not used, and nor should be used in scientific articles. Instead, the term "Caridian shrimp" should be substituted. You say there is a Dendrobranchiata article. I can't find it. Currently it redirects to "prawn", which is misleading and at the heart of the problems that currently exist with the shrimp and prawn articles. And I'm not sure there needs to be a "shrimp and prawns" article. We never agreed on that. It seems to me that that material would be better covered in the rewritten "prawn" article. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to work towards a compromise here, and I'm not sure that reiterating grievances is going to help. Yes, Dendrobranchiata currently redirects to "prawn", but the content there is explicitly specific to the taxon. It might potentially need to be moved (I'm unconvinced), but the content is fine, so it doesn't need to be "re-written". When I said "shrimp and prawns", I wasn't prescribing a title, merely trying to define the scope. You want an article covering Caridea + Dendrobranchiata (+ others), and that's the one I mean. Let's try to avoid the contentious issue over article titles for now; if moves are needed, they will only need relatively minor changes to any articles or drafts that we've produced. The critical part, and the direction I'd like to see this move forward in, is to get the content ready so we know what we've got to work with. We will need two taxon-specific articles (probably my side), and one broader article (probably your side). Let's at least work towards that end. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing complicated here. The current prawn article needs to be renamed Dendrobranchiata. The prawn article needs to set out the ways in which the term "prawn" is used. And the article you are instructing me to write, the "article covering Caridea + Dendrobranchiata (+ others)", is simply what the the shrimp article should be. It need hardly mention prawns. Caridea needs its own article. We are past the point of "trying to work towards a compromise". The compromise needs to happen now. I don't want to waste time following your instructions to write an article that is detached from the main articles, and then have you shunt it aside and carry on as though nothing happened. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, compromise needs to happen now, and I'm holding out an olive branch. That compromise cannot be simply doing things your way, just as it can't be just doing things my way. Come on; let's compromise. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

If you are prepared to compromise then that's excellent! Can you start by renaming the "prawn" article "Dendrobranchiata". That gives us a basis to get started with a balanced account of what a prawn is. Otherwise, there is no ground on which we can proceed. We can deal with the Caridean issues further down the track. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're still pre-empting discussion which we will need to have further down the line. The compromise I was offering, and genuinely hope you will accept it at least as a temporary measure, is to get the articles ready, and only then to worry about the titles. As I say, changing the prose to fit a new title is a relatively easy job, but the consequences of a page move in cases like this are rather larger. The problem with the current setup is that it assumes a single definition of the terms "shrimp" and "prawn". I am worried that your edits will simply replace this with a different (and less biologicall meaningful) definition. That is no solution to the problem. I can't be sure that this will follow, because it still isn't clear what the content would be. That is why I'm trying to reach a stage where we can see the content. We cannot simply redefine "shrimp" to one of its other meanings, because that would suffer from the same problem. The only replacement can be a disambiguation page, linking to shrimp and prawn (food), shrimp and prawn fishery, Caridea, Dendrobranchiata and maybe others (under whatever titles). I think that's less good for the reader in some ways (an extra click before finding the content they want), but it's a reasonable compromise that I could agree to, and I hope you could, too. I'm not ruling out any page moves; I just think we should understand the complete outcome before we embark on it. There will be an awful lot of follow-up work, and it is prudent to ensure that it will not be wasted effort and, perhaps more importantly, that it will not introduce errors. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that silly! You offer not a trace of compromise, and misrepresent the issue in every way. I suspected your offer would amount to that, but I needed to assume good faith. So there we are... a journey to nowhere and back to the beginning again, with yet another flurry of disingenuous and time wasting evasions. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please re-read what I have proposed. I am trying to move things forward. I am not trying to waste anyone's time; this has already dragged on too long. Please reconsider. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Epipelagic asked me to look at this and help resolving the impasse by judging the consensus. I would first like to commend you for your patience in this long process of discussion. Although I can see you are both getting frustrated with the length of time it has been, I think you have done the right thing in discussing this complex issue. Having read over the arguments, I think you should give Epiplagic's proposals a try. JonRichfield's suggestion was a valuable one as well. The table added by Stemontitis here may prove a useful summary of the way forward. On the question of whether to have a "prawn and shrimp" article I am weakly in favour of this on grounds that the terms are used so variably. If we are to have such an article it should be at the title prawn and shrimp, and it should mainly discuss the terms and their various meanings, with links out to the articles containing the information, which should be based on the biological names. The new article could also carry a short summary of the animals culinary and economic significance. I think the discussion has been valuable but I think it is important that some progress be made towards implementing solutions now; enough time has passed for discussion and I think people will just get frustrated if it continues any longer. Sometimes it is better to implement a solution which is imperfect and does not fully please everyone as a compromise, than to risk losing patience and focus by prolonging a discussion beyond its natural length. --John (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, John, but I think an impartial voice would be better. Through no fault of your own, you have been given a biased account as your starting position, which is very likely to have affected your view of the debate, and therefore your conclusions. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I assure you, my judgement is utterly impartial and I took no account of the partial nature of the notification I was given. Epipelagic and I have not always hit it off and the fact that I came down on his side in the debate is purely down to my having read the arguments made here. The important thing, as I say, is that we move forwards with a resolution, even though it be imperfect, rather than continue to argue. The time for that is now past. --John (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you made no conscious bias, but first impressions are very important, and the first thing you read was exceptionally unfair. Very few people would be able to approach the issue in a truly unbaised way, given a starting point such as that. We did try to get broad, impartial input, but the outcome of that RfC is disputed.

Perhaps in a spirit of congeniality, Epipelagic will give me a couple of days to make changes to articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think, given that the discussion has been ongoing since November 2011, it might be better to conclude it. I have asked another admin to review my close since you have queried my neutrality. --John (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

3rd party review - John has asked me to review the discussion and his close. For the record, John and I don't work on any big projects or articles together and I assume he picked me at random, as someone willing to review editors or processes. I've never worked on any of these or similar articles, so I'm confident I have no preexisting opinions on the matter. My goal isn't to reclose it, only to review the existing close and determine if it reflects of the consensus of the community, per the discussion here.

First of all, I have learned more about prawn and shrimp this morning than I ever thought I would learn. Enough that I completely understand why the discussion needed to take place, and why it wasn't a simple matter. It appears to have been an open and fair discussion with no major problems. Consensus is always tough to judge in a discussion that has few people participating, particularly since the subject matter covers both biology and cultural uses of the names. As expected, a good compromise insures no one gets exactly what they want, but this is the nature of consensus. There are a number of very similar ways to conclude this, but I think John has found the center point as well as it could be found, and has provided a reasonable means to move forward. As a reader, I also found JonRichfield's opinion to be particularly useful.

Some things may get tweaked or changed along the way, article titles and such, but I would agree that enough consensus exists to move forward on the larger issues. Once you do, you may find that the other issues solve themselves, or that agreement is easier once you are looking at the real results of this discussion. All and all, a fruitful discussion that may still have a few unanswered questions but I have faith that those issues can be dealt with using the normal editing process. In the end, I endorse John's closing as a reasonable reading of consensus in this discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Reorganisation

OK, I'm about to embark on the reorganisation discussed above. There will be a number of changes, and the whole thing will take some time to complete. Please be patient. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked for a couple of days to make some changes, and I have stepped aside to allow that. That time is nearly up. Are you now saying you want more time, and that you want to complete all the reorganisation? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh. I was expecting you to say that you were allowing that time. I could hardly assume that silence meant agreement; you might just have been busy elsewhere for all I knew. This is going to be a complex and time-consuming series of tasks that need to happen in the right order. All I'm asking – and I think this is only reasonable – is to be allowed the time to do it. You once asked for four weeks (!) in which to make changes. I don't think you can grudge me a day or two. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not grudging you anything. I don't know what you want. You can have more time if you want it. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Having started, I can now see that it'll probably take a day or two just to get the incoming links right. The remaining changes will have to wait until after that is complete. I've nearly finished on the links in crustacean articles, where I can be sure of the intended meaning. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well it's been several weeks, so I've started the article on Shrimp and prawn. I presume it's okay now to proceed with this. It would be good if you collaborate on this, particularly on finer points of taxonomy and referencing. Then we can maybe settle remaining points of difference between us, and nominate the article for a joint DYK. Regards --Epipelagic (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stop fighting over everything

@Stemonitis: Please stop fighting and trying to edit war over everything. It's no wonder the crustacean articles are so limited and constricted. You won't allow anyone to edit them. That section you messed up for the third time is about the fishing industry. It is not just about commercial fishing. I have already added material about aquaculture, and will be added other material related to the fishing industry, processing, marketing and so on. In a similar manner, there are common names that are always mentioned in the context of fisheries and aquaculture grow outs. It is inappropriate for you to remove those. Your interferences are becoming disruptive. Now please now revert yourself and reinstate the proper section heading and the common names. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. Including ambiguous names is not helpful, especially where there are unambiguous names that have already been introduced to the reader. The fact that fishermen use other names doesn't mean that we have to in this context. It doesn't make sense to switch from (justifiably) calling it Crangon crangon in one section to "brown shrimp" in another. It significantly reduces the coherence of the whole article. I haven't removed or altered any of the statements you have added, merely reformatted them to fit the context. Feel free to change the section heading, but don't introduce vague terminology where it isn't needed. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing ambiguous in the section, which defines the common names it uses. I agree that taxonomic names avoid ambiguity, and should always be used when introducing a species into an article for the first time. But that particular section uses common names for only two species, the two most prominent caridean species. It is entirely appropriate in contexts like that to introduce the most used common names, the names most people can relate to. It is completely inappropriate to not mention them. Converting preferences into rules, weighted with moral gravity and allowing of no exceptions, which all other editors must adhere to, does not result in happy articles or editors. There is an art to writing articles in plain language, that are both technically reliable and yet can be understood by people not versed in the technical terms. That is not the same as dumbing down, as you have previously suggested. If you were willing to edit cooperatively, and discuss matters rather than always hitting the revert button, we could probably turn out a reliable set of readable crustacean articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, these aren't even necessarily common names. Pandalus borealis is more generally known as "pink shrimp" on both sides of the Atlantic, although that name is, of course, ambiguous (it also refers to Penaeus duorarum and possibly others). Rather, "northern prawn" is the FAO's preferred vernacular name, and they do not even list it as a genuine English-language common name (unlike, say Cancer pagurus, where "edible crab" is repeated in the later section). "Common shrimp" is, inevitably, even more ambiguous. The meaning of that term varies from country to country, depending on the species which is most abundant there. In New Zealand, it's Palaemon affinis, for instance. Even within the British Isles, it may refer to Palaemon serratus. Even brown shrimp can refer to other species, including some of considerable economic significance. Since the two species have already been introduced with their common names, there is only confusion to be gained by repeating vernacular names or including new ones. It merely increases the likelihood that someone familiar with a different set of vernacular names will read it and think that, for instance, Crangon crangon is another name for Farfantepenaeus aztecus, because they know their own "brown shrimp". That may not be very likely, but it is easily avoidable. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caridea. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606064728/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s21/s21rbz1-109.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/s21/s21rbz1-109.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caridea. 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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20121220093841/http://www.zoologischemededelingen.nl/85/nr02/a01 to http://www.zoologischemededelingen.nl/85/nr02/a01

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Corrections needed in Life History description

The first sentence under Life History seems to be quite erroneous. The primary error is in asserting that cardean shrimp larvae hatch as nauplii, which is a characteristic of dendrobranchiate shrimp but not carideans. Caridean embryos ("eggs" brooded by females) hatch as zoea. Second, the number of larvae per brood appears to be greatly overstated. According to Ray Bauer's authoritative book (his other chapters are cited as references 12, 20 and 26), caridean brood sizes range from 10 to 35,000 depending strongly on size of female (Chapter 8). I am not a shrimp expert, but it seems to me that the life cycle described is that of a penaeid shrimp, not a caridean (quite a few carideans are freshwater and migrate into freshwater from brackish afor their adult life). I believe a more accurate life history can be extracted from Dr. Bauer's Chapter 8. Dragonfly360 (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dragonfly360: feel free to be bold and fix it! Rhinopias (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)