Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Marine life/Archive 2

Talk page WikiProject banners

Should all pages relating to marine life have both the Animals WikiProject banner and the Marine life banner on its talk page, or just this one? Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 01:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I tend to add a marine life banner to sea animals that are not part of a more specific project such as fishes, arthropods or gastropods, to avoid banner proliferation. I don't think it matters too much, or at least it is far from consistent across the encyclopaedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I might've added both banners to some pages in the past, but recently I've been adding Marine Life only. On the other hand, animals does have more watchers, and more discussion (this is now the first thread on the marine life talk page to involve more than two people since the project's inception). There might be some value in adding the animal banner, but it's not something I'd make a priority.

I've never added the marine life to articles that have more specific projects. The more specific projects are almost all more watched and more discussed; adding the marine life banner to various fishes won't bring very many eyes to those pages, but will dilute the value of the marine life project which is currently fairly focused on "orphaned" marine organisms. Plantdrew (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, now I'm having second thoughts. Tagging based on marine/freshwater habitat will leave some groups split across projects (e.g. bryozoans, hydrozoans). And many articles on species in these groups lack information about their habitat. Maybe Animals should be the catch all for everything that doesn't have a more specific project, marine or not. Plantdrew (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Marine mammal for GA

I've nominated Marine mammal for GAN like a month ago, so please start the review if you like. Thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Article Coral bleaching

Hi! I've added a clean-up request to the article on Coral bleaching. After the massive bleaching events of 2016, there is a whole lot of easily understandable online references available. It would be great, if someone could help making the article readable/understandable. Thanks! Satu Katja (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Coral Article Critique

---

It's doubtful whether this thread should be here. It might belong on the Coral talk page, or better on the Coral reef talk page, or even better on the talk page of Environmental issues with coral reefs. Or it could be posted to the talk page of some appropriate article specifically focused on climate change. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Hello,

My name is Brady Harris and I am a student at Ohio State, apart of a Global Climate Change course. Below is my critique of this article (See my sandbox page for references):

This article does a very good job at explaining exactly what Coral reefs are made up of as well as how they reproduce, survive, and function within their respective environment. In the article, titled Coral, there are several sections where the editors get into the taxonomy, eating and reproduction habits, as well as corals natural habitat. When it comes to explaining how coral and coral reefs are used to explain past climates, the article is very thorough in covering the different approaches, but could be more specific about the impacts the world is currently experiencing today. When dealing with data analyses, this article does a very good job of addressing different scientific methods for analyzing how a coral reef relates to past climates, such as geochemistry, oxygen isotope anomalies, and sea surface temperature and salinity. One area the article lacks in data analyses is addressing how climate change is increasing ocean acidification due to increased levels of carbon dioxide.

Overall, the assumptions made by this article are fairly accurate. One specific assumption under the Geochemistry header, basically states that climate modeling can get an assist from geochemistry analysis. Climate models can indeed be made more accurate by understanding past climates with help of geochemistry.

This article, however, does not address the strengths and weaknesses of the proxy method. It only goes as far as to say that the methods may help with piecing together specifics of past climates, but never gets into specifics about real time and past data.

Bradycat130 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Bradycat130: for your assessment. I would be interested to know what you would suggest to improve on that section - it is not an area I know well myself. You might find that if there is enough information to add that as it is a fairly specific subject there might be enough to start another article on it. It is worth remembering that Wikipedia is somewhat different to a paper you might write for class though - as an encyclopaedia we aim to draw on reliable secondary sources, though primary sources are acceptable where these do not exist as long as the article is not putting together new information.

The article Coral bleaching is in need of attention and is very relevant to the effects of climate change on the environment. If you are interested please consider taking a look from the point of view of global climate change. BW |→ Spaully ^~talk~  20:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Help requested

Hi marine life experts, I just went diving around -new article- Taganga and have some photos which I like to know more of:

• Coral and fish - which species of coral is this and which species of fish?
• Sponge, yellow fish and sea slug (?) - which sponge species, which sea slug (?) and the yellow fish on the left; which?
• Sea slug (?) - which sea slug (?) species is this?
  • Bristleworm - Amphinomidae
• Coral - which coral species?
  • Sun coral - Tubastraea
• Coral - which coral species?

Anybody to help me (and the Commons page needing the updates) out? Thanks in advance, Tisquesusa (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice pictures! The only one I can definitely identify is the penultimate coral which is a sun coral (Tubastraea) with it's polyps retracted - I will update the page on the Commons and categorise.

The one you have labelled a sea slug looks like what is commonly known as a bristleworm in the family Amphinomidae, I can't be more specific than that.

Keep on adding any interesting images you have to the Commons, we need more good-quality underwater shots. |→ Spaully ^~talk~  21:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Oral disc: invitation to debate

Aspidosiphonidae is one of about 80-odd articles that mentions the term 'oral disc'. It differs only in that someone has suggested that this term be clarified. Maybe that person is right. Not that we need a separate article about oral discs, as we seem to do for nuchal organ, but perhaps for morphological terms for lower-order species like worms and anemonies. What say you? SewerCat (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Marine mammal PR

I've nominated Marine mammal for PR in anticipation for FA, please review. Please?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Sea mink GA

I've nominated sea mink for GA. Feel free to start the review, thanks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

There is something seriously wrong with one or both listings of Turbinaria.

There is something seriously wrong with one or both listings of Turbinaria. Kingdom: Animalia Phylum: Cnidaria Class: Anthozoa Subclass: Hexacorallia Order: Scleractinia Family: Dendrophylliidae Genus: Turbinaria

Or (unranked): SAR Superphylum: Heterokonta Class: Phaeophyceae Order: Fucales Family: Sargassaceae Genus: Turbinaria

How can they be in two different families and still be called the same genus? (Msjs08 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC))

These are two different genera with the same name. The first is a coral while the second is a brown alga or seaweed. Wikipedia gets over this problem by having the articles named Turbinaria and Turbinaria (coral), and each article has a link to the other at the top. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Megalodon at PR

I've nominated Megalodon for PR, comment if you'd like to. Thanks,   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

New sea nettle articles

Two new species articles (Chrysaora kynthia and Chrysaora wurlerra) are nomen dubia and should be deleted as invalid names. I will nominate them for AfD tomorrow unless someone can propose a faster (CSD?) method and category. Loopy30 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Redirected to genus page instead. Loopy30 (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject shortcuts

For convenience, I've created some shortcuts: WP:MARINELIFE, WP:SEALIFE, and WP:MARBIO now redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Marine life. Cheers, --Animalparty! (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Marine species taxonomic standard

Is the project using WoRMS as the reference for all levels of taxonomy? If so, I propose changing Anthomedusae to Anthoathecata as the accepted name. Loopy30 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I rely on WoRMS and I would support that move. The main trouble is that there are at least 60 lower level taxa that will potentially need changing. Roll on the automatic taxoboxes! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the talk archives for this project regarding adopting a taxonomic standard. WoRMS seems like a reasonable standard for Cnidaria. WoRMS is probably a good standard for all marine organisms not covered by another Wikiproject, but I can't say for sure that there isn't a better source for any given group. If something is added to the project page regarding a taxonomic standard, I'd be more comfortable with language that suggest WoRMS is the first place to look, but can be overridden if there is very good reason to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

As no other discussion was noted here, I have now moved the Anthomedusae article to Anthoathecata. Since I had already converted the lower level taxoboxes to automatic taxoboxes, adjusting the lower level taxoboxes to align with the move was fairly painless. This move required only three taxobox changes (one for each suborder) and one of those was already done by Cwmhiraeth at the time the article for the suborder Filifera was created. Automatic taxoboxes rock! Loopy30 (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

WoRMS is indeed probably the best online taxon database out there. I've noticed in a few articles though that it's being used as a sole source for taxons with both marine and either fresh-water or terrestrial species (Order Bivalvulida article is an example ... WoRMS is missing Family Myxosomatidae because it's freshwater only and the article reflects that). If you check the "Taxon Detail" page, there's normally a line that says "environment". If it has fresh-water or terrestrial listed there, it could mean WoRMS doesn't have a comprehensive tree for that taxon. If in doubt you can check GBIF or IRMNG. MolluscaBase uses the same Aphia framework WoRMS uses for Mollusks but is comprehensive. Unfortunately not every phylum has a source as reliable.MC152 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Marine life is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 37.3% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Coeloria elegans

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Loopy30 (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Sea squirt redirects

Sea squirt redirects to Ascidiacea, while Sea squirts, Sea Squirt and Sea Squirts redirect to Tunicate. I have propose that the latter three be retargetted so all point to Ascidiacea - you are invited to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 September 17#Sea squirt. Please leave any comments there to keep discussion in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Bivalves/Cephalopods/Chitons described in YYYY categories

FYI I decided to bring these subcategory trees 'up to code' in the category structure and not CfD them, despite their relatively small size and number, because I noticed positive discussion about them at WikiProjects and that there was an effort to populate them (about 6 months ago). Ping to Pvmoutside who created it looks like all of these cats, and William Avery who has a bot for populating mollusc subcats in general. For comparison, Category:Gastropods by year of formal description looks much healthier than these, and I hope some, if not all, of these trees can be expanded. If that's not possible though, for whatever reason, I can CfD one or more of these groups.

Bivalves described in YYYY (60)

1. Category:Bivalves described in 1787 (0)
2. Category:Bivalves described in 1788 (4)
3. Category:Bivalves described in 1789 (5)
4. Category:Bivalves described in 1790 (2)
5. Category:Bivalves described in 1791 (30)
6. Category:Bivalves described in 1793 (3)
7. Category:Bivalves described in 1795 (7)
8. Category:Bivalves described in 1798 (8)
9. Category:Bivalves described in 1801 (2)
10. Category:Bivalves described in 1802 (3)
11. Category:Bivalves described in 1804 (1)
12. Category:Bivalves described in 1806 (1)
13. Category:Bivalves described in 1807 (3)
14. Category:Bivalves described in 1808 (6)
15. Category:Bivalves described in 1814 (3)
16. Category:Bivalves described in 1815 (4)
17. Category:Bivalves described in 1817 (15)
18. Category:Bivalves described in 1818 (10)
19. Category:Bivalves described in 1819 (30)
20. Category:Bivalves described in 1820 (26)
21. Category:Bivalves described in 1822 (13)
22. Category:Bivalves described in 1823 (3)
23. Category:Bivalves described in 1824 (5)
24. Category:Bivalves described in 1825 (7)
25. Category:Bivalves described in 1826 (4)
26. Category:Bivalves described in 1827 (6)
27. Category:Bivalves described in 1828 (8)
28. Category:Bivalves described in 1829 (11)
29. Category:Bivalves described in 1830 (2)
30. Category:Bivalves described in 1831 (23)
31. Category:Bivalves described in 1832 (4)
32. Category:Bivalves described in 1833 (9)
33. Category:Bivalves described in 1834 (28)
34. Category:Bivalves described in 1835 (27)
35. Category:Bivalves described in 1836 (7)
36. Category:Bivalves described in 1837 (12)
37. Category:Bivalves described in 1838 (15)
38. Category:Bivalves described in 1839 (4)
39. Category:Bivalves described in 1840 (9)
40. Category:Bivalves described in 1841 (6)
41. Category:Bivalves described in 1842 (18)
42. Category:Bivalves described in 1843 (15)
43. Category:Bivalves described in 1844 (6)
44. Category:Bivalves described in 1845 (7)
45. Category:Bivalves described in 1846 (7)
46. Category:Bivalves described in 1847 (4)
47. Category:Bivalves described in 1848 (5)
48. Category:Bivalves described in 1849 (4)
49. Category:Bivalves described in 1850 (14)
50. Category:Bivalves described in 1851 (5)
51. Category:Bivalves described in 1852 (13)
52. Category:Bivalves described in 1853 (5)
53. Category:Bivalves described in 1854 (7)
54. Category:Bivalves described in 1855 (4)
55. Category:Bivalves described in 1856 (5)
56. Category:Bivalves described in 1857 (16)
57. Category:Bivalves described in 1858 (8)
58. Category:Bivalves described in 1859 (5)
59. Category:Bivalves described in 1860 (2)
60. Category:Bivalves described in 1861 (10)

Cephalopods described in YYYY (32)

1. Category:Cephalopods described in 1789 (1)
2. Category:Cephalopods described in 1797 (1)
3. Category:Cephalopods described in 1798 (6)
4. Category:Cephalopods described in 1814 (1)
5. Category:Cephalopods described in 1817 (4)
6. Category:Cephalopods described in 1818 (2)
7. Category:Cephalopods described in 1821 (5)
8. Category:Cephalopods described in 1823 (3)
9. Category:Cephalopods described in 1826 (3)
10. Category:Cephalopods described in 1827 (1)
11. Category:Cephalopods described in 1830 (2)
12. Category:Cephalopods described in 1831 (1)
13. Category:Cephalopods described in 1832 (9)
14. Category:Cephalopods described in 1833 (1)
15. Category:Cephalopods described in 1834 (5)
16. Category:Cephalopods described in 1835 (8)
17. Category:Cephalopods described in 1836 (1)
18. Category:Cephalopods described in 1839 (5)
19. Category:Cephalopods described in 1841 (2)
20. Category:Cephalopods described in 1842 (1)
21. Category:Cephalopods described in 1844 (3)
22. Category:Cephalopods described in 1845 (3)
23. Category:Cephalopods described in 1847 (1)
24. Category:Cephalopods described in 1849 (9)
25. Category:Cephalopods described in 1851 (2)
26. Category:Cephalopods described in 1852 (7)
27. Category:Cephalopods described in 1854 (1)
28. Category:Cephalopods described in 1855 (1)
29. Category:Cephalopods described in 1856 (3)
30. Category:Cephalopods described in 1857 (1)
31. Category:Cephalopods described in 1860 (1)
32. Category:Cephalopods described in 1861 (1)

Chitons described in YYYY (11)

1. Category:Chitons described in 1791 (2)
2. Category:Chitons described in 1797 (4)
3. Category:Chitons described in 1815 (3)
4. Category:Chitons described in 1825 (4)
5. Category:Chitons described in 1828 (1)
6. Category:Chitons described in 1834 (1)
7. Category:Chitons described in 1835 (7)
8. Category:Chitons described in 1840 (2)
9. Category:Chitons described in 1843 (2)
10. Category:Chitons described in 1847 (11)
11. Category:Chitons described in 1859 (1)

  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:<Animal>s described in <year> with very confined scope and small size submitted to CfD

This includes the following animal cats: Anemones, Ants, Aphids, Bees, Caddisflies, Centipedes, Cicadas, Damselflies, Dragonflies, Fleas, Flies, Lacewings, Mantises, Mites, Scale insects, Sea cucumbers, Stink bugs, Termites, Ticks, Urchins, & Wasps, @ Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 4#Category:<Animal>s described in <year> with very confined scope and small size.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:Corals described in YEAR

I see 27 of these cats, created about 6~12 months ago on average, with an average size of ~6 pages/cat. Are there any plans to expand & populate them? If so, I could also help create the large # of years missing. If not, I don't think their size & extent is big enough to warrant their own structure below animals and should be CfD'd. Courtesy ping to creator Pvmoutside.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:08, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Some of the categories, like 1846, are quite well populated, and their existence seems reasonable to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think it's useful to have subgroups of organisms with their own "described in YEAR" categories unless most of the years will be well populated. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

List of cetacean species

See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cetacean species/archive1 about the possible removal of List of cetacean species from Featured List status. --Nessie (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Image of crab

Hi, can you give some advice here? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexmar983 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Coral reefs of Jamaica

Hi, I had a student create an article "The destruction and rehabilitation of Jamaica's coral reefs", now expanded retitled as Coral reefs of Jamaica. There is also an article Environmental issues of Jamaica's reefs. Another editor came along and proposed a merge of the two but has not responded since their initial post. Any feedback is welcome on if these articles are distinct enough to warrant two separate articles or if they should be merged. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Updating NOAA Fisheries article

Hi, I'm Allison and I'm an employee of NOAA. As an editor with a conflict of interest, I will not directly edit the NOAA article, or related articles. I am seeking interested editors to review an updated History section for the National Marine Fisheries Service article and implement the changes if they see fit. You may view the complete request and section here. My version of the History section encompasses information in the existing Background and History sections, and provides a cohesive and accurate story of the organization and includes inline citations. I'm hoping an editor will review my proposed section below and place the section at the top of the article, removing the existing Background and History sections. I'm happy to provide more information if needed. Thank you for your help! AP at NOAA (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for following our guidelines for conflict-of-interest editors. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

New article

Hi! I just wanted to let you guys know I recently approved Orange Pipe Sponge at AfC. I'm not completely savvy on marine life details, so I figured it would be good to have someone take a closer look for more than just notability, which is what I was looking for. I also wanted to ping the article creator (@Austin d1:) here, as it was his first article and based on the article, it looks like this would be a great place for him to continue his Wikipedia adventure, so to speak. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Bryozoa

Many of the Bryozoa state in the taxobox that they are in the order Cheilostomata. A few state they are in the order Cheilostomatida. WoRMS states that Cheilostomata is a synonym of Cheilostomatida and in Wikipedia, Cheilostomata redirects to Cheilostomatida. I thought that there was no article for Electra pilosa but that's because it is in [[Category:Cheilostomata]] whereas I put my new article Electra posidoniae in [[Category:Cheilostomatida]]. It's a mess! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, the article was moved from Cheilostomata to Cheilostomatida this year. Bryozoan orders on Wikipedia are inconsistently titled. All of the orders ending in -ata should end in -ida (or -atida). Categories need updating throughout. Plantdrew (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Help evaluate my article

Hi! I'm a university student currently working on the stub called "Kidako moray". I need someone to evaluate if my article is qualified for Wikipedia and give the article a rating. I would appreciate any advice on what improvement I could make. Thanks in advance! Mssecret774 (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mssecret774: The article Kidako moray is greatly expanded and improved. I have removed the stub tags and classified it as "C" class. One thing you need to do is convert every genus and species title to italic type, by adding a pair of apostrophes before and after the link, like this ''[[Gymnothorax]]''. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for your feedback! I have made the changes according to your advice. Could you please check the article to see if that was what you meant just in case? Sorry for the inconvenience, much appreciation! Mssecret774 (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

help evaluate my article

Hey hey, I'm a university student working on Old Tom and would appreciate some help with reviewing and evaluating it, so I can improve if as much as possible! Thanks so much in advance! :) supsoph — Preceding undated comment added 03:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Help Evaluate My Article

Hi! I'm a university student and I'm working on the article "Anisakis Simplex" for one of my university courses. I would really appreciate it if my article could be reviewed and evaluated once I've finished writing it in a month or so. Thanks! Naksuum90 (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, somebody can do that. Post here when it is ready for review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! its ready for review now, thanks again! --Naksuum90 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I have made a few comments on the article talk page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I've made the relevant changes. Would you mind re-evaluating the placement of the article on the quality scale please? --Naksuum90 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Help with finding a suitable image for lead of marine biology

A discussion is currently underway regarding replacing the current lead image of marine biology with a collage of 4 images. One proposal has been made (by me) here. Please contribute to the discussion, thanks. (The article itself can also benefit from a critical review if anyone has time & energy) EMsmile (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Enterogona

As Enterogona is now a redirect, should this category be renamed, merged, something? I'm no expert, just got confused trying to find a blue-linked category to add to Phallusia fumigata while stub-sorting it and finding a red link to Category:Phlebobranchia (added recently by an IP as part of an edit with summary "(the order and family for this species was inaccurate. They were corrected with reference to the World Register of Marine Species.)"), and the WRMS does indeed say Animalia (Kingdom) Chordata (Phylum) Tunicata (Subphylum) Ascidiacea (Class) Phlebobranchia (Order) Ascidiidae (Family) Phallusia (Genus) Phallusia fumigata (Species)". The sub-order(?) Phlebobranchia is in Category:Enterogona. Over to you. PamD 13:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Cetaceans of the Caribbean

Hi there! just wanted to share the new article on Cetaceans of the Caribbean currently in draft version. If there is any reviewers available on this project and willing to check it, I would be grateful! The article is a translation of French article and also available in Spanish. Cheers Nereus&Co (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Sei whale

I have nominated Sei whale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Fin whale

I have nominated Fin whale for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Cryptodifflugia assessment

I noticed the template for this project appears in Talk:Cryptodifflugia. Why does Cryptodifflugia fall into the topic of marine life? It is almost entirely a freshwater genus of amoebae, with only a few species living in the interstitial spaces between grains of sand. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 11:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

GAR of Fish

Fish has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Artem.G (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

FAR for The Log from the Sea of Cortez

User:Buidhe has nominated The Log from the Sea of Cortez for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)