Talk:Fishmonger

Fishmonger=Pimp?

See Talk:Hamlet#Fishmonger

Fish is euphemistic for vagina? What kind of vaginas do you have to deal with!? Changed to pejorative... --Ruben —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.232.50.238 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 17 March 2006

Categories

Fishmonger works with seafood and fish. I think that related links to these should be added. After further investigation, I looked at automobiles and mechanics weren't listed as a related category. Following that logic it makes sense to leave the previous categories unlinked. Jsderwin 05:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Fishwife

I propose to merge Fishwife into this article, as they overlap. It has some refs which would improve this one. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Fishwife is a separate topic as they are most noted for their strident ways, which not the case with fishmongers. If you want references here, I shall provide some. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, please provide them, either there or here. If merged, Fishwife (or Reputation of fishwives?) should be a separate section. As Fishwife stands, it's very short, and the point of mentioning the legal case is unclear. - Fayenatic (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• I can only speak of antidotial reference, in my family "fishwife" was a swear word. Fishwife was an old hag who screamed at men, some old crazy woman. You could call someone "fishmonger" and not get any reaction except puzzlement. Midwest, St Louis, USA - Italian decent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.102.121 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 August 2009

• Agree. Consolidation with fishwife is appropriate.Dcklx (talk) 08:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Two separate articles is more appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is it 'fishwife' for 'female practitioners'? a) fishmonger is a gender-neutral term, so it's just as appropriate for women as men, b) yes, fishwife does have hugely negative connotations - it's unfortunately now tainted with misogyny, and misogyny stinks worse than a red herring... Let's just have fishmonger - a section on fishwives if you like, or a whole page - don't care, but let's drop the differentiation between male and female fishmongers. After all, no fishmonger's genitalia will be involved, so they're irrelevant. Katiehawks (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead image

We have some disputation about the lead image. Myself, I don't much like either of the photographs which have been tried and prefer the painting by Joachim Beuckelaer which was in the gallery. I have cropped this and tried this in the lead. It seems more colourful and detailed than the photos, showing the fishmonger in good detail with his fish and knife. Warden (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well if you think so, but that leaves the article with historic images only, and not one contemporary fishmonger. Although fishmongers are less important than they were, it seems appropriate to me that lead image is contemporary. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• There are numerous images available and so we are spoilt for choice. I have some pictures of my local fishmonger, who is quite traditional and may try one of those. But, for another modern image, let's try Pike Place Market which I have visited and which is quite a notable location for such. Warden (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Okay --Epipelagic (talk) 09:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a nice picture for the lead image. --Jsderwin (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image (continued)

This time I don't agree with your change Warden. I accept two compelling points in favour of the change are that the fishmonger is British and that you took the photo yourself. However that persuasive beginning is overshadowed by what actually appears in the picture; the fishmonger appears to be selling eggs, and not fish. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fishmonger. 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/20070613133240/http://www.clicknotes.com/hamlet/Pap.html to http://www.clicknotes.com/hamlet/Pap.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)