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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods 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.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marine life, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Marine lifeWikipedia:WikiProject Marine lifeTemplate:WikiProject Marine lifeMarine life articles
This article has a long list of species with individual pages indicated, most of which contain no specific information, which is sorely needed. Anybody?. Might try some myself when I have time. Also, are the original authors and dates really needed since they are (should be) given in the respective pages. J.H.McDonnell (talk)
Yes the author and dates are an important part of citing a species, among other things it allows someone in-the-know to realize that a cite hasn't been updated after a taxonomic change. Secondly, lots of information in the Wikipedia can be found in the sources or the links, some electronic, some not, that alone doesn't mean that the information shouldn't be in an article. Also, not all species have articles in the Wikipedia. Yes, it looks a little messy. Some articles put this kind of thing in tables or use a smaller typeface for the author and date. --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not as familiar with the zoological as I am with the botanical code, but I'm pretty sure being a synonym does not make a name invalid (a term with a precise nomenclatural definition). All it means is that the name is no longer accepted as the correct name of a taxon (but could in theory be revived at any time). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.17 (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
