Talk:Ammonellipsites

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 Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Description needed[edit]

While the article does tell of the higher taxa that include Ammonellipsites, it lacks any description of the genus. How would I know one if I came across it. J.H.McDonnell (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference[edit]

The Paleobiology Database link goes to the main page. Shouldn't it go directly to Ammonellipsites or the most immediate including taxon ? And is that access date all that important, or is that simply a matter of habit.J.H.McDonnell (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the link should be to the specific entry for Ammonellipsites in the PBDB. And yes the access date is very important, as it indicates the date the page was examined, webpages are changing/being modified/disappearing all the time, so it is important to know what version of the page to look at when checking references.--Kev min § 03:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]