Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cephalopods

message: I am writing an article on the Atlantic Brief Squid, Lolliguncula brevis.
Is there a policy within WikiProject Cephalopods on naming articles? Many cephalopod articles seem to have their full titles starting with capital letters which is not the general policy throughout Wikipedia. I would prefer to use the scientific name. Any views? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would certainly go with the scientific name for the article title. Most of these cephalopod "common names" are hardly used at all outside of Wikipedia and the publications that coined them (compare Lolliguncula brevis and Atlantic Brief Squid - add speech marks to get exact results). Unfortunately, the precedent for using vernacular names for cephalopod species was set long ago and followed by most article authors (admittedly including myself). There's no real consensus for this naming standard - it was simply followed for the sake of consistency. Neale Monks explained the situation better than I can here (and that was in 2006!). Ideally, all of these obscure names should be moved to their corresponding binomials, but no one's got around to doing it yet. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your response. What you said sounds sensible as does what Neale Monks said in 2006. Quite apart from Google Scholar, a general Google search brings up many more results for the scientific name and that is what I will use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming policy

message: You may want to participate in the RFC at Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F --Philcha (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC at [[Talk:Copulation#Should_the_Copulation_article_exist.3F]] 

message: Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation opinions 

message: oh god... T_T 
Can someone point me to a relatively stable taxonomy of coleoidea which includes (instead of completely ignores) fossil orders? Paleodb uses Nishiguchi & Mapes, 2008. I would have happily adopted that to the exclusion of the recommended but extremely dated taxonomy used by Wikiproject Cephalopods currently, except that aside from mentioning Belemnitida in-text, it was not described and seems to be excluded (or forgotten?) from the newly promoted Superorder Belemnoida. Any thoughts on this to those with wider access to academic journals? What should take precedence and which should I use. Doesn't help that Cephbase seems to be dead for a while now and I can't find anything stable anywhere.--Obsidi♠nSoul 04:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For fossil taxa, I usually consult the Paleobiology Database. Note, however, that very few extant taxa are included in this database. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs)  15:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aye, so it's Nishiguchi & Mapes, 2008 then, heh. Which introduces a new problem. Belemnitida is not classified under Superorder Belemnoida. Oh well. I'll place it under See also. Thanks.--Obsidi♠nSoul 00:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cephalopod tentacularly tangled taxonomy 

message: Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any relevant contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Food web

message: Hi folks, I am from the gastropod project. I want to ask you if the term "spire" is still applied to the shell of coiled shelled cephalopods like the Nautilus spp and the ammonites? We have a short article entitled Spire (mollusc). If "spire" is considered suitable terminology in cephalopod shells I will mention that, and leave the article name as it is. If not, I will move the name to Spire (gastropod). Best wishes and thanks for any help you can give me. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spire in the shell of cephalopods 

message: Debate on taxonomy sections listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxonomy_vs_Classification_vs_Systematics_vs..... It follows on from discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#General_structure_for_plant_articles_and_lists cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy vs Classification vs Systematics vs..... 

message: Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. 
—Wavelength (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:HighBeam 

message: The San Matías Gulf article says,
The local fishing industry may be unsustainably harvesting purple clam (Amiantis purpurata), Tehuelche scallop (Aequipecten tehuelchus), mussel (Mytilus edulis platensis), and ribbed mussel (Aulacomya atra), as well as the Patagonian octopus (Octopus tehuelchus).
Here are three bivalves and an octopus, either without articles, or with incorrect links.  Can some octopus person please look into creating an article or correcting the link? Help with the bivalve situation would also be welcomed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patagonian octopus mentioned 

message: Should articles on seafood be given titles that restrict them to cuisines, as a user maintains in this thread? There is a  referral for comment on this issue where members of this project are invited to give their views. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Is seafood a subset of cuisine?

message: http://sam.nipl.net/pix/shell1.jpg
http://sam.nipl.net/pix/shell2.jpg
http://sam.nipl.net/pix/shell3.jpg
It's my mum's, she found it half buried in sand on a beach!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Watkins (talk • contribs) 13:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an exceptionally fine specimen of Argonauta argo you've got there. How big is it exactly? mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  has anyone seen a paper nautilus shell, as good as this one? 

message: If you would, please see Talk:Cephalopod_attack#Split_into_.22Octopus_attack.22_and_.22Squid_attack.22.  I hope many cephalophiles here will enjoy helping to create an article octopus attacks on humans and the other on squid attacks on humans.  If so, please add this project to your project page task list.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While cephalopod attacks are certainly interesting for speculation and fiction, there needs to be more substance to validate the article as it is before any consideration of splitting. By all means, add information from reputable sources, with proper balanced context (e.g. the relative frequency of attacks). --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cephalopod attack! 

message: Hi there - I'm interested in adding cephalopod anatomy articles. I thought it might be useful to try and ensure all the links in the cephalopod anatomy template were complete. I created a draft page here - User:Cmungall/Needham's_sac - is this too minimal to be an article in itself? Is this better merged into a broader article, e.g. on the reproductive system? Thanks for any advice! Cmungall (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it is better merged into a broader article, for both context and clarity. From the stub-article, I can't quickly find information on cephalopod reproduction (Reproductive system is too broad a subject). I'd prefer an article devoted to Cephalopod reproduction- split off and elaborated from Cephalopod- with a central discussion of the structures and behaviors involved. I think discreet anatomical organ articles should only be created when they appear in various unrelated organisms, or are so complex (and/or important) they require a good deal more than a stub to describe. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needham's sac 

message: Hi all! I'd like to draw attention to a discussion on Template talk:Cephalopod anatomy, regarding the Cephalopod anatomy template, and the need (or lack thereof) to fill in all the red-links. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Animalparty, It appears that you have had no feedback on this question, so unless I am wrong about that, I would recommend you go ahead and make the changes that you suggested on the template talk page. Invertzoo (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding [[Template:Cephalopod anatomy]] 

message: It's very worth mentioning that CephBase is currently down, and possibly may have been dead since 2011 according to earlier comments on this page. I can't seem to find information on alternate site address. As such, any links or references directly citing CephBase are unverifiable, and journal article PDFs hosted on CephBase need new links if available. From a wiki search at least 39 articles mention CephBase. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  CephBase: dead or moved? 

message: None of the Project articles appear to be indexed by quality. Hence, those articles most in need of improvement, nor those most dseriving recognition, can be seen. If anyone knows how to change this, or explain why quality is not tracked, please do. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am from Wikipedia: WikiProject Gastropods, where our articles are already "indexed by quality". I believe the first step is a simple matter of adding... |class=?|importance=? ...to your basic project template. Then one or more workers need to go through and assess all of the existing articles, filling in the class and importance in the template on the talk page of each one, and subsequently those assessments will be automatically displayed in the chart of your article statistics: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Cephalopods articles by quality statistics. I hope this is helpful. Invertzoo (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no quality ranking? 

message: Would someone from this project mind looking at a draft of an article on Macrotritopus defilippi? The draft is currently here. if someone does look at it, would they scrutinize it carefully  because I am trying to help the editor learn to be more careful about how she extracts info from sources. Although she is an experienced editor, In the past she appears to have introduced errors into her new and newly expanded articles when trying to paraphrase from sources, especially when she was writing about topics that she did not understand in depth. Many thanks for any help you can give, Invertzoo (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft of an octopus article 

message: This list article was created a week or two ago; basically it was a bare list taken straight from Category Edible molluscs, with no additional refinements. This morning I put in three hours of work trying to improve it .It looks a lot better now but it still has only one small reference (!) and no doubt could use numerous other refinements. Would someone please be kind enough to take a look at it and see if they can improve it further? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of edible molluscs]] includes some cephalopods 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: After a recent request, I added WikiProject Cephalopods to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cephalopods/Popular pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pageview stats 

message: I have nominated Chromatophore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromatophore FAR 

message: It seems that Cephbase was down and unlocatable for a while. However, it appears there are now at least 2 active websites called CephBase http://cephbase.eol.org/ and http://www.thecephalopodpage.org/cephbase.php.  Perhaps the  and similar templates should be updated, since none of them appear to work. --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cephbase back in action?! 

message: The Octopodidae category contains some genera but also some species. What should be added into this category? Same goes for the Octopuses category. Although the former is a subcategory of the latter, I don't get why there seems to be the same chaotic content in both categories. I have recently found interest in categorization related to taxonomy, but are there clear guidelines and procedures to follow? The Average Wikipedian (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Octopodidae vs Category:Octopuses 

message: Greetings  Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the  that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
* Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration.  Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards,  — Delivered: 17:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: 2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

message: We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month,  will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of .
 
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
* The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
* The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
* The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to  for his original , and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of , and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular pages report 

message: Various editors, including myself, have been creating categories such as :Category:Molluscs described in 2000‎ and populating them. It is rather slow, repetitive and tedious. I am considering setting up a bot for the task of moving molluscs from "Animals described in..." categories to the corresponding "Molluscs described in..." category. Any thoughts? 
It has been suggested at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Populating_the_"Molluscs_described_in_YYYY"_categories that gastropods should be put into their own categories as part of this task. William Avery (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have filed a bot approval request at WP:BRFA#William_Avery_Bot. William Avery (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Populating the "Molluscs described in YYYY" categories

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC on categorizing by year of formal description

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread. 
WikiProject Cephalopods is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 57.1% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes 

message: I started an fyi/discussion/request to populate for these cats at WT:MARINELIFE#Bivalves/Cephalopods/Chitons described in YYYY categories (since a WP:WikiProject Molluscs doesn't exist, to my surprise!).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bivalves/Cephalopods/Chitons described in YYYY categories 

message: Please discuss at Talk:Cephalopod on whether there should be a list of cephalopods as there currently is a draft for such a list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of cephalopods 

message: A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
:– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new newsletter directory is out! 

message: Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

message: After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest.    It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish.  Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest 

message: I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
*John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
* John Smith "" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from ,  and .
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
-  Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  User script to detect unreliable sources