User talk:JoJan/Archive 10

Happy New Year

Dear JoJan,

Our vision for Wikipedia is one of beauty, natural symmetry and light.

I wish you a Happy New Year, everything good for your family, your loved ones and yourself, peace and joy for all the people of the world. I also wish a joyful and peaceful expansion for Wikipedia, may it bring helpful, generous, and peaceful information to everyone.
All the very best from Invertzoo (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help on the T-37 picture

-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Toad

Please pay attention to intermediate edits before reverting.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

List of biologists

Please stop removing red links from lists and at the same time asking people not to add them. It is perfectly acceptable to add red links to a list, and it is a good idea for people to do so as it acts as a placeholder for future articles. Viriditas (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I follow the editing guidelines of Wikipedia:Red link : "However when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. " (the bolding is mine). How can someone possibly know if the addition of a name with a red link in this list isn't a hoax, or if this person fits the requirements of WP:N ? It is not the task of each reader of this list to check the validity of the inclusion of a name with a red link. On the contrary, it is the task of the person including a new name to write the article first so that everyone can check at once the validity of the inclusion in the list. I hope this answer satisfies you. JoJan (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

JoJan, we've already been over this: That recommendation was added unilaterally by User:UnitedStatesian on March 14, 2008.[5] without any discussion. You know that. There was never any discussion about adding that scope to a guideline that had been in place for years. And, that's right, it's a guideline. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of WP:OWN, as it appears that you think you are in "charge" of this list. How can anyone know if a red link is a hoax or is notable? How is that any different from a blue link? It isn't. We are constantly removing hoaxes and non-notable articles from the encyclopedia. Are you trying to argue that every red link is suspect? Viriditas (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've written numerous new articles in wikipedias in different languages (over 1,000 and then I stopped counting) and I never have claimed to own an article. So, don't point your finger in that direction. And indeed, now I see that we had this discussion before. Then you had included the name "Lynn J. Rothschild" as a red link and you still haven't written her biography (You stated : For what it is worth, I do intend to create the article on Dr. Rothschild)..However my main concern is the possibility of the inclusion of a hoax or some schoolboy including his own name. You're an experienced contributor and surely you do realize the dangers of red links in a list. And I not only rely on Wikipedia:Red Link but also on "Listed items" in WP:L : "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.". A red link in a list does not satisfy these requirements. It further states : "it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say". A red link in a list does not cite sources. Furthermore, in case of a living person, WP:BLP states : "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." These are all valid reasons why not to include red links in a list. JoJan (talk) 16:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following you. How does a red link not satisfy verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view? Viriditas (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read carefully the guidelines I explained above, you would see that it is up to the editor to cite sources. A red link does not cite sources or is not linked to cited sources. Therefore verifiability and notability can not be assessed without an extra effort each time a reader accesses this list. Most won't even bother. This opens the door to hoaxes or to every schoolboy who deems his name to be included in this list. JoJan (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true for all content: linked, unlinked, red linked, whatever. Even using references isn't a guarantee that they are accurate. If you truly believe that red links "open the door to hoaxes", then we are simply operating on two different assumptions about the fundamental nature of reality. It's not important enough for me to continue this line of reasoning, as it seems to cross the line over to OCD. Do what you want, I'm done here. Viriditas (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I regret that we cannot reach an agreement. Perhaps we are both talking on different levels. You about red links in general. Me about red links in lists about people. Therefore, I've asked for a third opinion in Wikipedia:Third opinion. I'd like to know who is right and who is following guidelines in a right way. And I'm sorry that you think I'm crossing the line to OCD. Nobody before has accused me of such a behavior. Anyway, we'll soon find out what a third person thinks about this discussion. And I hope this will end this discussion. JoJan (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

This is a difficult question because both of you are, to some extent, reasonably correct. Red links do serve as place holders for creating articles in the future and red links are hard to verify and do open the door to hoaxes. The letter of the guideline does imply that 'unreferenced' red links should be removed but the guideline also seems to leave the door open for the existence of red links as place holders for future articles. However, on the balance, and particularly in this list (List of biologists) I would err on the side of excluding red links. The list is long and the advantages of including yet another biologist seems slight if no one is creating the article on that person. Also, in the case of BLP, the bar for verifiability is generally higher for good reasons and the credibility of wikipedia is the most vulnerable when non-notable persons are made notable by the encyclopedia. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I generally concur with what Regent's Park just said about erring on the side of excluding red links, particularly with regard to lists of people, though that doesn't mean all red links should always be deleted. I think at a minimum, before deleting a red link, at least stick the name in google, and see if obvious reputable sources come up to verify a legitimate inclusion. I just perused through some of the red-links on the List of biologists and easily see them referenced in pubmed articles and science journals and 1911 encyclopedias etc. I haven't gone through all of them, but for all that come up obvious like this, I would leave them red-linked on the list, and only delete names where there is doubt. --MPerel 06:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I thank you both for giving a balanced third opinion. I have no problem with red links in general as they tend to become blue links as time passes by. As to red links in lists, I want to state this. I’ve created a number of lists full of red links, mostly as an adjunct to botanical articles. Such a species list is created by me as a complete list (after much research) (e.g. List of Epidendrum species). When somebody else adds a new species to such a list, I check the validity of this addition and act accordingly. This could be a newly described species or it could be a synonym of an accepted name in the same or a different genus. In case of a synonym I add (synonym of the accepted name… + authorship), but I don’t delete the entry.

As you can see, I have no trouble with red links in general, even in lists. I do find trouble with red links in lists about people. These lists aren’t made by one or two persons (and therefore closely guarded against vandalism or mistakes), but each link is added by a different contributor. A blue link is OK (the guidelines of notability and verifiability then apply to the linked article itself). A red link, on the other hand, can spell trouble. User:Mperel has checked the validity of all the red links and they are OK. Fine. But each and every time a new reader opens this list, they will have to check again and again the validity of these red links. Will they do that ? Most, if not all, won’t even bother. Until a journalist discovers (or has been tipped off) that a schoolboy’s name (or even his/her name) has been added to this list and remained there for a long time. The press will have a field day and wikipedia will stand shamefaced. And what possibly can happen will happen. Therefore it is my firm opinion that red links in lists of people should be excluded. It is also my firm belief that one should first create the article and only then add it to a list of people. That is the only way to be reasonably sure that everything is OK. Newly created articles are checked by the NP patrol and a hoax won’t pass. After all, we can't be careful enough because we are talking about people. JoJan (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with you on this. Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Hi there, I noticed that you had blocked an IP address a while back, this person (or persons) has continued to vandalize since that time and has recently been given a final warning. This user has ignored the final warning and continued to vandalize pages. I dont know the process to get a member blocked or anything, so I figured you could help. here is the IP talk page:

User_talk:70.91.51.98

Thanks

- Matt Stu pendousmat (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given a level-2 warning, as this is a dynamic IP. We must assume that each time we're dealing with a different person. Anyway, there was recently only one vandalism and this could be seen as a test edit. JoJan (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hubert Minnebo

Omdat je hier geregeld bent, wilde ik je even melden dat ik Hubert Minnebo zojuist hebt aangeboden in de nl:Wikipedia:Etalage/Aanmelding kandidaten/Aanmeldingen. Vriendelijke groeten, Davin (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Antwoord in nl.wikipedia JoJan (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

About the genus Cymatium

Hello JoJan. I wanted to ask you: I have been doing a little bit of work on the marine genus Cymatium in the family Ranellidae. As you may already know, Graham Bould [1] has for quite a long time now been creating numerous articles on all kinds of marine mollusks based on the nomenclature, descriptions, etc that are used in a standard book from 1979 on New Zealand mollusks by Powell. This is a source I am personally not familiar with, never having seen the book yet. Powell apparently used what I would call the subgenera of Cymatium, but he elevated them to genera. I have come across that usage before, however those subgenera were based on morphology only, not cladistics. A lot of well-regarded malacologists (such as Gary Rosenberg of ANSP) do not elevate these subgenera, but leave them as subgenera. I need to decide how we will handle this in the English Wikipedia, because currently it is confusing, as we have a number of articles on species as Cymatium and a number of articles on species within Turritriton and so on. Do you have any suggestions about this problem? Thanks Invertzoo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I’ve done some research in Google about the taxonomic status of Cymatium. As to be expected, it is a rather difficult question. I’ve found three recent publications but there were some differences of opinion in regards to the validity of some species/subspecies.

• Thomas Henning & Jens Hemmen (Ranellidae & Personidae Of The World - 1993) [2]
• Ranellidae And Personidae: A Classification Of Recent Species (Betty Jean Piech - 1995); Wilmington, Del. : Delaware Museum of Natural History, 1995.
• Indo-West Pacific Ranellidae, Bursidae and Personidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) (Alan G. Beu - 1998) [3]

A good explanation about Ranellidae and Cymatium is given on this website : www.jaxshells.org This website considers Turritriton as a subgenus of Cymatium.

• Family Ranellidae
• the genus Cymatium

Older publications, that may not be up-to-date anymore. I cannot consult them, but you may perhaps :

• BEU A. G.  ; KAY E. A. - Taxonomy of gastropods of the families Ranellidae (=Cymatiidae) and Bursidae. IV: the Cymatium pileare complex; Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand ISSN 0303-6758, 1988, vol. 18, no2, pp. 185-223 (an abstract)
• Taxonomy of gastropods of the families Ranellidae (= Cymatiidae) and Bursidae. II: Descriptions of 14 new modern Indo-West Pacific species and subspecies, with revisions of related taxa New Zealand journal of zoology ISSN 0301-4223, 1986, vol. 13, no3, pp. 273-355

The next two can be consulted in full (a HTML-file and a .pdf-file)

• Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand vol 17 1987 (a HTML file)
• A new subgenus and species of Cymatium (Mollusca, Gastropoda). American Museum novitates ; no. 2137, New York, N.Y. : American Museum of Natural History, 1963 (a pdf file)

In my opinion Graham Bould is doing good work, although he relies on a somewhat older book. However, the three books on top probably have newer insights. Perhaps they can be consulted in the library of your museum. JoJan (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your very careful reply JoJan, with all its attendant information, some of which I knew about and some I didn't. That's kind of you. I suppose I also meant to raise the more general question: to what extent should Wikipedia recognize subgenera and subspecies? Do these more minor taxa deserve their own articles, or should subgenera be subsumed under an article about the genus, and subspecies be subsumed under an article about the species? Invertzoo (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, most subgenera and subspecies don't deserve their own articles, unless they have been described in detail in scientific journals. JoJan (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan, I tend to agree with you. I feel that (as a general rule), most subspecies and subgenera can be adequately listed/mentioned in the relevant species or genus article, and do not require their own article. Invertzoo (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token cbb10c1928a3e50841fed39dfbe91545

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Gastropod Valentine

A very Happy Valentine's day to you! -- Invertzoo (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Old taxonomy of gastropods

Hello, I think we should split old taxonomy of gastropods in article Gastropoda into separate article. The page is already a bit long (35 kb) right now and old taxonomy is not much usefull. Could be name Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Ponder & Lindberg, 1997) correct? Thank you for your help and suggestions. Have a nice day, --Snek01 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK with me. JoJan (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Year corrected to 1997. --Snek01 (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Achyranthes.splendens.var.s.jpg

Just to let you know that I recently copied the above image that you uploaded to Wikipedia over to WikiMedia Commons, the Wikimedia central media repository for all free media. The image had been tagged with the {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} template. Your image is now available to all Wikimedia projects at the following location: Commons:File:Achyranthes.splendens.var.s.jpg. The original version of the image uploaded to Wikipedia has been tagged with WP:CSD#I8. Cheers! --Captain-tucker (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Chondrina

Hello, are you familiar with Chondrina? Maybe we should move a synonym(?) Talk:Chondrina clienta? --Snek01 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I had to look it up. My books on European snails mention Chondrina clienta. A Google Scholar search shows that Bruno Baur and Anette Baur of the Department of Integrative Biology, Section of Conservation Biology (NLU), University of Basel, are the ones who have the most publications about this snail. And they always mention Chondrina clienta. This makes me believe that this is the accepted name in recent publications.Anyway, it would be advisable to make a redirect from Chondrina arcadica JoJan (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This problem is very misleading for me. Does in mean that Ch. clienta is a synonym for Ch. arcadica or Ch. arcadica is a synonym for Ch. clienta? And no other problems will arise? If it is so, we can only choose the name of article and other will be a synonym and that will be OK. I was afraid that the problem was more difficult before.

Should we prefer prior name arcadica (1881) instead of clienta (1883) on wikipedia? Or do we not care about it and do we prefer the name which is used more often? This would be good to know in making other articles in the future. --Snek01 (talk) 14:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michal. Animal base states that arcadica (1881) is prior to clienta (1883). Logically then, as priority takes precedence, Chondrina arcadica should be used. But to complicate things further, the site ZipcodeZoo gives clienta as a subspecies of C. arcadica [4] (and confusingly gives it again as C. clienta [5]) as does Biolib [6] and this site [7]. A Google search for C. arcadica gives 177 hits, but a Google search for C. clienta gives 977 hits. Checking scientific publications, I only found C. clienta in recent publications. For instance, in their "A phylogeny of the land snails (Gastropoda: Pulmonata)." (Proc Biol Sci. 2001 February 22; 268(1465): 413–422. ) [8] (pdf available), the authors mention Chondrina clienta in their molecular phylogenetic analysis. As a conclusion, in this case I would follow the scientific journals and take C. clienta as the accepted name. But this cannot be generalized. JoJan (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Apogastropoda

Okay. I think I get it. I am new to the subject, but I think what you are saying is that a new system favours zapping Apogastropoda, but Vetigastropoda will remain, and everyone in the field is trying to switch over. Thanks for the help. Please let me know if I am on the right track, or if there are stubs that need making. I think I really like these critters. One day they'll figure out how to use the slime to make the best ever shaving cream. Just a hunch.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandeae

You wrote "largest subtribe with more than 1,000 species in 103 genera, including about 208 (38%) hybrid genera". The last two numbers don't seem to make sense, so a correction/clarification would seem to be in order. (See also Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. That's already an old mistake. I've corrected it. JoJan (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Composite images

Hi JoJan, I wanted to ask you what you feel about the composite images that Anna has been putting in the new stub articles for the major gastropod taxa. Personally I don't have a problem with the composite images, in fact I quite like them because they are attractive visually and I feel they do no harm. (I suppose if necessary they could be supplemented with a footnote that lists the species or genera shown in them.) Snek however seems to disapprove of them and feels that they are not appropriate; I think he feels they are not scientific enough in this context. I would say it is not a big deal at all either way. I would appreciate your input on this question, best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I like them, especially for articles about families and the ranks above. They give a nice overview of the different species within that rank. And furthermore, it's pleasing to the eye and may attract more readers. A caption is optional. Anna is doing a good job and has become an asset for this project. JoJan (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you JoJan, I agree with you 100% on your comments. Anna is doing very well indeed. It is great to have a talented new person contributing like this to Project Gastropods. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks. Such kind words. I just wanted to say that I didn't mean to just jump in and start making these composites without consulting anyone. It just sort of happened that way. I made that new stub and made a composite pic, and just went from there. I am sorry. I should have asked first, regardless.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

No really, it's fine, it's just great. JoJan and I both like the composites very much and of course we also like what you have written in the articles. One of the prime exhortations of Wikipedia is to: "Be Bold"! And I have to say it's a great idea to be bold when contributing. We all just wade in and try to do what seems like the right thing to do, using our own judgement. If we all had to ask permission before we did something, it would all be too slow and we would never get anywhere. I am very impressed indeed how well you are doing with this gastropod stuff, and it is just lovely to have a new contributor here. All good wishes, sluggy Susan Invertzoo (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on the Project talk page

Any chance that you can weigh in on this JoJan? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hi JoJan, Yesterday I managed finally to get a good look at a copy of: Powell A W B, New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1, which is the book that GrahamBould has been using as his source for the many hundreds of New Zealand mollusc articles he has been creating for the last three years. The descriptions are not rewritten, but instead are reproduced either totally verbatim or very nearly verbatim from the text of the book, without being rendered as a quote. I asked GB about this a long time ago and he assured me he was not doing this. He may not realize that this is a problem, since he is not an academic. Now I am not sure how we should proceed. What should we do? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that I asked GB this general question on the 26th February 2008, in a message entitled "Doto pita and others" where I gave him a link to the WP Copyrights guideline, and quoted part of those guidelines in my message. Invertzoo (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Susan, if this is really so (I cannot check this, since I don't have a copy of this book), then we have to deal with this as a copyvio. Wikipedia is very stern in these matters : Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Those pages may have to be re-written from scratch and this would be terrible blow to our project. Since you're able to compare the original text with the text in wikipedia, I would advise to take up contact with Graham and explain the matter to him again. I'm sure he will understand. He may not be fully aware of the problem and may have acted in good faith. See what you can do. JoJan (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi JoJan, GB answered this morning on my talk page. I have not replied yet. He says he did indeed copy from Powell, he explains why, and he says he is going to start fixing the articles. I want to offer our support and help (as much as we realistically can help without any of us having a copy of the book in our hands, which is a very real limiting factor). I also want to ask him please to tackle the clean-up in a clear and precise order and sequence, for example, to start by working alphabetically one by one through the articles that are listed in the category Gastropods of New Zealand. And please to keep us updated on where he is in the sequence, (perhaps leaving messages on the gastropod project talk page weekly) so that we can check the articles as he progresses through the list. I think he is going to try to rewrite the "Shell description" sections of the articles, but I need to tell him that some of the other info will also need rewriting in those places where he has copied it verbatim or almost verbatim. I wanted to run this by you before I replied to his message. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

As I assumed, he acted in good faith. We all know how difficult it is to give an original twist to the description of these little animals. But all is well that ends well. JoJan (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A category created by mistake

This category (a supposed gastropod family) is incorrectly spelled.[9] The correct category exists, that is Aporrhaidae at [10]. Can I ask you JoJan how do we go about getting it deleted? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the category Aporrhaididae. JoJan (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan, I appreciate that. Invertzoo (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Snek proposes a bot action to work on the gastropod talk pages

As he says on the project talk page: "I have suggested a task for a bot Wikipedia:Bot requests#robot for WikiProject Gastropods. Feel free to share your opinion. --Snek01 (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)"

I replied:

"All of us will need to be very careful indeed with checking your instructions, in order to make sure they are completely watertight before this bot action is approved. I already found one crucial spelling error in your instructions: "-idea" instead of "-idae". An error in the instructions could be disruptive to a huge number of article talk pages, and then we would be worse off than we were before the whole thing started. Invertzoo (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)"

Thanks for taking a look at this, Invertzoo (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This bot could be useful, when given the right instructions. JoJan (talk) 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Mollusca

Hi, thanks for the point that it's the largest marine phylum by number of species. However:

• the lead section should not contain info that's not in the main text.
• for consistency w the rest of the article you should use the appropriate citation template, in this case {{cite web}}, with all required params. See User:Philcha#Sources and User:Philcha#Tools for info and tools that will help in this. --Philcha (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Winston Ponder

Hi JoJan, There was not much wrong with the English really, just a few things that looked as if they could be improved with some tweaking, so I went ahead and did that. You are welcome, ask me anytime for that kind of help. Best, Susan Invertzoo (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. JoJan (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

An example taxobox for the project page

Hi again, I wanted to say that I think it would be good on the project page to show a completely filled in taxobox down to the species level, that is based correctly and completely on the taxonomy of Bouchet & Rocroi, so that it includes the unranked clades. Honestly I must admit I have forgotten how to write the clades myself so that they show up correctly in the taxobox, and it would certainly make it easier for Anna too, plus anyone else we are lucky enough to attract to Project Gastropods. JoJan, do you know off-hand a gastropod article that has a perfectly filled in taxobox down to the species level? If so then we should use that as an example. Thanks so much, Susan Invertzoo (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I now made a "Copy and paste example for a species" at WikiProject Gastropods, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gastropods/Taxonomy

--Snek01 (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately then there is a project page too wide. Can you fix it, please? --Snek01 (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know how to do that. But just now tried to cobble together a "perfect" filled-out taxobox to the species level and put it on the Project page. Take a look. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Questions about a nudibranch taxobox

Anna has been asking me and I don't know the answer. In her nudibranch taxobox she said and I said:

Mollusc - phylum
Gastropoda - classis

After that, the B&R taxonomy goes like this:

Opisthobranchia - informal group
Nudipleura - clade
Nudibranchia - subclade
Euctenidiacea - clade
Doridacea - subclade

But in the taxobox it needs to be entered: (I will try to find out what to do from JoJan)

Opisthobranchia - ???
Nudipleura - ???
Nudibranchia - ???
Euctenidiacea - ???
Doridacea - ????

Then after that it is easier, it goes:

Doridoidea - superfamilia
Dorididae - familia
Halgerda - genus
H. willeyi - species
Halgerda willeyi - binomial

Thanks for any help you can offer JoJan, Invertzoo (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll come to that a bit later. I'm working again on the biography of Winston Ponder at this moment. JoJan (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just created the article Bornella (Susan, could please check my English ?) and the corresponding taxobox. I've tried to express the clades and the subclades in the taxobox in the best way I could think of. But the problem is, the code in the taxoboxes still use the Linnean taxonomy and we have to make the best of it. I've raised this matter in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life/Archive23#Taxoboxes_and_cladistics. It would probably be better to build "unranked" code from scratch. In the mean time, we have to do with what we've got. JoJan (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, that was a clever way to manage for the time being on the Bornella article. I did check your English and changed a few things to make the prose a little better. I also put headings in; even though it is a short article and therefore technically doesn't need headings, they do make it easier to compare one species' info with another's. --unsigned Invertzoo.

Hello JoJan and Invertzoo, I answered at Wikipedia_talk:Taxobox_usage#Taxoboxes_and_phylogenetic_taxonomy. Feel free to edit even my message. Let me to know if I understand the "unranked" problem correctly. --Snek01 (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A question from Graham Bould

Hi JoJan, I do not know if this is possible. Here is the question:

One thing would be very helpful - how can I produce an alphabetically-sorted complete list of Wiki articles started by me (not amendments)? GrahamBould (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

best, Invertzoo (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This requires a Javascript. Graham should put his question at Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Requests. Maybe such a script already exists, maybe not. But I'm sure someone will give a helping hand.. JoJan (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A B&R template

JoJan, what do you think of the idea of creating a little B&R template for gastropod talk pages saying that "WikiProject Gastropods is gradually standardizing the taxonomic treatments within gastropod articles according to "......B&R. We could put the template on the talk pages of the few gastropod articles that do have up to date taxonomy, so that others outside editors to do not come in and change the taxonomy, either in the taxobox or in the text, as just happened with Sigmurethra. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this would be fine. On the other hand, a bot could put this template on all Gastropoda articles, indicating that the taxonomy shown in the taxobox is not up-to-date. JoJan (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Jojan

Hello, I am Korean user trying to translate Chervil and came to know you are the main contributor who seems to give me a hand. Searching for chervil, I came to find out the Anthriscus, too. But my question is what the exact difference is between chervil and Anthriscus in that two pages are distinct. For translating process, it is required to name it correctly.(Actually, the difficulty lays in the fact that we do not use much herbs like westerners' in our cuisine) Is it better to put together the two?... Please let me know those for writing for new parts Pju0353 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Anthriscus is the botanical article dealing with the genus. "Chervil" deals with the species Anthriscus cerefolium and its uses. Both articles are too short and should undergo a serious expansion. Normally we use the scientific name for articles about botanical species, except when the common name is well accepted, as it is in this case. JoJan (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much ! Your answer is quite helpful. I would consdier that. Thanks. Pju0353 (talk) 05:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A very large and widespread CopyVio problem

I want to alert all Project Gastropods staff to the fact that we currently have a very major CopyVio problem which compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia, and opens the door for legal action against Wikipedia. This problem is spread across a huge number of gastropod articles (approximately 800 to 1,000) and it also spills over into the other molluscan groups. I am asking ask everyone who is available to help out with this in whatever way they can, but please do so in an organized and unified fashion so we all know what is going on. It seems that all of the articles in the Category: Molluscs of New Zealand [11] contain a great deal of text that is copied verbatim or almost verbatim from the 1979 book by Powell, New Zealand Mollusca. I have had no experience in dealing with a crisis of this magnitude. Any help that any of you can offer or suggest is more than welcome.

So far GB and I have not really made any headway on fixing this problem, despite my suggestions, and a useful suggestion from Snek. As you will see from GB's talk page and his contributions list, not much has been achieved. We may have to simply start blanking text in the articles, possibly by using a bot? Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Update on trying to solve the CopyVio problem

This situation seems urgent and important so I have taken the step of reporting the situation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. We will see what they think should be, or could be, done. Invertzoo (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Another update on CopyVio problem

To WPGastropods members and other interested parties:

If you have not already done so, please look at the thread of messages at: A very large and widespread CopyVio problem

And read the message on the Gastropod talk page conversation. from an admin who is an expert on fixing CopyVio problems, Moonriddengirl (talk).

Also please look at/read through the two new subpages created from the WikiProject Gastropods talk page, and listed at the top of [12].

I am sorry but I have to be careful not to type too much, because I hurt my hand and fingers early this week, so rather than attempting to explain the progress so far in detail, I am leaving it up to you to read the messages and work out what is going on.

Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Onze-Lieve-Vrouw-ter-Duinenkerk (Mariakerke)

JoJan, ik heb een aantal foto's van die mooie kerk op Commons geplaatst. Gezien de foto's die nu op de nl-pagina van jou zijn, laat ik het aan jou over of je ze in het artikel plaatst. Groet Thundercloud (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ik heb een foto toegevoegd aan het artikel. JoJan (talk) 15:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

B&R template for gastropod article talkpages

What do you think of this JoJan? To go under the other template on the talk pages.

Note: The taxonomy used in this article is not yet up-to-date. WikiProject Gastropods is gradually working to modernize and standardize the taxonomic treatments according to the Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). Please do not use terminology from other sources. Thank you.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The text is fine with me. But the pale yellow color doesn't stand out and draw the attention of the reader. I would prefer a somewhat darker color. JoJan (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It was very good idea to announce the correct taxonomy. But to distinguish this template to articles with correct and incorrect taxonomy is not good because it is not practical. Previously I thought, that taxonomy can be updated in semi-automated way only. Today I found out that it is possible to update taxonomy in taxobox automatically by a bot. We have to only decide if all information should be in taxobox (easy to do by a bot, complete infomation, but not good if there will be changes in taxonomy in the future) or if some information (clades and informal groups) may be ommited in genera and species articles (very easy to do by a bot, easy for possible taxonomic changes without bot in the future). Althought guide does not mention clades, the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/taxobox_usage#Classification recommend to include ranks that are important to understanding the classification. It is probably not good to run a bot for taxonomy now while here are some copyvios (or it should be solved in details). Meantime it can be good to approve bot for wikiproject template. --Snek01 (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:0080caroni3.JPG

File:0080caroni3.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Cooks Tree Boa, Caroni Swamp Trinidad.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Cooks Tree Boa, Caroni Swamp Trinidad.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Longer protection for Apple

Hello JoJan. You and I have both protected this article at various times. I think the problem is severe enough to deserve indefinite semiprotection, though that would be controversial. The last time I did it was for six months. How would you feel about extending your protection to two years? EdJohnston (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of articles on my (very long) watchlist that have more or less reached maturity, such as Apple. Changes to these articles are almost always stupid vandalism. However, to allow new users and IPs the possibility to add valuable changes to these articles, I've never exceeded a period of 1 month for semi-protection. In most cases semi-protection for 1 month has proven its effectiveness and keeps those articles from my watchlist. The moment the protection expires and vandalism is up again, I semi-protect again for 1 month. This takes little effort and we're safe again for 1 month. Therefore I don't see the need for longer protection. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Query re minor addition to protected Mona Lisa

Hello JoJan, I would like to add a sentence to the last paragraph of protected Mona Lisa and the extra external links, along the lines below. Do you agree, or have any suggestions? Please advise how I submit this. Thanks (signed after text)

In 1963 Andy Warhol created serigraph prints of the Mona Lisa, in an effort to reduce her gravity to that of a disposable modern icon; to a similar cultural stature of the modern celebrities Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley. Susan Dorothea White has interpreted the masculine proportions of Mona Lisa's cranial architecture in her anatomical artworks Anatomy of a Smile: Mona's Bones (2002) and Mona Masticating (2006). A later reproduction of the Mona Lisa was discovered... etc.
External links:
http://www.leonardosshoes.com/gallery/2002monasbones_SILS.html
http://www.leonardosshoes.com/gallery/2006monamastic_SILS.html
Gorflet (talk) 08:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I wouldn't add the sentence about Susan Dorothea White. I suppose that hundreds, if not thousands of artists have tried to give their own interpretation of Mona Lisa. There is simply no room for them in this article. Perhaps you can start a new article "Artistic interpretations of the Mona Lisa". This would probably become very interesting. But on the other hand, I'm not the custodian of the article Mona Lisa. It is up to the community to allow or disallow such an inclusion. I can only give you advise. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply and advice. I disagree because White's anatomical interpretations are more analytical than the ephemeral street art and hillside art described in this section of the entry. However I found a more relevant subheading and placed the observation after the comment on Leonardo using his own likeness. Best wishes, Gorflet (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Bangkok Riots

I went in after the military today and took some more pics this time of the liberated government house ... see the Dutch village pumo. All of the pictures are CC-BY-SA Waerth (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Lage Herrenberg in Deutschland.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Lage Herrenberg in Deutschland.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

subclade

Hello JoJan, there is no need to write a word subclade in taxobox. See explanation at Talk:Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). --Snek01 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Example: [13] --Snek01 (talk) 21:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Even if the name subclade is used in scientific terminilogy, I tend to agree that it is best, for the sake of uniformity and clarity, to use just the word "clade". I'll revert the taxoboxes as I go along. BTW, I've been adding lately many nudibranch photos from FlickR to the Commons, some of which are really excellent. Check Commons:Category:Aldisa, Commons:Category:Aphelodoris varia, Commons:Category:Dirona albolineata and Commons:Category:Ceratosoma. It's rare to find such beautiful photos about nudibranchs that are released under Creative Commons- Attribution. I've done some work on three species of Cadlina and will begin working on Ceratosoma some time in the future after I return from my trip abroad. JoJan (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

I am slow, JoJan, in passing this out, but you certainly deserve it! Thanks very much. Tim Ross (talk) 09:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

		The Malacology Barnstar
		Awarded to recognize great devotion in the creation and maintenance of high quality articles related to members of the phylum Mollusca. Thank you!

Thanks. JoJan (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Iridaceae

Thanks JoJan!. --EnCASF (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a great job at Iridaceae. JoJan (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope to do so!! :) Thanks again! --EnCASF (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

3 maanden

Jacobh en zijn vriendenclubje hebben me nu voor 3 maanden laten blokkeren. Waerth (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Emberton reference

Hello, JoJan. I was just looking at Polygyridae when I noticed the reference you had added last year - Emberton's 2008 "Polygyrid relations...". I had not yet read it, and clicked on the link in the reference. No luck. I wasn't allowed to see it, perhaps because I'm not a member/customer. (If so, I'm not sure we are allowed to use such references.) Do you know if the site is actually restricted that way, as it seems to be? My browser was set to accept all cookies, so that should not have been a problem. Thanks Tim Ross (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

This link has become a dead link. I've searched a bit further and I was able to find the abstract of this article. I've made a new link to this abstract. JoJan (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Now I remember that fine article. Thanks very much. Tim Ross (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Italic title

Hello,

Why did you put Brasiliopuntia with an italic title ? There is probably a botanical reason, but I dont know it and I am interested. --Tangopaso (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is in accordance with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Italicizing article titles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Did you know that you can italicise titles?. Furthermore, there is a discussion going on to use a bot to italicize titles Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 13. At the moment, I italicize all titles of botanical articles that appear on my (very long) watchlist to avoid possible mistakes by a bot. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:James Ensor.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Ensor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ww2censor (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:James Ensor kopie.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Ensor kopie.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --ww2censor (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

About gastropod common names and capital letters

Hi JoJan, hope you are doing well. I think in Project Gastropod the agreement is that we treat common names without capital letters, right? That seems to be the standard. If so then the titles of Great Grey Slug and Yellow Slug need adjusting. I tried to move each of them, but I was not able to move either, so I am asking you to do it, assuming you think it is the right thing to do. Many thanks. Oh and by the way just recently I have been updating quite a few taxoboxes according to B&R. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Susan. I've noticed you recent work, you're on my (very long) watchlist. As to these common names, my own preferences go to the scientific name in the title with redirects from one or more common names. Most of these common name are rather artificial anyway. And for me, as a non-native speaker, it is difficult to assess the validity of a common name, unless it is mentioned in a dictionary (such as OED). Field guides (such as the series in the National Audubon Society) give a common name for every seashell that they describe. But the common names of seashells have never been standardized. And as to the use of capital letters, I see that field guides prefer capitalized common names. Personally I have no preferences. I know that in my language - the Dutch language - common names are not capitalized. And when a common name redirects to the scientific name, capitalization of the common name isn't that important anymore. And in the article itself, one can do away with capitalization of common names.

I haven't been very active in the gastropod project lately, as I have to defend in the nl.wikipedia a nomination of one of my articles for featured article: nl:Giovanni Battista Piranesi. It's quite likely that it will be selected and that would be my third featured article in the nl.wikipedia. And I have quite a few more that could be considered for nomination for featured article. But only one at a time as such a nomination and defending one's position is time consuming. Best regards. JoJan (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again JoJan, my best wishes to you as you work to get Piranesi and eventually your other good nl articles up to featured article status. I must say I agree with you on the so-called "common names" of gastropods: most of these names are completely artificial, created by people who write handbooks. And most of them are different from one handbook to the next. I much prefer the scientific names as an article heading. I changed the two I mentioned. Thanks for your opinion on that. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The article Pomatiidae

Hi again JoJan, you may be too busy to answer this for a while, but here goes: I was looking at this article and I noticed that the image of what is supposedly" Tropidophora fimbriata " appears to show a sinistral shell. I thought that that was almost certainly incorrect, I figured that the image must have been "flipped" at some point. Then when I tried to research the species, as well as the problem with the flipping, I see that the snail that is shown in the image closely resembles the species Tropidophora reticulata with a wide open umbilicus [14], and does not really appear to resemble T. fimbriata [15]. Best to you as always, Invertzoo (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This wasn't an easy one. First of all the photo in the taxobox (Tropidofora fimbriata haemostoma) has a very low resolution (70 KB) and is somewhat overexposed. The axial ribs are not clearly visible, while axial ribs are a strong element in T. reticulata. This could be an indication that this is T. fimbriata haemostoma. Another strong indication is that this photo was made on the Ile Ronde, 10 km north of the Island of Mauritius. (see Commons:User talk: Thierry Caro#Ile Ronde) (if you understand French). And T. fimbriata haemostoma happens to be endemic to this small island. Therefore this photo MIGHT represent Tropidophora fimbriata haemostoma. But anyway, the taxobox of Pomatiidae deserves a better picture. Best regards JoJan (talk) 09:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the act that the image appears to have been "flipped"? I mean this is not supposed to be a sinistral shell I assume. Invertzoo (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Invertzoo, that was a good finding! I cropped and flipped it correctly and I also informed the author of the photo. --Snek01 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The shell in most gastropods is coiled to the right. Only in the family Clausiliidae and some species of Vertigo and Jaminia are the shells normally coiled to the left. Sometimes freak shells coiled in the opposite direction are encountered but these are almost as rare as finding a four-leaved clover. Therefore I agree that this photo must have been flipped. JoJan (talk) 07:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Orchidaceae genera

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know,since you're fairly knowledgeable in the area, that I'll spend some time revamping this list. I intend to separate hybrids to a List of hybrid Orchidaceae genera (the list has already been moved accordingly), and add slightly more information, but no taxonomic data beyond subfamily identification (Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae already does a great job of that). If you want to keep an eye on the progress, you might want to watchlist User:Circeus/Sandbox/tree. Circeus (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. But you better specify that these are natural hybrids and not artificial hybrids. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of indicating the natural hybrids in List of hybrid Orchidaceae genera by bolding them or something like that. Nomenclaturally there is little difference between a natural and an artificial hybrid genus, and I'm not surewhat would be a good source for natural hybrids. Circeus (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This list might help you Intergeneric orchid hybrids JoJan (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I intended to use the RHS online list and accompanying quarterly updates, though that site is useful for abbreviation not used by the RHS. Circeus (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oceanida move

Hello JoJan! Move request: Oceanida (snail) -> Oceanida. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've also added some more text and references JoJan (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Question about outdated taxa

Hi JoJan, Today I was looking at the article Cerithiimorpha, and I was wondering about our articles (and taxoboxes) for taxa that are no longer current. I see that Mesogastropoda no longer has a taxobox. (I'm assuming it did have one at some point.)

Do you think it is best to remove the taxoboxes from every article on every taxon that is no longer considered valid because it is not monophyletic?

Or if we leave a taxobox in place in an article, as is currently the case in Cerithiimorpha, is there some way that we can indicate this is a historical version of the taxonomy, not a current one?

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Retaining the taxobox would indicate that this taxonomy is still accepted and valid. I think that in all these cases, the taxobox should be removed, but the older taxonomy should be retained in the article. In this case it should also explained that this older taxonomy was once accepted by Ponder and Lindberg. Best regards. JoJan (talk) 07:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

GRAH!!!!!!!!!!!

You, YOU!!! You deleted Missingno. News...mweh heh heh...no matter... I shall......Arceus493 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Glitch out.

Can I ask you some stuff about WikiProject Gastropods JoJan?

Hi JoJan, In two weeks I am going to be on a panel at the first Wiki-Conference New York, and I am going to be talking mostly about Project Gastropods. Is there any chance I can ask you some questions about how you started it and how it progressed? Thanks, best, Invertzoo (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes , you can. I'll see what I can do. JoJan (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan! If you can maybe tell me:

• What was the hardest thing about starting up the project?

• What (if any) were the high points and low points during the first 3 years?

• What do you think of the progress so far?

• What does the project need now more than anything else?

Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Elona

Hello, could you confirm, that Elona is monotypic genus, please? I already made redirect. --Snek01 (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In MALACOLOGIA, 1979, 18: 139-145 there is also mention of a species E. pyrenaica (Draparnaud), closely resembling E. quimpenana (Férussac). There are some differences in in shell shape and structure, as well in the genitalia. The radula are similar, which indicates that they belong to the same genus. You can find a photo on [16]. But this is the only mention I can find of a second species in this genus. JoJan (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That one is maybe also monotypic, Elona pyrenaica -> Norelona pyrenaica, I have no that 1986 Nordsieck's article. Thanks for verifying. --Snek01 (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)