Talk:Scallop

Carrying scallop shells to Santiago ...
... is like carrying coals to Newcastle. The author who wrote that "Medieval Christians making the pilgrimage to his shrine often wore a scallop shell symbol on their hat or clothes. The pilgrim also carried a scallop shell with him, and would present himself at churches, castles, abbeys etc.," is confusing medieval times with modern times.

The modern pilgrim-tourist-hiker buys a scallop shell and attaches it to his or her backpack from the start but in the middle ages "it became customary for those who returned from Compostela to carry back with them a Galician scallop shell as proof of their completion of the journey". Which makes sense, doesn't it? Maybe someone will care to correct this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.45.83 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Got a reference? Be WP:BOLD and make the change!  Even an anonymous user can do this.  Please feel free!  KDS 4444  Talk  14:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Never mind, I did it myself. KDS4444 (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The sequence of the sections?
There might be some arguments in favor of putting the taxonomy first in the article, rather than the anatomy. We could also use a really good image of both valves of one shell laid out together. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Invertzoo: you would like a good image of both valves... on the inside? One inside out outside?  Laid out how?  What is it you think we should show in such an image?  What aspects of the valves do you think would be helpful for us to display or point out?  KDS4444 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, while I agree that the taxonomy section is very important to defining the subject of the article, the current state of that section is highly technical (e.g., "The earliest and most comprehensive taxonomic treatments of this family were based on macroscopic morphological characters of the adult shells and represent broadly divergent classification schemes") and therefore likely to be more than a little offputing to readers that come here casually. Thoughts on that? KDS4444 (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Notes section
Could you please reformat the two notes so that they work together. My bad. Sorry. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is still an issue. Don't need two different styles.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've tidied it up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Date creep
We need to choose d/m/y or m/d/y and make it uniform. Is there a bot that does this? 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I take it you are referring to the inconsistencies in the date formats of some of the references. As far as I know, it is up to editors to decide which style to use and then to make this consistent.  I have now done this for this article.  KDS4444 (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Attribution
Copied reference from Pecten jacobeus to Scallop. See former article's history for exact credits. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Split Article
Having sections about scallops as a symbol and scallops as an animal together in one article seems inconsistent with what I have seen in the rest of Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that they be split up into separate articles with one just for the animal and one for the scallop symbol. 75.80.37.234 (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)Sandy
 * Actually it's entirely usual where an animal has cultural significance - see lion and wolf. At the moment the article is not so long it needs splitting. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Scallop eyes
The article says scallops have simple eyes. Technically I believe they are complex eyes. Cdellert (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

See page 65 of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Immense_World?wprov=sfti1

Shell of Saint Augustine
The section Shell of Saint Augustine seems to be irrelevant to this article. It tells how Augustine saw a small boy transferring the ocean into a hole with a shell. But the story is not about the shell. The point of the story would be the same if the shell were a spoon, or if the boy were using his hands. And there is no hint that the shell, if it is that, has traditionally been a scallop shell, or that the story has anything at all to do with scallops.

What am I missing? Why is this here?

—Mark Dominus (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have removed this section. —Mark Dominus (talk) 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)