Talk:Gillnetting

message: I don't quite understand why this article should be deleted as nonsense. Google turns up articles like:  --Fangz 19:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, this is an important article to have. I'd like to see the rationale for calling it "nonsense" - I think it's just been getting scrambled by the anon, should just revert back to October version and go from there. Stan 20:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Our colleague Nick has, as is typical of many, confused this talk page with listservers, mis- leveraging that model (and our founders' lack of foresight about wikis being great for collaborative writing, but inviting chaos when used for discussion) -- especially in light of their (at least early) utility and net-pervasiveness.   Perhaps some more competent observer than I has tapped out (or should do so) an essay at least on the genius of that model (even if not on the side-effect of the suffering of wiki-talk under it)..   In any case, I have endeavored to amelieorate the long-standing source of confusion.--JerzyA (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Our colleague Nick has, as is typical of many, confused this talk page with listservers, mis- leveraging that model (and our founders' lack of foresight about wikis being great for collaborative writing, but inviting chaos when used for discussion) -- especially in light of their (at least early) utility and net-pervasiveness.   Perhaps some more competent observer than I has tapped out (or should do so) an essay at least on the genius of that model (even if not on the side-effect of the suffering of wiki-talk under it)..   In any case, I have endeavored to amelieorate the long-standing source of confusion.--JerzyA (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Initial untitled discussion) 

message: The original article was nonsense. I've created a new article from what I've been able to find out (though my knowledge of the subject is somewhat limited, and it would be great if someone who knows more about it can expand it). A few points about the original article:
*Gillnets do not have hooks - they are purely a net.
*Luxembourg does not have seas
*The name Mikael Krustikosky does not give any results as a Google search, other than a mirror of the nonsense article.
*The user who made the original nonsense article appears to be the same user who defaced the Waterfall article.
To the user who made the original article, if you can provide evidence which supports your article, please do. But please don't just go and replace factual information with nonsense - that defeats the whole purpose of Wikipedia... Nick Moss 02:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Our colleague Nick has, as is typical of many, confused this talk page with listservers, mis- leveraging that model (and our founders' lack of foresight about wikis being great for collaborative writing, but inviting chaos when used for discussion) -- especially in light of their (at least early) utility and net-pervasiveness.   Perhaps some more competent observer than I has tapped out (or should do so) an essay at least on the genius of that model (even if not on the side-effect of the suffering of wiki-talk under it)..   In any case, I have endeavored to amelieorate the long-standing source of confusion.--JerzyA (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

text: Our colleague Nick has, as is typical of many, confused this talk page with listservers, mis- leveraging that model (and our founders' lack of foresight about wikis being great for collaborative writing, but inviting chaos when used for discussion) -- especially in light of their (at least early) utility and net-pervasiveness.   Perhaps some more competent observer than I has tapped out (or should do so) an essay at least on the genius of that model (even if not on the side-effect of the suffering of wiki-talk under it)..   In any case, I have endeavored to amelieorate the long-standing source of confusion.--JerzyA (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article Started

message: I am currently working on completing the stub of this article and would appreciate being given at least through tonight (april 7th) to complete it. I would also appreciate it if opinions about the subject were left out. Stating a method of fishing is cruel while at the same time admitting that your knowledge of the subject is limited seems unfair and also against the point of wikipedia (which is to provide facts, not opinions)Vackley 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Completing the Stub

message: Almost all of the citations are from papers on 'ghost-fishing' or lost gillnets.  To have more accurate data on how gillnets fish,  data cited should come from information about actively fishing nets, not the ones that are lost. Klolo9 (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Information Please 

message: The disadvantage of this method should be mentioned, especially how much were spoiled. Furthermore, in which area, this method is banned. Jackzhp 14:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: disadvantage

message: A tag proposing this article be merged with drift net has sat on this article for eleven months without comment. I see no advantage in a merge and will remove the tag in a couple of days if there are no objections. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tag removed. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: Information from a source that is unverifiable keeps being put into the article by user seriousdada.  
"In 2012, University of Washington Fisheries Professor Emeritus Stephen Mathews compared Puget Sound bycatch data for the non-treaty gillnet and purse seine keta salmon fisheries. He found that although neither fishery had major bycatch problems with nontarget salmonids, the gillnet fishery has substantially less impact on nontarget Chinook salmon. His fulltext report is available from the Washington State Puget Sound Salmon Commission." 
The paper cited is available only on a gillnet industry website and the study says it was commissioned by the industry. http://www.soundcatch.org/ This raises flags that the research is not from a neutral point of view.  The paper seems to be only published on the same industry website and there is no evidence that the paper and its conclusions went through any type of peer review in the scientific community.  Also the content, regardless of the source, doesn't seem to fit within the context of this article.  Discussion?   TruthCheckBot (talk) 17:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gill nets can have a measure of selectivity that other fishing methods don't have, and gill netting in some contexts is not necessarily a problem, and indeed might be preferable to other methods. It depends on whether or not the non targeted species are getting entangled. The author of that report has a strong academic background in fisheries, and there is no reason to suppose he is fudging his data. There is very little balancing from the other side in this article, and I don't think this modest effort in a minor context is out of place. I agree generally with your reservations, but balance is also needed. I would agree with removing it if you can find a better sourced report on contexts where gill netting may be a good choice. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Reliable Source

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gillnetting. 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/20050217140841/http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=%2FDOCREP%2F005%2FX7788E%2FX7788E00.HTM to http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=%2FDOCREP%2F005%2FX7788E%2FX7788E00.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article switched back and forth between spellings with ("gill net") and without a space ("gillnet"). There were 53 uses of "gillnet" and only 15 of "gill net" so I standardized on "gillnet" for consistency. Intractable (talk) 16:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling: gill net vs gillnet