text:
Talk:Fishing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Garberk1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tchris159.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Cultural Impact
I added some info relating fishing to major religions to the cultural impact section. I will add more later and round out the references. - Melanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melanie-dash (talk • contribs) 21:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I don't know how to revert pages, but someone has vandalized the "Recreational Fishing" portion of this article. Someone needs to fix this. Cereal Box Conspiracy 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Status
This article did not make it to featured article status. That is a pity, perhaps the application was a little premature. Still, Fishing does have the makings a very good and possible feature-quality article. Let us see it we can do it! Gaius Cornelius 22:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Anglers Rest Image
Hi! I'm just a visitor to this article, and before I start a revert war I'd like to put it up for discussion: Should the Anglers Rest Image be included? Personally I feel it is valuable because it shows a popular recreational fishing river. But lets see what the community thinks. --Fir0002 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

 * The picture is not appropriate here. Removing it was the right thing to do. Gaius Cornelius 17:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Gaius Cornelius, and support the removal. Arnejohs 19:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Surf fishing
is missing. Or is it listed by another name, if so I missed it. Montara State Beach has surf fishing. meatclerk 05:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know what surf fishing is. If it is essentially and 'invented sport' then, if it belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate under angling or sport fishing. If it is a very popular sport, or is some other way notable, it might deserve an article of its own. Gaius Cornelius 07:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Your note raises an interesting general point: what does and what does not belong in the fishing article. I would say that the article should reflect the practice of fishing throughout the world and throughout history and that the techniques mentioned should be economically or culturally significant to the people who practice it. To this might be added practices that are scientifically significant. Some feedback to establish the consensus would be helpful here. Gaius Cornelius 07:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If this helps, Surf Fishing is essentially line fishing, but you are casting into the surf. I'm not sure what one will catch, as I've never done this. It would also fit under native american fishing, also oddities, like some movies show this, even tv shows. So, is it a valid fishing method? I'm not 100% sure, but I can bet State of California has laws for it. meatclerk 09:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Surf fishing is a form of angling and, if it merits a home on Wikipedia, should probably live in the angling article. One might also argue that surf fishing really is a form of recreational fishing, since I'm not aware of any subsistence or commercial fisheries that use surf fishing. I think it's inappropriate to try to list every type of angling or every conceivable sort of net or, whatever, in the fishing article. In my opinion, the fishing article should be about fishing in the broadest sense of that word. There are, or should be, other articles to amplify specific kinds of fishing. See, the way I see the hierarchy is this: the fishing article is about the elements that are common to all types of fishing and not about any specific form of fishing. A descendant of the fishing article is the angling article which is about the elements common to all types of angling, whether that be commercial long-line angling fisheries or fly-fishing for sport or any other form of angling. A descendant of the angling article might be the recreationl fishing article which is about the elements that are common to all forms of recreational fishing, etc, etc, etc. Of course, this is only my vision so I'd welcome anyone to tell me I'm full of excrement. — Dave 13:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, that I have had some sleep - I am fairly confident I could find a reference for commercial surf fishing, as well as native american surf fishing. I believe it does belong under the modern angling section for recreational fishing. Now that I've had some sleep on this, the things one could catch include eel, and salmon.

On that commercial surf fishing there should be some material. Eel on the surf is common. Some use "pokie poles" and local fishermen from Pillar Point (north of Half Moon Bay, CA) have been known for this and surf fishing. Chinese were known for all types of fishing on the coast, from Half Moon Bay to San Francisco. SF has a "China Beach" which was an early fishing village in a ravine. They used it to avoid being beaten up by white bigots - well known local history. They did surf fishing along with abalone and whaling.

To all this I'm sure there is commerial surf fishing from New Jersey (sp?) to Florida, however now mostly recreational - as is here now. meatclerk 16:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Surf fishing is very popular in South East Queensland Australia. The majority of participants are recreational. Surf Fishing is undertaken regularly as a formal competitive sport - but most participants are undertaking fishing as a recreational past time. The opening line of this article presents the definition of fishing as hunting for fish. I don't associate fishing necessarily with hunting. We also have fishing here as part of indiginous livliehoods and also commercial surf fishing. We have people who undertake fishing from their surf boards - instead of casting. Sit around with a line while waiting for the waves to come through. Popular commercial surf fishing is for Sea Mullet. Recreational species for us that cause a frenzy are Tailor. When the tailor are running you can see 4WDs parked on the beach like a shopping centre and people standing shoulder to shoulder fishing into a gutter into the surf - how the lines don't tangle more often then they do is a mystery. Other fish that are commonly caught in the surf at any time of year include dart, bream, whiting and flathead. We often experience conflict between surf fishing, surfing and swimming all targeting the same beach at the same time. 22 December 2006 (SEQ Guest)

Saltwater fishing.
This text was added to the article; it needs to be cleaned up before being included.

Saltwater fishing is classified in two groups. Group A inshore which includes canals, bays, beach, ... THe many variety of fish include snook, redfish, and sea trout as the most popular inshore fish in florida though there are many more. As for group B which is offshore that includes the Oceans and Gulfs. In Florida some of the popular fish include grouper, snapper, dolphin (mahi mahi) and more. Most offshore fishing takes larger boats inorder to counter act the high intensity of the waves. As for inshore fishing which takes a very boyant boat some are called a flats boat.Depending on the type of fishing and species of fish someone is targeting will depend on the tackle and bait needed. -- phoebe 07:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC) fishing is a very important part of the way of life in Mali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.71.88 (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Lists of fishing ports by country
Does this list exist? List of North American fishing ports, List of Brazilian fishing ports, List of Thai fishing ports, List of eastern Pacific ocean fishing ports? I live near New Bedford, Massachusetts and every year the port finishes in the top ten, for the USA. --McTrixie 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * What exactly do you want to change/add. Also I know it’s 16 years later but like InfernaIBaze (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Ask for translation
I have drawn this diagram, but I do not know the name of the parts in English, maybe somebody can provide a caption and a use for this image. Chabacano 23:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks to the anonymous helper :) Chabacano 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup necessary
The article needs some cleaning up. There's a lot of random bolding and redundancies in areas, while some sections require rewriting in a more encyclopedic tone. Isopropyl 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

 * Very true. The section on recreational fishing is disproportionately long. Part of this article's problems are caused by well-meaning but lazy contributors who do not seem to bother with reading the whole article before adding inappropriate content; and the article attracts vandals and spam linkers. Perhaps we could get it semi-protected? Gaius Cornelius 12:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Merger from Sport fishing, potential for split along different lines
There had been a discussion to merge Sport fishing and Angling, but as sport fishing is not a subset of angling it does not make sense to merge them thus. I have therefore merged the info here under the "modern fishing" subsection.

However this article has become rather long, and already was before the addition of that information. Having "sport fishing" forked off on its own didn't seem to make a lot of sense, but a split somewhere else might be better. Perhaps fork out the entire "modern fishing" section into its own article?  Ark yan  • (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Fishing Article Improvement
Please see Fishing Proposal Page for more information about other things to be done regarding this project

Its about time to put this task which is the need to lessen the size of the Fishing article without loosing any of the important information in our priority list. This move is still apart of our move to objective to thoughtfully organize articles on fishing (see WikiProject Fishing). I would like to ask for your (each and everyone concerned) help, assistance, and approval for this move. I am planning to do the following revisions right after your approval:
 * Truncate the Fishing nets section and link it to its existing main article by placing the tag: Main article: Fishing net before the paragraph. The information that will be removed from this section will be transfered to Fishing net, in this way, the Fishing net article will be expanded. done as of 5/9/2007
 * The Dredging section will be connected to Dredging's Fishing section. Further expansion to Dredging's Fishing section will then be done.
 * Truncate the Fishing lines section and and link it to its existing main article by placing the tag: Main article: Fishing line before the paragraph. The information that will be removed from this section will be transfered to Fishing line, in this way, the Fishing line article will be expanded. done as of 5/17/2007
 * I am currently doing an article, Kite fishing. Right after this is done and approved. I am also planning to truncate the Kite fishing section and link it to the main article which I am currently creating by placing the tag: Main article: Kite fishing before the paragraph. The information that will be removed from this section will be added to Kite fishing.
 * I wish to create another article for Modern Fishing and shortly discuss Recreational fishing, Sport fishing, Commercial fishing, and other subcategories regarding Modern fishing. These subcategories will then be linking to there existing main articles.
 * I wish to add more fishing related sections and link them to their main articles using the Main article:

Please let me know what you think. Thank you and more power to us all. Bu b0y2007 05:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Un buen sitio de pesca
Pesca del Dorado en la Argentina /  Fishing from Argentina http://www.estancialabrava.com.ar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.41.230.162 (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Fishing revisions
First of all, I would personally like to thank you for actively guarding our Fishing Project. I've seen all your efforts of protecting the Fishing article from those harmful vandals. I've recently made a major revision from all those revisions/reverts that were made previously by bots and other wikipedians because some of the important information there were lost despite the effort of each and everyone to guard the said article. Let us continue to protect all those excellent articles. Thanks and more power! Bu b0y2007 02:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sport fishing versus angling
I just made an edit to the "Recreational fishing" section of the article to make the "main" point to Sport fishing, as it truly should. Recreational and sport fishing are very nearly synonymous. Angling, on the other hand, is a method of fishing that can be used for recreational, sport, commercial fishing, etc. The trouble, as I see it, is that there are two sections, "Recreational fishing" and "Sport fishing" that really talk about the same thing save for a slight semantic distinction. Those two sections, in my opinion, should be collapsed. — Dave (Talk | contribs) 12:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * You are absolutly right! Gaius Cornelius 13:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's true... Bu b0y2007 04:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Removed "squirrel fishing" section
I've deleted this section:

''Squirrel fishing Squirrel fishing is the sporting practice of "catching" squirrels and attempting to lift them into the air using a peanut tied to a string or fishing line, and optionally some kind of fishing pole.

In most cases, squirrels playfully tug and grapple with the nuts, while the human participant skillfully angles with his or her quarry. A delicate approach is required in squirrel fishing. Anyone can pull a nut from the hands of a squirrel, but the adept "squirrel fisher" must hone his craft, maintaining balance between himself and the squirrel, and eventually rewarding the squirrel for his valiant competition by ceding the nut. Ideally, great care is taken not to overfeed squirrels, not to hit them with nuts, and not to treat them roughly.''

It is completely out of place with the rest of the article.

16:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding Importance Rating
It could be debated (and edited and changed!) of course, but I'm assuming that Fishing is a Top-importance article to The Fishing Project. ;) I've still got just a little testing to do, but if the template holds up we now have Importance classes in the fishing articles as well.  See the Project talk for more details.

Aquatic Ape Theory
This theory has very little support among main-stream scientists. You can check the Wikipedia article on this as well, it also points out the strong scepticism against the theory. I believe the Aquatic Ape theory  should be put under a category like Trivia and not at the beginning of the article, since this lends it more credibility than it deserves. Weeddude 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC) --Weeddude 10:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

 * It was me that put it in in the first place, but I am inclinded to agree with you. Gaius Cornelius 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Fishing Assessment Drive
Added assessment template. LaughingVulcan 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment complete. LaughingVulcan 02:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Illegal fishing
Wow i have to say I was entirly clueless about illegal fishing. The use of cyanide to stun fish to be used in aquariums i found perticularly amazing. Is there any way to stop this crime? I cannot imagine that it is good for the enviroment.

Fishing techniques
Those of you who monitor this page might be interested in Fishing techniques, created by a new user from their thesis work. It is in dire need of cleanup and may recreate some information already presented here. I wasn't sure what to do with it. Anyone want to take it on? --Rkitko (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Speciesist Tag
I believe the appropriate discussion of this tag and topic belongs on the article talk page. Howard C. Berkowitz

Fishing; 02:27. . (-105) . . Hcberkowitz (Talk | contribs) (Removed speciesist tag until properly sourced text, supporting this position, is added to the article. Categories are not a place to express POV.)

 * Not a POV: from Speciesism: "Speciesism involves assigning different values or rights to beings on the basis of their species membership". You cannot tell me that catching fish for food, to eat, or otherwise is not assigning a lower value to fish on the basis of their species membership. What you need to do, is to compare what would happen if a human did this to another human. Please explain your position. -- Librarianofages 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * If you believe this to be true of fishing, then put it into the article, where it may be discussed and a consensus reached. It is your assertion that speciesism is relevant, so it is your responsibility to put the justification, not as original research or your opinion, but with sources as Wikipedia requires. There is nothing for me to explain about a position that I have not taken, other than it is not, as I understand, within the spirit of Wikipedia to put content in tags but not in the article. Editors are less likely to see the point if it is only a tag. If it is controversial, that controversy belongs on the talk page for the article.

 * No, I do not need to compare what would happen if a human did this to another human. No, I do not have to defend that speciesism is a meaningful position or a proper tag to assign. This should be presented to the Wikipedia community. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fishing techniques section
At the moment, this section has nothing on line fishing or its various types such as fly fishing and lure fishing. All it has is a sentence on fishing lines, which is part of the tackle, not a technique. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Has splitting the whole section off been considered? I.e. an article fishing techniques, summarized here of course. Other possibilities that occur to me are recreational fishing and history of fishing. Richard001 (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Article overhaul
I was bold and gave the article a major overhaul. I think much of the techniques stuff should be restored, but I wasn't the best one to distill it. (Hopefully someone else can write a somewhat longer summary.) Feel free to put back stuff that you think should be included. Two sections I think need to be written are about subsistence fishing (only recreational and commercial fishing were covered) and about fishing culture, both for recreational fisherman and for fishing villages, etc. Mangostar (talk) 06:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also missing is fishing between about 1000 AD and 1950 AD. Mangostar (talk) 07:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many edits
Mangostar - generally good editing, but making over 50 consecutive edits in two days is a bit of a problem since it makes it really hard to figure out what you've done and why. I started looking into this because your new EL is in violation of WP:ELLinks to be Avoided #10 - linking to an aggregate site. Can you go over your edits and describe what you've done and why on this talk page? I think it's generally a good idea to do that prior to undertaking so many changes anyhow. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I made so many changes so that you could read my reasoning in each edit in the edit summary. Actually, DMOZ links are explicitly endorsed in WP:EL. I think my edits are sufficiently explained by their edit summaries, though I would be glad to answer more specific questions. Mangostar (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving the Pictures Around
Someone needs to move the pictures around, because frankly, the article looks horrible the way it is now. (Blank spots, huge jumps between text, etc.) I tried to, but someone reverted my edit. So, I'm leaving it to someone else. kkarma 15:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Shrimping, frog hunting, clamming...?

 * By extension, the term fishing is applied to pursuing other aquatic animals such as different types of shellfish, squid, octopus, turtles, frogs, and some edible marine invertebrates. The term fishing is not usually applied to pursuing aquatic mammals such as whales, where the term "whaling" is more appropriate, or to commercial fish farming.

I think the above, 2nd ph of the article, claims that fishing includes all these other activities when they all have other names that are more commonly used. Perhaps should be changed to "The term fishing may be applied to pusuing other...Bob98133 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Sure, I agree with you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Recreationaql fishing in danger
The biggest threats to the recreational fishing are: 1-regulation of magnuson stevens that is not science based nor is it flexible. 2-radical environmental organizations who want marine protected areas to ban fishing.It does nothing to propogate the species who are mostly migratory. 3-Apathy by fisherman not willing to join any organization,they just complain. 4-unfair quotas which are more liberal than what is allowable to catch & keep compared to the recreational fisherman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.187.179 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Trolling, Trolling motors
... both need covered in this article. I added the term and an inline comment as follows: ...angling (including trolling<!-- as in trolling motors, angling technique used in boat fishing in both salt and fresh water angling, of slowly moving the boat, usually using a small motor designed for the purpose (usually with a local controller such as a foot pedal from the fishing point, not the helm.)

--->); For those of you lacking experience, that's pronounced like Trawling, not a fantasy monster or internet bad boy—despite the spelling, it's context that matters. // Fra nkB 04:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Needs balance in terminology
I'm adding a few words to the intro, using hunting as an example, to make the process of "catch" more clear. The article's body should include more direct language, as well. If anyone objects please discuss here rather than simply revert. PrBeacon (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Epipelagic, please don't revert edits by regular contributors. Use this talkpage to discuss the issue rather than dismissing them as "unnecessary additions." PrBeacon (talk) 07:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * I did not revert your edits as "vandalism", as you claimed. I reverted them as "unnecessary". You seem to be adding verbiage just for the sake of verbiage, presumably to impose yourself on the article rather than make a useful contribution. You have not contributed anything useful anywhere else in any fishing articles. Instead you come straight to the main fishing article and promptly mangle the lead sentence. As it stands, the opening sentence is simple, elegant, and adequate, and not improved by you swamping it with your riders that are fully covered elsewhere in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * So much for being open-minded. The term "catch" is ambiguous, some readers are unfamiliar with fishing. And I didn't say you called my edits vandalism, I said (in my edit summary) that they are not vandalism. As a longtime contributor you should know better about reverting, but you seem to be exerting some territorial issues. And because you've now reverted me twice and only afterwards have come to the talkpage, yet refuse to discuss the additions and only give this a blanket dismissal, I'm going to re-revert and warn you for edit warring. I think we'll need to get a third-party in here. PrBeacon (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * You have replaced the lead sentence, "Fishing is the activity of catching fish", with "Fishing is the activity of catching fish for food, recreation, or trade."
 * Fishing is in fact the " activity of catching fish". It is not necessarily for food, recreation or trade, and does not have to have a purpose at all in order to be "fishing". It can also be tensely competitive rather than recreational, it can be for a trophy to stuff, it can be as a gift for someone, it can be for scientific research, it can be to stock an aquarium and so on ad nauseum. But if you are involved in the activity of catching fish, then you are "fishing". This had nothing whatever to do with the reason why you are fishing. So the purpose someone fishes should not be pushed onto the lead sentence. Your additions are not only inappropriate, they are also redundant. If you actually read the lead, you will see that these three purposes are already in the lead: the second paragraph refers to recreational fishing, and the last paragraph refers to fishing as an employment and producing fish for consumption.

 * You then add a second, unnecessary, sentence: "'The term fishing includes killing, trapping or capture." Taking these one at a time, "killing", if it occurs, is something that might happen after catching the fish. It's not an integral part of actual fishing. "Trapping" is a technique, already included, along with several other techniques, further on in the same paragraph. As for "capture", what do you think "Fishing is the activity of catching fish" means, if not that you capture ot catch fish. Capture is the same as catch. You are adding nothing but verbiage.

 * Since I have to point this obvious stuff out, it is clear that you didn't think about what you wrote, and you didn't bother to read what was already in the lead. Nor should you be templating the regulars like you did on my talk page, warning me in an inflammatory way for edit warring. It is, in fact, you who are edit warring. You have overwritten the long established lead to this article. I have revert your edits until such time as you can establish a consensus here that your changes have merit. If you can't do that, then please find an another area in Wikipedia to play out your combative drama. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * There you go in a dismissive and patronizing manner again. Nonetheless, I'll start with your last point: (you) reverting a fellow regular editor (me) is more combative than what I did in simply adding a few words to the page. You could have discussed my changes here on the talk page, or added/reworded them to clarify. Wiki pages are not set in stone. Please show me the policy or guideline that says not to edit "long established" lead, whatever that is.
 * And what you've explained is not obvious to the casual reader. As I said at the start of this talkpage section, I used the Hunting article as a guide. There it says "The pursuit, capture and release, or capture for food of fish is called fishing." This is a much better lead sentence than "Fishing is the activity of catching fish" -- which is way too simplistic and somewhat euphemistic. Speaking of which, I also find it more than odd that the word "killing" appears nowhere in this article. Although it may be understood in the context of fishing that the term "catch" often results in killing the fish, it should be clearly stated. PrBeacon (talk) 10:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, all sorts of things can happen to a fish after has been caught. Fish can and are unhooked from hooks, untangled from nets, tranquillised, ike jimed, bled, discarded, released, put in fish bins, scaled, skinned, eviscerated, filleted, rinsed, frozen, salted, dried, fried, sorted, spiced, packed, canned, smoked, processed into fish meal, auctioned... All sorts of matters like these are discussed in 1,200 accompanying articles for someone who is interested, and none of them belong in the lead paragraph of the fishing article. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] That litany of fishing results is a collective red herring and does little to further this discussion. Please be more civil. Despite your own combative stance and objectionable demeanor, I'd like to move on to changes in body text -- what exactly is your objection to adding the fact that some fish die, i.e. are killed as a result of fishing? PrBeacon (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your ever courteous reply. I see that this thread in now featuring in the dramafest you are conducting across various noticeboards, such as here and here. You failed to inform me, as required, that you had opened an edit warring report on me. It seems you want the word "kill" to appear as much as possible in a number of articles. I have no objection to you adding, in an appropriate way to the text body, that fish are usually killed or die at some stage after they are caught. I think you underestimate the intelligence of readers, but it is clearly important to you. There is a big live fish trade, so perhaps you could explain that fish are usually dead or killed before they are eaten. Though I guess it's optional. Fish in cans are definitely dead. I would think most smoked and filleted fish are dead too. Fish in sushi are probably dead unless they are very small. Almost certainly, eating live fish would kill them, even the ones swallowed alive, though you would need a reliable source for that. Even aquarium fish die eventually. I hope this clarifies your confusion. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Oh, I'm not confused. Nor would i try to hide the fact that i'm here to provide balance against humanocentristic euphemisms in wildlife articles. For the record, i fish and i eat fish so this isn't about some campaign that you like to imagine. You say i'm imposing myself yet you continue to blare & bluster about how much you know of the "established" text like its the fish gospel. So what if i havent made changes to other fishing articles. you'd probably revert those and dig in there, as well. I dont see your name anywhere else in this talkpage. And you didnt start until after your 2 reverts. Yea we both know about the edit-warring. (Edit: I did not fail to inform, I followed 3RR form, warned you on your talk page, which you deleted).
 * And if you're going to investigate someone just because you disagree with them & can't control your temper, then at least be forthcoming when you link an admin thread which has been withdrawn, voluntarily. The other editor who replied to that, by the way, has shown his own bias as well. So don't get too comfortable with your high perch of judgment. Calling a legitimate dispute 'drama' is just another weak dismissal. The way you've behaved here is not in the spirit of this community project. PrBeacon (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * For the most part I really don't follow what you are talking about. What am I going to "investigate"? You show very little clarity for someone who is not confused, with all your unwarranted assumptions about what I imagine, feel, have done, would do, and so on. You say you informed me that you had reported me for edit warring. Where? The warning you put on my talk page says nothing about the report. Please "balance" things somewhere else. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Ah, if only you'd originally followed one of the better rules you'd have a leg to stand on. And I see you too are afflicted with The Last Word syndrome. Good luck with that. PrBeacon (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

whats the differentance between fishing and angling?
whats the differentance between fishing and angling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie-Zhang (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 * The best place to ask questions like this is at the Reference desk. Article talk pages are for the people who are writing the article. Anyway, angling is fishing with a hook ("angle"), or hooks. It can be contrasted with fishing without hooks, such as fishing with nets, traps or spears. You could look at the article on angling. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fishing Picture
I posted a picture, and Epipelagic removed it. I put it back, as I thought he removed it because he thought it was vandalism, but it wasn't. He removed it again and told me to discuss its appropriateness here before I put it back. It is simply a picture of me holding two fish that I caught. It doesn't make the article's aesthetics any worse; the History section is made less wide to accommodate it, but there are no empty spaces created by it. If the other pictures of people fishing that are already on the article are appropriate, I don't see why mine isn't. --C0N5T4NT1N3 (talk) 0:27, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi Tyler. Wikipedia is not a good place for vanity photos. Your photo would be entirely acceptable on Facebook or Flickr. But if you look at how you have inserted your photo in the fishing article, which is the main article in the fishing project, you will see that you have inserted it in the history section. What has your photo got to do with the history of fishing? Because your picture takes up a lot of vertical space, it has pushed images below it further down the page, so they are no longer aligned with text that is relevant to them. Looking at the caption you entered, it says "A dashing young man shows off his catch". What has that got to do with fishing? It is about you, not about fishing. It is true that you appear to be holding a couple of fish. But it is not at all clear what fish they are. Nor is it clear how you caught them. The photo is not focused on the fish or how they were fished. It is focused on you.

 * You point out that there are "other pictures of people fishing that are already on the article". Well let's look at the picture of a fisherman surrounded by tackle in the section on fishing tackle. That picture is there, not to glorify and draw attention to the guy in the picture, but because it is a well composed picture where the fisherman is is surrounded by fishing tackle. It is there because it illustrates well the section on fishing tackle. What specifically is your picture illustrating about fishing? To see how silly vanity pictures can become, have look at this attempt to insert a vanity picture into the article on fisherman. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

 * I think I understand what you're saying. And while I do not believe that my picture is entirely inappropriate, I think it might be better placed in a gallery of fishing photos as opposed to the top of the article, and I understand why it is not a necessary addition to the article. I will keep it off. C0N5T4NT1N3 (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead image
It is understandable, Omulazimoglu, given that you have just uploaded a photo that you took by yourself of people fishing, that you now want to promote your picture as a lead image on the main fishing article. However there are over 7,000 other images available on fishing at commons that other people have also taken. You need to need to establish what it about your photo that makes it so special. The image you are proposing appears to be of several recreational anglers fishing from a jetty. It is quite a nice picture, but it doesn't illustrate anything of particular interest. You might say the moon is nice, but it is nothing to do with fishing. On the other hand, the photo you want to replace shows an unusually elegant method of netting fish, with a pleasing style and colouring. In my opinion, it is a more suitable photo than the one you want to replace it with. Please stop edit warring and explain your reasoning here. You can reinstate your photo if you get a consensus from other editors that your photo is indeed the more appropriate photo. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. MULAZIMOGLU (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Fishes
Removing tag associating this article with Wikiproject Fishes. "WikiProject Fishes aims to help organise our rapidly growing collection of articles about fish taxa. Issues outside the scope of this WikiProject include fishkeeping (fish aquarium topics), fishing, fisheries, fish cuisine topics, fish farm topics, fish market topics, fish processing topics, fish product sales topics, fish products topics, and fish trap topics." [direct cut and paste from project main page]. This article does not fall within the scope of that wikiproject. Neil916 (Talk) 07:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Fishing
Working on history of technology for another language wiki I don't see in the historical articles anything about the impact of fishery on development of permanent settlements. I understand that hunters-gatherers could only become really sedentary after moving to agriculture. But what about lakeside fishers who had all-year supply of fish? Would they not be the first ones to start permanent settlements? Who knows something?

Beside: The opening sentence of the article sounds a bit silly. I cannot believe that "Fishing is the activity of trying to catch fish." Although it is forbidden here on wikipedia I did original research some years ago by putting a hook into the water and trying to catch fish - without success. Unfortunately there were some people upstream who were actually fishing and pulling fish out of the water. I never tried again and was deeply embarassed and would never claim that I did fishing. I failed. --Kipala (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

 * If you have relevant reliably sourced material about long term settlements and fisheries, please feel free to add it. There is an article on the history of fishing which is the place to put stuff like that. I know many fishermen who would find it irritating, but not strange to say that they came back empty handed from a fishing trip. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Deep sea fishing evidence
Science is reporting evidence for deep sea fishing of tuna, shark, barracuda dating to 42,000 BCE. here is a news report, but a link to science would be best.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.135.200 (talk) 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140525200018/http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn030/peter.html to http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn030/peter.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Fishing
some people call it a sport but to me it is a lifestyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.109.9.59 (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fishing. 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/20101202015738/http://kjappeal.org/history.html to http://www.kjappeal.org/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Content shifted from slaughter house article
I shifted content from the Slaughterhouse article to here because fish are not killed in slaughterhouses. Instead I blanked that section and pasted it on a section here with a link to the section. There has been no coverage of ethics in this article, so I just linked that section here. All reviews of my move can be discussed here.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fishing. 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 tag to http://travel.independent.co.uk/uk/article176414.ece
 * Added tag to http://www.arqueologiamendoza.com/wikisrc/images/b/b5/The_Optimal_Foraging_Analysis_of_Horticultural_Production.pdf.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905193146/http://americanbible.org/brcpages/FishandFishing to http://www.americanbible.org/brcpages/FishandFishing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018
Live or dead bait is not terminal tackle. 67.44.176.184 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Fishing for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Fishing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fishing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Composition I - Writing Wikipedia
— Assignment last updated by Danibanani3 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Important of fishing
10 important of fishing 105.113.19.200 (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Library 100 - Critical Approaches to Information Research
— Assignment last updated by ArtTer32 (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fishing


text:
Token (railway signalling)

In railway signalling, a token is a physical object which a train driver is required to have or see before entering onto a particular section of single track. The token is clearly endorsed with the names of the section to which it belongs. A token system is more commonly used for single lines because of the greater risk of collision in the event of a mistake being made by a signaller or traincrew than on double lines.

Principle
The operation of a bidirectional single track line has the hazard of two trains colliding. The simplest way to prevent such collisions is to have only one train in the section at any given time. Such a system is known as "one-engine-in-steam” (OES) or “one-train working" (OTW). This system is used on some branches of rail networks, and on heritage railways. The main disadvantage is that it restricts the number of train movements that can be made. For a larger railway system, it becomes exceptionally limiting in the level of operations that it allows, with the increased risk of mistakes being made, possibly leading to a collision.

Instead, reliance is placed not on employing only one train but on having a single physical object, known as a "token", available for the single track section, and ruling that a driver may enter the single line section only if in physical possession of that object. Existing in a variety of physical forms, such as a staff, tablet, key, or ball, the object is marked to indicate to which single track section it belongs.

Token only
The token system was developed in Britain in the 19th century, to enable safe working of single-line railways. For the very first time this system was proposed by Mr. Henry Woodhouse for Standedge Tunnels in 1849. If a branch line is a dead end with a simple shuttle train service, then a single token is sufficient. The driver of any train entering the branch line (or occupying any part of it) must be in possession of the token, and no collision with another train is possible. For convenience in passing it from hand to hand, the token was often in the form of a staff, typically 800 mm long and 40 mm diameter, and is referred to as a train staff. Such a staff is usually literally a wooden staff with a brass plate stating the two signal boxes between which it is valid.

In UK terminology, this method of working on simple branch lines was originally referred to as One Engine in Steam (OES), and later One-Train Working (OTW). However the system was used on long through lines as well; R H Dutton, Chairman of the London and South Western Railway explained in 1876 the slow journey time between Exeter and Plymouth by saying, "the cause of the delay is the stopping at every station on the staff system. That really does cause a great delay because if the staff is not there, the train must stop while a man is sent on a horse to get it [from the other end of the section]"; quoted in Williams.

Staff and ticket
Using only a single token does not provide convenient operation when consecutive trains are to be worked in the same direction. The simple token system was therefore extended: if one train was to be followed by another in the same direction, the driver of the first train was required to be shown the token, but not take possession of it (in theory he was supposed to physically touch the token, but this was not strictly followed). The driver was given a written authority to enter the single line section, referred to as the ticket. They could then proceed, and a second train could follow. In the earliest days the second train could proceed after a designated time interval, as on double lines at the time. However, following the Armagh rail disaster of 1889, block working became mandatory.

Seeing the train staff provided assurance that there could be no head-on collision. To ensure that the ticket is not issued incorrectly, a book of numbered tickets is kept in a locked box, the key to which is permanently fastened to the token, or is the token. In addition, the lock prevents the token being removed until the ticket box is closed, and it cannot be closed unless the book of tickets is in the box. Once a ticket is issued, its number is recorded in a Train Register book, and the token is locked in a secure place. This system is known as staff and ticket.

In a variation on this principle, called divisible train staff, a section of the token referred to as the ticket portion was designed to be removed and handed to the driver instead of a paper ticket.

Electric token

The staff and ticket system was still too inflexible for busy lines, as it did not allow for the situation where the train intended to carry the actual token was cancelled or running very late. To provide for this, the electric train token system was developed. Each single-line section is provided with a pair of token instruments, one at the signal box at each end. A supply of identical tokens is stored in the instruments, which are connected by telegraph lines. A token can be removed from one instrument only if both signalmen co-operate in agreeing to the release. Once a token has been removed, another cannot be removed until the token which is "out" is replaced in either instrument. (There are variations on this sequence of events.) By this means, it can be ensured that at any one time, only one token is available to be issued to a driver. Tokens belonging to adjacent sections have different configurations to prevent them being inserted into the wrong instrument.

Nevertheless, a head-on collision occurred on a section of single track on the Cambrian Railways on 18 January 1918. The drivers of both engines held the correct token, issued from Tyer's token machines as they started their respective journeys, but the electrical circuits linking the machines at either end were also used for telephones and, together with a possible line fault caused by bad weather, this allowed the issue of two tokens at the same time. In the Abermule train collision of 1921, also on the Cambrian Railways, lax working procedures allowed the safeguards provided by the electric token system to be circumvented; a driver was handed a token for the wrong section, and proceeded on the mistaken belief that the token was correct. To try to prevent this, the UK Board of Trade Railway Inspectorate recommended that the signals controlling entry to the single line section (starting or section signals) were locked at danger unless a token had been released from the relevant token instrument. This was not universally adopted and many single line sections continued without such safeguards well into the 1960s.

Collection of the token
In a basic railway situation, the token can be collected personally by the driver at the start of the crew's work on a branch line, and surrendered at the end of their work there.

Where the single line section is part of a through route, then it is likely that each passing train would require to surrender and collect a token at each token station. Where the trains stop at every station this is a convenient arrangement, but where some trains run through without requiring to make a call (i.e. express trains), it was necessary for the signalman to exchange tokens with the fireman (in the case of steam trains) as the train passed at slow speed. In the case of driver-only operated trains, a dead-mans hold over button was provided, so the driver could exchange the token without the emergency brake being applied. A large staff could be handed over without any special apparatus, but if the system in use employed miniature staffs, tablets or key tokens, these were usually placed in a leather pouch attached to a hoop, and the fireman could put their arm through the hoop held up by the signalman, and vice versa as the locomotive ran past. In UK practice the permitted speed for this was 15 mph in daylight, but there are stories of drivers anxious to make up lost time when running late, and passing the exchange point at much higher speeds; bruised upper arms were common among signalmen and firemen on such lines.

Fixed token exchange apparatus was used on some railways. Trackside equipment was fitted near each signal box to hold the pouch containing the token and to receive the token pouch that was being given up.

Automatic exchange
Certain railways developed mechanical systems that enabled faster handover using catcher devices. These could be extended from the locomotive cabside just before the train passed the exchange point and then automatically retracted afterwards. These enabled handover speeds of 40 mph. Examples of such systems include the Whitaker system on the Somerset & Dorset Joint Railway and the Manson system on the Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway and the Great North of Scotland Railway. When the Aberdeen to Inverness passenger service was converted to diesel multiple unit operation in the late 1950s, the train-borne equipment was fixed adjacent to the train guard's compartment. A special buzzer code confirmed to the guard that the correct token had been successfully received.

Mechanical staff exchangers were also used where trains did not stop on the single line sections of the Main South, Main North and North Coast lines of the New South Wales Government Railways in Australia. On the Victorian Railways automatic staff exchangers survived on the North Eastern, Western, and Geelong-Ballarat lines until as recently as the late 1980s. On the South Australian Railways, auto staff exchangers were used on the former broad-gauge line between Adelaide and Port Pirie. In all these Australian states, both steam and later diesel electric locomotives were fitted with auto exchangers. On the New Zealand Railways, where most lines are single track, multiple systems were used like the Winter’s block system and Sykes’ lock and block working. On the North Island Main Trunk and on other lines like the Wairarapa Line, the Tyer’s Electric Train Tablet with the No. 7 instrument was used. Tablet exchangers were developed by Wynne after trials of the Australian design by Quirke. The tablet system allowed for banking engines used for steep sections with a separate bank engine key.

Electronic token systems
Advances in technology led to the development of electronic token systems. Trains are able to run over consecutive single-track sections, with the operation being controlled by radio from a central control room. Every train carries an electronic unit that receives and sends an encrypted block of data which represents the token. The system is designed so that the control centre cannot issue a new token for a section of line until the current one is 'returned'. Trains cannot send tokens to each other. This system allows the whole line to operate without any additional signalling personnel, and has functioned without major incident.

The Ternkey System ("Token Exchange using Random Numbers" system) is a hybrid between conventional token working and internet technology. Conventional "trapped key" pin tumbler locks (held in fixed position by solenoids) are mounted in key-release units set up at each end of controlled single line. The number of locks in each unit is determined by the expected traffic frequency; optionally at times short sections may be combined to reduce the number of stops. The units are connected to a central control computer by internet. The central computer conducts a "census" of keys before releasing a solenoid and freeing a key for the required section of track—an engraved tag identifying the respective section of track is securely attached to the relevant key. The system is in use on the Isle of Man Railway between Castletown and Port Erin.

Intermediate block posts
In certain circumstances it was convenient to shorten the single line sections by providing an intermediate signal box equipped with token instruments without providing a passing loop there. This was done if there was, for example, an important siding connection at the intermediate location. It also enabled following through trains to run at closer headways, but did not facilitate opposing movements.

Because of the greater risk of collision in the event of irregular working, the practice was deprecated in the UK, although some examples did exist for example at Beddington Lane on the Wimbledon – West Croydon line before resignalling. Usually in such cases special interlocking was provided between the two instruments at the intermediate signal box to ensure that trains could not be accepted from opposing directions at the same time.

A disaster at such an intermediate location occurred on the Somerset & Dorset Joint Railway at Foxcote, near Radstock, in the Foxcote collision of 1876. This occurred before the S&DJR was equipped for token working and was relying on block instruments only – a catalogue of errors led to two passenger trains entering the same section from opposite ends.

Long section working
In double line working, at times when traffic is light it is convenient to "switch out" an intermediate signal box, allowing the signal boxes on either side to communicate directly for train control. On single lines this is more complicated because of the train tokens being identified with single line sections, but the difficulty can be overcome by some form of long section working.

A simple system used separable train staffs which fit together when intermediate block posts are closed, so that a driver receives the train staff for two or more consecutive sections from the first signalman. An alternative system employs special long-section token systems; when long section working is to be instituted, all the short section tokens must be in their respective instruments; by switching to the long-section method, tokens for the long section can then be obtained in the ordinary way. Obviously all the long-section tokens must be restored before the normal working can be resumed.

Unattended operation
Token instruments can be arranged for unattended operation, when they are operated by the train crew at intermediate crossing loops or at the terminus of the line. This system is widely found in Australia, where traffic density on many lines is low.

In the UK it is known as the "No-signalman key token system". Examples on the UK national network are the North Devon Line, where the system was brought into use on 1 December 1987, the Heart of Wales Line (commissioned in 1986 ), the Matlock branch in Derbyshire and the Liskeard to Looe line in Cornwall. On the latter, the train guard not only operates the Tyer's No.9 electric token instrument controlling the upper section of the branch, but operates the points as well. The lower section is operated on the "One Engine in Steam" principle with a simple wooden staff. Possession of the staff is required to unlock the ground frame controlling the points at Coombe Junction, where the two sections meet. There is no other signalling on the branch except to control entry and exit to and from the main line.

Token interlinking
After early experience with token systems, it became customary for the starting signal at token stations to be interlinked with the token instrument; on withdrawal of a token, the starting signal lever was released for one pull.

Sometimes an intermediate siding is provided on the single line section, and the token itself, or a key fixed to the end of it, unlocks the points for shunting there. The token is locked in the apparatus there, and the driver cannot retrieve the token until the points have been set to the through running position and locked again. In special situations where the sidings at the intermediate location are extensive, the equipment is arranged for the shunting train to be put wholly inside the sidings, clear of the main line; in this situation an intermediate token instrument can be provided, enabling the driver to surrender the token so that normal through working can take place on the single line while their train is at the sidings.

A corresponding arrangement sometimes applied where permanent way maintenance was carried out by motorised trolley. Usually this used special "occupation key" instruments which were interlocked with the normal token instruments and provided at intermediate places where the trolley might be off-tracked (or stored overnight).

Working by pilotman
A variation of the token system is working by pilotman, where the place of the token is taken by a person who is designated the pilotman. This system is instituted if there is a failure of the token apparatus, a signal failure within a single line section, or on double lines when one line is blocked and traffic is to be worked in both directions over the remaining line.

The pilotman (identified by a red armband with "PILOTMAN" in white letters) rides in the cab with the driver, or if another train is due to follow, the pilotman must issue the driver with a single line working ticket and authorise him to enter the section. The signalman must not clear the starting signal until instructed by the pilotman to do so. The pilotman must ride with the driver if it is the last train to run in that direction. Thus pilotman working is analogous to the "staff and ticket" system, described above, where the pilotman himself becomes the token and his verbal instruction is the equivalent of the ticket.

It is sometimes necessary to provide the pilotman with a personal locomotive to cater for disruptions to the service. In such a case the pilotman's locomotive is usually coupled to the front of the actual train, but practice may vary depending on local track layout, types of trains etc.

The use of a pilotman for such purposes pre-dates the use of tokens.

Present-day use
Until the late 20th century, the token system was standard on British single-track lines and it still remains on a number of lines there as well as elsewhere, such as the line between Girvan and Stranraer in south west Scotland. Traditional token systems are also in use on heritage railways in Britain, for example on the Mid Hants Railway and the West Somerset Railway which is fitted throughout with Tyer's electric token instruments. The Bluebell Railway has short section token working between adjacent boxes and long section working available between Sheffield Park and Kingscote.

The token system was in use on the Hurstbridge railway line, Melbourne, Australia between Greensborough and Eltham (Miniature Electric Staff) and Eltham and Hurstbridge (Train Staff and Ticket) until replaced by electronic signalling in early 2013. The Greensborough to Eltham section was abolished on 31 January 2013, along with half of the Eltham to Hurstbridge section, as far as Diamond Creek. The final Diamond Creek to Hurstbridge section was abolished on 22 March 2013.

The Puffing Billy Railway in Melbourne, Victoria, has used a staff and ticket system since it was originally opened from Upper Ferntree Gully to Gembrook. The current line from Belgrave to Gembrook has permanent staff stations at Belgrave, Menzies Creek, Lakeside and Gembrook. A temporary staff station exists at Emerald town to allow trains to pass at Emerald on busy days. For the Emerald temporary staff to be activated, the Menzies Creek to Lakeside staff is required to be locked away at Menzies Creek. A similar situation occurs with Cockatoo station, whereby for it to be enacted as a Temporary Staff Station, the Lakeside to Gembrook staff is required to be locked away at Lakeside.

The token method of working is sometimes still used for temporary situations such as through engineering works or where the signalling system has yet to be provided. In December 1981, a new underground line was opened in Melbourne, which provided a circular service around the city's central business district. Although normal services were not to begin for some time, for two months special services operated on Sundays to allow people to try the new line, and for this period the line operated with a train staff, although there was no provision for tickets to be used.

A very unusual token working was instituted on the line between Pakenham and Traralgon in Victoria, Australia for several months in 2006 whilst the line was being upgraded. During this period, the line was closed during the day, but opened each night to allow a few goods trains through. The line is double track between Pakenham and Moe (except for a short single track section). Three staffs were provided for the 100 km length, one each for the sections Pakenham—Warragul, Warragul—Moe, and Moe—Traralgon. The first two of these are partly or totally double-track sections, but the staffs in this case were applicable to both tracks, the effect being that only one of the tracks could be used at a time.

The token system is still regularly used on the present-day State Railway of Thailand system. Although most use occurs in regional areas, some use appears in the capital city, Bangkok, such as the Makkasan to Khlong Tan section etc.

Sri Lanka Railways uses a tablet exchanging system on the up-country railway line.

Russian Railways uses Electric Token Block on some lines, most notably the Yanisyarvi – Lodeynoe Pole railway.

The electric staff instruments manufactured by Webb and Thompson shown in the picture above are in use on the Buenos Aires (Constitución Station) to Mar del Plata line (Ferrocarril Roca) in Argentina, as of 2019.

The token system is also used on the Seaton tramway between Seaton and Riverside and on the running lines of some tram museums.

In Malaysia, signaling token signs are still used on the KTM East Coast Line between Gemas and Tumpat. Although Gemas Station mainly serves the Electric Train Service, it still receive tokens from trains arriving from Bahau Station on the East Coast Line. Similarly, the Gemas Station Master needs to pass a key token for trains bound for the East Coast. The final token exchange normally happens at Tumpat and Gemas but this also happens at Kuala Lipis and Dabong as these two stations are the terminus of some Eastern Shuttle (SH) train services. This system was officially abolished on KTM's West Coast Line following the completion of the Ipoh - Padang Besar Electrified Double Track Project in 2014.

Other names
Various railways use different names for the same things:

New South Wales

 * Ordinary Train Staff (OTS)
 * Ordinary Train Staff and Ticket (OTST)
 * Electric Train Staff (ETS)
 * Pilot Staff

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Token (railway signalling)


text: Category:Romania

title: Category:Romania


text:
List of rivers of Idaho

This is a list of rivers in the U.S. state of Idaho.

By drainage basin
This list is arranged by drainage basin, with respective tributaries indented under each larger stream's name.

Pacific Ocean

 * Columbia River (WA)
 * Snake River
 * Palouse River
 * Union Flat Creek
 * Clearwater River
 * Lapwai Creek
 * Potlatch River
 * Pine Creek
 * Big Bear Creek
 * Moose Creek
 * Big Canyon Creek
 * North Fork Clearwater River
 * Elk Creek
 * Little North Fork Clearwater River
 * Beaver Creek
 * Washington Creek (Idaho)
 * Orogrande Creek
 * French Creek
 * Weitas Creek
 * Kelly Creek
 * Orofino Creek
 * Whiskey Creek
 * Canal Gulch
 * Jim Ford Creek
 * Lolo Creek
 * Lawyers Creek
 * Middle Fork Clearwater River
 * Lochsa River
 * White Sand Creek (meets the Lochsa near Powell Junction)
 * Selway River (meets the Lochsa at Lowell)
 * Meadow Creek
 * Moose Creek
 * North Fork Moose Creek
 * East Fork Moose Creek
 * Bear Creek
 * White Cap Creek
 * Little Clearwater River
 * South Fork Clearwater River
 * Cottonwood Creek
 * Crooked River
 * American River
 * Red River
 * Salmon River
 * Fourth of July Creek
 * Tower Creek
 * Little Salmon River
 * Rapid River
 * South Fork Salmon River
 * Secesh River
 * East Fork South Fork Salmon River
 * Johnson Creek
 * Middle Fork Salmon River
 * Big Creek
 * Camas Creek
 * Loon Creek
 * Panther Creek
 * North Fork Salmon River
 * Lemhi River
 * Pahsimeroi River
 * East Fork Salmon River
 * Yankee Fork Salmon River
 * Wildhorse River
 * Crooked River
 * Weiser River
 * Crane Creek
 * Little Weiser River
 * Payette River
 * Big Willow Creek
 * Little Willow Creek
 * Dry Creek
 * Fourmile Creek
 * Jakes Creek
 * Chief Eagle Eye Creek
 * North Fork Payette River
 * Gold Fork River
 * Middle Fork Payette River
 * South Fork Payette River
 * Deadwood River
 * Boise River
 * Indian Creek
 * Mores Creek
 * South Fork Boise River
 * Boardman Creek
 * Deadwood Creek
 * Middle Fork Boise River
 * Roaring River
 * Queens River
 * Yuba River
 * North Fork Boise River
 * Crooked River
 * Bear River
 * Owyhee River
 * Jordan Creek
 * North Fork Owyhee River
 * Middle Fork Owyhee River
 * South Fork Owyhee River
 * Little Owyhee River
 * Deep Creek
 * Battle Creek
 * Blue Creek
 * Castle Creek
 * Bruneau River
 * Jacks Creek
 * Big Jacks Creek
 * Little Jacks Creek
 * Clover Creek
 * Sheep Creek
 * Marys Creek
 * Jarbidge River
 * Sailor Creek
 * Malad River
 * Big Wood River
 * Camas Creek
 * Little Wood River
 * Baugh Creek
 * Salmon Falls Creek
 * Goose Creek
 * Raft River
 * Cassia Creek
 * Rock Creek
 * Bannock Creek
 * Portneuf River
 * Marsh Creek
 * Blackfoot River
 * Willow Creek
 * Grays Lake Outlet
 * Henrys Fork
 * Teton River
 * Moody Creek
 * Canyon Creek
 * Bitch Creek
 * Badger Creek
 * Fall River
 * Conant Creek
 * Squirrel Creek
 * Boone Creek
 * Warm River
 * Robinson Creek
 * Buffalo River
 * Moose Creek
 * Spokane River
 * Cable Creek
 * Latah Creek
 * Coeur d'Alene River
 * South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
 * North Fork Coeur d'Alene River
 * Saint Joe River
 * Saint Maries River
 * Pend Oreille River
 * Priest River
 * Abandon Creek
 * Pack River
 * Clark Fork
 * Kootenai River
 * Balboa River
 * Moyie River

Interior basins
These basins aren't hydrologically linked to the Snake River.

 * Big Lost River
 * Antelope Creek
 * East Fork Big Lost River
 * North Fork Big Lost River
 * Little Lost River
 * Birch Creek
 * Medicine Lodge Creek
 * Camas Creek
 * Beaver Creek

Great Basin

 * Great Salt Lake
 * Bear River
 * Malad River
 * Little Malad River
 * Little Bear River
 * Logan River
 * Cub River
 * Deep Creek

Alphabetically
• American River

• Antelope Creek

• Bad Luck Creek (Idaho County, Idaho)

• Badger Creek

• Bannock Creek

• Battle Creek

• Bear River (Boise River tributary) – Bear River tributary of the Boise River, Idaho

• Bear River (Great Salt Lake) – Bear River in SE Idaho, SW Wyoming, and NE Utah corner

• Beaver dam

• Beaver Creek

• Big Dick Creek

• Big Lost River

• Big Canyon Creek

• Big Creek

• Big Jacks Creek

• Big Willow Creek

• Big Wood River

• Birch Creek

• Bitch Creek

• Blackfoot River

• Blue Creek

• Boise River

• Boone Creek

• Bruneau River

• Buffalo River

• Camas Creek

• Camas Creek

• Camas Creek

• Cassia Creek

• Canyon Creek

• Castle Creek

• Chief Eagle Eye Creek

• Clark Fork

• Clearwater River

• Clover Creek

• Coeur d'Alene River

• Conant Creek

• Cottonwood Creek

• Crane Creek

• Crooked River

• Crooked River

• Crooked River

• Cub River

• Deadwood River

• Deep Creek

• Deep Creek (Owyhee River tributary)

• Dry Creek

• East Fork Big Lost River

• East Fork Salmon River

• East Fork South Fork Salmon River

• Fall River

• Fourmile Creek

• Gold Fork River

• Goose Creek

• Grays Lake Outlet

• Hangman Creek

• Henrys Fork

• Indian Creek

• Jacks Creek

• Jakes Creek

• Jarbridge River

• Johnson Creek

• Jordan Creek

• Kelly Creek

• Kootenai River

• Lapwai Creek

• Lawyers Creek

• Lemhi River

• Lolo Creek

• Little Clearwater River

• Little Jacks Creek

• Little Lost River

• Little Malad River

• Little North Fork Clearwater River

• Little Owyhee River

• Little Salmon River

• Little Weiser River

• Little Willow Creek

• Little Wood River

• Lochsa River

• Logan River

• Loon Creek

• Malad River

• Malad River

• Marsh Creek

• Marys Creek

• Meadow Creek

• Medicine Lodge Creek

• Middle Fork Boise River

• Middle Fork Clearwater River

• Middle Fork Owyhee River

• Middle Fork Payette River

• Middle Fork Salmon River

• Moody Creek

• Moose Creek (Henrys Fork)

• Moose Creek (Potlatch River tributary)

• Moose Creek (Selway River tributary)

• Mores Creek

• Moyie River

• North Fork Big Lost River

• North Fork Boise River

• North Fork Clearwater River

• North Fork Coeur d'Alene River

• North Fork Owyhee River

• North Fork Payette River

• North Fork Salmon River

• Orofino Creek

• Owyhee River

• Pack River

• Palouse River

• Pahsimeroi River

• Panther Creek

• Payette River

• Pend Oreille River

• Portneuf River

• Potlatch River

• Priest River

• Queens River

• Raft River

• Rapid River

• Red River

• Roaring River

• Robinson Creek

• Rock Creek

• Sailor Creek

• Saint Joe River

• Saint Maries River

• Salmon Falls Creek

• Salmon River

• Secesh River

• Selway River

• Sheep Creek

• Snake River

• South Fork Boise River

• South Fork Clearwater River

• South Fork Coeur d'Alene River

• South Fork Owyhee River

• South Fork Payette River

• South Fork Salmon River

• Squirrel Creek

• Teton River

• Union Flat Creek

• Warm River

• Weiser River

• Wildhorse River

• Willow Creek

• Yankee Fork

• Yuba River

title: List of rivers of Idaho


text:
Otis Davis

Otis Crandall Davis (born July 12, 1932) is a former American athlete, winner of two gold medals for record-breaking performances in both the 400 m and 4 × 400 m relay at the 1960 Summer Olympics. Davis set a new world record of 44.9 seconds in the 400 m event, and he became the first man to break the 45-second barrier.

Early life
Otis Crandall Davis was born in Tuscaloosa, Alabama on July 12, 1932. He is black and Native American. He served four years in the United States Air Force, during the Korean War.

College athletics
Following the Air Force, Davis attended the University of Oregon on a basketball scholarship, hoping to one day becoming a professional. One day in 1958 while observing athletes running on the track with a friend, Davis, who had never run before, nor attended schools in his youth with sports programs other than basketball and football, decided that he could beat the athletes he saw on the track. He approached track coach Bill Bowerman, who would later become the founding father of the Nike, Inc., and asked to join the track team. Bowerman, who needed high jumpers, had Davis try his hand at that event. Among Davis' first attempts at the high jump, he jumped 6–0. Recalls Davis, "I had no form. I had no style. I just jumped." He also hit 23–0 in the long jump with little effort, though Davis was flustered by the sprinting events, relating "I didn't even know how to get in the starting blocks". In his first competitive event, Bowerman entered Davis in the 220-yard dash and the 440-yard dash in the Pacific Coast Conference championships, both of which Davis won, missing the school record by two tenths of a second in the latter event.

According to Davis, Bowerman made the first pair of Nike shoes for him, contradicting the claim that they were made for Phil Knight. Says Davis, "I told Tom Brokaw that I was the first. I don't care what all the billionaires say. Bill Bowerman made the first pair of shoes for me. People don't believe me. In fact, I didn't like the way they felt on my feet. There was no support and they were too tight. But I saw Bowerman make them from the waffle iron, and they were mine."

In 1960, Davis was competing on a national level for the Oregon Ducks, and was poised to becoming a national AAU champion in the 440-yard run.

Olympic career
The same year, at the age of 28, Davis made the U.S. Olympic team. He ran his fastest time to date one week before participating in the 1960 Summer Olympics in Rome as one of the oldest members of the track team, where he was nicknamed "Pops" by his teammates. According to Davis, "I was still learning how to turn with the staggered starts and all. I was still learning the strategy involved. I was still learning how to run in the lanes."

Davis competed against the heavily favored German athlete Carl Kaufmann, who was the world record holder in the 400-meter dash. Davis won by a hair over Kaufmann, setting a world record of 44.9 seconds and becoming the first man to break the heralded 45-second barrier. The photo of the finish, with (in full horizontal dive position) Kaufmann's nose ahead of Davis, but his torso behind, has been studied and discussed by track and field officials for years. Both athletes were awarded the world record time, recorded in the 10ths of a second in those days, but Davis was awarded the win. Two days later, Davis and Kaufmann met again for the 4 × 400 m relay final. He held off the challenge, anchoring home the gold with another world record performance of 3:02.2. The photo of the finish of that race was also made famous in Life magazine.

It was also at the 1960 games that Davis met and became friends with Muhammad Ali. Davis comments, "Boy, you think I talk a lot, but I couldn't get a word in with him. And since he's a boxer and I'm a runner, I couldn't really argue with that. We just kind of gelled."

Post-Olympic career
Following the Olympics, Davis competed in some sporadic track meets, such as the 1961 U.S. Nationals at Randall's Island, where at age 29, Davis was victorious, but his competitive running career was virtually over, as he never repeated his Olympic performance. He returned to Oregon, where he obtained his degree, a B.S. Health & Physical Education, in 1960. He later considered playing as wide receiver for the Los Angeles Rams. After retiring from competition, Davis become a high school teacher, working in Springfield, Oregon for many years, and then traveled overseas to work as an athletic director at United States military bases, including McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, where he taught in 1989. He also taught various after-school programs for gifted students.

In 1991, Davis moved to Jersey City, New Jersey, in order to live closer to New York, eventually settling in Union City sometime after December 2008. In 1996 he was a torch-bearer for the Summer Olympics in Atlanta.

Around 2002 or 2003, Davis was hired by the Union City Board of Education, and began working at Emerson High School as a truancy officer, teacher, coach and mentor. When he was inducted into the National Track and Field Hall of Fame in 2003, he asked Emerson Principal Robert Fazio to accompany him to the ceremony in Los Angeles, and when the rest of the school's staff discovered that Davis was an Olympic medalist, they honored him with a banner posted in a hallway in the school honoring his achievements.

In 2012, Davis was working as a verification officer at Union City High School, mentoring students, some of whom have gone on to win the United States Olympians Tri-States Chapter Annual Achievement Award, which is awarded to New York, New Jersey and Connecticut students. The top five winners in 2012 were Union City students. He is also co-founder and, in 2012, president of the Tri-States Olympic Alumni Association, a member of the University of Oregon Hall of Fame and the New Jersey Sports Writers' Halls of Fame.

Davis ran athletic skills programs during the spring and summer in Union City, in order to reach students who did not normally participate in sporting events, and to complement the schools' physical education curricula. Among the programs that Davis directed were the Mayor's Cup, first held on June 6, 2011, in which students from the city's several elementary schools compete in events that include sprinting, spring relays and circle relays, and the Sports Challenge, which provides special needs children with the opportunity to be a part of sports activities.

Records

 * World Record 1960: 400 meters 44.9
 * American Record 1960: 400 meters 44.9

title: Otis Davis


text:
Talk:The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee)

Moving comments placed in the article here
The following commentary was posted to the article by 68.117.184.188:

 * As a member of this church I just thought that I would make a few small corrections.
 * We believe the church was organized by Christ personally, during his earthly ministry. Therefore, we believe the church was established prior to Pentecost. We believe the bible records this organizational meeting in the third chapter of the gospel of Mark. We also believe this to be in keeping with the prophecies of the OT (i.e. Isaiah 2:2, Psalms 72:16).
 * Furthermore, though we believe this organized body of believers (The Church of God)to be the continuation of the bible church, we do not believe only members of our church are Christians. We believe that anyone who has been justified by the grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus is born again, and as such they are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We also believe that it is God's will and purpose to physically (organizationally, if you will) reunite all living Christians as one church prior to the rapture (John 10:16).

Just moving it here. -- Hadal 06:41, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

More comments moved over from the article (I haven't figured out who added them):

"Another small correction: A. J. Tomlinson was not a Quaker. He was however raised near a Quaker community. A. J. Tomlinson was not a Christian, or a religious person for that matter, until after he was married. His first association as a member with any organized church after his conversion was in a Baptist Church. So, A. J. Tomlinson was a former Baptist, but not a former Quaker.  He left for the poor and uneducated Appalachian region of North Carolina as a representative of the American Tract and Bible Association. It was during his travels and ministry in this area that he first became acquainted with the "Holiness Church at Camp Creek", etc."

"The Church of God is not a penecostal organization." --orlady 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Has this denomination split in two?
From the latest edits to this article, by 75.42.0.145 (including the changes in external links), I conclude that this denomination has split in two. The parts are http://www.thechurchofgod.org/, headed by Stephen Smith, and http://www.The-ChurchofGod.net/, Bishop James C. Nabors, General Overseer. There seems to be an edit war beginning over the issue of which of these is the true denomination. If they have split, it seems to me that Wikipedia needs to have separate articles for the two units that now exist. However, this is complicated by lack of verifiable information -- none of the new additions (nor most of the old content) are supported by citations other than the websites.--orlady 04:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there has been a split in this organization. The two different groups were effectively divided in Sept. 2006. The only citation as such that I can give to this is a newspaper article from Nov. 17,2006 in the Cleveland, TN Daily Banner. The fifth paragraph of the article defines the nature of the division. This organization(nabors) needs its own page the same as The Church of God(charleston) is seperated from The Church of God of Prophecy has its own page. Article link below

 Biblemanryan 01:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the enlightenment! For some reason, I had trouble with the link. This string worked: http://www.clevelandbanner.com/NF/omf/daily_banner/archive_display.html?[rkey=0063055+[cr=gdn] (Now I have to go read the article.) --orlady 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem (I think the ['s and ] 's in the link collided with wiki formatting).

I conclude from the article that one branch, with Stephen Smith as the overseer, is still called The Church of God, with offices in Cleveland and a mailing address in Charleston, and presumably still using the name The Church of God (Charleston, Tennessee). It appears to me the other branch may be using the name The Church of God under the leadership of Bishop James C. Nabors. Is that accurate? --orlady 01:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

If there's no article for the newest branch, I fear an edit war will ensue. Can you create one with a title like The Church of God under the leadership of Bishop James C. Nabors?--orlady 02:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry the kids have been so unrulyBiblemanryan 03:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs removed from article
The following paragraph was placed in the external links section. I've moved it here:
 * The term Holy Spirit is used as follows in The Church of God, literally as the KJV of the Bible puts it, and that is, The Holy Ghost, when related to the conviction of sin,and reception of. Also, speaking in tongues is common with those who possess the Holy Ghost, but the church's official teaching on it is, "Speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost".

 * In 325 A.D. Emperor Constantine, called a meeting of the religious leaders, (I.E.,Bishops of the early church), however relgious history indicates that about 1/3 of the Bishops were excluded because of thier stand against what would be basically a government controlled religion. At the Meeting the Nicean Creed was signed by those present, which sent the "true" early church into what is called the "Dark Ages". At this meeting the famous Apostles Creed was signed. Some religious historians feel that Constantine truly had the best interest of religion in his heart, and that he himself was a christian. However, others believe this was just a ruse to take over the church.

 * The Church of God does not consider itself a denomination, but rather as the true New Testament church continuing on as instituted by Christ on Mt. Hattin, a Divine Institution. The Church of God also believes,that each disruption that occurred, allowed it to stay true to her Biblical destiny as the One Fold. The departures from Theocratic government were not on thier part, but rather on the other churches part, allowing The Church of God to become more pure and as the Bible says "The Bride has herself ready"

- Ltwin (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1923? - 1943 ?
Dates do not fit. Father Ambrose J. TOMLINSON retired in 1923 ? Seems wrong. His sons, the elder Homer (how Christian a given name !!) and the younger Milton, began their quarrel as who should lead the Church in 1943 - so "1923" appears not to be correct.

Nuremberg, Bavaria Ángel.García2001 131.188.3.21 (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)