Talk:Herring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Problem with taxobox image[edit]

There is a huge problem with the image in the taxobox. As nearly as I can tell, that fish is a Coregonid, probably Coregonus artedii. Now, it's true that one of the trivial names for C. artedii is the lake herring but it's not, in fact, a herring at all. Herring are Clupeids. I suggest that image be replaced by a clupeid image, preferably of the Atlantic herring, Clupea harengus. I'm not sure if the image on http://www.gma.org/herring/biology/what/default.asp is PD or not...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.198.70 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 5 November 2005‎

I found an image from Fisheries and Oceans Canada of an Atlantic herring and uploaded that into the taxobox. See the image page for use restrictions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluri (talk • contribs) 15:26, 18 November 2005‎

The taxobox image has been changed to a metal sculpture of a shoal of herring on a stick, since then. I agree with User:A bit iffy that this isn't the ideal sort of picture to open a nature article with - it's not the "natural and appropriate visual [representation] of the topic" nor "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" of WP:LEADIMAGE. The suggested captioned image of an Atlantic herring mentioned above and added by Iffy seems more appropriate. --McGeddon (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time you have tried to downplay the significance of herrings as a keystone schooling fish. You objected also to the previous image. If you have any background with such fish, then I don't understand your insistence on diluting the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I objected to a blurry 1.3Mb animated gif in 2012 because it was blurry, animated and 1.3Mb. I think "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" would be "a close-up picture of the fish" - the sculpture photo illustrates to the reader that herrings form schools, but provides barely any information beyond that, not even what colour they might be.
Is the infobox image possibly trying to emphasise the fact that "a herring" is not a particular species, but a more general type of fish? --McGeddon (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough to capture a key point in the lead image. Herrings are an iconic, perhaps THE iconic schooling group of fish. And that is currently captured in the lead image. It is the behaviour that stands out, not the look of the fish. Herrings look just like any other run-of-the-mill small pelagic fish. They are a group of different fish species, differing somewhat in colour and how they look. A "close-up picture" of a single herring species is not going to be a "high-quality" way of referencing the fish. It would merely be an example of how one of the herring species looks. Better would be a really good image of schooling herrings that captures something of the dynamic nature of the fish. There are superb photos out there, but they are copyright. Unless a better photo becomes available, the sculpture, which is at least somewhat memorable, is in my opinion a much better option for the lead image than an unremarkable and not altogether representative image of a single species. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh jolly good, I seem to have wandered into a running argument. (I'm the one who changed the image to an individual herring.) To be honest, I'm not that interested in herrings and know next to nothing about them — I only changed the image because I instantly felt the sculpture was near useless at visualising what a herring actually looks like.
Anyway, I thought I'd just now see how articles of other creatures known for their social-type behaviour are depicted, and generally just one or a small number of creatures are shown in the initial photo, clearly showing detail of individual members. Oh, I know the argument "look what another article does" is generally frowned upon in Wikipedia, but I do think it's instructive. (The ones I looked at were wolves, flamingoes, starlings, meerkats and ants.)--A bit iffy (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "bee" and "starling" both lead with a close-up picture of an individual from a particular species (even though both names are applied to many species and some bees or starlings look very different), I think it's fair for the same to apply here, in the absence of a high quality photo that clearly shows both the detail of an individual herring and their schooling nature. --McGeddon (talk) 09:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a week with no further thoughts on this I've gone ahead and restored User:A bit iffy's suggested image. --McGeddon (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Actually, I'd been thnking of doing the same because it occurred to me that the argument that only one species is depicted is rather weak. It's weak because almost any image of herring or indeed any other creature would show just one species — even if more than one individual is shown.--A bit iffy (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus here for the change you have made to the long-standing status quo of this article. The comments about wolves, bees and starlings are irrelevant. The image of the type species, Clupea harengus, is needed for reference in the "Characteristics" section. If you want a consensus so you can once again downplay the significance of herrings as a schooling species, then there needs to be more input from editors with a bit of background and interest in the area. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were two editors agreeing and a third going silent in response; if you're still here, that's good. The comparison to starlings and bees were because you consider herrings to be "an iconic, perhaps THE iconic schooling group of fish" and feel that this is a reason to open with a representation of such a grouping; starlings and bees form iconic swarms, perhaps more iconic than any other creature of their species, but we open their articles with "the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" - a picture of the individual animal. In both cases the term "starling" and "bee" refers to many species, and Wikipedia uses an arbitrary representative example. The situation seems very similar.
There are plenty of other Clupea harengus images on Commons if the Characteristics section would be lacking without one. Shall we try an RFC? --McGeddon (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You never let go, do you McGeddon. You've even reordered my comment. I'm giving up on the article and leaving it under your control... mess it around as much as you want. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly hasn't taken you long to make royal mess of your new article. Why, in the "Characteristics" section, would you present as the prime example of a herring the taxonomically unaccepted Clupea harengus harengus? --Epipelagic (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody WP:OWNs articles. If you see a mistake, correct it. If other editors question your correction, discuss it. Are you objecting to the image or the caption nomenclature (which I just took from the Commons description)? --McGeddon (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Olaff for replacing the contentious image. It might be worth clarifying File:Clhar_u0.png if it's description is out of date. Should the article go back up to B-class or did User:Epipelagic have other reasons for downgrading it to a C-class "still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material" yesterday? --McGeddon (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is usual to illustrate the visual characteristics of a fish group with its type species. In the case of herrings that is Clupea harengus. But the image the article now uses is not of the type species, but of Clupea pallasii. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What image would you suggest we use? --McGeddon (talk) 12:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image that you removed from that section. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And what image would you suggest we use that we aren't already using in the lede? Was File:Clhar_u0.png fine apart from the caption? --McGeddon (talk) 12:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was presented that the image in the section "Characteristics" is not good in this context because it is not the type species of the fish group discussed. Nevertheless, I understand that it is now clearly established that the article is about the colloquial concept of herring, not of a taxonomical concept of genus Clupea (there is a separate article for Clupea). Then, there definitely is no such thing as the type species of "herring"; the type species concept only applies to the taxonomically defined genus. Second (just as a reminder, not interfering with the practices adopted in wikipedia), note that the taxonomical concept of the type species of a genus in no way suggests or implies that that species would be more "typical" of the genus than others. Third, in a more practical sense, is there anyone here who would be able to distinguish Atlantic vs. Pacific herring by outer appearance, at least from these figures, to justify the discontent in any other way? --Olaff (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in a strict sense you are right. It cannot be strictly said that there is a type species since that is a taxonomic concept. Herring is not a taxonomic group but an informal name commonly used to group fish based on the way everyday language has evolved. Unlike taxonomic names, common names like herring are language specific vernacular terms, and there are not necessarily exact parallels, or any parallels at all in other languages. However both commercially and historically the Atlantic herring has much more significance than the Pacific herring, and the unqualified term "herring", in Britain at least, has always referred to the Atlantic herring.[1] Because of its abundance around Britain and Europe, the Atlantic herring became the type species for a genera when it was classified scientifically. Then, over time other fish with herring-like features came to be regarded as types of herring, even though taxonomically they are not related to the original herring genera.
This general pattern has repeated in other informal groups, such as cod, shrimp, salmon, tuna and mackerel. For example, the common European shrimp, Crangon crangon, was the most abundant shrimp in European waters. In Britain it was commonly called a "shrimp", and because of its prominence it became the type species for the shrimp genera, Crangon, when it was scientifically classified. Over the years the use of the term "shrimp" has progressively expanded until today it is applied to practically any shrimp-like creature. However, the most representative and appropriate species to characterise what a shrimp is remains the type species for the original shrimp genera, the European shrimp.
In short, the most representative species for these informal groups is often the type species of the genera which historically came first to characterised the group. In any case Olaff, my comment was not directed at you. It was a response to another user who was querying why the article assessment had been downgraded. This user is busy controlling the images used in this article, removing some, inappropriately moving and replacing others, and is apparently better able to assess matters like this than you or I can. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to be a herring expert to know that it's inappropriate to downgrade an article from B-class ("mostly complete and without major problems") to C-class ("still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material") across three Wikiprojects for the sole reason that a single erroneous taxonomy was introduced. Was the C-class change a serious reassessment based on other factors? --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epipelagic: is there any reason not to return this article to B-class now that the single erroneous taxonomical caption has been removed? --McGeddon (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After nearly a month without any response to this question, and since the article no longer contains the single taxonomical error that led to its "royal mess of your new article" downgrading, I've gone ahead and returned the article to B-class, for the sake of other users of the WikiProjects. --McGeddon (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Predators[edit]

"predator fish such as sharks, dog fish, billfish, tuna...." Is there a need to specify dogfish, once sharks have been mentioned? They are sharks, after all. o0drogue0o 07:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)

Translation??[edit]

There doesn't seem to be a translation of this page yet there is [Hareng] page in the french wikipedia (for example). Yet that page links to Atlantic Herring - should it link here instead? It seems this is a problem in all languages. --TheAnarcat (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I agree with you, but another editor doesn't. See Herring vs. Clupea interwiki above. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of animations[edit]

Some animations were removed from this article by some editor who appears to be on a crusade against using animations. If animations are to be banned from Wikipedia, that would be a huge backward step, just one remove away from banning images altogether. If the editor believes that their preference is the way to go, they should take the issue to the community and have the relevant guidelines changed. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I raised this further up, as users were objecting to the animations as far back as 2004! Wikipedia has a clear policy on how to use animated GIFs, and says that they "should be used sparingly; a static image with a link to the animation is preferred unless the animation has a very small file size". We should bear in mind that large animation files may be disruptive to users on slow internet connections or very low-spec machines, and could be potentially useless to a user reading a paper copy.
The herring shoal picture in the infobox is 900k, and the animation in the gallery further down is 400k - I left the small 41k "herrings hunting in a synchronised way" animation intact as this seemed informative (and is explained in the text), but I don't think the 1.3Mb of video-style animations, neither of which are "very small", merit an exception to the "sparingly" of WP:IUP. --McGeddon (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The internet has sped up spectacularly, over 30x, since 2004! 900k is not much these days, and most high resolution images (not gifs) on Wikipedia use several megabytes. Instead of trying to move Wikipedia backwards towards Victorian technology, it would be better to work to get developers to address issues like this in a rational way. For example, instead of penalising everyone, there could be a user preference which blocks large gifs from downloading on ultra-slow hookups unless the user requests them. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a big difference between the file size of an original high-resolution image and the size of the (smaller) version which is rendered on the page; the second image in this article, the one of herring in a barrel, is indeed 2.4MB when viewed full size, but the version that appears in the user's browser is a tiny 23k. In contrast, the 1.76MB shoal animation is 929k when thumbnailed.
You're right that the internet is faster, but it's changed in other significant ways, and smartphones are, ironically, accessing the web through a slow connection again. I don't know how many phone browsers react to a large animated image by just loading the first frame, but even in that best case, we aren't doing those readers any great favours by opening the article with the grainiest, blurriest picture we have.
Image use policy may be outdated in requiring that animated gifs be used "sparingly" and have a "very small file size", but as you said in your first comment here, if you think your preference makes more sense than policy, then we should talk to other editors about changing that policy. --McGeddon (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is that personally I like the gifs and feel that the article would be significantly diminished without them. Other people I asked said they liked the gifs too. I still think your concerns about cell phones etc should be resolved at a software level. Otherwise, cell phones with slow connections become a lowest common denominator which drag everything down to their level. There are some magnificent animations on Wikipedia, and I would hate to see them lost. Surely if it becomes a problem for cell phones, the manufacturers will add a preference to disable the loading of gifs, or to load only the first frame? Why do you think Wikipedia should avoid the problem for them by downgrading the quality of its presentations, so the phone manufacturers don't have to solve the problem themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, some phone browsers will just load only the first frame, and the same happens if the article is printed out on paper or appears in a book. In all of these cases, though, we're opening the article with a somewhat blurry black-and-white image of a shoal of fish. WP:IMAGES recommends that the first image on the page "should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works" - if the shoal animation didn't exist and we only had the static shot, I don't think we'd be showcasing it as the first, establishing image of the article.
There's no need to lose any video-clip animations entirely - if they're valuable to the article, we can include a static thumbnail (deliberately selecting the frame that looks best as a static image) and link to the full animation in the caption below it.
Technology constraints are an interesting problem with a lot of different solutions, but it looks as if Wikipedia policy is of a mind that image download size is significant and animations should have a "very small" file size. I agree that this is certainly less relevant than it was eight years ago, but while that policy remains in place, it should be respected. Perhaps it's worth suggesting a review of these guidelines at Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy? --McGeddon (talk) 11:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would be better if Wikipedia found a software solution instead of downgrading by adding constraints to what can be displayed in articles. I add content to articles, so my focus is on wanting the best possible display of articles. I also prefer win-win solutions, while you seem focused on an approach that results in a win for a small group of users and a loss for a large group of users. Surely, if there is a will, software developers can detect if someone is using Wikipedia with a slow connection, and load only the first frame in larger gifs. The gif could then animate if it is clicked. That way everyone gets what they want. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm focused on here is making sure that the article follows Wikipedia's policy on images, which tells us to be conscious of download size and to only use animated GIFs with a "very small" file size. We shouldn't ignore policy on the basis that there may later be a software update which fixes the problems this creates; we should suggest the software update to the development team, then - if it's implemented - suggest a change to image policy to reflect it.
We can't have a "win-win solution" until this software update exists. Until then, we have to decide whether the loss is "all dial-up and mobile users are served a slow or low-quality article" or "users who would have preferred to see an embedded video clip at the top of the article are instead shown a picture". Current policy says - quite reasonably, I think - that we should put basic accessibility above aesthetics, and give everyone a static image. Do you disagree with my reading of current policy here? --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any suggestion that WP:IUP might permit the inclusion of 1.4MB of video-style animated GIFs, I've gone ahead and cut them. Objections and third opinions welcome. --McGeddon (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay --Epipelagic (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

missing interwiki[edit]

The interwiki on this article is confusing. A friend of mine wanted to know what the fish is called in Chinese, I introduced him to the concept of interwiki links, and we went to the most popular name of the fish, which is Herring, only to find no interwiki at all! Afterwards I see the discussion above and Olaff claiming to have examined the articles in details on every linked wiki and found them to be about the specific scientific name not the general fish. I assure you that ar:رنجة for example, which is my native tongue (which you incorrectly mislabeled as Thai in your discussion, it's not Thai, it's Arabic), points to the general fish description and not a specific scientific name. And I am pretty confident at least some others are the same, I also dont see the point of having a general article with no interwiki where everyone would search, and a scientific named article which has all the interwiki, the purpose of interwiki is for people to see information in other languages, and for this specific article, I am sure 99% of people searching for the information would be searching for the term 'Herring' not 'Clupea'. I see two things that can be done here:

  • Interwiki need to point to the popular name that everyone in other languages expects it to be, namely Herring.
  • If anyone is concerned about the scientific correctness of the general article, both articles should be merged (i don't care under which name, as long as there is a redirect).

I am going to put back the interwiki for the Arabic article and remove if from the other article because that's one I am sure what the article refers to, other than that I will leave it to the active editors of this article to resolve this --Shipmaster (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Olaff if he would mind clarifying his position --Epipelagic (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rorquals[edit]

An angry warring editor has been replacing, on articles everywhere as well as the herring article, the term rorqual whales with rorqual. He/she reasons that rorqual is a type of whale, so it is redundant to refer to them as rorqual whales. Of course that is technically correct, but in my view "rorqual whales" is a more transparent term for many readers, probably most readers, who will not be aware that a rorqual is a type of whale. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in contexts where it's not clear that Wikipedia is talking about a whale, we should save the reader a click (and not leave print readers in the dark) by mentioning what a rorqual is. In this article the paragraph already mentions whales and the reader can probably fill in the blanks, but I don't see any harm in clarifying that a rorqual is indeed a whale, rather than another larger sea creature that also lunge feeds. If User:SHFW70's objection is merely that "rorqual whale" looks clumsily redundant to experts in the same way as "PIN number", it's a simple matter to rephrase the sentence in such a way that it mentions that rorquals are whales without calling them "rorqual whales" - I'll do that now. --McGeddon (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, the phrase is fine. It appears quite often in scholarly literature. Please don't feel the need to rewrite anything just for the sake of getting rid of it. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guanine harvesting[edit]

According to http://www.businessinsider.com/15-surprising-things-that-contain-animal-products-2014-3 , Guanine is taken from herring scales and is used in nail polish. Would that be an thing we should add in this article?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herring. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norway's herring fisheries.[edit]

I'm surprised there's no mention of the largest Herring fisheries in the world on the coast of Norway and the collapse of it. Two of the worlds largest herring migrations went along the coast of Norway - one of which migrated between Iceland and Norway. Every year the Orca's on the coast of Norway chase vast amounts of Herring into Norwegian fjords, and reports of large amounts of herring are even jumping onto dry land. The Norwegian herring export has been among the largest if not the largest herring or fish export in and of the world - exported as far as india as early as the 1920's according to some sources and historians. The history of the herring fisheries in Norway has even been iconic for the description of industrialization - as when large steam driven boats and trawlers started competing with the traditional fishermen in their small boats with sail and rowing oars - a famous large battle being fought even between the industrial steam driven trawlers and the traditional fishermen 6. March 1890 https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trollfjordslaget — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.211.210.202 (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a FIX in Wiki Cataloguing System and Link to other languages[edit]

I find the article to be well done. And yet another article gets the "official place" and connections to other languages, although it refers specifically to a sub-category of the Herring-family. Look here please: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_herring Can somebody please fix and/or merge the articles? Thank you


nieuwe_haring[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Feliciano#/media/File:Jose_Feliciano_,_zanger-gitarist_USA,_Jose_Feliciano_eet_nieuwe_haring,_Bestanddeelnr_923-5530.jpg Eating herring raw, a Dutch tradition, this pic explains it all. This is how they serve it, traditional outfit. 1970, we can use this picture, it's open for all to use properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A452:7D4C:1:BC17:671F:54BB:CE53 (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


History[edit]

The history (of herring fishing) is very short. The second graphic in the entire article is a chart that shows dramatic peaks and valleys. It would be quite informative if an explanation -- or at least discussion -- of these changes were added to the history section. Kdammers (talk) 02:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herring&oldid=1212527450"