Talk:Seafood/Archive 1

Edible "Fish" seafood?

The whole beginning of the "Types of seafood" section is very confusing. After the heading "Types of seafood" it goes on to talk specifically about the 31,000 species of fish and how they're the most diverse group of vertebrates, then provides a list of "principal food fish species" including oysters and crabs. What a mess! PSF--Psf11 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have we found anywhere to categorize algae and seaweed yet? What about frogs-as in froglegs?

Frogs don't live in the sea, they live in freshwater--BozMo |talk 15:51, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Seafood or not seafood? In my neighborhood, muskrat is still offered in some restaurants on Fridays -supposedly because Catholics were not permitted to eat meat on Fridays but muskrats being water-dwelling were considered seafood.

Just curiosity, edible algae are not considered seafood?

I would certainly consider them such; I don't find them in my grocery store, though, so if you can name some, please add them. I deliberately did not include seaweed, though, such as Japanese Nori and Hijiki, because I think English speakers generally apply the term "seafood" only to animals. Algae may also be a stretch for some.

Actually, i used the word algae because i forgot the term seaweed.

Well, there's a Welsh dish from seaweed, known as 'Laver bread' IIRC.

....and sodium alginate is a very common food ingredient ,as a thickener and gelling agent etc. It's not regarded as a food item in its own right, though

I couldn't help myself but I think this page should list dishes rather than ingredients. LinusTolke

Even when the dishes are defined as "seafood" by their ingredients? The term is also frequently used to refer to the ingredients themselves without reference to any particular dish: for example, a "seafood market" sells fresh fish, mollusks, etc., but does not serve cooked food. --LDC

OK. Then I will change the definition. LinusTolke

I have been served both of whale meat and polar bear meat in Norway (Spitzbergen). Both are only supposed to be eaten if the die for other reasons but whales and polar bears are both marine animals so is their flesh seafood? --BozMo |talk 15:50, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC) Oh, and seawater crocodile too.

I don't think polar bears qualify as a seafood. It doesn't live in or spend part of its life in water. Its main prey happens to live in the sea and beaches from time to time where a polar bear has a chance of catching it. A beaver spends more time in water than a polar bear but no one calls a beaver a seafood. Revth 02:51, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wrong picture

The picture doesn't fit. It shows so called "Belgium seafood" made from chocolate! It is a speciality from Brussels and is some kind of praliné. 21. Aug 2005

Seafood Crisis

Why not add the predicted marine life crisis to this article?

Added some info on this. Feel free to edit and expand. (by the way, it doesn't hurt to sign your messages with four tildes). Wikipedia brown 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this an article about seafood or overfishing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.10.162 (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All articles about food have sections that talk about issues of mass-production. Article is about seafood and overfishing should be included. Conscious consumers should know that before they run out of tuna and start overreacting, saying "why didn't anybody tell me?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.63.21.66 (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Propose merge with Fish (food) as most of the content is redundant. Isopropyl 04:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. If the contents of the two articles are redundant, then they both need rewriting. Merge is not the solution as both are different subjects. A lot of food fish are not seafood (tilapia, catfish, etc.) while seafood includes many non-fish food sources. --Melanochromis 05:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edible seaweed is not seafood?

This article is one of the earliest articles in Wikipedia, it was created with a single edit on 13 July 2001. Two months, later, on 3 September 2001, the second edit was made to the article by Mike Dill. Mike didn't hang round Wikipedia, he made a handful of edits over a period of 12 days and disappeared, so I cannot ask him to contribute to this discussion.

Well Mike contributed this, dubious, and uncited statement: "The plants of the sea are often also edible, including sea lettice (sic), nori, which is a type of seaweed, and most simple algae, but they are not considered seafood as such."

The essence of this unfortunate statement has survived 500 subsequent edits over a period of six and a half years. Today it reads: "Edible seaweeds are rarely considered seafood, even though they come from seawater and are widely eaten around the world."

Really? Google "seafood seaweed" for over 1,000,000 hits. Looking at definitions around the web, there are a couple that echo what Wikipedia has been saying for the last six years. I suggest that they got the idea from Wikipedia.

Anyway, I have adjusted this offending statement to suggest the opposite. So, if any of you lot, who made those 500 subsequent edits, know something about which I need to be set straight, please revert my edit and adjust my crooked thinking.

The issue matters, because it affects the way operations on aquatic plants are categorised and how their navigation works in Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin

Is dolphin and whale also part of the seafood category? --Stone (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lipids

The statement "10-12% of the human brain is composed of lipids" seems kind of silly given that 15% of the human body is composed of lipids. (Give or take, depending on how fat you are.) It sounds like promo material for health supplements.--Yannick (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naming seafood articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

extremely long argument between two users that produced no actionable results.

Background: This thread originated in a discussion between Neelix (talk · contribs) and myself. The discussion was triggered when Neelix renamed an article I had written Shrimp meat instead of Shrimp as food, and reverted me when I tried to restore the title. At the time he renamed the article, it looked like this. It now looks like this. Since the outcome of this discussion affects the naming and scope of all the child articles of seafood, I have, with the agreement of Neelix, transferred the discussion here. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The background provided by Epipelagic above is not accurate. I have only moved the article to the title Shrimp meat once and Epipelagic has not restored the title. I have never reverted a title change made by Epipelagic on this article. I previously moved the article to Shrimp cuisine, and Epipelagic reverted that move. I therefore tried "Shrimp meat" as a reasonable alternative. Neelix (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop nitpicking. Here you move the page from "Shrimp and prawn (food)" to "Shrimp cuisine". Here I reverted you. Here you reverted me and changed the name to "Shrimp meat". There was at that time another silly argument going on because someone else wanted these articles to refer to "shrimp and prawn", and not just to "shrimp". I gave a simplified account above to avoid irrelevant complications. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate that my relations with you have been civil and that I have not been edit warring with you is not nitpicking. It is not appropriate to suggest that I have been engaging in an edit war with you, which is what your initial explanation of the background above implies. I have never violated 3RR, nor have my edits violated civility. Neelix (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do what you want, and I'll rewrite the article so it is about shrimp meat. I also would like an article about shrimp as a food, which covers essentially the same scope as the original article. Since you don't like the title "Shrimp (food)", which would disambiguate it from the main Shrimp article, can you please suggest a workable alternative title. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference in scope between the two articles you are proposing? As far as I can tell, the term "shrimp meat" is the most common term for human food consisting in shrimp. Neelix (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the best I can at the moment to rewrite the article on shrimp meat (well your article really, it's not an article I would normally write). You can expand it if you like with accounts of how shrimp meat is separated mechanically from the shrimp shell when it is processed commercially. That seems to be the main area where the term "shrimp meat" is used. It is also used occasionally in marketing, where packaged shrimp meat is sold by weight, instead of the more usual sale of whole shrimp by number per unit weight. It is rarely used in the context of food or cooking, except when talking about how to de-shell shrimp.

In order to rewrite the article I had to strip the parts that don't specifically refer to "shrimp meat". I would like to restore those removed parts in another article which deals with shrimp as a food. The term "shrimp meat" is not suitable. See, for example, these dictionary definitions for "meat":

flesh of a mammal as opposed to fowl or fish – Merriam-Webster
The edible flesh of animals, especially that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry – The Free Dictionary
The meaning "flesh of an animal used as food" is often understood to exclude fish and other seafood – Wiktionary

I hesitate to quote from the Wikipedia article fish (food), for fear you will rename it "fish meat" and collapse the whole area of seafood ("sea meat"?) into terminal disarray. However, it says there, "English does not distinguish between fish as an animal and the food prepared from it, as it does with pig versus pork or cow versus beef. Some other languages do, as in the Spanish peces vesus pescado and the German fisch vesus speisefisch. English also has the term seafood, which covers fish as well as other marine life used as food." Similarly , English uses venison for deer meat.

If I were writing an article titled "pig meat", I would write about the pig meat industry, that is the industry that processes and transports pig meat from the supplier to the point where is marketed as a food. If I wanted to write about pig as a food, I would write a separate article called "Pig (food)" or "Pig as food". Except that I wouldn't have to do that because the English language has a word that means precisely that; it can simply be called "Pork". Even physically, the term pork conveys a lot more than the unstructured term pig meat. Pork includes structured things like pig ribs, pig trotters, pig liver and pig heads. The term does not just refer to a slab of meat. Likewise, shrimp shells, shrimp heads, and even shrimp entrails, are often separated from the tail meat and fried or ground and used elsewhere in other dishes.[1][2][3]

Can you please now let me know of an appropriate title that can be used for the article on shrimp as a food that will not be renamed in an unworkable way by you. My own preference is "Shrimp (food)", because the issue is a straightforward disambiguation and that title is aligned with most other titles referring to specific seafoods, such as Salmon (food). The article could also be called "Shrimp as food". Shrimp can be used to refer either to the animal itself, or it can be used as to refer to the animal as food, as in "would you like some shrimp". The English language itself does not disambiguate these uses, so it needs to be done at the level of the article title. Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for going into such detail in explaining to me your position on these articles. We seem to be divided in two respects, one with respect to terminology and the other with respect to article content. If I understand your position correctly, you see the term "shrimp meat" as referring to shrimp food only in certain contexts and therefore view "shrimp meat" as a subtopic of shrimp food. You would therefore like to have one article called "Shrimp (food)" or "Shrimp as food" that would serve as the parent article to the Shrimp meat article. My concern with this position is twofold. Firstly, I do not believe that "Shrimp meat" is an appropriate name for a subtopic of shrimp food, but rather that it is another term for the concept as a whole. The fact that it is more commonly used in certain contexts than other contexts does not make it an appropriate term for a subarticle because it can be (and has been) used to refer to the entire subject. What we have now is an ill-defined article called "Shrimp meat" that discusses a vaguely delineated portion of the topic of shrimp food. Secondly, I do not believe "Shrimp (food)" and "Shrimp as food" to be appropriate titles for any article, namely because our policy on article title format states that we should "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another" (as "Shrimp (food)" does) and because "Shrimp as food" is an awkward construction to which there are less awkward alternatives. What do you see as the scope of the subarticle you are proposing that is currently called "Shrimp meat"? What do you see as the scope of the main/parent article? Perhaps if I understand how you wish the two articles' scopes to be delineated, we can discuss a more appropriate title. If you would be willing to write a sentence-long explanation of the scope of each of the two articles you are proposing, I think that would go a long way to us coming to a resolution. Neelix (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "Shrimp as food is an awkward construction for which there are less awkward alternatives". To me, that is a descriptive title which is precise, and not remotely awkward. It is necessarily descriptive, because, as explained above, English does not have a word for shrimp as food. Can you indicate why you think it is awkward, and give some examples of "less awkward alternatives". Please don't offer "Shrimp meat" again. When you say "Shrimp meat is... another term for the concept as a whole", that is, shrimp as food, I can only assume that you didn't read what I wrote above. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully read what you wrote. "Shrimp meat" does refer to the concept as a whole, as far as I understand the whole concept to extend; it is simply more common in certain contexts than in others. I don't think this conversation is going to go further unless we have a mutual understanding of what the content of the article(s) should look like. Neelix (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If as you say, you read what I wrote, then you know exactly what the content of the respective articles are. I fully explained the content of your article, titled Shrimp meat, in the first paragraph at the start of this thread. The content of Shrimp as food would be, as I also explained above, the content of the original article which had to be stripped from the new article. Where are your example "less awkward alternatives"? You have addressed not a single point I have raised. And you have offered not a single reasoned argument to support your position. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the original article didn't have a well-defined scope either. I understand that your opening paragraph states some of the things that you believe the subarticle should cover, but this is not a scope. What is the one, unified topic of the subarticle? If you can define it in a single phrase without using the term "shrimp meat", and do the same for the main/parent article, I believe we can get somewhere. Neelix (talk) 16:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimp meat is about the flesh of shrimps

Expanding, Shrimp meat might look at things like

how shrimps are commercially de-shelled to extract the meat
how shrimps are domestically de-shelled to extract the meat
how shrimp meat is preserved or stored safely
how it can be further processed into shrimp pastes and sauces (though perhaps not, because these usually include the ground shells)

– As I said above, "it's not an article I would normally write". If you think it should be written, you write it.

Shrimp as food is about shrimp destined to be eaten

Expanding, Shrimp as food might look at things like

the economic and social history of shrimp as a food
the different types and food qualities of edible shrimps
how shrimp is presented when you buy it
the nutritional value and toxins found in shrimp (this has some connection with shrimp meat)
the ways shrimp can be prepared for eating
the ways shrimp can be presented when eating (varying from a paste used as a condiment to eating whole live shrimps)
different attitudes to eating shrimp around the world --Epipelagic (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed explanation, both the sentence summaries and the enumeration of details. Based on how you have defined the scopes of both articles, it sounds as though the "flesh of shrimps" article should be the parent article for the "eating shrimp" article; there is no shrimp that is consumed as food other than shrimp flesh, therefore shrimp flesh is the broader topic. Would you agree? Neelix (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course not. How could you possibly think that? Please read carefully what I have written. If you are going to persist with this tack, then it is time for you to do some work, and come up with some rational arguments justifying what so far appears to be an absurd and uncomprehending position. You also need to explain your rejection of the dictionary entries I gave above. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all shrimp that is eaten by humans is shrimp flesh, than the eating of shrimp by humans is a subtopic of shrimp flesh. If you disagree with this assertion, what is your reasoning? My argument on this point neither relies on nor denies the dictionary definitions you have provided for "meat". Neelix (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing logical categories. An article on Shrimp as food is not a subarticle of shrimp meat any more than an article on motor cars would be a subarticle of petrol. If anything, shrimp meat is a subarticle of shrimp as food. By the way, I gave you explicit and sourced examples above where the shells and viscera of shrimps were separated from the meat, and then both components were used to make different food preparations. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, shrimp heads and entrails are part of the meat. All three of the examples you provide of using the shells in cuisine do not involve the consumption of shells; the extra meat is simply boiled off for broth. Do you have evidence to suggest shrimp shells are consumed by humans? Neelix (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 32,000 examples. Now you provide me with sources that support your contention that shrimp heads are "shrimp meat". --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating that the meat is not the only portion of the shrimp that is eaten by humans. You are therefore correct in suggesting that eating shrimp is not a subtopic of shrimp flesh. Because the term "meat" is only used in the context of consumption, it is quite the opposite; namely, shrimp flesh is a subtopic of eating shrimp. Considering the small amount of information currently on the article that falls solely within the scope of what would be called "Shrimp meat", I think it best to keep it as a section only to be split off if it grows large enough. Would you agree? Now all that remains is the question of what the main article about eating shrimp should be called. Is this the only point on which we currently disagree? Neelix (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you that "Shrimp meat" is best to keep as a section only to be split off if it grows large enough. You will have to tell me whether we agree on titles. I'm happy with either the descriptive title shrimp as food or the disambiguation title shrimp (food). The first title is my preference. It is simple and makes it clear what the article is about. The second title is also appropriate in my view, because the term shrimp, like fish is ambiguous, and can refer either to the animal itself, or to the animal as a food. Apart from those two, I can't think of another title which might be appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Shrimp cuisine"? The term "cuisine" is specific to human food, while "food" can refer to the food consumed by any animal, and so would cover other animals eating shrimp. Neelix (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

scope

Shrimp as food would include topics such as

the economic and social history of shrimp

different attitudes to shrimp around the world (religious, national etc)

The commercial processing, storage and marketing of shrimp

ethical issues to do with the treatment of live shrimp

sustainable choices when choosing shrimp as food

different types and food qualities of edible shrimps

nutrients and toxins found in shrimp (this has some connection with shrimp meat)

how shrimp is presented when you buy it

ways shrimp can be prepared for eating

ways shrimp can be presented when eating (varying from a paste used as a condiment to eating whole live shrimps)

specific shrimp dishes and cuisines around the world

the use of shrimp as an animal food

Apologies for my delay responding. Do you mind if I transfer this thread to the talk page of seafood? There are implications here for naming seafood articles in general. "Shrimp as cuisine" is part of what would be covered in an article called Shrimp as food, but would not itself be inclusive enough to make a suitable title. A cuisine usually refer to a style of cooking practices and food dishes used by a particular culture or in a particular locality. Thus one could refer to "Hong Kong cuisine", and even "Hong Kong shrimp cuisine", meaning the particular shrimp dishes used in Hong Kong. But you wouldn't normally just refer to "Shrimp cuisine," detached from a culture or locality.

I've placed a topic list for an article like "Shrimp as food" in the text box at the right, where it can be updated. This scheme could apply to seafood articles in general. The article could be called "Shrimp as seafood" to avoid other animals, but I think it is better to include a section for that in the article, if it is relevant. For example, brine shrimp are widely feed to other animals.

Terms like shrimp, salmon, or oyster are ambiguous, and can refer to the animal itself, or to the animal as food. It is unnecessary to use the title "Shrimp as animal", because the default meaning of shrimp refers to it as animal, so "Shrimp" is sufficient. But in an article called "Shrimp as food", most occurrences of the word "shrimp" could be replaced by "shrimp as food", because that is its meaning in that context. If at the dinner table, if I said to you, "Would you like some shrimp?", it is clear from the context that what is meant was "Would you like some shrimp as food?". --Epipelagic (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you see an intelligible way of transferring this discussion to Talk:Seafood such that it would be useful there, feel free to do so. I think you and I are viewing the articles and the relationships between them in fundamentally different ways. The Shrimp article is called "Shrimp" and not "Shrimp as animal" not because "as animal" is the default meaning of the word "Shrimp" but because Shrimp is the main article for the subject, encompassing everything dealing with the species, both when it is alive and dead. The word "Shrimp" is not made ambiguous because we call the dead things we eat "shimp" just as we call the live things "shrimp" too. Ambiguity refers to one word referring to two unrelated concepts, but the shrimp that lives in the ocean is the shrimp that we eat; a discussion of their anatomy is a subtopic of this main topic just as a discussion of our eating of them is. The title "Shrimp (food)" is therefore explicitly prohibited in our guidlines. Would you consider "Human consumption of shrimp" as a reasonable alternative? If the article is also to include non-human animals' consumption of shrimp, I would recommend the title "Consumption of shrimp". Neelix (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You object to the title Shrimp (food) on the grounds that there is is no ambiguity to disambiguate. I disagree, but we can drop that matter since Shrimp as food is, in my view, a better title. You mention the somewhat parallel case of shrimp anatomy. I presume you would be happy with a child article called "Shrimp anatomy". Parents of that article would be the shrimp article and the anatomy article. In a similar manner, the article Shrimp as food has shrimp and seafood as parents. The seafood article has a raft of actual or potential child articles, such as Cod as food, Seaweed as food, Oysters as food.

You now recommend naming the article "Consumption of shrimp". In that case, the parent article Seafood should be renamed something like Consumption of sea plants and animals. Do you also recommend that? What does "Consumption of shrimp" convey that "Shrimp as food" doesn't convey in a more simple, more inclusive, and more accurate way? Suppose you read down the list of topics in the topic box above right, and replace every occurrence of "shrimp" with "shrimp as food". The list still reads okay (if with some redundancy). Now try replacing every occurrence of "shrimp" with "consumption of shrimp". Now it doesn't read okay. Many topics read awkwardly and illogically, because "consumption of shrimp" conveys only the act of eating a shrimp, whereas the article discusses a lot more than that. Another article on Wikipedia close to this is Consumption of cannabis, which discusses only the consumption of cannabis, and not things like the nutritional/toxic properties of cannabis, or how cannabis is marketed, stored, processed etc. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To move the article to the title "Consumption of shrimp" would not suggest that Seafood be moved at all because "seafood" is a concise and common term for the consumption of sea plants and animals. There is, however, no concise and common term for the consumption of shrimp. The "x of y" title format is far more well-established than the "x as y" title format, and for good reason; "x of y" is a noun phrase, while "x as y" is not. Wikipedia policy on article title format states that "nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech". "x-as-y" is a noun phrase, but I can't find any sources using the phrase "shrimp-as-food". Consider Canada and its subarticles: would you move Economy of Canada to "Canada as economic power", Geography of Canada to "Canada as geographical location", and Politics of Canada to "Canada as political entity"? "Consumption of shrimp" is the most appropriate title for the article currently called Shrimp meat. Neelix (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are claiming seafood "is a concise and common term for the consumption of sea plants and animals". If you read my comment immediately above, you would know that is radically incorrect. It's discourteous of you to keep generating further confusions which make it clear that you don't bother to read my replies. If you look at the article on seafood, you will find it has eight sections. Only one of those sections is on consumption. If your assertion is correct, then the seafood article will also have to be stripped down to little more than a stub. In fact, if you are correct, all the current articles to do with seafood will have to be trimmed to the point where it's not worth having them at all, like you have already done with shrimp meat. If you want an article called "Consumption of shrimp", it will be quite different again from your other article on Shrimp meat. A definitive book on seafood is Seafood Handbook: The comprehensive guide to sourcing, buying and preparation. It covers, as the heading says, sourcing, buying and preparation. The word "consumption" hardly appears in the book. The chapters headings refer to the sea animals as food, eg as "Shrimp, freshwater", "Cod", or "Oyster, Pacific. It is unnecessary to disambiguate those names by calling them "Shrimp as food" etc., because they already occur in a book about seafood. The Library of Congress catalogues the book as "Fish as food".

Second, you claim that "shrimp as food" is not a noun phrase?! Of course it is. Again you get things inside out. We've already been through that exercise, where you can replace every occurrence of "shrimp" in the topic box, on the right above, with "shrimp as food". "Shrimp" is a noun. "Shrimp as food" can be a replacement, that is it functions as a noun, so it is a noun phrase. It is your phrase, "Consumption of shrimp", which cannot be substituted, because it functions as a verb phrase. The rest of your comments, about Canada and geographical locations, have no bearing on the issue and are just red herrings. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing me of not reading your comments. I read your comments fully, each time. Also, it is inappropriate to blame me for cutting out content from Shrimp meat; I have never done anything of the sort. I would appreciate it if our discussion would be restricted to article content rather than editor behaviour. The example regarding Canada is not a red herring; it is a relevant and analogous example, and demonstrates why "Shrimp as food" is not an appropriate title. There is also no reason for the title of this article to fit into sentences that you have arbitrarily written in such a way as to suit a particular title. The phrase "consumption of shrimp" applies to all of the things that you suggest should be included. All of the sections on the Seafood article are about consumption. If they were not about consumption, then the article would not be called "Seafood", for it would not be an article about food at all. Food is, by definition, that which is consumed. "Shrimp as food" is not a noun phrase because it cannot as a phrase be the subject of a verb. In order for "Shrimp as food" to take on a verb and be grammatically correct, it would have to be written "Shrimp-as-food", and that phrase is not found in the literature. "Human consumption of shrimp" and "Consumption of shrimp" are the best options for a title that we have come to thus far. Neelix (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, you are directly responsible for the stuff that had to be cut from shrimp meat. You are the person who renamed the article, riding roughshod over the objections of the person who wrote it. You then didn't clean up the article yourself, and rewrite it so it reflected the title you imposed on it. Someone else had to that for you. Now you are insisting the article be renamed again, to suit yourself, with an even more absurd title, "Human consumption of shrimp", a term that appears just 11 times on Google search. Your other preferred term, "consumption of shrimp", occurs a more generous 29,000 times. If you examine the context in which that term is used, it is usually referring to consumption statistics, the tonnage of shrimp that is used by humans as food. That is what most readers would expect an article with that title to cover, a tiny sliver of the main article on shrimp as seafood, and a topic which is more usually covered in fishery articles by the shrimp production statistics, since the figures are more readily available, and are nearly identical.

By contrast, "shrimp as food" occurs 90,000 times. Still a small number, given that "shrimp" by itself occurs 90,000,000 times. Still, it is a large enough number when you consider that the term is used only as a disambiguation, because English does not have a separate term for shrimp as food. Most web articles about shrimp as food are already in a context of talking about food, so it is not necessary to disambiguate.

"Shrimp as food" doesn't need hyphens to be a noun phrase. The use of hyphens in compound nouns and verbs is becoming archaic, and the sixth edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary removed them from 16,000 entries. Your analogies with countries are also irrelevant. Nor do compound nouns have to be in the form "x of y". What about Pain in fish? Are you now going to rename that something like Afflicted states of fish? You are trying to rigidly apply, or misapply guidelines that simply don't fit in this case. You still have not offered any reasonable alternative to Shrimp as food as the title for an article on shrimp as seafood. Unless you provide good reason why I shouldn't, I will shortly reinstate the deleted material in an article called Shrimp as food. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never suggested that any material be deleted from the article in question; you removed it, and I would be glad to see it reinstated. Compound nouns and noun phrases are not the same thing. Neither "shrimp-as-food" nor "shrimp as food" is a compound noun, however the former is a noun phrase and the latter is not. Because "Shrimp as food" is not a noun phrase, it is not an appropriate article title. "Pain in fish" is a great title for the Pain in fish article. If you would prefer a similar title for the article we are discussing, how about "Shrimp in cuisine"? Neelix (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You renamed the article Shrimp meat, which misrepresents what the article was about. Of course material that doesn't belong in an article like that had to be removed. You didn't remove the inappropriate material yourelf because you either didn't think it through, or you expected me to clean it up for you. Why do you continue avoiding responsibility for something that was a direct consequence of your own action? If you actually do want the deleted material reinstated, then the article must have a title which reflects that material, such as Shrimp as food.

Yes, I should have said "compound nouns and noun phrases" above. Cuisine has already been discussed above, do we really have to go over it again? The scope box at the top right lists ten topics. Only one of these is to do with cuisine. Shrimp in cuisine is a totally inadequate title (aside from the issue that "cuisine" is also a word that often has peacock or pretentious overtones). If you were to write an article with that title, it would again have to be stripped down, like Shrimp meat, and will still leave outstanding the issue of what should be done with the deleted material.

Guidelines are not written in stone. They should be used with common sense. Even if you are right (and in my view you are not), exceptions can be appropriate, particularly in areas that were never considered when the rules were originally drawn up. You said earlier we seem focused on different things. As I see it, despite the 4,000 articles you say you have written, you are focused on what you see as grammar and the ways titles have been used in other areas. You seem to think it is enough to focus on this without considering the content that the titles imply. In my case, the focus is on developing the content. That's what I came here to do. I recently developed the seafood template and half the articles on that template. To me it seems that you are determined to collapse the whole area of seafood into disarray, leaving a trail of awkward stubs or minor articles with names like Shrimp meat, Consumption of shrimp and Shrimp in cuisine. You've certainly stopped me in my track, so I am no longer developing content on seafood and wondering if the whole seafood area and the seafood template should be dismantled. I'm not sure whether that that is your intention. If it is not your intention, then you need to come up now with a workable alternative to Shrimp as food or let me get on with it. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the moves I have initiated or recommended required any change in content according to my belief at the time of initiation or recommendation. Removal of content is not an appropriate response to my initiation/recommendation of these moves. Please reconsider "Shrimp in cuisine" as a compromise between our two preferred titles. I am not convinced that it is a peacock term; if it was, we wouldn't be using the term in so many article titles. As far as I can tell, "cuisine" contains all of the items you have outlined above in its scope except for the very last one (the use of shrimp as an animal food), and I don't think that entry should be included in the scope of the article in question. Neelix (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'll go over yet more reasons why Shrimp in cuisine simply won't work. Here are some dictionary definitions:

1. a style or manner of cooking: French cuisine 2. the food prepared by a restaurant, household, etc – Dictionary.com
: manner of preparing food : style of cooking; also : the food prepared – Merriam-Webster
1. a style or method of cooking, especially as characteristic of a particular country, region, or establishment: much Venetian cuisine is based on seafood 2. food cooked in a certain way: we spent the evening sampling the local cuisine – Oxforn Dictinaries
1. a particular style of cooking food, especially the style of a particular country or region 2. the food you can eat in a particular place, especially a restaurant or hotel – MacMillan Dictionary
1. a style or manner of cooking ⇒ "French cuisine" 2. the food prepared by a restaurant, household, etc – Collins Dictionaries
1. a particular style of cooking: French cuisine, vegetarian cuisine, the traditional cuisine of the Southwest 2. the food cooked in a particular restaurant or hotel, especially when it is very good: Enjoy the delicious cuisine created by our award-winning chef. – Longman Dictionary
Etymology: "The work cuisine has come to mean the "art of cooking" or "cookery" in France and throughout the world. It derives from the Latin word coquina meaning, “cooking” and from the word coquere meaning “to cook.” – Linda's Culinary Dictionary
Etymology: 1786, from Fr. cuisine "style of cooking," originally "kitchen, cooking, cooked food" (12c.), from L.L. cocina, earlier coquina "kitchen," from L. coquere "to cook" (see cook (n.)) – Online Etymology Dictionary

There is no disagreement about the meaning. Cuisines refer to styles of cooking that are confined to some particular context. The article X as food would have maybe one section out of maybe 10 sections which talked about cooking in the style of specific cuisines. Look through these cuisine sentence examples. Not one of them even hints at the other topics covered by X as food as set out in the scope box above.

Boiling an egg or flipping burgers on the grill is cooking. But if you want to create cuisine, you need to understand how to prepare the culinary specialties of a particular country or culture. – Vocabulary.com

Cuisines are not just to do with cooking. They are more specific. They are particular styles of cooking in a particular context or location (see box).

You cannot talk about the "cuisine" involved in basic preparation for cooking – the generic preparation that is common to all cooking, and not a specific cuisine. Thus, you would discuss general matters like shelling seafood, how long it can be cooked before it is overcooked, and so on, in a section that didn't belong to the "cuisine" section. You don't talk about the "cuisine " of shelling shrimps. As an aside, many seafood dishes are not cooked at all. They are eaten raw. In some cases, they are eaten while they are still alive. Whatever we might think of that, live and raw seafood is also within the scope of an article about seafood. Also within the scope are ethical issues of how the animals are killed and treated before they are killed.

You wouldn't refer to things like

the cuisine of seafood processing factories
the cuisine of seafood preservation
the cuisine of seafood transportation
the cuisine of seafood wholesaling
the cuisine of your local fishmonger
the cuisine of marketing seafood
the cuisine of seafood nutrition

Yet these topics all belong in articles about seafoods. The key point is that articles about seafoods are not primarily about cuisines, they are about seafoods. The title X as food is a simplified version of X as seafood, since X will refer to class of sea creatures. "Food" and "seafood" are nouns. Thus X as food also functions as a noun phase, it refers to food based on X. Hyphens are unnecessary, since there is no ambiguity here about what is meant, which is the main modern function for hyphens. I see nothing in the guidelines where X as food fails to comply. Even if you can find something, you would still need to find a better alternative title. You are still trying to fit X as food into this Procrustean bed of your own making which requires hacking off the head and main limbs of the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that "food" is a noun does not change the fact that "x as food" is not a noun phrase. I have already explained above why this is the case, and that "x as food" is therefore an inappropriate article title format per our policy on article title format. I recommend that you review our article on noun phrases. I find your arguments against using the title "Shrimp in cusine" unconvincing. The Cuisine article itself is not about a specific cuisine, but rather about cuisine in general; it discusses "food preservation, storage, shipping and production" of food for humans. To exclude the possibility of using the word "cuisine" from the title of an article that is not on a specific local cuisine suggests that the majority of the Cuisine article's content would need to be removed. There is nothing that you are suggesting should be included on the article in question that is not dealt with in a broader manner on the main Cuisine article. "Shrimp in cuisine" is the most appropriate title for the article we are discussing. Neelix (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you ignore the reply I just wrote to you, and return to your position backed with only two untenable points.

Your first point is to repeat your claim that "x as food" is not a noun phrase. You claim you "explained above why this is the case". Where is your explanation? I can't find any satisfactory explanation. To the contrary, you agreed it was a noun phrase if it was hyphenated "x-as-y", which ignores that there are no hard and fast rules concerning hyphens in contemporary English unless ambiguity is involved. You tell me to read the article Noun phrase. Read it yourself. Read the very first section on Identifying noun phrases, which makes it crystal clear that "x as food" is a noun phrase. How can you think that "shrimp as food" here is not a noun phrase? You say, "Shrimp as food" is "not a noun phrase because it cannot as a phrase be the subject of a verb." Here is a counter example.
Your second point is another unfounded claim that Shrimp as cuisine implies everything that is appropriate for an article on shrimp as a seafood. You say, "There is nothing that you are suggesting should be included on the article in question that is not dealt with in a broader manner on the main Cuisine article." You just made that up. The article does not discuss "food preservation, storage, shipping and production" at all. It just mentions those topics in passing in the history section as being background things that shape individual cuisines, along with economics and climate change. Look through the articles on specific cuisines, which will give you a better feel of what a cuisine is, and then find just one of them (there are about 100 to choose from) that discusses topics like those in a significant way. And then read thoughtfully my reply immediately above which sets out why Shrimp in cuisine is unworkable as a title.

How many times does "shrimp in cuisine" occur in Google books? You don't know do you, because you clearly didn't look. How many times does "shrimp in cuisine" occur on the world wide web? Just six times, and five of those are duplicates from a humorous blog about Bubba in Forest Gump giving his famous "million ways to use shrimp in cuisine" (that comment is fully quoted in the original article on shrimp as food, so I guess that fully covers "shrimp in cuisine"). The remaining occurrence on the web is not really an occurrence at all; it is a Google translation of a Japanese web site. In short, the phrase has been used only once on the web, and that was in a humorous blog. So there you have it. You are trying to push a title that really is not used in English at all.

You are basically sitting on your hands letting me do all the work. You do little more in response than just demur. You offer next to nothing in the way of reasoned argument, and show little sign of having researched the area. Reminds me of Khrushchev endlessly muttering "nyet" at the United Nations, though at least he offered something by banging his shoe.

I don't think Shrimp as food is a marvellous title. In fact I don't particularly like it. I think it is a compromise that is necessary, because the English language doesn't distinguish between shrimp as an animal and shrimp as food. If there is a better title, I would be happy to use it; but I can't think what it would be. That's my position. Your position is that you don't want the article called Shrimp as food. That's fine, but for your view to prevail, you must come up with a workable alternative. So far you haven't. You have offered three alternatives, and I have shown in detail why each of them falls way short of a workable title. Unless your real aim is to drive content editors from Wikipedia, then please now accept that is how it is, and let me get back to doing something constructive. If further down the line you think of a workable alternative, I will be happy for you to rename the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Epepelagic is of course correct. Neelix is simply nitpicking, I suppose in an attempt to to persuade readers that he has made some contribution to the article, to which he has not. In his crude attempt to inflate himself he has merely demonstrated the limitations to his grasp of the English language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Dewhurst (talk • contribs) 01:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these personal attacks. I will not respond to them.

1) There is nothing in Identifying noun phrases section that demonstrates that "shrimp as food" is a noun phrase; quite the opposite. What you identify as a counterexample is no counterexample at all. The source to which you link states "A person who rejects shrimp as food on the grounds of distaste is in a very different state from one who rejects shrimp as dangerous." You have argued that "shrimp as food" is a noun phrase in this sentence and that it takes a verb, but it does not. The verb "is" is taken by the noun phrase "A person who rejects shrimp as food"; "shrimp as food" is not a noun phrase by itself, nor could it be. The use of hyphens is only at a writer's discretion in compound nouns, not noun phrases. "Shrimp as food" is not a valid title for an article on Wikipedia.

2) I am not arguing for the title "Shrimp as cuisine"; that is just as problematic a title as "Shrimp as food". I am arguing for the title "Shrimp in cuisine", which is a noun phrase. Plenty of articles on cuisine refer to food preservation, storage, shipping and production. Consider Canadian cuisine, which discusses the salting of cod for preservation, the drying of salmon for storage, the shipping of hot dogs on canteen trucks, and the tapping of trees for production of maple syrup. If Canadian food preservation, storage, shipping and production were not discussed on the Canadian cuisine article, where should they be discussed? I see no other viable location for such information. Cuisine articles should and do discuss such things. "Shrimp in cuisine" is the best title for the article we are discussing. Neelix (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Neelix, Shrimp in cuisine will definitely not do. That title implies only a minor part of the article. The article Canadian cuisine merely mentions in passing items that belong in Canadian cuisine, such as salted cod, dried salmon, canteen hot dogs. That is not the same as accounts of preservation, storage, shipping and production. The nearest would be the photo of a women tapping a tree for maple syrup, and you could argue that photo doesn't belong in an article on cuisine.

There are 14 non-English wikipedias with articles devoted to fish as a seafood, or confined to a subtopic of that:

Country	Title	Translated title
Aragonese	an:Peix (alimento)	Fish (food)
German	de:Speisefisch	Edible fish
Finnish	et:Kala (toit)	Fish (brought)
Spanish	es:Pescado	Fish as food
French	fr:Poisson (aliment)	Fish (food)
Icelandic	is:Fiskur (matargerð)	Fish (food)
Italian	it:Pesce (alimento)	Fish (food)
Hebrew	he:דגי מאכל	Food fish
Lithuanian	lt:Žuvis (maistas)	Fish (food)
Malay	ms:Ikan (makanan)	Fish (food)
Dutch	nl:Vis (voeding)	Fish (food)
Polish	pl:Ryby konsumpcyjne	Fish consumption
Swedish	sv:Fisk (livsmedel)	Fish (food)
Turkish	tr:Balık eti	Fish meat

Eight of these title translate as Fish (food), one as Food fish, and the Spanish have a special word, Pescado, for fish as seafood. The remaining four titles refer to subtopics only; the Germans have their special word meaning edible fish, the Fins restrict their article to brought fish, the Poles to fish consumption and the Turks to fish meat. No one mention cuisine.

I accept you feel that Fish as food has some gray areas, and I'm happy to drop that as a title. That leaves Fish (food), and by extension, Shrimp (food), Cod (food), etc. This is clearly consistent also with naming conventions on other Wikipedias around the world. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that we both agree that "Shrimp as food" is not an appropriate title for the article we are considering. I have already explained in detail, however, why "Shrimp (food)" is just as clearly against Wikipedia's guidelines. As I stated above, our policy on article title format states that we should "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another", which "Shrimp (food)" does. The subject of the article we are discussing is a subtopic of the main Shrimp article, and parenthetical disambiguators are reserved for articles on unrelated topics that happen to be referred to by the same name. Other language versions of Wikipedia may have different guidelines, but ours quite clearly indicate that "Shrimp (food)" is not an appropriate title in this case, and for good reason: because the parenthetical disambiguator misleadingly suggests that the food and the species are two unrelated subjects. You have not answered my question: If Canadian food preservation, storage, shipping and production were not discussed on the Canadian cuisine article, where should they be discussed? You may question to what extent those things currently are discussed on that article, but if those things are to be discussed on Wikipedia at all, Canadian cuisine is the right place. I believe "Human consumption of shrimp" to be a valid title for the article in question (in keeping with the Polish title), but "Shrimp in cuisine" appears to me to be the most concise title that meets our guidelines. Neelix (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation

Background: This thread started on the Shrimp (food) talk page when Neelix started renaming the article. The name cannot now be reverted without access to admin tools. I have transferred the thread here, since this is a more appropriate place for it. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the above, it is still possible to revert the move from Shrimp meat to Shrimp in cuisine without the use of admin tools. This portion of a thread started on Talk:Shrimp in cuisine after the discussion above resulted in more than a week of inactivity with the last arguments being in support of a move from Shrimp meat to Shrimp in cuisine. The removal of this portion of the discussion from Talk:Shrimp in cuisine to this talk page should not have occurred without discussion. The other talk page is a more appropriate location and the removal from its context blurs the history. Neelix (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment raises further questions about your competency. What possible reason could I have for reverting to your earlier Shrimp meat. Both those absurd titles are the ones you are trying to impose here, and have little to do with the actual content of the article. Repositioning the thread here is entirely appropriate, because it had become a continuation of the thread above. There is no blurring of the history on the other talk page because there is a clear redirection here. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was originally written as an article about shrimp as a food, and was titled "Shrimp (food)" to disambiguate it from the main shrimp article. Neelix (talk · contribs) has twice changed the name of the article. The first time to "Shrimp cuisine". A cuisine refers to the national dishes of a country. The article does include some cuisine, but it covers a lot of other things about shrimp as a food. Neelix then renamed the article "Shrimp meat" and is adamant that that is what the article is about. At first, as with other people [4], I wasn't sure what place shrimp meat has in the industry. It seems the term is used sometimes in the shrimp processing industry. I will be rewriting the article so it is about shrimp meat, and not about shrimp as a food. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've rewritten the article by defining shrimp meat, finding an image of shrimp meat (the only one on commons), and removing items that are not specifically to do with shrimp meat. I will reinstate the removed items in an article about shrimp as food when Neelix is happy about what the article is to be called. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion here has concluded with more than a week passing with no opposition to moving this article to "Shrimp in cuisine". "Shrimp meat" and "Shrimp as food" have both been decisively determined to be inappropriate titles for this article. "Shrimp (food)" is also against Wikipedia's guidelines, as explained in the linked discussion. Neelix (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is most certainly not finished. I merely needed a break to recover from your extraordinarily obdurate behaviour. Talking endlessly to a brick wall is exhausting. To say that "Shrimp as food" has been "decisively determined" to be inappropriate title is not true. I have removed material which is not about cuisine from the article you inappropriately restored. Why don't you mess up articles that you write, instead of messing up article other people have done the work on. This is certainly not the article I set out to write. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop these personal attacks. Surely, we can focus on content and not each other. I have reverted the removal of valid content from this article. If you wish to contest the validity of this information or the current title of this article ("Shrimp in cuisine") please notify me and start a new discussion on this talk page. Neelix (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems we cannot focus on content. I have presented you with endless substantive arguments, which you have almost totally ignored. Another way of avoiding content is to charge your opponent with making "personal attacks", which can itself be a personal attack. I have not made personal attacks, I have merely expressed my concern at your behaviour in our supposed dialogues, which is to ignore the substantive content and argument, and just return every time to your own unexamined position. You do not address my arguments, and I feel personally attacked by the way you endlessly dismiss my concerns as though I have never expressed them. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What arguments have you made that you feel I have not addressed? What arguments have I made that you feel I have not examined? Neelix (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here --Epipelagic (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have simply linked to our previous discussion. I do not see any arguments that you made there that I did not address, nor do I see any arguments I made there that I did not examine. If you believe me to be mistaken, you will need to clarify. I believe that the content that you have removed from this article should be reinstated because I believe it to fall within the scope of the current title ("Shrimp in cuisine"). Neelix (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material I removed would fall within the scope of an article titled something like "Shrimp as seafood" or "Shrimp in seafood". It most certainly does not fall within the scope of "Shrimp in cuisine". Cuisines are dishes as presented within specific contexts, such as "French cuisine" or "Xxxx Restaurant cuisine". But we've been over this ad nauseum and you have listened to nothing, and I'm not wasting more time going nowhere. If you want to wipe out the 30+ articles I have written on seafood, then it's on your head. The seafood articles are only half finished, but, because of your interferences I have stopped developing them. You might as well wipe out the seafood template as well and replace it with a cuisine template. But most material in the articles on that template will have to be removed. They are currently articles about seafood, not cuisine. To repeat, since you never seem to hear it, these are seafood articles. Your insistence that Wikipedia cannot have articles on seafood is absurd. I notice you contribute exactly nothing to any of these articles, yet you have set yourself up as expert, judge, and final executor on these matters. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have at no point stated that I have the final say. This is a discussion between all interested parties, the purpose of which is to seek concensus. I have at no point suggested that Wikipedia cannot or should not have articles relating to seafood. What I have suggested is that seafood is a concept that falls within the scope of cuisine, and it is on this point that you and I disagree. While I believe that "cuisine" is an appropriate term to use in the titles of these articles, you do not, and have removed content which I believe to be valid under the given title. Despite the fact that I would like the content to be reinstated, you insist that I am to blame for your refusal to allow the content to be reinstated. Perhaps it would be best if we focused on the relevant disagreement between us: namely, whether or not seafood falls within the scope of cuisine. Do you have justification for your position that you believe I have not adequately addressed? Neelix (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous. You have not begun to address the issues, as anyone who examines this thread can see. You just carry blithely on insisting seafood is a subset of cuisine. You are to blame for forcing unworkable titles onto the article when you have no consensus. In fact there is a consensus, and it goes the other way. You have contributed nothing to these articles. You have shown no respect to me as the main author of these articles, which has nothing to do with wp:own. You know very well you should have allowed the original titles to stand unless you can establish a consensus. Instead you barged in with astonishing arrogance and insensitivity, demanding that only your own ideas prevail. You then enforce your position by changing the title, just because as an admin you have software that allows you to do that, whereas I don't. Worse, you have done the same on an article to do with fisheries. In the meantime, I have stopped developing content in fisheries as well, wondering if the many Wikipedia articles and endless work on aquaculture and the fishing industries is going to be similarly assaulted and damaged. All I can do now is to try and minimize the damage you are doing by rewriting the article so it is aligned with the silly titles you keep giving it. I'm not sure what you think the role of an admin is meant to be. I have the unfashionable view that it should be to facilitate content development. You are doing the opposite. You don't address points I make, but just ignore them and return to your own unexamined position. Why should I waste more time trying to talk to you? My only option seems to be to walk away. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one final attempt to reason with you. Google scholar records 211,000 results for "seafood" and 16,600 results for "seafood AND cuisine". That is, for every scholarly article about seafood that mentions "cuisine", there are another 12 articles that don't mention the word at all. Seafood is not a subset of cuisine, as you are insisting. In fact, there is very little overlap between seafood and cuisine, and most articles about seafood are about things that have nothing to do with cuisine. As far as shrimp goes, there is not one single result on Google Scholar for the phrase you concocted, "Shrimp in cuisine". I now predict that you will totally ignore, yet again, another clear indication that you are simply wrong. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not used my administrative tools to take the upperhand in this discussion, and I have not ignored anything that you have written. As far as I can tell, I have engaged with all of the ideas you have offered, and have never enforced what I believe should happen. On the contrary, I have left your content removal unreverted because I wish to discuss this topic with you rather than enforce what I believe to be best by using administrative tools. I do not believe that the Google Scholar search you have done demonstrates that seafood is not a subtopic of cuisine. There is no necessity for the two words to coincide, for the very reason that seafood is a subtopic of cuisine; it would be redundant to specify every time. I agree with your assertion that the construction "Shrimp in cuisine" is not a common one, but that is not the only criterion by which an article title is chosen. Article titles must first meet Wikipedia's policy on article title format and then, among the titles that meet that policy, the most commonly used title may be selected. If you have an alternative title that meets the article title format policy and that is more commonly used than "shrimp in cuisine", I would be glad to discuss it with you. Neelix (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not correct to say you have not used the fact that you have administrative tools. You changed the title so that it cannot be reverted to a more appropriate title without the use of admin tools. Once again, as I predicted, you ignore the substance of my reply and just reassert your position. For every Google Scholar article on seafood that refers to cuisine, another twelve article on seafood don't mention cuisine. Twelve articles, not the one or two which might be consistent with your contention that seafood is a subtopic of cuisine. How many of those articles that don't mention cuisine did you examine? My guess is that you didn't examine any. If you did bother to examine the matter, you would find most of those articles are not talking about cuisine at all, but about things like preservation or processing or transport. You preserve, process or transport seafood. A cuisine is a dish as it is presented for eating in a specific style that belongs to a particular region or locality. It is something that chefs produce as the final presentation of food. It is as much an art as it is a technology. You don't preserve, process and transport cuisines. You present cuisines. Have a careful look at Fish processing. Are you seriously contending that is a subtopic of cuisine? Fishmongers sell seafood, they don't sell cuisines.

Over and over I given you carefully researched examples. In return you have offered nothing back; you have certainly offered nothing with evidence of research; you have just obstinately clung to your position and give no indication you have put any thought or effort into the issue.

Here's another little whistle in the dark. Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on seafood and another on cuisine. These are simple and straightforward articles. Please don't assume you already know, but read these articles carefully. The cuisine article just reiterates what I keep explaining to you, that cuisines refer to the specific ways food are presented for eating in different locations, such as French cuisine. The seafood article also just reiterates what I keep explaining to you. Seafood refers to aquatic animals or plants that are destined for eating. That includes a wide range of subtopics which relate to what happens to seafood on the road to its ultimate destination, which is to be eaten by somebody, or perhaps another animal. It is only when you reach this ultimate destination that it might be appropriate to start talking about "cuisines". I have discussed this in detail with you above (see the scope box on the right above). The Encyclopedia Britannica article on seafood has nine paragraphs. Each paragraph covers a subtopic. Only the last paragraph covers a subtopic that can reasonably construed as referring to cuisines.

The term seafood as cuisine (or by extension, shrimp in cuisine) covers only about one tenth of what is implied by the term seafood (or shrimp as seafood). That is born out by the Google Scholar search above (ratio 1:12), by the Encyclopedia Britannica argument (ratio 1:9), and in the scope box further up this page, where just one of the 12 topics are to do with cuisine (ratio 1:12). Your confused contention that seafood is a subtopic of cuisine is thoroughly incorrect. Can we please stop this nonsense now. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have mentioned several times now that you feel as though I am not reading what you are writing and that you feel as though I am ignoring your arguments. I am beginning to feel similarly about your engagement with my arguments. We have been discussing this page move for more than a month now. Perhaps it is time to include the broader community. Would you like to draft a move request on the relevant article? Neelix (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you made arguments? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Is seafood a subset of cuisine?

After an awful lot of bad noise and rambling discussion, this is actually a fairly straightforward issue. As is normal in any content discussion, arguments with a basis in Wikipedia policy and common practices are given more weight. As such, Shrimp (food) is the fairly obvious place that this content should be at. I would like to suggest that Neelix and Epipelagic do their best to avoid each other in the future. If that is not possible I strongly suggest they both learn to limit their comments to a few rounds back-and-forth and then seek to involved new users and allow them to comment instead of going around and around and around and around endlessly with one another. Such conversations never produce anything good, quite the opposite. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should articles on seafood be given titles that restrict them to cuisines, as a user maintains in this thread? Epipelagic (talk) 22:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background: User:Neelix wants to rename seafood articles so they are about cuisines, and not about seafood. His rationale, for which he offers no evidence, is that the term "cuisine" covers everything that "seafood" covers. For example, according to Neelix, an article on shrimp as seafood should be called "Shrimp in cuisine". Only a small part of the journey that seafood goes through, from harvesting to presentation as a meal can be called cuisine (the last part). If Neelix has his way, and the seafood articles are to be retitled as cuisines, then the articles will all have to be rewritten, and most of the current material in them will have to be removed. I have written over 30 of the articles on seafood. I was writing about seafoods, and not cuisines. I find it upsetting that most of this work may have to be thrown away. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The background written by User:Epipelagic above does not accurately reflect the nature of my position, nor my intentions. We have been discussing the article currently called Shrimp in cuisine, which I do not believe should be moved to "Shrimp (food)" because such a title violates Wikipedia's policy on article title format, which states that we should "not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another". Using the disambiguator "(food)" inaccurately suggests that the human consumption of shrimp is an unrelated concept to Shrimp, as that is the purpose of parenthetical disambiguators on Wikipedia. Articles on subtopics must rather employ noun phrases, such as "Shrimp in cuisine. Neelix (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Neelix also rejects the titles that would be workable titles on the grounds that they "violate" Wikipedia policy. His views are based on misrepresentations of the policies, as set out below. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe any rational person could read, let alone write, the above discussion. Therefore I am afraid it comes into the general area of religious discussions, where no logic or experience is conclusive. Enjoy yourselves. Greglocock (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that way too. But this is Wikipedia, and what alternative is there? I've added religion to the RfC. The issue is not trivial, since it potentially affect the naming of maybe 100 articles. I want this decided once and for all, since what is happening here is very disruptive.--Epipelagic (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you are right to add the Religion RfC to this, as there are clear prohibitions in some religious systems on shrimp, and seafood generally, arguments about vegetarianism left aside. As a matter of preference, I prefer the use of cuisine to meat, as discussions about edible flesh of animals is not really the subject of the article. Titles should refer to cuisines.Whiteguru (talk) 00:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't comment on the issue, "Is seafood a subset of cuisine?" That is, is everything that seafood is about covered by "cuisine"? When fisherman harvest seafoods, are they harvesting cuisines? When commercial fish processors process seafood, are they processing cuisines? If a truck transports seafood, is it transporting cuisines? When fishmongers sell seafood, is that the same as selling cuisines? Should seafood articles be restricted to cuisines? --Epipelagic (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The accepted format is Shrimp (food), like Chicken (food), Turkey (food), etc... Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:54, 28 October 2012‎

Another comment I agree wholeheartedly with Jerem's comment above this one. Yes, the accepted format is indeed Shrimp (food), Chicken (food), Turkey (food). I agree completely that "cuisine" is the wrong word to use, and that the phrase "shrimp meat" is misleading here. This is not an isolated occurrence, nor is this an obscure point. The encyclopedia will soon have separated-out articles on Scallop (food), Oyster (food), Mussel (food) and so on. One cannot use the word "cuisine" in any case, because not only does it not refer to food or eating in general but to specific styles of cooking, but also bear in mind that many of these seafood items are eaten raw, not cooked. Invertzoo (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Epipelagic has significantly misrepresented my intentions and position on this issue. I have attempted to correct the representation by adding to the background above. Neelix (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I misrepresented your position? Your position is clearly set out in the threads above, and is as I summarised it. If you are unhappy with "Shrimp (food)" it is up to you to come up with an alternate title that is acceptable and reflects the content in the article. I suggested "Shrimp as seafood", or better and more succinctly, "Shrimp as food", but you don't like those names either. You have used your admin tools to enforce your own preferences, successively and absurdly renaming the article "Shrimp meat" and "Shrimp in cuisine", in such a manner that I cannot revert them to "Shrimp (food)" or "Shrimp as food". Worse, you have brushed off the many objections I have raised, showing disrespect to me and carrying on as though I had never raised them. This behaviour has been disruptive and raises questions about competence. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are simply erroneous, as a review of my actions and our discussions should make plain. I have never advocated content removal. I have explained my actual position above. Neelix (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, you ignore my comment and just flatly reassert your position. I asked you where I have misrepresented your position. You don't give one example. You assert you have explained your position above, but you have not shown where. You don't explain your position, you just endlessly reassert it. The one issue you do address is an issue I didn't raise. You say you have never advocated content removal. I never said you did. But you keep changing the name of the article, so it has to be rewritten to conform to your new name changes. That inevitably involves the removal of much content. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by an uninvolved editor - I am going to start off saying that due to TL;DR issues, I have not read through the discussion above and am shooting this from the cuff.

The format which is in use already in many articles is the following:

Shrimp - Main article
Shrimp (food) - Sub-article covering the culinary uses of shrimp
List of shrimp dishes - self explanatory

Now, as I stated, this titling format is already in use in multiple articles, and is possibly the best formatting structure. The Shrimp in cuisine is in fact misnamed because it is a list of shrimp dishes and probably should be moved to that title.

Now, while The Food and Drink WikiProject does not have any naming conventions on this subject (See WP:Naming conventions (cuisines) for the limited stuff we do have), the aforementioned structure that I listed above is a consensus derived system that is already in use and we should continue using it. I also feel that the problem with the proposal Xxx in cuisine is that it is very vague. It leads to the question "which cuisine are you talking about"? Western cuisine? African? Asian? French? Chinese? I am concerned the eventual result would be a plethora Xxx in Yyy cuisine articles, further fragmenting the subject. Also, the Seafood meat naming structure is also problematic because many cultures consider "meat" to be the flesh of land based mammals and nothing else. The prime example is the Christian take on the subject, shrimp is an acceptable food (Lent#lenten foods) because it is not meat under several denominations' ecclesiastical guidelines.

The discussion that has been going on indicates to me that we should maybe expand the existing naming convention to cover this subject, and do so ASAP. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently under discussion, now named List of shrimp dishes, was once far more than a list, but the majority of its content was removed. If the content was reinstated (as I believe it should be), the article would no longer be primarily a list. I very much like your idea that the existing naming convention should be expanded to cover the types of articles we are discussing. My only objection is to the "x (food)" format, which violates our policy on article title format by using a parenthetical disambiguator to signal a subtopic rather than an unrelated topic. "Human consumption of x" is a potential alternative. Neelix (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recreated the article under the Shrimp (food) name. I used the version from immediately before the changes were made. This is to give us an even place to start.

As for the parenthetical usage in titles, it is a common form used on WP to distinguish between various titles that would be confusing such as Title (film) or Person (actor) and I see no need to change course here. It also follows in the similar formatting of the sibling article Fish (food) and the aforementioned articles on chicken and turkey. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of policy: Neelix asserts, misleadingly, that titles like Shrimp (food) or Shrimp as food "violate" policy.

The "x (food)" format, says Neelix, "violates our policy on article title format by using a parenthetical disambiguator to signal a subtopic rather than an unrelated topic". To the contrary, it clearly states in the second paragraph of the lead, that it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name. In the section on disambiguation the policy lists three methods employed to avoid using an ambiguous title. The second method states, If natural disambiguation is not possible, add a disambiguating term in parentheses, after the ambiguous name. Fish (food) is a topic that is associated with Fish (animal), and is not a subtopic. There is simply an overlap. The same applies to the examples given in the policy: Mercury (mythology) is a topic that is associated with Mercury (planet), but it is not a subtopic. I can find nothing in the policy that would discourage the use of the "x (food)" format
The "x as food" format, says Neelix, cannot be used because it is not a noun phrase. The policy says in the section on the article title format, Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech. The reason for this is that such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. The policy says normally preferred. It is not a mandatory requirement set in stone as misrepresented by Nelix. The third sentence of the lead states The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or it may be a description of the topic. In the section on non-judgmental descriptive titles, it says In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title ... These are often invented specifically for articles. It seems clear that "x as food" also sits comfortably with the policy. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I much prefer "x as food". If an article on aquatic animals has a section on the animal as a seafood, the section is more often titled "As food" than anything else. For example: anchovy, cod, herring, mackerel, salmon, sardine and squid. It is then natural to be directed to Anchovy as food instead of Anchovy (food), etc. (If it really were a requirement that the title be a noun phrase, which it is not, then "x as a food" would qualify) --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any objections to seafood titles taking the form "x as food"? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it goes against the already existing, consensus–based structure being used. Further three people discussing an RfC does not provide a deep enough base to give a true consensus. As it stands, based upon the rules we should leave it as status quo since there is too small of a sample of participants. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the "consensus–base" for using "x (food)"? I can't find it at Wp:Naming conventions (cuisines) or in the talk page archives for WikiProject Food and drink. Or are you just referring to a status quo based on a small number of articles? If so, then the status quo can safely be ignored, since I am the editor who produced most of the articles conforming to that format. I only did that because the matter had not been properly examined, as it has been now. I'm not advocating prohibiting the use of "x (food)" for titles, merely advocating that since the "x as food" format is equally within the guidelines, it should be acceptable as an alternative format. Over a period of time, it may become clear that one format has advantages over another, and a decision could be made to restrict titles to just one format, but I don't see there is any point in that at this stage. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The general policy not the specific one for cuisines. I.E. when there are multiple topics with similar names, to avoid confusion and distinguish between the two, the second article is annotated with the distinguishing term in parenthesis. Additionally the naming convention you mention is for national cuisines, not foodstuffs; however it can and should be updated. Additionally, there was a proposal to split Salmon into Salmon (food) many years ago that never happened due to a non-response in the proposal. Plus the x as food is a little counter-intuitive, and I am not partial to it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well you say you are not "partial" to "x as food", but you haven't given any reasons why that form should not be used. Are there any policies or guidelines it doesn't comply with? To me it is more intuitive and flows better than "x (food)", as you will see if you look at the links I gave above: anchovy, cod, herring, mackerel, salmon, sardine and squid. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my reason is it goes against the naming guidelines, as I stated. Can you provide a reason that your naming structure should displace what we have in place, beyond that you like the way it reads? As a section title it is fine, but as article title I prefer the consistency of the existing WP policy.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I suppose it's not worth pursuing if you feel so strongly. But still, I have to ask again, where are these mysterious "naming guidelines" and "WP policy" you keep referring to? There are none! You are just stating an unexamined preference, and trying to impose a constraint that doesn't need to be there. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Disambiguation - Naming articles in such a way that each has a unique title. For example, three of the articles dealing with topics ordinarily called "Mercury" are titled Mercury (element), Mercury (planet) and Mercury (mythology). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not the only way of disambiguating; the policy lists three methods. "X as food" uses the first method, natural disambiguation, in the form of a descriptive title. Its use as an article title was justified just above. There is no guideline saying "x (food)" is correct and "x as food" is not correct. Anyway, never mind, forget it. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to follow this tiresome discussion with little success. I've been able to garner that these two editors are at odds over the name of an article on the use of shrimp in food preparation. First seafood in no way is a subset of cuisine and I am completely against the suggestion to attach this name to the article as this is in no way what the article covers. User Jerem43 has made some useful contributions and suggestions that I notice the two parties can't agree with either. I am in full support of Jerem43's position to rename the article Shrimp (food) which is consistent with similar articles, examples of which have already been mentioned. Neelix keeps belabouring the point about wiki policy on article title format and fails to even acknowledge the arguments proposed by Jerem43. Is Neelix suggesting that the articles on chicken and turkey should also be renamed? Epipelagic, while making good arguments, still does not seem comfortable with Shrimp (food) and seems to be leaning towards Shrimp as food which, as argued by Neelix, are truly in contravention of wiki article title format. I support article being moved to Shrimp (food).EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blacklisted Links Found on Seafood

Cyberbot II has detected links on Seafood which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.sgs.com/en/Our-Company/News-and-Media-Center/News-and-Press-Releases/2013/03/Detecting-Seafood-Fraud.aspx
Triggered by \bsgs\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

meat

An IP has been adding the category 'Meat' to the article, but, as the article states, seafood includes plants. It seems inappropriate to add this category. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seafood-derived oils and mineral supplements are also a significant part, which can't be categorized as meat. Materialscientist (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seafood. 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/20070207183454/http://marine.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=645 to http://marine.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=645
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_49_37/ai_111404189
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n8_v24/ai_8552611

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) 05:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Seafood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 04:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other taxa to mention

It's just to point out the consumption of other taxa (not present in the article) as seafood: horseshoe crabs, sea anemones, chitons, brachiopods, barnacles, shipworms, ragworms or giant isopods. It's up to you to see if these groups deserve to be mentioned in the article.

In contrast, I wonder if these taxa contain within them edible species (with sources attesting to this):

molluscs: nautilus, sea slugs, cone snails, tusk shells or aplacophorans;
echinoderms: crinoids or brittle stars;
arthropods: hermit crabs or sea spiders;
worms: flatworms, ribbon worms, clitellates, acanthocephalans, phoronids, hemichordates or roundworms;
others: corals, sponges, comb jellies or moss animals.

Ellicrum (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nearly all taxa are to some degree edible by humans. Taking that to a literal extreme would make the article unmanageable and uninteresting. Instead, the taxa needs confining to those that are interesting or significant as human food, whether commercially, culturally or as a curiosity. – Epipelagic (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American use of 'seafood' for freshwater organisms - citation needed

From the lead:

In the United States, although not generally in the United Kingdom, the term "seafood" is extended to fresh water organisms eaten by humans, so all edible aquatic life may be referred to as "seafood".^{[citation needed]}

This claim has been tagged for 8 months and I've personally failed to find a good source for it. Is it time to remove the claim? This isn't my area of expertise so I thought I'd bring it to the attention of someone more knowledgeable. --Theleot (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second the question, coming here from commons, where - to my surprise - freshwater fish and freshwater crayfish is routinely categorized as seafood. It's not a big deal for coastal countries and cultures, but quite unusual for countries with historically freshwater-only fish food traditions. Retired electrician (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the claim. Theleot (talk) 05:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]