Talk:Fishing weir

Untitled

The construction and use of a fishing weir is totally different from a fishtrap, why you want to merge? A fishtrap is a small cage made of chicken wire. The fishing weir is, well, a weir. --Vuo 12:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Going to respond over at fishtrap. cmh 17:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed name change

I can't find any instances of of the term 'fishing weir' with a google search but quite a few for 'fish weir'. I propose changing the name of the article to 'Fish weir' as it seems to be the correct name and certainly the most commonly used. Richerman (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This may be a Britain v USA issue. Here in west Wales they are Fishing weirs see here. Google isn't necessarily the arbiter of all things!.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, more like Welsh v English usage see: [1]. I've found a reference now to some in Swansea bay [2]. The problem seems to be that searching for the term 'fishing weir' comes up mostly with hits for fishing in weirs. Richerman (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the one I'm familiar with at Traeth Lligwy is called a 'fish weir' by Cadw and 'fish trap' on the local signage, so it looks as if a number of terms are in use, even in Wales [3].

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richerman (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2014 July 3 (UTC)

Reversion of my edit and deletion of image from article

Existing image

Native American Indians fishing with weir and spears in a dugout canoe. Engraved in 1590 by Theodor de Bry after a 1585 watercolour by John White

Proposed replacement

Remains of a fish weir just above the low water mark at Lligwy Beach, Anglesey

I made a couple of edits to the article but I see user:Epipelagic has reverted some of them without discussion with the edit summary "remove image of incomplete weir which doesn't seem to have any point of historical or cultural interest". Before my edits the article had (and now has again) an image of Native Americans using a fish trap next to text about rock weirs in tidal races in the UK. The image I added of a scheduled ancient monument illustrates exactly what it says in the text - how is that not of historical or cultural interest? Also, I didn't remove the image that was already there, I merely moved it to the gallery so as not to clutter the article as I couldn't see anywhere it really belonged to illustrate the text. If the article were expanded to include a bit more about North American fish weirs then the image could go next to that text. However, to summarily delete an image from the article which someone has taken the time to upload, unless it is of particularly poor quality or inappropriate in some way, is extremely rude and not in the spirit of cooperation I expect of an established editor. I have undone Epipelagic's reversion and would hope there will be some discussion before my changes are reverted again. Richerman (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Please read wp:brd. When someone, as I have here, challenges and reverts a change to an established and stable article, then instead of reverting again the matter should first be discussed on the talk page. I have left your inappropriate revert in place for now to avoid further edit warring. You are the person wanting to change the status quo here, not me. It is now up to you to argue for the merits of your change. Also, please try and confine your remarks to the relative merits of your image. I really have no interest in your combative and accusatory fantasies about me, and these have nothing to do with whether your image should have the prominent place you want for it in the article. Nor does it follow that because you took and uploaded a photo you now have the privileged position in deciding how it should be used on Wikipedia. That's a bit like the author of a book claiming he has the right to spam it wherever he wants on Wikipedia. Users are always trying to spam their photos onto fish and fishing articles, often photos of themselves or their children holding a fish. At least you don't seem to have include yourself in your photo.

Anyway, moving to the merits of your image. What you are proposing is that your largely undocumented photo of the remnants of a weir (bottom right) should replace a well documented 400 year old engraving of elaborate and functioning Native American Indian weirs (top right). I don't see a contest here. Please explain what it is about your photo that makes it more interesting and more appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe I am being a little oversensitive, but if you knew how long I have been trying to get a photograph of that structure and how much effort it took to get it, you would know why I was annoyed when it was deleted from the article in less than an hour with an edit saying it was of no cultural or historical interest. I wouldn't have minded so much if you had moved the image somewhere else but you just deleted it from the article altogether. I don't see any contest either - this isn't about which image is better or worse or more interesting, images in articles are supposed to illustrate what is being discussed in the text and not just scattered about randomly. The place I put the photograph was next to text about coastal weirs in Great Britain that use the rise and fall of the tide to trap fish. I did intend to expand that section to include rock weirs on beaches, which the photograph is an example of, but I didn't get the chance to do so before it was reverted. As I have already said I didn't replace the image that was already there, I just moved it. This article is in need of expansion and some restructuring which I was just beginning to do, and when some text is added about native American weirs (about which there are plenty of references in Google books) then there will be room to put that image alongside the relevant text. Richerman (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I messed up a citation....

Sorry, I don't know how I did it because I was in preview mode and didn't save but somehow I messed up a previous citation ref= "Nishmura" unfortunately I don't know how to find a previous version in order to fix it. If someone could fix it that would be great. Thanks! Elizabethfranklin (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Elizabeth- Think I fixed it, please check me. Eric ^talk 17:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I've returned the information you removed as this needs to be discussed and your edit summaries didn't make sense. First of all the lead is a summary of the article and doesn't need citations provided the information is cited in the article. Secondly, who says the earliest known fish weir is only 8,000 years old? The information that you added after just before this edit says that a weir has been found that is possibly 14,000 years old. The information you removed came from the Nishimura book that says something like "the use of fish weirs predatates the sapiens phase of human evolution". This suggests to me that evidence had been found that early humans used fish weirs - not necessarily that that are complete weirs from this period still extant. What evidence do you have that this information is out of date? Richerman (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fishing weir. 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/20070125083502/http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/annualreports/ar99-00/hemington/hemington.html to http://www.le.ac.uk/ulas/annualreports/ar99-00/hemington/hemington.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117173029/http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/fishweir/ to http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/fishweir/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Australian fish weirs

The § Asia and Oceania section makes no mention of the well-documented fish weirs maintained by Australian Aborigines for centuries. They included some used for harvesting the annual eel migrations in south-west Victoria, and (IIRC) others used on NSW rivers. This is a significant omission. I may be able to correct it, but it won't be today; so please feel free to do so if you can. yoyo (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Having just now read the article Fish trap, where I see the Australian fish weirs described quite well, I see no good reason why this article should not be merged into that one. A positive reason to merge is this: Fish weirs are just one type or class of fish trap. See next. yoyo (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge into Fish trap

Reasons to merge:

• Fish weirs are just one type or class of fish trap.
• Simpler to maintain one page than two.

yoyo (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me to be worth considering. Eric ^talk 01:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - a reasonable suggestion but Fish trap is already quite long and having a stand-alone articles for individual types is not a problem. For fishing weirs there is a significant archaeological and historical interest which is absent from many of the other types fish traps which supports the retention of a separate article. It may be worth noting that there are specific articles already for eleven of the types of fish traps listed in the table. Should these all be merged back into Fish trap? I think not.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   07:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, per Velella's arguments. Eric ^talk 14:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)