Talk:Geoduck

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Bivalves (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bivalves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bivalves on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can register your interest for the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
 
WikiProject United States / Washington (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.
 

Jimp's changes of February 2006[edit]

Currently the article gives "GOO-wee-duck" for the pronunciation. It should be given in IPA as per Wiki Manual of Style. I'd do it myself but what's "GOO-wee-duck" meant to mean? I don't see how "GOO-wee-duck" could relate to either gweduck or goiduck. Jimp 06:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC) ... Okay I've found it here but I've not got the time now to fix it up. Jimp 08:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC) ... I've fixed it adding this dictionary reference. Jimp 03:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary linked to above had gweduc as an alternate spelling. I've added this. It doesn't mention gweduck or goiduck but I haven't removed these.

I've changed phonetically to phonemically: this is more correct. I've also changed the following.

weighing in at an average of one to three pounds (1.4 kg) at maturity, but specimens 
weighing over 10 pounds (4.5 kg) and as much as a meter in length are not unheard of.

It now reads as follows.

weighing in at an average of one to three pounds (0.5 - 1.5 kg) at maturity, but specimens 
weighing over 10 pounds (5 kg) and as much as a metre (3 feet) in length are not unheard of.

"one to three pounds" is a range "1.4 kg" is not. I've used the conversion "2 lb ≈ 1 kg" anything more accurate gives false precision. "10 pounds (4.5 kg)", for example, is an incorrect conversion. "10 pounds (5 kg)" is better. Similarly I've used "3 ft ≈ 1 m".

As for my respelling meter as metre: this was to be consistant with "Its large, meaty siphon is prized for its tasty (umami) flavour and crunchy texture." (emphasis added) which appears later in the article. WP:MOS recomends spelling be kept consistant so it was either metre and flavour or meter and flavor and flavour was first.

I've added a metric conversion for US$30/lb and an English conversion for as much as a metre. If we're going to have both we should have both in all instances. Though it's kind of odd to go from English units to metric in the one sentence. What was it in the source?

I've split a rather long sentence in two for ease of reading and fixed some capitalisation. I've replaced $80M with 80-million-U.S.-dollar: it's better this be spelt out it's also better the currency be specified. I assume they're U.S. dollars if not please fix it up.

I've moved the bit about The Evergreen State College back into it's own section: Trivia. Such stuff doesn't belong in the main body of an article. Jimp 04:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC) burp

Dirty job[edit]

Is that a geoduck in your pocket, or are you just happy sashimi? Mike Rowe PrometheusX303 03:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

why come this ain't no duck

Same reason why the quahog is not a hog. PrometheusX303 21:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

citations NEEDED[edit]

i tagged up the industry section, i really think whomever added this information really needs to provide links to some of their source material. i am also changing the name of the section back to industry and impact, since much of the content here deals with environmental impact... IMO this name should stay or the topics should be categorized separately. popefauvexxiii 17:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of what looks like opinion, without citation, especially in the environment vs. aquaculture vs. shoreline "developers" (this is most often homeowners).Avocats (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Obvious resemblance to male (human) phallus[edit]

Sorry to bring this up (no pun intended), but the article, while very well written, makes no reference to what is quite clearly the most distinctive aspect of the geoduck - it's resemblance to a (albeit very well endowed) human penis. Surely it could be worked in (fnarr fnarr) somewhere?

Labcoat 09:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss this sentence? "It is possible that this fact, in conjunction with the phallic shape of the siphon, has led to the belief that the shellfish has aphrodisiac properties." Prometheus-X303- 10:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is obvious enough and needs no more than the sentience above and the picture. EvilHom3r 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the sentence "They look like penis's." Can't people at least use correct English usage when they make immature, frivolous edits. Yes, they do look remarkably like penises. I think the current mention is enough. There are actually LOTS of bivalves and other invertebrates that look like penises; it's not really that unusual. But we marine scientists still snicker whenever we see one.

Descriptive word[edit]

There is a difference of opinion as to the necessity of including the descriptor "Profoundly" in the sentence:
"It is possible that this fact, in conjunction with the profoundly phallic shape of the siphon, has led to the belief that the shellfish has aphrodisiac properties." While the Geoduck is phallic in shape the descriptor "profoundly is very subjective to each individual, and should not be included

Opinions? Kevmin 09:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"Subjective"? Hardly. If the geoduck is not profoundly phallic in shape, I'm not sure what is. You would be hard pushed to find a single person in the world, regardless of race / culture etc who does not make the connection immediately when they first see the creature. It is the single most distinctive aspect of the geoduck. I don't understand why you're objecting to including the description so stubbornly.

Labcoat 00:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Largest mollusk?[edit]

I've placed a contradiction tag on these two pages thanks to the conflicting information regarding the largest mollusk in north america. It seems clear the Conch is smaller, and that they are both mollusks, but I'll leave the solution to someone who knows more for sure to make the needed corrections. Corpus juris 02:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

if memory serves, the article used to say that the geoduck was the largest species of saltwater clam, which would not contradict anything in the other article. i dont think im the one that wrote it, so im not sure where the source would be. PopeFauveXXIII 23:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is known to be the largest burrowing bivalve. Using the category "mollusk" is too vague, and includes too many phyla to be accurate. So it is not necessarily the largest mollusk, nor the largest bivalve; but the largest burrowing bivalve. The article should read: largest burrowing bivalve. User:shellfishmermaid 13 December 2010

Fishery[edit]

"The world's first geoduck fishery was created in 1970…": the meaning of this is profoundly unclear. First aquaculture? First regulated fishery? Because the natives of Puget Sound (and the newer arrivals) have been eating these for centuries. - Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Culinary uses of Geoduck?[edit]

Can someone post the popular (if any) culinary uses of Geoduck? Can it be used in place of clams? Taste, texture, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.144.240 (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

phonemically counterintuitive spelling[edit]

"its phonemically counterintuitive spelling" is a ridiculous phrase. Strunk and White would have a field-day. Simple, plain, comprehensible English is what's needed here, not self-conscious sesquipedalianism merely for the sake of sesquipedalianism. But, alas, Wikipedia has no literary or style stadands, just a bunch of self-important blowhards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Perhaps someone was influenced by the common element "geo-" = "earth" in scientific words. In old times I associated the word "geoduck" with Latin/Greek mixture "geo-ductor" = "earth-puller". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Industry prices[edit]

forgive me if my math is wrong, but it says in the industry section "they sell in Asia for up to US$30/lb (US$65/kg)" a kg is about 1/2 a pound, so if it was $30 a pound, it would be closer to $15 a kg... or if it was $65 a kg, it would be closer to $130 a pound! probably should fix one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.46.27 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your math is indeed wrong. Upside down, in fact. A kg is not about 1/2 a pound. Rather, a pound is about 1/2 a kg. (2.2046 lbs = 1 kg) (Or alternatively, 1 lb = .4536 kg)
I hope you don't fly airplanes for a living! Captain Quirk (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Scientific vs. common name[edit]

This section is transcluded from Talk:Panopea generosa/Scientific vs. common name. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments. This section is included at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bivalves, and Talk:Panopea generosa; and can be edited from any of those pages

Is there any reason this article shouldn't be moved from Panopea generosa to the common name of Pacific geoduck, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom! Just like you are a self proclaimed "plant nut" I am a "shell nut", hence the moniker. This article comes under the global umbrella of WikiProject Bivalves, which is patterned after WikiProject Gastropods. We are trying to use proper taxonomy throughout both projects, up to date per the World Register of Marine Species. Knowing that a lot of people use the common names for organisms we try to use redirects to get the common name search moved to the formal name article. Part of the problem we run into with marine fauna is that "common names" have not always garnered full acceptance, and sometimes there are multiple common names. With birds I know that there are generally accepted common names; maybe this is true in botany too. If you are interested, go to the main class article Bivalvia and scroll down through the taxonomy. For starters we are trying to clean up the major taxa through families, working down to species articles as we have time and interest. Shellnut (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask if you've taken this idea higher up, to WP:TOL or WP:FAUNA? The reason I ask is that WP:FAUNA has clear and binding conventions for all animals, including bivalves. You may not locally override them at your bivalve project, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS; you would need to get the wider community's permission to change their guidline for all animals. So just becuase "some" common names of marine fauna may not have garnered wide acceptance doesn't mean we can apply that to other related articles. I don't think Pacific geoduck is in any way ambiguous, do you? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Tom! You raise interesting points. I will copy this thread onto the talk page of both projects and see what the senior editors thoughts are. Thank you for raising this interesting issue. Shellnut (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Tom. I think you will find that "geoduck" is the common name most often used for this species, rather than "Pacific geoduck". However there is a related clam that is sometimes known as the "Atlantic geoduck". I think "geoduck" for the Pacific species is arguably a really genuine common name, like "quahog", a species which we currently have under the article name "Hard clam", a name I myself have actually never heard used! But the great majority of mollusks (gastropods and bivalves) really only have a scientific name. You can find so-called common names for all kinds of species in various field guides and other publications (and very often these so-called common names are different from one publication to the next), but just because names exist doesn't mean that anybody actually uses them. If we try to enforce the guideline you are talking about it will be quite chaotic trying to decide whether a name actually really counts as a common name or not. However if you want to move Panopea generosa to Geoduck, please go ahead, and if you want to move Hard clam to Quahog, please go ahead with that move too. Thanks for your interest in our projects, we appreciate it. I should perhaps explain that WikiProject Bivalves is brand new, having been started this January, so no doubt we will find all kinds of weird things that need fixing as we gradually go through the bivalve articles. The gastropod project never really bothered much with the bivalve articles as it had so many of its own to deal with. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
After looking closer at the references, I agree 100% that just "geoduck" equates best to this species, rather than the genus. I grew up here in the PNW, where Panopea generosa is native. Even the kids here know what a geoduck is, but no one but a few scientist will even recognize Panopea generosa.
One note regarding common names, you might also interpret a scientific name to be a common name. So whatever the most easily recognized name is, in the areas which it occurs, for your species of clam, whether it's Hard clam, quahog, or Mercenaria mercenaria, then that might be the name you could use (not spelled out in the policy, but you might use it in cases where a "common" name is grossly obscure). Your complete guide to article naming for animals is at WP:FAUNA. --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

My first attempt at transcluding a talk section onto multiple pages; please tell me if I got any of if wrong. --Tom Hulse (talk) 11:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I "moved" the Geoduck article to Geoduck. From now on if you come across anything like this (and you have already checked and are certain you are right about the common name being much more recognizable than the scientific name) please Be Bold and just go ahead and change it yourself, no problem. You can always just leave a note on the talk page explaining why you changed the article name. Invertzoo (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Move some material to Geoduck aquaculture[edit]

The enormous "Industry" section , which somebody has already flagged for WP:UNDUE, should be moved to the related article Geoduck aquaculture, and replaced by a shorter summary here. The material appears to be thoroughly researched and footnoted, so It probably shouldn't be deleted outright. Once the material is added to Geoduck aquaculture, it will need editing and likely some trimming there, but at least it will all be directly relevant to that article. Comments? Reify-tech (talk) 04:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)