This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fish for finance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Fish for finance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 October 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm a bit concerned that undue weight is being given to the sensationalist reporting of the opinions of a couple of non-notable individuals in the " Violence and civil unrest" section, especially with it not being adequately attributed there and with it being mentioned in the lead. I removed it from the lead, but Daniel Case restored it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, on this subject, I do not know why we have to have such a detailed summary of the Internal Market Bill's position in the intro, particularly since this is not the article about the bill. I think that per summary style it is enough to mention that it is still not a dead issue, and leave how it has gotten that way to the appropriate place, since the important issue is that it's a dealbreaker for the EU. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The UK joined the European Communities on 1 January 1973, not as a result of a 1975 referendum as asserted in the article. This changes the whole premise of the discussion. The UK joined the EC during the 2nd "Cod War", and nearly 3 years before the start of the 3rd. And as far as I know, the 200-mile zone continued to exist until sometime in the 2010s. -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
As the article makes clear, while Britain may have stated an intent to declare an EEZ (which can only reach the full 200 miles off the west coast of Scotland in any event), it used different limits depending on what they applied to (i.e., fishing had one set, oil exploration another, and so forth). At the end of the section, the article makes clear that the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 required the government to formally declare a full, standard EEZ for everything. That's probably what you're thinking of. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I can understand the desire for consistent usage even where I think most readers would understand the writer's attempt to spare the reader the monotony of one term or other being banged repeatedly into their skulls and recognize "UK" and "Britain" as being more or less synonymous for the purposes of this article.
However ... I do think that when we discuss the EEZ we ought to consider using "Britain" to refer to that portion of the EEZ bordering on EU member states' EEZs ... the UK EEZ, after all, includes the waters around most of the overseas territories, where there isn't really going to be an issue with French or Belgian boats. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC).
Only about half of the countries on the continent of Europe are also members of the EU. We must also remember that the UK is a country on the continent of Europe too, and remains there, even after leaving the EU.
So we need to try to clearly distinguish what we mean in phrases like:
In the UK, the rest of Europe in generally termed "mainland Europe" and just the EU countries are "EU member states".-- DeFacto ( talk). 07:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead currently states "Fish for finance[1][2][3] is a possible trade-off that may be considered ..." This seems to be a massive breach of WP:CRYSTAL. The negotiations are naturally involving all the industry and trade sectors that are important to the parties but speculation of this sort seems quite improper for an encyclopedia as it's contrary to WP:CRYSTAL; WP:NOTNEWS; WP:SOAP; WP:SYN. As we'll find out soon enough what deal is done or not done, the page and its DYK hook comes across as a form of lobbying. Per WP:OVERKILL, the use of multiple citations for the lead phrase is a tell-tale sign that it's fishy. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The three cites in the lede are there just because I have had too much experience with editors who want proof that an article that a common phrase used as an article title is not a neologism or (worse) protologism, and aren't impressed with a single source using said term. The point is simply to establish the use of the phrase. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Finance isn't as front and center an issue as fishing, lately anyway, because everyone on both sides understands that industry can take care of itself and adapt by moving, whereas fishermen don't have that option (also why the financial industry hasn't lobbied so hard for its own interests in the trade talks so far). But for the EU it's leverage on the UK since it's the mirror image of the fishing situation. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The hypothetical trade-off is being given undue weight. There was some brief talk of it around Jan 2020 but it has not lasted -- there is no recent coverage. The main article about the trade negotiation has a section about the fisheries issue. It mentions some other possible trade-offs and that's the best place for a balanced treatment in context. Andrew🐉( talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I suppose if the main negotiations article had dealt with this in a more substantial way, this wouldn't be so long. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Article | Size (Kb) | Prose (words) |
---|---|---|
Fish for finance | 159,827 | 13,243 |
Trade negotiation between the UK and the EU | 54,777 | 3,230 |
Fishing industry in Scotland | 25,333 | 3,069 |
Fishing industry in England | 2,958 | 213 |
Fishing industry in France | does not exist | nor does Fishing industry in the EU |
Financial services in the United Kingdom | 3,949 | 78 |
It basically trashes a lot of months of work I put in, but if it improves the other articles so much the better, since I have gotten my DYK out of it
(In fact, I had already more or less copied the section on the possibility of the closure of UK waters leading to clashes on the loughs at the ends of the border to
the appropriate article.
Fishing industry in Scotland is actually a little biased IMO in favor of the viewpoint that the CFP is responsible for the difficulties its subject has faced; an infusion of content from this article would help move it closer to NPOV.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I should confirm formally what I have written as a comment above: I strongly oppose a merge. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
"It's puzzling that one should work so hard on such an emphemeral topic." First, it's ephemeral. Second, I would be careful that I'm not living in a glass house before I throw that particular stone. Third, if people didn't show that level of interest in ephemeral or peripheral topics, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you can find as many "cars for finance" as there are "fish for finance" sources, I'll consider your point. But I doubt there are that many. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually think " Fisheries and fishing industry in the UK/EU trade negotiations" would be a better title if we do decide to create that article (and attendant to it should also be Financial industry in the UK/EU trade negotiations, since that's still an issue with unique wrinkles. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
We don't have a Fisheries Act 2020, if anyone is feeling energetic. What effect does its passage have on the Trade Negotiations in general (two fingers?) and the F4F issue in particular. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
DeFacto believes that the lead should assert that the impasse is about "the reach of EU law". That is a second order perspective and it is POV to include it. This article should express the issue as neutrally as we possibly can: the issue at its most basic is about the terms under which the UK can have 'no quotas, no tariffs' access for goods to the EU Single Market (and EU access to the UK Internal Market, mutatis mutandis). All trade agreements have conditions for continued participation and the right to re-instate tariffs if one side ceases to comply with the agreed conditions: anti-dumping clauses, for example. As of the weekend, it appears that negotiation right now is whether the EU can apply sanctions when it decides that the UK is about to cut prices by lowering standards versus actual harm is being done. But I don't see how that question is relevant to this article. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I see there was some discussion about renaming the article, but I think this may have been a reflection of a separate issue. I'm surprised to see that this article is dramatically longer than Fishing industry in England, Fishing industry in Wales, and infinitely longer than Fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
To avoid any confusion, I'll say that this is an important topic that deserves a Wikipedia article. The raw quantity of citations is irrelevant. There are more than enough sources to support the topic as a stand-alone article.
This topic is almost a perfect storm for Wikipedia, in that it's technical, political, and topical. (All that's missing is religion and pseudoscience.) It's understandable that the article needs a lot of context and nuance but I think this level of detail may have gotten to the point that it's interfering with readers abilities to understand it.
A specific example is that the very lengthy section on "Fishing and the United Kingdom" is mostly background information as it relates to the larger topic. This really, really seems like it should be its own article with a brief summary and wikilinks here for context. By placing info on
Viking activity, the
Napoleonic Wars, the
Industrial Revolution, etc. in this article, we are using unrelated sources to lead readers into forming conclusions about this topic. This is a sign of
WP:SYNTH, because many of these sources on historical topics are not about "a possible trade-off that may be considered by both sides in the trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) as they try to agree their future relationship following Brexit in January 2020
". Likewise, many of those which are about the topic are providing this history as context, but that context is missing from this article. By using a source to explain a historical fact and then failing to explain why that fact has direct bearing, the article loses focus at best, and possible much worse. If sources don't make the connection, then it was likely a springboard using Brexit to talk about something else. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but editorial restraint is called for.
Comparatively speaking, this seems like an easy problem to solve, and it would benefit the larger topic. Split this off into its own article. The history here is interesting and encyclopedically important, but readers shouldn't have to stumble on this particular article to find it. Fishing industry in the United Kingdom is one option. History of fishing in the British Isles is another. The point is that if I were looking for info on this historical topic, I would likely read the first couple of paragraphs and then keep looking elsewhere. I doubt I'm the only one who would make that mistake.
On a related note, the only use of the phrase "fish for finance" in the article itself is in the first paragraph and infobox. A similar issue has already been raised, but my concern isn't the validity or the phrase. It would be very helpful to summarize a source on the phrase. This could be explaining where the phrase comes from, when it was coined, who's using it, who's praising the idea using the phase, who's criticizing, it or just something about the phrase itself. It's not a neologism, but a reader could be forgiven for thinking that, since the article doesn't explain the phrase at all. If no sources about the phrase can be found it's an indication that the article should be renamed, as discussed above.
The unusually large number of lengthy footnotes doesn't solve this problem. The encyclopedic connection between the info in footnotes and the attached information in the main article is sometimes merely implied, not directly supported. It's not enough that the connection is obvious to an editor, it's important that sources are making those connections directly. Otherwise indiscriminate info can overwhelm the article, and synth can creep in regardless of intentions. Grayfell ( talk) 22:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the sources here are news media coverage, which make blanket statements like the one I could have made; again I think readers deserve better than that.
But the point is that it has been used quite frequently; just because we can't determine yet who started using it that way is not IMO a reason not to name the article that. We have plenty of articles on widely-used neologisms where no one's sure who started using it first. In the Brexit context, we get about 69 uses of the titular common noun in Irish backstop without any explanation of who started calling it that, much less why. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT I don't believe there's any reason to rename the article. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"Fish for finance", by contrast, is not a slogan, just a term the media used for what is really the center of the Brexit negotiations (and the ongoing post-Brexit non-negotiation negotiations) since the two sectors represent polar opposites of Britain's trading relationship with the EU.
I'm not adverse to the article shrinking with time—as I wrote above, if a proper article on the history of British fishing existed, much less one about the British fishing industry (we have cursory Fishing in England, a Fishing industry in Scotland that is more detailed but seems to have been written in a parallel universe where Brexit never happened, but no articles on fishing in Wales or Northern Ireland or even the British fishing industry overall), I'd not have to have written all that.
Plus I was writing and drafting as negotiations were going on, and now that they're supposedly concluded the immediacy of some of the material just isn't there like it was at the time. If someone wants my help in developing the non-existent or emaciated articles that should have a lot of that background material, all they have to do is ask (I may not be able to devote much time or effort to that currently, though, just warning people). Daniel Case ( talk) 16:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Fish for finance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Fish for finance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 15 October 2020 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() |
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm a bit concerned that undue weight is being given to the sensationalist reporting of the opinions of a couple of non-notable individuals in the " Violence and civil unrest" section, especially with it not being adequately attributed there and with it being mentioned in the lead. I removed it from the lead, but Daniel Case restored it. -- DeFacto ( talk). 19:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, on this subject, I do not know why we have to have such a detailed summary of the Internal Market Bill's position in the intro, particularly since this is not the article about the bill. I think that per summary style it is enough to mention that it is still not a dead issue, and leave how it has gotten that way to the appropriate place, since the important issue is that it's a dealbreaker for the EU. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
The UK joined the European Communities on 1 January 1973, not as a result of a 1975 referendum as asserted in the article. This changes the whole premise of the discussion. The UK joined the EC during the 2nd "Cod War", and nearly 3 years before the start of the 3rd. And as far as I know, the 200-mile zone continued to exist until sometime in the 2010s. -- DeFacto ( talk). 07:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
As the article makes clear, while Britain may have stated an intent to declare an EEZ (which can only reach the full 200 miles off the west coast of Scotland in any event), it used different limits depending on what they applied to (i.e., fishing had one set, oil exploration another, and so forth). At the end of the section, the article makes clear that the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 required the government to formally declare a full, standard EEZ for everything. That's probably what you're thinking of. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
I can understand the desire for consistent usage even where I think most readers would understand the writer's attempt to spare the reader the monotony of one term or other being banged repeatedly into their skulls and recognize "UK" and "Britain" as being more or less synonymous for the purposes of this article.
However ... I do think that when we discuss the EEZ we ought to consider using "Britain" to refer to that portion of the EEZ bordering on EU member states' EEZs ... the UK EEZ, after all, includes the waters around most of the overseas territories, where there isn't really going to be an issue with French or Belgian boats. Daniel Case ( talk) 19:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Yoninah (
talk)
20:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Moved to mainspace by Daniel Case ( talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC).
Only about half of the countries on the continent of Europe are also members of the EU. We must also remember that the UK is a country on the continent of Europe too, and remains there, even after leaving the EU.
So we need to try to clearly distinguish what we mean in phrases like:
In the UK, the rest of Europe in generally termed "mainland Europe" and just the EU countries are "EU member states".-- DeFacto ( talk). 07:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
The lead currently states "Fish for finance[1][2][3] is a possible trade-off that may be considered ..." This seems to be a massive breach of WP:CRYSTAL. The negotiations are naturally involving all the industry and trade sectors that are important to the parties but speculation of this sort seems quite improper for an encyclopedia as it's contrary to WP:CRYSTAL; WP:NOTNEWS; WP:SOAP; WP:SYN. As we'll find out soon enough what deal is done or not done, the page and its DYK hook comes across as a form of lobbying. Per WP:OVERKILL, the use of multiple citations for the lead phrase is a tell-tale sign that it's fishy. Andrew🐉( talk) 16:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The three cites in the lede are there just because I have had too much experience with editors who want proof that an article that a common phrase used as an article title is not a neologism or (worse) protologism, and aren't impressed with a single source using said term. The point is simply to establish the use of the phrase. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:29, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Finance isn't as front and center an issue as fishing, lately anyway, because everyone on both sides understands that industry can take care of itself and adapt by moving, whereas fishermen don't have that option (also why the financial industry hasn't lobbied so hard for its own interests in the trade talks so far). But for the EU it's leverage on the UK since it's the mirror image of the fishing situation. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The hypothetical trade-off is being given undue weight. There was some brief talk of it around Jan 2020 but it has not lasted -- there is no recent coverage. The main article about the trade negotiation has a section about the fisheries issue. It mentions some other possible trade-offs and that's the best place for a balanced treatment in context. Andrew🐉( talk) 18:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I suppose if the main negotiations article had dealt with this in a more substantial way, this wouldn't be so long. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Article | Size (Kb) | Prose (words) |
---|---|---|
Fish for finance | 159,827 | 13,243 |
Trade negotiation between the UK and the EU | 54,777 | 3,230 |
Fishing industry in Scotland | 25,333 | 3,069 |
Fishing industry in England | 2,958 | 213 |
Fishing industry in France | does not exist | nor does Fishing industry in the EU |
Financial services in the United Kingdom | 3,949 | 78 |
It basically trashes a lot of months of work I put in, but if it improves the other articles so much the better, since I have gotten my DYK out of it
(In fact, I had already more or less copied the section on the possibility of the closure of UK waters leading to clashes on the loughs at the ends of the border to
the appropriate article.
Fishing industry in Scotland is actually a little biased IMO in favor of the viewpoint that the CFP is responsible for the difficulties its subject has faced; an infusion of content from this article would help move it closer to NPOV.
Daniel Case (
talk)
15:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I should confirm formally what I have written as a comment above: I strongly oppose a merge. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 15:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
"It's puzzling that one should work so hard on such an emphemeral topic." First, it's ephemeral. Second, I would be careful that I'm not living in a glass house before I throw that particular stone. Third, if people didn't show that level of interest in ephemeral or peripheral topics, Wikipedia wouldn't be what it is. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
If you can find as many "cars for finance" as there are "fish for finance" sources, I'll consider your point. But I doubt there are that many. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I actually think " Fisheries and fishing industry in the UK/EU trade negotiations" would be a better title if we do decide to create that article (and attendant to it should also be Financial industry in the UK/EU trade negotiations, since that's still an issue with unique wrinkles. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
We don't have a Fisheries Act 2020, if anyone is feeling energetic. What effect does its passage have on the Trade Negotiations in general (two fingers?) and the F4F issue in particular. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 19:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
DeFacto believes that the lead should assert that the impasse is about "the reach of EU law". That is a second order perspective and it is POV to include it. This article should express the issue as neutrally as we possibly can: the issue at its most basic is about the terms under which the UK can have 'no quotas, no tariffs' access for goods to the EU Single Market (and EU access to the UK Internal Market, mutatis mutandis). All trade agreements have conditions for continued participation and the right to re-instate tariffs if one side ceases to comply with the agreed conditions: anti-dumping clauses, for example. As of the weekend, it appears that negotiation right now is whether the EU can apply sanctions when it decides that the UK is about to cut prices by lowering standards versus actual harm is being done. But I don't see how that question is relevant to this article. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
I see there was some discussion about renaming the article, but I think this may have been a reflection of a separate issue. I'm surprised to see that this article is dramatically longer than Fishing industry in England, Fishing industry in Wales, and infinitely longer than Fishing industry in the United Kingdom.
To avoid any confusion, I'll say that this is an important topic that deserves a Wikipedia article. The raw quantity of citations is irrelevant. There are more than enough sources to support the topic as a stand-alone article.
This topic is almost a perfect storm for Wikipedia, in that it's technical, political, and topical. (All that's missing is religion and pseudoscience.) It's understandable that the article needs a lot of context and nuance but I think this level of detail may have gotten to the point that it's interfering with readers abilities to understand it.
A specific example is that the very lengthy section on "Fishing and the United Kingdom" is mostly background information as it relates to the larger topic. This really, really seems like it should be its own article with a brief summary and wikilinks here for context. By placing info on
Viking activity, the
Napoleonic Wars, the
Industrial Revolution, etc. in this article, we are using unrelated sources to lead readers into forming conclusions about this topic. This is a sign of
WP:SYNTH, because many of these sources on historical topics are not about "a possible trade-off that may be considered by both sides in the trade negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Union (EU) as they try to agree their future relationship following Brexit in January 2020
". Likewise, many of those which are about the topic are providing this history as context, but that context is missing from this article. By using a source to explain a historical fact and then failing to explain why that fact has direct bearing, the article loses focus at best, and possible much worse. If sources don't make the connection, then it was likely a springboard using Brexit to talk about something else. There's nothing wrong with that at all, but editorial restraint is called for.
Comparatively speaking, this seems like an easy problem to solve, and it would benefit the larger topic. Split this off into its own article. The history here is interesting and encyclopedically important, but readers shouldn't have to stumble on this particular article to find it. Fishing industry in the United Kingdom is one option. History of fishing in the British Isles is another. The point is that if I were looking for info on this historical topic, I would likely read the first couple of paragraphs and then keep looking elsewhere. I doubt I'm the only one who would make that mistake.
On a related note, the only use of the phrase "fish for finance" in the article itself is in the first paragraph and infobox. A similar issue has already been raised, but my concern isn't the validity or the phrase. It would be very helpful to summarize a source on the phrase. This could be explaining where the phrase comes from, when it was coined, who's using it, who's praising the idea using the phase, who's criticizing, it or just something about the phrase itself. It's not a neologism, but a reader could be forgiven for thinking that, since the article doesn't explain the phrase at all. If no sources about the phrase can be found it's an indication that the article should be renamed, as discussed above.
The unusually large number of lengthy footnotes doesn't solve this problem. The encyclopedic connection between the info in footnotes and the attached information in the main article is sometimes merely implied, not directly supported. It's not enough that the connection is obvious to an editor, it's important that sources are making those connections directly. Otherwise indiscriminate info can overwhelm the article, and synth can creep in regardless of intentions. Grayfell ( talk) 22:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of the sources here are news media coverage, which make blanket statements like the one I could have made; again I think readers deserve better than that.
But the point is that it has been used quite frequently; just because we can't determine yet who started using it that way is not IMO a reason not to name the article that. We have plenty of articles on widely-used neologisms where no one's sure who started using it first. In the Brexit context, we get about 69 uses of the titular common noun in Irish backstop without any explanation of who started calling it that, much less why. Per WP:WORDISSUBJECT I don't believe there's any reason to rename the article. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
"Fish for finance", by contrast, is not a slogan, just a term the media used for what is really the center of the Brexit negotiations (and the ongoing post-Brexit non-negotiation negotiations) since the two sectors represent polar opposites of Britain's trading relationship with the EU.
I'm not adverse to the article shrinking with time—as I wrote above, if a proper article on the history of British fishing existed, much less one about the British fishing industry (we have cursory Fishing in England, a Fishing industry in Scotland that is more detailed but seems to have been written in a parallel universe where Brexit never happened, but no articles on fishing in Wales or Northern Ireland or even the British fishing industry overall), I'd not have to have written all that.
Plus I was writing and drafting as negotiations were going on, and now that they're supposedly concluded the immediacy of some of the material just isn't there like it was at the time. If someone wants my help in developing the non-existent or emaciated articles that should have a lot of that background material, all they have to do is ask (I may not be able to devote much time or effort to that currently, though, just warning people). Daniel Case ( talk) 16:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
References
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 23:52, 28 September 2022 (UTC)