Talk:Census of Marine Life

To whoever is interested, I think there should be a standarized template for CoML projects. It would be good to have information on all of the projects in individual articles.(MasterMagician (talk) 04:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

COI edits and deletion

This article was just nominated for speedy deletion as spam due to recent heavy edits - a lot by obvious WP:COI editor CoML (talk · contribs) and the user that edited immediately after CoML ceased who is presumably the same person. I removed the speedy as I think the topic is notable enough from a brief google to at least be given an AfD. I propose also maybe reverting the article to its state before the rewrite e.g.[1]. Mfield (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a suitable version to revert to? I briefly looked through its checkered history and couldn't find any version that was objective and cited reliable sources. Themfromspace (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that its never been ideal but I think an old version such as this could at least be a simple NPOV overview of the project with 5 minutes work to clean it up, rather than deleting or leaving in its current state. It could then be built back up properly. Deleting it outright seems a little overboard given the research nature of the project and the links to lots of reputable bodies. It is also linked to and from other articles. Mfield (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Nine years later... as the original creator of this page back in 2006 I feel it has languished a bit since 2009 in a somewhat sub-optimal form. I have taken the opportunity to revisit it, tidy up (and in some cases away) existing content, and do a lot of general improvements. Hopefully the article has more of an encyclopedic tone and content now with additional references, quotes, etc. etc. If I spot anything else that seems appropriate to add over the next little while I will do so. Cheers - Tony Rees, Australia Tony 1212 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Census of Marine Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.creefs.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110210102637/http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/chess/ to http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/chess/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Census of Marine Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718011906/http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203422883 to http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1203422883
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224004843/http://www.ifremer.fr/comarge/en/index.html to http://www.ifremer.fr/comarge/en/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Census of Marine Life. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090402022658/http://www.coml.org/about to http://coml.org/about
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515210836/http://www.nagisa.coml.org/ to http://www.nagisa.coml.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag

ImaginesTigers, In this edit you tagged for disputed neutrality. I cannot find any discussion describing the problem at the time that you tagged, making it difficult to do anything about it. Please explain how the neutrality is compromised so that it can be fixed. Please ping with reply. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Tony 1212, do you have any comments on this? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Pbsouthwood, like you I do not have any idea to what ImaginesTigers is referring. Without that, is is hard to proceed further. I (re)wrote the bulk of what presently appears based on publicly available sources and so far as I am able, have endeavoured to keep a neutral point of view. I did contribute to the Census activities over the period 2000-2010 (one of hundreds if not thousands to do so) and attended some of their planning and review meetings, which is how I know enough about it to construct the article, but was never a paid employee or involved with their own publications/publicity operation. Regards Tony 1212 (talk) 18:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is that in constructing the present text, I have utilised several quotes from Census-sponsored (or associated) publications to describe its activities. This would be in the absence of other more secondary works that I could find. To tell the truth, I do not have the enthusiasm to pursue this much further for additional sources, having done my best with the materials that I had to hand, but others may wish to take up the challenge... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually the main quotes I incorporated were from the Penman et al., 2011 report which was an independent review commissioned by CoML to assess its successes and failures, etc., so do not think that this would contradict NPOV. I suggest that unless a response is received here from the adder of the tag within a reasonable period of time (maybe 7 days would suffice), the tag could be removed, with reasons noted here... Tony 1212 (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

After a quick skim, no idea. It was 2 years ago, in my defence! Happy for it to be removed if both or either of you are satisfied there's no NPOV issues. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks guys, tag now removed as per this discussion. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Tony 1212, I could see no reason for the tag either. In future I suggest that you ask the tagger to explain their motivation if you can't see it for yourself and there is no talk page discussion. If they don't respond, remove the tag. Cheers,· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers, Thanks for the rapid response, it is appreciated, but this is why when one tags with such a general notice it is necessary to explain on the talk page what you were thinking at the time. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles with banners declaring a perceived problem that remain there because no-one else can see what to do about the problem. I cannot say I am "satisfied that there are no NPOV issues", but I can say that I cannot identify any myself, which is what I must work with in the absence of more specific information to the contrary. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I originally created this page (in a more simple form obviously) back in 2006 - see https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Census_of_Marine_Life&oldid=80764537 ... a bit of water under the bridge since then! (plus my overlap with the project ceased in 2010...) Thanks to all concerned for your subsequent interest. Cheers Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Tony 1212, It is a fairly well written, informative, and balanced article in my opinion. Do you think there is anything more that would be needed for a WP:B-class rating? I am pretty sure it is at least a C-class, and have rated it as such already. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, such distinctions are outside my area of expertise... whatever you think is fine by me. Tony 1212 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to any obvious omissions (criterion 2), but did not make myself clear. I will assume there are not as there were none obvious to me. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

B-class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Y complies. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Y Looks accurate, and I see no major gaps. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Y complies. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Y complies. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Y complies. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Y complies. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)