Talk:Annelid

Number of species
This page lists two different numbers of species, right next to each other: 12000 and 15000. Where are these counts coming from?
 * Page 607 of Campell's Biology: Fourth Edition says "about 15,000 annelid species." --mav

Trocophore or trochophore?
Do we want to use "trocophore" or "trochophore"? "Trocophore" is already in use in Wikipedia, across several articles; but "trochophore" is 10 times more common according to Google, and matches better with "Trochozoa", which appears in Wikipedia (see the Trochozoa article).
 * "trochophore" gets my vote. WormRunner 18:15, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * yupp me too


 * Trochophore is what I have always seen before. Cerealkiller13 00:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed
moved the following from the article.
 * Annelids are segmented worms and each segment consist of sex cells. Annelids are usually hemaphordites but there are some individual sexes also.  Reproduction actually occurs in a specific time of the year, and ciliated sex cells are dispersed in the sea.

The info only applies to the polychaeta and needs rewritten. WormRunner 17:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Eyes?
Where do annelid eyes derive from (which type of cell/germ layer)? Are they mesodermally derived or ectodermally derived?

The Problem With Leeches
The thing about Leeches is that technically considered they are predators, their prey being red blood cells. Thus calling them parasites not only is degrading to the Leech, which has helped create synthetic blood thinners, but also completely false.Adolph172 (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)adolph17
 * Red blood cells aren't whole organisms though, so they are still parasites. They might better be considered grazers, since the survival or their host isn't of much importance to them. Richard001 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm no biologist, but...
"They range in length from under a millimeter to over 3 coeloms;" The page does not specify how large a coelom is, and neither does the linked-to article. Perhaps this statement should be revised? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.157.119 (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should read "over 3 meters"; the phrasing was an error caused by the deletion of several sentences. I've reverted to the last version before the confusing edit. Cephal-odd (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Diet?
What do these Annelids eat anyway? Ypna (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently, garden worms (in which I don't know their scientific name) just eat decomposed nutrients in soil. so most of the other ground-dwelling Annelids presumably eat it too. --Ypna (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a reasonable generalisation, but there may be doubts or exceptions on more detailed examination. It might be tricky to define "ground-dwelling", for example if some ground is "dry" enough for earthworms some of the time but wet enough for leeches at other times. --Philcha (talk) 05:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When I said "ground-dwelling" I was mainly meaning Earthworms, but yes, there may be doubts. --Ypna (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead should be less than five paragraphs per WP:LEAD
I saw this article at WP:GAC, and, though I don't have the time to give GAC review, thought to note the lengthy lead for fixing. It's currently five paragraphs; per WP:LEAD, lead sections should be no longer than four paragraphs. Emw2012 (talk) 05:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Phyla are big subjects. WP:LEAD has come up every time but one, and each reviewer decided to WP:IAR. --Philcha (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are articles for bigger subjects that conform to the MoS guidelines on lead length. Consider, for example, the biological domains of Archaea and Bacteria, broad topics like the Immune system and Evolution, and basic macromolecules like Protein and Lipid. Given that, it's my opinion that conforming to the MoS guideline on lead length per WP:GACR criterion 1(b) should take precedence to WP:IAR at least in this case. Emw2012 (talk) 04:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The opinion of several GA reviewers, all different, in reviews of articles on different phyla, differs from yours.
 * Nothing "takes precedence" over WP:IAR - that's the meaning of WP:IAR. Now guess what principle is the reason behind my belief that the 4-para "limit" would be harmful here. --Philcha (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you're considering the taxonomic height of phyla to contend that "phyla are big subjects", exceptionally big, and thus WP:IAR applies. If that's the case, then how would you reconcile your argument for IAR with the fact that articles on higher taxa like Archaea and Bacteria -- certainly bigger subjects -- are both able to contain their lead sections in three paragraphs? Emw2012 (talk) 06:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to spend time analysing how well the leads of Immune system and Evolution summarise their previous contnet. You haven't answered my previous question: what principle is the reason behind my belief that the 4-para "limit" would be harmful here? --Philcha (talk)
 * I assume you'd base your reasoning in the principle that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.  However, as I've mentioned, I do not see how condensing a lead to meet the style guidelines is any less tractable for phyla than it is for domains.  If the general argument is that higher-level taxa necessitate exceptionally long leads, then Archaea and Bacteria would seem to strongly suggest otherwise.  Could you explain why don't consider those legitimate counterexamples? Emw2012 (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a waste of time to speculate about the thinking of those who composed the leads for Archaea and Bacteria. Here's mine:
 * Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is relevant but not my primary consideration.
 * IMO the most important part of WP:LEAD is "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies". That means the lead will often have to cover more than 4 sub-topics.
 * It is a well-established principle of writing for the Web that paras should ideally contain only 1 idea each. Hence if the lead contains more than 4 sub-topics, it needs more than 4 paras.
 * So there's a conflict between good writing for the Web and the 4 paras recommendation at WP:LEAD.
 * Please read all of the banner at the top of WP:LEAD. It leaves editors of individual articles to deide how to handle such conflicts.
 * I see no reason to let a mere rule-of-thumb override the opinions of widely recognised experts on writing for the Web. --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it a waste of time to consider the leads of Archaea and Bacteria? In a discussion on whether high-level taxon articles warrant exception to the lead length guideline, featured articles on domains (a base case, the highest-level taxonomic rank) seem like they would be very useful to consider.  Those articles seem like a legitimate counterexample to your suggestion that phyla are exceptionally big subjects that thus call for WP:IAR.
 * Your previous comment argues for a basic limit on how concise a lead may be, more than making a specific comment on phyla-related articles. Thus, rather than a case for occasional exception as in IAR, it seems like you're making a policy proposal better suited for WT:LEAD. Emw2012 (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This discussion is becoming a waste of time - while you've contributed nothing but these complaints in the last 3.5 hours, while I've nearly wrapped up one GA review and am busy GA-reviewing another article. We're not going to agree on this, as we approach it from totally different points of view. However if you try to change the lead without first showing how this will not make it less useful for readers and then leaving reasonable time for a reply (I suggest 24 hours, to allow for any time-zone difference), I will revert the changes instantly, with an edit summary that notes your failure to provide good reason for the change. --Philcha (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't change the lead without more feedback from other editors, which I think would be useful at this point. My point here was to address your idea that articles about phyla are reasonable exceptions to WP:IAR because they're big subjects.  I think I've made a compelling argument against that, and don't see how taking examples from the Archaea and Bacteria (or any other of the above-mentioned articles) is a waste of time or somehow illegitimate.  I'm content to leave the discussion as it stands.  Other than this issue, this article and the rest of your work with phyla seem exemplary. Emw2012 (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

17000
The article says both about 17000 and over 17000. I find this slightly contradictory. --Ettrig (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What, where? --Philcha (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Found it. BTW thnaks for fixing some of my typos. --Philcha (talk)

File:Annelid redone w white background.svg
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Annelid redone w white background.svg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 12, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Annelid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720124908/http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/annelida/index.html to http://www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton/imagekey/annelida/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090501112634/http://www.agromedic.com:80/ to http://www.agromedic.com

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Family tree diagram accidentally trashed
User:Chiswick Chap must have spent a lot of time on Christmas Day adding images and fixing up content, but also somehow managed to scramble parts of the tree in the process. Note, for example, that Lophotrochozoa and Ecdysozoa both appear twice in the diagram, with Lophotrochozoa shown as descended from itself. This has all the marks of confusion from making changes all over a structure too complex to see all of at once. It obviously needs to be fixed, but I'm not familiar enough to be comfortable working on it- I could easily just make things worse. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Delete Aptostichus simus image
I want to suggest deleting the image link for Aptostichus simus, an arthropod; a spider. it's not actually mentioned in the article, but it's linked to the article Mr kitehead (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect topic
This page opens with several paragraphs about football player Lionel Messi 97.156.157.210 (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Messi Annelids
I was working on something and stumbled upon the Messi annelids randomly, while looking into reproduction by fragmentation, just before it got reverted. just had to make an account for it

hilarious, Absolutely gold, I love this website :) MartinJoster42 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)