Talk:Orthoceratidae

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.

Accuracy dispute[edit]

Added because of this edit. The article was nominated for deletion, but problems can probably be fixed by editing. snigbrook (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute explanation[edit]

Orthoceratidae is not synonymous with Michelinoceratidae as the article suggests. Michelinoceratidae has a distinct taxonomic history is a family with subtaxa of its own.

However, Orthoceratidae is a distinct family and synonymous with Orthocerotidae according to R. H. Flower (1962). Noles1984 (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there should be two articles: one for Michelinoceratidae, and one for either Orthoceratidae or Orthocerotidae, although I don't know where the content of this page should be as most sources of information are not easily accessible. snigbrook (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

This page should not have been moved to Orthocerotidae. The current familial name of this group is Orthoceratidae and as such the article should be at that name with a redirect from Orthocerotidae and prose explaining that the name was corrected by Teichert and Miller in 1939 and Flower in 1962.--Kevmin (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The taxon is Orthoceratidae, named by M'Coy in 1844, not Orthocerotidae as spelled by Teichert and Miller in Kindal and Miller 1939 (ref Sweet 1964. p K224 in the Treatise Part K) The article should be written under the proper spelling, Orthoceratidae. Perhaps someone can cut and paste the info from Orthocerotidae to Orhoceratidae (perhaps improved) with a new redirect. If no one does I might in the near future. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page per this discussion. Articles should never be simply copy-pasted as this loses the article history and thus goes against the GFDL. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was quick. Thanks mgiganteus1. I just recently opened the page Orthoceratidae expecting to find it as it had been, hoping to discern in the history the reason for the previous redirect to Orthocerotidae. Your help saved me a lot of trouble. Orthocerotidae, which does appear in the literature should of course be explained. As for saving every tit bit into antiquity or how that effects the GFDL I don't fully understand the reasoning. But well,o.k. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 17:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I forgot about the recent Wikipedia license migration from GFDL to Creative Commons! (All user-contributed text is now licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.) Although this is a free license in that the content can be reused for any purpose, the authors must still be attached to the text they wrote in some way (the "Attribution" part of the license). The history tab currently provides this attribution. If the text of an article is pasted somewhere else, the history tab will only list one author for the entirety of the text. WP:MOVE provides more information on this. Cheers, mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]