Translation:Fish are not animals that make a lot of noise.
I think I agree in Polish, but in English its common to refer to animals in a personifying way, at least in my experience.
We certainly use "he" and "she" for our pets, but I doubt even with pets we'd use "who". And for fish in general, definitely not.
You're right that we personify animals a lot, but using "who" in this sentence sounds really weird to me as a native speaker. I would always use "that".
Unless it's a personal pet or assistance animal.....
I know people, who have cats, who use human terms for them. Whether that crosses the line into weirdness is debatable.... In the case of wild animals, though, such as the fish under discussion, then "that" would remain the standard...
When I saw "Ryby nie są zwierzętami" I got triggered cause there are people nowdays who think that fish and birds are not animals for some reason...
Well, my only confusion was "a fish IS" and "fishes ARE" ...' fish are' just sound weird to me
True, but the sentence structure is too different. Your sentence would be: Ryby nie są hałaśliwymi zwierzętami.
Yes, I get what you're saying. I also get that you're teaching a structure so want to stick to it. I just think Polish lends itself better to long complex sentences because the declensions make it clear what's going on. English is better suited to shorter sentences and simpler constructions imho. Although it's clear what the Enlish sentence means, it's too wordy and I wouldn't say it naturally.