Talk:Anomalocaridid

message: 72.134.44.224 20:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: This is only a suggestion. Anyone for it? Giant Blue Anteater 17:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we should not.  After all, mosasaur and Mosasaurus are two distinct articles, after all.--Mr Fink 15:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging with the Anomalocaris article

message: The article briefly mentions Brine Shrimp, though it seems anomalocaris bears an even closer resemblance to Fairy Shrimp, and seems to have a few traits in common with other Branchiopods. Take a look at these pages...
* http://www.iturnrocks.com/files/inverts.html
* http://www.iturnrocks.com/images/inverts/aquatic/fairy2.jpg
Does anyone know any more (or at least know anywhere it's been discussed at greater depth)? --Xanthine 01:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a citation for it, then mentioning these similarities would be valuable. As it is, this comes dangerously close to "original research". As suggested above: if you can demonstrate through cladistic morphological trait analysis that Anomalocaridae bear many synapomorphies with either of those groups, then you have an excellent topic for a graduate thesis in invertebrate paleontology, and we will be glad to cite you as an authority when you do publish it. Aderksen (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Branchiopods

message: Anyone have the title of Shusterman's short story?
Do we need this selection? It was recently removed from the Anomalocaris genus-specific page, and I'm not really certain that it belongs here either. While I think that it is interesting to note that the distinctive family morphology has shown up in several media products listed in the section (and might be an entertaining way for readers of this article to become more familiar with the group), the section as a whole really needs to be better developed. I would recommend some citations from the creators of including media suggesting that their media product was in fact related or inspired by Anomalocaris. Aderksen (talk)
:I never feel that these sections are notable  or encyclopaedic.  You'll have no complaint from me if it disappears! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: The article states that "Anomalocarids are the largest Cambrian animals known."  Wouldn't that make them the largest animal to ever inhabit the planet up to that point?  If so, I think it'd be worth noting that. Jacob1207 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the Ediacara biota were larger: but who knows how they related to animals! Smith609 Talk 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Largest animal?

message: It looks like the taxoboxen and image files are bumping the "edit this section" buttons into weird locations. Does anybody have the wiki-fu skills to fix this or offer suggestions that might help us to clear this up? Aderksen (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox/Edit Question

message: I moved this page to anomalocaridid, because anomalocarid is a mis-spelling, as explained in the article.  Someone reverted it.  This frustrated me, so after a cup or two of tea and thought I'd open the issue for discussion. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:34, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, but I'd cut whoever reverted it a bit of slack - I'd like to think I know a thing or two as an amateur, and I made the same mistake and got into the same edit war with you last time. I think all you have to do is keep hitting us on our collective noses with the rolled-up newspaper of the Xianguang et al. 2006 article, and eventually it will sink in. Eventually the reverter will read the article and come to the same conclusions - and use anomalocarid as the redirect to the more authoritative (and correct, although strange-sounding) anomalocaridid. Aderksen (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Page name

message: Questionable Content wiki page did indeed mention anomalocaridids, but I believe the addition of an "In Popular Culture" section to be unencyclopedic.  
Quoting from WP:IPCEXAMPLES
When trying to decide if a pop culture reference is appropriate to an article, ask yourself the following: 
* Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference?
* Have reliable sources that don't generally cover the subject pointed out the reference?
* Did any real-world event[clarification needed] occur because of the reference?
The first question doesn't apply here, and I can't find anything to fit the second or third criteria, so I think it should be deleted, as much as I love QC. --hacky (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "In Popular Culture" section should discuss how "Popular Culture" views the subject, and or how it inspired/play(ed/s) a vital, integral role/part in a particular franchise.  The "In Popular Culture" should not be a tedious trivia list that plays "Spot The Monster Of The Week."--Mr Fink (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Valid points. Until the internet gets crammed with anomalocardidid references because of this comic, it has no place here. I stand corrected. --Oskila (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture section 

message: I'm puzzled why the page name is breaking a convention here on wikipedia by using the singular form instead of the formal family name. I strongly suggest moving it to Anomalocarididae. Amphioxys (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page name revisited 

message: Only four incoming wikilinks are in articles; the rest are via  and .  If someone can disambiguate those two templates and the four articles then it should be safe to replace this redirect by a disambiguation page – but only if neither meaning is a primary topic.  On the other hand, if Radiodonta is the primary topic, it might benefit from a  hatnote linking to Anomalocarididae. Certes (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Where the only two possible targets for an ambiguous term are related, and especially if one is a sub-topic of the other, it makes good sense to redirect to one of them which will explain the distinctions rather than asking a reader to pick one without the benefit of the explanation.  Ideally, redirect to the "parent", the article covering the broadest use of the term, but whichever one most succinctly explains the meaning of the term is OK.  Given a hatnote, nothing is lost by sending the reader to one article even if they ultimately go to the other one.  Lithopsian (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move