This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tarantula article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 360 days |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Tarantula was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
|
To-do list for Tarantula: Fix this To-do list so that it functions properly!
Review talk page entries:
Cited references are needed:
|
Can we get a smaller version of the image to put inline, with a clickable link to larger version below it? The current one is way too big to be inline. -- Delirium 21:54 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thank you two for changing my mistakes and for revising the order to the better. I am dyslectic so I easily make mistakes, but I thought the plural of Tarantula was Tarantulae, not 's. The new order is also better. I added the sub chapter names more as an afterthought, so it need a change of name.
The image was not mine, and I don't have a tarantula of my own, so I can't make a good one and I can't find a good one from the internet that is public domain.
The genus and subfamily list is maybe a bit to long. First I added 25 common genus's, but then I wanted to add the subfamilies and I tried to rearrange the genus's into the families, then I found out that one subfamily (speleo-something) has been removed and the cave-tarantula's had been added to another family. Not sure which Genus's should stay in there. Also the sub-families don't look good in that list, something should be changed about it, but I am nt sure what. User:Magraggae 19:45, 13 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)
Hi, I don't know who changed "tarantulae" to "tarantulas". What you thought is right, so I changed it back.
What is wrong with the image? It is a perfectly normal tarantula, mine in fact.
One of the people who has done a lot on the Spider article is an authority on scientific nomenclature. He has done a lot to straighten out naming on that page. The problem is that the names get revised from time to time, and if you don't have the latest sources you can easily get an out-dated name. (I started trying to straighten things out before the expert came on the scene, and I can testify that it is a real mess.) Maybe I can get the expert to look at this page. P0M 08:44, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I like the picture, but that text said somethign was wrong with it, so I just replied. Looks good to me. I added the kingdom, phylum stuff. I added the families that I could find out of the most recent information I could find. However I am not an expert, but I think it is pretty recent (this stuff changes so fast because there is soo much we don't know yet). Maybe someone could get some pictures of other more colourfull species as an example how they can also look? lauches hairs into the hair ROFL, thanks for noticing that and fixing it to air :x User:Magraggae 13:25, 14 Jul 2004 (GMT+1)
[comment by an anonymous user moved from the article page] The picture to the right is not that of a tarantula, but an enlarged picture of a jumping spider. The person that put the picture of the jumping spider up on this site stating that it is a tarantula is mistaken and is now miseducating the interested masses who are coming to this great site to get good, factual information about tarantulae.
From Austin, Texas: http://austin.craigslist.org/rnr/209754888.html
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Analysis of transcriptomes and biogeography of Tarantula species suggests they may have originated in the Early Cretaceous around ~120 mya, according to this study. Perhaps this can be mentioned in the Fossil Record section, or on the timescale? [1] BigBrownMonkey ( talk) 20:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
References
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Taxonomy/Genera section, change "PseudoschizopelmaSmith" to "Pseudoschizopelma Smith". Also, change 'Cyrtogrammomma"Pocock' to 'Cyrtogrammomma Pocock'. 2600:4040:B278:6000:7908:C47C:AEE:51AB ( talk) 16:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, found another one -- "PsalistopsSimon" to "Psalistops Simon" 2600:4040:B278:6000:7908:C47C:AEE:51AB ( talk) 19:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I find it strange that the infobox says Theraphosidae originated as late as the Neogene, especially without citing a source. Many families of spiders are considerably older. I have in my head that Theraphosidae date back at least to the Carboniferous but know no reliable source. The Fossil record section of the article claims that fossils of mygalomorph spiders date back to the Triassic, with two specimens convincingly assigned to the Theraphosidae, but also cites no source. Shinryuu ( talk) 13:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)