Talk:Salmon/Archive 3

Use of wording "Land locked Lakes"

I doubt the existence of a lake without an outflow (Dead Sea, Salton Sea, or seasonal ponds) that contains a self-sustaining population of salmon. However, salmon that are normally anadromous may persist in lakes behind barriers that prevent adults from returning from the ocean. This happens in several places in British Columbia where sockeye salmon in the reservoirs behind impassable hydro-electric dams spawn in streams and beaches above the dam. Those that migrate to the ocean never return, but some fraction never migrate. These are not kokanee, a distinct subspecies of sockeye (O. nerka).--Scott.akenhead (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

1st para: Surely all lakes are by definition land-locked? Robertcurrey (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this term refers to lakes with no outlet to salt water, referring to the lakes where freshwater Kokanee salmon live. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

fresh-water salmon are also found in Quebec (Lac St-Jean - the ouananiche]]) and Maine (the 'state fish'). Lac St-Jean drains into the Saguenay River which in turn drains into the St Lawrence River. So these fresh-water salmon have access to the sea: they have evolved to stay in fresh water.--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This statement is not referenced: Salmon farms (feed lots actually, as there is no farming involved) introduce levels of untreated sewage into the ocean that has already been outlawed for sea side communities. This detritus is thought to contribute to toxic algal blooms and also has negative effects on local benthic communities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.165.2 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Aquaculture/commercial fish topics

Ok, I don't get why the navbox for aquaculture is being removed in favor of {{commercial fish topics}}. So, why? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not doing this lightly. I wrote the aquaculture template you want to put back, and I was also the one who installed it in the first place. I am trying to replace it with a more appropriate template. Since I installed the aquaculture template, I have written a comprehensive article, aquaculture of salmon, which is dedicated to salmon farming. The salmon article has a section on salmon farming, and refers to this new article as the main article. The template on commercial fish is a re-jig, which I am only part way through, of a template that consolidates what was formerly installed using four different side bars. I am trying to complete a rationalisation of fishery templates, which also includes no longer using side bars. This would have meant two competing templates at the bottom of the article. In my view, the template on commercial fish groups is a much more relevant template to have on the page. I'm still working on it, and it will be a better template later tonight. It will include farmed fish. If you stand back and look from a wider perceptive, I think you will agree that there is a real need for such a template, which binds together and give some structure to the whole area of commercial fisheries. This has already been done to some extent, for aquaculture. With the article dedicated to the aquaculture of salmon, salmon farming is getting ample coverage. By the way, the article on salmon farming does use the aquaculture template, and in addition, is included as a link on the template. This is the article the aquaculture template belongs on, not the general article on salmon. Likewise, since there is a dedicated article on the aquaculture of tilapia, I wouldn't place the aquaculture template on the main tilapia article.--Geronimo20 (talk) 04:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Image size

I suggest bending the rules guidelines slightly to have the main image 400px so that readers can see the captions. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Splendid! Thank you from me and the salmon. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Main image caption

Reads: "various species". Shouldn't it read "kinds" or "types" or something like that? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Folklore

Why is the fact that they are able to return to the same stream where they were born introduced as folklore, then stated as having been scientifically documented? Me2-BFD (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC) Me2-BFD

Seems reasonable to me. There has been a long folklore about this, and now tracking studies are starting to show the folklore has some truth, even though the mechanism is not clear. That's okay isn't it? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Not much about wild salmon as a food risk

Article barely mentions dioxin in wild salmon and leaves you wondering about mercury, DDT etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

"The threefold higher mercury concentration observed in the flesh of wild salmon than in farmed salmon is potentially explained by farmed salmon's low gastrointestinal absorption efficiency, its negligible transfer of metals to muscle tissue, and its rapid growth cycles (growth dilution)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Salmon

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Salmon's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "FB":

• From Sturgeon: Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2009). "Acipenseridae" in FishBase. January 2009 version.
• From Salmonidae: Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2008). "Salmonidae" in FishBase. December 2008 version.
• From Anchovy: Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2008). "Engraulidae" in FishBase. December 2008 version.
• From Demersal fish: Froese, Rainer, and Daniel Pauly, eds. (2009). "Batrachoididae" in FishBase. September 2009 version.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting new material, rather than flagging and discussing issues to be improved

A student of mine is trying to add material to this page, but all of his work has been removed citing violation of NPOV and needing more referencing. I am simultaneously giving feedback on student work in both these areas, but it is very discouraging to a new user, who is recognized as making good faith efforts, to have their work just removed. A better course would be to flag the section for NPOV and citations, and add a comment here in the discussion. Please be more sensitive to people contributing to Wikipedia for the first time. Bothell130 (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I am writing to assert my belief that I have reviewed my behavior and continue to believe that what I did is in accord with Wikipedia's expectations of editors. Would you please come to my talk page to discuss this with me here only?

Here is the edit your student made and here is the explanation I posted immediately after I reverted the post and put a welcome message on that user's page. I feel that I have been sufficiently encouraging. If you want other opinions then I can show you both how to request them, but first please come talk. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Migratory behaviour

I'd like to rewrite the intro to reflect the fact that both brown and rainbow trout do in fact exhibit migratory behaviour in many parts of the world (migratory brown trout typically being known as sea-trout and migratory rainbows as steelhead). I will of course provide appropriate citations. Does anyone have any views on this before I do so? Architypist2 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(Incidentally, I know that rainbow trout are not members of the Salmo genus; I will of course clarify the appropriate taxonomic differences between brown and rainbow trout). Architypist2 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere

Article does not mention introduction of salmon to the southern hemisphere. Would be good to have a habitat range type section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.222.227 (talk) 11:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

reads like ad for wild salmon

article makes no mention of mercury or other pollutants in wild salmon. i think there used to be but somebody got rid of it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoginford (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Salmon Diet

I've been using these fish pages quite a bit lately, and a few (including this) don't have a section on diet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.103.195.137 (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this right....

'One proposed alternative to fish feed from wild-caught fish is the use of soy-based products, which have the potential to promote healthy fish growth and have positive effects on the environment.' Soy beans may be better for farmed fish and the environment around farmed fish, but they have other harmful environmental impacts in the places in which they are grown. This sentence needs proper qualification or it is misleading. The following section on PFB suffers from the same problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note about this: [1].

But, remember that everyone can edit Wikipedia, including you. Wikipedia:Be bold. Gronky (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Omega-3 in farmed v. wild

This article says that farmed salmon has less Omega-3 due to their poorer diet. Sounds reasonable.

But in my local shop, the (farmed) frozen atlantic salmon says "High in Omega-3" on the box, and the frozen wild salmon from the same company has no mention anywhere of Omega-3. It's a cheap brand, so no special diet for the salmon. The latter mentions that wild salmon, being more active, contains less fat. Per 100g, the atlantic salmon has 13.6g fat, the wild salmon just 1.3g.

So, if farmed salmon has a lower concentration of Omega-3 acids per gram of fat, but has ten times as much fat, am I actually getting more Omega-3's from farmed salmon than from wild salmon?

This should be made clearer in the article, but I'm no expert in this so I'd like to ask what others think. Gronky (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring the alarmist articles and the blindly-protectionist articles, here are some that seem intelligent:

• http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=96 (Info in first few sections plus table at end)

• Says that wild salmon have less Omega-3 fats, but, because they contain less Omega-6 fats (which compete for enzymes) they're a better source of Omega-3 fats. However, this doesn't explain why the farmed salmon in my local supermarket say "Rich in Omega-3" on the box, and the wild salmon from the same company doesn't.

• http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/fish/farmedsalmon.htm

• Washington State Health Board says wild and farmed are both "great" sources of Omega-3 and recommends both. No mention of Omega-6.

• Omega-6 fatty acid

• Pretty much says Omega-6 is bad for you and does the opposite of Omega-3.

• Notes about fatty acids:

• There are three Omega-3 fatty acids: ALA, EPA, DHA. Only ALA (α-Linolenic acid) is an essential fatty acid. Our bodies can convert ALA into EPA and DHA, so getting these two from food is not "essential", but the conversion is very inefficient, so getting them from food is strongly advised.
• There are various Omega-6 fatty acids, and one of these is also essential: LA (Linoleic acid), but that article notes that "achieving a deficiency in linoleic acid is nearly impossible consuming any normal diet", so it's not worth thinking about.

• Note on sources: canned salmon is apparently usually wild, but avoid the pink variety because it's apparently too low-fat.

.Gronky (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah thats not true, i think some farmed salmon or all farmed salmon are fed food that has omega fatty acids in it so they have more. this entire article is biased im putting a POV tag on it. Hoginford (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

pov dispute

there seems to be some contention as to levels of omega fatty acid contents in wild vs farmed salmon. also a number of months ago i noticed that info about mercury content of wild vs farmed had been removed, this made the wild salmon look healthier. it seems like someones been slanting the salmon as food section towards wild salmon.i think we should recover that info or just get rid of anything that makes wild look better Hoginford (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinook Trade

The History section lacks a discussion of the use of dried salmon as trade goods by the Native American tribes along the Columbia River. See http://www.historyandtheheadlines.abc-clio.com/ContentPages/ContentPage.aspx?entryId=1171656&currentSection=1161468&productid=5 AusJeb (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There is some discussion of salmon in relation to Native American tribes along the Columbia River in the articles on Columbia River and Salmon cannery. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Salmon Oil supplements in human health

(I'm new, an idea for a section) Salmon fish are able to swim between the dense ocean water and the less dense fresh water by adjusting the mineral concentration in their body fluids to avoid osmotic expansion or reduction. Without this adjustment the fish could explode or contract excessively and die. To do this they concentrate the hormone to mobilize calcium (Ca++) called calcitonin. This hormone is also made in the human thyroid. Originally it was thought to be made in the para-thyroid gland but is now determined to be the C cells of the thyroid. This hormone signals the osteoclasts to lift calcium out of bone and the osteoblasts to remodel bone. The relationship to thryoid disorders and bone mineral density is in respect to calcitonin. Few fish have this hormone but is also high in the electric eel as Ca++ moves in one direction while e- (electorns) move in the opposite to create and electrical spark to stun their prey. The salmon oil calcitonin is a key hormone to signal the uptake of calcium from soft tissue and deposit the mineral into bone and teeth. The half life of calcitonin in humans is a few hours so multiple doses per day are more effective. Novartis Corporation has a synthetic salmon oil nasal spray named Miacalcic(R) to repair low mineral content bone matrix. The EPA - ecosapentanoic acid content of salmon oil is lower than other fish at 80 mg per 1,000 mg capsule. To reach higher levels of EPA the oil will be a blend of often Mackerel, Sardine and Anchovies but little actual salmon oil and then labeled as a "wild" salmon oil in legal compliance as this is not just "salmon oil" and a blend of fish oils. BryonV (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

References

My edit expalined

(Because apparently it isn't obvious for some people.) Empty sections are incredibly stupid. There is a section title with no section, and it has been this way for a goddamn year. I fixed it, because that's what editors do: fix the stupidity of others. If someone wants a section on recreational fisheries, write one. -R. fiend (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you R. fiend. I am the "incredibly stupid","ridiculous and unprofessional" idiot you are so earnestly presuming to instruct with your miserable edit warring and abusive remarks. You "fixed" nothing. You merely removed a section needed to complete the article, and messily transferred an image that belongs in that section to a section where it doesn't belong. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Listen, I didn't remove a section. There was no section; that was the problem. Sure, a bit on recreational fisheries could be useful to the article, but the mere title is not, and let's face it, the article has been fine for years without such a section. The picture in question showed two guys wading in a river and a barely visible fish; it could have gone anywhere, or nowhere. If recreational fisheries are so essential to the article I don't know why it took a year for one to be written. But I see at least a short section has been written (finally), so I'm satisfied. In the future, you might want to think about adding actual content when you make a section header. Just my two cents. -R. fiend (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I shall remember always your gentle wisdom. --Epipelagic (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Always ready to help. -R. fiend (talk) 17:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Section on recreational fishing

The recently expanded section "Recreational fisheries" is about recreational fishing, not about the fish. I suggest moving it to recreational fishing since it would fit more naturally in that article. Isheden (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• The section is specifically about recreational fisheries for salmon, and belongs where it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Still, I think there is no need for a separate section dedicated to recreational fisheries for salmon in this article. How about moving it to fishery or recreational fishery (fishing#recreational fishing) or adding it to an existing section in this article, for example "Wild fisheries"? Isheden (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

After having another look at the present version of the article, I'd suggest making the present sections Wild fisheries, Farmed salmon, Recreational fisheries, and Management subsections of a section called for example Salmon fishing. Isheden (talk) 08:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I've included Recreational fisheries under "Wild fisheries". Farmed salmon is not really fishing. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Isheden (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Unhelpful image

This image has been untidily edit warred into the lead by Citron (talk · contribs) who asserts in an edit summary that the matter does not "merit" discussion. To me, as an editor who has spent a lot of time trying to develop this article, the matter does merit discussion. The image contains a number of male salmon. However, they are confusing, given that the first one is a spawning phase salmon while the others are ocean phase. At a casual glance, the first salmon also appears to have been seriously wounded. There is no indication of the relative size of the salmon. There are other images of this type available that do a better job, such as this image. You generally come up with excellent images, Citron, that are much appreciated. But you do tend to bulldoze sometimes by positioning your images as the lead image without considering that other images are sometimes more appropriate. In this case, I think your image is not contributing helpfully to the article, and is merely cluttering it. I know there is a lot of work coming up with images as good as the ones you generally come up with, and I certainly commend you for that. But you should consider that other editors put in a lot of work writing the articles, and that sometimes they should have a say also as to whether one of your images is contributing helpfully to the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to hear : a true critical. Not only, "it isn't appropriate". I recognize a mistake, I put a spawning phase salmon without noticing, I made this arrangement later... I intend to find a ocean phase of dog salmon. But I remain convinced that this kind of image is required at the lead of this article. This article talks about the salmon : why we don't see salmon alongside the introduction (not just tiny silhouettes) ? Why a detailed statistical grap would be more interesting at this level of the article that a simple illustration of what a salmon. My reasoning is as simple as that, sorry. I'm glad you notice my work on the illustrations of the encyclopedia, but I think you exaggerate when you say that I "tend to bulldoze sometimes". Why generalize ? Do I have to ask permission every time I want to add an image to the encyclopedia ? (I put more than a thousand, you want exhaust me? ). Next time try to be more explicit in your comments.--Citron (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are so insistent, reinstating once again this unhelpful image, Citron. The revised image is worse than the original image. There are two images further down the article which illustrate clearly the difference between ocean phase and spawning male salmon. Your image is a composite of images that are of uneven quality. It is not as though your image gives some synoptic overview. There is no indication of relative sizes, no labels, no distinction between Pacific and Atlantic salmon, and no contrast with ocean phase males. For that matter, there is no contrast with spawning or ocean phase females. If your image were to be used, it might have more of a case on the salmon run article. However, it doesn't belong there either, since that article already has more evocative images of spawning and ocean phase salmon. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Salmon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130131195348/http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/feeds/aquafeedsrept_nov2010.pdf to http://aquaculture.noaa.gov/pdf/feeds/aquafeedsrept_nov2010.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141012073930/http://www.nwr.noaa.gov:80/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/index.cfm to http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Recovery-Planning/index.cfm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://tna.europarchive.org/20110116113217/http://www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2004/jun/oilyfishdefinition
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402091754/http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/First%20Nations%20Salmon%20Fisheries.pdf to http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/First%20Nations%20Salmon%20Fisheries.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150402091754/http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/First%20Nations%20Salmon%20Fisheries.pdf to http://www.fish.bc.ca/files/First%20Nations%20Salmon%20Fisheries.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried to add a cross-reference to the Japanese page サケ (sake, which is not the alcoholic drink but a homonymic name for the fish).

However サケ in turn is linked to CHUM salmon, so the edit is refused. Wiki seems to enforce the idea that one thing in one language must map to precisely one other thing in another language.

Is my understanding correct? And if so is there a workaround? There are many concepts among languages that do not map directly onto each other (simple case: the Japanese collor ao can mean any blue or green) so this should be supported by Wiki if there's no other way to do it. Swiss Frank (talk) 07:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Japanese cross-reference cannot be added.

I tried to add a cross-reference to the Japanese page 鮭/サケ (sake, which is not the alcoholic drink but a homonymic name for the fish).

However サケ in turn is linked to CHUM salmon, so the edit is refused. Wiki seems to enforce the idea that one thing in one language must map to precisely one other thing in another language.

Is my understanding correct? And if so is there a workaround? There are many concepts among languages that do not map directly onto each other (simple case: the Japanese collor ao can mean any blue or green) so this should be supported by Wiki if there's no other way to do it.

(Perhaps scientifically 鮭/サケ IS only chum salmon, but in fact every normal dictionary I check givea a definition of 鮭/サケ as salmon. And at age 49 I've never heard of chum salmon.)

Swiss Frank (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Can link to Russian redirect be added:

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Лосось — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.174.7 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Genetically modified Salmon reversion

My edit regarding the genetically modified Salmon has been reverted. Just wondering if there is consensus here for this reversion? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

Content was removed because it was not encyclopedic, merely referencing a scaremongering Op-ed piece in the NY Times. Consider adding something related in an encyclopedic way in the Aquaculture of salmon or Genetically modified salmon articles. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have inserted preliminary information about the ( scaremongering?) vote in congress about labeling of GMO salmon into the article Salmon as food. I hope editors there will help develop it instead of simply removing relevant information that readers are looking for. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)please ping me

GM salmon ("AquaAdvantage") has only just been approved by the USFDA may not be on sale yet. It was given a very long testing period, and came back FONSI.220.244.74.138 (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Flesh color

The flesh of wild salmon is variable from cream to orange to dark red. Pacific salmon are pink to red as they eat a great deal of krill and larger shrimp. The carotenoid in the krill, which is the same pigment found in carrots, accumulates in their flesh. River and lake dwelling NA salamon have white of cream colored flesh. Only those fish spending time at sea have darker flesh. Farmed salmon, usually fed on pilchard and some offal pellets, have the carotenoid pigment added. Contrary to greenie claims, it is the same pigment present in wild fish, and is not required to be labeled by the USFDA. NA salmon, unlike their ancestors from the PAcific, do not die after spawning, and do no spend their lives at sea. NA salmon have effectively been farmed for hundreds of years in Europe, as their stocking in rivers and lakes has had a lot of human intervention.220.244.74.138 (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what FONSI or NA are ? I assume that this is all about American Salmon? Clarification would be welcome .  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Mythology section

I realize a minor point in the mythology section is hardly the most interesting issue on this page, but, found citations for the Salmon of Llyn Llw. Cannot edit in because of semi-protected page and relatively new account. Could someone else get that in? Thank you. #1Lib1Ref (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)akondrashova

LOL @ there being specific descriptions of random one-off European salmon myths and about five generic words about salmon myths from Native America/First Nations (esp. PNW), aka the most salmon-centric cultures on the planet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.4.209 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Salmon. 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/20071013213219/http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=10710&CtNode=122 to http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=10710&CtNode=122
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927063039/http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0309/hope.html to http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0309/hope.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216100913/http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ansrp/myxobolus_cerebralis.pdf to http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/ansrp/myxobolus_cerebralis.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://tna.europarchive.org/20110116113217/http%3A//www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/2004/jun/oilyfishdefinition
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

Hello, I'm trying to fix the kokanee trout article. It is orphaned. Could you please hyperlink it to the words "koakanee salmon?" The name for the fish can be either salmon or trout (maybe needs a title change), and the kokanee salmon is the same as the kokanee trout. Please help this poor orphaned article. Thanks, BluePankow (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Note: This is all a little confusing. Kokanee trout does not specify that an alternate name for that particular fish is kokanee salmon (although there are a number of alternate names including the word salmon). Kokanee (fish) and Kokanee salmon both currently redirect to sockeye salmon, where there is a discussion on kokanee in the Landlocked populations section. This section does not mention the word trout at all.

I was under the impression that trout and salmon are different classes fish. That being said, I don't know anything about fish, so I'm reluctant to make the change as requested. I've dropped a note at WT:FISH for some clarification. NiciVampireHeart 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: After the discussion at WT:FISH, I'm waiting for the kokanee trout article to be moved to kokanee salmon. After that happens, I'll add the requested link. NiciVampireHeart 17:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Kokanee trout has been moved to Kokanee salmon, and I have linked it in the Distribution section. NiciVampireHeart 04:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)