User talk:Nightlight6

Welcome!
Hello, Nightlight6, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Sixgill sawshark. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 00:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Echinorhiniformes
Hello. I'm not familiar with the details of shark taxonomy but I saw, followed up far enough to see that you've updated several pages in a similar way and now I have some questions and concerns. Do you intend to carry this through to [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Echinorhiniformes the remaining links] to Echinorhiniformes and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&profile=default&search=Echinorhiniformes&fulltext=Search pages that contain this term]? It is not clear to me that "no consensus as to whether members of echinorhinidae are separate from squaliformes" equates to "consensus that echinorhinidae are part of squaliformes" as your edits imply. Is there an academic dispute here that merits coverage (e.g. at Echinorhinus or Shark)? Are you prepared with a solid reference for the specific taxonomy you are using? Were you aware that WikiProject_Fishes claims that Nelson 2006 is preferred? As far as I know, a preferred reference like this is not really enforceable but do I think there is a need to keep articles consistent and coherent in the face of varying taxonomies. TuxLibNit (talk) 22:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree Compagno 2005 seems to be a suitable reference (I'd have been concerned if you were relying on a substantially older secondary source or on primary sources). broke the table layout (which I've fixed) but also changed the content of the "Taxonomy according to Joseph Nelson, 2006" box, which now presumably does not match its source. I think what is needed instead is either a second box "Taxonomy according to Campagno, 2005" (which can replace or live side-by-side with an unmodified Nelson one) or some kind of sourced edit to the Nelson one that makes clear that Nelson does use Echinorhiniformes and says why wikipedia does not. Elasmobranchii has a similar problem but I think that has been around for a while. Finally, I'm now more firmly of the opinion that to avoid excessive reader surprise, the destination of the Echinorhiniformes redirect (which is currently Echinorhinus) does need to at least mention Echinorhiniformes (e.g. as an obsolete/disputed order for this genus). TuxLibNit (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

April 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. -- ferret (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)