Talk:Shrimp

Farmed shrimp, not fished shrimp

Dear Epipelagic, once again, please read the Guardian article carefully. It is not about shrimp fishing. It is about fishing of fish that are used to feed farmed shrimp. The slave labor is used in the supply chain of farmed shrimp. The article is about the use of slave labor in the fishing of fish that is then processed into fish meal to feed farmed shrimp. The article is about farmed shrimp and fished fish, not fished shrimp.

Furthermore, please read the whole Guardian article (the article continues below the graphic/ image/ illustration), and the Wikipedia article on fishmeal.

Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I didn't read the article properly and it does belongs in the farming section. However, I don't think the subheading is appropriate since this is a summary article. If you want to highlight the issue further, better places would be on Shrimp farming, Marine shrimp farming or Freshwater prawn farming. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Epipelagic. Regretfully I don't have the time to read or edit Shrimp farming, Marine shrimp farming or Freshwater prawn farming. It would be great if a member of the community would like to edit these three articles by citing from Greenpeace, The Associated Press and The Guardian (assuming these articles don't already contain these citations). Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Width issues

This is one of the worse articles I've seen for this issue. I had started working on fixing it by a single edit to an image series under "Habitats", but this was reverted by Epipelagic with reason "how is that an improvement?". The explanation is that the current template does not adapt to width, and text readers are unlikely to enlarge their browser window to the full width of their monitor, to avoid having to read paragraphs which span too far. Most articles behave properly and can scale down to at least around 1000 pixels width, sometimes less. Wide width tables are generally discouraged (which are seen in this article), and image galleries which span too far right and cannot adapt to a reasonable width are also problematic. This is something which is technically solvable and there are better templates for images and galleries, but I won't bother if those changes are to be reverted. Thanks. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 08:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't your time be better spent recoding the offending templates so they adapt better to width issues? Or if you are not into coding, you could engage the users who are into coding on the template notice boards. I reverted your changes because they were visually displaying in a way that was inferior to the original display. I have no objection if you can convert the image display to a more sensibly designed template without visually compromising the original display. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A few questions: how was the display disrupted? Why don't other pages experience the same issues if the templates are at fault? Although a systems programmer, I've admitedly not worked much on Wikipedia presentation issues such as its templates. However, it appears that the image template used here was designed not to flow or scale, while the variant I had replaced it with was designed to flow and scale. Since I've seen other well-behaving articles using that template I had assumed that this article was erroneously using a deprecated template, or at least the wrong one. Since scaling and flowing image templates already exist, instead of risking to disrupt the display of many articles potentially using the "fixed" template this article currently uses, it seemed safer to fix this page to use other templates (especially that this article is an exception not displaying properly). 76.10.128.192 (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not altogether clear what your issue is. Is it that the "auto images" template wraps round as the screen width decreases while the "multiple images" template doesn't? If so then I still think a better solution would be either to deprecate the "multiple images" template or else recode it so it wraps round as well. Anyway, now I know what you are trying to achieve, I will not revert if you change to the "auto images" template. One of my concerns was that it defaults to a central alignment, but I see it has an align parameter that can correct that. As an aside, I'm fed up with all the variant image templates and galleries, and wish the coders would get their act together and come up with a single versatile template that does the job properly. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

I find the lead image not very clear. Would one of these already contained in the article be better?

Freshwater aquaria variant shrimp come in many colours

The Caridina cantonensis snow white shrimp is a white freshwater shrimp. The "Neocaridina heteropoda var. red" cherry shrimp is particularly easy to keep and breed. The "Neocaridina zhanghjiajiensis var. blue" pearl shrimp is closely related to the cherry shrimp. The Caridina cantonensis tiger shrimp is transparent with black stripes. The Caridina cantonensis red tiger shrimp is transparent with red stripes and is found in southern China. The popular Caridina cantonensis crystal red bee shrimp has broad red and white stripes.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead image is particularly unclear because someone reduced its size to a thumb. I have restored it to its original size. Shrimps have too much fine structure to be able to see them clearly as thumbs. It is in any case difficult to find a suitable image, and some years ago I spent a lot of time finding the current one. I just looked to see if any better ones have turned up over the last few years, but that doesn't seem to be the case. The lead image should be of a carridian shrimp, since there is no controvery over whether carridian shrimps are "proper" shrimps. I don't see that using a shrimp from the gallery is an improvement. The value of the gallery is in the way it contrasts different colours and markings of closely related shrimps, and removing an image would be diminishing its value. The gallery is a somewhat staged display of shrimps in an aquarian tank, like shrimps on a catwalk, whereas the current lead image seems to be in a more natural setting. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)"

Your change to the image size has made this much, much better. Thanks. I also agree with your reasoning about the "Naturalness" of lead images - we should do this wherever possible. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it was me that reduced it to a standard thumbnail size a couple of months ago. Per WP:THUMBSIZE we should only hardcode an image size with "very good reason" and the lede image "should usually be no wider than upright=1.35" (which is exceeded in this case's 360px). If we've got a great photo that loses important details at regular thumbnail size, it'd be better to crop that image or replace it, as anybody viewing this image on a limited display is still going to be losing those important details. --McGeddon (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you've unilaterally reduced the size again McGeddon as your Xmas provocation. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought we has consensus on the larger size. With respect to recommendations of lede image size, I suggest we Ignore All Rules here. In my view it would be impossible to crop this image without leaving some of the shrimp in the background which would be distracting. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd switched it to the "upright=" notation and adopted the largest recommended maximum size for a lede image, after seeing no response to my pointing out this image use policy back in July. Thanks for retaining the "upright=" markup.

If there's a consensus that this image needs to be larger than than upright=1.35 to display fine detail, perhaps we should swap it with an image from further down the article? I assume the "lead image (appearing at the top of the page) should usually be no wider than upright=1.35" of WP:IMAGESIZE is there for a good reason - presumably to stop the lede text from being squashed too thinly for readers with small browser windows. It does start looking more like a haiku in an 800px window: "The term shrimp is used to refer to / some decapod crustaceans, / although the exact animals covered / can vary.". --McGeddon (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

• Look McGeddon, you never express the slightest interest in what is best from a content point of view. Instead you relentlessly peruse an obsessive insistence on whatever wikilawyering obstructions you can raise or pretend to raise that might diminish the content value of articles. If the lead reads like a haiku at 800px, then what's the problem with that? Drop the width on any article enough and it will start reading like a haiku. Perhaps the image could be enlarged further so the text drops below the image for excessively small widths. Why don't you concentrate on writing some decent articles yourself, so you can drop your obsession with diminishing the work of others? --Epipelagic (talk) 08:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@DrChrissy: What do you think, is it worth swapping this image (and leaving it uncropped and at =1.35 magnification) with one from further down in the article? Or do you feel this is the only lede-quality shrimp photo we have on Commons? --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@McGeddon: As I have indicated before, I like the current lede image because of its naturaleness. I also like it because with the second shrimp in view, it hints at shrimp being gregarious, rather than solitary. I see no other image in the article which I would rather see as the lede image, and I'm afraid I do not have the time to (again) go through Commons looking for better images. If it is the size you are worried about, this is a case of WP:Ignore all rules. Having a fixed size is fine for many images on many articles, but I have increased the size of many lede images of animals above the size in the guidelines simply because they look better. DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

In case this has been a bit lost among the responses, I'm not suggesting this image should be set to the default thumb size (which you said at the top of this thread was "not very clear"), just that if we're using it in the lede, we should be careful about making it any larger than 1.35, per image policy.

1.35 seems fine to me, and doesn't, to my eye, look especially different or appear to lose any details from the larger 1.6 version - here's a comparison. --McGeddon (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree - 1.35 looks fine. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Epipelagic - what do you think about 1.35 vs 1.6? --McGeddon (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I concede defeat again. Compulsive obsession is a winning strategy on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

A personal attack, great, thanks. With no actual objections I'll go ahead and resize the image. --McGeddon (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)