Talk:Noctilucales

Algae Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Algae, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the photosynthetic organisms commonly called algae and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AlgaeWikipedia:WikiProject AlgaeTemplate:WikiProject AlgaeAlgae articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On duplicate site with different content Noctiluca_scintillans. Is there any chance of collapsing these two articles into one and clean up? (Sechesan (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

On the Eckert citation issue, the citation in the text seems pointless to me, and it is non-standard. It is very incorrect to put (Eckert 1967) in the middle of a sentence (like that). Onco_p53 09:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then read the linked study and format the citation and report the fact in whatever way you like best. Making information in Wikipedia more verifiable is a very important goal of the project. If you don't like the way I've done it, find another, but don't remove it. - Taxman ^Talk 21:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Noctiluca is best-known for its bioluminescence, as is reported in many zoology texts. There's no need for an in-line citation, simply including the reference in the article is enough for verifiability. Thus we should remove the comment and keep the reference - note I had removed the whole thing originally, but because I thought it was only meant as justification that N. miliaris is another species. Josh

Alright, go ahead, but in general we should be working for more verifiability, not less. - Taxman ^Talk 04:45, July 26, 2005 (UTC)