Talk:Acrimeroceras

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.

FYI Taxonomic Terms

Animal, mollusc, and cephalopod are not taxonomic terms even though they have ended up as the titles of certain articles. A case of dummying down where occurs, I'd say. On the other hand Animal, mollusc, and cephalopod are perfectly good common terms which should be left to less formal discussion. The proper taxonomic terms, which should appear in the edit page for the taxobox are Animalia, Mollusca, and Cephalopoda. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit you did to the main article as in doing so you removed content that will help an average reader when they read this page. Please don't remove information unless completely inaccurate. The links to the Animal, mollusc, and cephalopod are there as they are the articles that a reader is most likely to be wanting if they click the link.. I also replaces the template you removed for some reason when you added this topic. Was there a specific reason for that? --Kev min § 23:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all terms like Animal, Mollusc, and Cephalopod aren't scientific, they are common. Since articles are supposed to be scientific in nature they ought to be titled under scientific, or true taxonomic names such as Mollusca or Cephalopoda. It's easy to link to a scientifically titled page should a reader happen to query a common term or to redirect. As for removing the templates, it seems to me they take up too much space and provide nothing essential to meaningful discussion. Of course they could be redisigned to be more concise and less garish. Watch your spelling/typos. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While not scientific, those terms are what the reader will most commonly be familiar with, and I will note that Cephalopoda is a redirect to cephalopod at this point anyway, so linking guidelines recommend avoiding the unnecessary redirect. I note that you have been cautioned about arbitrary removal of templates before. If you have a problem with a specific template, take it to the appropriate talk page, and state your case there, but do not just arbitrarily remove templates from pages because you find them unaesthetic. --Kev min § 15:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

Regarding removal of generic information having to do with ammonoids being more closely related to Squid and octopus is irrelevant to the article, and can be found in appropriate articles, i.e.(I believe) Cephalopoda and Ammonoidea. Give the reader more credit, to either be aware of the fact or to be interested enough to link to the relevant page. Someone looking up information on cephalopods in general or ammonites (subclass Ammonoidea) might be interested in the fact that ammonites are more closely related to squids and octopods than to Nautilus. For articles especially on specific genera, this information is simply verbal clutter. Any reader looking up information on a specific genus,e.g. Acrimeroceras is most likely to be after specific information regarding, not repeated generic information applicable to any number of genera.

I have provided a diagnostic description of Acrimeroceras from various online references J.H.McDonnell (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided a description, which, the vast majority of readers will not be able to understand. The technical terminology, unlinked as it is, is not understandable to the large percentage of people who are do not have understanding of ammonite morphology. The articles are meant to cover scientific topics, but are to be aimed at non-specialist readers, so translating terms or linking them to the appropriate articles is needed. Also while you have supplied references you do not supply any inline references so there is no way of telling what information came from which source.--Kev min § 15:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]