Talk:List of bilaterian orders

Orphaned references in List of bilaterial animal orders
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of bilaterial animal orders's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Liu2006": From Jianshanopodia:  From Lobopodia:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cheers. As the author of the initial article and the mistake your post has given me what I required to fix the problem, as my cookies revealed which of the two articles I had visited and which I hadnt. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the interest/scope of this page?
I cannot understand the scope of this page. If the purpose of its author is to provide an outline of the classification and/or phylogeny of Bilateria, this certainly exists in other pages.

The name of the page is not adequate - it is not a list of orders, sometimes it goes down to genera.

The main problem is that there are many classifications and phylogenies of the Bilateria - what is the source of the general classification? Jeanloujustine (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The initial inspiration came from List of chordate orders, this is the same but with the less well-known phyla. It also allows both readers and editors to see what we have have and what we don't have articles for. What is there not to like about it? Getting better sources would be great, all the information was taking from other wikipedia pages, i.e. its organized information not new information. And at times such a page uncovers contradictions. IMO we need pages like this for all higher level taxa, then ideally linking through so lists of families can be placed by order and not randomly by alphabetical order, as happens currently. I don't deny this article has much room for improvement but the concept seems well sound. We also have similar now for echinoderms, arthropods, etc. And if you can suggest a better name that would be great. At times a genus is all there is, and these are the cases where a genus is mentioned, e.g. when we have a class then we don't have articles for orders or families but do for a genus. That has been my basic criteria for mentioning genera, and within the current title. But ultimately we should have a taxa scheme that allows one to find any item from kingdom down to genera. So for me the scope is large. I also think more material can be added.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We should also remember that having an article on just chordate orders isn't neutral, its preferring one particularly phylum over others, so IMO this article was required for balance. As were all the other similar ones, the only one I didnt start was the list of chordates. And perhaps you should address your concerns at the list of chordate orders talk page if you feel there are relevancy issues. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the data is from the main articles on the phyla and classes the real question should be what classification are we using in our taxon boxes and in the wikidata databse? Don't blame this page for a lack of clarity about classifications, as the problem lies elsewhere on wikipedia. It would, though, to my mind, be excellent to properly address this issue of the material in the taxon boxes. I am learning to use wikidate with this purpose in mind. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So why this article remained fake taxa like "Pennsylvaniocaris" "Sarocaris" "Piococaris"? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you considered removing the fake taxa? Mr Fink (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Already did. Looks like these taxa existed since first version of this page. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)