Talk:Cone snail

message: I suggest placing it above the species section. The list is so long that readers may not know it's there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it just now. Feel free to go ahead and do stuff like that yourself. Of course the table of contents always shows what is where, but I do understand the point you are making. Also the list being so long we may I think want to make it into columns rather than a straight list. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance to humans section 

message: May I remove the " " as this makes them either circular or potentially so? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, certainly, please go ahead. Just as a note in general, we may want some of the most commonly used synonyms to be created as redirect pages. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonyms in taxobox 

message: I was considering adding columns (like I did for Anagyrus) as long as anyone has any objections? Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah OK. I used the format that I got from another page that had it that way. I actually didn't know there was other formats and one that autofills! Would have made my copy/paste/preview method a whole lot simpler hehehe!Calaka (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh and I have it at 3 columns but I am unsure what the minimum sized monitors are these days (I admit mine is a bit wider than the average!) so maybe it will need to be changed to two columns?Calaka (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I really like the column format indicated above. I only rarely encounter it being used. It is very useful. As for the article, maybe two cols, as three wraps the authority. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right! It is much better! Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columns 

message: I am not much into malacology, but since the question of clarification of "Alternative representations" has arisen, I find that, as an attempt at improvement of the explanation, the current update fails to shows any. Is the initiative still in progress? JonRichfield (talk) 11:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jon!  I was working on adding the references section over.  There is a lot of molecular phylogeny work going on right now, including what has been dubbed a "mega molecular" project.  Citations to more current publications are now listed.Shellnut (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi SN, thanks. I can well understand the problems. Ever since molecular phylogeny hit the fan it has become impossible to be sure of oneself in any wide field of taxonomy, even if you are a pro, which I certainly am not. The sheer scale of the volume of work waiting means that it is hard enough to determine the most effective taxonomic philosophy, let alone the definitive cladistic situation. Meanwhile, I was just asking! All the best, :-) JonRichfield (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative representations

message: After reading the first paragraph in "Harpoon and venoms", I came across the next, short paragraph:
:"The tropical cone snail Conus purpurascens uses its special modified radular teeth to fire a retrievable hollow dart at small fish and inject a toxin. The toxin rapidly paralyses the fish, which the cone snail then swallows."
It seems that, except for the mention of Conus purpurascens, the information in this paragraph repeats information given in the previous paragraph.  Can anyone suggest a way to consolidate this paragraph – and even the next paragraph – with the previous paragraph to avoid repetition?CorinneSD (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harpoon and venoms 

message: This note is in case anyone wonders how come there is an article called "Cone snail" as well as an article called "Conidae". 
Here's the thing: I think that almost all shell collectors know what they mean by cone snails. However, since 1993, there have been massive changes back and forth in the taxonomy of the superfamily to which these sea snails belong. Those changes have meant that the cone snails started out as one family, Conidae, then become a subfamily, Coninae, for a couple of decades, and now are back to family status again. So we ended up with two articles for some sort of ongoing stability. It might be good to keep them separate for the time being, in case the taxonomy changes once again -- with new discoveries in molecular phylogeny, the taxonomy of gastropods is very much in flux, so wide-ranging future changes are possible. Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cone snail. 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/20120227030848/http://www.seashell-collector.com:80/articles/interviews/2009-kohn.html to http://www.seashell-collector.com/articles/interviews/2009-kohn.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This has been brought up before, but I figured I would formally propose a merger. As noted a few years ago by , "Cone snail" is just the common name for Conidae, so there is no reason to have separate pages. Per WP:COMMONNAME, keeping Cone snail as the title and merging Conidae into it seems preferable to the opposite.  and  have previously argued that the pages should be kept separate because of the possibility that some future taxonomic revision will result in Conidae no longer being the proper taxonomic name for cone snails. However, we can't predict the future and, in the event that such a taxonomic revision occurs, the page(s) would need to be reworked anyway, so there is no benefit to preemptively maintaining two separate pages with identical scopes on the off chance those scopes someday diverge. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge [[Conidae]] into [[Cone snail]]