Talk:Belemnoidea

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cephalopods, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CephalopodsWikipedia:WikiProject CephalopodsTemplate:WikiProject CephalopodsCephalopods articles

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.1007/BF02988082 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put the reference down directly in the first place, that's what I would have done.J.H.McDonnell (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belemnoid vs Belemnite

This article seems to have a similar problem to the old ammonite/ammonoid article. Most of the text is about belemnites (Belemnitida) while the taxobox and other details refer to belemnoids in general, including several other orders that lived much earlier. I suggest we separate these two concepts into two articles. Cephal-odd (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, right on. And for titles lets stick with scientific terms like Belemnitida and Belemnoidea and not use the familiar slang J.H.McDonnell (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought Belemnitida = Belemnites and Blemenoids = Belemnoids , as with Ammonitida = ammonites and ammonidea = ammonoids. It even refers to belemnitida as belemnites here: http://www.ukfossils.co.uk/guides/belemnites.htm, I think Belemnoidea miht be a super-order or something The Talking Toaster (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree. Belemnites should redirect to Belemnitida, not Belemnoidea. Then there's the other problem. Belemnites is also a genus. The real problem though, is that no article exists on Belemnitida. But yeah, the descriptions on this page actually refers mostly to Belemnitida. Phragmoteuthida and Belemnotheutina for example, do not actually have the elongated and bullet-shaped rostra described in the article. I'll try and see what I can fix.-Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a stub for Belemnitida over the previous redirect here: Belemnitida. I'm too busy writing the article on Tessaratomidae at the moment though to be of much help expanding it. If anyone is interested in expanding it please do so, so we can move extraneous stuff from Belemnoidea to there. I will help once I mainspace the article I'm working on. Cheers. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 23:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]