Talk:List of marine animals of Australia (temperate waters)

Organisation, scope and layout
The entries in this list need to be made consistent and easier to cross-reference with other articles and images about the species. I started by removing the repetitive red links from the common names - the links (whether blue or red) should go from the formal name. Then I began organising each Phylum section alphabetically by their binomial nomenclature with the common names following. The articles' titles should be the binomial ones with redirects from the common name, rather than the other way around. I think that would make for consistency with zoological and botanical articles. Also, the article is of course very long. I suggest it be divided into separate related ones so it is easier to find, read, and load. The way that List of Australian diarists of World War I was subdivided provides a model. In the case of this marine species article, the subdivision could be done by phylum - one article per phylum, each with a consistent layout, linked from an introductory section. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. If there is a standard style, go with it. Splitting by phylum sounds a good plan but some phyla don't have many entries. If this will not be a problem, I have no problem with your proposal. Please ping me when you have set up the structure so I can watchlist everything. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It's going to take some time to sequence them by correct name but if there is no order to the entries it's hard to find a species on the list, add an image in the best place, or see what's missing. I am plodding along putting them in alphabetical order when I have time - am halfway down crustacea so far. At the end of this process, maybe the phyla should be in alphabetical order. I don't really know if that would be correct or not but the alphabetical listing needs to be finished first.


 * I have also added some good images of species that do not yet have an article, so readers can at least see what they look like. As you say, some phyla are short so maybe those ones would have to be added to the page with a longer phylum. Don't know. Also, although the section on locations at the end contains good information, I think that it is not really helping this article. Rather it is making it bulkier. There is a Category "Underwater diving sites in Australia", so perhaps those links could be put on the specific articles or made into a new general article "Dive sites of Australia". Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting the locations in two columns seems to have made it fit better in the whole. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Have you done any work with taxonomic lists before? There are conventions for ordering but I don't know how seriously they are taken on Wikipedia. There may be a MOS page for it somewhere or some guidance on a project page. When I entered most of this list I stayed with the order in Edgar 2008, which was probably correct at the time of publishing, but may well have changed in some details by now. WoRMS is usually good for current classification. Cheers, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not have enough knowledge of taxonomy to undertake any break up of the article myself. Above I was posing questions for people who do know about how best to subdivide it after I finish neatening and go back to articles on topics that I know something about. I am not altering the sequence except within the sections already established. I am simply doing some very repetitive editing to neaten it and hopefully increase the readability and appeal of what appears to be a comprehensive list on a fascinating, big important subject, already sourced to the appropriate experts. (It's possibly a mad project - I am only up to molluscs!) My goals are to make it clearer for readers and easier for other WP editors.


 * As far as readers are concerned, I think the phyla ought to be consistent with whatever structure conforms to the conventions, not least because Wikipedia is a first port of call for people new to a topic. So if any reader is inspired by it to learn more, possibly even proceed to the highest level, then this encyclopaedia will have served them well if it had introduced them to the standard approach. Books and scholarship would then be familiar when they encountered it. Conversely, experts referring to the list would find it as sensible.


 * As for editors, I aim to make it easier to choose a red-linked species about which to write a standalone article and easier to link it to this extensive master list. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * That is the Wikipedia way. Have fun, &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)