Talk:Coleoidea

Paragraph two has the following sentence:

The extinct and most primitive form, the Belemnoidea, presumably had ten equally sized arms, in five pairs numbered ventral to dorsal as I, II, III, IV and V.

I'm going to change it to read "dorsal to ventral" because the tentacles found in the Decapodiformes, arm pair IV, are the second most ventral pair, not the second most dorsal.--Molon Labe (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Does re listing taxa in the classification section, already shown in the taxobox or covered in discussion here and in related articles created within the scope of Coleoidea, or adding extra though perhaps not extraneous taxa serve a real and useful purpose? I tried simplifying a few in order to make them more concise and on subject but my changes were soon reverted. I see no sense in having an edit squabble so I'll leave as is. It might be worth while however for some administrators with firm knowledge regarding biological writing to review this question so we can be sure to have good articles on the subject. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coleoidea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160127211756/http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/ms609/nectocaris.html to http://people.ds.cam.ac.uk/ms609/nectocaris.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hitchen's Razor:

"Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." —— Christopher Eric Hitchens

Note "A" has no evidence supporting its insanity, so I shall delete it.

The text is sourced to a reliable (albeit primary) source. The article says that a speculative theory has been advanced, and the sourcing supports the fact that that theory has indeed been advanced, in a peer-reviewed journal. Yes, I agree that the theory is unlikely to be correct, but panspermia is a widely discussed and researched field, and is not by any means a QAnon-type lunacy. If you want to downplay the theory (even more than it already is downplayed in the article), find sources that refute it and use them to edit the article. We do not remove information about a theory from an article just because an editor has a hunch that it's not correct. CodeTalker (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Has been removed again by User:Hemiauchenia as clearly fringe. Agree with this assessment and removal. Hyperbolick (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

100% agree with removal. Both fringe and entirely undue. This is not the article for frozen space eggs (if such an article exists). Cheers all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

I also agree with its removal. Peer reviewed journals are known to publish all sorts of inconsequential things. Unless that article has any traction measured by others citing it, it is WP:FRINGE and shouldn't be included here. There are always hypotheses and disagreements in science; that is how science works. It is not Wikipedia's job to describe every minor disagreement between scientists. There are probably thousands of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of Coleoidea origins. There is no reason to single this one out, especially when it does not represent a consensus view. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is not about whether 4*10^9 years ago, an impact on Mars launch a rock, with archæa into space, which fell into the oceans of Earth, thus seeding Terrestrial life. Mollusks are definitely Terrestrial Life, whether or not life originally came from elsewhere, and cephalopods are definitely mollusks.

As for this "peer-reviewed journal", just publishing an article asserting that a definite terrestrial organism might be a space-alien, renders it as credible as the peer-reviewed journal by and for homœopaths.

I might have messed up the formatting of this talk page from having to redo this response do to an edit-conflict.

2601:643:C002:2830:10B6:F2D8:E2EF:D6B5 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nonsense claim, should be removed and stay removed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Yes, so far, multicellular life as we know it is considered to have evolved from unicellular life on Earth, so any possible panspermia (a minor hypothesis) would be expected to be unicellular or even simpler molecules... Then, this is a WP:PRIMARY source, so for this to be WP:DUE we would need the point of view of reliable secondary sources on it, that Wikipedia could cite and present, instead of the paper's views. —PaleoNeonate – 02:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It's also the same standard nonsense from Wickramasinghe, who will see alien life everywhere he looks. At best, this is pure WP:FRINGE. At worse, well... see PZ Myers's thoughts on it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply