Template talk:Cephalopod anatomy

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cephalopods (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:Banner/ CephalopodsCephalopods articles Animal anatomy This template is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:Banner/ Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]