This is an archive of past discussions about Caridea. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"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..
PbS02:26, 21 December 2003 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia (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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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.
--Stemonitis11:25, 12 January 2005 (UTC)
Recreational Shrimping
I am a recreational shrimper and I have updated the portion regarding recreational shrimping to make it more accurate.
In an unprecedented dive, the U.S. Navy bathyscaphe Trieste reached the bottom [of Mariana Trench] 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".
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 [1]. --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.
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
[2]: 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. [3] 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)
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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ([4]). 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 Wikipedia articles; they unilaterally declare the biological definitions of the current Wikipedia articles. This seems highly problematic, because Wikipedia 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)
Right, some people, in particular Australians, use the term "shrimp" in that way. Since this isn't Australian Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 crustacean taxonomy. 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 Wikipedia. --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 [you] 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." [sic -- Stemonitis (talk)][1]
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."[3]
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 Wikipedia 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 [penaeids, i.e. Dendrobranchiata] 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"; ISBN978-956-332-244-6), 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.) [note that even his title explicitly includes both "Shrimp and prawns"] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia does not acknowledge this broad usage.
Perhaps more alarmingly, the Wikipedia 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)
