Jump to content

Talk:Fin

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

Animal fins

[edit]

This article needs more info on animal fins. Paranoid 13:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...and more information about editing a Wikipedia page, aparently. Is there a way to fix the Help:Editing redirect? 12.34.246.38 18:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

animal fins are also reproductive, e.g. the gonopodium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.120.26 (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still lacks some essential informations about fish anatomy. Lb.at.wiki (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout is completely beyond bad

[edit]

I don't mean to be critical, but the article has too many images, and the layout and number of the images isn't terrible, it's far, far beyond terrible.

As I change the size of my browser window, most of the time fully 90% of the screen fills with whitespace. Independently of that, about 10% of the images are entirely off the right edge of the screen and completely invisible.

I made some small changes that stopped the 90% white space issue, but they were reverted.

As it stands, this article may be the worst laid out article in the whole of Wikipedia.Embrittled (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well your changes introduced a 90% white space issue on my browser. What browser are you using and what screen width? I looked at this on an iPhone yesterday, and it was fine. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic's changes have massively improved this article (from what it was in September), but I do think the number of images is now excessive (e.g. causing whitespace in the Generating thrust section) and the layout of images does not match normal WP style (I'm using Firefox). DexDor (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've modified the layout a bit. I'm having a problem with wanting to retain images and not being sure how to go about it. I've removed a couple of images, and maybe more will have to go. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A true split required

[edit]

There are entire sections duplicated here and in the Fish fin article. In my opinion all the evolution stuff should be kept in the other article only, with a link from here. This article should be more centered on the technical aspects of a fin (be it natural or artificial). —capmo (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the evolutionary aspects should be moved to later in the article, since it's about both biological and technological fins, but I don't think it should be moved entirely to the fish fin article, since a key point is the convergent evolution of fins in other taxa such as whales and ichthyosaurs. HCA (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the "Evolution of fins" section in Fish fin already covers other taxa, including mammals. In fact this section is duplicated in both articles, as well as the section "Robotic fins"; even the "Controlling motion" section has some content duplicated. —capmo (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why this is a problem - related topics will necessarily have some overlap. To remove it will make both pages less useful to readers, HCA (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bacterial flagella?

[edit]

I'm not convinced the bacterial flagella is an appropriate inclusions in the "thrust" section, since it doesn't generate thrust via the same mechanism as a fin (especially because it's a low-Re structure). Propellers may rotate, but the thrust generation is due to fundamentally similar mechanisms as fish fins, deflection of the water flow, while the bacterial flagella is more like a drill due to the increase dominance of viscosity at such small sizes. HCA (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree it's debatable. Is a flagellum a fin? The article lead defines a fin as "a thin component or appendage attached to a larger body or structure... [that typically provides] the ability to steer or stabilize motion". If we agree with that, then the only debatable point I can see is whether the cross-section of a fin can be circular. The flagellum is certainly "thin". Must a fin be flat? Viscosity naturally plays a larger part in how thrust is generated in microorganisms because they are very small, but I don't see that as a disqualifying criterion. Many microorganisms use flagella for locomotion, so flagella have essentially the same central function as fins do in larger organisms. I think that fact alone is sufficiently relevant and interesting (for readers who may be unaware of flagella and the existence of rotary propulsion methods in nature) to warrant some mention in the article. I have reworded the entry along these lines. How does that sit with you? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's not a good comparison; everything I've ever heard described as a "fin" has been a flat structure which either redirects flow or is used in drag-based swimming. If we depart too far from that, all sorts of things become fins - the tail and body of an eel, flagella, cilia, anything at all that produces movement in a fluid. Unfortunately, I've having trouble finding a citable definition of what, precisely, counts as a fin. I think instead, we should use a reverse, exclusionary method - check and see if a structure is explicitly described as a fin in the scientific literature, and leave it out if not. Thoughts? HCA (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dorsal and anal fins of a short-finned eel
I think you missed the main points I made. You offer two counter-examples: eels and cilia. "The tail and body of an eel" emphatically contain fins which are integral to propelling the eel – just because a winding motion is used to power the fins doesn't mean they cease to be fins. And cilia are irrelevant to the issue since they are not used to propel the organism. I'm not particularly in favour of bending over backwards to find reasons to exclude things on Wikipedia. People seem to be either exclusionists or inclusionists and that's just how it is. Regardless of whether a case can or cannot be made for regarding flagella as fins, the fact remains that flagella perform the same function in microscopic organisms as fins do in larger aquatic animals, and it is appropriate to mention that fact in the article. Indeed, it would be remiss not to mention it. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But notice in the picture of the eel that the *tail* isn't called a fin; the fins are the flat structures on top and on bottom. And cilia definitely propel organisms - plenty of protists such as Paramecium are propelled as such, and even Ctenophore animals. But those are minor details.
The problem is that, while "fins" can have a variety of functions (thrust, maneuvering, steering, stabilization), if you lump everything that performs those functions as a "fin", the term becomes so overly broad as to be useless. A turtle's shell is a fin because it generates lift. A duck's feet are fins because they generate thrust. The hydrodynamics of a boxfish mean that the entire body of the fish is, in this view, a fin. Cephalopods' entire bodies are also fins, by your definition, because they can generate thrust by contraction of the mantle. Just because two things have the same function doesn't mean they are the same - otherwise crabs have jaws on their first legs, elephants have fingers on the tips of their trunks, and you have a tentacle in your mouth. Some structures are defined as much by anatomy and homology as function, and I contend than "fins", in the absence of a citable definition, fall into this criterion.
I also contend that labeling things like the bacterial flagellum a "fin" violates WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH, since it's your conclusion that they are fins. Unless you can find a citable source which specifically calls something a "fin", it shouldn't be presented as one, even if you think the current definition (or lack thereof) makes it one. HCA (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? Where in the revised version is the bacterial flagellum labelled a "fin"? And where did I say that things that function like fins are fins. Instead of responding to what I said, you just made things up and pretended that is what I said. Worse, you use these pretended views as a basis for attacking me. There is little point continuing unless you read what I write. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's on a page called "fin". Even if the word specifically is not used in that paragraph (in which every other structure is uncontestably a fin), novice readers will conclude it is being considered as such, especially since you never explicitly say on the page that you're considering it only as a functional analog. If it's not a fin, why is it on a page called "fin"? Either you're contending that it is indeed a fin (not just a functional analog), in which case see my comments above, or you admit it is not a fin (or is only a functional analog), in which case it should not be included in this page. HCA (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If your crystal ball tells you the statement "as the means of providing propulsion, the flagellum has essentially the same function as fins do in larger organisms" means "novice readers will conclude it is being considered as [a fin]", then the simple remedy is to add a clarification. Still, I've reviewed the literature on flagella and cilia, and it seems there is not really enough there to support a view of functional equivalence. I suppose it would be labouring the obvious. Still, rules are rules, so I've removed the entry. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Fin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fin&oldid=1213100465"