This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
fisheries,
aquaculture and
fishing 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.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
food and
drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review
WP:Trivia and
WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects,
select here.
Consider joining this project's
Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are
transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Size?
I would like to know how big these things usually are and their maximum size altogether. Is there anyone out there that can add this to the article? --
Spyderboyy
In many
Anomalans, the fifth pair of
pereiopods (so those located on the last thoracic segment, before the abdomen and long before the telson) are often located inside the gill chamber, and are used for cleaning the gills. I think this is what
24.118.230.154 meant above, although he/she got the location wrong. If it's not explicit in the
Anomala article or elsewhere, I'll have to look at including it. This is, incidentally, why an eight-legged "crab" is not a true crab, but a hermit crab, porcelain crab, king crab, or other pseudo-crab. At least on dead specimens, it's not hard to prise the last pair of legs out, since the carapace is not normally held down. A living animal may, however, object. --
Stemonitis07:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I was on a vessel that picked up a bunch of Squat Lobsters off the bottom of the ocean in the Gulf of Mexico. I was not sure what the creature was at first, thinking it was half lobster, half crab. The creature had 6 legs and two elongated claws. The tail was folded up under the body, and it is much shorter than a "lobster" tail. The interesting part of this finding was that the creatures lived in sacks. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.179.226.99 (
talk)
01:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
NPR
NPR, about two weeks ago, had a rather lengthy discussion of the Langostino debate. If someone can find it, it might provide some good information, as well as a great audio-based external link.
ThuranX04:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)reply
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under
Category:Food or
one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging
here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the
project talk page --
TinucherianBot (
talk)
02:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Hi there,
I think you must be mistaken about my edit to
squat lobster. Please be so good as undo the rv (I am not going to be silly enough to risk 3rr). The point is this: it may not be the sort of edit that is optimal, or that suits everyone's preferences, but the edit is not against policy, and therefore you have no grounds to rv. The section that I replaced was out of date information, but I don't have time to update it fully, and there is no point, as Wikispecies is that PART OF Wikimedia (of which WP is a part) which looks after such information and keeps it up-to-date. Therefore, to refer the reader to WS makes perfect sense. This might not be your personal preference, but, as I said, it does NOT contravene policy, so please undo the rv...
Thanks,
Stho002 (
talk)
01:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
NNot done and not likely to be done I have rechecked my revert and I still stand by it. I have not mistaken and will not be reverting myself. If you dont have time for editing dont edit, please let others who have time do that. As for this particular edit, it would be good if you could have some consensus first on the talk page or else you will be reverted by others. please read
wp:DR, regards--ÐℬigXЯaɣ01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Look pal, I'm sick to death of WP admins acting like tinpot Hitlers. You are missing the point. I have simply redirected that section of that article to another part of the same overall Wikimedia site (the part called Wikispecies), which is far better able to keep that information updated and reliable. I have effectively just added information, and removed nothing, it is just moved to a different place (Wikispecies). I do NOT need consensus to update articles with new information. I'm not going to let this rest, so please undo the revert as my edit does not contravene policy, and you are abusing your powers, thanks
Stho002 (
talk)
01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
why dont you first discuss your edits with other editors of the article
squat lobster about the validity of your edit. Like I said above, I am not self reverting--ÐℬigXЯaɣ01:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Because
User:Stemonitis does not listen to reason, and I don't need to consult anyone to update that info. If I don't redirect it to WS then it will soon fall out of date again, and, as I said, it is the job of WS to keep track of that particular kind of information, so there is absolutely no point in repeating it all here just so it can fall out of date again. As I said, my edit does not contravene any policy that you have shown me, so if you don't self revert, I will find another bureaucrat or steward who will revert it for you ...
Stho002 (
talk)
01:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I would request you to
assume good faith for other ediors. understand that certain edit that may be controversial needs consensus first. I have already asked
User:Stemonitis to give his opinion on this. if we all agree to a consensus with a valid reasoning, we can go ahead. have patience--ÐℬigXЯaɣ01:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, but there is absolutely no rational reason why this edit should be controversial at all. My edit is intended to improve the quality of the article, given than biology articles on WP are hardly ever kept up-to-date, except in very "popular" cases. This wouldn't be the first time I have encountered editors on WP who just don't want "their articles" to be changed by others
Stho002 (
talk)
01:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
[I was requested to comment here by DBigXRay.]
User:Stho002 is sadly mistaken in a number of areas. Stho002's edits have repeatedly replaced well-sourced information with "This needs revising and updating, see Wikispecies for details", or equivalents. This is unsourced, and is original research. At best, it is a citation to user-generated content (in the case of the two relevant Wikispecies pages, generated almost exclusively by User:Stho002). For all these reasons, the edit is, as you correctly surmised, unconstructive. If Stho002 cannot find the time to fix the problems he/she perceives, then the correct practice would be to place a note on the article's talk page, rather than within the encyclopaedic content. Removing slightly out-of-date, but still basically valid information, and leaving nothing in its place is not acceptable. Contrary to Stho002's assertions, Wikipedia and Wikispecies are separate projects (which is why Wikispecies is cited in "External links"). We can link to it, but it cannot be a replacement for information being presented here. In total, you were quite right to revert Stho002's edit. I don't doubt Stho002's good faith, but the effect has not been positive. Stho002 does not seem to fully understand
WP:OR; he/she has also been adding opinion to other articles recently (e.g. "it could therefore be secondary to that of Miller" at Melangyna viridiceps). Hopefully this interaction will encourage Stho002 to learn more about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and to adopt more collaborative practices here. (I can imagine some admins would block for statements like "Look pal, I'm sick to death of WP admins acting like tinpot Hitlers" alone, so Stho002 is walking on thin ice.) --
Stemonitis (
talk)
06:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Thank you
Stemonitis for elaborating your opinion, your answer has clarified a lot of things, I hope this reasoning will satisfy
User:Stho002 as well. His opinion about admins might be due to unpleasant experiences in past, but one needs to learn from mistakes and move on. I am glad and must appreciate that
User:Stho002 instead of edit warring chose to start a discussion on this. This is the right way ahead, regards--ÐℬigXЯaɣ06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)reply
For me this pattern of edits that Stho002 has been engaged in, deleting species lists off of pages and just pointing to wikispecies, is harmful to the goals of wikipedia. Wikispecies is a completely separate project, we don't just delete all the pictures off of a page and tell people to go to Commons to see pictures. Stho002 has made several of these edits, not just this one, and I was quite tempted to go through his editing history and revert them all but decided to post here first. There is absolutely no reason why we wouldn't have theses lists here, this is the primary place people come looking for information, not wikispecies which is a very small project in comparison. — raekyt03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I have re-reverted
Stho002 (
talk)'s deletion of content (1st time for me). Links to other Wiki projects and even to other Wikipedia pages are not
reliable sources, nor are they satisfactory substitutes for properly referenced content. I would recommend that Stho002 cease and desist from this disruptive behaviour, lest s/he attracts the displeasure of a passing admin and ends up on the wrong side of a block, and given the history shown on the user's talk page it is likely to be a lengthy one at that. -
Nick Thornetalk03:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)reply
WS is *not* a completely different project, it is a specialised *part* of the overall Wikimedia project, which is why we have interwikis. I admit that Wikipedia is the best place for a lot of information, but not for the information that WS specialises in. Show me the Wikipedia policy prohibiting content on Wikipedia being redirected to WS, and I will gladly refrain from doing this, otherwise kindly m.y.o.b. ...
Stho002 (
talk)
03:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Wikispecies is a different project to Wikipedia. Wikimedia is the overall technology and framework for the various projects. Regardless, even if Wikispecies was actually a part of Wikipedia itself there are several impediments to your attemped deletion of content. Firstly, the content is properly referenced in accord with both
WP:RS and
WP:V. Secondly, in accordance with
WP:BRD we are in the discuss stage. You have clearly not established a
consensus (which is policy, btw) for your changes. Thus I assume you will refrain from making the changes again until and unless you do establish a consensus for the change. Finally, I take issue with being told by you to "m.y.o.b.", I should not have to remind you that you do not
own the page, in fact it is one of the
WP:Five Pillars that anyone can edit. I respectfully request that you strike that comment from your post. -
Nick Thornetalk04:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, to address this piece of misunderstanding:
Links to other Wiki projects and even to other Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources, nor are they satisfactory substitutes for properly referenced content
the link itself is not intended to be a source, it is a link *to where the sources are all properly referenced* ...
Stho002 (
talk)
I doubt there is a policy specifically addressing this case, and baring a larger community decision there probably won't be, but it's clear that removal of this information is against consensus. — raekyt03:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)reply
No information has been removed! It has been *moved* to another article (which happens to be in the WS part of Wikimedia) and added to (updated). I do not need consensus to update information on Wikipedia ...
Stho002 (
talk)
If you want to view it as just moving it to another page (which it's not as clearly has been explained to you) then YES we do have policies of when it's appropriate to split an article:
Wikipedia:Splitting. — raekyt05:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Wikispecies is a separate project to Wikipedia. If the information is no longer present on Wikipedia, it has been removed. And yes, you very much do need consensus to edit Wikipedia. That is one of the most important tenets of the Wikipedia philosophy. To quote
WP:CON, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". You absolutely require consensus, and I think you recognise that you don't have it. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
05:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Just to chime in as one more editor of this page, I agree with the emerging consensus that the page should stay as it is and
Stho002's edits are out of line.
KarlM (
talk)
21:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Taxobox
Is there a specific reason why this article does not have a taxobox? I was going to add one but I see that the article has had its fair share of controversy in the past so thought I had better ask first.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
06:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Because it's not a taxon. It's a common name applied to several families that do not form a monophyletic group. It could be interpreted as a
grade, but not a
clade. --
Stemonitis (
talk)
05:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)reply
Perhaps a good solution would be to clarify & emphasize the non-monophyly in the introductory paragraph, something to the effect of " 'Squat lobster' is a common name given to members of two unrelated crustacean groups in the taxon Anomura: including Chirostyloidea and some Galatheoidea." Then a taxobox could be provided to lowest taxon the two groups share (Anomura?), with notes in the subsequent box saying, e.g., "see superfamilies for details", or "Galatheoidea (in part)" I see that more details are provided in the Classification section, but it would be nice to have some concise, unambiguous mention of the non-monophyly up front, along with the informative visual aid of an annotated taxobox.
Animalparty (
talk)
17:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)reply
Squat lobster eaten and fished in Scotland
The article is wrong to say that it is only commercially fished in South America. Squat lobster is seen on the menu at eating places such as seafood shacks, fish and chip shops and restaurants in Scotland, mostly on the west coast. here, you can see it on a menu
menu and here you can see an orders page for those who want to
mail order fresh rock lobster.
https://fencebay.co.uk/shop/squat-lobster-tails/ — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
82.37.101.123 (
talk)
07:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Grace made additions and edits to the "Classification" section of the Squat lobster Wikipedia, specifically, the evolutionary history and distribution.
"Few morphological characteristics distinguish squat lobsters from other families in the
Anomura" seems to be out of place/not related
"Chirostylidae" typo
"DNA sequencing indicates that squat lobsters are not a
monophyletic group. Chirostylidae and Kiwaidae are distantly related to the other squat lobsters, and are closer related to
hermit crabs and
king crabs (
Paguroidea), the mole crabs in the superfamily
Hippoidea, and the small families
Lomisidae and
Aeglidae." Should be edited for clarity. What is the relevance of these examples? Are they supposed to be examples of lack of monophylicity?
Content added improved quality of article...by adding a source and increasing morphological description the reader has a better idea of squat lobster morphology (aka more complete)
Strengths:
Very clear, relevant, and thorough information about squat lobster morphology
Good peer-reviewed source added
Further improvements:
"The two main groups of squat lobsters share most features of their morphology. " ...I would explicitly state the two main groups of squat lobsters and say "are morphologically similar" to make the sentence more concise.
The paragraphs are broken up well, but the page is very detailed...maybe consider if all the morphology is relevant to the reader