Talk:List of commercially important fish species

List of harvested aquatic animals by weight

Anna, that's a nice article. However, bearing in mind that you have added this articles to no less than four different fisheries templates, don't you think that additionally adding the article as a "See also" to no less than fifty separate articles, each of which already bears at least one of the aforementioned templates, is a bit of overkill? This article is now, by a massive margin, the most visible and heavily promoted article in all of fisheries. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Epipelagic! I hit it pretty hard, didn't I? Sorry about that. I think I added the see alsos first, but it is all a blur to me now. I sort of meant it as advertising rather than promotion. :) I figured that lots of editors would see it and help to shape it or something, and eventually move the see alsos to {{main}}s etc. I was hoping that if it got removed from the see also section, it would remain in the navbox or vice versa. Did I go overboard? Should I remove them? Could I wait a week? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I think you went a bit overboard, though I'm not going to fuss further. You might consider the relationship of the article to, the now rather dated World fish production. Do you think these two articles could be merged somehow? Your article gives a snapshot in time, but having, for example, graphs that give a historical perspective could make for a more rounded article. I find these sort of articles become annoying because they keep going out of date! --Epipelagic (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about the overboardedness. I will check back and see how many of those links remain after a while and then remove what shouldn't be there.

Yes, a merger sounds sensible, except for the overall size, which may be an issue considering all the mobile devices out there. Thoughts on that?

I saw World fish production, but was bothered by the grouping of fish and the lack of individual images.

I too am bothered by articles that go out of date. I've made a few in the past, like List of detention centers and List of Casinos in Canada. This one, however, I will try to update with new figures each year. I can do it semi-automatically, so it won't take long. Maybe I can even add a new year column instead of replacing the old. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Epipelagic, do you have any suggestions for the title? "List of harvested aquatic animals by weight" sounds like it is referring to the weight of each animal, like Blue Whale would be number 1. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Would "by mass" be any better?

Any article with so many pictures of fishies is clearly very important. Incidentally, while reading articles linked from it, I found Antarctic krill#Life cycle definitely needs some attention. "They can appear in enormous numbers counting 2 per litre in 60 m (200 ft) water depth" is presumably the result of vandalism, but I'm not sure what the correct figure should be (presumably not 2 million per litre)? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Demiurge1000. Mass! Yes. I suggested that here. Maybe User:Northamerica1000 can comment.

I can't find good sources about the krill at that depth.

As for a merger, no, I now think that all the pics do make it a good standalone. Thank you! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but there still remains the issue that List of harvested aquatic animals by weight and World fish production are essentially the same article, just coming from different perspectives. A few points:

• 1. Apart from the lead graphs, World fish production is a messy and out of date article. I wrote most of it back in 2008 when I was starting out on Wikipedia. I know you don't like the summary categories, but they are the categories the FAO use themselves.
• 2. World fish production mainly confines itself to the capture of wild fish. It would be better balanced if it included parallel information on aquaculture harvesting.
• 3. The term "harvest" principally conjures up agriculture harvesting, harvests from farming rather than the capture of wild animals by hunting. In a parallel way, I think it is appropriate to refer to aquaculture harvesting, harvests from fish farming rather than the capture of wild fish by fishing. For this reason, might it be better to call your article List of aquatic animal production by weight?
• 4. It might be better to rename World fish production as World fisheries production. There is a convention that the term "fisheries" includes all aquatic animals (and even aquatic plants) that are commercially captured or harvested.
• 5. Going one step further, you could call your article World fisheries production for 2012.
• 6. Alternatively, the articles could be called Global production of aquatic organisms and Global production of aquatic organisms in 2012.
• 7. As far as your list goes, might it not be better to have two columns for the production: one for the capture of wild fish and the other for aquaculture. Some species would have entries in both columns.
• 8. What about an additional column categorising the species into groups?
• 9. I see you have linked the binomial names and not the common names. Usually the FAO do the reverse, a practice followed globally by fisheries.
• 10. A new set of FAO utilities FAOSTAT has just come out. This makes easy to extract and analyse data from the up to date version of the full FAO database. It is an endless source of information. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Very thoughtful and interesting notes, Epipelagic. May I copy this to the article talk page and then respond there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course... --Epipelagic (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(ATTRIBUTION: copied from here)

Essentially the same, but the "top 100" with images really has zing.

• 1. Summary categories serves visitors. I just like individual fish.

• 3. "Harvest", yes. I see your point. "Production" sounds better. Even though it sounds like one "produces" fish, it can mean the result of their labour, so fine with me.

• 4. World "fisheries" production, I agree.

• 5. World fisheries production for 2012 would be good, but I do plan on updating it each year. Plus, the lead says 2012 and the latest figures will always be present. Also, that title is very general. I would love a title that really says exactly what's in the box.

• 6. "Global", yes, that sounds even better. But "organism" includes plants, so not so good there. But, "animals" is problematic, as it conjures up images of fishing for hamsters. (We all know hamsters are by-catch.)

• 7. I considered two columns, but there were only two what would be in both. Two columns would wipe out the highly informative sortability. A single column gives a "top 100" thing. Plus, the mingling of cultiavted and wild really tells a tale.

• 8. Categorising the species into groups, eh? Hmmmm, sounds like lots of work, but I guess it would be a one-shot deal. You are not talking about splitting it into more than one table are you? You mean an extra column, right?

• 9. I linked binomials because one of the sources had only binomials, and I had to dig up the common names later. More work to switch, but doable.

• 10. Thanks for the new FAO link. I can't find fish. What am I doing wrong?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

As regards point 7, another sortable column which has the total production (wild plus cultured) addresses that issue. With point 8, yes I mean an extra column (or two). It would be good if the categories paralleled the categories in seafood. The two articles would then nicely complement each other. (What's wrong with including plants (seaweed?)). With point 9, the FAO decides on which "common name" to use, and that name is invariable endorsed in FishBase. And with point 10, yes, that's still a work in process which hasn't yet been implemented properly for fisheries and aquaculture. In the meantime you need to download FishStatJ, which runs in a Linus, Mac or Windows environment. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic,

Another sortable column for totals, okay. Only two items need that, but I will look into it.

Category group, I still don't see why we have those. For this article, would visitors really care? Maybe if they sort the column, then they could see all in that category, so yes. I'm reluctant to make too many columns. But, I will see what I can do.

Which common name? You say FAO's an FishBase's are the same. What if they differ from Wikipedia? Which then?

I'm downloading FishStatJ now. 66 MB! Holy moly that's big. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm only commenting Anna, giving some thoughts. I'm not demanding you change anything. And yes, too many columns can be counter productive. The list on the seafood article is basically a summary version of your list (updated for 2010 instead of 2012). The groups and subgroups used there follow the ISSCAAP classification used by the FAO. I think it is a good classification, and pretty much what the reader might expect. I'm just noting that if your reformulation of the list, based on species, followed the same classification, then the two lists would nicely complement each other. As far as FishBase aligning itself with the FAO common names, I have never seen a formal acknowledgement that that is what they do, and I doubt that such an acknowledgement exists. But I did check the important fisheries species two or three years ago, and they all matched. Anyway, the comment about common names is just an aside, and doesn't really matter. With FishStatJ, I use the filters to extract the data sets I want and then download them for processing and graphing in a spreadsheet. The built-in analysis stuff is not very good. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Epipelagic, my friend, of course you have every right to make any changes you wish. I just start 'em and off they go to find their own way. :) You are far, far more qualified than me, and I value your views greatly.

I like the complimenting thing. I have hatted both for now. The second step is to add a column for the grouping, right? One more column won't hurt, and viewing that column after clicking sort on it, will tell a tale.

As for a totals column, here is what I see happening: It will require splitting the "Harvest in tonnes" data into two columns: "Cultivated in tonnes" and "Caught in tonnes". The new "Totals" column will show 98/101 identical to one of those columns. Two items (the ones referred to in the lead) will be different. But those two do not break any records, so only scrolling through the entire 101 will a reader encounter those two as different, buried somewhere in the middle. As there are only two, it better may be to add the total to the notes column. Thoughts?

I think I will switch the links and column order to have the common name (FAO's) linked and in first place. This will make sorting and updating such easier. Besides, it seems that the binomials change a fair bit, so it is not the constant it is supposed to be.

If that FishStatJ will help me extract data into a spreadsheet to make it easier to add to articles, then great. I'm always a bit nervous about installing new things. It won't do anything naughty, will it? Easily uninstallable? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

FishStatJ is easy to install... just unzip and run. Trash it's folder to uninstall. I have never had problems using several Mac versions over a number of years. Can I guarantee it will never be naughty... um...? Do we agree on the following?

1. World fish production is renamed "World fisheries production", and your list is renamed "World fisheries production for 2012".

2. The common and binomial name columns are swapped

3. The totals remain as they are.

4. The ISSCAAP grouping used in the complementary list is adopted for both lists. (This needs two columns).

5. Both the complementary lists are formatted so they have the same look and feel. They can both be updated for the same year. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Epipelagic

0. FishStatJ is easy, okay. I will give it a whirl. Cheers.

1a. Agree "World fish production" --> "World fisheries production" which probably doesn't need prior agreement at that talk page because it is pretty uncontroversial.

1b. Disagree. I wish to update (maybe by adding a new column -- maybe just changing the figures) this every year. So, maybe the year isn't needed. Even if it is a year out of date, the lead will say so. As for the "World fisheries production" part, well that does not seem to reflect what the article is about, which individual fish. So, maybe a title that really says that could be thought up. Something like List of most-harvest fish by tonne or something. Thoughts?

2. Agree. I will handle that. (Actually, before I get started, I see that the aquaculture source is listed by binomial. I have yet to figure out how to see the new figures. So, for ease of updating, is the common name really best? Can we just swap column positions and keep the link at the binomial only? Please advise. I will swap the columns for now until you tell me how to handle this. Sorry for the bother.)

3. Agree.

4. Agree. But why two columns? Do you mean one extra column for the group names?

5. Formatted how? And yes, let's update them. I can handle this if you can handle the other.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's just leave it as it is Anna. There's no point grouping it to complement existing fisheries articles when it includes only fish. However, you could consider removing the 3-alpha code, since it is just a code used internally by the FAO and fisheries for the purposes of collating statistics. Other possible names for the article might be "List of commonly harvested fish species" or "List of commercially important fish species". You might consider including {{commercial fish taxonomy}} in the article. Regards. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Epipelagic. No grouping, okay. I will remove the alpha code. Good call. I like the name suggestions. Can I let you pick? The {{commercial fish taxonomy}}, sure, but where to place it? Maybe a section between the lead and the table that is for images and charts and such. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. "List of commercially important fish species" is perhaps the least problematic. You could comment in the lead that the criterion for inclusion is an annual tonnage in excess of 160,0000 tonnes. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I like it! Plus, now there will be a zillion redirects which may help with google searches. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Cirrhinus cirrhosus.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)