Talk:Fish (food)

Silverfish
I added Silverfish' but I'm new' so please fix it? Samayoa (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Page split
Following this discussion, it appears that the there were not many people who wanted to merge this page. Should we split up this page to Raw Fish, Cooked Fish, etc? – Nixinova   19:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This will be an unnecessary waste of time. And the less articles to modify and keep track of, the better. VeenM64 (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Only 2 of the raw fish types can even be cooked, the other 2 can't. No other cooked food is merged with its raw version currently. This should never have been merged before the whole discussion about merging ALL raw and cooked foods was resolved. --Pepijn (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This merge works well as an example to show that merging raw and cooked food will not cause too much confusion. Also, VeenM64 has a very good point about keeping track of the pages. Gregatron6000 (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Shorter articles are easier to read, and this page seems very cluttered right now. I would be open to having raw fish and cooked fish on the same page and raw salmon and cooked salmon on the same page, but considering that there seems to have not been a consensus to even merge raw and cooked food together, we may should keep those separate as well.-- Madminecrafter12 Orange Glazed Terracotta.png to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 12:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . I only have a vague idea about what "keeping track of pages" means. Plus, the merged state of the page encourages a synthetic title with a parenthesized specification, which is really not helpful. --AttemptToCallNil (report bug, view backtrace) 15:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . I think they're distinct enough to warrant individual pages. ―HalfOfAKebab (talk, contribs) 23:25, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * as well. As for whether cooked and raw salmon and cooked and raw cod could remain merged, I could probably get behind that too -- but I don't think this current grouping of everything of the fish persuasion is very good. – Sealbudsman talk | contribs 01:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , Useless, and raw and cooked variants could use same page instead of being split, and do not need separate pages. Wikipedia-logo.png psl85  (profile | talk | contribs | send email) 13:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * . The less content on a page, the more readable it is, and the more useful it is to the reader. This page currently is rabout too many items at the same time, really. | violine1101(Talk) 13:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Something is sure, the items of Tropical fish, Pufferfish, Salmon and Cod should be splitted. However, I think that the Salmon and the Cod could have both the cooked and the raw version on the same page. I feel like the mobs could be split too, but that's another debate. JSBM (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Each item should have its page, and raw and cooked fish should be split as well. It should be consistent with meat.--Capopanzone (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Why change "fish" to "cod"
Why are we changing "fish" to "cod" in the article? I know it's like this in 1.13 snapshots, but it seems that this could be very misleading to users. At the most it seems like we should just put in parentheses at the beginning of the article, (cod. I really think that it would prevent confusion if we changed cod back to fish. The current version is 1.12.2, where the name is fish, regardless of what it may be in development versions.-- Madminecrafter12 T • C 22:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with your argument. Sadly I see that this is difficult to do correct in a lot of places. Some templates or modules may work only with a single name for each image due to the template mechanics, so the images that they show use only their new names. Use of aliasses may be too much of a hassle for just the pending state of a change in a complicated template. And then there are the mob pages. Because the items got an actual mob representation, eventhough it's still only snapshot material, they should share the same name as their item form. What would be more confusing I think, is if the page would phrase along the lines of "this Cod (mob) drops raw fish (item), but this Salmon (mob) drops raw salmon". Because it is inconsistent with itself now. I almost lost my own train of thought trying to write this :P But that could be just me, maybe others have different reasons. – [ Jack McKalling ] [ Grid Book.png Grid Book and Quill.png Grid Diamond Pickaxe.png ] 20:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey there, thanks for replying. For many of the templates and modules, you can use a parameter (such as, , or text=) to make the text different than the object that is shown. But you're right about the mobs and their item form; I didn't even think of that - that could be confusing. I'm going to try out a few things on the article and see how they work.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 22:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but right now it's not really making sense either. The lead section says "cooked cod is a food item obtained by cooking raw fish," but the same lead section called it "raw cod."--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 13:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's getting really confusing now; about half of the article calls it "fish" and half of it "cod." Honestly, I think it would actually be a lot less confusing to just stick with "fish" for now. I think being called cod half of the time and fish half of the time is more confusing than saying that cod are a drop from fish mobs. Depending on what other people think of this, I may start changing it.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 13:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been . Frankly, I feel that it would be a lot more confusing to have it called cod rather than fish.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12 T • C 00:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)