Talk:Oncholaimoidea

Minor and major trouble.
IMHO, there has been some small problems with the article changes the last half-year. Among these were some of my links to dabs, but also some fixes of these. In particular, the "denticles" in the article were essentially described as being placed in the mouth, but not on the teeth. Therefore, the generic description
 * A denticle is any small tooth-like or bristle-like structure

is fairly appropriate, but the specific description
 * Denticles, also called serrations, are small bumps on a tooth that serve to give the tooth a serrated edge

is not. Unhappily, the first one is given o n a page classified as a dab, while the second one, in denticle (tooth feature) is from one of the misleading links on that dab. This change thus did replace a "substantially correct" link to a "dab" page with a "substantially incorrect" link to a valid article. The problem is that denticle, like many other dabs, actually also does contain some substance. Possibly, one solution could be a link to a wiktionary item, like here, but it is a bit irritating not to be able to employ the wiki items that do exist.

Another small problem: The description of the taxon was fetched verbatim from the McGraw-Hill reference, and the description there very clearly was and is of the seemingly nowadays disreputable order oncholaimida, not the suborder oncholaimina. Thus, after the article start and name were changed [ here] and [ here], it no longer is clear that the descriptive text is suitable for the taxon.

This, of course, also leads to the really big problem: The McGraw-Hill copyright note does not at all allow a free usage. In other words, I believe that the article has contained a copyvio, from its first version fourteen years ago, and until now. I therefore felt forced to remove most of the text—but not the taxobox, sources, or initial description of oncholaimina (as different from oncholaimida). Thus, I've removed the effects of most of your and my recent work (except some of that of Premeditated Chaos), and instead reduced the article to a stub. I'm a bit irritated about this, and if any one of you finds some reasonable ground for restoring the text, I'll be happy.

Anyhow, the texts in the sources still is available, and the wikification efforts are accumulated in the last full version, for anyone trying to resolve the issues. JoergenB (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, I hate dealing with ancient copyvio. I nuked the article's history, since it's embedded throughout the entire thing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * (ec) I assume that I was pinged because I too have seen a problem within Wikipedia. "Denticle" from its Latin root obviously has something diminutive to do with teeth; but sometimes it means "little tooth", and sometimes "a tooth-like structure", and sometimes "little bits of a tooth". The DAB page denticle does not contain satisfactory links to all those (and possibly other?) meanings. A link to wikt:denticle will often be too vague. We may lack a glossary article of some sort: glossary of botanical terms exists, but glossary of zoological terms does not. (C19 taxonomists freely borrowed even between kingdoms for descriptive words which their classically-educated colleagues would understand. I've a couple of times had good responses at WP:WikiProject Medicine about problematic links in articles about dinosaurs; because editors with training in human anatomy could understand, by analogy, where those old paleontologists were coming from.) Narky Blert (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)