Talk:Tubifex tubifex

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals Low‑importance Tubifex tubifex is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve : Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae ), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

It seems that in the taxobox, the class Clitellata is referred to as an order, while the subclassis Oligochaeta is referred to as a class. I know there are many rearrangements in taxonomy that I fail to keep up with, such as joining the Clitellata and the Oligochaeta into one single group, so I hesitate to change on my own, but surely it must be a mistake to present Oligochaeta as an higher-order grouping than Clitellata?--Sannab 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rewritten the "Controversy" section such that it retains the citations and spirit of the meaning, but without the extensive peacocking (see

re Peacocking and NNPOV/COI in "Controversy" - Thanks, Hananekosan. I am Ryan, and was only trying to clarify.. I'm definitely not trying to present info under a COV or to self promote. Still getting the hang of the tutorials. Studiomacleod (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryan. Yeah, I figured you were one and the same and I wanted to try to let you know about some of the policies before you had put a lot of work into things, only to find your work undone or yourself banned. To be honest, I don't think the hoax/controversy/confusion (depending on POV, I guess) belongs in this article as this article should remain about the Tubifex tubifex itself, and not so much events related to them. Now, it's possible the hoax/controversy/confusion itself is notable enough that it could warrant its own article, judging by the notabilty requirement for articles, although I am not sure it would be considered encyclopedic enough. If you feel strongly about it (and think you can avoid COI and can maintain a NPOV, which are challenges for anyone when writing about something they have personal interest or involvement in) you might consider writing a draft article in your userspace (not the main Wikipedia space) and asking for comment on it befor eyou publish it to the mainspace. Like i said, I don't know if it will cut it in the encyclopedic arena, but notability is notabilty and I believe the incident was notable enough to quality in the notabilty arena. ;) I'm just one lowly wikipedia editor though, so who knows. I can assure you I do have a NPOV about the incident as well as tubiflex "worms" and friends. If you need any additional help or want to bounce any ideas related to this subject off me, feel free to post here. For unrelated questions/discussion, you can post on my talk page. Thanks, Hananekosan (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the sources don't justify the word "controversy", and youtube links are discouraged. Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, there's a video quite clearly showing that those were tubifex worms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrWRpobA3DM 69.132.79.61 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tubifex tubifex. 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/20120323205300/http://charlotte.news14.com/content/611427/raleigh--sewer-creature--surprises-city-officials to http://charlotte.news14.com/content/611427/raleigh--sewer-creature--surprises-city-officials

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.

• 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) 05:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]