Talk:Barroisiceras

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notification plaques

Isn't placing notitifcation plaques, reminders that there are no references or a suggestion that the article may be too technical, rather crude. Let's remember that first of all these are simply the opinion of someone, valid or otherwise, that may or may not be shared by anyone else. If one can take time to insert the notice or suggestion, why not simply find the missing reference(s) or explain the "overly technical" termsJ.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are generally placed by people who don't know enough about the topic to make the changes you suggest. It would be easier sill for you as the one adding the technical information, to adjust the text for a general audience, rahter then copy/pasting it straight from the Treatise.--Kev min § 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is that "notification plaques", if you will, regardless of merit, detract from the appearance of any article. And secondly they are simply someone's opinion and should be left at that. These being said, Wiki'-pages shouldn't be treated as school papers returned for correction. A better way to make suggestions for improvement simply needs to be found.

As for technical information, I realize that the original writer (myself in the case of this article) may be the best person to make technical clarification. But I can assure everyone that, while the Treatise is a prime reference for taxonomic descriptions, I very rarely if ever copy/paste directly. Sometimes it's a matter of style, sometimes the use of a word, sometimes it's adding explanation. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox higher taxa

Higher, supraclass taxa are actually superfluous since either everyone knows that Cephalopoda are Mollusca and Mollusca are Animalia, or can easly find that out by linking on Cephalopoda. Shortening the list of taxa makes it more relevant and concise and follows the format of professional journals more closely. Also, while Animalia, Mollusca, and Cephalopoda are shown with their proper taxonomic names, they are mis-linked to vernacular terms on the edit page. Cephalopoda should go to Cephalopoda, that's the taxon, not cephalopod, a familiar term, etc. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a given that someone ending up on this page will know that cephalopods are molluscs, as this is a general encyclopedia, the position to be working from is that the page will mostly be viewed by people who are not inanimately familiar the pages topic, write for a general audience, not an audience that would likely go to the scientific lit and not here anyways.--Kev min § 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, especially in calling attention to the fact that this (Wikipedia) is a general encylopedea, and therefor one's knowledge of a subject shouldn't be assumed. That being said, since Wiki' articles make extensive use of inter-page links, sometimes to ridiculous excess, it is easy to find explanation where that is made available. So if someone doesn't know that a cephalopod is a mollusc, or a mollusc is an animal, they can simply click on the respective linked word J.H.McDonnell (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page links

Since Acanthocerataceae and Collingnoniceratidae along with Coniacian appear as links in the taxobox, is it really necessary (although perfectly ok) to repeat the links in the text? When is once enough? Linking ammonite to Ammonitida on the other hand clarifies the intended meaning. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 15:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The taxobox links are not meant to be substitutes for links in prose per the .--Kev min § 16:19, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]