User talk:Justin/10-11-07

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Importance rating for animal articles

Hello there. I hadn't looked at the importance guidelines, though determinate cleavage is a topic that is taught in first year undergraduate courses, and probably high school biology as well (I don't know, I didn't take biology in high school). That would suggest it should be mid, if not high importance. It's somewhat difficult for someone who isn't familiar with school and university curricula to judge importance though, and those sorts of assessment schemes can result in very 'top heavy' situations (I dislike seeing many MCB articles rated 'top' just because they are in some high school curriculum; lots of things are in high school curricula. Ideally we want few top importance articles and many low importance ones. Richard001 07:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I choose the MCB rating scale because I assumed it would be a little easier to assess things, but I'm already finding it's a pain. I can't remember for the life of me what I worked on in high school biology, which suggests it was probably more than we want in the top-importance category. I'm thinking perhaps the best solution is taking on the WP:BIRDS/WP:PLANTS importance ratings. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 07:19, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Richard001 00:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Animals

I see the Wikiproject has already been created, and I'd love to help out. Yes, I'm busy, but I'll find some time to help out on a few things. I'm going to go ahead and start working on the Animals article. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 17:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bryozoans

Where would I find the Wikipedia policy that requires changing Bryozoa to Bryozoans, Echiura to Echiurans, etc. ? --Bejnar 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

There isn't one, however all of the rest of the animals by scientific classification in Category:Animals uses the plural form. So it only makes sense that they all do. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 01:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Bryozoa is a mass noun, so to that extent it is plural already. --Bejnar 01:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)