Talk:Pollock

Fishes High‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fisheries and Fishing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and drink Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Food and Drink task list:

To edit this page, select here

Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink:

Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt
Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar
Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish
Participate in project-related deletion discussions.
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section

Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

Article

A bulk of the data that I added came from here if people want to search for more. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:08, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)

Pic

Is that the best pic we can come up with? 192.100.116.142 08:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

"(or pollack, pronounced the same and listed first in most UK and US dictionaries)" So why is this called pollock then? it doesn't make sense to have it called by a minority name. Anyone typing Pollack gets its use as a surname and anyone searching Pollock the surname (as is Jackson Pollock or Jamie Pollock) gets a fish. Does this make any sense at all? Totnesmartin 22:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely pollack is listed before pollock in dictionaries because dictionaries list words in alphabetical order?92.21.249.7 (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists "pollock" as the main entry, "pollack" is noted as a variant. The main entry word is the more common spelling. If there are spelling variants that are equally in use then both spellings will have an entry, for example, grey/gray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.160.139.163 (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why say it? It's like breathlessly reporting that Barack Obama breathes air. I've been trying to get some handle on this sentence @ Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Pollack, but people there don't seem to see the problem with the sentence that I see. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pollack is the main entry in Merriam-Webster on-line and the only entry in in the OED, and the Wikipedia article itself seems to acknowledge that the -a- form is more common (unless it should be understood as a rather pointless reference to alphabetic ordering). Is there any reason at all not to rename this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.132.35 (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers 20th Century has "pollack" as the headword and "pollock" as a variant. DuncanHill (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: DuncanHill’s comment is another argument in favour of moving the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.132.35 (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pollock vs Cod

When we go fishing (northern Norway), we usually prefer to catch (atlantic) pollock instead of cod. Fresh from the sea, pollock tastes better. I have an impression that pollock loses quality more rapidly than cod, and I've always believed this is the reason why the cod is much more commercially popular. Since this is just my impression, and since I don't have references, I will not add this to the article.

Another notable difference, the cod is mostly a bottom-dweller, while the pollock is found closer to the surface. This is maybe worth mentioning in the article, but I don't have references ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.242.203 (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could cite Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's 'The River Cottage Fish Book'? He suggests that Pollock is just as good as Cod so long as it's treated well.86.167.63.76 (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a mention of the flesh of Pollock having a dark colour in the article - this is not the case, the other species Coalfish {Pollchius virens} has dark flesh, hence the name, Pollack {Pollchius pollachius} has white flesh similar to other relatives of the Cod. [[[User:Dfmac2001|Dfmac2001]] (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Range

They have a range from North Carolina up to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Pollock are a "white fish". They are an important part of the New England and North Atlantic fisheries, though less so than cod and haddock. They spawn in late winter and early spring on Georges Bank, off the New England coast.

What about the rest of the world? I don't know the answer, but I'm pretty sure that they exist elsewhere :) Fooflington (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric article

This article is currently very US/North American centred. Pollock occur in British water too and I'm sure they must be found elsewhere.86.167.63.76 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Orlady (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pollock → Pollack — Pollack is the main name used for this fish (see above), but Pollack is used for a list of people with that surname. Only one article links to it as a surname, while eleven links refer to its fishy use (the rest are hatnotes, see alsos, etc). Totnesmartin (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pollack → Pollack (surname)

Comment what would you do with "Pollock" if the page is moved? (There is a disambiguation page at pollock (disambiguation)...) 65.93.12.101 (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. make a suggestion. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose my personal preference for the fish is "pollock", which I see in various stuff around here as the fish name, anecdotally 65.93.12.101 (talk)
- yes, but pollack the the main use, pollock is the minor use. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support both. Pollock could redirect to the fish, with a disam hatnote, or go the the disam page. The former might be best. Alaska pollock only mentions the "o" spelling - is that right? Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consolidation of three "pollock" pages

Because there are several species commonly referred to as "Pollock," all of which are quite different from each other, I propose that each of the individual "Pollock" pages be consolidated into one parent page that covers each of the species. I feel it is misleading and confusing to have several individual pages on the various species of "Pollock," as most people don't make the distinction between the various species types and simply refer to them all as "Pollock."

Different species of pollock:

Alaska Pollock Atlantic Pollock Norwegian Pollock

Listing these together on one page (with separate, individual sections for each species) would reduce confusion and increase understanding of the differences between these species. As it stands right now, I feel that anyone searching for Atlantic Pollock, Alaska Pollock, or Norway Pollock may well end up on the wrong page without knowing it.

Wild Alaskan (talk) 23:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Wild Alaskan[reply]

Not even the fish's common name? Poor Jackson

I just read the 2011 Requested Move discussion a couple of sections up, and was surprised that this isn't even the common name of the fish. Editors ask 'if moved, what would we do with the name 'Pollock', and not once is Jackson Pollock suggested. Shouldn't his page really be the primary for this topic, with a hatnote for the fish? Randy Kryn (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Related move discussion

There is a move discussion which, while it does not directly affect this page, may be of interest to watchers. It is at Talk:Pollack#Requested move 27 May 2019. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]