Template talk:Cephalopod anatomy

red links
Hello folks, especially Mgiganteus, I was told some time ago that this kind of template, since it is intended to be a navigational aid, should probably not contain red links (except maybe for a brief period of time). These red links have been here for nearly a year. In the MoS it says about these navigational templates: "Red links should be avoided ... editors are encouraged to write the article first." I do totally understand why these are listed though; I was tempted to do the same thing in the templates for Gastropod anatomy and Bivalve anatomy, but in the end I left them incomplete. Red links are a useful reminder for us, the writers, but they are not useful for the readers or consumers of WP. All best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree red links are unhelpful, but furthermore would caution against unchecked sub-splitting of organ systems: the template is already at the verge of becoming unwieldly specific (in my opinion), especially the sub-parts of the cephalopod eye(Cornea, Eye pore, Eyelid sinus, Secondary eyelid). All of those structures should probably be discussed under Cephalopod eye for maximum utility. Ditto for the sub-parts of Funnel Siphon (mollusc). I certainly don't think a separate article needs to be written for say "Cornea (cephalopod)" or "Eyelid sinus {cephalopod)". I'm for simplifying and reducing the template, but I'll notify the Cephalopod project page for more feedback --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it's been over a year with no response or feedback, I've gone ahead and boldly simplified the template to remove many of the redlinks as well as redundant links. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)