Hi. My objection is based on Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Links to disambiguation pages. As the point of a template is to aid navigation (much as this is the point of a disambiguation page), it is better to link users directly to the topics they want to find. Templates are a particularly difficult problem because they create a large number of ambiguous links all at once. It's clear that Plaice is a valid disambiguation page; that said, two possible workarounds would be to have a summary of different fish called Plaice at "Plaice (fish)" and mark it as a set index article, or to create a "List of plaice" (is the plural plaice or plaices? cf. List of bears) and link the template to that. This is likely to come up repeatedly until it's resolved, since the links send it to the top of several lists of problem pages at WP:DPL and on the toolserver. (I separately redirected Bluefin tuna to the article on its genus which describes all of them, but that isn't an option here.) Dekimasuよ! 04:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you noted that you want to link major "species groups". The American plaice and the European plaice are only related at the level of the family (Pleuronectidae) which also contains a lot of other flounder listed separately in the template, so this might be a place to make an exception to not listing individual species. Dekimasuよ! 04:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where you are coming from. Trying to construct the template is tricky. It is a transitional or aspirational template, since many of the necessary articles haven't been written yet. But it is key template for the Fisheries project. I've written the upper level articles for wild, pelagic, forage and demersal fish, as well species group articles for cod and crab fisheries and salmon farming. And other editors have written several more species group articles. But that still leaves a number of species group articles yet to be written, including the one on flatfish (which would include plaice). I was trying to get away with linking to the general articles for these species groups in the meantime. I also have an issue (which I haven't raised yet) with Wikiproject Fishes. From their standpoint, a page like plaice, is a disambig page, since they are focused on taxonomy, which is precise. But from the point of view of Wikiproject Fisheries and Fishing, a group like plaice is not just a list of taxonomical species, and should be treated as a topic in its own right. It should contain an account of historical and regional variations and alternatives to the use of term, and an account of how the term is used in popular culture and in the fisheries and food industries. So I would like to rewrite some of those articles so they are no longer disambig pages. Since, as you point out, the template is now a problem page at WP:DPL, I guess something has to be done as an interim fix. Ah'm umming and arring... what's your own take? --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer, it seems that plaice is the only disambig problem on the template. How about if I just rewrite "Plaice" for the fish, and create a new page "Plaice (disambiguation)" for the disambig? --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the best option, because the fish would likely be the primary topic of the search term. However, I think you'd want to move the disambiguation page to as a whole "Plaice (disambiguation)" first, and then turn the redirect into an article. That would keep the history together and none of the current entries are incorrect, per se. Dekimasuよ! 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sea cucumbers" goes Trepanging. Probably not right, or what? 82.141.65.218 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Trepanging is the Anglicisation of the act of collection or harvesting of sea cucumbers. Never would have guessed that. 82.141.65.218 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]