User talk:Gasmasque

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ornithoprion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moscovian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Gasmasque! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Romerodus, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ma, Moscovian and Pennsylvanian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ornithoprion

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ornithoprion you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ornithoprion

The article Ornithoprion you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ornithoprion and Talk:Ornithoprion/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Romerodus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Romerodus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ornithoprion

The article Ornithoprion you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ornithoprion for comments about the article, and Talk:Ornithoprion/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources problems

Hello Gasmasque. I would like to express my thanks for the considerable expansion you are making on the articles concerning the Eugeneodontida (I hope this will be done with the mythical Helicoprion). However, I would like to point out a defect which is always present in your articles: the absence of cited pages. So be careful, I'm not saying that you have to put them on all the sources, but let's say since you seem to have a number of works, it would be preferable to cite the pages containing precise statements via the sfn or rp model. The Mosasaurus article had the same problem until recently, and it was with my intervention that the problem was corrected. On that note, good luck. Amirani1746 (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally legitimate criticism, I can try to work through this over the next few days. Page numbers are provided for some sources, but in some instances where only a specific quote or section is used it would definitely be more appropriate to cite only that page (regarding book sources especially). This slipped my mind to do previously, thank you for bringing it to my attention! Gasmasque (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For normal papers, we usually don't do that even for featured articles, but for longer ones, and especially books, they may be requested. But precise page numbers are usually always of advantage. If you need to cite multiple different pages of a single reference throughout the article, the easiest way is to use rp-templates; you just stick them directly behind the inline citation, e.g. <ref name="boyd2009"/>{{rp|3–5}} to cite pages 3–5. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gasmasque thanks for responding ! Hope that the suggested changing that i've proposed will be done soon ! Amirani1746 (talk) 15:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone in and added page numbers where appropriate for Romerodus and Ornithoprion, using the template above, let me know if you have any further comments! Gasmasque (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Helicoprion is in your future project ? That's my only question for now. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, no. I would consider it a mostly finished article already, and I imagine it only needs some relatively minor adjustments to the prose and maybe a couple new content additions to go to GA. You can talk with @Hemiauchenia or @NGPezz since they wrote its current iteration. I have already made some minor adjustments to Helicoprion to clarify that the holotype of H. ergasaminon has been rediscovered and to fix a couple minor spelling errors, but that's about the extent of what I plan to do. Current priorities are finishing translating and writing for Parahelicoprion and Sinohelicoprion and significantly expanding the articles for members of the family Eugeneodontidae proper. I'm also working on-and-off on an expansion to Dracopristis currently, but that is nearly done. I appreciate the inquiry! Gasmasque (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirani1746 A year later now and I've finished work on Parahelicoprion, Eugeneodontidae and Dracopristis, and have gone ahead and worked on Helicoprion because of the number of sources I have access to. If you're still interested in working on the page yourself then I would be more than happy to collaborate! Gasmasque (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gasmasque (talk · contribs)! Since I primarily contribute to the French Wikipedia, as soon as I saw that your work on Helicoprion was finished, I started translating it (which is still ongoing). However, I should point out that, out of respect for the sources, they will likely be significantly revised during my translation, a practice I regularly follow. Amirani1746 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Romerodus

The article Romerodus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Romerodus for comments about the article, and Talk:Romerodus/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Paleontology Barnstar
		For your tireless work greatly improving articles about fossil fish especially eugeneodonts, an often neglected topic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ornithoprion

On 3 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ornithoprion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ornithoprion was studied primarily using X-rays of its fossils? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ornithoprion. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ornithoprion), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Holocephali

Hello! Your submission of Holocephali at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Holocephali

On 2 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Holocephali, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that male fish in the subclass Holocephali (pictured) often have special organs on top of their head that are used to grasp females while mating? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Holocephali. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Holocephali), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Special Barnstar
		I just wanted to pop in and say I am so beyond impressed with your work on Holocephali. With this single edit, you expanded the article around 15x, and added over 100,000 bytes to it. That is such a mind-boggling expansion, so thank you for your work. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 00:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ornithoprion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westphalian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ornithoprion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Immobile.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks!

By the way, that's some pretty sweet prehistoric fish and mosasaur art you've got there! A.atokensis (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's always great to see another editor interested in weird prehistoric fish. And thanks for the thanks for the thanks, I suppose! Gasmasque (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not Really. I'm more of a dinosaur guy who dips his toes in the Precambrian, Paleozoic, and Cenozoic sometimes. With that being said though, my favorite prehistoric fish has to be the Cretaceous shark Cretoxyrhina A.atokensis (talk) 00:53, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More about Helicoprion

Hello again, Gasmasque. As I mentioned earlier, I’m currently translating the Helicoprion article into French based on your work. While I find the Description, Classification, and Paleobiology sections to be quite well-structured (though I’ll be making a few corrections), the other two sections seem, in my opinion, rather underdeveloped, if not somewhat poorly done. For the research history of this animal, I think you could take inspiration from other articles that include this type of section, notably Paraceratherium, which features a main subsection dedicated to the discovery of fossils of the species recognized since the 2013 revision, followed by another subsection covering the obsolete or doubtful species. As for the paleoecology section, I sincerely believe that the distribution of the species should be shown on a map, as is done in the Cretoxyrhina article, which clearly displays the fossil locations of its different species. Amirani1746 (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paleoecology and extinction sections are indeed extremely underdeveloped, I've not been super on top of the article and still have more to add. Most of the text elsewhere is not mine, so I can't take any credit for the paleobiology, classification, or description sections as it currently stands; my contributions to the discovery and naming section have largely consisted of moving text around and updating lines that have become outdated since 2021. Personally I don't take issue with how the discovery and naming section is organized, but if you do then feel free to tweak it. My current priority is expanding the underdeveloped sections I threw down on the bottom of the page, and adding additional secondary sourcing for a lot of the article's claims. I want to stress the article is still a work in progress, I just felt it was better to have my edits on mainspace than sitting in my sandbox, since details like the species diagnoses and the status of H. ivanovi required updating. This isn't "my" article, so again I'm more than happy to collaborate to get it as good as it can be. Gasmasque (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gasmasque, what do you think of my partially restructured work on Helicoprion via my draft? The article is currently incomplete but seems to be moving in the right direction in my opinion. Amirani1746 (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the layout, and I appreciate the additions to the text and citation cleanup! Both Ewing's 2017 and Long's 2024 books provide good secondary sources for many of the events described in the "Research history" section, so citations to those can be added as needed. I do disagree with some of your changes to what images are used, namely your removal of the photo of Idaho 5 and the use of Bogdanov's life reconstruction instead of Denis', since the lower jaw anatomy in Bogdanov's is inconsistent with the known fossils (proportionally longer and with the whorl protruding from the tip of the Meckel's). Do you think the specific fossil formations the specimens are known from are better discussed in the "Paleoecology" section than in the discovery (now research history) section? I had considered that myself, and since that section is still a WIP I would be glad to incorporate that information down there. Another comment, it is probably useful to clarify Moscow, Idaho and Moscow, Russia in the text itself, since both places come up. I'm not totally sure about the external links currently in-use, but I don't object to them either. I'll wait for you to do some further edits to comment further, it seems like you're still actively editing it. Gasmasque (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouragement Gasmasque. Lacking access to Ewing's 2017 book, I think I will really need your help in the future to correctly number the pages corresponding to one or more specific statements using the sfn model. Regarding Long's 2024 work, pages 166 to 197 correspond to a chapter specifically dedicated to Helicoprion and related genera, which can be used as a simple article. Regarding DiBgd's reconstruction, I think it's because of the angle of the animal's tooth whorl, which is viewed from below rather than from the side. Aesthetically speaking, I prefer this image to Denis's, which looks "too shark-like" for an animal described as a holocephalan. However, having checked the sources speaking directly of H. ergassaminon, the image in the article as it is currently used is absolutely not its holotype, which is preserved in a different way (the image shows a rather well-preserved tooth whorl, which is not quite the case for "Idaho 5"). When I work in the "research history" sections of various fossil taxa, I rarely cite the geological formations from which the specimens and species originate, except in truly important cases. Since Helicoprion is also known worldwide, I think it's more important to mention this in the "Paleoecology" section. Amirani1746 (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bogdanov's "H. ferreri" reconstruction is from 2008 and is simply outdated; there was cartilage encasing the whorl so that only 11 or so teeth would have been externally visible, and it would not have hung out of the mouth like that. I also both disagree with the assertion that it is any more holocephalan-like (it is certainly more purple), or that illustrating Helicoprion like a typical holocephalan is any more accurate. Good catch on the "Idaho 5" whorl being mislabeled, at the time that photo was taken that specimen wouldn't have even been available to photograph, that's entirely a mistake on my end and I appreciate you fixing it! I don't think any photos of "Idaho 5" are actually available on Commons, unfortunately. I agree moving formation and stratigraphic information to paleoecology is entirely reasonable. Are you intending to take this article to GA or potentially FAC down the line? Gasmasque (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gasmasque At the moment, a FAC seems too much to ask, but I think GA would be the ideal starting point. Amirani1746 (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Gasmasque, i wanted to tell you that we can collaborate together to refine my draft, adding to it or even developing some entire details. Amirani1746 (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I generally try to avoid editing other's sandboxes or drafts, but I am more than happy to have a look and make any corrections if they're needed. Gasmasque (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gasmasque, what do you think about the current state of the draft ? I should clarify because, although I haven't completely reworked the section on synonymous and doubtful species, I did manage to find some sources that weren't so easy to locate, notably Obruchev's (1964). I also completely rewrote the introductory summary. Amirani1746 (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have the 1967 English translation of Obruchev (1964) as well, and also am happy to fact-check and provide any other sources you might not have access to. I'll have a look at the draft when possible and make any small tweaks if I think they are needed. Gasmasque (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few copyedits, changed some wording, and removed a sentence in the section on Campyloprion that I felt diverged a bit far from the topic of Helicoprion. Feel free to revert anything if you disagree with my tweaks. Something I'm not sure about is the replacement of the very complete H. davisii whorl with jaw cartilage with (similarly complete) H. ergassaminon. Personally I prefer the davisii whorl since it shows some jaw cartilage and it sticks out very clearly from the background, but i'm curious why you favor the ergassaminon whorl. Your additions otherwise look very good and are much appreciated, and I'll probably jump back in for expansion once your draft is brought onto mainspace.

As for expansion to the article, I am planning on incorporating information on the sediment-feeding and nautiloid bite traces mentioned in three of Naugolnykh's papers, as well as somewhat more detailed paleoecology information for both the Arta Beds and Phosphoria. I'm not a huge fan of long lists of cohabiting species, but since Lebedev (2009) mentions several other fish genera being found in the same matrix as Helicoprion those might be worth mentioning somewhere. The classification section is IMO also very incomplete and I would like to add more detail about the animal's historic back-and-forth between Chondrichthyes subclasses. I also want to add some secondary sourcing for much of the historic reconstruction section, since Ewing's book covers almost all of them mentioned in that section. GA seems like a very reasonable goal, since I think the article was already close to it and just needed a bit of an extra push. Gasmasque (talk) 14:08, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again Gasmasque for your encouragement and corrections. Regarding the photo of the H. ergassaminon fossil, I chose it because it is an authentic fossil specimen of this taxon, included and even illustrated in the 2013 morphometric revision, numbered as IMNH 30900. However, I still have some doubts concerning the whorl that appears in the current version of the article. Although it contains cartilaginous elements, I currently have no article describing it or even mentioning it in the catalog or concerning its precise specific attribution (the Commons file designates it as Helicoprion sp.). I will indeed reinstate it, if only you had an article that could, I hope, contradict me on this point. Amirani1746 (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: After seeing excerpts from Susan Ewing's book on Google Books (I reiterate that I don't have access to the work myself), it seems to contain some rather important informations about the history of the first known Helicoprion fossil specimen (WAMAG 9080, the holotype of H. davisii). Please feel free to add any relevant information you may have on my draft. Amirani1746 (talk) 15:16, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced from Flickr and is indeed identified as Helicoprion sp. there (although so are other explicitly identified whorls from that uploader). The H. davisii identification is not mine, FanboyPhilosopher/NGPezz is who added the specific identification initially and might have better information on that fossil than I do. It is housed at the Utah Field House of Natural History, but that museum doesn't seem to have their collections catalogue digitally available. I am not hugely attached to any specific taxobox image, but the Utah Field House whorl is a particularly appealing fossil. The Paris Tropical Aquarium's cast of a H. bessonowi whorl is another strong contender for the taxobox, if going by aesthetic appeal and completeness. I don't think a taxobox image necessarily has to be a specific species or a specimen of particular prominence, also, since plenty of paleo GAs or FAs use reconstructed museum mounts or casts thereof as taxobox images. If your preference is for an identified specimen then I don't think that's an issue, of course. Gasmasque (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gasmasque, I am happy to announce that I have finally finished the "Research history" section, and you are now free to correct or even add your own personal modifications! Amirani1746 (talk) 11:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gasmasque ! As I have currently written the section dedicated to the history of research on "Helicoprion" and am currently adjusting most of the chapters and sources, I would like to point out a few things. First, I would need your help to cite the page numbers in the SFN templates for the works of Zangerl (1981) and Ewing (2017). Second, although I know the "Paleocology" section is not yet finalized, the summary doesn't emphasize this point enough, and even contradicts it, so I would like you to fix this detail. Cordially, Amirani1746 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! I've been taking a short break from editing but am back now and will make some adjustments over the next few days. Gasmasque (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Gasmasque ! Although I still don't know how to continue developing the article on Helicoprion, I would like to mention that the vast majority of sfn models in the works of Zangerl (1981) and Ewing (2017) do not have cited pages corresponding to their claims. Amirani1746 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can get to adding those, I just finished an FA nomination that I had been devoting a lot of time on-wiki towards. Your additions to the article all look good, and I appreciate the corrections as well. Sorry for going radio silent for a while there, I'm still interested in helping to bring the page to GA. Gasmasque (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

one cooki

hi this is dee giving u a cookie Duskdishwasher (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Haii :3 nomz teh cookeh Gasmasque (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Holocephali is under review

Your good article nomination of the article Holocephali is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iniopteryx

Hi Gasmasque. You tagged this article with {{Close paraphrasing}} but didn't provide an URL. Do you happen to remember what this article is paraphrasing from? — Tenshi! (Talk page) 00:08, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I had gotten distracted from correcting some sections, apologies that the tag even still needs to be there! The closely paraphrased source is Zangerl & Case (1973), which earlier drafts of this article were apparently patchwritten from. I'll correct the tag to include the URL. Gasmasque (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Holocephali is on hold

Your good article nomination of the article Holocephali has been placed on hold, as the article needs some changes. See the review page for more information. If these are addressed within 7 days, the nomination will pass; otherwise, it may fail. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ornithoprion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the club

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Ornithoprion

Congratulations, Gasmasque! The article you nominated, Ornithoprion, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Holocephali has failed

Your good article nomination of the article Holocephali has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ZKevinTheCat -- ZKevinTheCat (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]