Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

10th anniversary of WikiProject Gastropods

It went almost unnoticed but this project started on 10 May 2004 by me and only in 2006 a second participant came along. In the course of time, the number of participants has been growing slowly and we hope many more will join eventually. Happy anniversary to all editors, past and present, and thanks for your improvements to gastropod articles and all your contributions to the many informative discussions here over the past 10 years. JoJan (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Well that is a really significant anniversary, and I am sorry I overlooked it. JoJan you must be proud to see how the project has grown over the last 10 years. Congratulations and thanks to everyone who has contributed. Invertzoo (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
10 May of 1795 is date of birthday of malacology.[1] Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://zse.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=1087

Limpet

This overview common name article Limpet just got slammed with a lot of templates which were put in place by an IP address editor. It is true that the article does really need a great deal of work, and plus it often gets edited by people who are apparently not very knowledgeable on the subject, and that seems often to cause detrimental changes. The article is currently listed here at the Community Portal as a "fix OR" issues article, so maybe it will get some attention... Hope either way we can work something out to help it get into better shape. These overview articles based on a polyphyletic common name are not at all easy to do well. Invertzoo (talk) 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I re-wrote the intro and greatly cut down the number of templates that were placed on that page; the person who put them on there appears to have been angry at the time and over-reacted. NPOV applies to templating as well as to adding other content. Invertzoo (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Winkle

Another editor, during a discussion about the articles Scallop and Pectinidae, pointed out that a search for "winkle" currently takes a reader straight to the article on Littorina littorea, the common periwinkle, as if that is the only species in the world known as a winkle! That is of course very misleading. I will now try to put together a short overview article about "winkle" as a common name that is applied to many species in several families. Anyone who cares to help out will be very welcome. Invertzoo (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I created a disambiguation page instead. Hopefully that is a better solution. Invertzoo (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

A little comic relief!

Our underwater photographers may get a laugh out of these humorous underwater images. There are a few sea slugs in them if you scroll down. Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

IUCN maps of Conidae

An example of compilaton of the distribution map of Conus abbas based on IUCN Red List spatial distribution data.

Hello, if you are interested in making maps of Conidae there are SHP files at http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/spatial-data Direct link at: http goo.gl/aaGFf5 I made an example of the map. --Snek01 (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Michal for this very useful information. It seems however that many of our members are not active right now, so although this would be a very good idea, I would be surprised if anyone gets round to doing it. Perhaps it may happen at some point in the future. Invertzoo (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the data are made freely available to the public for non-commercial use. Therefore they cannot be used in Wikipedia. JoJan (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The license for images derived from those IUCN SHP files really is CC-BY-SA although is is explicitly written nowhere on the iucnredlist.org webpage. Feel free to verify it at the OTRS Commons:Commons:IUCN Red List – Commons:Template:IUCN map permission. I verified it by myself at the IUCN employee. - Spatial data are available for Conidae only for public download. I will get more information about data for other gastropods sometimes. I will let you know then. --Snek01 (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Angulyagra microchaetophora

I have learnt to make those maps of freshwater molluscs (Bivalvia are within those molluscs datasets together with gastropods. This guide apply also for Odonata and for some other group – probably fishes(?)).

  • 1. Download GDB files from IUCN, unzip.
  • 2. Install ArcGIS for Desktop Advanced (ArcInfo) Single Use (under Windows, ArcGIS works for 60 days in Trial mode). I am not sure if other programs can process GDB files.
  • 3. Run ArcMap.
  • 4. File / Add data / Connect to folder (Navigate to Eastern_Himalayas.gdb folder), Add.
Select the dataset EASTERN_HIMALAYAS_FWMollusc, Add.
  • 5. Selection / Select by attributes /

Click to binomial, click to =, click to Get Unique Values, select a specie you want and click to it. There will be for example: binomial = 'Assiminea brevicula' Verify, OK. Apply. (This will select distribution area of a chosen species.)

  • 6. Right click at "EASTERN_HIMALAYAS_FWMollusc" / Data / Export Data /

Fill Output feature class, for example: "D:\IUCN\Eastern Himalayas Gastropoda\Assiminea brevicula.shp". OK. This will export distribution data files for Assiminea brevicula including the "Assiminea brevicula.shp" file for further use in other GIS programs.

Notes:

  • Datasets available: Eastern Himalayas, Indo-Burma, Pan Africa, Western Ghats. They have freshwater molluscs inside.
  • "Indo Burma" dataset is larger than "Eastern Himalayas" dataset. This means if there is the same species in both of them, use the "Indo Burma" dataset. (example: Assiminea brevicula). But some species are in the "Eastern Himalayas" dataset only. If the species is in more datasets, use all of them.
  • For some species there are some distribution data available, even if they have no map on the IUCN website. Such distribution data may be incomplete. But some of them appear to be complete.
  • No datasets are freely downloadable for terrestrial gastropods. Data for them can be probably obtained one by one requests. I am not sure if the CC-BY-SA licence apply also for terrestrial ones. - (The same question should be resolved for American, European and Australian gastropods and for other marine gastropods.)

--Snek01 (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC), corrected --Snek01 (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to IUCN distribution maps of Gastropoda.

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! Harej (talk) 15:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Copied from the proposal talk page:

Could you explain what you mean by, "to facilitate collaboration across subject areas". Do you mean that the various different projects should be collaborating with one another more than they do? Or do you mean something else, such as that people should collaborate within one project who are currently usually working on different subject areas? Invertzoo (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello Invertzoo, that was clumsy wording on my part. I meant within subject areas. Sorry for the confusion! harej (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy

There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. For example, none of the articles in Category:Mollusc anatomy are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Epipelagic has created a new project, WikiProject Animal anatomy. Interested people will want to go and check it out. Invertzoo (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Rathouisia leonina anatomy

Hello, Rathouisia leonina will appear as a DYK hook. I would like to ask, if you could check out captions on the image File:Rathouisia leonina anatomy.png. I slightly modified Heude's 1880s captions and I would like to be sure, that they are correct. I will modify captions on the image if needed. original image and original image description in French language. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

A new stub about an invalid family

I am curious to see what other people think about this new stub and whether it should become a redirect. Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WoRMS hasn't changed its entry yet. But even then, I think the name of the family will remain valid, even if it is devoid of genera. JoJan (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

So, should I make a taxobox? And change the intro? Invertzoo (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this would be best. JoJan (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it up now. Invertzoo (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A move request

See talk page of Reproductive system of gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Michal for the "heads up" on these important issues! Invertzoo (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Mating of gastropods

This article was first created in May 2014. However the person who created it, User: Melanie VH, wrote it to be only about land slugs, not understanding that land slugs are a very polyphyletic group. We accepted the article, hoping it could become part of a much larger article (or perhaps several articles) on mating in all the different gastropod groups. Unfortunately not much has been added to it at all in the past 8 months. Can anyone add something to it about a group of gastropods that they are familiar with? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If not, then we may have to turn it back into an article about mating in pulmonate land slugs I suppose, because currently it is attracting some negative attention from editors who are outside this project. Invertzoo (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: all Alviniconcha species in one article

Per a recent identification of 6 cryptic species within the formerly monotypic Alviniconcha, I believe they should all be described in one complete article rather than 6 largely redundant stubs. Please see discussion at Talk:Alviniconcha#Proposal: All Alviniconcha species in one article. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Greetings, --Animalparty--! Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with that. JoJan (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with few stubs, there is nothing wrong with red links. Such exceptions are not good. But if it must be for now, then those species in the Alvinichoncha article should be marked in bold. --Snek01 (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I was away when this merge-type listing was proposed. I accept it now how it currently is, but I would have preferred the species to exist as separate articles. It is quite likely that more will become known about these individual species over time. Philosophically I am a Wikipedia eventualist, not an immediatist. Invertzoo (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I marked the species in boldface. Invertzoo (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a big fan of one sentence stubs on cryptic species. But I'm also not a fan of creating redirects from valid binomials to genera. Leaving the red-links would have been better, in my opinion. I've been tagging plant species redirects to genera with {{R plants with possibilities}} (which puts them in Category:Plants redirects with possibilities). Perhaps you could adopt a similar approach for flagging redirects that should eventually be expanded into articles? I realize the editor-base for gastropods is low, and it might be a very long time before the redirects are expanded. Plantdrew (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Approaching 30,000 articles

We are gradually inching our way up towards the 30,000 article mark! Quite a milestone! I remember back in 2009 when Jimmy Wales was very impressed to hear that we had over 2,000 articles on gastropods.

Currently, User:Bernardp is making large numbers of very good start articles on nudibranchs, with many of his fine underwater photographs, enormously improving our coverage of that group. User:JoJan is working away on many more obscure groups of shelled marine gastropods. User:Snek01 comes in every once in a while and creates a good new non-marine gastropod article. I sincerely thank everyone who is still active on this project for their fine work.

Invertzoo (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge? or delete?

A couple of days ago a new stub appeared about Lumaca romana, Roman snails in a historical context. The text, short though it is, was almost unintelligible until I fixed the prose, and this short stub currently has no references at all. The blue links within it are to the Latin Wikipedia. I put a merge tag at the top but unless we can come up with some references, should this be merged, deleted or what? Invertzoo (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

JoJan found a good reference, and the info in that stub has now been merged with the article on Heliciculture. Invertzoo (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Triton (gastropod)- should it redirect to to the family or genus?

Hi all. I've been uploading some old gastropod diagrams to Commons, and came upon some labelled Triton, which is apparently a synonym of Charonia (a redirect to Triton (gastropod). However, the article Ranellidae also says "triton" is a common name for the family. So my question is, which is the most appropriate redirect of Triton (gastropod): the genus, the family, or other? In other words, are there some (or many) species commonly called tritons that are not in the genus Charonia? Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons I'm against naming articles with the common name. Scientific names are unambiguous. One can always make the common name a redirect to the scientific name. Therefore I've made Triton (gastropod) a redirect to Charonia. This should solve the problem. JoJan (talk) 14:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yikes, that's not an easy question to answer. There are no species called "triton" that are not in the family Ranellidae, but I think there are plenty of species that get called "something triton" which are not in the genus Charonia. I do think that Charonia is often called "Triton's trumpet" rather than just "triton", but it might require some google research to see which terms are most often used for which taxa. Also in my experience, common name usage seems to evolve and change over time, so a name that was most often used 40 years ago may no longer be the dominant name now. Invertzoo (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Where are we in the ranking?

A new table ranks WikiProjects by how many changes to all of their pages have been made in the last year. Our project comes in at # 358 out of a total of 2,355. I suppose that is not bad. Invertzoo (talk) 21:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes tracks changes to "project" pages. While I'm not quite sure how that is defined, I assume it probably means changes to pages in Wikipedia space (like this talk page). The table doesn't report number of edits to regular article pages that have a WikiProject banner. The table does measure WikiProject activity in a way, but not in the way you might expect.
There have certainly been more than 261 edits to gastropod related articles in the last year. I suspect that Gastropods rates higher than 358/2355 if edits in articles space are taken into account. Plantdrew (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see! That's interesting! Thanks Plantdrew! Invertzoo (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If counted exactly, we should rank somewhere in the top of the list, since I make about 20 or more changes daily. And that's just me. What about the edits of all the others ? JoJan (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
On the talk page it is pointed out that the report "shows activity of the WikiProject itself, not activity on the articles of that project. In other words, the edits are to pages whose name starts with Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo/." I guess here at the Gastropods Project we don't have that many pages in the Project itself, and most of then are not edited very often. Invertzoo (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Theodoxus fluviatilis for GA?

If anyone has a chance, please check to see how this article is doing during its GA assessment, and help out if you can. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I can help. Do we have enough time? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks so much Daniel for your helpful edits. I would think there is not much time left at all, but the reviewer seems to be patient with us fortunately. Invertzoo (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Gastropods in the literature

Babylonia japonica, a good candidate for an article.
  1. Pila globosa — Pila (Ampullariidae, Not assigned)
  2. Aplysia kurodai — Aplysia (Aplysiidae, Anaspidea)
  3. Pleurobranchaea californica — Pleurobranchaea (Pleurobranchaeidae, Pleurobranchomorpha)
  4. Babylonia japonica — Babylonia (Babyloniidae, Neogastropoda)
  5. Physa heterostropha (provisionally_accepted_name).
  6. Bulla striata — Bulla – bushiq deti (Bullidae, Cephalaspidea)
  7. Semisulcospira libertina — Semisulcospira (Pleuroceridae, Not assigned)
  8. Stylocheilus longicauda — Stylocheilus (monotypic) (Aplysiidae, Anaspidea)
  9. Alderia modesta — Alderia – modest alderia (Limapontiidae, Sacoglossa)
  10. Melanopsis praemorsa — Melanopsis (Melanopsidae, Not assigned)

more (full list)...

These red links are the most written about gastropods that we don't have articles (or redirects) for yet. —Pengo 06:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pengo for this useful list. Unfortunately we are currently very understaffed here at Project Gastropods, with only a very few active members, so I don't know how long it will be before we can take advance of this list to fill in some of the worst gaps in our coverage. Thanks again for your help, Invertzoo (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
No worries. It's a shame there isn't more activity here (seems to be a lot of very quiet WikiProjects), but it's good to see one person holding the fort at least. —Pengo 04:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Pengo. There are three of us that are quite busy here, and another few that are working every once in a while. Invertzoo (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Things are, as they say, snail-paced... --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy

There is a statement on the Project Gastropods banner that states:

"Taxonomy
For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS."

When I create a new article I would like to follow this advice, and in Carinaria cristata I did so. Contrast this with Firoloida where I went along with the established Gastropod-article-in-Wikipedia practice of using unranked clades, a practice which I really dislike. I am sure this matter must have been discussed within the project in the past and I can see that uniformity of practice within Wikipedia is desirable, but, if I reference something to WoRMS, I would really like it to replicate the information contained there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for notifying this. It must be clarified in the Template:WikiProject Gastropods.

Some previous related discussion:

I will do my best to clarify the actual situation. The situation factually has not changed since 2005. We depend on the Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) because it is the only new taxonomy, that classify all gastropods including marine, non-marine and fossil taxa. There are some changes in the taxonomy of gastropods since 2005 – some of those changes are minor and some of those are crucial, but they are always within the sense of Bouchet et al. Every new changes should be handled very carefully with deep understanding of taxonomy of not only the particular group but usually also with understanding of all other gastropods.

The authors of WoRMS also use exactly the same taxonomy scheme by Bouchet et al. including clades as we on Wikipedia do. The WoRMS is made by experts for experts. They know that Pterotracheoidea is within Caenogastropoda/Hypsogastropoda/Littorinimorpha, but WoRMS database does not allow to put many ranks around the ordo rank. Therefore they simplified it and ommited some taxa (because of limitaion of their database). They ommited Hypsogastropoda in this case, but in some other cases they had to omit few more taxa. WoRMS focus on marine gastropods only, therefore we can not rely on WoRMS only. If we would rely on WoRMS only now, then we would not be able classify all gastropods in a unified way.

We can like or dislike it, but as encyclopedians we should at least respect it. Clades are used not for fun, not for make things more complicated, but because they are necessary. "The systematics of some groups [of gastropods], in particular, is so problematic that precludes the advance of other biological fields."[1] I am proud, that taxonomy of gastropods is in the forefront and that we can present it to the general public in an actual way to move human knowledge forward.

  1. ^ Matthews-Cascon H., Rocha-Barreira C. de A. & de Meirelles C. A. O. (2011). Egg Masses of some Brazilian Mollusks. page 11

Therefore it is still valid, that for articles about gastropod species should be taxonomy (using unranked clades) copied from the certain family articles. --Snek01 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Lottia alveus picture

Does someone know how to upload this figure from the UK wikipediauk:Файл:Lottia alveus.jpg#filelinks to Commons? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! I would recommend to contact the uploader to upload it by himself/herself to Wikimedia Commons. He/She is active on Commons. Maybe it would be also necessary to send written permission for this image to OTRS. I contacted the uploader. --Snek01 (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Snek01 =D! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Theodoxus fluviatilis is now a GA!

Well... Snek and the rest of us did it! That's great to have another GA in the project. Invertzoo (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Scotch bonnet (sea snail) submit for GA?

Hello folks, Today I was going over the article on Semicassis granulata and updating it a little. The article struck me as being really in very good shape overall. I don't know if anyone wants to be bothered, but I think this article could be submitted for Good Article status without too much work being involved in getting it to pass. A few years ago the article was an unsuccessful student project, and as such it was submitted twice for GA and failed both times. It has since been cleaned up tremendously. I am currently on vacation, but I would love to hear from anyone who might want to help out with submitting this for GA. Wikipedia's standards have risen steadily over the years, but GA is still not nearly as difficult to attain as FA. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It does look good, indeed. If this goes for GA review, then I'll help however I can.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
In fact, I might even review it myself...--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be great either way. Is it OK for you to be the primary reviewer in terms of the rules? Invertzoo (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not one of the main contributors, so I don't see why not. But I'm not completely sure about that!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I read the instructions and it does seem to be the case that you could review it. Invertzoo (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

That does look to be a candidate for good article status, in my opinion. Being a member of this project, but not having done much in a while to help it out (been doing other wiki-things, and there's only so much time a sane person is willing or able to spend on WP, lol) I was wondering about the review process for good articles when I saw this. I have skimmed over the criteria over at [[WP:WIAGA]] sometime in the past , so I am at least familiar with it, but I should probably look at it in some more detail. Anyways, is their anything I can do to help with the review process? SarrCat ∑;3 18:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with the GA criteria and without having given the article a detailed examination, it looks in pretty good shape to me. Perhaps the lead could be expanded a little so as to better summarise the contents of the rest of the article. Any other imperfections could be ironed out during the GA review process. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! I think we should tinker with it and then submit it ASAP. I honestly think it will probably not be too much work to get it through. Invertzoo (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am away on vacation/field trip till the 23rd May and then away again on a marine expedition from June 7th to June 28th during which time I will probably be very busy, but if someone goes ahead and submits the article for GA, I will do every thing I can to help out. Invertzoo (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I am strongly tempted to just go ahead and submit it myself now, and if we get a reviewer rapidly (that can sometimes take a long time), if I am not available at all times to do the necessary fix-it work, either because I am in transit from one country to another, or because I am working flat out during the expedition (June 7 to 28), I am hoping that others, including Sarrcat and Cwmhiraeth (thanks for volunteering with this) will check the article talk page every day and help carry out the fixing-up process as needed. Invertzoo (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I have now submitted the article. Yay. I hope we can all help out and get this done. It is about time this article made it to GA. Best wishes to everyone involved. Invertzoo (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Let the review begin =D --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Scotch bonnet (sea snail) is now a Good Article!

Thanks to everyone who helped with the refining process! It is great for the project to achieve another GA, Invertzoo (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Northern moon snail

I was looking at the northern moon snail article whose title, Lunatia heros, contradicts the article text which states the species name is Polinices heros. WoRMS lists Euspira heros as the accepted name. A bit confused as to what the article title should be and what the "correct" genus for this species is. 73.223.96.73 (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I moved the article to Euspira heros and edited it a bit. JoJan (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Scotch bonnet (sea snail) Latin description

I heard back from my expert on biological Latin, and he did the translation for me of the original description without charge. I have placed it in the article. Invertzoo (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Compared with other projects

Based on the number of people who have the project main page and/or talk page on their watch list (in our case 64 people), our project is 365th on the list here:

Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProject watchers

Invertzoo (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Embletoniidae etymology

Hi. I'm afraid I'm very clueless about your field, but, coming to this from a placename interest, I wondered if anyone could tell me about where the name Embletoniidae came from, and is it something that it's appropriate to mention, if there's an RS in the article? Anyway, if anyone is interested in pitching in, here it is: Talk:Embletoniidae#Etymology. Sorry to bother you if this isn't your kind of thing. Best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

People replied to this question on the talk page of the article Embletoniidae, and by editing the articles itself. Invertzoo (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Helllooooooooo

Can someone review my request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Assessment.

Hello back at you. It would help a lot if you told us who you are and what article you are talking about. Thanks. I assume you are talking about Nembrotha cristata?That article was upgraded to a Start a while ago. It might be a little better than a Start but perhaps not very much. Maybe it would qualify as a C, but many of the statements in it could use a ref. What else would you like to know? Invertzoo (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Nembrotha cristata bunaken.jpg to appear as POTD

I copied this here to let anyone who is reading know that the article could use some more fixing up. Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

..............................................

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Nembrotha cristata bunaken.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 23, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-09-23. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Birmingham Quran manuscript
Folio 2 recto (left) and folio 1 verso (right) of the Birmingham Quran manuscript, preserving parts of Surahs 18 to 20. These two leaves of this early Quranic manuscript, held in the Mingana Collection, were discovered in 2015 as being dated between 568 and 645, making it among the oldest Quran manuscripts to date.Manuscript: Unknown
Archive – More featured pictures...

Annie Law

I would be grateful if someone familiar with mollusc taxonomy would kindly check the species names mentioned in Annie Law, derived from a 1927 source, and match them against current names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Pigsonthewing! Ok, let's go:

That's it for now! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 19:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Daniel Cavallari: Thank you. How would you express those changes in the article in question (please edit it directly if you like)? BTW, I found sources with both "i" and "ii" versions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
You're welcome! I think we could use the synonym names, as long as we link them to the correct articles (i.e., the accepted names). I did just that for Unio lawi. We'll need to create stubs for the missing names, of course. As for the single or double "i" thing, it's a complicated matter indeed. It may depend on how the name was first described, and the ICZN has a few recommendations. Here is an example. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Rejoice, my fellow gastropod people! Our project's very first FA will appear soon on the main page! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

PS: It took quite a while, but the Dog conch dish is ready to be served =)! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
REJOICING!!!! Invertzoo (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

30,000 articles

Today, we have reached a new milestone: 30,000 articles with Conus lyelli, a fossil cone snail. JoJan (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations everyone! This is an impressive total. Invertzoo (talk) 19:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Gastropods in the literature 2

Hi, I'm Aplysia kurodai and I have no article yet.

These are the gastropods mentioned in the most books that we don't have articles for yet. [ full list | previous discussion ]

  1. Pila globosa — Pila (Ampullariidae, Not assigned)
  2. Aplysia kurodai — Aplysia (Aplysiidae, Anaspidea)
  3. Pleurobranchaea californica — Pleurobranchaea (Pleurobranchaeidae, Pleurobranchomorpha)
  4. Stylocheilus longicauda — Stylocheilus (monotypic?) (Aplysiidae, Anaspidea)
  5. Alderia modesta — Alderia – Modest alderia (Limapontiidae, Sacoglossa)
  6. Melanopsis praemorsa — Melanopsis (Melanopsidae, Not assigned)
  7. Onchidoris muricata — Onchidoris (Onchidorididae, Nudibranchia)
  8. Bulla ampulla — Bulla (Bullidae, Cephalaspidea)
  9. Ferrissia rivularis — Ferrissia (Planorbidae, Hygrophila)
  10. Gyraulus convexiusculus — Gyraulus (Planorbidae, Hygrophila)

They're all good candidates for anyone looking to create new articles. —Pengo 23:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

error in Orcula page

The page on the genus of land snails Orcula lists the author as Troschel, 1846 in the taxonomy box on the right-hand side. Orcula Troschel, 1846 is a later homonym, published for sea cucumbers. The correct author for the land snails genus is Held, 1837 -- clearly shown in the two cited sources at the bottom of the page. 22:11, 30 November 2015‎ 160.111.253.35 (talk)

Authorship has been corrected. JoJan (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

One species, two articles (merge?)

Green abalone and Haliotis fulgens are separate articles, but this is the exact same species. It has been tagged for merge in almost 2 years (since February 2014), but nothing has happened. How does one resolve two articles dealing with the exact same species? 62.107.210.94 (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's only a matter of taking the time to edit one of the articles so that it contains all the information from both, and then turning the other into a redirect. More information for how to do it is at Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge. Sometimes a discussion is needed about whether to merge the articles, but this is a very clear cut case so it's just a matter of someone making the effort to do it. —Pengo 05:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
I merged the two articles yesterday I merged them under Haliotis fulgens but someone can change that if they feel that the common name is more suitable. I want to thank 62.107.210.94 for letting us know about this duplication, and also I want to thank Pengo for explaining how 62.107.210.94 could go about doing the merge. Invertzoo (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Somehow I managed to miss the initial reply; thanks to Pengo for explaining and Invertzoo for making the edits. 62.107.194.196 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

error in Casmaria ponderosa perryi page

I've been browsing Wikipedia articles on species found in the Kermadec Islands and noticed the above article may possibly need an amendment to its title. I noted on the talk page that it states "Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS". It appears from that database that the currently accepted species name of this gastropod is Casmaria perryi (Iredale, 1912). I refer you to this link. I hope this helps. Ambrosia10 (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for alerting us to this necessary change. I carried it out. Next time if you find something like this, you can make the change yourself, using the "Move" function. If you don't know how to do this yet, you can always ask me. :) Invertzoo (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Aplysia morio

Hello, feel free to verify, that all informations in the Aplysia morio article are species specific. There were some informations referred to some other species in the genus removed from the article. All informations seems very probable, but I am very suspicious of the reference by Coviello. This reference is written in dubious way. It would be very helpful if we could check out every single fact from the Distribution section and from Ecology section according to others peer reviewed articles. Just to be sure. Thanks, --Snek01 (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for 2016

Happy New Year 2016!
A few memorable things have happened in our project in 2015. In the past year we've passed the threshold of 30,000 articles. We have received in the Commons a generous donation by Naturalis, Leiden, the Netherlands, of more than 30,000 photos of museum specimens. That's a lot to deal with but in the end we'll manage. This donation brings the total of gastropod photos in the Commons to somewhere between 33,000 and 34,000.

By this short message, I wish to send my best wishes to all our collaborators. And who knows, perhaps our little group of active collaborators will grow considerably in 2016.    

JoJan (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year! I will check out freshwater snails for images. I found Rivomarginella meantime. Maybe there are few more useful images. I also started to categorize them like this into the family level (although they are automatically categorized into usual categories of species and generic level – unfortunately to both):

Molluscs at Naturalis from the Zoölogisch Museum Amsterdam
Gastropoda at Naturalis from the Zoölogisch Museum Amsterdam
Marginellidae at Naturalis from the Zoölogisch Museum Amsterdam
Molluscs at Naturalis from the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie

It is necessary to note, that there are two musea in Naturalis, so take care. --Snek01 (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course. In the mean time, their donation has grown to over 68,000. ([1]). JoJan (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

New article

A new article about Archachatina camerunensis has been translated into English after originally being posted in Russian. It is written in note form and lacking in prose, categories, wikilinks, etc. It needs some expert attention, so hopefully somebody in this project can help. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Done. JoJan (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks JoJan :) AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I have clean up the prose some more. Invertzoo (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dianella (gastropod)

I attempted to merge the duplicate type_species parameters in Dianella (gastropod). it would be great if someone could sort it out properly. Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

International Nudibranch Day is March 6th ?

Two days ago, this article was created, by an editor that is, so far, a one-purpose account. I can't find any evidence that anyone has actually declared a day for celebrating nudibranchs, so unfortunately this may have to be considered a hoax. I will however try to do a bit more research. Invertzoo (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I decided to rescue the article by moving it to Symposia and workshops on opisthobranchs. I did a lot of work on it and racked up a few references. I may have to stop where I am because I have a lot of other stuff I need to work on today. If anyone wants to take a look at, it please go ahead. Invertzoo (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have done a few hours work on researching the original topic and its various ramifications. I have expanded the article a little bit. Invertzoo (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Please verify the taxonomy of Suteria ide

Suteria ide is a new article recently accepted at AFC, the genus is not listed on the Charopidae page so it may have changed recently – the sources cited in the article are fairly old. In addition the genus page Suteria is redirected to a plant genus. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Roger for alerting us to this. :) I have polished up the new article a bit although the original references still need to be fixed Wiki style. I added this genus to the Charopidae page which is supported by the WoRMS listing for that family. I created a new genus page and disambiguated the genus Suteria on both pages. Invertzoo (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
I fixed the referencing, it's all consistent now. There is no such thing as "wiki style" referencing. Any method that clearly identifies the sources is acceptable, but it must be consistent, a mix of different methods is deprecated. Parenthetical disambiguation is only used if there are three or more affected pages, for only two pages a hatnote is used. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Article needed – Israel Heymann Jonas

He is out of my field. I only found his name while resolving a bad {{disambiguation needed}} bluelink. He seems to have been a major binomial authority for gastropods, deserving a {{Zoologist|Jonas}} tag in his biography. He's all over Wiki, but rarely linked to. He often turns up in searches as J. H. Jonas, so may have sometimes published under a less obviously Jewish name (which I haven't been able to identify).

I found one tiny scrap of biography, which identifies his family and dates.

Can I leave him on your expert doorsteps? He may need study of actual books. I'm busy with other things, and not sure I could do him justice. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a try. JoJan (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jojan: & now he's in Wiki, where he belongs :-) 53 species, even if some are junior synonyms, is pretty good going. I added a couple of categories, and his name to Jonas (name)#Notable people with the surname Jonas, and a link in your article to the German article on the Hamburg Natural History Museum. Narky Blert (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Brinsley Hinds

New article, improvements welcome – especially if you know of any other species he described. Narky Blert (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Category Nudibranchia

Hello, there is a Category:Nudibranchia filled with articles of species(!). This contravene the principle of categorization and the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization#Subcategorization: "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it". We have categorized all gastropod species and genera in a category at family level unanimously/standardly.

  • Category:Heterobranchia
    • Category:Nudipleura
      • Category:Nudibranchia
        • Category:Pleurolidiidae
          • article Pleurolidia juliae should be categorized in the Category:Pleurolidiidae. Not in Category:Nudibranchia.

Those >900 articles species/genera should be removed from the Category:Nudibranchia and those ~70 articles should be removed from Category:Nudipleura, because they are categorized at family level already. I am sorry I did not noticed it two years ago, because I edit non-marine ones mainly. (A good example is for example Category:Panpulmonata, where there are articles of higher taxa only.) If it will became necessary (or anyhow useful) to keep Category:Nudibranchia, then you can move relevant categories of families from Category:Nudipleura to Category:Nudibranchia. Otherwise you can even delete Category:Nudibranchia. --Snek01 (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please feel free to make these changes yourself, as the project does not have many members now, and some of those who are still active no longer spend much time onsite. Invertzoo (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Gustav Schwartz/Alvania

An stub article was recently started for Gustav Schwartz. The article's creator, User:MB asked me if this person was the Schwartz who is honored by Alvania schwartziana. It seems unlikely to me that there would be any other Schwartzs working on Rissoidae in the mid-19th century, but I can't find anything to confirm that etymology of the epithet. Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There is also a whole genus Schwartziella to which the same question applies. MB (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, both of them are named in honor of Gustav Schwartz. It is always useful to find authority reference for every taxon. But it is usually the only source for its etymology. The authority reference citation for those two species is mentioned in WoRMS. The authority reference directly mention "Schwartz von Mohrenstern". --Snek01 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Resolved

English grammar of Scaly-foot gastropod

Hello, the reviewer requested to improve English of the Scaly-foot gastropod, which is under the GA review. Could you help me with clear prose, spelling and grammar, please? It would be helpful if you could focus on the grammar only. I can deal with all reviewers comments and questions easily then. Thanks! --Snek01 (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have gone through the whole article once, carefully fixing the prose as best as I can. Yes the grammar was faulty, but often the prose construction was faulty as well. There were not many spelling mistakes that I noticed. Invertzoo (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Scaly-foot gastropod

This article has now reached GA status. :) Invertzoo (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Amazing =)! Good job everyone! Sorry I couldn't help with this one...--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

On the main page

The article is linked to as a Did You Know? on the main page right now. Invertzoo (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Geoffrey Nevill

C19 malacologist who worked in the Indian Museum, Kolkata. He wrote this guide to molluscs in the Indian Museum; he may have had a hand in Vol. 1 also, but I've found no evidence. His brother Hugh has a Wiki article, but Geoffrey does not.

I found the following in Wiki:

  1. Most (but not all) sources name "Nevil" as binomial authority for C. newtoni; but I'm morally certain that that's a typo for "Nevill" – C. newtoni, G. duponti and H. implicata are all from Mauritius.
  2. Nevil is a disambiguation page. Nevill is a redlink, but may soon be a disambiguation page (76 results for All pages with titles containing nevill).

I've tried but failed to track down online the papers in which those species were described. Can anyone help resolve the puzzle of who the binomial authority or authorities was or were? I suspect it was always Geoffrey, both because of his profession and because I've seen attributions to "G. Nevill" in some sources; but suspicion isn't good enough, those writers might have been guessing in the same way I just did.

In any event, it looks to me as if Geoffrey might deserve an article – there are two good-looking sources in that museum.wales link at the top of this post. Narky Blert (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Erepta nevilli, a snail from Mauritius whose namegiver I've failed to identify, may have been named in honour of Geoffrey. Narky Blert (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
As may Gonospira nevilli (Adams 1867). Narky Blert (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

..........................................................

Hi Narky Blert,
Geoffrey Nevill is listed in "2,400 Years of Malacology" like this:

http://www.malacological.org/downloads/epubs/2400-years/2400yrs_of_Malacology-part_3.pdf

Nevill, Geoffrey (1843–1885; India/Switzerland) ● Brother of H. L. Nevill. 782

Anonymous, 1885. Geoffrey Nevill. Nature 31(802) [12 March]: 435.

W. Kobelt, 1885. Nekrologie. Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft 17(3-4) [Beilagen Nekrologie No. 1]: 1-4 [Nevill: p. 4].

H. Crosse & P. Fischer, 1886. Nécrologie. Journal de Conchyliologie 34(1): 117.

J. R. le B. Tomlin, 1946. Catalogues and collections. 24. Indian catalogues. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London 26(6): 178.

Kiss, 1985: 37.

Dance, 1986: 220.

Trew, 1987: 79-80; 1990: 79.

Griffiths & Florens, 2006: 39.

Hand list of Mollusca in the Indian Museum, Calcutta (1878–1884), available on-line at: http://www.archive.org and at: http://books.google.com

So he probably does merit his own article. Invertzoo (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Geoffrey Nevill, malacologist

I created a stub on him (see the previous message) Invertzoo (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the species listed above in the previous message were probably named by, and the other ones named in honor of, Geoffrey not Hugh, even though Hugh worked with Geoffrey at least some of the time on the mollusks of India. Invertzoo (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Creator templates of malacologists at Commons

Hello, I created few Creator "templates" of malacologists at Commons. For example {{Creator:Wilhelm Kobelt}} commons:Creator:Wilhelm Kobelt. I have listed them at Commons:User:Snek01#Copy and paste. Feel free to use them. It has few advantages: it is automatically linked via Wikidata to corresponding projects such as Wikispecies and Wikipedia. It is automatically linked Commons:Special:WhatLinksHere/Creator:Wilhelm Kobelt either with transclusion of the template or even without transclusion (when the name is written exactly as in the template in the "|author=" section – for example "|author=Wilhelm Kobelt"). - Also note, that not all images published by malacologists were made by them. For example Eduard von Martens did not made at least some images by own. --Snek01 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Hello, there is a proposal in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey, that is highly relevant to this WikiProject: "Display rectangular part of the image as parameter of File and compatible with ImageNote". Feel free to vote, if you like. meta:2016 Community Wishlist Survey/Categories/Multimedia#Display rectangular part of the image as parameter of File and compatible with ImageNote Thanks for your attention, --Snek01 (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 6 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes

@Jojan:, @Anna Frodesiak:, @Invertzoo:, @Snek01: Can I get some feedback on the use of Automatic taxoboxes in species and genus pages on molluscs? I tried the system and it gave far neater arrangements than the present manual clades in nudibranchs, where the word clade is in the right-hand column. Also it will make taxonomic changes easier to implement and ensure consistency. See Tergipes tergipes as opposed to Tenellia pustulata. However I then ran into some comments on why are we showing all the clades and not just the main Linnean hierarchy. See discussion here: Template talk:Taxonomy/Cladobranchia. BernardP (talk) 22:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello, it does not gave far neater arrangements, it does not provide changes easier to implement and it does not ensure consistency. That is complex of questions.

1) Are all ranks between class and superfamily important IN GASTROPODS? Yes, they are. All ranks between these ranks should be included in all taxoboxes. Related discussion on this theme include:

2) Is automatic taxobox better than classical taxobox? No authoritative answer can be done for now. This is unresolved in this project as well as for example in Wikiproject tree of life.

I am strong opponent of automatic taxobox (as everybody knows here). The automatic taxobox has the only (theoretical) advantage: the change of all subtaxa is needed to be done only once (at the right place). What will happen, when the editor does not know the right place? There are also difficulties and disadvantages: those taxoboxes even does not look the same. (Why is the word "clade" in italics???) The complete classification for one species is not on the single place, but it is on as many subpages as there is number of its ranks. Therefore you can not track changes. For example you can not take a look, how the classification of the certain species was like a year ago, because you would have take a look into the history of those about 10 pages all at once. It is prone to errors (to intentional and unintentional). You can not use the same referencing way; you can not add the same certain reference (for the Wikipedia article) into the superior taxon (because it is in different subtemplate).

I can not use automatic taxobox even if I would like to: it is difficult to use and I can not verify the classification, because automatic taxobox has no complex history. That is serious problem when the taxonomy (of gastropods) is extremely difficult and when we have no relatively simple, uncontroversial resource for classification of ALL gastropods (marine, non-marine, fossil).

3) You provided two examples:

  • Tergipes tergipes uses automatic taxobox and shows classification like this:
Class: 	Gastropoda
Clade: 	Heterobranchia
Clade: 	Euthyneura
Clade: 	Nudipleura
Order: 	Nudibranchia
Clade: 	Dexiarchia
Infraorder: 	Cladobranchia
Clade: 	Aeolidida
Superfamily: 	Fionoidea
Family: 	Fionidae
  • Tenellia pustulata uses classic taxobox and shows classification like this:
Class: 	Gastropoda
(unranked): 	clade Heterobranchia
clade Euthyneura
clade Nudipleura
clade Nudibranchia
clade Dexiarchia
clade Cladobranchia
clade Aeolidida
Superfamily: 	Fionoidea
Family: 	Fionidae

I will challenge this classification. Why is Cladobranchia listed as infraorder? Could you provide some peer reviewed reference, that would acknowledge it (including all those seven related ranks)? By the way, WoRMS is not reliable resource for ranks:

There would possible to talk about this theme infinitely. But I am quite skeptical because automatic taxobox was forced to Wikipedia very brutally. The correct way would be like this: to create such automatic taxobox, that would be 1) either compatible; 2) or that would be better – then it would be possible to replace old solution with better solution. Every other possibility is against unification, against standardization and against cooperative spirit of Wikipedia. The actual state is harming Wikiproject Gastropods. Moreover the Wikiproject Paleontology strongly overlap with Wikiproject Gastropods. Unfortunatelly Wikiproject Paleontology uses Automatic taxobox as a standard. I wrote what is the best for gastropods. Unfortunately it seems for a long time, that this project is very small in number of its active members to resolve any problem that is behind this project boundaries. What if there is 50% of people against 50% of people on a global scale? Then the Wikiproject Gastropods will suffer forever. --Snek01 (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not an easy matter. We cannot even pretend to have the knowledge to construct a taxobox (classical or automatic) that shows all the ramifications of the taxonomy of a taxon. This would be "original research" and is forbidden in Wikipedia; We can only follow what is the most actual viewpoint in scientific literature and otherwise rely on WORMS. Snek is against automatic taxoboxes and that is his good right. I'm rather for automatic taxoboxes, because it becomes easy to change it. Just think of the Conoidea superfamily and especially the Turridae family, that has been split into several new families. If all articles within Turridae had been provided with automatic taxoboxes, hundreds if not more than a thousand taxoboxes could have been changed with a few clicks. Now this has to be done manually and it is a giant undertaking. Are automatic taxoboxes then THE solution ? No, first of al, all higher taxa must have also an automatic taxobox for consistency in taxonomy. Snek gives some very critical remarks with this regard to consistency. If his remarks can be overcome, automatic taxoboxes are certainly the solution. Much thus depends, for some time to come, on the personal opinion of each one of us. JoJan (talk) 15:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia.

Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas:

Editors

  • See submissions through external academic peer review
  • Format accepted articles
  • Promote the journal

Authors

  • Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
  • Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review)
  • Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram

If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group.

  1. ^ Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001.
  2. ^ "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.


T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is currently a merger proposal for the article Clam to be merged into Bivalvia. Please comment at Talk:Bivalvia#Proposed merger of Clam into Bivalvia.

Yes, I know bivalves aren't gastropods. But this project is more active and might be watched by editors who've worked on both classes that may not also be watching WikiProject Bivalves.

The merger proposal has bearing on a frequently appearing formulaic lead sentence, as can be seen at Cerastoderma edule; "Cerastoderma edule, commonly known as the common cockle, is a species of edible saltwater clam, a marine bivalve mollusc...". Bolded words in this lead are used in various articles on species that are also described as cockles, mussels, oysters and scallops. Is "clam" really a catch all term for ALL bivalves? Plantdrew (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

(Likely) duplicate article

Pleurotomella coeloraphe & Pleurotomella coelorhaphe appear to describe the same species. As gastropods are not my field, though, I don't know which of the two spellings is the valid binomial. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I requested this bot task: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Replacement of NCBI template in gastropods articles. Snek01 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 6/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Gastropods, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Ogaridiscus

Does anyone have any information on this genus? I'm making a list of animals in Utah, and Ogaridiscus subrupicola is listed as one of the species of snail (at least I think it's a snail) in Utah (see here). Please {{ping}} me on any reply. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like they have a page on the species on the Swedish Wikipedia. I'll see about translating it and making the page here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I made Ogaridiscus subrupicola. Please feel free to correct any errors. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not empty categories and then nominate them for deletion for being empty

As you did here. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello User:Nihonjoe, thank you for your interest in gastropod articles! I did it because Zonitidae is container category as well as any other gastropod category, that has less than 200 species. Although it is explicitly marked as container category since now. (All subcategories of Zonitidae will be deleted.) Thank you for your cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Since when did we empty out and merge categories when they have less than 200 pages in them? That's ridiculous. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 07:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, this can be explained for example here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 5#Created a subcategory--did I do wrong? and here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 4#Split of Category:Turridae stubs and here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 3#Split of Category:Muricidae and Category:Muricidae stubs. Generally there is an agreement (tradition, consensus, nobody opposed that) that categories (of gastropods) of small families (with approximately less than 200 species) include all species. And there are good reasons for larger families also in some cases, when it is very practical to keep articles in the category of the family. - Correctly organized category in this sense is for example Category:Planorbidae. Another correctly researched and planned category is for example Category:Hygromiidae, but nobody has taken an effort for years, to get rid those redundant subcategories, that were created by Bot. Zonitidae is absolutely non-controversial category and all of its subcategories can be removed without hesitation. --Snek01 (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
You still haven't explained why you are choosing to go against everything supported by consensus in Wikipedia as a whole. There are many valid reasons to have separate categories for each genus, and no valid reasons to get rid of them. Yes, some of them may be small right now, but that doesn't mean they won't be increased as time goes by. Saying it's "practical" is not a valid argument. Whether they are all in one category or split into subcategories within that category, they are all still within that category. Whether a bot created the category or not is irrelevant.
Now, regarding the email, whether I'm a bureaucrat or not is irrelevant to what articles I choose to create or edit. In this case, I created this article (and the associated category) because I'm working on a list of fauna for a specific location. That includes gastropods. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
That is really very surprising question, because I expected at least basal knowledge in biology and in Wikipedia guidelines. If there is one species in the genus Ogaridiscus now, then we can not expect, that the category:Ogaridiscus will be increased as time goes by. So guideline Wikipedia:Overcategorization, and especially WP:SMALLCAT should apply. I deeply hope, that this my explanation is sufficient. If not, I would like to ask any other member of this WikiProject to provide a better one. On the other hand, this discussion is an alarming example, how spreading knowledge of biology is crucially important in this technically oriented civilization. --Snek01 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Please stop with the arrogant attitude. Using phrasing like "alarming example" makes it sound like you believe anyone without a PhD in biology is a complete moron. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, so I recommend refraining from driving away people who have done nothing technically wrong. We discover new species of various animals all the time, so assuming that we will only ever have one—especially for something as small and difficult to find as this tiny snail—is ridiculous. There may easily be one or more subspecies that just haven't been found yet. Utah and Idaho are very large places, and there are certainly plenty of places for the snails to hide. I would be surprised if there weren't many different snails in just that area that have yet to be discovered. Having different categories for each genus is actually helpful when trying to figure out relationships between various species. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
(talk page lurker) I will point out the WP:Gastropods policy follows the guidelines for categorization that WP:Categorization has in place Wikipedia:Overcategorization. It really boils down to there being very little growth potential at this time. and in the event there is, it can be split out at that time.--Kevmin § 23:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
In that case, perhaps a clearer edit summary from Snek01 would make things better. Just stating "{{db-c1}}" does nothing to tell anyone why the category is suddenly being tagged for deletion. Something along the lines of "Consolidating to Category:Zonitidae per WP:SMALLCAT" would be far more clear. That's the whole point of the edit summary: to tell people what and why you're making the edit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 03:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Reproductive system of gastropods

Hello, a User:Verashark completely rewrote the article Reproductive system of gastropods from Special:PermanentLink/758227015 to Special:PermanentLink/773669161. I kept all old texts an included new texts and organized them info into sections. It is worth to take a little attention to this article. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Statistics about images

Hello, there were some articles marked as needing images, while they virtually has a proper images in them. During the last over 1 or 2 years I properly tagged over 2000 (or more?) of such articles like this. So now the Category:Gastropod articles needing images shows the actual number. Actually there are 21,901 articles needing images (of 30858 articles). Now we (or I) can focus on adding existing images from Commons to Wikipedia articles without images. I recommend the Fist tool http://toolserver.org/~magnus/fist.php for searching images at Commons for articles without images (although it sometimes shows false positive results). The number of articles with images as well as ratio of articles with images/without images is slowly, but continuously increasing and since now you can measure the progress in real numbers. --Snek01 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Amphidromus GA

  • Dear gastropod friends, it has been a while! Nevertheless, I've been somewhat active lately, so expect some good news soon. Speaking of which, Amphidromus looks promising. Information-wise, the article is quite complete. With an intro expansion and drastic prose improvements, I think it could easily achieve GA. So, what do you think? Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Fossil distribution: according to Fossilworks the species † Amphidromus ellipticus was recorded at Creechbarrow Hill (Eocene of the United Kingdom) [2] and described in H. Keeping. 1910. On the discovery of Bembridge Limestone fossils on Creechbarrow Hill, Isle of Purbeck. Geological Magazine 5(7):436-439. This site dates from between 40.4 – 37.2 Ma. This is a pre-human fossil occurrence, in conflict with the text in our article. This species is not recorded in our list of Amphidromus species. Or has it become a synonym ? JoJan (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Allright, I'll check that with a friend of mine who happens to be a fossil expert =). I'll give you an update ASAP.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
JoJan, I've checked the info. As a matter of fact, my friend is quite familiarized with the fossils from Creechbarrow Hill. It seems that this so-called Amphidromus record is actually a misidentified Filholia laevolonga (Boubee 1831). Quite a mistake, actually (something on the lines of looking at an armadillo and calling it a rhinoceros, hahaha!). Anyway, we should disregard this Creechbarrow Hill record entirely.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Well done. Only an expert could have done this. I didn't add this species in the list because I had some doubts. JoJan (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It should probably be mentioned in the appropriate article(s), though, just so it's there for future reference. Is there a published source that explains what happened? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually yes. You can download the paper here. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • This very interesting paper[1] below discusses the relationship between sinistrality in Amphidromus and predation by snail-eating snakes. We should discuss this somewhere in the article. In several places along the article, actually.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Danaisawadi, Patchara; Asami, Takahiro; Ota, Hidetoshi; Sutcharit, Chirasak; Panha, Somsak (5 April 2016). "A snail-eating snake recognizes prey handedness". Scientific Reports. 6 (1). doi:10.1038/srep23832.
Good idea to reach GA. I will deal with images and with species list. --Snek01 (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
And I am working on a thorough cleaning-up of the prose. Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, friends! It's looking better and better! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Amphidromus

The article Amphidromus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Amphidromus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work Daniel! Invertzoo (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Well done ! JoJan (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Asian gastropods for November 2017

Hello, I will join Wikipedia:Wikipedia Asian Month in November 2017. I created some articles about species of Plectopylidae in November 2016. If anybody wanna focus on some Asian gastropod species with me this way, let me to know. Snek01 (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Terrestrial gastropod and terrestrial mollusc

Hello, for a long time we have had linked terrestrial gastropod to "terrestrial animal" article like this 

 [[terrestrial animal|terrestrial]] [[gastropod]]

Example: 

Helicina rhodostoma is a species of tropical land snail with an operculum, a terrestrial gastropod mollusk in the family Helicinidae.

There is/was section about gastropods in the terrestrial animal article. terrestrial animal#Terrestrial gastropods

It was created useful terrestrial mollusc article this year. The previous section will be merged into the new article. But how to wikilink to the new article?

I thought, that everything should link to more precisely named terrestrial gastropod article (with redirect from terrestrial mollusc article). But I checked it out prior to any move. Both are established scientific terms.

Google shows 31500 results for "terrestrial mollusc" and 203000 results for "terrestrial gastropod", but this is highly affected by results from the wikipedia and the high usage of "terrestrial gastropod" in Wikipedia and its copies all over the internet.

Google Scholar gives for

  • "terrestrial mollusc": 2030 results.
  • "terrestrial molluscs": 4880 results.
  • "terrestrial mollusk": 1250 results,
  • "terrestrial mollusks": 2550 results.
  • altogether 10710 results
  • "terrestrial gastropod": 2890 results.
  • "terrestrial gastropods": 5630 results.
  • altogether 8520 results

It also depends on how many of these papers are from native speakers. We do not know precisely, but many of authors are not native speakers. It seems that malacologists from English speaking countries decided to use "terrestrial molluscs". Is is so?

I would like to update wikilinks (semi-automatically by myself) from 

[[terrestrial animal|terrestrial]] [[gastropod]]

to terrestrial gastropod wikilink (regardless to which article it will land, either to "terrestrial gastropod" or to "terrestrial mollusc" article over redirect.) 

[[terrestrial gastropod]]

First question: Will it be OK to chnege all those wikilinks? May I?

Second question: Which article title (terrestrial gastropod or terrestrial mollusc) should we prefer according to the Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency sensu Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title? --Snek01 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, there is also Outline of gastropods for overview. --Snek01 (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Monoplex

Hello, could you check out articles and images of Cymatium pileare: Monoplex pilearis vs. Monoplex macrodon?

commons:Category:Monoplex macrodon

commons:Category:Monoplex pilearis

I am also not sure for example with these images:

  • ?
    ?
  • ?
    ?

Naming of those species is misleading for me and I do not know how to distinguish these two taxa. Thanks, --Snek01 (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 taxonomy

--Snek01 (talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A New Taxonomy of Gastropods, 2017

I thought we all might like to read this additional info:

...........................................

From: Strong, Ellen [3] Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 6:46 PM To: molluscalist@lists.berkeley.edu Subject: RE: Revised classification, nomenclator and typification of gastropod and monoplacophoran families

Dear colleagues,

On behalf of Philippe Bouchet, I’m pleased to forward the following announcement:

The "Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families" of Bouchet & Rocroi (2005) is dead.

Vive la "Revised classification, nomenclator and typification of gastropod and monoplacophoran families" by Bouchet, Rocroi, Hausdorf, Kaim, Kano, Nützel, Parkhaev, Schrödl & Strong, published 13 December 2017 in Malacologia, 61(1-2): 1-526.

In terms of content and lay-out, the new work differs from the 2005 edition in a number of features:

(a) the nomenclator now includes the full typification of all family group names, i.e., type species of the type genus – and not just the name of the type genus;

(b) The 2005 classification avoided ranks above superfamily and instead used "clade" and "informal group". The development and success of online taxonomic authority lists (e.g., WoRMS /MolluscaBase, Catalogue of Life, Australian Faunal Directory), demonstrated that the use of additional ranks – suborder, order, subclass – is favored by many users; consequently, they have been adopted in the classification;

(c) The contents have been expanded to include the class Monoplacophora.

2,604 names (up from 2,400 in 2005) at the rank of subtribe, tribe, subfamily, family and superfamily have been proposed for Recent and fossil gastropods, and another 35 for monoplacophorans. All are listed in a nomenclator giving full bibliographical reference, date of publication, typification, and their nomenclatural availability and validity under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Another 790 names (up from 730 in 2005), established for categories above the family group (infraorder to subclass) are listed separately. In all, the classification now recognizes as valid a total of 721 gastropod families (up from 611 in 2005), of which 245 are known exclusively as fossils and 476 occur in the Recent with or without a fossil record; and 20 monoplacophoran families, of which 1 only occurs as Recent.

This is an average 132 valid species per family of Recent gastropods – to be compared to 1,000-2,000 for insects and 35-57 for vertebrates.

The work is accessible electronically on BioOne at http://www.bioone.org/toc/mala/current. Printed copies will also be distributed by ConchBooks.

Enjoy!

Ellen E Strong Research Zoologist and Chair Department of Invertebrate Zoology

w 202.633.1742 f 202.357.2343 StrongE@si.edu

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

NATIONAL MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

................... The above info added by Invertzoo (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Guideline

I propose this guideline User:Snek01/Guideline for WikiProject Gastropods for better standardization and consistency within gastropod articles. --Snek01 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Populating the "Molluscs described in YYYY" categories

Various editors, including myself, have been creating categories such as Category:Molluscs described in 2000 and populating them. It is rather slow, repetitive and tedious. I am considering setting up a bot for the task of moving molluscs from "Animals described in..." categories to the corresponding "Molluscs described in..." category. Any thoughts? I'm asking here because the vast majority of the relevant pages are for gastropods, and it would be a light task if there weren't so many of them. William Avery (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not "Gastropods described in YYYY"? The thing I don't understand is that the described in year categories are getting steadily refined, but the refinement happens with no defined ultimate structure. There's an enormous amount of wasted effort in going from "Animals described in YYY"->"Insects described in YYY"->"Moths described in YYY". Figure out what the categories should look like in the end, rather than wasting time making repeated edits refining the categorization one rank down the taxonomy hierarchy each time. If "Gastropods described in YYYY" will never be desired, that's fine with me; but if "Molluscs described in YYYY" will someday be subject to further refinement, we might as well do that refinement now. I definitely support a bot for this task regardless of what categories end up being used. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. If there is a consensus to create "Gastropods described in YYYY" I will go with that. It's just that I'd really like to get to a point of consistency using the current categories, ASAP. I'd quite to see some sort of warning to editors not to split the categories without consensus. There seem to be a number of partially realised schemes about the place. William Avery (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I must admit, I've added many times the "Category:Animals described in...." in the absence of a better category. If this has to be changed by a bot, then I prefer the more specific "Gastropods described in ...". And together with these categories by year, there are also list by year such as List of gastropods described in the 2000s. These lists are more elaborate and one can wonder do we need these categories and lists coexisting at the same time ? JoJan (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I agree with having a dedicated set of categories for gastropods. Thank you both for taking the time to comment. William Avery (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@William Avery: "Gastropods described in YYYY" is the only strategic category. Every of them should contain some information template; something like that this category shold not be splitted into subcategories. The parent category will be "Gastropods by year of formal description". Thanks, --Snek01 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that some mechanism to stop splitting (without getting a consensus at the relevant project page) is highly desirable. William Avery (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I have filed a bot approval request at WP:BRFA#William Avery Bot. William Avery (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Acanthinucella punctulata

The main photograph for the Acanthinucella punctulata article has a hermit crab inside the snail shell rather than the actual snail. It might be confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.224.148 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What you say is true, however, the caption does state that fact, and the image is otherwise a good clear photo of the shell, and one which shows many of the diagnostic features. If you can create a better photo of your own, of an empty shell or a live individual that you are certain is of this species, and if you are prepared to give your image away to the world, please feel free to upload it and you can put it in the article. Invertzoo (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Pyramedellidae--category and stub category

I'm contemplating a huge undertaking, and I want to run it by this WikiProject first, to make sure I don't run afoul of any special preferences here.
There is a huge category page, and an almost as huge stub category page for the family Pyramedellidae. The stub page has a tag that it's very large, and it might be good to set up subcategories. I'm thinking of setting up and populating subcategories for the genus Odostomia, within both the family category and the family stub category. I estimate there will be over 400 articles in each. I've completed projects of that scope before. (And it will save me a lot of time if I do them at the same time.)
But here's the thing I want to check:

  • I notice that someone set up subcategory pages (the main category, not the stub) for both Odostomia and another large genus Chrisallida. That someone then moved 9 species in one genus and 11 species in the other to their respective subcategories, and then left Wikipedia.
  • I also recall seeing in the past that WITH THE GASTROPODS, category pages for large families often have a note asking that all species be listed there--for convenience, it says--even if some of them are in subcategories. I don't know why that is. It's not the usual way in Wikipedia, but I don't want to go against Project preferences.

In this case, should I go ahead and create the subcategories, both in the category and in the stub category, and move all the relevant species? Should I create both subcategories and move the stubs, and add the articles to the non-stub subcategory while leaving them in the main category? Should I just do the stub subcategory, and not do anything with the non-stub? Or should I leave it all alone? Uporządnicki (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not a member of this WikiProject, nor am I any kind of expert in gastropods. I just go round performing major surgery on categories and lists here. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your message. I am happy that you are interested in gastropods and I appreciate that. Unfortunately there is no need to split the category Category:Pyramidellidae. It is a large category, but splitting will give no advantage. These species will be moving among genera, but probably they will stay in this family. There is no need neverending splitting and merging categories. It is better to focus on improving articles about species. Thank you for your cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding categories, it would be useful for this Wikiproject to apply the following ideas:
--Snek01 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@AzseicsoK: there is a major category rework being discussed at WT:TREE#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description which might interest you/be relevant here. I would hold off on major category reworks until that is closed/formalized.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I guess I should just leave it alone for a while. Clearly, there's reason NOT to do what I proposed, and these other projects talked about are not things I've generally gotten my teeth into, and I'm not 100% clear what they are, anyway. I think there's still plenty of tidying of categories for me to do among moths. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Gastropods is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 25.6 % of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I shared my opinion there. --Snek01 (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Question from someone who will be signing up soon

Someone I know, who is a gastropod person, said it was OK for me to post this, which is part of a message from him to me:

"A thought that has been bugging me for a while about public biodiversity information on the internet (specifically type specimen photos) is that they are not generally pulled into Wikipedia, leaving species pages barren when they could be full of information and photos that are available publicly, often under a restriction free CC license."

"I think you’re active in the wikipedia taxonomy world, is there already a project or plan in place to get images from things like iDigBio or museum type imaging projects into taxon pages, or to better incorporate taxon pages with curated databases like WoRMS and MolluscaBase?"

Maybe someone would like to reply to his question? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the uploading has to be done manually to commons.wikimedia.org, using the upload wizard: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard]. Don't forget to add down below in the upload wizard a request that the license be checked with the template {{LicenseReview}} I can recommend the website of the Muséum nationale d'histoire naturelle in Paris on the website [https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/item/search/form?listCount=147&listIndex=32]. Lately, they have released thousands of photos in excellent condition. Not all photos however carry a free license. One has to look for CC-by on the photo, which is a {{cc-by-4.0}} free license. One has to check in WoRMS if the given name is the latest accepted name, which is not always the case. There are probably also other websites providing photos with an acceptable free license. Once uploaded in the Commons, one has to put the photo in a category. Then one can enter the photo in an existing article in wikipedia (or one can make this article oneself). When in doubt during every step of this process, just look how someone else has done it and copy the method. This seems a lot of work but it is rewarding. Hope this helps and welcome to this project. JoJan (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
If they know where a large number of images can be obtained for upload in one go they could inquire at commons:Commons:Batch uploading. I uploaded a load of moth images last year, and may be able to advise if required. William Avery (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. However, a batch upload, if it were possible, would require lots of verification afterwards (could take months or even years). Is the name the accepted name for the species ? Has the photo been categorized in the correct category ? Review of the licence by an administrator in the Commons (this would give an overload). And then keeping track of the many changes in the taxonomy. If all this can be done by a bot, fine. But I think this would require some AI in the bot. With this reasoning, a manual upload, photo by photo, checking the data every time, is in my opinion the only solution. I have been doing this for some time and it is a work that will require much, much time. JoJan (talk) 14:24, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
There is virtually the plan to upload all best relevant images because it is within the scope of Wikipedia. But we lack enough human resources to have uploaded everything possible already and so on. There are already much of images not yet used at Wikimedia Commons and there are immense number of images with suitable license on Interent on various webpages. As far as I know, nobody uploaded images from iDigBio. Articles are already linked to WoRMS through WikiData. (Not to MolluscaBase, because it would be duplicate to WoRMS). - The user can ask detailed questions here (or at my talk page or via email). I will be happy to share my experience and opinion. --Snek01 (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Turrited spelling?

Hi, gastropod fans: over at Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss the "potential mis-spelling" tools have unearthed the term "turrited" as a typo for "turreted". Most or maybe all of the tagged articles refer to a description of gastropod shells. I find both spellings online; I think the "i" occurs mostly in older papers. A few online zoological lexicons don't have the term at all. Some members of the project have already started "correcting" it. Which spelling do you prefer? (ETA:) I can't even find a definition of the term, only multiple uses of both spellings. David Brooks (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

According to the New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the term "turrited" is now rare or obsolete. The word "turreted" means (according to the same dictionary): having a long pointed spire resembling a turret (said of a mollusc shell). "Turrited" therefore should be replaced by "turreted" in all articles. JoJan (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Will report back to the moss project. David Brooks (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Subterclass

Hello, do we need subterclass rank? This is not mentioned even on the Class (biology)#An example from zoology. I have taken a look at Euthyneura taxon on WoRMS http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1057247 and it has few subtaxa ranked as subterclass. These taxa were ranked as cohort in the taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet et al., 2017). The rank subterclass is under the infraclass rank on WoRMS. So my question is like this: is the rank subterclass the same as parvclass? I think, that it is the same, especially when the WoRMS does not use the rank parvclass at all. If they are 100% the same, then we can use parvclass instead of subterclass in taxoboxes. If they are not the same, then we would need add a new rank subterclass into the taxobox template. It is so tricky and so important question, that it would be the best to ask somebody on WoRMS directly. Any volunteer? --Snek01 (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Parvclass and subterclass are clearly not the same, although they might occupy similar positions in the taxonomic hierarchy (depending on what other minor ranks are recognized). If I recall correctly, when WoRMS was still based on Bouchet 20005, they slotted Bouchet's informally ranked groups into formal ranks that preserved Bouchet's hierarchical relationships, but not the lack of ranks (and WoRMS maybe omitted a few of Bouchet's 2005 "ranks"?). I thought WikiProject Gastropods had previously preferred to directly follow Bouchet 2005, rather than WoRMS ranked representation of the 2005 classification. So I'm not sure why it's even under consideration to use WoRMS "subterclass" instead of Bouchet 2017's "cohorts", let alone a "parvclass" rank that isn't suggested by either Bouchet or WoRMS.
At any rate, {{Taxobox}} doesn't currently support parvclass, cohort, or subterclass. {{Automatic taxobox}} does support cohort, which means if support for any of these ranks is added to manual taxoboxes, cohort would probably the easiest to incorporate. Plantdrew (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikipedia always use the most up to date taxonomy (taxonomy on WoRMS is updated taxonomy by Bouchet et al. 2017). Bouchet et al. 2017 used cohorts and subcohorts (and one grade and two clades), but luckily we do not need cohorts and subcohorts now in taxoboxes (as far as I know, special cases can always appear, but I found none yet). So now we only need Taxobox to support subterclass. --Snek01 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to insert extra levels in {{taxobox}} you can use |=unranked_infraclassis= and |=unranked_magnordo= to insert taxa above and below infraclass. They will of course show as "(unranked)", but this will allow the extra levels to be shown. A useful feature would be to name the unranked levels, as "clade" or "parvclass" or "subterclass" with an |=unranked_infraclassis_alias= parameter.   Jts1882 | talk  13:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Incidentally, google finds nothing using both parvclass and subterclass. However a couple of pages get picked up for parvphylum and subterphylum and for parvorder and subterorder which suggests they are alternative names.   Jts1882 | talk  14:24, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I have no view on whether these ranks should be used here or not. I'd just like to comment on what is involved in a rank being "supported" in the automated taxobox system.

  • In a limited sense, any rank is "supported", since the whole point of the automation is that the hierarchy is determined through |parent= in taxonomy templates, not by the order of the parameters in the taxobox template.
  • However, full support involves two pieces of information being available:
    • the correspondence between the English and Latin names of the ranks
    • an arbitrary numerical value for the rank if the rank is used consistently, so that the system can check for out-of-order ranks; some ranks, like "series", are used quite differently in different groups so can't be checked.

The ranks that are fully supported at any one time are shown at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank. The table can be sorted to show the ordering. The problem with the novel interpolated ranks that some sources use, at least in my experience of them, is that there's no consistency between sources as to their ordering. We already have to allow for two different uses of "grandordo" and "mirordo". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the automated taxobox system has supported subterclassis since 11 Sept 2018, although it can't check for correct ordering as I don't know exactly where it fits. As an illustration, I have set up Aiteng ater to use {{Speciesbox}}. Click on the red pencil icon as usual to view the complete hierarchy. See Template talk:Taxobox#Subterclass adding request for some further comments. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Philbertia pygmaea

Notice

The article Philbertia pygmaea has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nomen dubium of an invalid genus (see WoRMS for the species and genus, respectively. No suitable redirect target.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. This is worse than a nomen dubium: no authorship, no reliable reference. Even a nomen dubium eventually gets resolved into an accepted name. In this case the genus has also become a synonym of Raphitoma Bellardi, 1847. If I had encountered this article before, I would have speedily deleted it. The Rhaphitomidae is one of the 13 families originating in Turridae s.l.(Raphitomidae is on my list for next year after I have finished Pseudomelatomidae). Many of these species are ill defined, but Philbertia pygmaea is certainly a separate case with no right of existence in Wikipedia. JoJan (talk) 18:13, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 Done — Ganeshk (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

New article request

Turbinelloidea needs an article. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a few items. JoJan (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Species link pre-empted written into genus page and Laetifautor

I am helping with WP:ORPHAN and as Ganeshbot goes to work, the workload increases! As per the feedback above, will appreciate that the new entries be pre-empted written into their genus pages so other editors running AWB will not be tagging them as orphans and we have to manual edit and remove tags! Also, I have updated Laetifautor page but I am not sure have I written into the article correctly for Laetifautor spinulosus. Please help to edit and advise. As it is, since both species are the same with different names, should we just have a single article or two articles? Thanks --Xaiver0510 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

All the references on the page Laetifautor are to WoRMS. If I were creating the page I would list the five species that WoRMS includes:
- and I would deal with "Species brought into synonymy" differently so as to agree with WoRMS (ie that Laetifautor spinulosus is valid rather than Laetifautor spinulosum.) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ganeshbot is back!

Hello Gastropod members, I had mentioned sometime ago that I lost the code for Ganeshbot and have not been able to run the bot beyond the 18k articles. I have now found some time to rewrite the code and was able to get a few articles created. Please review the following Conidae genus list for correctness. The bot will need few more tweaks before it is good. I do not have access to the WoRMS database any more, so had to rely on their web services for the data. For this reason, I was not able pull the notes and the links data as I did in the previous version.

Season's greetings! — Ganeshk (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Please check these species articles too.

Thanks, Ganeshk (talk) 15:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback 1

Hi! A few comments / preferences:
  • Instead of adding orphan tags, preemptively add the species/genera links to a higher taxon page.
  • Mark as extinct in the taxobox when appropriate.
  • The lead phrasing in several of the articles currently suggests that Conidae is the only family known as "sea snails". (e.g. "Papilliconus is a genus of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks in the family Conidae.") It needs a comma after "mollusks" or to be otherwise rephrased.
  • You can probably omit the "Habitats" section if all it says is that it is a marine species.
  • If it only occurs in a single location, don't format it like a list, e.g. "This species occurs in France." is preferable to "This species occurs in the following locations: France."
  • If there is only a single species in the genus, it should be included in the lead and the taxobox formatted for monotypic genera (i.e. using a Speciesbox).
  • Format authors in taxon lists with <small> tags.
  • Use citation templates, e.g. {{cite web}} or Template:Cite WoRMS.
  • Italicize when appropriate in references (species, genera).
  • Don't italicize parentheses for subgenera.
  • Remove extra spacing, e.g. between lead and references here.
  • I don't think the "External links" heading is necessary if the only thing under it is the taxonbar.
  • Don't add an extra external link for WoRMS if it's already in the taxonbar, especially if it's already used as a reference.
  • Taxonbar should be formatted, for example, {{Taxonbar|from=Q27982477}} where Q27982477 is the corresponding item for that taxon on Wikidata. No need for the additional "worms=|itis=|ncbi=|eol=|iucn=|bold=|fishbase=" since all of that is added automatically from Wikidata when available.
  • Can you also add it to the appropriate location category too?
  • Two blank lines go before stub templates.
Thanks, —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Hyperik:. Will look into these suggestions before my next run. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hyperik: I have created a few more pages,
  1. Eoconus veteratoris
  2. Eoconus sulciferus
  3. Eoconus sauridens
  4. Eoconus diversiformis
  5. Eoconus derelictus
  6. Eoconus bareti
My replies:
  • I have disabled AWB from adding orphan tags.
  • Added extinct option, see Eoconus bareti.
  • Update the lead sentence to include the comma.
  • Habitat section will only show if there is more than one habitat available.
  • I have updated distribution text, will find an examples shortly.
  • If there is only one species, the bot adds a category for monotypic genera. Replacing the taxobox with speciesbox is complicated.
  • Genera taxon lists will now include small tags for authority.
  • I pull the citation directly from WoRMS, I would prefer to retain as it is. It is cumbersome to break it up into different parameters required for CiteWeb.
  • Done, I have italicized the genera/species name in the citation.
  • I don't parse subgenera right now. How should this be handled?
  • I have tried to remove spaces as much as I could. I cannot avoid adding two empty spaces between the lead and the rest of the page.
  • I have removed external links section.
  • I have removed the extra WoRMS link
  • For the bot to add a Wikidata item #, it needs to search for it first. If it does not exist, it will need to be added. The bot uses AWB to create articles, so cannot handle this requirement. It does add all those params if available, and someone has to manually add to Wikidata.
  • Not handling location category at the moment, will look into it.
  • Bot is adding two empty lines before the stub template.
Thanks, — Ganeshk (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback 2

Great. A few more comments:
  • Maybe better to ignore monotypic genera for now, if they can't be formatted correctly en masse? Related, does it create redirects for species to their monotypic genera?
  • For subgenera, they should be formatted ''Genus'' (''Subgenus''). I noticed it in a few lists of synonyms in the taxoboxes.
  • Likely better to just leave the taxonbar blank. Just {{Taxonbar}} should be fine.
  • Definitely a miniscule personal preference, but it's helpful of the taxoboxes are formatted with the parameters in a certain order, roughly the order in which they are displayed, e.g.
|image=
|image_caption=
|display_parents=
|taxon=
|extinct=
|authority=
|synonyms_ref=
|synonyms=
  • If extinct, can you add that to the lead? "Eoconus sauridens is an extinct species of sea snail..."
  • Others may have opinions on how many parents to display in the taxoboxes... I would personally default to leaving that blank. It's probably better to set certain taxa to always_display in the taxonomy templates instead of in the individual taxoboxes.
—Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hyperik: I have implemented some of the above and created 94 new Conidae stubs listed here.
My replies:
  • Right, it may have to be a separate project to address monotypic genera.
  • I have removed all parameters from the Taxonbar now. I still need to figure out how to add the IDs to Wikidata. I am getting some help from Tom Reding for that.
  • I have formatted the parameters in the order you suggested.
  • The extinct word has been added to the lead now. The extinct symbol will also be included in the species lists on genera pages.
  • The display_parents is the compromise that I have settled on for the use on Automatic Taxoboxes in this project. The project members expect all the clades to show up. I have tried the always_display route, but the technical folks at the Auto Taxobox don't prefer that.
You have been great help with the reviews. Thank you, — Ganeshk (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Here is an updated example, Maurea and its species. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Hyperik: @Tagishsimon: I have added the QIDs to the articles now. Please check the new stubs here. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ganeshk: Hats off to you, Ganeshk. Thank you for taking that on and battling through wikidata & QS idiosyncrasies. Both the fact of doing it and the spirit in which you embraced the task are well worthy of congratulations. Have a very good new year, whenever it turns up in your neck of the woods. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Feedback 3

Welcome back, Ganesh. Finally, after all these years I can be relieved of adding manually new articles with their automatic taxoboxes or speciesboxes. I didn't go too deeply yet in checking your new additions, but I did some work on the extinct genus Eoconus. This led to some remarks (check the differences in the History tab):

  • when a species is extinct, add in the intro " an extinct species" instead of "a species"
  • when an extinct species has a synonym: also add the dagger († = extinct) to the synonym
  • when the species is extinct, add the template {{paleo-gastropod-stub}}
  • for all species add the category: [[Category described in .... (year)]]
  • for all extinct species, add on the talk page the template {{WikiProject Palaeontology|class=stub|importance=low}}
  • for all species: instead of adding e.g. [[Category:Conidae]], be more specific and add e.g. [[Category: Eoconus|bareti]]. The same goes for a genus, in this case [[Category: Eoconus|*]] and then link this category to [[Category:Conidae]]. This refrains a category of a family becoming too long. Such a category should only contain genera and not species.

The other additions I've made can't be done by a bot. JoJan (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @JoJan:, glad to be back. I took care of the issues #1 and #2. I am having trouble adding the paleo stub template based on a condition (holding off on this). I will look into adding year and location categories shortly. I will also look into adding genus-based categories. Thanks for the feedback.
Please review the 202 new Costellariidae stubs for correctness. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi @JoJan: The following articles have all the changes that you suggested. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Small things: It's helpful to sort the main article for the category at the beginning, usually done with a space or asterisk, e.g. [[Category|Cadlina|*]]. And there shouldn't be a space after the "pipe" for the category key for species. That is, it should be: [[Category:Cadlina|kamchatica]] rather than [[Category:Cadlina| kamchatica]]. If you add a space, it sorts it to the beginning of the category. With no space, it goes to the "K" section. (If it was intentional, just a note that most other taxa are not sorted that way.) —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hyperik: I have fixed the catsort. See Eumitra and its species. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Feedback 4

Hi Ganeshk, I applied all possible standard AWB fixes (WP:GenFixes, WP:MOS fixes, WP:AWB/Typo fixes, WP:AWB/Unicodify, tagging (I typically restrict orphan tags to only linkless pages)), and personal lists of taxonomic & citation gen fixes, to the 31 above pages. The only minor changes worth mentioning are the unicodification of &#8224; → † here, and the removal of <small></small> tags in refs here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Tom.Reding:. I took care of these two issues. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Note

If you want to track what the bot is doing, here is the page where I post a list of new articles being created by family. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup template for Invalid (unaccepted) taxon

I just created a template, {{Cleanup taxon}}, that can be used to tag taxon that may have issues, invalid, nomem dubium etc. I plan to have a bot check pages against WoRMS periodically and tag them with this template if their status is any thing other than "accepted". This is different from the listing approach from the past. Thoughts? — Ganeshk (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I ran a check on Costellariidae family and found around 6 taxa that are invalid. See Category:Taxa that may be invalid. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea if curated well. My only quibble is that, if the concept is to potentially apply to all taxa and not just animals, then the terms "valid" and "accepted" should not be used interchangeably. See validly published name; "invalid" has a very specific meaning for plants, fungi, and algae. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 04:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Ganeshk, that's really cool. Definitely a category I'd keep an eye on for de-orphaning efforts! Thanks for the ping. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
An "alternate representation" is not an unaccepted representation but is an accepted name that is slightly less preferred than the accepted name. It is not invalid. But I usually avoid creating such an article and stick to the accepted name. JoJan (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Question: reasonable to redirect a nomen dubium to the genus page and then mention it there, as an ATD? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@JoJan: I have removed the cleanup tag from the pages that were alternate representation. There were only 13 of them. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Ganeshk:! It seems to me, as Trochulus oreinos seems to me a similar case. Perhaps this refers to the paper of Neiber et al., where they put T. oreinos into a new described genus named Noricella. If the WP community wants to follow that suggestion, I have no problem with that, but it would have been nice, if somebody would have specified why this taxon should be considered as "invalid" (which is not the right expression for this case, as already JoJAn said). Greetings, --Edmund Sackbauer (talk) 07:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Edmund Sackbauer, per WoRMS, it is a synonym of Noricella oreinos (Wagner, 1915). — Ganeshk (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I've performed the move and the consequent changes in Trochulus and in the Commons. I also created the genus Noricella. JoJan (talk) 14:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Edmund Sackbauer, but point taken on explaining the reason for the cleanup tag, I may do another cleanup run that will add additional context to the tag, like Per WoRMS, this taxon is a synonym of X. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Next steps

The category has 700+ items so far. What would be the course of action here? Is it cleanup by humans or is there something a bot can help with ? — Ganeshk (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

One option will be to have the template create sub-categories based on concern parameter (unaccepted, alternate representation, nomem dubium etc). And then deal with each differently. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

2 related suggestions/questions:

  1. {{Gastropods.com}} exists & wraps {{Cite web}}, so a rename to {{Cite gastropods.com}} I think is descriptive & appropriate. If changed, the existing {{Gastropods.com}} template can (and I think should) be reused for non-reference cases, like for external links.
  2. What is the preferred display format/text for external links to gastropods.com? The 2 most prevalent formats I've seen are variations on:
from Siphonochelus tityrus & Abyssochrysos brasilianus, respectively.

For reference, a {{Gastropods.com}} bullet/citation currently looks like:

so relatively close to the first variation (2.1).

If the Siphonochelus tityrus format is preferred, I would still think it best that we use 2 separate templates for refs and external links, lest future desired changes to one format interfere with the other. Courtesy ping to its creator, Tomchiukc.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't we have both functions in the same template, just like the plainurl option in {{Google books}}? --Tomchiukc (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed we can. What I originally had in mind was a separation similar to {{Cite SBDB}} for refs & {{JPL small body}} for external links, but their outputs are very different.
Since there are many more external links to gastropods.com (~5000) vs. bare refs (most of {{Gastropods.com}}'s 271 current transclusions are mostly formerly-bare refs, with only ~30 actual bares remaining), I think a |ref=yes parameter makes sense, making the external link format the default behavior, putting less effort on the editor to learn & add a new parameter.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
For clarification, this would only get done if the current {{Gastropods.com}} display is changed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for the edits! I noticed that most referencing to this website was done by robots? May be just leave them unless the contents require changes. -- Tomchiukc (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Harpa gracilis or Harpa amouretta?

Hello! We got the following mail:

I noticed a misidentification on the only visual file representing the species Harpa gracilis on Wikipedia AND Wikimedia Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Harpa_gracilis. Unfortunately, the specimen from Naturalis Biodiversity Center belongs to Harpa amouretta, a close species.

— ticket:2019020710000582

We are talking about File:Harpa gracilis 001.jpg and file:Naturalis Biodiversity Center – ZMA.MOLL.356215 – Harpa gracilis Broderip & Sowerby, 1829 – Harpidae – Mollusc shell.jpeg. I am not an expert, so please help me clarifying the situation. Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Harpa gracilis is the only harp with a white protoconch, clearly distinguishing it from all other Harps. Other differentiating characteristics are the shallow umbilicus, slender form and no shoulder on the body whorl. The specimen displayed in Wikipedia has a purple protoconch and round aperture form. Also, on one of the data shown on Wikimedia picture, a note by identifier J. Berhout in 1991 says the specimen is not H. gracilis. Best regards, Sebastien Guyonneau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D400:A970:716A:3114:AA08:BC87 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ganeshbot just crossed the 20k mark

I wanted to let you all know that Ganeshbot has crossed the 20k mark. It has so far created 20,142 articles. It created 344 new Muricidae stubs today. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ganeshk: Congratulations to Ganeshbot for his diligence and hard work. 20,000 is an impressive figure, and looking at his contributions page, his work-rate is phenomenal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: Thank you. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata

I have some good news to report. Some of you may know that WoRMS had given me offline download access to their database. I had reached out @Succu:, and they are helping bulk import all the WoRMS database entries into Wikidata. The import process is currently in progress for around 287,000 accepted species in the database. More discussion at User talk:Succu#WoRMS_database. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Tom.Reding: and @Tagishsimon: for the Succu referral. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta

Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

terminology question

Hi. I'm doing some typo clean-up around WP, mainly using Wikipedia:Typo Team/moss lists, and came across a snail related item. It relates to the WP page Ashmunella, and in particular, the use of "woodlandsnail" as a single word. Because it doesn't appear in wiktionary as such it has popped up in a list as a probable typo, and I went to fix it. It turns out there are 39 uses on that page, (and only on that page as far as WP goes). While I have no problem doing the edits, if I get it wrong that's 39 incorrect edits, which wouldn't really be helping reduce the number of typos on WP!

So, and I'm hoping that this doesn't open some ancient and bloody feud between rival factions ... should "woodlandsnail" be changed to "woodland snail"?

If there are no replies to the contrary then I will go ahead in a couple of days and do that change. Anyone late to the party can always revert it if they are so aggrieved.

Replies here or on my Talk page will be fine. Thanks in advance. Wayne 07:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem reverting to woodland snail. This would be in concordance with articles such as Franklin Mountain woodland snail and numerous sites on internet mentioning different kinds of woodland snails. JoJan (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Probable correction to Peltodoris nobilis...

I have been working to identify the nudibranchs I see while diving in Monterey Bay and there are a few yellow ones that are very similar. It seems that on the Peltodoris nobilis page, the 3rd picture under Decription is not a "Peltodoris nobilis with very few spots" but actually a Doriopsilla albopunctata aka White-spotted Sea Goddess. Doriopsilla albopunctata I didn't want to just delete this pic because I'm not a taxonomist, but I do believe I am correct in the identification of the animal in the 3rd picture. I'm looking for a second opinion before deleting the image. 99.162.77.131 (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Acanthodoris nanaimoensis

Hello all. I've found that whoever created the Acanthodoris nanaimoensis page has entirely plagiarized the text from an iNaturalist page concerning the same species. I was hoping someone could at least try to reword it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfireX (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually the iNaturalist page is the Wikipedia page, not vice versa. Invertzoo (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A good start

Our first new genera and species of 2020 : Falsuszafrona Pelorce, 2020 and Verticosta S.-I Huang & M.-H. Lin, 2020 JoJan (talk) 15:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Available gastropod names

Hello, somebody proposed to rename the Category:Available gastropod names. --Snek01 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Outdated taxboxes

@JoJan:@Snek01:@Invertzoo: Hi! We have an outdated gastropod taxonomy that follows work of Bouchet & Rocroi 2005 in taxboxes, but there is a new 2017 version of this work with many changes. I think that it's especially disappointing regarding Stylommatophora and other "pulomates", since in the version of 2005 it was given with ugly "informal groups" and "clades", but in the version of 2017 we have nice-looking system with classic ranks of order- and class-level. Unlikely that someone will go change it manually in all pages, but perhaps some of you know how to run a bot to change it automatically or where to ask for it? On the first place I would suggest to change in all taxboxes for all taxa of Stylommatophora this part (occurs in 3 versions for 3 groups):

| unranked_superfamilia = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/> clade [[Euthyneura]]<br/>clade [[Panpulmonata]]<br/> clade [[Eupulmonata]]<br/> clade [[Stylommatophora]]<br/> informal group [[Orthurethra]]

and

| unranked_superfamilia = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/> clade [[Euthyneura]]<br/>clade [[Panpulmonata]]<br/> clade [[Eupulmonata]]<br/> clade [[Stylommatophora]]<br/> informal group [[Sigmurethra]]

and

| unranked_superfamilia = clade [[Heterobranchia]]<br/> clade [[Euthyneura]]<br/>clade [[Panpulmonata]]<br/> clade [[Eupulmonata]]<br/> clade [[Stylommatophora]]<br/> clade [[Elasmognatha]]

with this:

| subclassis = [[Heterobranchia]] | superordo = [[Eupulmonata]] | ordo = [[Stylommatophora]]

--Igor Balashov (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with your remarks. But there is much more involved than this. The whole taxonomy of the order Stylommatophora has changed in 2017 with the introduction of new suborders and new infraorders. Manual introduction of these changes in all the articles involved in Wikipedia would require an immense effort. Not only the taxoboxes have to be changed, but also the text in the articles. If all this can be done by a bot, the better. To give you an idea of the effort required: personally I have been working since 2011 on the changes in Conoidea – this involves about 10,000 species. The cone snails and allies have now been dealt with. I'm now working on the turrids and allies and I'm only halfway yet after all this time. And it doesn't stop here. Changes in many other families have been introduced since the articles were written in Wikipedia. To keep abreast with all this changes, we would need an army of volunteers. JoJan (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
It mainly changed these suborders and infraorders that could be simply not mentioned in every article, it's not that important, they not mentioned in the text of most articles except taxoboxes, only families that mostly remained the same. It would be enough to write about suborders and infraorders in the articles about Stylommatophora and these taxa itself, and these will probably change again later. Actually for some other taxa it changes automatically through templates system, for example in lion, there is no taxonomy in the code of article and there is a link on Template:Taxonomy/Panthera, so perhaps what rather required is to figure out how it works, add all taxonomy in this system and simply remove current taxonomic data from all articles so it could be changed automatically later if something will change again (it will). I've changed it last year in Template:Taxonomy/Stylommatophora, but it seems that to display it requires another box – "Automatic Taxobox", I'm not sure if it is identical in all fields with simply "taxobox". Actually here is manual: Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system. For sure things like "replace all" can be done with automatic bot, but still it's rather complicated and requires some approvals Wikipedia:Bots, Help:Creating a bot.--Igor Balashov (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
So yes, best way to do it would be creating automatic taxoboxes with templates. I've fixed it for few taxa, for example Carychium minimum and all parent taxa. You don't need even to remove old taxonomy from the code, an only thing that should be fixed in the article is "Taxobox" should be replaced with "Automatic Taxobox" and template should be created, which is few copy-past actions, like Template:Taxonomy/Carychium minimum. If you guys will be fixing taxonomy manually – better do it in this way, when something will change later on upper ranks – it will be very easy to fix it with this automatic system (almost nothing comparing to current situation when you need to fix all articles if one parent taxa is changed), main problem is to initially introduce automatic system to all genera and species.--Igor Balashov (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
You shouldn't use {{automatic taxobox}} for species as the way you have done it requires a taxonomy template for each species. You should use {{speciesbox}} with |genus= and |species=. In this way only one template is needed for the whole genus, rather than hundreds for a genus like Helix. I converted the taxoboxes at Carychium minimum and Carychium to demonstrate the minimum required. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:07, 29 April 2020
The automatic taxoboxes are the best way to maintain a taxonomy. Although they still need manual changes to implement, once in place it becomes easy to change the higher taxonomy without editing thousands of species pages. I know there has been historical resistance to automatic taxoboxes for gastropods and I once offered to create all the higher order templates for the Bouchet 2017 scheme (and I still am). I find the most annoying part of doing the conversion on a species is having to create three or four templates for higher taxa, so creating higher taxa templates first makes conversion easier.
For {{automatic taxobox}} the essential parameter is {{taxon}}. This should be set for the genus if a genus article, for the family if a family article, etc. If it is missing, the code will use the the article title (which works for most articles on higher taxa) but I think it better to explicitly set the parameter. Also use |authority= rather than the |RANK_authority= parameters. The automated taxobox system automatically shows the family, order, class and phylum. If you want other ranks displayed in the taxobox (e.g. subterclass) the parameter |display_parents= can be set to 2 or higher. You should be able to show the exact same taxa in the taxobox if the taxonomy hasn't changed. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Mollusc shells – Gastropod shell – Seashell

Three large articles with large overlaps. How about either making connections between these subjects clearer and/or reducing overlaps and/or partial entire merging these? My first thought is starting with STEP 1 keeping the three articles, but moving all common (repeated texts to mollusc shells, where also the relation between the three articles will be highlighted; and trying to maintain similar TOC headings for gastropod shell and sea shell. STEP 2 (if need is still felt): when all is done, moving mollusc shell and seashell articles als chapters into Molusc shell. Anyone objecting to STEP 1? If not, I'll try and propose a TOC for the three articles soon. --Chescargot (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Metaphos and Metaphos (gastropod)

These seem to be about the same genus, please could someone check and merge them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Done --JoJan (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Changes to Taxobox; get the banner changed to be consistent with using Bouchet et al. (2017)

On a page on my watchlist, I noticed that Animal lover 666 had changed the classification in the taxobox, so that it no longer agreed with Bouchet & Rocroi (2005), which is what the Wikiproject Gastropod banner on the talk page of every gastropod article states should be used consistently. So I reverted the edit. I un-reverted when I came across the discussion here a couple of items above agreeing to use the 2017 update. I don't disagree with this change, but then the banner ought to be changed. And this discussion ought to be cited in the edit description when the taxoboxes are updated. Jmchutchinson (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the template to reflect the 2017 revised taxonomy of the gastropods. However this revised taxonomy is not freely available on the internet, but WoRMS follows this latest revision. Many articles in Wikipedia are not yet up-to-date and it would take an enormous effort to do so. Not just the taxoboxes (most of which are not yet automatic) but also adapting the text in the articles. JoJan (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
It's available at Researchgate. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I've made the link in the template. JoJan (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

New Categories

Hello,

There are some wanted categories (at Special:WantedCategories) involving gastropods and rather than me trying to guess how to categorize these species, I'm hoping someone who knows about taxonomy could spend a few minutes and create these few categories instead. They just have to fit into the existing category structure which, I'm sure if you are a member of this WikiProject, you know well. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 22:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Template:Taxonomy/Ninella

We have unused Template:Taxonomy/Ninella. Currently, Ninella is synonym or subgenus of Lunella. Should we delete this template to make room for Template:Taxonomy/Ninella (foram) --> [[Template:Taxonomy/Ninella]]--Estopedist1 (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I've deleted the template, as Ninella is a synonym. JoJan (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Whether to include famous snail parasite in WikiProject Gastropods

I've recently considerably revised the page on Leucochloridium paradoxum. This is a famous parasite of Succinea snails; part of the parasite enters the snail's tentacle, changing its appearance spectacularly to a swollen, brightly coloured, pulsating structure. This looks like an insect larva, thus attracting insectivorous birds, which eat the tentacle and thereby get infected. So, should I add the Gastropods banner to the talk page? It is already part of WikiProject Animals; I'm not wanting to seem to "poach" the article for Gastropods but I suppose that it could be listed in more than one project. Note that there are also articles on Leucochloridium variae and Leucochloridium, and further such examples listed in the category Parasites of molluscs. I'm just not sure of the etiquette/customs about this. Jmchutchinson (talk) 10:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing stops you from using the gastropod template on Leucochloridium (+ species), but I advise against it. This template should only be used for gastropod taxa. But I advise you to add this interesting information to the article on Succinea and perhaps do the same for other parasites of gastropods. JoJan (talk) 12:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Telescopium telescopium

Talk:Telescopium telescopium has a message from a new editor. A member of this project could probably be more helpful than I could. Certes (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've added some data and checked the text. In my opinion, it now belong in class C. JoJan (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. Certes (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Triplofusus giganteus not Triplofusus papillosus

The name of this taxon needs changing. T. gianteus is currently a Redirect page. Please check with WoRMS if you need to be sure. Invertzoo (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've done the necessary. The article is allright now. JoJan (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Editing Beddomeia Fultoni

Hi, I am a student at Sydney University and I'll be editing an article on Beddomeia fultoni until the 31st of May. I was wondering if anyone was willing to look over it in the next couple of weeks? Thanks! Lesgoo0 (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

One of Lesgoo0's classmates expanded Beddomeia waterhouseae and adopted it for DYK. I've adopted the nomination and would welcome help from someone familiar with the style manual (so to speak) of articles on gastropods. Thank you! Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I've checked the taxonomy, which was not up-to-date, and made a few changes. JoJan (talk) 13:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Muricanthus

The Wiki entry on Muricanthus indicates that the genus has been replaced and all species were re-assigned to the genus Hexaplex. However, WoRMS (http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=225316) indicates that Muricanthus is a valid genus and ambiguus, callidinus, nigritus, radix, and strausi are accepted under that genus (other species previously in Muricanthus (kusterianus, princeps, trippae (aka fulvescense), and varius) have been reassigned to Hexaplex (Also virgineus was reassigned to Chicoreus).

Also the Wiki page lists callidinus as a synonym of Ambiguus but WoRMS lists it as a valid species name.

The page for Hexaplex lists most of the species listed in WoRMS under Muricanthus.

Also, I noticed that the entry for Naquetia barclayi has a picture linked to it but the picture is of a Timbellus phyllopterus, not an N. barclayi.

I've made the necessary changes to Muricanthus, in accordance with WoRMS. JoJan (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
You're right about the Naquetia barclayi picture. I've made the necessary changes. JoJan (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Genus Ariolimax can't be in both the Ariolimacidae & the Arionidae

Hi folks. An IP poster at the Teahouse has pointed out that genus Ariolimax is listed as being in both the Arionidae and the Ariolimacidae. Looking at pages 40 and p365 of this 2017 taxonomic revision it looks as though the genus should be removed from the Arionidae. Could somebody familiar with the latest Gatropod taxonomy investigate and make the necessary revisions, please? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

WoRMS courtesy link: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=995725 Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:45, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I've removed Ariolimax from Arionidae. JoJan (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Help please, gastropod mollusk in the family Onchidiidae

Hi, while working on Orphaned articles from September 2021, there are 18 articles, all for Onchidiidae. I see Onchidiidae has a Genera section, but I'm totally lost of how that works. Asking for help to wikilink these in another correct article. Had Biology many years ago & this is way outside my knowledge. Thanks for helping. JoeNMLC (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I looked at a selection, and they had all been created by User:Ganeshbot. Clicking on the WoRMS link in the taxonbar reveals that the pages are for dubious or not generally recognised species. If nobody objects I will WP:PROD them tomorrow. William Avery (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@William Avery: Thankyou a bunch! JoeNMLC (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@William Avery and Premeditated Chaos: - ω Awaiting JoeNMLC (talk) 10:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
William Avery, I've PROD'd the ones that are nomen dubium, as they don't have valid names. Please don't PROD the ones that are invalid but have accepted names, such as Onchidium ambiguum – these should be moved to their correct names or redirected if the correct name already has an article. JoeNMLC, you have the right idea but you're one step too far up the taxonomic chain. Anything with a bionomial name like Onchidium ambiguum is a species. Onchidium is the genus that contains the species, and should have a link to all the valid species in the genus. Onchidiidae is the family, and individual species don't belong on that page. For both of you, if you don't want to deal with it, don't worry, I'll get to them at some point. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'd forgotten about this, but I'm very happy to leave them be. William Avery (talk) 12:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Cepolidae

Does anyone know if the ICZN has made a decision on the case of Cepolidae? The fish family named by Rafinesque in 1815 is the senior homonym to the land snail family named by Ihering in 1909. It was to go to the ICZN to resolve the homonymy in 2017 has there been an outcome? Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope I wasn't out of line. I edited your section title to link to the snail family, not to the fish family with the same name. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Then corrected my own edit, where I created a redlink by forgetting to close parentheses. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Helicostyla smaragdina

Per WoRMS [1], it appears that the correct genus for Helicostyla smaragdina should be Cochlostyla. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espritch (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the image and caption at File:Naturalis Biodiversity Center - RMNH.MOL.308891 - Helicostyla (Opalliostyla) smaragdina (Reeve, 1842) - Bradybaenidae - Mollusc shell.jpeg, the species the IUCN misspelled Helicostyla smargadina as back in 1996 is indeed Cochlostyla smaragdina, whose type locality is in Mindanao (origin: native) per WoRMS. The updated IUCN (2021-2) does not seem to contain the species; there is no other smargadina, and the only mollusc smaragdina it contains is Peltospira smaragdina.
To complicate matters, WoRMS contains a (correctly spelled) Helicostyla smaragdina first described by Grateloup in 1840, whose type locality is also in the Phillipines, Luzon (origin: native – endemic).[2] Again, based on the Naturalis Biodiversity Center image linked above, the IUCN likely means the species Reeve described that's now in Cochlostyla, rather than the one now in Chloraea.
For completion's sake, I'll note that the only smargadina in WoRMS is Asterocytis smargadina, a synonym of Chroodactylon ornatum.[3] Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 22:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=1415502
  2. ^ MolluscaBase eds. (2021). MolluscaBase. Chloraea smaragdina (Grateloup, 1840). Accessed through World Register of Marine Species on 2021-12-04
  3. ^ Guiry, M.D. & Guiry, G.M. (2021). AlgaeBase. World-wide electronic publication, National University of Ireland, Galway (taxonomic information republished from AlgaeBase with permission of M.D. Guiry). Chroodactylon ornatum (C.Agardh) Basson, 1979. Accessed through World Register of Marine Species on 2021-12-04

Proposed deletion of Ampullaria

Notice

The article Ampullaria has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This genus is unaccepted. Any species that were previously included in this genus have either been synonymized elsewhere (eg, Pomacea or Pila) or are considered dubious/uncertain species, or were named without a description (ie invalid). See https://doi.org/10.11646/zootaxa.3940.1.1

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Equivamp - talk 03:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Taxobox to speciesbox conversion

Hello. I was chatting on another page about mass converting taxoboxes to speciesboxes, and someone mentioned that I should skip gastropod articles as your WikiProject likes to use taxoboxes and likes to display a lot of clades that aren't usually displayed. Is that pretty much the sentiment? Just want to double check. Here's an example edit that would convert taxobox to speciesbox but would hide some clades. (There is a pencil icon that you can click on the speciesbox that shows tons of clades, that might be a good workaround.) I'm going to skip gastropods unless I get consensus here. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea, but perhaps you could retain "superfamily". One more remark: instead of using "genus and "species", you could use "taxon" to cover both (if you can program this). So, go ahead. We have been waiting too many years for someone able to do all this. JoJan (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I did a few conversions in Lottiidae and set up the taxonomy templates for missing families and genera. There are quite a few species that can be converted. I adjusted |display_parents= to show superfamily and subclass as the manual taxoboxes were doing.
I prefer use of |genus= and |species=. One day one can envisage a single taxobox which detects what type it is and this would be easier if using |taxon= for higher taxa (i.e. for {{automatic taxobox}}), |genus= and |species= for {{speciesbox}}, and infraspecific terms for other taxoboxes.
One other thing, you may know the answer to. WoRMS uses Subterclasses instead of the Cohorts in Bouchet at al (2017) (e.g. Tectipleura). Is the reason for this documented anywhere (I note Philippe Bouchet is editing the records)? —  Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems that "subterclass" is now prefered to "cohort" by WoRMS (and thus by Ph. Bouchet et al.), even if "cohort" was still used in the 2017 taxonomy of the Gastropoda (also by Ph. Bouchet et al.). Other examples in Gastropoda are Acteonomorpha and Ringipleura. But "subterclass" is also used in other taxonomies, such as in Eugnatha (Arthropoda) and Colobognatha (Diplopoda). Therefore we better follow this development. JoJan (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I ask this because the taxonomy templates used by {{automatic taxobox}} were set up using |rank=subterclassis, after much discussion on whether to use automatic taxoboxes for gastropods and the addition of support for subterclass. The taxonomy templates have since been changed to |rank=cohort, referencing Bouchet et al (2017). These could be changed again to reference WoRMS, but since WoRMS states Bouchet et al (2017) as the source this seems inconsistent. Clearly Philippe Bouchet has made the change deliberately, but is there somewhere where the changed rank on WoRMS is discussed or documented? —  Jts1882 | talk  08:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I also prefer |genus= and |species= over |taxon=. From a programming standpoint, it is easier to convert, and it also handles an edge case involving |genus=Test (disambiguator) |species=species, that would not render correctly if it were |taxon=Test (disambiguator) species.
Rather than adding |display_parents=3 to a ton of articles in order to display the superfamily, maybe we could ask @Peter coxhead to add some code to the module so that it displays superfamilies automatically for gastropoda. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: if there's consensus to always display the superfamilies, then put |always_display=yes in their taxonomy templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Always displaying superfamilies is a bad idea. For many taxa they are not that important, e.g. in vertebrates, where order and family are usually most important and superfamily can be shown when required using |always_display=yes (in taxonomy templates) or |display_parents=. On the other hand, in some of the larger invertebrate taxa the superfamily is more important than the family, simply because there are so many families. It might be possible to make some rules to make superfamilies displayed for certain taxa (insects, molluscs), but the |always_display=yes and |display_parents= are available when taxa should be displayed. This leaves it up to the project or article for the decision rather than an algorithmic imposition. —  Jts1882 | talk  20:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeap we're on the same page. The proposal was to always display them for gastropoda. Peter gave a great suggestion that we should get consensus, then do it via the templates. I await input from more people. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm kind of busy at the moment, but I'm going to type out a plan in case I ever circle back to this in the future: The questions to confirm, perhaps via RFC since there weren't that many participants in this discussion, are 1) is it OK to mass convert gastropod taxobox to speciesbox, 2) is it OK to drop all the minor taxa from the boxes except superfamily, 3) is it OK to go mass edit the Template:Taxonomy/ pages for gastropod superfamilies to have |always_display=yes? Once all that is approved, would need to perform the tasks mentioned, and also 4) create lots of taxonomy templates, and 5) generate lists of articles. Simple speciesbox conversion (e.g. taxonomy template already existing), once the kinks are worked out, could also be a good task for a BRFA. I already have an algorithm for it coded up, would just need to convert from user script to bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Oliva barbadensis

The photo accompanying the article for Oliva barbadensis is dubious, at best and is a far cry from the holotype deposited at USNM, numbered 841427. Photos exist for USNM 841427, both ventral and dorsal aspects. Surely photos of the holotype deserve priority over any other submissions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BathyMetrix (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The species on the photo you're referring to was determined by G. Paulmier, author of a scientific article about this species. It is not up to Wikipedia to say otherwise – this would be original research. You can always bring this issue to the attention of MNHN, Paris (https://www.mnhn.fr/fr/faq-contacts) and await their response. JoJan (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC).

It needs to be pointed out that Edw. J. Petuch, (prime author of Oliva barbadensis) has been consulted, and reckons that the specimen displayed as Ol. barbadensis is likely Oliva nivosa, a completely unrelated shell...to be exact, he said.. it looks very close to Oliva nivosa choctaw from the northern Gulf of Mexico (a continental shelf source).
Olivoidea specialist Pierre Recourt is similarly un-impressed, and reckons that the specimen displayed as Ol. barbadensis is likely Oliva figura (= goajira): a different member of Americoliva.
Additionally, I have supplied to the collectors market more topotypes of Ol. barbadensis (from the type locality) than possibly any other source of supply, handling dozens if not hundreds of topotypes, and agree with the two opinions above.
To this end, Wikipedia is unfortunately disseminating false taxonomic information. Photos of the genuine holoype USNM 841427 are now in place within the article, to help correct the unfortunate error. Thank you for your attention to the matter. BathyMetrix (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In order to avoid any confusion, I've uploaded the holotype from the Smithsonian Institution and changed the image at the article. JoJan (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Olivellidae or Olivellinae?

Pardon me, I'm asking this here because I suspect the talk page for the article in question probably isn't watched very much. In the page for Olive snail (family Olividae), it says, "Also see the Olivellidae, the dwarf olives, which were previously grouped within this family, but which now have their own family." But the sources cited (as far as I can actually get to them) and other relevant pages here suggest that it's the other way around--that an old family Olivellidae (in superfamily Olivoidea, alongside Olividae) is now (as of 2017) a subfamily of the Olividae. I've been doing a lot of work sorting out the categories here, but I don't feel quite qualified to "fix" that. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for drawing attention to this possible error/confusion. Many taxonomic workers don't take Wikipedia too seriously, which is a great pity! Someone like [name deleted] might help with this – he's done much work on the Olives and Olivellas in recent times: his email is <email deleted>
BathyMetrix (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the name and personal email you posted. I've sent a message to something called the Oversight Committee about having that name and personal email removed from history. I don't know if you are that individual you named or not. It's recommended that you don't publish your own personal contact info here; certainly, I don't think one should just run someone else's info up the flagpole. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about that...
BathyMetrix (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence "Also see the Olivellidae, the dwarf olives, which were previously grouped within this family, but which now have their own family." from the article "Olive snail", as the name Olivellidae is no longer accepted. It has become a synonym of Olivellinae Troschel, 1869. JoJan (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
So we should move/rename the Category Olivellidae. That needs recategorizing every article in it. That's 113 articles. BUT I'm getting ready to create a subcategory under that category; the subcategory will take in almost all the articles. When I get through doing that, there will be six articles and two subcategories to recategorize. I'll move the project up in my schedule. Might even have it done tomorrow. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
And I see that it's all the more urgent because species in the genus in question are now scattered over two categories (most in one, a few in another). Uporządnicki (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
User:JoJan I see you've edited the statement I added to the Olivellidae category page; you change my sometimes treated statement to one that says now treated (or something like that)--a clear statement that I just didn't feel bold enough to make. You might have noticed that I've got the category list down from 113 articles to about 45; when I finish with this project, there should be only six articles (and just a couple of subcategories). At that point, I guess it will be feasible to move/rename the category. Uporządnicki (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Snail photos -- realistic?

Hi WikiProject. A few times now, I've come across photos of snails that seem (or obviously are) too good to be true. It seems like there are entire genres of photography based on stages scenes with snails or manipulated images placing snails in fantastical environments. Sometimes, the contrivance is obvious, but not always. Even on Commons, there are many such images. E.g. File:Путь сердца.jpg and File:У пошуках пригод.jpg are delightful, but not, shall we say, "scientific". I'd like to get your opinion on this one, however. How realistic is it that a snail climbed up a dandelion stem, atop the seedhead, apparently keeping the seedhead intact? It sure seems like it should be filed under "staged", but perhaps I'm wrong? Thoughts? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:, none of the examples given are used on en.wiki (or any other reader facing Wikimedia page in any language, aside from Wikimedia Commons itself (if that is really considered reader facing)). I don't think there's really an issue for en.wiki here (but I don't fault you for raising this at en.WikiProject Gastropods; I wouldn't know where to bring it up on Commons). Maybe Commons should have a category for "staged/manipulated photos of nature", or is there already a Commons category along those lines? Plantdrew (talk) 04:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: Yes, I suppose I should've contextualized: this is mainly about Commons, and the way Commons users understand, describe, organize, and promote images that other projects (and anyone else) can then use. Commons does not have a centralized place to go for wiki-related questions about gastropods, though, so I'm hoping to find some help. The main question is whether you would consider this photo staged, based on what you know about snails and plants. :) It's currently presented as unstaged -- and may be! -- but a couple of us are skeptical. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites:, I think it is probably staged. I'd expect an obvious gap in the seeds if the snail had climbed up there itself. Plantdrew (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Additional context: the image is currently nominated for Featured Picture on Commons. I've linked to this discussion from there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:03, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Haliotis queketti

I think I am missing something here. WoRMS gives the reference for this species as "Smith, E. A. (1910). On South African marine Mollusca with descriptions of new species. Annals of the Natal Museum. 2: 175-220, pls 7-8., available online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/6322967 page(s): 206-207, pl. 8, figs 1, 1a". I cannot find any reference in this paper to Haliotis (Padollus) queketti. The pages given for this paper in WoRMS do not appear to be correct, Smith's paper is pp 19-72 and the only species mentioned with the specific name queketti is Conus queketti, now Conus imperialis queketti E. A. Smith, 1906. Smith does not mention who he honoured with this name but the S2A3 Biographical Database of Southern African Science states that it was John Frederick Whitlie Quekett FZS, who had retired as curator of the Durban Natural History Museum the year before the paper was published and who was a conchologist. Any gastropod experts out these who could shed some light on this? Quetzal1964 (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay I have found it. Smith described H. queketti in 1916 in the paper On South African Marine Molluscs with Descriptions of New Species" Annals of the Natal Museum Volume 2(2) pp 175-220 and the BHL url is https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/29999. Smith confirms in this who he was honouring with the specific name but surely the 1910 date in most of the online taxonomic sources is incorrect.Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I have further answered my own question, the paper was published in 1910 but the volume was compiled in 1916. Apologies for wasting anybody’s time with this.Quetzal1964 (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Conus conspersus

It would be nice if someone more skilled than I ... added the illustration of the holotype to be found at https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.5154.4.7/47718 to further illuminate this article.

BathyMetrix (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Geomitridae vs. Hygromiidae

Some of you might have noticed I've been working on cleaning up categories and stub categories of Gastropods. It's been a very messy job. And I opened a can of worms when I got approved, and created a stub category for Geometridae. It turns out there's a lot of confusion in Wikipedia between the two families Geomitridae and Hygromiidae. Various species within a genus will be called one or the other; sometimes an article identifies a species as being in both families. The articles might disagree with the sources; the various sources might disagree with each other.

I'm not an expert on Gastropods or Molluscs; I'm not even a biologist. I just go through Wikipedia tidying categories. I do think I know what's going on. It seems that the Geometridae were raised to family level just in 2015, and a lot of Hygromiidae were reclassified. I've gathered that from here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790314004163?via%3Dihub but unfortunately, I can't get past the abstract to read details. And I don't want to fix things based on my hunch that this or that is correct.

WoRMS does not cover these because they are land snails, not marine (it's often linked, so it seems they used to cover them, but now you just get a "whoops" page that says it's out of scope). Fauna Europea labels a lot of things Hygromiidae when I suspect they're Geomitridae. So does AnimalBase.

Is Molluscabase a reliable source? May I rely on taxonomies in IUCN Red List? Or does someone more expert than me (not saying a whole lot) want to go through and fix these? Uporządnicki (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: My understanding is that MolluscaBase is the source used by WoRMS (see taxonomic citation at base of pages), so it should definitely be considered reliable. WoRMS can show non-marine species but you have to toggle the marine only option (top right of page). —  Jts1882 | talk  13:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
@Jts1882Oh! Thank you!! I hadn't seen that toggle. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

My Xerocrassa project

Thanks to @JoJan: for apparently carrying through (and then some) my project of moving Xerocrassa species to the correct family Geomitridae--including moving them to the new Geomitridae stub category I created. For several reasons, including an unexpected death (following a month-long illness) in my family, I'd been getting to it only sporadically recently. Now the only thing remaining is this: the genus Xerocrassa does have a Category page, so the list need not be on the Geomitridae page. In the Xerocrassa category, the species all have their specific name as a sortkey. But that's a task the goes fairly quickly. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Eulima elongata article for deletion?

WoRMS has delisted this species from its taxonomy; they were unable to locate a reference to the species. Should the article be deleted? 17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Skullcinema (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the article JoJan (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks, I've removed the text from Pierre Louis Jean Ivolas from where I picked up this thread. I don't know if you have interest in the Dutch WP but they have an article as well nl:Eulima_elongata Skullcinema (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Love dart

Love dart has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Genera Aphaostracon and Floridobia

I have recently been working on articles about two genera of freshwater snails, Aphaostracon and Floridobia. I have a couple of questions:

  1. I see variation in sources for the spelling of the specific name of some species. Is MolluscaBase a reliable source for accepted names of species?
  2. About half of the species in each genera have articles, but all of those articles are very short stubs, with little or no content that could not be included in a list in the genera article. Would it be acceptable to convert those stubs to redirects to the genera articles?

Donald Albury 15:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Molluscabase is very reliable since it relies on the top experts in their field.
I wouldn't convert stubs into redirects to the genus article, since, in this project, we're aiming at converting these stubs into full-fledged articles. This may take some time, maybe even years. This is what I have been doing along all these years. Furthermore, these stubs are related to an entry in Wikidata and have possibly (or may have in the future) a photo in the Commons. JoJan (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Good to know about MolluscaBase, although that means I will have to move a couple of stubs to the currently accepted names as given in MolluscaBase. I'll leave the existing stubs, but don't plan to create any new ones. Donald Albury 19:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll second the view that MolluscaBase is reliable, probably among the most reliable of all sources used on WoRMS. On the species articles, I'll support them as stubs of articles with potential for expansion. However, a good genus article is a suitable alternative, so I won't advocate automatic/bot creation of species articles. The status quo is fine. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Flaxen elimia

Should Flaxen elimia and Pleurocera catenaria be merged? I'm unclear as to the exact relationship; flaxen elimia may be a common name of subspecies Pleurocera catenaria catenaria. Certes (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Vitta zebra

This is a super popular aquarium snail, I was surprised to find the article so short/under-sourced. I found this source: https://museucienciesjournals.cat/es/amz/issue/19-2021-amz/the-gastropod-vitta-zebra-bruguiere-1792-neritidae-a-possible-amphidromous-species-threatened-by-human-impact-in-brazilian-rivers?last= which could maybe help expand it. There's also a ton of aquarium-related pieces online but I'm less positive about reliability with those. Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm realizing this may be the wrong species. Could someone clarify if it's this or the Vittina natalensis? Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_6&oldid=1244019025"