Talk:Austropusilla hilum

Gastropods Low‑importance

	Gastropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods 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.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Austropusilla hilum is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

"Original description"

JoJan, I read your edit summary but I'm still confused. I don't get how it prevents plagiarism accusations, but I'm more concerned about it not making sense to the reader. As a reader, I don't know if it's telling me that it was the description originally given to the mollusk, or a description written for the article, and I really don't know why the article is calling that out since the assumption is anything not quoted verbatim is written originally for the article. Is there another way that we can "prevent plagiarism accusations" without confusing the reader? Schazjmd (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is the description originally given to the mollusk by, in this case, Charles Hedley. I mention this, because I always give the original description in case of PD in order to avoid, by using my own words, actually describing another species. This would happen by the slightest change in meaning of one or more words. The license PD allows me to use the original description. Any reader or student can thus be satisfied that the wording of the description is scientifically correct. My only additions in this case may be the adding of verbs and definite articles so as to make the original description, as always written in telegraphic style or in the style of the former Latin descriptions, more acceptable to the reader. JoJan (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JoJan, adding "by Hedley" helped, thank you! Schazjmd (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]