Talk:Shrimp/Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Shrimp per WP:AND Mike Cline (talk) 02:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

---

Shrimp and prawn → Shrimp – I previously moved this article to Shrimp, but the move was reverted with an edit summary linking to a discussion here. The linked discussion, however, achieved consensus on article scope and not article title, and ends with a review by an uninvolved administrator stating that, because so few contributors have been involved in the discussion, things like the article title will likely need to be tweaked. This article title needs to be tweaked, as it violates our policy on when to use "and" in article titles, which states that, wherever possible, we should not use "an article title using 'and'" but should "use a title covering all cases". It is not acceptable to avoid choosing between two names by including both in the article title. Shrimp should be the title of this article for the following reasons:

1. "Shrimp" is a far more common name than "prawn", as is demonstrated by a Google Books search, thereby meeting our policy that the most common name should be the title of the article.
2. Our policy on deciding on an article title states that titles should be as concise as possible, and "shrimp" is more concise than "shrimp and prawn".
3. The word "shrimp" covers the entire scope of the article, avoiding inappropriate use of "and"; the article states that it is only certain kinds of shrimp that are sometimes called prawns, so shrimp is an overarching term encompassing the entirety of the article's scope. Neelix (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support – for the reasons given above --Epipelagic (talk) 20:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• reverted an improper close before this request had run its seven days --Epipelagic (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support shrimp is the more common term. The current title is unacceptable. Hot Stop 04:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support per rationale of the use of "and" in Article titles.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a pretty big can of worms you're opening. It's far from clear that shrimp and prawn are synonymous at all, and certainly not that they're generally synonymous. Many reputable and authoritative sources like to maintain a difference between the two. There was a previous consensus endorsed by two uninvolved admins, which did not exclude titling (indeed, that was largely the crux of the argument). The closing admin stated that title changes "may" be needed, but that is a far cry from saying that they are needed. I see this as being pretty similar to acronym and initialism, where "[t]here is no universal agreement on the precise definition of the various terms", and the "and" is explicitly sanctioned. There are still changes ongoing to the various articles; I suggest that any page moves be dealt with only as part of that broader effort, rather than trying to force the issue from outside. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The quotation you provide is not from Wikipedia policy but rather from an example Wikipedia article. The relevant policy does not sanction the use of "and" when "[t]here is no universal agreement on the precise definition of the various terms". Rather, the policy states that "and" is to be omitted "where no reasonable overarching title is available". In this case, there is a reasonable overarching title: Shrimp. The term does not require universal acceptance for it to be used. If we were use multiple names for a subject all combined in article titles every time there was not "universal agreement on the precise definition of the various terms", many Wikipedia article titles would be far more complicated than they are now. Neelix (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My point is that "shrimp" is not (necessarily) a suitable overarching title. For many people, "shrimp" explicitly excludes prawns, and thus the only reasonable title for the article is "shrimp and prawns". --Stemonitis (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The "big can of worms" is in Stemonitis's mind only. As usual, Stemonitis gives no sources for his position. The issue is simple. In common usage prawns are shrimp. For example, the Oxford dictionaries define a prawn as "a marine crustacean which resembles a large shrimp" [1]. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines a prawn as a "shrimp; especially a large shrimp "[2]. Raymond Bauer, on page 1 of his definitive book on caridean shrimp, says: "prawn is often used a a synonym of shrimp for penaeoidean and caridean shrimps, especially those of large size".[3]. The Codex Alimentarius Commission of the FAO and WHO states on page 10 that: "The term shrimp... includes the frequently used term prawn.[4]. Shrimp is the "reasonable overarching title" required for the rename. It is important that the page move issue is dealt with now, in a clean way and with many eyes on it, and not sidelined as Stemonitis wants. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp and prawn aren't the same and should not be redirected or merged but should both have their own pages. --Jsderwin (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. I would not be opposed to a separate Prawn article with hatnotes here and there. --BDD (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• Support as the more general name among the English language variants. I would suggest that prawn should redirect to the section Shrimp#Shrimp versus prawn rather than to the shrimp article lead paragraph until it has a well-sourced article of its own.
• Counter proposal for the move: Merge Shrimp and prawn to Shrimp (food). Use Shrimp and Prawn as DAB pages to indicate language usage and taxonomy. jmcw (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. --BDD (talk) 15:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I, too, think this is a reasonable solution. --Stemonitis (talk)

• Merging Shrimp and prawn to Shrimp (food), as jmcw suggests, makes no sense whatsoever, since there is hardly anything in Shrimp and prawn that specifically addresses food. I gather Stemonitis and jmcw would like to see an article on shrimp taxonomy. That is problematic, since "shrimp" is a term defined by its common usage, and is not, and never has been, a taxonomic term. Still, there is a taxonomy associated with shrimp, and Stemonitis and jmcw should be allowed to write the article if they feel they can write it in a coherent way. Before any decision is made about disambiguation pages, we should establish what they would look like. The shrimp disambiguation page will have links to exactly what? Shrimp (common usage), shrimp (aquaculture), shrimp (fishing industry), shrimp (marketing), shrimp (food) and shrimp (taxonomy)? Will there be a Shrimp (disambiguation) page and a separate Shrimp article? If so, which of the other articles is to become the main Shrimp article? I assume it would be Shrimp (common usage). And what will the prawn disambiguation page look like? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Reading the proposal, it is clear that the intention is that shrimp would itself be the disambiguation page (although I am happy for jmcw to correct me if this is not the case). I think it is also clear that it would link to the various taxonomic groups directly (Caridea, Dendrobranchiata, Stenopodidea, etc.); there can be no suggestion of an absurd title such as "shrimp (taxonomy)". What you gather of my opinions is some distance from their true state, I might add. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So what would the Shrimp and Pawn pages look like, and what would the existing article be called? This looks like an attempt by people who are focused on taxonomy only to inappropriately hijack the concept of a shrimp. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that's a fair characterisation. Give the proposal time to develop, and keep an open mind to its outcome, please. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the issue: What would the Shrimp and Pawn disambiguation pages look like? It would be unworkable. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

See MOS:DAB. Whether or not it's unworkable remains to be seen. Please keep an open mind. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be a vacuous mind. This proposal should not be floated when it is unworkable. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It is only your opinion that it is unworkable; I can see it working, and clearly so could the person who proposed it. Your incivility (suggesting your opponents are "vacuous") has no place here; if you cannot contribute politely, it would be better if you stayed away. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Still you create diversions to evade the point. What is to appear on the new Shrimp and Pawn disambiguation pages? What if anything, points to the current Shrimp and prawn article? How, if anywhere, is the difference between shrimp and prawn going to be discussed? There was a need for a separate article called Prawn, which would have discussed this. An advantage of the initial proposal to change the title of "Shrimp and prawn" was that such an article could be created. As for Stemonitis's diversions, I was referring to whether Stemonitis was directed me to keep an open or a vacuous mind. Stemonitis's mind is certainly not vacuous. For true displays of incivility, see Stemonitis's behaviour below. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This section is about whether or not the content of the article currently called "Shrimp and prawn" should be moved to "Shrimp". Possibilities of disambiguation pages should be discussed in the section called "Counter proposal : shrimp and prawn as DAB pages" below. Neelix (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest the counter proposal is hatted. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mantis shrimp

@Stemonitis: Yes, I conflated mantis shrimp with boxer shrimp. I have added mantis shrimp to the list of other specie groups commonly known as shrimps. I also reinstated the image you removed on mantis shrimps, since these are commonly regarded as shrimp. You say; "from the context it is clear that the primary definition is Natantia, thus excluding Stomatopoda". However, the article is not just about the shrimp of the Natantia, nor is it just about what you choose to call "primary" shrimp. It is about shrimp in general, all animals commonly called "shrimp". The end of the Classification section explicitly states: "... it is not just decapods that are called shrimps. Any small crustacean which resembles a shrimp tends to be called one (see Species below)." I have also collapsed the gallery you uncollapsed. Otherwise the article looks a bit overburdened with images. Where in the guidelines does it state that "content should never be collapsed"? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

MOS:COLLAPSE is pretty unambiguous. If your content looks excessive uncollapsed, then it is excessive. Collapsing it is a fudge, not a solution.

I disagree entirely with your attempt to justify including mantis shrimp above. All your sources for all your text are using "shrimp" to mean something, and it's generally Natantia (I can't tell properly without having the sources in front of me). No reliable source is going to discuss biological aspects of shrimp in the vast nebulous sense you prefer. By attempting to shoehorn mantis shrimp in, you make the entire article meaningless. Without that one part, it sort of makes sense, with the less closely related stuff only dealt with later. You must get over the idea that "things with shrimp in the title" is a useful way of grouping things. That is unambiguously not what the majority of sources follow. There is ambiguity about which natantians it covers in various jurisdictions, but only the ill-informed think that those creatures that share the word "shrimp" share anything more. Also, the text ("the foot-long mantis shrimp") is so inaccurate as to be worthless. It suggests that there is a single species, known as "the mantis shrimp". Most of the hundreds of species are considerable smaller than that. The whole thing is unusable, which I why I deleted it, and is why I am deeply disappointed that you have seen fit to re-include it despite its obvious and fundamental flaws. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

On re-reading it, I see that it was even worse than I remembered. "Spikes" are only found in a subset of mantis shrimp species. I have deleted the text. (Remember that the onus is on the one attempting to include text to show that it is good, not on the one deleting.) I am going to have to look at this entire article quite carefully; I suspect that there's a lot more misinformation in it. It's a shame it went to DYK so early. It would have benefited from a greater degree of scrutiny. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said "Some mantis shrimps are a foot long... ". I appreciate you may be annoyed that the consensus in the discussion about shrimp and prawns went against you, and that your own attempts to present them as scientific taxa have been mistaken. Of course there will be some errors in the first take of a comprehensive article like this, written without any help or peer review. I asked you at the time for help with taxonomical points and referencing, but you didn't. Generally, I have been courteous about the many errors you yourself have introduced into the crustacean articles. Instead of spluttering like this, please retain a sense of proportion and try and work in a courteous and collegial way. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've reflected on this, trying to find something constructive behind your anger. It seems to me that you might be saying that the article could focus initially on natant shrimp, and only detail non-natant shrimp later. I think there could be some merit in doing that, if that is what you had in mind. In general the article does that anyway, apart from the early appearance of the mantis shrimp. Would you be happier if the mantis shrimp image was moved to another gallery after the non-natant list and replaced with another natant shrimp image (to balance the galleries)? The new gallery could be a section discussing the relationship of non-natant shrimp to natant shrimp. My only objection to that would be that the article is already long enough. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

My anger was based solely on the poor quality of this article, and your undoing my edits which were unambiguous improvements. As you admit, the article does already use the term "shrimp" to mean "various Natantia", because the sources you have used follow that meaning. (Rudloe and Rudloe state that there are around 4000 species of shrimp, so clearly they mean Natantia, not everything with "shrimp" in its name, which appears only in a quote from someone else. Bauer explicitly includes only Natantia, and possibly only Caridea.) Unless you use "shrimp" to mean "Natantia", much of the lead is false (I haven't read the later sections fully yet). You simply cannot write about "shrimp" in the vast, nebulous sense and expect it to mean anything; there has to be some kind of definition. (Note that the dictionaries are providing descriptions in this case, not definitions.) That said, apart from the mantis shrimp howler, the article does just about restrict itself to Natantia in the early sections, and only deal with other things containing the word "shrimp" later, which is good, but that has to be done conscientiously. Mantis shrimp must be removed from the earlier sections; your reinstatement must be undone. Finding the right (balance of) images is an entirely secondary task, which should be carried out once the text is sorted out. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

You are angry because the article is not badly written and your edits were undone. I think there is some merit in focusing more explicitly on the Natantia in the bulk of the article, and dealing with other shrimp at the end of the article. You are correct that it is difficult in the main part of the article to make a lot of generalisations about shrimp unless they are confined to the Natantia. For example, the section on shrimp anatomy describes the anatomy of the common shrimp, and it could perhaps be made clearer that this was an initial blueprint for how a shrimp might look, rather than an arrangement that must apply to all shrimp. I think that is somewhat clear in the article, but it could be made clearer. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp and prawn are not the same

Prawns(penaeidae) and shrimp(crangonidae) are two different families. To merge them together would be like merging dogs and wolves. My time as a fishmonger taught me that the two names are used interchangeably, especially in places like Europe.

Taxonomy is the science of classification. Remember all those families and genus and orders from high school biology class? That's taxonomy. In the case of shrimp and prawns, they are classified as belonging to the same order, Decapoda, but to different sub-orders (Pleocyemata for shrimp and Dendrobranchiata for prawns). This indicates that the two animals have some significant differences.

Gills - The most commonly noted difference between shrimp and prawns is their gill structure. Shrimp have branching gills while prawns have gills that exhibit a plate-like structure.

Body - While shrimp can be larger than prawns and prawns can be larger than shrimp, they do have some notable differences in body structure. The body segments of prawns overlap each other sequentially (segment one overlaps segment two which overlaps segment three). Shrimp have overlapping segments as well, but in a different order (segment two overlaps both segments one and three). Prawns also have longer legs than shrimp. Reproduction - Shrimp and prawns also have differing reproductive actions. Shrimp carry their eggs in a brood chamber, attached to the female, during incubation. Larvae are released once the eggs hatch. Prawns release their eggs to incubate independently. They do not carry them on their bodies.

Shrimp vs Prawn

At a seafood restaurant you order an item off the menu and fifteen minutes later a plate of steaming pink C-shaped food comes back. It is generally accompanied with some dipping sauces and a lemon slice or two. Depending on the country in which you are living, this dish may either called shrimp or prawns. However, the same dish may or may not bear any relation to what you are actually eating. In terms of consumption, there is no noticeable difference between a shrimp and prawn even though some subtle differences may be found in the wild.

Taxonomy of a Shrimp and a Prawn Shrimp ‘“ is a crustacean that belongs to the order Decapoda and the suborder Pleocyemata. Prawn ‘“ is a crustacean that belongs to the order Decapoda and the suborder Dendrobranchiata. The differing suborders mean that there are significant morphological differences between shrimp and prawns.

Morphology of Shrimp and Prawns Shrimp ‘“ have a thin but hard exoskeleton. Their bodies are divided into three segments: head, thorax, and abdomen. The thorax overlaps the other two body segments. They have three pairs of legs in the front and their gills are plate-like in structure. Prawns ‘“ have the same exoskeleton and body segmentation as shrimp. However, in prawns, the head overlaps the thorax, and the thorax overlaps the abdomen. They also have longer legs than shrimp. Finally, the gills of a prawn have a branching structure.

Eating Shrimp and Prawns Shrimp ‘“ is the term commonly used to describe both shrimp and prawns in North America. Prawns ‘“ is the terminology employed by the British and their former colonies to describe this crustacean. If a Britisher refers to a shrimp, he is probably talking about an unrelated crustacean that is used to make potted shrimp.

Sustainable Harvesting and Fishing of Shrimp and Prawns Shrimp ‘“ the industry has been working to find sustainable methods of farming shrimp in coastal plantations. The United States is a leader in sustainable practices. Shrimp fishing, especially by trawler, is very damaging to local ecosystems because it is the single largest producer of by catch. Prawns ‘“ are more likely to be farmed in Asian countries. The lax regulations of these farming industries can denude coastlines and produce prawns that hold a lot of incidental toxins. Similar to shrimp fishing, prawn fishing also often employs trawler, creating a lot of undesirable by catch.

Summary: 1.Shrimp and prawns are closely related crustaceans that are considered a gourmet food throughout most of the world. 2.Shrimp and prawns look very similar, but differ in the distribution of their body segments, the length of their legs, and the structure of their gills. 3.Shrimp is common terminology for either crustacean in North American, whereas most of the rest of the world uses prawn for the animals. 4.At the present time, United States shrimp farming is the most sustainable of all practices.

I recommend separate articles for these two. --Jsderwin (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Were you a fishmonger in Britain? That would make sense, because what you say would be true for a fishmonger in Britain. None of what you say would be relevant anywhere else in Europe, because other European languages make no distinction between a shrimp and a prawn. Nor is the distinction made in the same way in North America. You have quoted stuff taken from a website which has used a dated viewpoint from Wikipedia, one which has been replaced by the current article here. The matter has been extensively discussed in detail here. You should read this and also read the article Shrimp and prawn, and carefully consider what is said there before forming an opinion. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Um, Jsderwin appears to be American, not British (both from usage in the text above and from external evidence). The distinction between shrimp and prawns really is much more widespread than you ever seem to have realised, Epipelagic. The fact that confusion arose, however, confirms that the article needs to be much clearer in defining (not describing) what the article is actually about. Rather than burying the alternative definitions under a distant heading, they need to be right at the top of the lead. It needs to be established at the outset that there are different definitions, that those definitions conflict, and that the remainder of the article will be using the broader meaning. As part of that, it needs to link to the more meaningful taxonomically-driven articles much more prominently. The current state is simply not acceptable. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The confusion arose because websites around the world have been mirroring misinformation in the Wikipedia articles on the common names of crustaceans, which you introduced and have maintained for seven years now. You have persistently misrepresented the common names, shrimp and prawn, as being formal terms that were rigorously defined as taxa. That is a pseudo science, putting a scientific gloss on something that is not a science, but a matter of common usage. And here you are again, despite the recent discussion and consensus reached, back to square one, setting up straw men again in the section above so you can knock them down, and trying to pin everything down as taxa. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That's not true. There are such definitions, and they did not come from me; I didn't source them well back in the day, but they were vehemently not my invention. It is not "misinformation"; it is an opinion that differs from yours. Those two concepts are fundamentally different. Your failure to appreciate that fact is a major cause of all the acrimony here and elsewhere, because you simply will not accept that the previous view was reasonable. There is confusion, and this article's failure to admit the variation in naming is exacerbating it. It must be much clearer about the differences, and about which definition it is using. I'm not asking you to redefine "shrimp" as a taxon (that's a straw man of your own, ironically), but you have to explain what it is that you think it means, and what you use it to mean. Most of your text uses it to mean Natantia. Maybe other parts don't, but that only makes it the more necessary to be clear about what it means in which contexts. You asked me to help here, and I would very much like to, but the basic framework of the article has to be put straight first. It needs to be clear about what it's talking about, which is, after all, a primary requirement of any enclyclopaedic text. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrimps and prawns

It is impossible to give a short definition of either name, as in different regions these terms are used for different animals or animal groups, and even within a single region the usage is not consistent... All in all the situation is quite confused, and nowhere a sharp distinction seems to be made between shrimps and prawns. In general one can say that the larger... species that are commercially most attractive are called shrimps in America, and prawns in most of the rest of the English-speaking world. The word shrimp being used almost everywhere for the... other small forms, but many exceptions occur here.

– L B Holthuis, FAO

You say my "failure to appreciate that [shrimps and prawns are fundamentally different] is a major cause of all the acrimony here and elsewhere". Actually, a "major cause" is your failure to appreciate that shrimps and prawns are not fundamentally different, but mere artifices of language. You haven't got the key point yet, that the "problem" is not a scientific problem, but a linguistic problem which exists only in the English language. There is no problem in other languages, because they use only one term for shrimp and prawns.

Please calm down and absorb what the article actually says. On the right is a quote that is also in the article. The confusion you talk about has existed for a long time. The fact that the matter is confused doesn't mean the article is confused. The article is quite specific and clear about what the confusion is, though of course it can be improved. It is a first draft written by one person with no assistance. Ideally on a matter like this, the article would now go through several revisions, with editors with various viewpoints having some input. Unfortunately, it seems at the moment that only you and I are willing to spend time on the matter, and so far, apart from you pointing out my errors concerning mantis shrimp, that time has not been constructive. Currently I do the hard work while you bark angry demands from the sideline and delete things. I shouldn't have to tell you this, but you need to know I'm not God. Your demand that I be infallible is just not going to happen. When you find something I haven't got right, instead of making such an unpleasant fuss, you might deal with it in a courteous manner, just as I normally do with errors you have made.

The current article was particularly difficult to write because I acceded to your preference that it be named "Shrimp and prawn". The first thing to be clear about is that there are two independent questions which need to be kept separate. One question is "What is a shrimp?". The other question is "What is the difference between a shrimp and a prawn?" In my view, the answer to these questions belongs in two separate articles, one on shrimp and the other on prawn.

A central theme running through the article is that the term shrimp has a history, and some clarification occurs by setting out that history. The formal study began with the common shrimp and the common prawn. So these animals formed a kind of initial blueprint for what shrimps and prawns might be. The etymology is also important; that shrimp originally meant something small has contributed to the confusion. Perhaps it all started with the common shrimp, this little burrowing creature that could be found everywhere around the UK coast. Because it was small, it got called a "shrimp". Later similar creatures were found, but they were bigger, so they were called something else (prawns). And that was the start of a lot of confusion. This confusion doesn't exist in other languages, because other countries didn't start out with a term that meant "small". This is all discussed in the article.

Another central theme is also historical. Historically, shrimp came to be identified with certain swimming decapods. The term was extended to pretty much any swimming crustacean, and not just decapods. What distinguishes shrimp from crabs and lobsters is that they are primarily adapted for swimming, not walking. The article returns to that theme again and again, since it is the legacy of that tradition that largely determines what species are called shrimps today. Shrimps have well developed pleopods and some version of the caridoid escape reaction. But clearly there are gray areas as well, and the article could possible acknowledge some of those. As Holthuis says in the quote box, "many exceptions occur".

The article can be improved and expanded in other ways, though it is already long. From a length point of view, it would also be good if a prawn article was forked from shrimp. There are other uses of the word prawn that the article hardly touches on, such as the attempt by the FAO to define all freshwater shrimps as prawns. A paragraph could certainly be added detailing, as you asked, specific takes by certain taxonomists. I was poised to make both those additions when this acrimony started up again. I'm not interested in winning points arguing with you. I'm interested in having a comprehensive article that discusses shrimp in a lucid and accurate way. I'm reluctant to continue working in this negative environment. I have a number of other criticisms and suggestions about the current article, but there is no point in discussing them if you are just going to beat me up with them.

Is there any hope we can work together constructively? I have found it time consuming and difficult looking for sources relevant to the history of shrimp. That's another area that would be good to improve, and may well result in further revisions to the current article. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to sound pedantic, but shrimp and prawns are different. I gave you enough proof of that information, regardless of which website it came from. I don't have time to argue about these things nor do I care to. Epi, you have said on your profile that you wish to involve yourself in marine fisheries. Well don't misinform people by claiming that there is no difference between these two animals. Do the work, find the books if you have to. But as it stands now, this article is misinforming people on a grand scale.--Jsderwin (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the whole issue you are having here is due to generic labeling of seafood. Prawn sounds sexier than shrimp to many people, therefore the name is used to simply create sales. I can give you a list as long as my arm of seafood mislabeled for sales sake. --Jsderwin (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Who is misinforming people by "claiming that there is no difference" between shrimp and prawn? In Britain, prawns are large shrimps. In the United States, prawn is sometimes applied to small shrimps. Biologists, fisheries and chefs can all use different terms for the same animal, and the same term can vary regionally. All of that is discussed in the article. Fish marketing has its own take, and from the point of view of a fish monger the matter may seem straightforward. Of course there are differences, but it is a complex issue. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care where on earth you are; prawns are not shrimp. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it won't change this fact. Prawn and shrimp need separate articles. Can we all at least agree on this? I don't see why this is an issue. Make a page for prawn and one for shrimp. Let Stemonitis make the page, he understands the issue. --Jsderwin (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You haven't actually read anything, have you? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually wrote my original post before I even noticed there was a vote going on having stumbled upon it by chance. I just know that shrimp and prawns are not the same and they should each have their own article, colloquial differences aside. I say write the articles and lock them, explain the nomenclature issue and move on. Just my two cents for what it's worth. You guys will figure something out, I am sure. --Jsderwin (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Your essay is interesting, Epipelagic, but it doesn't alter the basic fact that there are different definitions which much be mentioned right at the beginning of the article. Jsderwin's argument would not arise if the article made it clear. You must by now accept that I didn't invent the definitions that we were using before (which would be a serious accusation of POINTy editing), and that therefore they are real and deserving of prominent mention. Although the English-language side of things is going to be an important part of the article, it cannot be the main focus; it has to be primarily about the animals (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). You wrote "When you find something I haven't got right [...] you might deal with it"; that's exactly what I'm trying to do. The article fails at the moment because it doesn't define its terms adequately, and it doesn't sufficiently recognise the variation in those terms. It doesn't link to the real taxa involved anything like prominently enough (only several paragraphs in and then only obliquely). These are problems, and if you want to improve the article, those are areas that you should be looking into. Theere are other factual errors, too, but it seems best to concentrate on the big stuff first. I would make changes myself, but I am fairly confident that you would undo them, because they would be seen as fairly major changes. Despite your characterisation, I am trying to help here. Please take on my advice. You would find that rebuttals such as that provided by Jsderwin would evaporate if the article dealt with the naming issue adequately and prominently. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Stemonitis point is exactly why I have been disappointed with Wiki at times, because it allows unclear or non factual information to be written in it's pages. I originally heard this argument from a biologist who wouldn't use Wiki after articles he'd worked on were altered, providing incorrect information. Apparently this isn't at all uncommon from his experience and the experience of other experts in specific fields. --Jsderwin (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

@Stemonitis: The matter needs to remain on hold until the proposed name change above has run its course. A few points:

• Jsderwin's argument is not evidence the article is confusing; I doubt he even read the article. It is a striking illustration of the confusion that the former Wikipedia articles have spread around the web over the last seven years. As a result of this, he is convinced that he knows what prawns are and that your original take was correct.
• To be absolutely clear, I did not and do not accuse you of "inventing the definitions that we were using before". I did point out to you that until such time as you provided reliable sources they needed to be regarded as original research. Unquestionably some Australians have adopted those definitions, and the new article also mentions them. If you believe they are "deserving of prominent mention", you would need to provide a reasoned position and further sources; otherwise that position would have to be regarded a minority position with little traction. However, I definitely agree that we look more fully at different ways biologists have attempted to define shrimp and prawn.
• One guaranteed way of confusing readers would be to mention the different definitions "right at the beginning of the article". Things are complex enough. The reader need to be eased into the article, and not immediately confronted with a plethora of contradictory definitions.
• You say "The article fails at the moment because it doesn't... sufficiently recognise the variation in those terms." I don't understand what you are getting at here. Can you provide specific examples? It was the earlier articles that didn't recognise variations, not the current article which recognises many variations, including ones you say shouldn't be there, like mantis shrimp.
• It would be good if you can adopt a more moderate language. There are more skillful ways of encouraging debate than constantly telling me what I "must" do, and asserting the article has "failed". --Epipelagic (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The current article does recognise some variation, but only much too late, and after it has made many claims about the features of "shrimp", without ever defining what such a thing might be. Your first point is unsupportable; you cannot assume that anyone who uses "shrimp" to mean Caridea does so entirely because of me. You accept that I did not invent them, so evidently they were pre-existing, and it might just as well have been from those sources that Jsderwin or anyone else got the idea. It is a genuine and reasonably widely-held view. To deride the group holding to that definition as "a few Australians" is grossly unfair. Your third point is just bizarre. To argue that because things are complex we should hide the complexity is patronising and false. If something is complex, pretending that it is simple can only lead to misinformation and confusion, as has already happened here. Most of what the article says about "shrimp" in the opening sections are restricted to Natantia, and it can only aid the reader to make that perfectly clear. Since there is (evidently) variation in usage, it is also absolutely necessary that that be dealt with at the beginning, before the article has started to use one or other definition. I'm sorry if that sounds like lecturing, but its importance cannot be over-stressed. Because it is ambiguous, the term has to be defined, and that has to come first in the article Without it, it becomes like an April Fool's Day DYK hook, where you only find out some time later what the topic really is. You are implicitly using a definition in the article, and it must be made explicit, at best by comparison with the others. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, it would be good if you moderate your language ("grossly unfair", "just bizarre", "patronising and false" etc). Equating shrimp with Caridea and prawn with Dendrobranchiatais is widespread around the web, on Wikipedia mirrors, and on blogs where people often take their lead from Wikipedia or a mirror. I can find next to nothing supporting that position in the scholarly literature, other than the sparse references you gave earlier. If you think otherwise, you can establish your position with further sources, but forceful assertions are not a substitute for sources. Please stop going incandescent over this issue, and relax. It really is not such a big deal.

I never said we should "should hide the complexity" (you are back to erecting straw men again), but that we should respect the reader, and lead them gently into the complexities. I never said we should "pretend that it is simple". I get the impression that you are writing mainly for taxonomists. What I am trying to do is to write in such a way that non taxonomists can be drawn in and find the article interesting, without sacrificing accuracy from the point of view of the biologist. I suggest you reflect on what that might mean. For example, you say the term Natantia should be introduced early, and that that "can only aid the reader to make that perfectly clear". How many lay reader would know what Natantia are? It is introducing that early that is unnecessarily confusing. A biologist doesn't need to be told, and a lay person is just going to be intimidated. Instead, I gave an account of swimming decapods, and contrasted them with walking decopods. That is pretty accurate. It's true that there is one group of swimming decapods that are not in the Natantia, the mud shrimp, but otherwise it is the Natantia that are being referred to. As the article progresses, it becomes increasingly technical, and by the end complexities are largely tidied up.

You seem to want the article to go the other way, and stun the reader right from the beginning with complexities, taxonomies and other obscurities. Perhaps you think that is more professional. I don't agree with that approach; I think it is insensitive. I accept I certainly goofed on mantis shrimp :/ --Epipelagic (talk) 10:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, mud shrimp very rarely swim (possibly never), but there are plenty of other swimming taxa, especially among the crabs.

No, you don't [give an account of swimming decapods]. You give an account of something vague, unknown and nebulous. The term "Decapoda" only appears way down in the Classification section, and then only in the sentence "The first shrimp and prawns to be studied were common European species from the order Decapoda" – i.e. still not explicitly linking one with the other. You do not explain what the article is about. Your second sentence is that "[t]hey are related to crabs and lobsters", but the reader doesn't know what "they" are yet; the clear implication is that they are more closely related to crabs and lobsters than they are to (most) other things, but that's only true under certain definitions (and not under your widest definition, for instance). Thus, quite apart from issues of usage ("whiskers"? "swimming equipment"?), the article is misleading from the second sentence, because it refuses to state what it's actually about, and may therefore be untrue. I'm not saying that you have to use the (obsolete) word "Natantia", but I do think it's vital that you define your terms. Most of the article is at least restricted to decapods, so that should be stated. If large numbers of readers (for whatever reason, actually) are expecting a different meaning, then the article should acknowledge that early on, too. It doesn't matter whether they got it from Wikipedia mirrors, or (more likely) from the pre-existing tradition; if that confusion is likely to arise (and it is), then it has to be explained. I have no wish to "stun" to reader, but I think you have to accept that any article must begin with an explanation of what its subject really is. In this instance, it's chiefly about decapod crustaceans of the former suborder Natantia (expressed in whatever terms you like). I can no reason why that should not be stated outright. Accuracy is not insensitive, but dumbing down is. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look through the article more fully now, and there's a lot of work needed. I've tried to highlight some of the more obvious problems, and I've tried to use fairly specific cleanup tags so that the remedial action shoullbe clear. There were too many for me to spell each case out in full here. If anything's unclear, though, please ask. Something else to look into: you assign a lot of the WoRMS references to P. Schuchert. I suspect that all will need to be changed, because Schuchert works on Hydrozoa, not Crustacea. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Jsderwin's argument is not evidence the article is confusing; I doubt he even read the article. It is a striking illustration of the confusion that the former Wikipedia articles have spread around the web over the last seven years. As a result of this, he is convinced that he knows what prawns are and that your original take was correct."

You are correct about my reading of the article. I couldn't get past the first paragraph and image because of the misinformation contained. I learned the difference between shrimp and prawns in 1993, when I was moving into the shrimp wholesale business. Epipelagic, are you a biologist? I'm curious because I noticed on Stemonitis profile that he is. --Jsderwin (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"You are correct about my reading of the article. I couldn't get past the first paragraph and image because of the misinformation contained"

I'm sorry Epipelagic that's not fair to you. It's a beautifully written article. I would just like to see the scientific facts laid out correctly. --Jsderwin (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Revert of taxobox template

I attempted to add a taxobox template to the article - it was quickly reverted. This is an encyclopedia: why should we not indicate the taxonomy? jmcw (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp has been redefined here to refer to a paraphyletic or polyphyletic group with no taxonomic standing. Since its subject is not a taxon, it doesn't deserve a taxobox. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you direct me to where this redefinition is defined? jmcw (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been trying to persuade the article's primary author to include it, in the thread above, but so far he has resisted my efforts. To me, it seems obvious that the definition needs to be included very prominently, and I would suggest that the opening clause might be a good place to define the topic of the article. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, does this affect your vote above, since you apparently thought the article was about a different group of animals? --Stemonitis (talk) 12:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does affect my vote. I think that this article should be renamed Shrimp (food). Shrimp and Prawn should be DAB pages to indicate the various language usages and the proper taxonomy articles. Your thoughts? jmcw (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, a number of solutions have been discussed, and there are probably some others that haven't been. Whatever option is chosen, it needs to be perfectly clear about what animals are covered, and what animals might be covered by each term. I can see a case for dealing with the vaguer fisheries / culinary term in an article under one title or another, but it still needs to be open about the taxa involved. I could certainly accept a situation in which "shrimp" and "prawn" were both disambiguation pages; I don't know how anyone else would feel about it. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Stemonitis, for the (twentieth?) time, please staunch the constant stream of straw men you set up so you can knock them over. It cannot be anything now other than willful misrepresentation, since we have been over this ground many times. It is a waste of our time, and you should not want to associate yourself with behaviour like that.

• Shrimp has not "been redefined here to refer to a paraphyletic or polyphyletic group with no taxonomic standing." You know very well that is not true. Why pretend it is true? The article does not define shrimp this way, but mentions it as a phase in history, and makes it very clear that the taxon in question is no longer in use.
• To repeat for the umpteenth time, "shrimp" is a term defined by common usage. It is not, and never has been, a taxonomic term, though occasionally some biologists use it as term of convenience to describe certain taxa. I appreciate you are determined to reinstate your taxonomic definitions. I have no problem with you attempting that in a separate article, Shrimp (taxonomy), so long as you don't present them in a phoney way as definitive definitions, like you did in the past. While shrimp is not a taxon, there are taxonomies which have been historically associated with shrimp, some of which have already been mentioned in the main article. It should be possible to spin a decent article out from that. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in this case I was agreeing with you. It is at your insistence that "shrimp" is no longer defined as a taxonomic group. As a result, your two points here are entirely contradictory. Either it is a taxon, or it isn't. You wanted it to be the group with no taxonomic standing (the obsolete "Natantia" is paraphyletic; the broader definition – including mantis shrimp and so on – is polyphyletic); it was previously defined as a (monophyletic) taxon. That's all I was trying to convey. Thus, Shrimp has been redefined [the scope of the article used to be different] to a paraphyletic or polyphyletic group [depending on the definition] with no taxonomic standing [in line with your second bullet point above]. I don't think there's actually anything contentious in that. You seem to be seeing enemies where there are none. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Counter proposal : shrimp and prawn as DAB pages

'Shrimp' and 'prawn' are in the common usage ambiguous: there are national language usages that differ from taxonomy usage. A WP:DISAMBIG page is a useful place to give readers the choice of which meaning they seek.

This article has sections on anatomy, habitat and behavior that I think would fit better in a species related article. That essentially leaves just the history and commercial fishing sections: I believe that they would fit in the 'Shrimp (food)' article.

Using DAB pages for shrimp and prawn would allow easy expansion to additional articles concerning the English-language plagued creatures. jmcw (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Next week (Sep 10-14) I will implement DAB and article pages in my user space in order to reduce the speculation on how it would look. Have a nice weekend! jmcw (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, jmcw. Looking forward to seeing it. Let me know if you need a hand or anything. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious tags

Stemonitis has tagged certain points in the article as "dubious – discuss". So I have removed the tags and opened the discussion here. The offending sentences, some of which are reliably sourced, and some of which aren't, are as follows:

1. The first three pairs are modified feeding appendages or mouthparts, which function as jaws and often as claws or pincers.
2. The lower abdomens of shrimp support many swimmerets,[vague] whereas crabs have none.
3. The rostrum, eyes, whiskers and legs also issue from the carapace.[dubious – discuss]
4. The first three pairs of legs on most shrimps, the maxillipeds, have adapted to serve as mouthparts and grooming legs. They often have claws or pincers (chela) which can grasp food items and bring them to the mouth.
5. Some shrimp species use [swimmerets] for brooding eggs, others have gills on them for breathing,
6. Caridean shrimp... brood their eggs in an abdominal brood chamber
7. [Mantis shrimp] have powerful spiked claws which they punch into their prey, stunning, spearing and dismembering them.
8. Mud shrimp, also called ghost shrimp, are decapods belonging to the infraorder Thalassinidea --Epipelagic (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you restore the tags until you can fix the problems with each of those sentences.

1. Maxillipeds are not, to my knowledge chelate in the Natantia.
2. Crabs do indeed have pleopods, although they are not used for swimming. Males have fewer, but still some.
3. The rostrum "issues from" (i.e. develops out of) the carapace, but the other parts are simply nearby. The two relationships are quite distinct and should not be lumped together.
4. See 1.
5. This oversimplification results from the lack of taxonomic fixity. It needs to be explained that Dendrobranchiata do not brood their eggs on the pleopods, while Caridea do. Without it, it sounds much more random.
6. There is no brood chamber, as seen in Peracarida. The brooding is entirely external.
7. Many mantis shrimp don't have spiked claws.
8. The infraorder Thalassinidea is defunct.

Removal of the tags seems premature at best. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully there are no problems now. Except for point 5. I don't see what you are getting at there, caridean shrimps were merely used as an example of a group that uses pleopods for brooding as well as swimming. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Those were just the problems I spotted without checking anything. The fact that so many arose indicates that the entire article is suspect. It looks like the sources have been cherry-picked to force a single point of view, and none of the factual information can be trusted until every statement has been rigorously checked. Merely hoping that there are no problems is not enough. The "Shrimp are crustaceans" box, for instance, is worthless, because you have misunderstood what the source was indicating. It was talking about the primitive state for crustaceans, which does not necessarily apply to any particular derived group. Suggesting that "sow bugs" (not the best term to use) are the only non-marine crustaceans belies a serious lack of understanding of crustacean biology, and contradicts the rest of the article which clearly states that there are freshwater "shrimp" (obviously). This article simply cannot be trusted in its current state; even the statements which cite reliable sources seem to be misrepresenting or misunderstanding them. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the generalizations. Endlessly intoning your mantra of dismissal, serious errors, cherry picking, worthless... means nothing, because you don't ground your complaints in specific examples. You say "even the statements which cite reliable sources seem to be misrepresenting or misunderstanding them", but you don't give a single example. Nor do you suggest corrections, or better, just correct the article if you are sure of your ground. You did give one example (thank you for that): you prefer another term for "sow bugs". But why don't you just say what you prefer, perhaps woodlouse, or edit it into the article. I'm just reporting how the cited source put it. It was an example. Somehow you translate that to a "serious" error, because there are other examples. You refer to any error, no matter how slight, as "serious". Anyway, if you don't want to improve the article, then I encourage you to list the specific problems as you see them. I would also appreciate it if you can suggest solutions that would satisfy you. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In this specific case, remove the box! It is misleading, because you have misunderstood it (the "sow bug" issue is by far the least important, although illustrative; the whole box is flawed, for the reasons I gave above). I removed it once, but you put it back. You see, I have tried to improve the article, but my edits get undone. The errors in this article are serious, but they are too many to list individually. The only avenue left open to me is therefore to point out its failings in the (vain?) hope that the author will listen. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

On reflection, I don't see why I should stop making generalisations if there are indeed general problems. As I see it, this article does suffer from a general lack of clarity and insight. Picking individual clauses to tweak isn't going to fix that. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Shrimp are crustaceans

The term crustacean comes from Latin crusta, meaning a crust or shell. Most crustaceans (and therefore most shrimp):

Crustacean shells

The shells, or exoskeleton of crustaceans, including shrimps, contains chitin and are structured somewhat like a knight's armour. The shells do not grow with the animal, so usually they periodically shed or moult. They can turn pink or orange or red when cooked. The shell covering the cephalothorax is particularly hard, and is called the carapace.

• are invertebrate animal with a segmented body
• are protected by a hard crust or shell (exoskeleton)
• have a head and thorax which are usually fused into one structure, the cephalothorax
• have two pairs of antennae and several pairs of feeding appendages
• have compound eyes set on stalks
• mostly live in water
• have gills for breathing (unlike land insects)

Okay, I've remove the box again. I reinstated it because you didn't mention any specific problems with the box. Before reinstating the box, I added a new source (Ruppert, Fox and Barnes) and checked each point in the box against the new source. If I am misinterpreting things, then I would be grateful if you tell me specically what I am misinterpreting, and how it would be better expressed. I've displayed the box at the right so it's easier to refer to. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're asking me to re-write the whole thing! Such a box is not necessary anyway. A discussion of general primitive features of crustaceans is not especially illuminating in a discussion of a small, derived group such as "shrimp" (under any definition, or lack thereof). Also, if such content were important, it should be in prose, not in a floating box. It's all part of the general lack of focus in the article. What was that box trying to convey? How would it have fitted in to the overall content? The entire article reads like a collection of available facts, rather than a coherent discussion of a definable topic. Now, that's a common enough problem across all of Wikipedia, but it is a serious problem, and it can be very hard to fix without simply starting again.

What's more important here is how hard you find it to believe me. You wouldn't believe that there was anything wrong with the article at all, until I pointed out a litany of errors; only then did you consider fixing them. You wouldn't believe that I was right to remove the box, even though it was explained reasonably well in my edit summary, and rather than asking, you undid the edit. After a series of exchanges, you finally consented to get rid of it. I can't speak for your intentions, but your actions suggest you are failing to assume my good faith. It should be obvious that I am trying to improve this and other articles, so it would be generally beneficial if you could be more readily accepting of criticism. Recently, you have been a barrier to improvements, and I sincerely hope that that can change. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course I'm not asking you to "re-write the whole thing"; just to list specific errors. If the whole article is just an endless series of errors, as you seem to be implying, then please just list the ten most serious errors that you have most immediately noticed. I haven't "finally consented to get rid of" the box. I removed it temporarily as a good faith gesture, as you requested. Now it up to you to explain the egregious errors it contains. If you can't do that, I will reinstate the box. Really, you are astonishingly unfair. I am always ready to acknowledge errors. I am happy to accept your criticisms, particularly if they are offered in good faith as a effort to improve the article (are they?). Your "litany of errors" was, given the size of the article, a remarkably small number of minor errors, involving details only, and nothing to do with the main thrust of the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The real source of the specific problem is probably in the phrase "and therefore most shrimp". I don't have those books in front of me, but I doubt that they make the leap stating that those statements are true of "most shrimp" (and certainly not of "all shrimp", as it was before). It simply doesn't follow. Some of the statements will be true, but you can't rely on it. The whole thing is therefore original research, even though it was cited to reliable sources. Similarly, although woodlice may have been given as an example, it is no longer clear in this text that they are merely an exemplar. The reader is left with the clear implication that all other crustaceans are marine, which is evidently false. These kinds of misinformation are particularly difficult to identify precisely and are also particularly difficult to root out. I get the feeling that there are quite a few more examples like this still in this article (but no, I can't provide details just now, because it takes a lot of time and effort to identify them properly). --Stemonitis (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I've changed the offending line to "mostly live in water". Do you accept that, unambiguously, shrimp are crustaceans? If you don't, can you provide examples of shrimps that are not crustaceans, and should be within the scope of the article. If you can't then you must accept that what applies to crustaceans in general also applies to shrimp. I appreciate you have the "feeling" that the article is full of errors, and given your expert status, it should be a simple matter to rapidly identify most of them. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are dismissing my comments, and seemingly failing to assume good faith. You reject my comments out of hand, for no good reason. You are sidestepping the main point and fixing only the smallest simplest errors. Do any of those sources actually make these claims for "most shrimp", or is that your own (OR) extrapolation? Importantly, it simply does not follow that what is generally true of a large group is also generally true of a constituent subgroup, by simple common sense. Just because most Caridea are marine, that doesn't mean that most Atyidae are marine; they are not. Just because most Caridea have stalked eyes, that doesn't mean that most Typhlocarididae have stalked eyes; they do not. By exactly the same token, what is generally true of crustaceans is not necessarily generally true of shrimp. That is plainly false. "You must accept that what applies to crustaceans in general also applies to shrimp"? Absolutely not. Those statements are therefore unsourced and should be removed.

Even within the cited text, there are more errors. "Three pairs of feeding appendages", quite apart from being too vague to be helpful, is false; you are ignoring the maxillae and the maxillules, which are without question appendages used for feeding. You cannot continue to deny that the article has problems, even if I won't fit my description of them into your overly prescriptive "ten most serious errors". "It should be a simple matter to rapidly identify most of them"? Again, absolutely not. As I stated before, identifying errors when the sources have been misinterpreted or misrepresented is a particularly tiresome task, and is not one that you should expect others to take on when you are not prepared to do so yourself. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Meh. I am "fixing only the smallest simplest errors" because the only problems you are coming up with are small and simple. It's no good just huffing and puffing, and using immoderate language. You must provide specific examples of these "serious" errors you "feel" the article is festooned with. I reinstated the box because you provided no coherent reason why it shouldn't be reinstated. You removed the box again with one of your typical spacious edit summaries: Box is unverifiable, untrustworthy, unnecessary and false. The article doesn't mention maxillae and the maxillules, because at that point it doesn't go into such a level of fine detail. Why would it? There is already a link to your own exemplary and unreferenced article on decapod anatomy, which does go into these matters in slightly more detail. I'm not in denial that the article may have problems. I would welcome knowing what problems there are so it can be improved. Anyway, I'm not going to edit war with you. I'll leave the box off the article while you calm down. Then it is up to you to come up with some coherent reason why it shouldn't be reinstated. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, then. For the third time: just because something is true of most crustaceans, that does not mean that it is true of most "shrimp". Thus, the entire box is based on your over-extrapolation of the sources. They do not make the claims you have made, which are therefore unverifiable and must be removed. This is nothing to do with calmness; the box is undeserving of inclusion, because it is original research; your argument that what is true of most crustaceans must be true of shrimp is patently wrong. Under policy, and under common sense, it cannot be included. That should be "coherent" enough for you. So you see, my edit summary was not specious ("spacious" [sic]); it was accurate, but again you refuse to accept the truth. Another important point: it is not up to me to explain why the box shouldn't be included; per WP:BURDEN (a core policy!), the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is thus up to you to gain consensus for including it (or anything else).

You say that you are interested in finding out about the problems the article may have, but you ignore the big ones. Isn't the mis-representation of sources serious enough for you? The inclusion of falsehoods? The presence of unsourced material? This is all before we get onto issues of tone; at the moment, it's a (to my eye, biased) polemic on the meaning of the word "shrimp", rather than a discussion of the various meanings, which is supposed to be its primary focus. Those are four serious problems for you, right there. They don't form "specific examples", because they're widespread endemic flaws. These are not "small and simple" things, and they cannot be fixed by replacing a word or two. You were very unwilling to accept the previous flaws that I demonstrated, and that is, sadly, continuing now. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The term I used was not "specious" but "spacious", as in generous or large in range or scope.[5] In context it meant something like allowing psychological space for the other person. I was being sarcastic. I understand Wikipedia's not a good place to use sarcasm, and I apologise for that slip up. I will try and be as literal as possible with you. Before selecting quotes from Wikipedia policies, such as WP:BURDEN, you should read the whole policy. You have misrepresented that policy. As an administrator, you should not have to be told what is in the policies. What "previous flaws" have you demonstrated that I have been "unwilling to accept"? Please read my comments before you reply to them. And then, before you hit the Send button, read what I said again and see if it has anything to do with your reply. As for the rest of your comments, please stick to facts you can substantiate. The generalised comments you continue to make in fact apply to the unsourced and misleading definitions you have been using on Wikipedias crustacean articles over the last seven years. I understand you are upset that material was removed. You have continued, without let up, since the problems with your earlier articles were raised, to misread and misrepresent every position I take. Instead of addressing my position, you set up straw men of your own invention so you can knock them over. It gets very tedious. To repeat what I said above, I am trying to write in such a way that non biologists can be drawn in and find the article interesting, and without sacrificing accuracy from the point of view of the biologist. That is the reason for the box on crustaceans. Most people reading the article are not crustacean taxonomist. The article is not, as you say, a mere collection of facts. It is in fact highly structured, but it is structured with the general reader in mind, rather than just the crustacean taxonomist. A crustacean taxonomist can skip over the box. I've reinstated the box, since you are just huffing and puffing with unsubstantiated generalities. Please don't edit war. If you still have any real issues with the box, you can raise them here and you will find I listen quite carefully. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

[Yawn...] For the fourth time, you are making unjustified extrapolations in that box. The sources do not claim that "most shrimp" share those features (nor would they). The burden of evidence is on you to gain consensus for its inclusion, yet you flout policy in order to reinstate it. Your inability to accept any flaws in your work has made my effort to compromise with you simply unworkable. The whole article is specious – it is intended to look professional and appear well sourced, but that veneer falls away on closer inspection. It is many miles from a neutral point of view, and that fault lies entirely at your door. When you're ready to accept criticism, I can suggest improvements, but until then, you are just wasting my time. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you're ready for bed, Stemonitis! I don't really like the box either. Is there an important reason to use it? Could the material in the box be included elsewhere? --John (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it. I suggest Stemonitis, that you list the specific issues you have with the article, otherwise your tag should be removed. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Stemonitis has placed a multiple issues tag on the article, claiming the neutrality of the article is disputed and that it needs additional citations. The background is that the current article replaces this article, which was titled "Shrimp" at the time (it has since been renamed), and purported to be the main article about shrimps. This article was largely written by Stemonitis, and expresses his views on what the shrimp article should look like. As the result of a consensus reached elsewhere, it was decided that the article should be rewritten. Stemonitis has not accepted this, and wishes to discredit the new version, presumably so he can reinstate his original version. However nowhere has Stemonitis disputed in any credible way the neutrality of the new version, nor had he specifically mentioned the parts he thinks should be cited. So I have removed the tag until such time as Stemonitis lists specific concerns. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The background is irrelevant. The tag relates to the current state of this article. It misrepresents sources widely (not in just a couple of specific places), and is distinctly biased. As I said above, it reads like a polemic. It needs to be much more open that there are different definitions, only one of which is given any weight here. These are specific concerns, even if they are wide-ranging. Your habit of simply removing tags that you disagree with is rather childish, and does not lead to articles improving. Will it take another three days of arguing and third-party input before you believe me this time, too? --Stemonitis (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• I suggest that you should both focus on what you think needs to be done to improve the article, and not on whose fault it is or how it got this way. Tags in themselves will not help us. We (and that includes you two as the main editors here) need to agree a way forwards. In the nature of things this is likely to be a compromise that will not perfectly please anyone. Could we please do that? --John (talk) 17:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

John, I am always ready to try to improve articles, this one included. I have put a lot of effort into doing just that. You are right that the tag is not directly helpful, but it does alert the reader to be wary of what he/she reads. That, I think, is useful. My criticisms are, by now, reasonably well known, but I can certainly restate them if needed. You will understand, however, if I don't rush into this opportunity with open arms; I have been stung before. When Epipelagic is ready to consider improvements, I have plenty of ideas of how they can be made. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume that both of you are open to compromise and change; the article would not exist without the two of you. My bet is that if you could clearly lay out your priorities for the article in a neutral and impersonal way (hey, we're all supposed to be scientists, right?), you would not be as far apart as you may think. Willing to give it a try?--John (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I assumed you were talking to Stemonitis here. But Stemonitis assures me you are talking to me. I am always open to compromise and change, so long as issues are negotiated with specific examples and in a civil way. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to try. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. I was talking to you both. You are both vital at this stage to improving the article.--John (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions and discussion

Right, then here's the point. The article, whatever its primary scope, needs to be clear that there are several definitions, and needs to link to the taxa involved right at the very beginning. The "non-decapod shrimp" section should be reworded to indicate that these are compound nouns that are only called "shrimp" as shorthand, rather than in careful writing (effectively, these are partial title matches). --Stemonitis (talk) 05:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, common terms like "pink shrimp" or "common shrimp" are applied to different species in different places, by different groups, and at different times. As a result, multiple common names often apply to the same species and the same name can even apply to multiple species. The scientific terms are more stable (but even those are in flux and can be disputed). It can, and perhaps should be made clearer that common terms can lack precision. How would you like to word that? As far as your first point goes, can you give an example of how you think the opening paragraph might look? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll try and knock something up on Sunday (I'm busy tomorrow). Remind me if nothing has appeared by Monday. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

OK. This can probably be improved upon, but I would suggest something along these lines:

The term shrimp is used to refer to some decapod crustaceans, although the exact animals covered can vary. Used broadly, it may cover any of the groups with elongated bodies and a primarily swimming mode of locomotion – chiefly Caridea and Dendrobranchiata. In some fields, however, the term is used more narrowly, and may be restricted to Caridea, to smaller species of either group, or to only the marine species.

That way, we acknowledge that there are different definitions, give a first approximation of what they might be, and link to the taxa involved early on. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. Can we tweak it a little to allow for an extension to non-decapod shrimp? Something like:

The term shrimp is used to refer to some crustaceans with elongated tails, primary adapted for swimming rather than for walking of crawling. In particular, the term is applied to swimming decapod crustaceans – chiefly Caridea and Dendrobranchiata – although the exact animals covered can vary. In some fields the term is used more narrowly, and may be restricted to Caridea, to smaller species of either group, or to only the marine species, while in other fields the use of the term may be extended to include some non-decapod swimming crustaceans. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not keen on allowing non-decapod "shrimp" in (partial title matches, etc.), but I suppose it might be acceptable in the spirit of co-operation and compromise. I do think we should avoid the additional description, though ("elongated tails": no more so than many other crustaceans; "primarily adapted for swimming": not really – many are pretty sedentary most of the time). The description will depend on the definition, and that, as we're trying to show, is not fixed. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you have another go at rewording it then. It's needs to find an optimal level of vagueness, not pinning things down too much, yet not being too vague. I'm not sure what you mean by not "allowing non-decapod "shrimp" in (partial title matches, etc.)". A number of non-decapod groups are commonly referred to as shrimp. Do you think it is better to not mention that in the lead? --Epipelagic (talk) 07:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

A number of non-decapod animals are referred to by names that include the word "shrimp", but I don't believe that they are generally known simply as "shrimp" except in careless writing. (One would not write "Odontodactylus is a shrimp", but one might conceivably write "Odontodactylus is a mantis shrimp [...] This shrimp is popular in aquaria [...]".) I think it would be better to relegate that sort of thing to later sections, but as I say, I'm open to compromise. I figure the descriptive parts could follow, having established the scope (e.g. "Under this broader definition, most shrimp have long tails, [...]"). --Stemonitis (talk) 07:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fine. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

British definition of prawn

The article writes: "Larger shrimp are more likely to be targeted commercially, and are often referred to as prawns, particularly in Britain."

This seems obviously wrong to me. Walk into any British supermarket and you will see that prawns are the small ones, shrimp are the large ones.J1812 (talk) 01:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read the article on prawn you will see that the usage of the term is confused. British usage is discussed under Prawn#Britain. The section is reliably sourced, including a definitive, but somewhat dated, source from the FAO. It probably fair enough to say that in Britain larger shrimps were originally referred to as prawns. In the US the reverse is true, and it may be that over recent decades usage has shifted in Britain to align more with US usage, particularly with imported goods. Still, if that is the case, a reliable source is needed for Wikipedia. Can you find one? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The topic is "Shrimp" not "The term shrimp"

I've tried a couple of times to edit the first sentence to get rid of the weasely redundant "term used to refer to". That is a really bad way to start an article. An article is about a topic not about a term wp:notdic. See crab as an example of an even broader word, and the well written lead to the article still starts "Crabs are..." Bhny (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that the term "crab" as used in that article is strictly defined (viz. Brachyura). The meaning(s) of "shrimp" employed in this article are diverse and vague. In fact, the article almost is about the term rather than the taxon, because there is no taxon corresponding to the predominant usage employed here. To that end, despite the general arguments against such language, the current wording is useful. It's not brilliantly written, but it does convey the intended meaning better than any alternative so far presented. Starting the article with "Shrimp are decapod crustaceans." is hugely misleading, by contrast. It implies an equivalence which does not exist; many decapods (very many by most definitions) are categorically not shrimp. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't imply an equivalence, "Crab" also begins "Crabs are decapod crustaceans...", Humans are primates etc. Many decapods aren't crabs and many primates aren't human. Bhny (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, crab begins "Crabs are decapod crustaceans living in any of the world's oceans, in fresh water, or on land, generally covered with a thick exoskeleton and armed with a single pair of claws." Human begins "Humans (variously Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo." In both cases, there are qualifications added to the otherwise misleading statement (the text at crab is imperfect, but that doesn't affect my basic point). The opening sentence of your edit had no such qualifications and was thus misleading. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My edit was Shrimp are decapod crustaceans, although the exact animals covered by the term can vary. Which has a qualification (though not a great one). What do you suggest as a better qualification? (Humans are primates is not a misleading statement, I don't even know what you mean there. Oaks are trees. Socrates is a man. This is how language works )Bhny (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are (or appear to be) defining "humans" as "primates", then it is a poor definition, because most primates are not humans. I think this much is clear. Oaks are a type of tree; Socrates was a man. These are not equivalent to what is being discussed here. All of your proposed edits to this article have been ungrammatical, misleading (as explained above), or both. Your latest attempt included the aberration "Used broadly, shrimp are ..."; how do you use a shrimp broadly? No, the term is what is used broadly, which is part of the reason why the lead is better the way it is. Please try to consider the article as a whole, rather than engaging in a simplistic campaign to remove the term "term" from Wikipedia (your edit history contains several such examples). In most instances, it can indeed be removed, but there are exceptions (and this is one) where it is useful. In no case with this article has your edit been beneficial, or improved the reader's understanding of the term "shrimp", and that is what matters. Feel free to propose alternatives (here), but please do not be tempted to reinstate your previous, flawed texts. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree "Used broadly, shrimp are..." was an aberration. Our difference here is that you want this to be a dictionary article about a term, and I was trying to turn it into an encyclopedia article. I've exhausted myself here and I'll move on. Bye Bhny (talk) 14:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, if you examine the history, you will find that this is not what I would want, but the article has to make sense given its current scope, and that is what I am trying to preserve. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Differences between crabs, lobsters and shrimp

Why does this big thing exist in the middle of the article? It's kinda like having a section in cat which shows the difference between cats, dogs, and squirrels. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

As it says in the article, "a shrimp seems to be almost any crustacean that isn't a lobster, barnacle, or crab". There is no confusing shrimp with barnacles, since barnacles are sessile. But the difference between a shrimp and a lobster or crab is less clear. Crabs evolved from early shrimp. Lobsters lie somewhat in the middle of a continuum, with crabs at one end and shrimp at the other end. There is no sharp demarcation between the groups, particularly between lobsters and shrimp. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shrimp. 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/20090212124653/http://coralmorphologic.com/b/2008/10/13/indo-pacific-periclimenes-shrimp-an-overview to http://coralmorphologic.com/b/2008/10/13/indo-pacific-periclimenes-shrimp-an-overview
• 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
• Added {{dead link}} tag 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) 21:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Shrimp. 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/20130614015224/http://www.nobanis.org/MarineIdkey/Small%20crustaceans/CaprellaMutica.htm to http://www.nobanis.org/MarineIdkey/Small%20crustaceans/CaprellaMutica.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080524170342/http://www.safmc.net/Default.aspx?tabid=80 to http://www.safmc.net/Default.aspx?tabid=80
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160603121912/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwVJjVNzpy4 to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwVJjVNzpy4

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) 21:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)