Jump to content

Talk:Shrimp and prawn as food

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

Split & undo

[edit]

Shrimp (food) & List of shrimp dishes

This article was split into two articles several weeks or months ago as part of a discussion over naming formats of articles. It was recently undone by the primary author of this article. I have restored the two articles as this is a standard practice of keeping lists of dishes as their own separate article in order to keep the primary article more compact.

Examples:

Comments are welcome. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Gump quote

[edit]

Does a rambling "million ways to cook shrimp" quote from Forrest Gump really add anything to an article which already lists various ways in which shrimp are prepared around the world? If there's any cultural significance to the quote (if the character's role in the film and famous speech led to a resurgence in the food's popularity, or something), the article would do better to explain that. Per WP:QUOTEFARM, articles should avoid "a quotation [which] is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere". --McGeddon (talk) 10:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does sum up well the ways shrimp can be prepared and it did lead to a resurgence in the food's popularity --Epipelagic (talk) 10:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that a line of film dialogue is the best and most encyclopaedic way to sum up the methods of shrimp preparation. It looks like there's a real-world Bubba Gump Shrimp Company - is that as far as it went, or was there a genuine uptick in shrimp consumption in the US in the wake of the movie? --McGeddon (talk) 11:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the floating quote with a paragraph explaining its relevance, and linking to the restaurant chain. If there's any more to be said about the impact of the character, feel free to add it. --McGeddon (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reinstated the quote since it is a good summary of the ways in which shrimp can be prepared. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Shrimp and prawn as food and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that sort: I have to say I like the quote and consider it a "color quote" (my term) rather than an information quote, especially presented the way is is at this time in a box off to the side rather than integrated into the text. It serves to illustrate the article in much the same way as the Van Gogh image earlier on the page does. It fulfills the purpose of an image, per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Content: "They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." Specifically, it increases readers' understanding of the flexibility, ubiquity, and popularity of shrimp. But that's just my opinion, just like the essay WP:QUOTEFARM is someone else's.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 14:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Van Gogh painting still functions as an illustrative picture of how shrimp might be served somewhere in the world in the 19th century, even if the reader has no idea who Van Gogh was. The floating quote seems less informative to someone (like myself) who hasn't seen Forrest Gump and doesn't know who "Bubba" is. Is he presented as an expert factually extolling the versality of shrimp above all other seafood, or just someone daydreaming nostalgically, maybe even sarcastically?
We should at least expand the caption to explain that Forrest Gump was a US film from the 1990s, but by that point I think it starts to seem more useful as prose. --McGeddon (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and expanded the caption, to give a clearer context for readers unfamiliar with a particular American comedy film. --McGeddon (talk) 10:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine content??

[edit]

Wikipedia says: "As with other seafood, shrimp is high in calcium, iodine and protein but low in food energy". Iodine content, % of daily requirement per 100g of Shrimp??

ee1518 (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holy moly

[edit]

We have a giant table, the first section, on Comparative mercury levels. Shouldn't the first section be a giant table on the types of shrimp? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

Bizarre.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just forget the whole thing. Although Wikipedia visitors would probably like a nice table showing all the different kinds, that may be impossible right now. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an article with a more extensive version of this table at Mercury in fish, which includes shrimp - I'm not sure why this apparently arbitrary subset is here, and the edit history is opaque about who added it and why (User:Jerem43 credits the content only to ""old information before discussion"). I've cut it and rearranged the section to just summarise the one line about shrimp, keeping the existing "low in levels" prose summary. --McGeddon (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that comment was in response the discussion regarding the naming of the article (Shrimp (food) vs Shrimp as food). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a disagreement here: Talk:Prawn#Shrimp vs prawn. Ping Jeremy.

I suggest we keep the discussion centralized here.

Solution? How about a standalone article called Shrimp versus prawn? It would prevent duplicate/contradictory content. We could put everthing we have at the articles into it. Problem solved. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We briefly had an article at shrimp and prawn, that was moved to "shrimp". For a long time prior to that, Dendrobranchiata was titled "prawn" and Caridea was titled "shrimp". "Shrimp (food)" was spun out as a separate article when all that was going down. See Talk:Caridea/Archive_1#Caridea.2C_Dendrobranchiata.2C_Shrimp_and_Prawns and posts from September 2012 at Talk:Shrimp for some background on this mess. The short version is that there is one definition of shrimp/prawn used by (some) zoologists, a diametrically opposed definition used by the fishing industry, and consumers speaking their own national varieties of English that pay no attention to zoologists or the fishing industries definitions (though consumers are likely to encounter the fishing terms printed on bags of frozen primps and shawns at the supermarket). Plantdrew (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Now, even though it would be an unusual type of article, I am more in favour of a Shrimp versus prawn article. Of course, shrimp and prawn will probably always be separate articles and all that is complicated, but why should the explanation be at both places at once? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the text is only five paragraphs and unlikely to ever be expanded very much, another solution would be to create a subpage at Template:Shrimp versus prawn and transclude it into both articles, so that the same text appeared in both. --McGeddon (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. One downside is that newcomers will be perplexed and probably excluded from editing it. They just won't be able to figure out how to get to it. I'd still opt for the standalone I think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the section heading is inside the template, then clicking that heading's "Edit" link in the article will take the reader to the edit page of the template. If they click "Edit" at the top of the article and scroll down, we can give them an HTML comment to point them in the right direction. I agree it's not ideal, but it seems quite minor weighed against the cost of a reader getting the "Shrimp" or "Prawn" article in a printed or offline version of an article, and it lacking (or greatly abbreviating) the distinction between shrimps and prawns. --McGeddon (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Okay, I'm fine with a template then. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a template at Template:Shrimp versus prawn, basing it on the Shrimp article and folding the floating Holthuis quote into the prose to avoid WP:SANDWICHING - his words seems to follow on quite naturally from Chan's observations. I'll wait to see if there's any more feedback, before putting the template live in the two articles. --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, my friend. :) Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any objections to this template solution, I've now put this live. --McGeddon (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

English version

[edit]

Does anyone know what version of English this was originally written in? I see both American and Commonwealth English spellings, so I changed the two Commonwealth words I found (Flavour & flavouring) to US English because the majority of the article seems to be in American English, sources US Government stuff for the nutritional info and quotes American media.

If I am wrong, please feel free to correct my edits. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original version and the edit history can be found here, before the article was torn apart and mucked up by Neelix and others. It was originally written in British English. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOS states When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety. The established variety in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Duck (food) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:14, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shrimp and prawn as food. 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) 18:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Possible incorrect edit

[edit]

I don't think this could be correct can it? I have doubts that an entire different dish (set of dishes) can have the same nutrition data. It's a nice picture so it should probably go somewhere in the article however. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t agree with main article on “Shrimp”

[edit]

This article claims that shrimp and prawn, although used interchangeably, refer to different species in Decapoda. The main article says that the term shrimp and prawn have no scientific standing. Should this be resolved so there isn’t conflicting information in two closely related articles? 2607:FEA8:661:E900:A11D:53DA:7E72:9DE5 (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“According to the crustacean taxonomist Tin-Yam Chan, "The terms shrimp and prawnhave no definite reference to any known taxonomic groups.” 2607:FEA8:661:E900:A11D:53DA:7E72:9DE5 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shrimp_and_prawn_as_food&oldid=1195105583"