Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 28 October 2009

This webpage has no archive: most items are deleted as soon as they are completely solved. Only a few important items are retained here.

Subpages: User:Snek01/Awards

List of molluscs...

Hi again Snek, I am thinking about the list I am working on. I have some questions for you:

• I notice that currently all of the regional lists are called "List of molluscs..." However the one I am working on will be ONLY the land and freshwater mollusks, the non-marine mollusks. I feel that for countries which have a coastline, there should really be two mollusk lists, one for the marine mollusks and one for the non-marine mollusks. What do you think? The marine mollusks are so very numerous and also they require a different kind of expertise. I feel they should be separate. Some of the existing lists are in fact non-marine only, but nothing in the title indicates that.
• I am thinking perhaps I should make one list for the island of Great Britain, and another one for the island of Ireland, because the faunas are a bit different. Any comments? (That is rather than trying to make one list for the British Isles, which is a controversial word that no-one can agree on.)
• As for the actual title of the list, some people call their list "List of the molluscs of Xcountry" Others call it, "List of the molluscs recorded for Xcountry". The titles should be standardized I think. Which do you think is better?
• I am confused about the available categories. There is a a category "Molluscs by country", and there is a category "Regional invertebrate lists". There is also a category "Molluscs of Europe" which seems to be primarily just individual species listed, but which also contains 7 regional lists which I think should either go into a subcategory, or in some way be separated from the rest of that category. Most of those 7 lists are not listed under "Molluscs by country".

Thanks for your input, Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• Name of list: Keep List of molluscs of Xcountry. There is always description of what is the list about. If there will be need an additional list of marine molluscs, it can be named List of marine molluscs of Xcountry or List of molluscs of Xocean/Xsea and they can be divided into List of marine gastropods of Xcountry and List of marine bivalves of Xcountry if needed.
• Existing lists List of the molluscs recorded in Xcountry can be renamed to List of molluscs of Xcountry.
• Category: there should be only one category for lists. Category:Regional invertebrate lists / Category:Regional molluscs lists or Category:Lists of molluscs by country.
• Unused categories are: Category:Molluscs by country and Category:Molluscs of Europe - I do not use it at all because species can not have every category for every place where they live. --Snek01 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Snek. Actually I just put the article up a few minutes ago. Right now the title is List of non-marine molluscs recorded in Great Britain. I can easily change that, but I may not do anything more to it this evening, because I am tired. I plan to do more work on the article though. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You said in reference to the name of the lists: "Keep List of molluscs of Xcountry. There is always description of what is the list about. If there will be need an additional list of marine molluscs, it can be named List of marine molluscs of Xcountry or List of molluscs of Xocean/Xsea and they can be divided into List of marine gastropods of Xcountry and List of marine bivalves of Xcountry if needed."

OK, you are saying that the default should be "List of molluscs of Xcountry" and that "List of marine molluscs of Xcountry" should be the exception.

I must say that I find it much clearer to have it this way: "List of non-marine molluscs of Xcountry" and "List of marine molluscs of Xcountry". That is the way it is usually done in Britain. What is the objection to that? Invertzoo (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Bursatella leachii

Hi again, I found an image for this article on the Italian Misplaced Pages but I am not sure how to link it to the article on this WIkipedia. I expect you know how? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Image moved. --Snek01 (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are few more images on Nudibranchs from the same source on Italian wikipedia. I will move them in the future. --Snek01 (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good! Invertzoo (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:Poster

Sorry for my belated answer. My dear computer has a serious problem which can not be resolved soon, so I've been slow to answer to any queries from editors. Well, I had tried to obtain better images from the site, but it requires me to install software, but I failed. Thus, I have no way to get it for you. I once contact the site manager regarding the matter, they just said "Sorry for you inconvenience, We'll try to fix it" However, well, nothing has been changed.--Caspian blue 00:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Images of mollusks

Thanks Snek: What a nice present for Valentine's Day, and even more perfect for the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birthday today! Happy Evolution by Natural Selection Day!!! So many great mollusk images! Here are some of my favorites: 16, 25, 31, 38, 49, 66, 69, 74, 93, 100, 2006, 261, 269, 270, 294, 295, 297.

Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

image 25 - Is Amphibola avellana a valid species or a synonym for Amphibola crenata? --Snek01 (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a synonym. Amphibola is a monotypic genus. There will of course need to be a lot of nomenclatural changes overall in the various illustrations. I can help you with that if you like. Also I will look at the thumbnails again and let you know which bivalve images I think should have a high priority. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New stubs on large taxa and composite images

You probably already noticed that Anna has been creating a couple of new stubs for large taxa. They were taxa that were listed on this most wanted list . She likes putting together composite illustrations for the stubs. Do you have any suggestions about large taxa that need a stub, because if so I will let her know. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Snek, This is just a friendly reminder in advance, that any discussion that relates to possible policies or guidelines about the content and style of articles needs to take place in Misplaced Pages discussion space. Private email is never a suitable vehicle for attempting to negotiate style policies, because there needs to be a public record of what is said on those type of issues in order that a consensus can be reached. Here is a current comment from JoJan (the founder of WikiProject Gastropods) on the question of composite images: "Personally, I like them, especially for articles about families and the ranks above. They give a nice overview of the different species within that rank. And furthermore, it's pleasing to the eye and may attract more readers. A caption is optional. Anna is doing a good job and has become an asset for this project. JoJan (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)" I also like the composite images Anna has made, I think they are very attractive and I agree 100% with JoJan's comments. Best wishes to Snek and to Anna, from sluggy Susan Invertzoo (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Heterobranchia‎ taxobox image

Hi Michal! I noticed you removed the composite image because it was not representative. I am just wondering why it is not. Cheers!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Anna, I think there were only marine Opisthobranchs on the image, while there are also other groups in Heterobranchia‎: marine and freshwater Lower Heterobranchia, marine, freshwater and land Pulmonata. It was misleading for non-specialist reader. A reader could think, that there are only marine slugs in this taxon. That is one of many reasons why I do not prefer such composite images. But I had to change only this for this one for the "non-representative" reason. This image is now misleading with this file name. Correcting this will need additional effort. Such strategy of using images is useless and I also believe that such strategy is not preferred at whole wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the non-representative composite image. I will try and find images to represent the group more accurately and create a new composite image. Considering that all the other major groups have composite images, I think it would be inconsistent to have only one group without. I know you would prefer none, but I hope we can both agree that all or none is best. I still believe, (as do all others who have given an opinion), that these composites are useful, and not "useless". Please try to consider the point of view of those who are not familiar with gastropods (people like me). To us, I believe the composites greatly clarify an otherwise confusing group of animals. Respectfully yours, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

hmm... While there is no concensus you can do everything, but you should rather avoid controversial things. There is also no composite image in article chair but there are normal separate images. I asked for opinion at Misplaced Pages talk:Image use policy#Composite images. --Snek01 (talk) 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stool! Armchair. Folding chair. There are so many different kinds. Maybe it is a good article for a composite. Ha ha. Just joking. I have no intention of running around making composites. This whole composite thing is not that serious.

I was too embarrassed to say this before, but when I first started to make Apogastropoda, I went to the gastropod article, and upon seeing the picture I thought that all gastropods lived in the sea, had shells and looked like a cowry. I didn't explore the page because I was jumping around trying to make sense of it all. It took me five minutes to figure out that snails are gastropods! Misplaced Pages is used by people like me, who are going to an article because they know nothing about it and want to learn. The first thing the article should convey is the most basic information about the topic. That is why the lead is a summary. Well, I think the picture, in rare cases, ought to be a summary too. Please consider how many people go to gastropod, see a picture of a cowry, and say to themselves "Ahhh, so that's a gastropod. Well, now I know." Respectfully yours, --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Image width in taxoboxes

MoS argument is faulty. 95% of Misplaced Pages users will see images that are too small, as they are casual browsers w/o user account and default to 180px. Try for example Common Pheasant with images sized and unsized. The latter is how almost all Misplaced Pages users will see the "MoS-conform" article, regardless of what size you (or the other 5% of registered Misplaced Pages editors) have set the images to be. Can you recognize details of the pheasant hen's plumage in the default-width images?

Note also a direct conflict w/MoS standard for size of article lead image. The ToL taxobox "standard" was not always so (back in 2006ish all taxoboxes had large images, some with 300px or so - too large for my taste, I was actually one of the ppl who capped it at 240-260), and it conflicts with other Project's infobox usage.

Compare for example U.S. Route 66, Heckler & Koch MP5, Santa Monica, California, Landing at Cape Helles, Uganda, PFC Spartak Nalchik and Lemgo.

In general, the Misplaced Pages-wide rule seems to be:

• width param for (primary) maps and images.
• no width param for logos, emblems, coats-of-arms and secondary maps

Thus WP:IAR, because I cannot see any advantage and a lot of disadvantage to sticking to the MoS just because it is TEH MOS. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ref style

Compare for example ref 14 in Passerine#Taxonomic_list_of_Passeriformes_families and refs 19-24 in Enantiornithes#Taxonomy and click EDIT at the respective sections and look at the respective code, read WP:CITESHORT, consider that the Social Sciences people (who cite A LOT) use it in essentially all well-sourced articles. I like CITESHORT better, and frankly, I disagree with most advocates of the "whole source in footnote" style as I have not seen many among them who cite a lot, or at least more than I do (BTW the heading "Taxonomy" is wrong in the Enantiornithes article, and having added the sources I know for a fact that the "taxonony" as listed does NOT follow the sources as listed ;-) ) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuff

Have you seen Bulimulinae? Your unfortunately left a lot of broken code (but we have all been there). Have you read the references instead of citing them? The taxonomic determination of the species at Bulimulinae was for example contradicted by what the refs said, and the refs were cited improperly and wrongly; seeing such things in articles always should be a warning sign that sourcing is dubious and needs to be checked as far as is possible.

Also, note the remarks on "informal groups" and on "unranked" elsewhere on my talk page, and consider PhyloCode is per default "informal" (even if many malacologists had bought into it back in 2005) and that the (formal) ICZN Code does not regulate a classification as detailed as that of B&R. What matters for WP is whether a scholarly and thorough source considers it a clade or not. Treat it as unranked clade for Misplaced Pages taxobox purposes, or don't list it in the taxobox at all.

"You even moved a reference from one fact to another fact in the aryicle." - the genus list one? I had to restrain myself not to delete it, the genera are by now from all over the place and not just from Abbott. Do you have a comprehensive taxonomic source that is 2006 or newer? I.e. ALL genera in ALL subfamilies and tribes? Because that is what we need here, a single robust and modern (post-Bouchet & Rocroi) source. Adding sources to something makes it look that it is robust fact, whereas I would not trust the list at all, having seen enough of the taxonomic movement that has been in this lineage since the 1990s or so.

Either assign all genera to subgroup, or do not assign to subgroup at all and leave it at having the subgroups in the taxobox. In this case there were only the (easily-recognized) type genera listed for two families, and I have moved all I could verify as Bulimulinae there. But I may have missed some, I did not have any thorough source. Hence I arranged it as I did, to give the least amount of information that is redundant or likely to be suspect or even factually wrong.

Re type genera - everyone who cares about that will be able to locate them immediately at this stage. Note that the type genus may have a name unrelated to the family etc name; in that case it is better to annotate it. But where it is plainly obvious to anyone who knows the concept "type genus", adding the information serves no further purpose than to generate overhead code. Whenever there is a decent section on taxonomy, any such "trivial" taxonomic information can be discussed at length.

Also note the difference between taxonomy and systematics (see the Eagle-buzzard article - the stuff not labelled "Systematiocs" is essentially pure taxonomy). We actually have pretty few good sections on taxonomy, but those we have look about like this: Black-chested_Eagle-buzzard#Taxonomy_and_systematics (the systematic info is labelled as thus, the taxonomic info precedes it)

You may find the information in the source(s) I added valuable BTW. See also the article source for annotations; you might want to start some genus articles because there are weird shell shapes to be found here.

Enjoy! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Korean film posters

Hi, Snek01. I notice you have some Korean film posters at Commons, File:Hwanghon yeolcha poster.jpg, for example. I'm finding better images that I'd like to replace this with (here is a better poster for the film Twilight Train). Should I upload the new image and move the old one into the article? Or do you know of a better way? Dekkappai (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem-- This site seems to have a lot of nice images of older Korean posters. I'll try to put them into the existing articles on the films, and start a few new ones later. At the moment I'm finishing up a big Japanese film project-- starting an article on the Yokohama Film Festival. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have seen that you have uploaded the poster. But you can upload it to Commons under public domain license http://commons.wikimedia.org/Template:PD-South_Korea. The copyright ©1957 Dong-kwang Films have expired on the 1st January 2008. I think it was published anonymously in the name of an organization only, so it is public domain. Yang Hae-nam is todays writer about Korean cinema and not copyright holder. --Snek01 (talk) 18:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

torrent links

An anonymous user removed the link from Late Spring earlier but I would suggest not adding it back quite yet. We also should avoid deep linking (directly linking) to the "*.torrent" files too and only link to the release notes page. I'm still working on a template to make things easier for legitimate torrent links. (I've watchlisted your talk page so you can reply here.) Tothwolf (talk) 05:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for info. But rather answer at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#The Pirate Bay... (and related) and update the guideline Misplaced Pages:Spam#External link spamming. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to allow the thread on AN to be archived as it has already run its course. I already followed up on the Children of Hiroshima issue there on April 22nd. While it looks like Children of Hiroshima probably is in the public domain, I can't personally verify it myself. A similar situation exists for Late Spring. If you can show where it is documented who held the copyrights for these films so they can be verified as being in the public domain, then we can certainly add links for them. As for WP:LINKSPAM, I do not believe this would apply or be a problem for these links. Material clearly in the public domain and/or under a free license that is directly related to the article is already permitted per WP:ELYES. Also, WP:LINKSPAM was written for youtube-like websites where spammers use video to spam their product. This is quite different from a link to the release notes page for a torrent metadata file. Tothwolf (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This is useless to explain it to me at my discussion page (it will be deleted soon) while nothing happens. To your question: read article public domain film (maybe you can use this wikilink while adding some torrents links). --Snek01 (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Things are happening though. Do you know where I can find an english translation of the Japanese copyright law? In re-reading the information on Misplaced Pages it appears that Works are treated differently than Cinematographic works, however I am unable to read Japanese and cannot verify this. Tothwolf (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not read the whole article and all of its external links but you should do so if you want to make decisions in such matter. Yes, there are differences in when they were published and by whom they were published. I can explain it for you, but while I can not speak Japanese, then you will never be sure that I say the truth. So, nearly all Japanese films were copyrighted/published by its company and so they were protected for 50 years since publication. (For example you can see such company logos in such Japanese films.) Later the law have changed and newer films are protected differently (longer). Films published by a company in 1952, in 1951, in 1950, in 1949 and older ones are free and they are not protected anymore. There are very few exceptions (at least 2 Kurosawas's films), which longer protection were confirmed by Japanaese court. - If you do not trust wikipedia articles, so you can read Copyright Act by yourself at http://www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/hourei/data2.html but I have doubts that it will give you all of its consequences. Will you verify film length protection for all states include China, Korea, and so on? You can also read licenses at wikimedia commons. There is also another sketchy indirect way how to verify something: see, if such film screenshots are used at wikipedia of that certain language. --Snek01 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are referring to the Misplaced Pages article, then yes, I did read the whole article. I have no intention or authority to make a final decision about these links, I'm only trying to obtain a better understanding the copyright/licensing covering this specific area so when others question why this type of public domain film is linked or remove a link from an article I can give a proper answer. Based on what I've read so far it certainly seems to me those films are in the public domain. I'm just trying to gather up information to help clarify this situation in potential future arguments. Tothwolf (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so continue trying to gather up information but do not say, that things are happening. --Snek01 (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Things are indeed happening. See this discussion which has unfortunately not had too much outside attention. Tothwolf (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the latest discussion and filter changes I think the torrent links abuse filter issue is at least resolved for the time being. Tothwolf (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good news. Show me an example what is the most proper way how to add a link include the best edit summary, please. Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick link: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive190#The Pirate Bay... (and related)

Re: Your email

I don't see any evidence that WikiProject Gastropods actually checked the task, besides one person stating that they would need to check it carefully. They may have been busy with the copyvio mess they discovered shortly after that post. Please re-open the discussion at WT:WikiProject Gastropods and let me know on my talk page once several people have approved of the plan. Anomie⚔ 18:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, this is true, nobody said yes and nobody said no. I announced it again Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Bot task waiting for approving. --Snek01 (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think next time (or this time) when we want to get a bot task OKed, we will have to ask several project gastropods members individually, on their talk pages, if they will write a note saying that they support the idea of the bot task. The request seems to need a visible consensus, a group backing, in order to be taken seriously. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments on new mollusk articles that are needed

Thank you for responding well to my note, I appreciate that. As for your suggestions, I just now tweaked what you said, and here is my newer version. I do agree with your ideas, although it will take us a little while to create all the new articles as needed:

We could create (or modify pre-existing) pages for snail, land snail, sea snail (marine snail and marine gastropod redirecting to sea snail), freshwater snail (freshwater gastropod redirecting to freshwater snail), slug, sea slug (marine slug redirecting to sea slug). Then it will be logical and very easy to make wikilinks to them in various other articles. There can also be an article for freshwater mollusc, but only containing information that is common to both groups: freshwater snails and freshwater bivalves.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good! Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about the artists who made the images in that book

• partly identified - see Talk:Amaury Duval (1808-1885) --Snek01 (talk) 00:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done! Invertzoo (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cavoliniidae

Cavoliniidae was deleted as it now seems to be superfamily Cavolinioidea. Should the link at Taxonomy_of_the_Gastropoda_(Bouchet_&_Rocroi,_2005) be removed? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cavoliniidae is all right and should have an article. Feel free to start it again or an admin can restore it, if it had some texts. --Snek01 (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I quickly did an article for Cavoliniidae but I don't know how good it is. Invertzoo (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Cuphosolenus

I posted a new article on the fossil genus Cuphosolenus, as I had the references from a prior project and I thought I might preserve it on WP. Any corrections or other help appreciated. Regards. Ecphora (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Humbert. Of course! How could I have missed that? Ecphora (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• But I do not know which Humbert. I am not familiar with this subject.
• It could be also probably possible to add images from Cossmann (1904) - the links I have added, but I have neither the book nor the scan to verify image author(s). --Snek01 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain either. I'll work on it. Thanks for the help. Ecphora (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this could be the Cossmann's work? Cossmann, M. 1904. Essais de paléoconchologie comparée, vol. 6., Author and F.R. de Rudeval. 1–151. Paris. But its not online. --Snek01 (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think this "Humbert" is the same as Alois Humbert. Piette’s gastropod volume was published in 1891, after the death of Alois Humbert (1887). Humbert’s illustrations also appear in Cotteau’s book on Echinoids published (in parts) as late as 1894.

Also, Humbert signed Piette’s illustrations as “del et lith” = drawer and lithographer, and his illustrations in the 1894 echinoid book are signed as “lith”. Alois Humbert was a “Swiss naturalist and palaeontologist” and “ Curator of the Geneva museum” See Darwin Correspondence Project. I think it is unlikely that Alois Humbert was also a trained lithographer, which is a specialized trade.

It remains a mystery as to who is the Humbert who illustrated Piette’s book and others published by Masson. I’ll keep working on it. Ecphora (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Anthinus henselii

Ok, I'll check it as soon as I can. However, I'm currently on vacation until 11th september, so I won't be able to review it right now. By the way, the best reference I know on brazilian land and freshwater Molluscs is this relatively recent book by Luiz Ricardo L. Simone, a renowned brazilian malacologist. Best wishes --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in fact I do have it. I usually leave it in the laboratory, I'll take a look as soon as I get back.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things

Hi Snek. First off, I think you are probably right about that fossil Diodora being D. italica. I only looked at images I could find on the internet, but assuming that the IDs I saw were correct (a big assumption!) I think that D graeca has more pronounced sculpture, and so I would agree that the image of the fossil appears to be D. italica, that is apart from the size issue you mentioned.

The other thing is: the new stub about Aplexa rivalis. I took the image out just now, because I believe that all Aplexa species have sinistral shells that are tightly wound. The image called Aplexa rivalis 001.jpg looks more like some kind of small Lymnaeid, so I think it almost certainly a mistaken ID. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK. 1) We will make articles for both of these species. 2) Image is removed now. Good work. --Snek01 (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Michal. Can I ask you one more thing? During the process of assessment and updating, I was just now working on the stubs that Graham Bould had created for various species and subspecies of the keyhole limpet genus Monodilepas. Actually he had not made a genus article for them, so I quickly created that, and then I listed the species he had created articles for. As you will see if you take a look, he had 3 species articles and then also 2 subspecies articles for M. monolifera subspecies, but no species article for that M. monolifera. What is your opinion as to the best way of handling this and similar situations, of which there are many? These marine species articles from Graham Bould currently have very little information in them as they were part of the big copyright clean-up. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is, that it can stay as it is. The structure is good. Rearrangements will not bring additional value. It is "pre-prepared" for expansion. --Snek01 (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The structure of Monodilepas was good because I just now fixed it all up before you looked at it! GB did not really understand the difference between a subspecies and a species and listed them all as if they were the same rank much of the time.

Thanks for the original descriptions Michal, that's very useful indeed! They don't need any fixing, but are fine as they are.

Anything you can do at all to help in any way with the many tens of thousands of marine species worldwide is very much welcomed! Please do not stop including the marine species in your efforts. I am delighted that you have recently been creating quite a lot of marine species articles, even as small stubs. The marine species worldwide vastly outnumber the land species, as you know, and are in general more difficult to study. Right now I am quickly looking at these Australian and New Zealand species only because those articles needed assessing for WikiProject Gastropods, and as I go along assessing, I am also try to fix up the articles just a little bit, for form's sake. All best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that all subspecies articles should be retained as it, I certainly don't have a problem with that, I just wanted to know what your opinion was. I can delete or modify what I said on the Gastropod project talk page. Also I wanted to know what you thought as follows: when GB left no species article, but only a nominate subspecies article in place of it, I have been changing that to a species article, because I think that is less confusing. What do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It would be good to always redirect monotypic subspecies to its species page. This Liarea hochstetteri hochstetteri redirect to article Liarea hochstetteri. --Snek01 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, so to clarify: you do agree that all the articles that Graham Bould created on nominate subspecies should be turned into species pages instead? That is what I have been doing. In other words, the Loddereena nana nana article has become the Lodderena nana article. (By the way, a search redirect happens automatically when you "move" the name of a page in that way.) Invertzoo (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. --Snek01 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, good. Invertzoo (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian non-marine molluscs list

Howdy Snek! I've checked things as you asked. Taxonomy/spelling for Anthinus henselii seems to be correct; Correct spelling for "Hirinaba" species is Mirinaba curytibana. According to Simone 2006, there are no species from the genera Drepanostomella, nor Wayampia or Pallifera or Guppya (I've only found Pseudoguppya species);

I'll be adding some new species slowly but surely. Best wishes--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A mess in the Powelliphanta genus

Please take a look at the unassessed articles page here and also do a search for Powelliphanta and scroll though the list of names that it pulls up. As you can see, when GB created all the Powelliphanta species articles he included a number of unnamed ones that were referred to by location words instead of species names. It's a mess really. And then he also created a huge number of subspecies articles for that genus. What do you think we should do with this mess? Invertzoo (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I have checked the situation. Names are correct scientifically and also encyclopedicaly. Assess the rest 34 ones as usual. It is useful to keep these 14 undescribed species. One of them, Powelliphanta "Augustus" was described as Powelliphanta augusta in 2008. I suppose, that other ones will be described in the future also with the similar name. We can continuouly check the situation serching for keywords Powelliphanta and DNA, because they will probably not be deacribed without DNA verification. The rest of them (20) are subspecies, but it could be also good to keep them, because they are ring species and taxonomical situation may change. --Snek01 (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

For example Powelliphanta patrickensis is at species level now, I think. Powelliphanta rossiana patrickensis -> Powelliphanta patrickensis. --Snek01 (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Images of Pugilina and other marine gastropods on Flickr

I think maybe we can use these? Invertzoo (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

THIS one have no free license.

But if you will determine anything from this set http://www.flickr.com/photos/31382190@N05/favorites/ then I can upload it. --Snek01 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

these articles already have some images

• This is Bielzia coerulans
• This is a fine view into the pneumostome of Arion rufus
• Mating Arion rufus here:
• This is Cepaea nemoralis
• This Limax maximus
• This is Arianta arbustorum

Identified

This is a crabbed shell of Melongena corona (Gmelin, 1791) And this and a few related shots (but not the long strings) is a live female one laying egg capsules:

This is a shell of the Venus comb murex

This is Aplysia dactylomela

This is a fabulous image of all different color varieties of Nucella lapillus feeding on barnacles

This is a live Norrisia norrisii and this is the same specimen:

This is a live Cypraea spadicea

This is Megasurcula carpenteriana

This is Polinices lewisii and so is the big scary thing here:

This is Mitra idae

This is Calliostoma ligatum

And Calliostoma annulatum

And this video is indeed Thecacera pacifica.

And this video is of Nembrotha cristata as labelled.

And I agree that this is Otala lactea

This is Subulina octona

This is a live one of the pale variety of Cypraea tigris

This is indeed the Veined rapa whelk

This is the orange color variety of Amphissa versicolor

These are two Olivella biplicata

This is Astraea gibberosa but it is in a different genus now Lithopoma gibberosa'.

This is a very encrusted shell of Astraea undosa but this may be in a different genus now.

This is Tegula montereyensis

By the way, any mollusk photostream which is from the West Coast of the USA like this last one I can probably identify almost ALL of the species, not just the ones you selected as favorites. Invertzoo (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

About the distribution etc of Eustrombus gigas and any other Western Atlantic marine mollusks

I just wanted to say that for any marine mollusk that lives in the Western Atlantic Ocean, especially the gastropods, there is a huge amount of excellent info for every species on the distribution, size, synonyms etc, etc in Gary Rosenberg's database Malacolog, here:

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What link exacly for distribution? --Snek01 (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well first you have to find the individual page for the species you are interested in, by using the search page here: , and then you go to the page for the species, for example, the Eustrombus gigas page is here:

and then it has the range at the top expressed in Latitude and Longitude and then also further down under Strombus gigas it lists the countries that it occurs in. Some are listed under synonyms.

It also is supposed to be able to generate range maps but I don't know if that function is working right now.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a nice illustration, in the public domain

Take a look at this: , it's a bit "artistic", but might be useful in some way...? Invertzoo (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not an image for modern encyclopedia... maybe later for more certain purpose. But there will be probably useful to use other images from that 1896 source anyway... --Snek01 (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Kerry slug

What happened? Did you withdraw the application for Featured Article status? Invertzoo (talk) 15:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know. This should "lasts two to three weeks" but in this case it was 10 days only. It was going good, so I asked question about it to the archiver today. I think, that next nomination will came early probably.--Snek01 (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Intertranswiki#Need_a_list_of_all_non-English_without_English_interwiki

User:FritzpollBot is currently beginning to process all articles on all Wikipedias that are not transwiki'd. If you can give me a list of categories from all the Misplaced Pages's of interest and a target set of project pages to place the results, I am willing to do separate runs for these articles - if you are interested, let me know. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Platydemus manokwari flatworm

Hello, let's improve recently started article Platydemus manokwari at least for "Did you know...". OK? Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This evening I did a bunch of work on expanding and improving this flatworm article, as you will see. I wish we had a photo for it. Also... I tried to check the taxonomy, because the taxonomy in the article Turbellaria does not seem to be consistent with the taxonomy in this article. I googled the topic and looked around a bit, but I gave up for this evening as it is getting late and I really know so little about flatworm taxonomy. I will take another look tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting edit summary and counting. lol. Doesnt't matter. Corrected. --Snek01 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a case where the template for the species was copied from that of another species and I failed to fully update the caption to fit the new image.

By the way, just so as you know, generally it is not considered polite to make little jokes about other people's errors to their face, even if the error is one that can be seen as comical. It is better to just correct the error and move on. I do that with many odd little errors in your prose: I do not bring them to your attention, even if they strike me as comical. I correct them and move on because it is more polite that way. Invertzoo (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

About errors and corrections, I wanted to say that when you are starting new stubs based on an identified image (especially of marine snail shells), you may want to first check to make sure that the ID is actually correct, by running a google image search on the binomial name. In the last few weeks I have found several cases where the image was in fact wrongly identified in stubs that you started. We cannot always trust IDs that other people put on an image; the authors of the image are usually well-intentioned, and usually they believe they have the shell correctly identified, but every so often they get it wrong. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, what was these images? --Snek01 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent one was an image that claimed to be of Cassis madagascariensis and which I had to move to Cassis cornuta. I did not bother to make a note of the other ones. I told the author and uploader of the Cassis image that he should change the title of the image. Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me to know about images errors next times. I will rename them. (Author usually do not rename them as happened in this case also.) --Snek01 (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this one File:Wenceslas Hollar - Cassis cornuta.jpg determined correctly? --Snek01 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Slug

Snek01, I apologize for not responding to your e-mail. I prefer to keep FAC matters on Wiki; this furthers transparency in the process, I had specifically commended the efforts and left a closing note (rare) on the previous FAC explaining the closure, and if I responded to every e-mail about FAC closures, my (already full) inbox would become overwhelming. In the future, a post to WT:FAC will be the fastest way to get responses to your concerns, and allows for multiple editors to share the load in responding to FAC queries, helping avoid overload of my inbox. I could have/should have responded to your e-mail with this response, but my inbox has been particularly full lately, and I'm sorry I failed to respond. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)