Talk:Geoduck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I believe it is obvious enough and needs no more than the sentience above and the picture. EvilHom3r 23:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

remove weak evidence supporting aphrodisiac efficacy[edit]

I've removed the following sentences. They are references to non-technical sources referring to scientific evidence that supports the aphrodisiac efficacy of geoduck. The evidence is very weak, so it seems to lack notability. The evidence is weak insofar as it's preclinical and not specific to Geoduck.

A team of American and Italian researchers analyzed bivalves and found they were rich in amino acids that trigger increased levels of sex hormones.[1] Their high zinc content aids the production of testosterone.[2]

Flies 1 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Pearly wisdom: oysters are an aphrodisiac". The Sydney Morning Herald. 2005-03-24.
  2. ^ Kurlansky, Mark (2006). The Big Oyster: History on the Half Shell. New York: Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-345-47638-7.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Geoduck. 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:

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) 10:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geoduck. 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:

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) 23:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biology[edit]

The biology section cites a microsporidium-like parasitic species study. The link to this study specifically states, "do not cite." I propose updating the citation to the now published final report. [1]Oneconfusedegg (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://wsg.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/publications/Geoduck-Final-Report-Dec-2013.pdf

Article Evaluation/Feedback[edit]

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia and am taking a course at my university. We're looking at how to evaluate articles and I chose this one to look at. My biggest feedback and confusion is the organization of the article. I was expecting a section on Biology, physiology, ecology, animal behavior, and maybe a small section on interactions with humans but was surprised to find more about the industry than any specifics about the anatomy of the geoduck. It might be fun to look into what they look like inside and how come they don't have many natural predators (also the parasite bit seemed cool and I would like to know more about other creatures interactions with these geoducks). Trivia section could be expanded to songs about geoducks to (it is the first thing to pop up in google). Anyway, thank you for letting me stop by and I hope this feedback is useful. All the best, Rosie Dragon (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the word "edible" relevant to this subject?[edit]

Until the section Culinary uses nothing in the article states that this clam is edible.

(Although the section Industry certain might imply that it is edible.

Isn't this a basic fact about the geoduck that should be stated in the introgeoducktion? 98.255.224.144 (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese import ban?[edit]

Over 10 years ago, China imposed a run-of-the-mill temporary import ban for 6 months. So what? Why is this in the article? 50.37.136.254 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geoduck&oldid=1212527636"