Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life
Forrest Gump
If we can trust IMDB for information, it appears that the "Shrimp as food" section contains text, albeit paraphrased, from the above-stated movie.
"Bubba: Anyway, like I was sayin', shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You can barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, saute it. Dey's uh, shrimp-kabobs, shrimp creole, shrimp gumbo. Pan fried, deep fried, stir-fried. There's pineapple shrimp, lemon shrimp, coconut shrimp, pepper shrimp, shrimp soup, shrimp stew, shrimp salad, shrimp and potatoes, shrimp burger, shrimp sandwich. That- that's about it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seth Arlington (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Section 1
The catching shrimp part prepopl needs some grammar checking, and I can't remember what the name is for the volleyball net method of catching shrimp, perhaps someone that has actually done this can elaborate some..
PbS
Catching Shrimp by horse
How about a chapter on the traditional way of shrimping, using mules and horses?
Belgium has one village left (Oostduinkerke) where one can still see people riding horseback in (!) the sea.
My dad and brother are two of the seven people still doing this, and I could provide some more information, but obviously not the correct wording for this topic (Someone would need to edit my contribution).
something to try to fit in there somewhere is the unexpected etymology, that being that the animal name shrimp came -after- the term-for-a-small-person/thing shrimp, meaning the shrimp was a 'shrimp lobster'.. only it was like schrimp back then. someone research plz!
Re: over-the-top Detailed list of preparation methods
I've left a note on User talk:Wwwacky about why this list is extraneous and asking him/her to please remove it. Elf | Talk 06:59, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Somehow when users are coming to the Shrimp page they either have decided to delete valid content, or decide to go to great lengths to describe how another user should edit the article the way they want.
A listing of preparation methods for shrimp is certainly valid content for Misplaced Pages (see List of recipes). If a user does not like the list in the article, they are free to move it to an article on Shrimp preparation or somewhere else and reference it in the Shrimp article. A user may decide to present it differently. Misplaced Pages is a free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There is no need to rely on asking someone else to improve the valid content they contributed.
I replaced the how to prepare shrimp from a previous version. This information is valid. Misplaced Pages is not some scientific taxonomic reference system. Scientists already have ready access to those; this is a general reference encyclopedia. --24.222.176.19119:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Shrimp / Prawns
I wonder whether it's a transatlantic difference, or a specialist/non-specialist difference, but the use of "shrimp" here is very different to how I would use it. All the carcinologists I know would use "shrimp" to refer to members of the Caridea (which is now in the Pleocyemata), and "prawn" to refer to dendrobranchiates (referred to here, confusingly, as "penaeid shrimp"). So, I don't think it's right to say that "zoologically, all crustaceans belonging to Natantia are called shrimps". However, I didn't want to change anything if it turned out ot be a regional difference. This would also be a fairly major edit, since much of the information here is about Penaeus.
--Stemonitis 11:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Recreational Shrimping
I am a recreational shrimper and I have updated the portion regarding recreational shrimping to make it more accurate.
shrimp at 10.9 km below sea level?
In an unprecedented dive, the U.S. Navy bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottom at 1:06 pm on January 23, 1960 with U.S. Navy Lt. Don Walsh and Jacques Piccard. Iron shot was used for ballast, with gasoline for buoyancy. The onboard systems indicated a depth of 37,800 ft (11,521 m), but this was later revised to 35,813 ft (10,916 m). At the bottom Walsh and Piccard were surprised to discover soles or flounder about one foot (30 cm) long, as well as shrimp. According to Piccard, "The bottom appeared light and clear, a waste of firm diatomaceous ooze".
Knowledge Of Shrimping industry
Hi I am an consultant wanted to know more about the terminologies used in Shrimp Processing Industry.
I keep on hearing a lot of jargons about the Shrimp industry and feel quite left out as people converse.
For Starters I like to know what do PTO, PD Stand for in the Shrimp Processing industry.
PTO is Peeled Tail On. PD is Peeled and Deveined (and also tailless). Shrimp are normally sold according to size, which is measured by a count per pound. U-10 (under 10 per pound) are quite large and usually hard to find. 10-15 and 15-20 are the standard very large shrimp and would usually be sold either "head-on" or "headless", no head, but still having the tail and shell. 21-25 and 26-30s are still a nice size and cheaper per pound than 15-20s. They make an impressive presentation in dishes like Shrimp Cocktail or scampi. 41-50 and smaller generally are sold either PTO (for inexpensive scampi dishes) or PD for use in other dishes, like jambalaya. Very small shrimp are in the 81-90 count range (sometimes called gumbo shrimp) and are always PD (who wants to peel 90 shrimp to a pound). These are generalizations. The price per pound drops as the shrimp get smaller (the count goes up). A pound of 31-35 shrimp meat cost much less than a pound of 10-15s. A low cost seafood restaurant might have no qualms about offering peel-n-eat 41-50 size shrimp, which are probably more trouble than they are worth to peel. Also, the yield in meat will vary depending on the type of processing. Obviously 5 pounds of PD shrimp will have more meat than 5 pounds of PTO (and thus be a bit more expensive for a comparable size). A chef will usually order shrimp in a number of different sizes, balanacing the price per pound versus the presentation value, and also factoring in the labor to peel them in-house. --Jdclevenger18:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Now I undertand (having looked in another browser). I don't know quite what was causing it, but listing only superfamilies, and not the families as well seems to solve it (correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps putting list items with colons in the subdivisions box wasn't such a good idea. --Stemonitis06:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a rough draft of an anatomical diagram of a shrimp. I am looking for feedback on accuracy. I would like suggestions and criticism. What should I do to improve it, is there anything I should change, did I make any mistakes? I was planning on adding a little more detail such as hairlines along some of the limbs and tail, and perhaps add color/shading/detail. Of course, I would also add lables as well. So comments would be appreciated. Thanks for your consideration. Please leave comments at Image talk:Shrimp.svg.--Andrew c17:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that is a great picture, and it will be even more helpful if you add labels and maybe some colors to make it interesting. Good work!
Also, I think the first picture in the article should be changed. Though it is an attractive photo, it shows a shrimp unfamiliar to most people, and it doesn't show much detail in the shrimp's body. I think an acceptable replacement would be something like your picture, which shows a lot of details, or maybe a photo like this one that I found on Creative Commons. What do you think? Gary23:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree the current photo isn't ideal; it was the best available at the time. If you can upload that Flickr picture, then please replace the current taxobox picture with that one. It would be a definite improvement. --Stemonitis10:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
'americans are shrimp crazy.'
the recent addition by 81.178.233.235 is america-biased and has a badly unscholarly tone. i'm not sure how to refactor it such that it is appropriate, but i think it should be done.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamstar (talk • contribs)
If you think it can be done, then by all means do it. For now, though, it can't be left in. The text is still accessible through the page history . --Stemonitis11:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please edit the article, has been tampered with
Some idiot inserted the s word multiple times and also inserted a bit of text in one or more paragraphs (See example below).
Dried shrimp is commonly used as a flavoring and as a soup base in Asian cuisines while fried shrimp is popular in North America. In Europe shrimp are very popular, forming a necessary ingredient in Spanish paella de marisco, French bouillabaisse, Italian cacciucco, Portuguese caldeirada and many other seafood dishes. Nobody likes the taste of shrimps. Their poison is able to kill a man, So don't eat shrimps.
Faeces
hey guys, in an episode of the office (317 or 318, "Cocktails") Dwight Schrute mentions that the line on the shrimp is actually faeces, can anyone here confirm/deny this?
Well, considering that it is the digestive tract, the whole thing wouldn't be but the last parts certainly would. But then, I don't know much about invertebrate digestion. Mastercampbell (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Slang
: Shrimp is also a slang to mean a person regarded as unimportant or who is small in stature. -- Zondor21:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Heart located in the head?
I've heard of a trivia question which runs like this. Which creature has its heart located in its head? The answer given is "shrimp" or "prawn". Is there an expert out there who can confirm this and, if its true, update the main article. If its true it certainly seems worthy of a mention! If there are other creatures with the same physiology perhaps that can be mentioned there too (or added here with this comment). Thanks. --Tom13:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Tom, I found a web site that has the anatomy of a shrimp diagramed. The following link has the picture. I hope this answered your query! --Cay01:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A bug?
On my screen, the line under the heading 'Shrimp as food' continues into the taxobox. Doesn't look right. Is this a known bug? GrahamBould (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly are we eating?
When people eat shrimp, exactly what parts are being eaten? Is it strictly muscle or is it also organs and the digestive system? -Rolypolyman (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
According to SeafoodCrime UK, shrimp are currently on the list of seafood that sustainability minded American consumers should avoid.
Am I the only one who finds it odd that a "UK" group is giving instructions to "American" consumers? --Eliyahu S10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Morecambe Bay Shrimp
Although it is true that the word shrimp is almost never used, here in the UK (prawn is used instead), there are Morecambe Bay Shrimp. I do not know whether they are technically prawns or shrimp, but they are pretty well known, and are the only instance of the word shrimp being used, as far as I know. Jason404 (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Fresh / Salt Water
The intro says that shrimp species live in fresh and salt water, then this is contradicted almost immediately by saying they live on the sea bottom, and that they breed only in salt water. Bitbut (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Vandals have recently been targeting this page, removing key information recklessly, such as how they are considered as Nature's Candy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
The fact that it gets reverted shows that it's not commonly known as the addition claimed. While it may be called that in some areas, it's clearly not widely used, and doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. It may be suitable for the "Shrimp as food" section; but only if a reliable source can be found to support the addition. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
{{Fn}} is up for deletion. I noticed that it is used in this article in the first sentence of the farming section. However it was not liked to a note at the bottom of the page. I have replaced it with {{ref}} and hidden it until someone can find the missing note. somethinglame from CBW 08:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Use in medicine
I don't know if this is the correct spot, but would it be relevant to include their use in medicine? Their shells are used to make a clotting agent which is used on bandages. It is in regular use at the moment on operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the blurb is to be belived it can stop what would otherwise be catastrophic bleeding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.166.192.220 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It would certainly be worth including, if there's a reliable source that backs it up. (It might be difficult to make sure that when they say "shrimp", they mean Caridea, and not Dendrobranchiata, but we can deal with that problem if/when it arises.) --Stemonitis (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Pandalus borealis is indeed a "true" (Caridean) shrimp, but we're going to need a third-party source before it can be added. It looks like there were quite a few news reports about it, which would probably be OK. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Shrimp in Islam
It says in the article that the consumption of shrimp is Halal according to "some" Islamic schools and this is not accurate since shrimp consumption is considered Halal in "most if not all Islamic schools". In the Qur'an,it's mentioned: “The game of the sea and its food are lawful unto you” (Al-Ma'idah: 96).
Source: Click Here
I think this article should be retitled Caridea, and Prawn should be retitled Dendrobranchiata. Zoologists have precise, technical definitions of prawn and shrimp which happen to map exactly onto a scientific name. Why is the scientific name not being used, then? The only people who care about this technical difference between "true shrimp" and "true prawns" will be fine encountering an article titled by the scientific name. In general usage, shrimp and prawn are extremely inprecise (being mostly synonymous with some WP:ENGVAR issues thrown in). Aquaculturists apparently have fairly precise definitions of prawn and shrimp, but these are at odds with the zoological definitions (prawns in aquaculture are zoological shrimp and vice versa). Shrimp fishers don't even bother to distinguish between the two groups. The vast majority of incoming links to Shrimp and Prawn take no notice of any zoological precision, and it's hard to know which article these links should actually point to. The Consumption section also seems to be lumping shrimp and prawns together (in fact, at least one if not two of the photos here are of zoological prawns).
I'd like to see the current shrimp and prawn articles retitled to their scientific names, Shrimp (disambiguation) moved to Shrimp and Prawn (disambiguation) moved to Prawn. I'm not sure what the best technical way to handle this is. Current incoming links based on colloquial definitions of shrimp and prawn should NOT end up redirected to precise scientific names. Ultimately, it might make sense to have a new article Shrimp in food (or the ENGVAR Prawns in food) that details the consumptive uses of both groups of organisms and remove most of the consumptive info from the main articles.
Bug and Cedar are good existing examples of situations where imprecise colloquial usage completely overwhelms any technical biological definitions and it makes sense to have the main article be a disambiguation. I'd like to suggest that perhaps also Crab and Lobster should be retitled to Brachyura and Nephropidae (and the respective disambiguation pages moved to the main name space). When an article titled "Crabs" starts off "True crabs are brachyura", it seems like the logical thing to do would be to title the article Brachyura, mention that they are the "true crabs" and then use the Crab article to get people to the "false crabs". I'm pretty sure 99% of the people looking at the Crab article would expect it to cover hermit and king crabs.Plantdrew (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There may be some mileage in your suggestions about shrimp and prawns, which are the subject of multiple conflicting definitions. I have been uncomfortable about the system employed here (probably my fault) for a while. The crab and lobster analogy is not applicable, however. Just as no-one expects the article at dog to cover the prairie dog, or the article at chicken to cover mountain chicken, so no-one should expect hermit crab (or horseshoe crab) to be covered at crab, or squat lobster to be covered at lobster. If 99% of people expect hermit crabs to be a type of crab, then 99% of people are ill-informed. I would also comment on your opening question of why the scientific name is not used. The answer to that is at WP:UCN – we use the name most commonly used to refer to a particular group, disambiguating where necessary. Most of the contents of shrimp (disambiguation) are partial matches, which should perhaps not be included (although I can see their value). Prawn (disambiguation) is not the most useful disambiguation page. I don't think either should be moved to the undisambiguated title. Instead, both "shrimp" and "prawn" would probably have to redirect to a new article shrimps and prawns, which would discuss the varying definitions, possibly including some of the material at Natantia. I can't see that any other system would make sense. I have accumulated a few bits and pieces about conflicting definitions, but never enough to make a good stab at an article, which is probably why we have articles about the (well-defined) taxonomic groups. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
This article, together with the article Prawn, seems confused to me. The problem is that they are both common names for different things, but not everybody use the terms in the same way. You can't say "technically this is a shrimp, not a prawn", because that's exactly like saying, "technically David Beckham plays soccer, not football" (which, to a Brit, would be incorrect). You see, to some people "football" means the same as what Americans would call "soccer". In the same way, to some people "prawn" means the same as what Americans call "shrimp", but that doesn't make them wrong. Guess what the article for Beckham's sport is called? It's neither football nor soccer. In the same way, we should be careful here, and avoid an American-centric point of view.
As evidence, there are tons of reliable sources which say "Caridea prawn" (try a google books search). It would make things a lot more clear if we used the technical names. For example, I think the first sentence should be something like: "Caridea (commonly called shrimp in North American English, and prawns in British English) are ...". Does that sound like a good idea? 24.84.9.97 (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Much of what you say is right, but we have to be very careful about how to solve the problem. I've thought about it several times in the past, and the only alternative I can find is to have the articles at "Caridea" and "Dendrobranchiata", and disambiguation pages at "shrimp" and "prawn". While this seems attractive for a number of reasons, there are also some significant drawbacks, not least that the majority of readers will end up initially at disambiguation pages, and a good proportion of them will not proceed further (to the actual information). An alternative is to combine the two where applicable, as I did in the end for shrimp and prawn fishery; this would also be appropriate for the cookery side of things (about which I know almost nothing). So, yes, the two terms are mutually ambiguous, but that is why we already have the hatnotes between them, and why both articles refer to the other fairly often. I'm not saying that it has to be done this way, but it's important to understand the advantages of this system. It's not a simple case of national usages being different (trust me: I didn't write it from an American point of view), but also one of different distinctions being made by different groups of people (fishermen, cooks, governments, scientists, lay people). --Stemonitis (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't be against renaming the articles to as you suggest; I also think redirecting "Shrimp" to "Caridea" seems like a safe move (in any case "Shrimp" is the common name, so I don't see why it can't be the title). But maybe "prawn" should be made into a disambiguation page.. because truly, I think this is something that need disambiguation. There is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "prawn", due to the differing uses in different countries; on the other hand I think there is a clear primary topic for "shrimp".
But maybe redirecting "Prawn" to "Caridea" with an appropriate hatnote could also be acceptable.. I don't know. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Neither name is unambiguous, and I don't see that either one is more clearly a primary topic than the other. I think we will probably have to apply to same treatment to both. We certainly can't have both common name terms ending up at the same article, unless it's a disambiguation page, and I also think that a disambiguation page would be a bad place for most readers to end up unless it's really the only option. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
You mean "shrimp" is ambiguous because it could also refer to things like Mantis shrimp, which aren't true shrimp? No word in the English language is every truly unambiguous.. but that doesn't stop us from having useful article titles! If the primary topic for the term "shrimp" is "Caridea", there it should redirect there.. it's as simple as that. Are you suggesting that "Caridea" is not the primary topic (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)? 24.84.9.97 (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
My main issue with these articles is the first couple of sentences. It should be made very clear, as soon as possible, whether or not the reader is in the right place. Like the article Elk does. Many readers probably don't even know the terms "shrimp" and "prawn" are used loosely in so many different contexts.. for example, reliable and well-respected cookbooks are likely to contradict the usage in these articles, and the reader might not even realize it. I also don't like how these articles give the impression that people who don't use "shrimp" and "prawn" in this specific way are wrong.. they are common names, and who is Misplaced Pages to tell people the common names they use are wrong? 24.84.9.97 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Complete confusion
Upon reading the (featured) article Shrimp farm, it seems that when I (in a western nation) eat in a restaurant or buy in a store something that is called either "shrimp" or "prawn", it is probablyWhiteleg shrimp, which is in fact a species of Dendrobranchiata, and therefore not a "true shrimp".. is that right?!? And if so, why the heck is that not made clear at any article other than Shrimp farm?? Sheesh!! (please correct me if I've misunderstood..) 24.84.9.97 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
In other words, this picture is in the article on "shrimp". But according to Misplaced Pages's definitions, it doesn't appear to be a true shrimp! ...! Shrimp or prawn? Maybe both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.9.97 (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, you've now made several overlapping points, and it's hard for me to respond to them. You have made different suggestions at different times, and I can't tell which you favour. You once spoke of having "shrimp" redirect to "Caridea", which suggests you preferred pages to be moved, but later you seemed only to want to change the wording of existing articles. I can discuss any of these, but I need to know which is being mooted. All the meaningful biological information will be attached to the taxa, of course, which we ought normally to call by their common names (i.e. we cannot combine them even if the common names are used for both groups, because the resulting mish-mash makes no biological sense; it is the larger part of the paraphyletic group Natantia). Beyond that, however, there are several possibilities. I think you need to make a concrete suggestion, rather than merely complaining. It's a tricky situation, and I've tried in the past to clarify it. Maybe I haven't succeeded, but a better solution will not be trivial to produce. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
In no way does this shrimp article give a balanced account of shrimp. Instead, it hijacks the term "shrimp" and absurdly identifies it with a taxon, which it is not. It should not have a taxon box. The taxon Caridea should have its own article. Instead, Caridea bizarrely redirects to "shrimp". Shrimp is a common name, widely used in many contexts apart from biology. Biologists of course, are entirely entitled to use the term in a restricted way for their own purposes. But it is not the prerogative of biologists to prescribe how other groups use the term. It is the task of biologists to determine what Caridea means, that is a scientific term. Shrimp is not a scientific term, but a matter of common usage. The term "shrimp" and its precursors predated the first attempts at taxonomy. Taxonomy can run it course, with its own confusions and retractions, but the term "shrimp" has considerable independence, and retains its own standing in common usage. If a professional group were to be tasked with determining how the word is used, the appropriate group would be the analytical philosophers, not biologists.
The article should be sensitive to and reflect the way the word is actually used, and not try to arbitrarily restrict its use in the way it does now. May I add as an aside, Stemonitis, you are not like the French Academy with the weight of the state behind you. In fisheries, for example, the term shrimp generally includes prawns. Yet when I added comprehensive charts to the article, following the FAO and mapping the history from 1950 to the present of shrimp and prawn fisheries and aquaculture, Stemonitis reverted me as though I was a vandal. There is no excuse for that.
However, it must be acknowledged that normally in marine biology the relation of taxon to common names is much murkier than it is with regard to shrimp. For example, most herring belong to the family Clupeidae, which is often called the "herring family", but not all Clupeidae are herrings, and not all herrings are Clupeidae. So you cannot say that herring are logically equivalent to Clupeidae. The situation with shrimp is not so clear, since it seems there is a general acceptance that all Caridea are referred to as "shrimp" (is that in fact the case Stemonitis?). It is probably defensible to say that "true shrimp" belong to the Caridea. Anyway, Stemonitis seems to have a stranglehold on this article, and working for balance is probably time more profitably spent elsewhere. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Epipelagic, personal attacks aside, what would you like to see at the article "shrimp"? You seem to believe that it covers some sort of definable concept, possibly even a notable one. What would it be? (Your charts, incidentally, covered both Caridea and Dendrobranchiata, and were added to an article that explicitly covers Caridea alone; I reinserted them – after you had removed them – into shrimp and prawn fishery, where they fit well. At no point did I accuse you of vandalism.) --Stemonitis (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if I made several points, I'm not an expert, and the articles were leading me away from the truth, so I got confused. I think the article "shrimp" should be a broad-concept article about "shrimp". This includes both the things Forrest Gump talks about called "shrimp", the things you get in sushi restaurants called "shrimp", and even Mantis Shrimp (see my justification on Talk:Mantis shrimp). That's what WP:CONCEPTDAB is all about, and I think that's what this article should be. Such an article could probably be written in such a way that would clear up most confusion.
Since we need articles about the specific species and orders, we should make separate articles with technical names about them. The article "shrimp" should not have a strict biological definition, rather it should be a separate broad-concept article (so in my David Beckham "football" versus "soccer" analogy above, it should be an article like Football). 24.84.9.97 (talk) 14:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Stemonitis, you do excellent and dedicated work on crustacean biology, and Misplaced Pages is fortunate to have you. Biology is probably the single most important perspective to have on crustaceans. But there are other perspectives that are important as well.
I didn't say you accused me of vandalism, I said you treated me "as though I was a vandal", as indeed you have on other occassions. The other comments are merely observations on behavior; you keep a tight grip on crustacean articles, as any perusal of the history shows. That's not a bad thing, except, and again this is demonstrable, it is unusual for you to compromise with other editors.
You say with regard to shrimp that I "seem to believe that it covers some sort of definable concept". Actually the reverse is true. It is you who seems to think shrimp is definable, and that you can define shrimp as "Caridea". But that is only a biological definition. It is not the way the term is used by fishermen or the seafood industry or chefs or consumers. What we should be doing, in my view, is to faithfully reflect the way the word shimp is actually used in the wider world. That doesn't mean that the biologist's perspective is demoted in any way. The biologist gets an article wholly dedicated to Caridea, and in the shrimp article, gets a discussion on how the biological use of the term relates to the way it is used elsewhere.
So to answer your question "What would it be?" (in relation to a definition), it would not be a definition at all. Instead, it would be a discussion which unpicks the way the term is used in the different contexts, and tries to relate these uses to each other in a coherent way. The biological aspects would be kept strictly scientific by having a separate article on Caridea, and put into wider perspective in the article on Shrimp. I think the article should be structured similar to articles such as mackerel or herring (though these articles themselves are only partially written). --Epipelagic (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Reverting an edit is not the same as treating you as though you were a vandal. Good faith edits must often be reverted, but that is a far cry from vandalism. If you feel hurt by any of those reverts, I apologise, but no offense was intended; to claim that "there is no excuse" for such edits is unhelpful and untrue. I also resent the implication that I will not compromise. This whole discussion is an attempt to find a good compromise, for instance. I have been uneasy about shrimp and prawn for some time (they were among my earlier work, when I had less understanding of naming policies and the like), but I want to know that any replacement will be an improvement.
I am still unclear what the scope of the suggested new "shrimp" article would be. 24.84.9.97 would like to include mantis shrimp, although these are very distant animals, linked only by part of a common name. If they're included, would we also include horseshoe shrimp, clam shrimp, fairy shrimp, and so on? By that point, it's just a disambiguation page, because they have nothing in common (far, far less than the various football sports, or the various mackerel fishes, for instance). If we don't include the more distant taxa, then we're basically left with Natantia. (Some sources explicitly include Stenopodidea, too, making the terms exactly coterminous.)
Going forward, then, I can see three options:
Leave article titles as they are, but clarify the distinction, probably with a careful hatnote.
Move "Shrimp" to "Caridea", but leave "Shrimp" redirecting to "Caridea", with a {{redirect}} hatnote to "Shrimp (disambiguation)".
Mode "Shrimp" to "Caridea", and leave "Shrimp" as a disambiguation page.
Of these, I think the third is the worst option, because it lands most readers at a disambiguation page, and most will not proceed further. A lot of people will search for "shrimp" or "prawn"; few will search for "Caridea" or "Dendrobranchiata". I think it's much better to give them an article, even if it has to direct them to a different article that they may have meant. I think my preference would be the first or second, but I agree that it could do with a clearer statement that this is only one definition, and that there are others, for which see prawn (or, potentially, Dendrobranchiata). I have long since forgotten where I found the distinction that shrimp are Caridea and prawns are Dendrobranchiata, so I am pleased to see that that standpoint is reflected in textbooks by some of the world's leading carcinologists (e.g.Poore & Ahyong). Obviously, all the meaningful content will be for the articles on the biological taxa, and I think we should endeavour to get readers to those pages as quickly as possible. I agree that we should not gloss over the very real confusion, but that confusion shouldn't itself be the topic of an article, in my opinion. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I think pingponging on this talk page is not going to get us far. How about a deal? You give me four weeks to make some changes I would like to see, without reverting me. During those four weeks you can edit the pages, but agree to not make wholesale reversions or rollback structural changes. And importantly, we can discuss and try to resolve issues as they arise on the talk page during that period. After four weeks it is your turn, and I undertake to not oppose you on any remaining matters you are still unhappy with, so long as we discussed them, and you can revert any such changes, or indeed revert the lot. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Um, no, I don't think that's a very good idea. There are a lot of incoming links which would need to be altered following any move, for instance. I am happy to consider anything, but my main concern is to prevent hasty changes. There is plenty of room in userspace and on talk page subpages for drafts and works in progress, and there is no deadline, so we don't need to mess with the main space until we know we've produced something agreeable. I would genuinely like to see a draft of what the replacement might be, because for now, I can't envisage any useful form it might take (a failing on my part, I'm sure). I strongly think, however, that it shouldn't go live until it's been agreed on, especially as it seems likely to change the scope of one or more articles quite significantly. There is still plenty we can discuss, but we need to do so based on concrete proposals. Is your preference to include mantis shrimp and other partial title matches, for instance? How do your plans affect prawn? Actually, to start with, which of the three options I outlined above do you favour? --Stemonitis (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This has become like something out of Monty Python. It's true you are are willing to discuss thing endlessly, but that is not the same as being willing to listen or to change anything. I made the offer of a constructive deal because it seemed impossible to respond in a meaningful way to your immediately prior post. In that post, you say you "can see three options", and then list three options which have nothing to do with the concerns raised by two other editors as well as myself in this thread. I can't respond Stemonitis, because the context you offer bypasses the issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I dispute that, actually, but if you that context is unacceptable, give me another. That's exactly the problem I've got. I can't comment on your proposals until I've seen them, or you've described how they'd look. At the moment, I've got no idea what you would include under "shrimp", or how you'd arrange it. (Mantis shrimp? Horseshoe shrimp? Shrimpfish? "Prawns"? Gorgeous prawn goby?) I don't know what pages you're proposing to (ultimately) move, what new pages you'd create, what existing pages (if any) would be deleted, or anything else. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a bit of description before endorsing a sweeping series of edits that might seriously alter a number of articles, changing their scope, changing their titles, and who knows what else. Describe to me your plans, and I might be able to applaud them, to improve them, or to explain why they might not be such good ideas, but without a description – or perhaps a mock-up – there is no way I can do that. There can be nothing you want to do that can't be shown in draft form first.
Either tell me what your changes would be, or show me what they would be in a draft somewhere. I can hardly give my approval pre-emptively to edits I know nothing about. I have asked some pretty direct and straightforward questions to try and work out what you propose, and I feel no nearer an answer. Please, just suggest here how the articles might be improved; that, after all, is what these talk pages are for. (And please, try to assume good faith; you have effectively asserted that I am unwilling to compromise, which is wholly untrue, and certainly unhelpful. I am desperately trying to find a mutually agreeable solution, but I can't agree or disagree with something unknown.) --Stemonitis (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Looking at it again, your proposal appears to involve my option 3 pretty directly. (I really don't see how that "context" was a problem.) You want "shrimp" to be a kind of glorified disambiguation page – describing different terms in which the word appears, or different ways in which the word is used, rather than a coherent taxonomic unit – and you want to move the content currently under that title to the title "Caridea". Isn't that so? If so, by all means knock up a draft for how that disambiguation-like page would look, but don't expect carte blanche to make edits without fear of being reverted. It is entirely usual for potentially contentious page moves to be discussed and agreed beforehand. If that is your intention, I can foresee some problems with that solution, not least in the knock-on effects on other articles, such as prawn. That article could be more simply moved than this (because the content is more rigorously taxon-specific), but what would fill that void? It may seem like I'm being resistant, but that's only because I'm trying to understand the whole system of articles here, and trying to make sure that they make sense together. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Stemonitis, there is another option to the ones you listed: My suggestion. That is:
Make Shrimp into a broad-concept article, and split off the "Caridea" content into a new article at Caridea.
When I say the "Shrimp" article should include Mantis shrimp, I don't mean they should be the focus.. I just think that if some biologists (and in particular, reliable sources from a biological point of view) refer to certain animals as "shrimp", then that should be reflected in the article. At the moment Misplaced Pages is not reflecting what the sources do, and that's bad. I think the Shrimp article should start something like (edited so that it's actually correct):
Shrimp is the common name of many marine crustaceans, though there is no widely accepted biological definition of the term. They are widely caught and farmed for human consumption; virtually all of the farmed shrimp are just two species: Penaeus vannamei (Pacific white shrimp) and Penaeus monodon (giant tiger prawn).
Notice the focus on human consumption.. that's because 95% of people coming to this article will be thinking about shrimp as food. Also, a google books search for "shrimp" suggests the vast majority of sources are about the food.
I will also say that I still think it makes sense to have "shrimp" and "prawn" redirect to the same broad-concept article. So either "prawn" redirects to "shrimp", or vice versa; because in this broader sense, it seems, they are really almost the same concept. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
That is option 3. A broad-concept disambiguation page is still a disambiguation page (it provides the various "narrow" concepts that might be meant, albeit in prose rather than list form), and you want to move the current article to "Caridea". That is exactly option 3.
To examine your concrete proposal, however (for which I thank you), the important problem is that you claim that shrimp and prawn are the same. To some people, they are, but most sources consider them to be different and generally mutually exclusive (and they disagree horribly about which species belong in which group). I think Epipelagic was including prawns in his broad circumscription of "shrimp" (correct me if I'm wrong here), but along with many other "shrimp" which are not "prawns".
Your criteria for inclusion are also troublesome. Just because someone has once said something is "a shrimp", it doesn't make it a shrimp in any meaningful sense. Lots of animals have been called "bugs", but our disambiguation page at bug correctly states that the term either means Hemiptera specifically, or just about any arthropod generally. The same thing is happening here. If you want to write an article covering the things sometimes called "shrimp", I think it's OK for it to mention things like killer shrimp, mantis shrimp and so on, but only tangentially, much as shrimp does at the moment (albeit badly, and only for Stomatopoda, Mysidacea and Notostraca). It's effectively a catch-all term for crustaceans that aren't recognisably anything else. Thus, water fleas are not "shrimp", and woodlice are not "shrimp", and crabs and lobsters are not "shrimp", and so on, but there's no common thread to those that are. With football, there are commonalities of history, of equipment, of laws, and so on. For "shrimp" there's nothing like that. They're generally small, perhaps, but can be over a foot long (larger than most lobsters). You might as well redirect "shrimp" to crustacean in that case. No, I think the concept has to be narrower than that, and the only two feasible options seem to me to be Caridea or Natantia (Caridea+Dendrobranchiata+Stenopodidea), with whatever hatnotes or explanations are needed to cover other animals with "shrimp" in their name. To put it in Misplaced Pages terms, I don't see that there is a broad concept of "shrimp" that would cover all all the things with "shrimp" in their name, and so WP:CONCEPTDAB wouldn't apply. That may not have been what you were proposing, but it was worth clarifying just in case. Of course, none of this prevents a change of scope (to Natantia, say), if that was instead your proposal. This is why I'm being picky at this stage; quite small differences could easily spell the difference between a meaningful solution and a meaningless one. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the anon, although I accept there is probably a widely accepted biological definition. As I see it, there would be two new articles and a new navigation template. The navigation template could be called "Shrimps and prawns", and would be aimed more at the general reader than the biologist, that is, it would avoid taxon names where possible. There would be one new articles for Caridea and the another for shrimp as a food. Caridea would be, as it were, the biologist's article. It would have the taxon box currently on the Shrimp article, and would set out and discuss any details of interest concerning the formal taxonomy of the Caridea. This article could include a lot more detail than is currently in the Shrimp article
No articles would have their names changed, except there might be a case for renaming the Shrimp article "Shrimp and prawn". The Shrimp article would not have a taxon box. Shrimp is a common name, not the name of a taxon. But it would cover everything relevant to shrimp. It would definitely not be a disambiguation page, as you keep suggesting Stemonitis. The core of the article would revolve around "true shrimp", or shrimp of the Caridea, with overviews of their characteristics, distribution, life cycle and ecology. An important section would be the one on characteristics, which would carefully set out just what it is that makes something a shrimp or shrimp-like. "Shrimp-like" animals that are referred to as "xxxxx shrimp" would definitely be acknowledged, such as mantis and horseshoe shrimp, with perhaps a short table with some summary details about the more prominent examples.
The summary section on the shrimp fishing industry would refer to the articles on shrimp fishing and fish farming as the main articles. But it will include prawn fisheries, since the fishing industry tends to use these terms interchangeably, in different ways from biologists, and indeed in different ways depending on location.
Likewise, there would be a summary section on shrimp as food, with "Shrimp and prawns (food)" as the main article. This again would include both shrimps and prawns, because, again, chefs and consumers make different distinction to the ones that biologists make, and again the use of the terms changes with locality.
This is not to say the biologists, or the fishing industry, or chefs or consumers are wrong. It is entirely proper that each group use the terms they way they do within their own domains. But it is not the prerogative of one group, such as chefs or biologists, to dictate how the other groups should use these words.
There is an excellent, if somewhat dated, discussion of some of these terminology issues in the introduction to Shrimps and prawns of the world (FAO species catalogue, 1980). A condensed and updated version of this would be good in the Shrimp article. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Having read the proposal now, I think you might be winning me round. Am I right in thinking that you propose to redefine "shrimp" to cover (chiefly) Caridea + Dendrobranchiata (+ Stenopodidea), and that other groups with coincidentally similar names will be less prominent? I can take on Caridea, but the culinary side of things is definitely beyond me. Will you work on the "broad-concept" page? --Stemonitis (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
You've got it. Well that's excellent. I think there should also be a section on the history of shrimp. I'll start a template and article about shrimp as food and. I imagine we will argue about what should be on the template :). --Epipelagic (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, in a parallel way, with a separate article detailing Dendrobranchiata from the biologist's view of prawn, and the Prawn article reflecting wider and global uses of "prawn". Beyond that I'm conflicted. The Shrimp and Prawn articles could probably be profitably replaced with a single article called "Shrimp and prawn", if it were written well. There would be many advantages to this. On the other hand, it might result in a somewhat overloaded article. So I think the Shrimp and Prawn articles should remain separate for now. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
And I should have asked at the same time: what about Natantia? Since your (broadest) definition of "shrimp" includes all four groups (C+D+S+P; yes, I had forgotten one), it covers exactly the same ground as Natantia. Oh, and I take it you'd be subsuming shrimp (disambiguation) into shrimp (and likewise with "prawn" if that were treated similarly)? I think "shrimp and prawn" is a non-starter as a title for the same reason; "shrimp" already covers those taxa (under at least some definitions), and is a simpler title (cf.WP:CRITERIA). If I've understood your proposed replacement, it would discuss the etymology and various meanings of "shrimp"; if that's the case then there is no way that similar content referring to "prawn" can be included; they would have to be separate articles. Once they're separated, then the proper place for information on things like fisheries wouldn't seem to be either of those. It may be best for that kind of content to be at Natantia, since that term is evidently still current in the world of fisheries, even if it's old hat in systematics (FAO stats quite reasonable include a category "Natantia nei", for instance). It's a tricky situation all told. The article currently at "prawn" is, of course, already strictly and consistently taxon-specific. I think perhaps it could be acceptable to keep the current scope at prawn, but with a hatnote explaining that for prawns in the wider sense, see "shrimp" or "Natantia" or whatever. Certainly, if the article at "shrimp" is effectively dealing with the word shrimp, it can't also cover the same linguistic and disambiguating content about prawn. Since the two at their broadest mean about the same thing, then Natantia would have to hold all the fisheries, cookery, and so on. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Stemonitis, I think there's still misunderstanding here. You seem to think the proposal is to have an article which is focused on the word "shrimp". Rather, I think, the article should be on the concept of "shrimp", which is consistent with widespread usage. We would of course still need a disambiguation page as well, for non-crustacean Shrimp articles. I think you are getting hung up on attempting to give a strict biological definition for the scope of the article. For example, consider the article Duck, which I think is fairly analogous (one difference is that they have split off a Duck (food) article, which I don't think is wise here). The focus is not on the word, but rather on the broad-concept; that article isn't perfect, but together with the article Anatidae, it is fairly comprehensive; and Duck has not attempted a strict biological definition, which I think is good. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..
I am no expert, but a quick survey of some reliable sources gives the impression that "most people" use the terms shrimp and prawn fairly interchangeably.. if that's the case, then we should only have one concept article (and of course split off Dendrobranchiata). In other words, redirect one to the other (possibly "shrimp" to "prawn"), and cover both (largely overlapping) concepts. Because "prawn", I think, shouldn't be a strictly defined article either, since the term is so loosely used. With only one article, it would be appropriate to have a section addressing the difference between "prawn" and "shrimp", and their usage worldwide (which would probably be a very popular section for our readers!). 24.84.9.97 (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not stuck on a biological definition, because under the proposed remit, there is no biological definition: it's not necessarily even a paraphyletic group. The article would have to be about things called "shrimp", and to that extent, it would centred on the word, but that doesn't mean it would be exclusively about the word. My point was just that if the word is the defining concept, then shrimp and prawn have to be dealt with separately, and I think that was what Epipelagic was proposing, too. Differences between them, if any remain, can easily be dealt with in both articles. The two terms are generally not interchangeable; if they were, Paul Hogan wouldn't have been asked to say "shrimp" instead of "prawn" for an American advert, and Australians wouldn't have been amused/outraged by the switch. Anyway, it sounds like your proposal is somewhat different from Epipelagic's (Epipelagic argued for separate articles, and you argue for combined articles, for instance), and I'm not sure I'm totally happy with either, largely because of the difficulty in picturing such nebulous concepts. I've put together a table below containing (I hope) all the articles affected by the proposed changes. Please fill in what your proposal would be (and Epipelagic, too, please), and then we can discuss the differences. At the moment, it's very difficult to keep track of what's being argued for and against. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Either redirect to "shrimp", or discuss in some detail the various ways the term prawn is used. This discussion can then be referred to in the Shrimp article.
I don't know what the deal with "Natantia" is, but it sounds like it would be appropriate to discuss it somewhere in a broad scoped shrimp/prawn article. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
And your Paul Hogan argument is not a justification to have separate articles! If it were we would have separate Zucchini and Courgette articles, which would, of course, be silly. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. The term "shrimp" is used in Australia, but for different animals (). There is no place where what I call a courgette is called a zucchini and something else is called "courgette" instead. I stand by my comments. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
That is still not justification to have separate broadly-scoped articles called "prawn" and "shirmp". The current article arrangement might make a lot of sense to an Australian, but we must take a world-wide point of view! That's been my point all along. An American, for example (if I understand correctly) would probably call them all "shrimp" (and say "jumbo shrimp" for the big ones).
Look, I'm really not convinced your mind is going to change based on an anon telling you what to do, so I'm considering bringing in more people from the village pump so that more opinions can be represented. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, to some people they mean the same, but to lots of people, they mean discrete things. Whether or not that means they should be treated in separate articles is something we're still discussing. We haven't got to the stage of deciding what to do; I'm still trying to work out exactly what the proposals are. They need to be worked out in detail because they'll affect several articles at once, and it's going to be hard to maintain them as a coherent system unless we know what's going to happen in advance. The American definition of "shrimp" is one that would be discussed in the article "shrimp" under Epipelagic's proposal. I am not aware of anyone defining "prawn" quite so broadly. Would it then make sense to combine "shrimp" and "prawn"? Should we discuss the things known as "prawns" primarily in an article titled "shrimp" (or vice versa)? I'm sure we can find solutions to these questions, but we do need to consider them. I welcome further opinions, but the options open to them, and the specific proposals, will need to be clear for them to be able to form any kind of informed opinion. Once the proposals are available, then we can worry about the pros and cons. Just because I dismissed your analogy, that doesn't mean I'm dismissing your proposal. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have switched my opinion to using "shrimp" as the main broad-based article, because as you point out, it's more likely an English speaker chosen at random would use the term "shrimp" to refer to everything we're talking about, than use the word "prawn" so broadly. I do think it makes sense to talk about both in such an article; a section discussing how the terms are used will be important (For Australians, the term "shrimp" usually refers to... But for North Americans.. etc. In the fishing industry the terms are used.. while marine biologists often say... etc.), but outside of that section we can use the term more loosely.
By the way, here's a worrying discovery: Google "prawn vs. shrimp", and you get a bunch of pages which appear to be directly based off of the Misplaced Pages articles; they unilaterally declare the biological definitions of the current Misplaced Pages articles. This seems highly problematic, because Misplaced Pages is actually influencing usage in the real world (indeed, one of my friends declaring the "correct" usage is what brought me to this talk page in the first place). We should only be describing how words are used, not prescribing. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Consider the following Google scholar hit counts (with quotations):
Looks like a fairly unambiguous preference for the word "shrimp" in these cases. Maybe more clever searches can be thought of to give more convincing evidence of the various usage claims. 24.84.9.97 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm being slow getting back to this. This is partly because I have got very hung up on the contention that shrimp = Caridea and prawn = Dendrobranchiata. I can't find any taxonomic basis for this, or indeed any basis at all, so I'm having difficulty understanding where you are coming from, Stemonitis. Would you please give me sources that support your contention. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
It's reasonably common among the scientific community, particularly in Australia it would seem. Here's four for starters: . --Stemonitis (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Right, some people, in particular Australians, use the term "shrimp" in that way. Since this isn't Australian Misplaced Pages, we should have a more world-wide point of view, which is surely something we can all agree on. I think we can start making changes to these articles; one good place to start might be to split off a "Caridea" article, and rewrite the intro to the "Shrimp" article to reflect an expanded scope, consistent with a more world-wide usage. 24.84.4.202 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not just Australians. It's fairly commonplace among biologists, for whom separating taxonomic groups is important. The global set of conflicting non-specialist usages is a mess by comparison. I'm working (slowly) on a replacement Caridea article, but we must avoid being hasty. A hasty solution would do more harm than good. Be patient, whoever you are. Writing the articles is only a fairly small part of the change involved here. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If it's commonplace among biologists, how do you explain the google scholar results I pointed to above? These results seem to suggest it's more common for biologists to describe Penaeus monodon as a shrimp instead of a prawn. 24.84.4.202 (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well here's a start. My contention is that the terms "shrimp" and "prawn" are a matter of common usage. They are not taxonomical names, and have no formal place in taxonomy. Instead, they are umbrella terms which are popularly (and inconsistently) used by fisherman and consumers to refer to groups of taxon within the order Decapoda, and sometimes informally used by taxonomists also.
There are three main types of people who use these terms
The biologists or taxonomists. Their use of the terms can be established by the way databases such as ITIS use them.
The FAO and people involved in capture fisheries, aquaculture and food processing. Their use of the terms can be established by the way the the FAO uses, and indeed defines these terms, since it is the FAO who, worldwide, set the groupings and terminology used in fisheries.
The consumers. This is a huge area, covering marketing by the fishmongers, seafood presentation by the chefs and restaurants, and at the end of the chain, the consumers themselves.
Now I'm making up things here, but I would guess that for every user in the first group, there would be maybe 100 in the second group. And for every user in the second group, there would be maybe 100 in the third group. Numerically, the third group swamps the first two groups, and the Misplaced Pages articles on shrimp and prawn should be particularly sensitive to the way this group uses the terms.
There are too many issues to discuss them all at once, so I'll start with the first two groups. The (collapsed) table below contains the commercial species considered by the FAO to be sufficiently significant to warrant their own species sheet. Altogether, the FAO provides sheets for 19 species it calls shrimps and 9 species it calls prawns. Also in the table is the corresponding ITIS taxonomy. The species have been classified into Caridea versus Dendrobranchiata and also into shrimp versus prawn. Both the FAO and ITIS are in complete agreement with these classifications.
If I understand your position correctly Stemonitis, you contend that shrimp = Caridea and prawn = Dendrobranchiata. However the table above clearly demonstrates that both the FAO and ITIS are of one accord on this issue, and there is not the slightest agreement with your contention. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Simply, no. ITIS will follow the FAO's "official" names. This is one data point, and one potential usage. I don't doubt that, but there are others, and I utterly refute the suggestion that this is the overriding usage. There are many contradicting meaning of each term, which is why there's a discussion here at all. That cannot be brushed under the carpet. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You may well be right, but merely asserting you are right and not explaining why you are right doesn't move things forward. You say ITIS follows the FAO's "official" names, though they certainly don't always agree on the scientific names. If there is a systematic bias in ITIS, would you mind spelling it out for me. There is also a close alignment between the common names used for fish species on FishBase and ITIS. Does that mean that ITIS follows FishBase when it comes to fish? If you are correct, and ITIS is not a reliable database from the biological viewpoint, then which one should we be using? For example, on the Fish Project, FishBase trumps ITIS and is used as the preferred source. Is there a similar database specialized for crustaceans that we should be using here? Please show your hand now on this Caridea/Dendrobranchiata divide, and explain what you mean when you say things are being "brushed under the carpet". You say you "utterly refute the suggestion", but so far you haven't started to refute it. For example, it would be good to have a representative sample of peer reviewed articles supporting your contention. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I used to work for ITIS (as it happens, mostly on fish names). ITIS folllows Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes for taxonomy. Common names mostly come from FAO and American Fisheries Society publications. Fishbase was used (rarely) as a supplemental reference; I'm not sure about Fishbase's data sources, but I assume concordance between ITIS and Fishbase is due to shared reliance on FAO common names. FAO is the main source of ITIS common names for shrimp/prawns, so of course they agree. ITIS's scientific names for shrimp/prawns, however, do not use FAO publications as the primary reference, so there may be some disagreement between FAO and ITIS usage. That being said, I'm glad to see people moving forward on fixing the taxonomic coverage of the shrimp article.Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
This discussion started with a general agreement that different groups of people assign different meanings to the terms "shrimp" and "prawn"; I don't see how you can have forgotten that. You seem to be trying to show that there is one single definition that we should follow; we have already agreed that that is not the case. Your entire argument above is faulty. (Why limit your coverage to "commercially significant species"? That will inevitably bias the sample. Why assert that they lack formal definition? That depends entirely on the meaning ascribed to them, which often does have exactly that.) All you have shown is that everyone understands what is meant by "Caridea" and "Dendrobranchiata" (thanks to Martin Burkenroad), and that ITIS copies the FAO's vernacular names. Taxonomists' usage cannot be gleaned from ITIS. ITIS is very much not a reliable database from a biological viewpoint, and its common names are especially suspect. The scientific names are out of date, and the FAO's are even worse. When writing articles, I don't include common names only attested by ITIS, and I try to make clear that the FAO name is a "preferred name", rather than an actual common name (see Ibacus ciliatus, for instance). ITIS has its uses, but this isn't one of them; its data on nomenclatural authorities are generally fairly reliable, but that's about all I'd consider using it for, and fortunately we now have the much more up-to-date WoRMS for that kind of information. Basically, any database is likely to be a bad source for information on common names. Each case has to be researched individually, and crustaceans almost always have more than one common name, or none, in my experience. I have shown evidence before that for people who care about the biological differences, the terms "shrimp" and "prawn" have specific, meaningful definitions. Every other definition I've seen is either vague or arbitrary. I do not "contend that shrimp = Caridea and prawn = Dendrobranchiata". I contend that that is one definition that is used, and that it is a good one. My decision to split them like this is looking more and more like the right one, in hindsight. If there's one well-defined meaning and two or more inconsistent and arbitrary ones, I see no problem with sticking with the well-defined one and explaining that other people use the terms differently. None of your research, in fact, has shown that there is a definition of either "shrimp" or "prawn", merely that different species have "shrimp" or "prawn" in their names. That's a very different thing. (I see no problem with stating that the "giant river prawn" is a shrimp, while the "whiteleg shrimp" is a prawn. The existence of an animal called mountain chicken doesn't mean we have to redefine "chicken" to include it.) That is often the nature of common names. DEFRA, for one, does have definitions of both terms, largely based on size, as far as I recall. There are other definitions out there, but the stuff you've presented doesn't touch on that debate. Compiling common names is irrelevant. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You say different groups of people assign different meanings to the terms "shrimp" and "prawn"; I don't see how you can have forgotten that. I am at a loss why you respond like that, setting up a straw man of your own invention so you can knock it over. Please actually read the opening paragraphs to this section. Those paragraphs couldn't be more diametrically opposed to your straw man. If we are to continue, then this is just a beginning. I defer to you as the resident expert on crustaceans. Now please allow me some space as well, and let's see if we can work in a collegial way without too much emphasis on trying to make each other wrong. What I would like to do is unpick the issues in a way that achieves some clarity that can be shared with people other than arthropod specialists. The less I know about arthropods, which is not a lot, the more relevant I am as an asset in this undertaking. The reason I chose commercially significant shrimps and prawns as an opener is because these are some of the more abundant species, and because these species largely define how the people in general view shrimps and prawns. The FAO will always lag behind current debates on taxonomy; they need to preserve integrity with historical statistics, there is naturally an entrenched resistance to terminology changes by workers in the industry, and immediate compliance with changes in taxonomic fashions can be unwise, as they can revert or otherwise change over short periods of time. Biologists in general are also slow to adopt many of these changes, and so should Misplaced Pages. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
"Those paragraphs couldn't be more diametrically opposed to your straw man." I don't know what paragraphs you mean, because everything that I can see shows that the terms have different meanings in different contexts. Without that disagreement, it is self-evident that none of this discussion would be occurring. You've seen my evidence of the taxonomically-defined meanings, and that obviously contradicts the meanings used by various fisheries bodies, or in culinary circles (whatever their definitions might turn out to be). There is disagreement there. If you meant the concordance between ITIS and the FAO, then your argument carries little weight, because the two are clearly using the same source (I would guess ITIS copying FAO, rather than the other way round). And I'm not "trying to make wrong"; I have serious reservations about the proposed changes, and listing common names does nothing to address them. I don't doubt your good intentions for a moment, but that was, unfortunately, the wrong approach in trying to find what the terms "shrimp" and "prawn" mean to different people. The current situation at both articles is probably imperfect, but most potential replacements are considerably worse, and I don't regret resisting changes that would make them worse. That isn't to say that we can't find a solution that is better, but it does mean we have to approach it carefully. I'm still more than happy to consider any suggestions, but they will have to be better than collations of ITIS common names. I appreciate the time you must have put into that effort, but it doesn't help the discussion of how to improve the articles at all. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
You still seem to misrepresent what I was trying to say Stemonitis. Or maybe I misunderstand what you are trying to say. Anyway, moving on, here is an expansion of how I see things at the moment. As set out above in the opening to this section, there are three areas that need accommodating
* taxonomy
* fisheries
* consumers
For the first two areas, taxonomy and fisheries, current statements in the taxonomic literature as well as statements by the FAO support the position that the term shrimp is used as a global term which includes prawn. In other words, a prawn is a type of shrimp. The article on shrimp should reflect that. Here are some relevant statements.
According to De Grave and Fransen (perhaps the most influential of the current shrimp taxonomists): "At a higher level in decapod classification it has long been recognised that three distinct lineages of shrimps can be distinguished: Dendrobranchiata, Stenopodidea and Caridea, a system which has not been seriously challenged by recent studies... As discussed above, we recognise herein four major groups of shrimp: Infraorder Dendrobranchiata and suborders Procarididea, Stenopodidea and Caridea."
The following quotation comes from a recent book written by two marine biologists, described by Edward O. Wilson as deep and expert: "Depending on which expert is asked, there are approximately four thousand species of shrimp... About 2800 species are collectively known as the caridea... Another 400 species of shrimp are collectively known as the penaeids. These tend to be larger than shrimp, and are sometimes referred to as prawns... Then there another 1100 species of mysids... Another group, the Stenopus, include only about twenty species of shrimp... they have large claws and are more closely related to crabs and lobsters than to the penaeid or caridean shrimp... Other species are also commonly referred to as shrimp. Seed shrimp are ostracods; fairy shrimp, clam shrimp, brine shrimp, and tadpole shrimp are brachiopods; and skeleton shrimp are amphipods. Then there are mud and ghost shrimp, which are yet another group, and mantis shrimp or stomatopods....shrimp seems to be almost any crustacean that isn't a lobster, barnacle, or crab."
The third area above, consumers, is entirely another matter. Contrary to what you seem to be saying Stemonitis, it is not a matter of finding definitions here, but a matter of examining the actual way these terms are used. In this area we move from a prescriptive domain of technical definition to a domain of ordinary language. In ordinary language, words are shaped by the people who use them, and seeking definitions or "meaning" is not appropriate. The issue here is to do with the way common language is actually used, and has been well thrashed out over the last sixty years since the publication of Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. The view set out there is sometimes summed up in the slogan "don't ask for the meaning, ask for the use". That includes, as far as shrimp versus prawn is concerned, listing the different ways the terms are used, and relating them to different localities and groups of people. Definitions have no place here.
Listing the commercially important species in the table above is not a waste of time. First because these species and the way they are referred to in the real world are amongst the most important ones Misplaced Pages needs to accommodate. Second because there should be articles for each of these species, and the table gives a launching point. It's good, Stemonitis, that you resist change if it helps bring wrinkles out into the open. But so far you have only asserted your position, and not supported it with any reliable and unambiguous sources and/or confirming evidence from common usage. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there is at least one definition of shrimp which covers all of the old Natantia. We had established that before. The US authors follow US usage: no surprise there. Actually, it looks like that source could be interpreted to follow the current usage as well. "These tend to be larger than shrimp, and are sometimes referred to as prawns." They are larger than shrimp, suggesting that they are not shrimp, and they are called prawns. I'm not saying it's the only interpretation, but I'm worried that you're now trying to find evidence for one particular point of view, rather than documenting all of them. Holthuis, in the FAO Species Catalogue cited by your second example above, goes to some lengths to document the different usages of both terms, "because of the existing confusion". You seem to be arguing that there is a single obvious meaning to these terms, and there plainly isn't. I also reject the philosophical argument. That's fine for for documenting the meaning of the lexical items like "Indian prawn" and "seed shrimp", but those compounds are semantically separate from "shrimp" and "prawn". Thus, examining the usage of the compound forms cannot reliably elucidate the meaning of the roots they are made up of. (This distinction is clearer in more agglutinative languages like German, where the compounds are single words, such as Nordseegarnele or Rückenstrichgarnele.) Let's just see if anything comes out of the RfC; it doesn't look like much more is going to come out of this part of the discussion. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Where are the sources to back your position? You are just kicking up smokescreens, flurries of fluff. You say, I'm worried that you're now trying to find evidence for one particular point of view, rather than documenting all of them. There are a lot of separate position to document for the way the words are used by marketers and consumers, but that is a separate issue. It has in case, been largely documented in the FAO reference I gave you early in the discussion. I don't see that area as problematic, just messy. Please back your current position with reliable sources, or adjust your position so it can be aligned with reliable sources. Otherwise it is becoming difficult to move this discussion forward. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
That kind of language isn't helping; you should try to assume good faith, rather than making accusations of "smokescreens" and "fluff". I gave sources before showing that shrimp is used for Caridea and prawn for Dendrobranchiata. You have shown that the terms also have other meanings. My "point", in as far as I have one, is that there are different meanings. Even your own sources will serve to verify that. Now that an RfC has been opened, let's let it run, and see what comes out of it. The more we argue up here, the less likely other people are to join in below. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If you address the central issues and provide reliable sources then I won't refer to smokescreens. The sources you gave referred only to an eccentric use by Australians. None were from peer reviewed articles, and one was a children's book. You imply I am giving a US perspective. In fact, De Grave is from Oxford, Fransen from the Netherlands, and the FAO certainly doesn't have a US-centric bias. You acknowledge there are "different meanings" without acknowledging that that very fact undermines your own position. But as far as taxonomy and fisheries go, the position is clear and simple; prawns are shrimps. Instead of terminating our discussion on the grounds that other people might turn up, how about getting on with the job you seem to be avoiding of documenting your position with reliable sources, or adjusting it. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
You can't choose to brand sources you disagree with "eccentric" and the ones you agree with "reliable". Shane Ahyong and Gary Poore (ibid.) are very esteemed carcinologists (as are De Grave and Fransen, of course; I haven't heard of the Rudloes, so I can't comment on them). The "Australian" usage is also followed by Meyer et al. ("Decapoda" in "Marine Benthic Fauna of Chilean Patagonia"; ISBN 978-956-332-244-6), so it can't really even be dismissed as a local usage. You are also getting very confused about my position. In my last statement here, I made it plain that my position was that the uses were varied. You cannot then claim that that undermines my point, since it is my point. The situation may be clear within the world of fisheries, but that's only because they don't generally make the distinction between higher taxonomic groups, and are happy to use convenient catch-all terms (and rightly so, for their purposes). Holthuis (1991; ibid.) describes that there are different uses, and that in may systems, prawns are not considered shrimp. This glossary also makes it clear that usages differ. Now stop claiming that I am not citing sources. It's not true and it's not helpful. I, for one, would like to hear what other people have to say, and I really think that this kind of exchange will be offputting to potential contributos. Please allow some time for outside opinions to appear. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
"True"
I thought it might be interesting to investigate what animals various authors counted as "true" shrimp. I searched for the term "true shrimp", and recorded the cases where the intended meaning was clear. I excluded ones where the meaning wasn't clear (such as things like "mysid shrimp, which are not true shrimp, ...", without any further details). I also excluded Misplaced Pages mirrors (and plagiarists), and sources from more than 100 years ago, which tended to use "true shrimp" for the species Crangon crangon (typically as "Crangon vulgaris" in those days).
The outcome is that several sources do indeed use "true shrimp" to mean a group that is probably coterminous with "Natantia" (typically only listing Caridea + Dendrobranchiata, or even one family of each), but a far larger number use the term "true shrimp" to explicitly refer to Caridea alone. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
"True" is a huge red-flag for me. You make the distinction between "preferred names" and "common names" above. Shrimp/true shrimp may indeed be a "common name" within the carcinological community (and common names may vary between communities), but the fact that biologists have to tack the word "true" on the front of "shrimp" indicates that using shrimp for Caridea or Natantia flys in the face of actual "common name" usage in the broader English speaking community. Shrimp for Caridea is really preferred name usage, mandated by biologists and as I understand WP:UCN, the common name should reflect the more widely held usage, not usage as a "preferred name" dictated by a group of specialists. When I raised this issue months ago, you referred me to WP:UCN, which I really don't think applies in this case (Caridea is the most commonly used, unambigous name for Caridea). When I brought up crabs and lobsters as an example of other articles where a "preferred name" is (inappropriately IMO) held up as the "true" name, you suggested that dog was ambiguous with respect to prarie dogs. But nobody calls dogs "true dogs", or chickens "true chickens". The common usage of dog is unambiguous. The common usage of Brachyura is unambiguous. The common usage of "crab" or "shrimp" is ambiguous, and the article with that title should deal with the ambiguous folk taxonomic concept, saving the well-defined biological group for discussion under an article with the scientific name.Plantdrew (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. The fact that people add "true" indicates that there is confusion, but that there is nonetheless one meaning that is considered pre-eminent. There is absolutely no way that "crab" should cover anything other than Brachyura (except to mention, as the article does, that other animals' names include the word "crab"), and the same is true of lobsters. You misunderstand how compound nouns work. Just because a compound noun includes the word "shrimp", that doesn't necessarily make it a kind of shrimp, just as prairie dogs, hot dogs and sun dogs are not kinds of dog. When people talk about "true shrimp", it's just a kind of qualifier to clarify what group they're referring to, not a name in itself. The use of a particular word in a compound noun tells you almost exactly nothing about the meaning of the word itself. People do talk about "true dogs" when they need to make the distinction; it occurs throughout our article free-ranging dog, for instance, when contrasting the domesticated subspecies with other species and genera (and is used similarly in plenty of other sources). Contrary to your assertion, "dog" is indeed ambiguous: it may mean the tribe Canini, or just the domestic dog, or various other non-biological entities. Likewise, "true cat" is used in many such situations (with similar ambiguity of the term "cat" – either the domestic taxon or the family Felidae). You would like "shrimp" to cover every phrase in which the word "shrimp" appears, and that is patently untenable. There is simply no such concept. To put it in Misplaced Pages terms, such an amalgam would lack notability; nobody would write a book on all those things with "shrimp" in their name (and then wonder how to include "ghost shrimp" but exclude "mud lobster" – the same animals!). There is a case for "shrimp" = Caridea, and even a case for "shrimp" = Natantia, but to claim it means Natantia + Branchiopoda + Stomatopoda + Cephalocarida + Artemia, etc., etc., etc., is ridiculous. No source claims such a meaning, and to claim that that is the meaning of "shrimp" is entirely original research based on a misunderstanding of compound formation. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Stemonitis, you requested twice that there should be no further discussion to give room for new editors to comment. You said you wanted to hear what "other people had to say". In the interest of courtesy I acceded to your request, and have politely refrained from discussing this matter for some time. However it turns out that you have not applied your restriction to yourself, and you have unilaterally continued to comment. There are now four editors contesting your position. In your responses you continue to set up straw men so you can attack them. You misrepresent opposing positions, calling your imaginary opponents "ridiculous" and charging them with original research. I suggest you follow your own advice, and for now give room for other people to have their say, if anyone out there still wants to. On the issue of original research, it would be good if you take some time to locate reliable sources that support your own position. There is a lot more to be said on this issue, and when the water is less muddied I will set the matter out again in more detail. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I disagree with most of what you just wrote, but I doubt it will help if I explain why. Anyway, I will be away for a week or so in a couple of days, so your wish will be granted. The important point is that there is no single "folk taxonomic concept"; there are instead several conflicting concepts at work. Yes, the articles should reflect that (and this one in particular doesn't do that well enough yet), but that doesn't mean that any moves are necessarily required. It now seems to me that the best solution would be to leave the current articles at their current titles, and to prominently link both to a "shrimp and prawns" article to cover the concept as used in fisheries and cookery, and to discuss the various applications of each term. I'll flesh that proposal out in more detail when I've got a bit more time. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The entire "prairie dog is not a dog" line of reasoning is a straw man. When you search google for "the dog Cynomys" (in quotes), it comes up with no hits, but "the prairie dog Cynomys" has over 100,000. On the other hand consider the google search for "the shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei". If the word "shrimp" just happened to be in it's name, and people didn't actually call it a "shrimp", then (like the prairie dog search) there wouldn't be many google hits. Yet this search gives over 200,000 hits. Even a google scholar search gives thousands. Yet Misplaced Pages does not acknowledge this broad usage.
Perhaps more alarmingly, the Misplaced Pages article on "Litopenaeus vannamei" declares that it is a "prawn". Why is this alarming? Because a google search for "the prawn Litopenaeus vannamei" turns up about 200 hits. That's 1000 times less than the same search with the word "shrimp" instead. C'mon people! The world calls it a shrimp, and so should we!!
What's most sad is Stemonitis' unwillingness to even admit that this is a real problem. Instead Stemonitis still believes that the most logical solution is to look the other way and pretend nothing is wrong. Sad. 24.84.4.202 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Request for comment
What should be the scope of the Shrimp and Prawn articles? The current scopes are not consistent with common usage world-wide, but it's not clear how to modify the scopes in a way to make them more consistent with common usage. There have been a few suggestions to fix it; see the above sections for an extensive discussion of the various problems with making changes. Some possible responses could be to make no change, or to merge the two into a broadly scoped article. Thanks, 24.84.4.202 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment: This is ridiculous. It is a classic example of the problems we bring on ourselves when we try to nail the jello of common names to the mast of hard biological facts (or should that be the other way round? Dunno. My biological training never extended to what people call shrimps, nor what they call prawns, nor how to nail masts to jello...) Look, the current article refers to shrimps as some members of a few biological classes (not even orders mind you -- classes!) That makes as much sense as calling them "creepy-crawlies" in general, or as speaking of insects as including Araneae and Opiliones, but omitting caterpillars. We have the situation where some "shrimps" are more like "prawns" (whatever those might be) than like other shrimps. And we stand a better chance of collective beatification (or various other biologically implausible fates) than of getting the laity to agree on which is which, let alone stick to their definitions. And serve us bloody right IMO!
I reckon the only rational option is to make sure that we have adequate coverage of the various taxa under their respective taxonomic names and taxoboxes in their respective articles (with appropriate remarks on common names where they would be helpful, just like with other taxa, whether species or phyla). Then put shrimps and prawns in their own combined Shrimp and Prawn article, with no more taxonomic reference or definition than links to the biological articles in individual particular cases where relevant. (They deserve such an article, together with a wide range of redirs and possibly a disambig or two, because, though the distinctions are muddy at best, the popular usage is very large. Lots of folks surely must hit both articles daily, and if we skimp on their means of access we would let them down.) There also is a significant amount of biological, ecological, commercial and industrial information in the current articles as they stand. That must be conserved. Whoever tilts at this particular windmill should consider which parts of which aspects should go into the new S&P article and which into yet other articles, together with copious cross-linking.
This is not my field, so if anyone demands that I proceed to demonstrate how it should be done, I baulk at adopting more than a supportive role, but I suspect that a lot of hot debate will pass over this page before anything like that happens. Good luck all, and cheers for now. JonRichfield (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I have left further invitations to participate in this discussion on the project talk pages for Arthropods, Marine life, Fishes, Fishing and fisheries and Food and drink. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
While biologists draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns, common usage does not. We should use scientific definitions to determine what goes in each article while mentioning how common usage sometimes differs. TFD (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Well the request for comment has now run its 30-day course, such as it was. Can we now conclude this issue, and reorganise the relevant articles? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to start work, although I don't know how to interpret the consensus. I struggled to understand the concrete proposals by JonRichfield, other than that there should be a "shrimp and prawns" article. TFD and RunningOnBrains both seemed to favour dividing the articles along taxonomic lines. This is similar to one of the earlier proposals, and would be a course I'd be happy with ("shrimp" covering Caridea; "prawn" unchanged; new "shrimp and prawns" article to cover culinary and fisheries usage). Does that tally with your interpretation? I don't want to get off on the wrong foot here. In any case, that's probably a reasonable way to split the articles, even if we re-title them later. --Stemonitis (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
TFD's comments is based on a statement which is false ("biologists draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns") and RunningOnBrains offer an opinions unsupported by any argument at all. This is, in any case, not basically a matter for consensus, or at least certainly not a vote which includes people who haven't done the background work. What matters here is what is actually the case. Can you confirm, as you seem to imply above, that WoRMS can be taken as a definitive source as far as the taxonomy of shrimps and prawns goes? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
For "Natantia", WoRMS follows (copies!) the recent Carideorum Catalogus, which is entirely authoritative in terms of taxonomy. (I'm puzzled by your claim that this isn't a matter for consensus. Surely you didn't mean that?) --Stemonitis (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've already clarified that; it's "not a vote which includes people who haven't done the background work". It's hardly surprising WoRMS follows Carideorum Catalogus, because its authors De Grave and Fransen are also the relevant authors on WoRMS . So do you accept that it is De Grave and Fransen who are "entirely authoritative in terms of taxonomy? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
You have no basis for claiming that they "haven't done the background work". This is an editorial decision to be achieved through consensus, like almost all decisions on Misplaced Pages. There was a Request for Comment which ran unhindered, and I think we should abide by its outcomes, as vague as they may be. Otherwise, we can only return to interminable partisan arguments about whose claims are worth considering, which can only result in stalemate and ill-feeling. I think the RfC gives us an opportunity to start afresh. As I stated before, we could at least start off along this route, which I think everyone thinks is necessary – to separate the articles on biological taxa from an article on the culinary and fisheries term which cuts across those biological divisions. If we need to move articles later, that will always be possible.
WoRMS lists De Grave and Fransen as authors because they wrote Carideorum Catalogus, yes. In terms of taxonomy, they are indeed authoritative. So, if you want to know how many genera there are in a given family, or whether a name is a junior synonym or represents a species in its own right, Carideorum Catalogus is the most reliable thing we've got. (I don't think that extends to matters of English usage, however.) Presumably, as taxonomic changes arise, WoRMS will become the more up-to-date source, but for the moment, the printed source is preferable. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The basis for claiming they have done no background work is simple: they offered nothing to support their opinion. You know very well Stemonitis, the consensus on Misplaced Pages is not just a vote. It is not just a matter of opinions, but of reasoned positions. If you just want to make it a vote, then adding up numbers in the discussion above you have four editors opposed to your position. You are clutching at straws trying to give weight to the comments by TFD and RunningOnBrains. If there is any substance to what they have to say, they should weigh in now with properly sourced arguments. Then there would be something to take into consideration.
I couldn't agree more with your view that statements by taxonomists don't "extend to matters of English usage". This has been my position all along, so it is good we agree. Nonetheless, it is worth knowing what De Grave and Fransen have to say on the matter:
At a higher level in decapod classification it has long been recognised that three distinct lineages of shrimps can be distinguished: Dendrobranchiata, Stenopodidea and Caridea, a system which has not been seriously challenged by recent studies... As discussed above, we recognise herein four major groups of shrimp: Infraorder Dendrobranchiata and suborders Procarididea, Stenopodidea and Caridea.
This is the up-to-date position of the taxonomists you have agreed are the "entirely authoritative" ones in this field. Their position is totally at odds with the way you have structured the Misplaced Pages shrimp article, where you identify shrimps with Caridea, an eccentric position taken only by a handful of Australian taxonomists. So to return to the original position, which has been hammered over and over in the discussion above: Apart from a few Australian taxonomists, what is the basis for your position? Every time you are asked this question, you evade answering. It's time for that to stop now. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I am uncomfortable with the way you are trying to sideline the RfC that you initiated. (If I were being cynical, I might argue that it is because its outcome went against your wishes.) You also underestimate the number and geographical distribution of scientists who follow this sensible division. In researching the Caridea-scoped article (whatever its title might be), I found that most of the sources I was using equated "shrimp" with "Caridea". Even Sammy De Grave in a 2008 publication explicitly equates them (doi:10.1007/s10750-007-9024-2). Moreover, the American shrimp specialist Fenner A. Chace, Jr. uses the same definition. This is effectively global usage among scientists. The fact that De Grave & Fransen chose to keep their subtitle concise by redefining a nebulous term isn't damning evidence that "shrimp" must mean all Natantian crustaceans at all. It was just a convenience, I'm sure.
But the point is that you and I will continue to have different opinions about this, and could continue trying to undermine each others references almost indefinitely. The only way to break the deadlock is to initiate a RfC, which you did, and to listen to what it says. In this case, it wasn't massively clear, but the general trend seemed to be that the articles should follow taxonomic boundaries, and that there should be a new article at "shrimp and prawns" (or similar). The fact that the commentators didn't give as much detail as one might have liked is not especially relevant. Given the amount of preamble, it is enough for them to state which position they agree with, and we must assume good faith, and assume that they had read the background. If you cannot abide that outcome, then don't feel obliged to help with the reformulations that must follow, but please don't try to deny the outcome or to think that it somehow supports an alternative position. There is plenty of work to be done, and I have started to work on it, off-line. Whether you assist in that is up to you, but please don't hinder anyone else who is trying to improve things. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I didn't initiate the RfC. The first opinion made some attempt at a reasoned argument which was clearly against your position. The second opinion states that "biologists draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns" Well of course, that's simply not true, which is why we are arguing. Even if the statement were true, it is is most certainly not an argument for your position, merely an argument for the position that biologists take. Most biologists do not draw a clear distinction between shrimp and prawns, and when they do, they disagree. The fact is, the carcinologists that you agree are currently the most eminent, do not agree with your position at all, but define shrimp in a way that includes prawns. The third opinion just seems to be a drive-by opinion agreeing with the dubious second opinion. Anyway, whatever spin you put on it, none of those opinions are providing any support for your position. (How can you talk about a "general trend"?)
There is a much more substantive discussion earlier on this page above, including a contributor from ITIS. You rejected everything that was said there as well, again without offering any substantive rebuttals. No one argues that Caridea are anything other than shrimp, and that Caridea are, as it were, the type genus for shrimp. So naturally you will find many article talking about shrimp as though they are Caridea, just as you will find many articles talking about herrings as though they are Clupea. Your reference to Chance is over 30 years old. Would you please quote what he had to say, as that particular section is not online. If his statement there had any real influence, then carcinologists around the world would have quoted it in scientific articles. Where are those articles?
It's clear you are not open to looking at this issue. I suggest we jointly draft a letter to De Grave and Fransen, asking them to adjudicate on the matter. The letter needs to be jointly drafted, so it is not presenting a one-sided and misleading slant. When you talk about those who "hinder anyone else who is trying to improve things", you seriously need to take a hard look in a mirror. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Um, no, I don't think that's a reasonable course of action. Carcinologists deal with scientific names as far as possible, in order to avoid exactly this kind of debate. Taxonomists do not adjudicate on matters of English language (I'm not sure if either De Grave or Fransen is a native English speaker), and certainly do not adjudicate on matters of article scope on Misplaced Pages. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Fransen is not a native speaker, but De Grave is an Oxford professor. I was pretty sure you would reject this suggestion too, just as you have rejected everything that challenges your original research. If De Grave and Fransen decided against your position, as they would, you would reject that too. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus
A clear consensus has been reached on this page. Unfortunately, Stemonitis remains firmly entrenched in an indefensible position. I no longer believe any kind of argument can shift that. Otherwise the consensus is essentially unanimous. Four editors have argued at length against his position, and two have expressed an opinion based on a fallacy. If however, the fallacy was true, that opinion would work in favour of the consensus, and not in favour of the position Stemonitis defends. Accordingly, I will shortly restructure the shrimp and prawn articles, and create new articles for Caridea and Dendrobranchiata. Any assistance doing this, including from you Stemonitis, would be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to work on articles (I have a draft of a Caridea article ready, and Dendrobranchiata is already in place), but I reject your view of the consensus. You insist on rejecting the views of those who disagree with you as much as you claim I do. You cannot call my position indefensible; it is merely one you disagree with. I have tried several times to reach a compromise with you, but you haven't yet co-operated with that. If, as you say, you want to move forward in a collegiate way (which I naturally welcome), then I think that writing the articles first, and then worrying about titling, is the best route to progress. Proposing to unilaterally make sweeping changes is unlikely to be as well received. Please do not touch the prawn article, which was carefully written about a single taxon. If you need to write another article, then please do so, but the contents of that one are right (common names aside). We do not therefore need a new Dendrobranchiata article, and, as I say, I'm writing a Caridea article. Please draft a "shrimp and prawns" article somewhere, and let us take the discussions from there. I will find a space to put my Caridea draft, too. As you say, progress on the titling argument seems unlikely at the moment, so let's get moving on the content, at least. Perhaps that will make things clearer. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Well we need to be clear on the fundamentals. The key point is that the shrimp article should be rewritten to reflect the view implicit in the position taken by De Grave and Fransen, that prawns are shrimps. That view is in alignment with nearly all uses of the term "prawn", apart from Australian taxonomists.
The other key point is that "prawn" is not a taxon, but a loose colloquial term which lacks a formal definition. Often larger shrimps are called "prawns". I imagine this is because "shrimp" colloquially means something small, so you get a problem with marketing large shrimps. "King shrimp" is almost an oxymoron, but "king prawn" sounds fine. The FAO tried, and abysmally failed, to persuade the fishing industry to use the word "prawn" to mean freshwater shrimp. Similarly, some Australian taxonomists have tried to define prawns as Dendrobranchiata. This is misguided, since it is not the business of taxonomists to prescribe how a word that is part of common language should be used. The term "true shrimp" should also be avoided. This term is not used, and nor should be used in scientific articles. Instead, the term "Caridian shrimp" should be substituted. You say there is a Dendrobranchiata article. I can't find it. Currently it redirects to "prawn", which is misleading and at the heart of the problems that currently exist with the shrimp and prawn articles. And I'm not sure there needs to be a "shrimp and prawns" article. We never agreed on that. It seems to me that that material would be better covered in the rewritten "prawn" article. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, I'm trying to work towards a compromise here, and I'm not sure that reiterating grievances is going to help. Yes, Dendrobranchiata currently redirects to "prawn", but the content there is explicitly specific to the taxon. It might potentially need to be moved (I'm unconvinced), but the content is fine, so it doesn't need to be "re-written". When I said "shrimp and prawns", I wasn't prescribing a title, merely trying to define the scope. You want an article covering Caridea + Dendrobranchiata (+ others), and that's the one I mean. Let's try to avoid the contentious issue over article titles for now; if moves are needed, they will only need relatively minor changes to any articles or drafts that we've produced. The critical part, and the direction I'd like to see this move forward in, is to get the content ready so we know what we've got to work with. We will need two taxon-specific articles (probably my side), and one broader article (probably your side). Let's at least work towards that end. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing complicated here. The current prawn article needs to be renamed Dendrobranchiata. The prawn article needs to set out the ways in which the term "prawn" is used. And the article you are instructing me to write, the "article covering Caridea + Dendrobranchiata (+ others)", is simply what the the shrimp article should be. It need hardly mention prawns. Caridea needs its own article. We are past the point of "trying to work towards a compromise". The compromise needs to happen now. I don't want to waste time following your instructions to write an article that is detached from the main articles, and then have you shunt it aside and carry on as though nothing happened. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, compromise needs to happen now, and I'm holding out an olive branch. That compromise cannot be simply doing things your way, just as it can't be just doing things my way. Come on; let's compromise. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
If you are prepared to compromise then that's excellent! Can you start by renaming the "prawn" article "Dendrobranchiata". That gives us a basis to get started with a balanced account of what a prawn is. Otherwise, there is no ground on which we can proceed. We can deal with the Caridean issues further down the track. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you're still pre-empting discussion which we will need to have further down the line. The compromise I was offering, and genuinely hope you will accept it at least as a temporary measure, is to get the articles ready, and only then to worry about the titles. As I say, changing the prose to fit a new title is a relatively easy job, but the consequences of a page move in cases like this are rather larger. The problem with the current setup is that it assumes a single definition of the terms "shrimp" and "prawn". I am worried that your edits will simply replace this with a different (and less biologicall meaningful) definition. That is no solution to the problem. I can't be sure that this will follow, because it still isn't clear what the content would be. That is why I'm trying to reach a stage where we can see the content. We cannot simply redefine "shrimp" to one of its other meanings, because that would suffer from the same problem. The only replacement can be a disambiguation page, linking to shrimp and prawn (food), shrimp and prawn fishery, Caridea, Dendrobranchiata and maybe others (under whatever titles). I think that's less good for the reader in some ways (an extra click before finding the content they want), but it's a reasonable compromise that I could agree to, and I hope you could, too. I'm not ruling out any page moves; I just think we should understand the complete outcome before we embark on it. There will be an awful lot of follow-up work, and it is prudent to ensure that it will not be wasted effort and, perhaps more importantly, that it will not introduce errors. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not that silly! You offer not a trace of compromise, and misrepresent the issue in every way. I suspected your offer would amount to that, but I needed to assume good faith. So there we are... a journey to nowhere and back to the beginning again, with yet another flurry of disingenuous and time wasting evasions. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Please re-read what I have proposed. I am trying to move things forward. I am not trying to waste anyone's time; this has already dragged on too long. Please reconsider. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Epipelagic asked me to look at this and help resolving the impasse by judging the consensus. I would first like to commend you for your patience in this long process of discussion. Although I can see you are both getting frustrated with the length of time it has been, I think you have done the right thing in discussing this complex issue. Having read over the arguments, I think you should give Epiplagic's proposals a try. JonRichfield's suggestion was a valuable one as well. The table added by Stemontitis here may prove a useful summary of the way forward. On the question of whether to have a "prawn and shrimp" article I am weakly in favour of this on grounds that the terms are used so variably. If we are to have such an article it should be at the title prawn and shrimp, and it should mainly discuss the terms and their various meanings, with links out to the articles containing the information, which should be based on the biological names. The new article could also carry a short summary of the animals culinary and economic significance. I think the discussion has been valuable but I think it is important that some progress be made towards implementing solutions now; enough time has passed for discussion and I think people will just get frustrated if it continues any longer. Sometimes it is better to implement a solution which is imperfect and does not fully please everyone as a compromise, than to risk losing patience and focus by prolonging a discussion beyond its natural length. --John (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts, John, but I think an impartial voice would be better. Through no fault of your own, you have been given a biased account as your starting position, which is very likely to have affected your view of the debate, and therefore your conclusions. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No, I assure you, my judgement is utterly impartial and I took no account of the partial nature of the notification I was given. Epipelagic and I have not always hit it off and the fact that I came down on his side in the debate is purely down to my having read the arguments made here. The important thing, as I say, is that we move forwards with a resolution, even though it be imperfect, rather than continue to argue. The time for that is now past. --John (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you made no conscious bias, but first impressions are very important, and the first thing you read was exceptionally unfair. Very few people would be able to approach the issue in a truly unbaised way, given a starting point such as that. We did try to get broad, impartial input, but the outcome of that RfC is disputed.
I think, given that the discussion has been ongoing since November 2011, it might be better to conclude it. I have asked another admin to review my close since you have queried my neutrality. --John (talk) 08:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
3rd party review - John has asked me to review the discussion and his close. For the record, John and I don't work on any big projects or articles together and I assume he picked me at random, as someone willing to review editors or processes. I've never worked on any of these or similar articles, so I'm confident I have no preexisting opinions on the matter. My goal isn't to reclose it, only to review the existing close and determine if it reflects of the consensus of the community, per the discussion here.
First of all, I have learned more about prawn and shrimp this morning than I ever thought I would learn. Enough that I completely understand why the discussion needed to take place, and why it wasn't a simple matter. It appears to have been an open and fair discussion with no major problems. Consensus is always tough to judge in a discussion that has few people participating, particularly since the subject matter covers both biology and cultural uses of the names. As expected, a good compromise insures no one gets exactly what they want, but this is the nature of consensus. There are a number of very similar ways to conclude this, but I think John has found the center point as well as it could be found, and has provided a reasonable means to move forward. As a reader, I also found JonRichfield's opinion to be particularly useful.
I want to know about the medical benefits of shrimps, how it is different from other sea fishes. If it is good for cholesterol or other heart diseases. If there is any health hazard in shrimps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.114.152 (talk) 07:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Islam, Judeae, and Christianity
Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 clearly state that eating shrimp is an abomination of God in Christian society, why isn't it mentioned in this article. It mentions Jewish and Islamic prohibitions but not Christian prohibitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.23.137 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 3 June 2012
What is your point? What Christians believe was not mentioned in the article; merely an account of what Deuteronomy and Leviticus said, with an acknowledgement of the translation used. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The IP said there is a Christian prohibition, which is incorrect. The passage read, "According to the King James version of the Old Testament...shrimp are an abomination and should not be eaten". That implies that that it is a Christian prohibition. TFD (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
See the IP's comments above, "Leviticus 11:9-12 and Deuteronomy 14:9-10 clearly state that eating shrimp is an abomination of God in Christian society, why isn't it mentioned in this article. It mentions Jewish and Islamic prohibitions but not Christian prohibitions." (my emphasis.) Those Christians. TFD (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there isn't a general Christian prohibition, and nothing in the article suggested there was. You deleted material from the article with the odd edit summary; "Remove implication that Anglicans may not eat shrimp". But the article doesn't mention Christians or Anglicans. I assumed you came to the talk page to explain your deletion, but it seems you just want to argue with the IP. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The passage read, "According to the King James version of the Old Testament...shrimp are an abomination and should not be eaten". The KJV is of course the original Anglican translation of the Bible. "Old Testament" is a Christian term. Since the prohibition is found in the original text and all reasonable translations of the Bible, the reference to the KJV falsely implies that the prohibition is part of Christian, or at least Anglican, theology, which btw is what this discussion thread is about. I did not delete material but changed the wording so that it was clear that the prohibition is found in Leviticus Is there any reason you prefer that it say "King James version of the Old Testament"? TFD (talk) 07:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The Jewish Kashrut is based on Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Since this is the English Misplaced Pages, there has to be a translation into English, and the King James version is perhaps the best known one. The abomination of certain seafoods, including shrimp, is one of the better known and more memorable references to marine life in the Bible, and therefore warrants a passing mention in the shrimp article. I mentioned the King James version because I presumed the term abomination originated in the King James version, and may not be found in other versions of the Bible. But I take your point about Old Testament being a Christian term. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there are different words used in translation, although "abomination" appears widely. The article on the Old Testament says that Hebrew Bible is the neutral name. TFD (talk) 08:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Foodlogo2.svg){kind=link}
