Talk:Crustacean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Crustacean has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve and expand Wikipedia's coverage of arthropods. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Added ==Geological history== text from an article I originally wrote in 1998 and published on the Web.

Dlloyd 20:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Portions of this text are : "Copyright © 1995-1997 The Fossil Company Ltd. © 1997-1999 The British Fossil Company Inc. and licensed by the owner under the terms of the Wikipedia copyright." Please contact me if you need further clarification on this. Dlloyd 00:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have re-written the geological history section, so the copyright notice above no longer applies. --Stemonitis 05:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Crustacea

Since all the other higher taxa use the scientific name (Malacostraca, Remipedia) rather than the adjective (malacostracan, remipede), I suggest that crustacean be moved to Crustacea, for consistency. Stemonitis 12:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

[edit] Discussion

• Support, for the reasons noted above Stemonitis 12:08, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, use common names for animals - malacostracan etc are not common names, crustacean is. Warofdreams 12:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a pretty clearcut case of using the name most common among all English speakers, not just scientists. Now if "crustacean" were an imprecise term not 100% identical with "Crustacea", there would be more of a case. Stan 13:52, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Support. The word crustacean should forward to the 'Crustacea' page, but as far as an official title, Crustacea seems most appropriate. Regardless, we should have an overall policy for high-level taxonomic groups with common names. For example, would 'vertebrate' or 'Vertebrata' be appropriate? Iancrose 00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. violet/riga (t) 21:52, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the overall policy for high-level taxonomic groups should be to use common names whenever possible, even when the common name may have meanings not denoted by the scientific name (e.g. loosely referring to spiders as "insects"). A-giau 05:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to spiders as insects is not "loose"; it's just plain wrong. I don't care how many books do it — it's wrong. Anyway, the title here was fixed long ago. --Stemonitis 09:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

100% agree with Stemonitis. "Maybe we should also start loosely referring to mammals as frogs." This is an encyclopedia. You want to teach people about real stuff, not urban myths... Lycaon 09:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)