Talk:Fish trap

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rationale of page

(First comment copied from fishing weir)

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

Fair enough, perhaps fish weir is not the appropriate target. I'll change the merge proposal into Fishing instead, where there is already a large exposition of fish traps. I think that there isn't enough material here to start a full article, especially compared to the already existing detail at Fishing. cmh 17:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the text in Fishing is too detailed and much of it should be moved here. But, the problem with it is that it focuses solely on ancient practices. Reading it and the text at Fishing weir gives the impression this is a primitive technique used only in the ancient times or by backward peoples. I found a similar problem (and attempted to fix it) with tar; it was only about ancient practices, nothing about modern times and industrial use. You could check the article at fi to get an idea how detailed an article this could be while 100% historical-or-indigenous-practices free. --Vuo 19:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel the information at Fishing focuses on the historical aspect. IMO it would be better to work there at increasing the level of detail concerning modern fish trap usage. I note from the tar article that you were able to work with the existing material and only make a few changes to improve the situation there. I don't see a huge amount of information in this article about the modern aspects of the practise, so why not start making changes at Fishing instead of duplicating information and work here? cmh 22:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for editing this article is because this article is specific, Fishing is generic. The great level of detail should be here, not in the general article. --Vuo 23:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I understand your position is that this specific article with a great deal of information about fish traps should be complementary to the general information available at Fishing. My problem is that while that may be a good goal, at present that is not what is going on right at this moment. Right now, we have a "specific" page with a few basic general facts about fish traps, while the "generic" article treats the subject in depth. Accordingly that is why I want it merged.

However I am OK with the way you would like it to be. So, here's what I suggest. This article should treat both the history of fish traps, and also modern usage of fish traps. All "detailed" information about fish traps must be in this comprehensive article. Information must be removed from the Fishing article and moved here, leaving only a general summary about fish traps there (in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style).

IF you agree with this, then I am OK with removing the merge tags, but only once this project of moving the information is complete because until this has happened this article is duplicative and needs to be merged. I have moved the page to fish trap from fishtrap because fishtrap is not a word.

How do you feel about this proposal? cmh 00:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty much what I intended. But, fishtrap is the word. I got it as a direct translation of "katiska" from the Kielikone dictionary. --Vuo 01:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the Kielikone dictionary. I've checked the Oxford English Dictionary and the Merriam Webster dictionary and I find no reference to "fishtrap". In addition, there are many editors at Fishing who have previously written about fish traps.There is now a redirect at fishtrap anyway, so anyone relying on this dictionary will find the article at fish trap. cmh 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the proposed change would be a good idea. The fish traps section of fishing is already quite substantial even though modern practices are barely mentioned - A flaw that has been bothering me for some time, but I have not been in any position to do anything about it. Gaius Cornelius 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

For future reference, if this page describes different modern methods, a few images which seem to be public domain are at http://iep.water.ca.gov/AES/yolo_research.html. Melchoir 00:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No merging!

There are two problems with merging. First, you can't remove an article before the material has been moved. Second, I can't see any reason to merge this to fishing. In this case, it'd be in order to make the main article (Fishing) shorter by moving sections from there to this article. --Vuo 16:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080908092936/http://www.coconutstudio.com/Fishing%20Methods%204%20-%20Fish%20Traps.htm to http://www.coconutstudio.com/Fishing%20Methods%204%20-%20Fish%20Traps.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mediteranean

I would prefer if we DIDN'T have this bit about the Mediteranean being a "fish trap" at all- a trap, in the context of this Page refers to a devise created and set to intentionally catch fish- not a geographical observation most people have never heard of. However, if we MUST have then surely it does NOT belong in the middle of the history of fish traps. Since it is a wholely different thing it needs a SMALL paragraph of its own, if at all.

IceDragon64 (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Mediterranean certainly functions as a very effective, large-scale, and naturally formed historic fish trap. The mix of fish within the Mediterranean cannot be understood without understanding how the Mediterranean functions as a trap. The article nowhere says it is confined to "intentional" traps. – Epipelagic (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Think mobile first: convert Types and methods table to text

Hi, I mainly use Wikipedia on my phone. Many others do, especially readers. The types and methods section is displayed very poorly on mobile. I don't see why it needs to be in table form. Am I missing something? ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 19:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you! And suffer similarly when accessing Wikipedia by phone. I agree that converting the § Types and methods section to text would be an improvement. Please go ahead and do it, if you can. yoyo (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]