This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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(?)).
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.)
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:
-- Snek01 ( talk) 21:39, 20 August 2014 (UTC), corrected -- Snek01 ( talk) 13:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
So, should I make a taxobox? And change the intro? Invertzoo ( talk) 13:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Fixed it up now. Invertzoo ( talk) 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
See talk page of Reproductive system of gastropods. -- Snek01 ( talk) 23:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
There is a statement on the Project Gastropods banner that states:
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.
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)
Does someone know how to upload this figure from the UK wikipedia uk:Файл:Lottia alveus.jpg#filelinks to Commons? -- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 13:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
Can someone review my request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Assessment.
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)
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)
That's it for now! -- Daniel Cavallari ( talk) 19:45, 30 September 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)
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)
These are the gastropods mentioned in the most books that we don't have articles for yet. [ full list | previous discussion ]
They're all good candidates for anyone looking to create new articles. — Pengo 23:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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):
It is necessary to note, that there are two musea in Naturalis, so take care. -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:35, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
New article, improvements welcome – especially if you know of any other species he described. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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)
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)
This article has now reached GA status. :) Invertzoo ( talk) 00:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The article is linked to as a Did You Know? on the main page right now. Invertzoo ( talk) 22:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
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:
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)
..........................................................
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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:
Class: Gastropoda Clade: Heterobranchia Clade: Euthyneura Clade: Nudipleura Order: Nudibranchia Clade: Dexiarchia Infraorder: Cladobranchia Clade: Aeolidida Superfamily: Fionoidea Family: Fionidae
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)
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
Authors
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.
|
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
As you did here. Thank you. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
{{
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
-- Snek01 ( talk) 19:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
|=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)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.
|parent=
in taxonomy templates, not by the order of the parameters in the taxobox template.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)
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)
Turbinelloidea needs an article. — Ganeshk ( talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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):
The other additions I've made can't be done by a bot. JoJan ( talk) 16:31, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
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 †
→ †
here, and the removal of <small></small>
tags in refs
here. ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf) 18:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
2 related suggestions/questions:
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)
|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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello, somebody proposed to rename the Category:Available gastropod names. -- Snek01 ( talk) 21:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
@ 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)
|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|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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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.
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.
References
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)
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)
|display_parents=
to show superfamily and subclass as the manual taxoboxes were doing.|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.|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)|always_display=yes
in their taxonomy templates.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)|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)
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 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 "[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.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)