Talk:Lobster: Difference between revisions
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Lobster/Archive 1) (bot |
→Colof prevalence table makes no sense: new section |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
Somewhat confused by the entirely US-centric examples given here, considering that lobsters exist, and are consumed, all over the world. [[User:Dismas444|Dismas444]] ([[User talk:Dismas444|talk]]) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
Somewhat confused by the entirely US-centric examples given here, considering that lobsters exist, and are consumed, all over the world. [[User:Dismas444|Dismas444]] ([[User talk:Dismas444|talk]]) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Colof prevalence table makes no sense == |
|||
Of course, various proportions of all lobsters have various colors. |
|||
But the sum of all these fractions must add up to the number 1. (Or if expressed as percentages, they must add up to 100%.) |
|||
But it is easy to see that in the '''Lobster color chart''' the prevalence proportions add up to '''far less than the number 1'''. |
|||
Why is that? Either the numbers are significantly wrong, or else one or more colors are entirely omitted from the chart. |
|||
I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this obvious mistake.[[Special:Contributions/2601:200:C000:1A0:B948:3237:8DF:ADC2|2601:200:C000:1A0:B948:3237:8DF:ADC2]] ([[User talk:2601:200:C000:1A0:B948:3237:8DF:ADC2|talk]]) 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:15, 6 May 2021
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lobster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lobster. 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/20150128114012/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/lobster-age_n_2215990.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/30/lobster-age_n_2215990.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150211101926/http://www.lobsters.org/tlcbio/biology3.html to http://www.lobsters.org/tlcbio/biology3.html
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) 09:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Word origin: Lobster
Some sources say that "lobster" is derived from the Latin word "lacusta" which means locust. It sounds more plausible that "lobster" means "something to be lobbed back over the side of the boat," when it was caught. Does anyone have any supporting evidence for this? Landroo (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Dating when price is involved?
There is a line in the food section "One seafood guide notes that an $8 lobster dinner at a restaurant overlooking fishing piers in Maine is consistently delicious, while 'the eighty-dollar lobster in a three-star Paris restaurant is apt to be as much about presentation as flavor'." Would it be appropriate to include the year of this publication in the sentence itself? $8 from 2007 isn't the same as $8 now and it won't be the same as $8 in ten years. Or maybe a line indicating the current value? I guess it's perhaps too soon for it to be too relevant. Not sure on the protocol just thinking out loud :) I haven't made any edits at this time. Userbrn (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- An interesting and valid observation. Time and date sensitive info like that has the potential to mislead. The only purpose that sentence serves is to say "Maine lobster, it's great" in my opinion, making it promotional, slightly, rather than encyclopeadic in nature. I'd just delete the sentence on that basis, but let's see if anybody else has an opinion. (Also note that I put your signature at the end of your post, for neatness) -Roxy the effin dog . wooF 17:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, this is not an encylopaedic statement or even that useful, even though I agree with the sentiment! I will delete it. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 05:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
reproduce
the word 'egg' does not appear in this text.85.149.83.125 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
America-centrism
Somewhat confused by the entirely US-centric examples given here, considering that lobsters exist, and are consumed, all over the world. Dismas444 (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Colof prevalence table makes no sense
Of course, various proportions of all lobsters have various colors.
But the sum of all these fractions must add up to the number 1. (Or if expressed as percentages, they must add up to 100%.)
But it is easy to see that in the Lobster color chart the prevalence proportions add up to far less than the number 1.
Why is that? Either the numbers are significantly wrong, or else one or more colors are entirely omitted from the chart.
I hope someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this obvious mistake.2601:200:C000:1A0:B948:3237:8DF:ADC2 (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)