User talk:Shellnut/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Shellnut. 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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Beachcombing

Hi Invertzoo! Thanks for the tips. Have a safe and fun trip!!! Don't overlook the bivalves, there are a lot of neat species and the calico scallops are quite variable and pretty. The ban on live collecting makes sense, especially because Sanibel is such a well known and popular place; we have a similar ban here in Southern California south of Point Concepcion. You might get lucky and find a few uncommon to rare species. I like looking through the drfit for small Epitonium, Trivia and other species under 10mm as it is often very productive. Best of luck! Take care of that knee. :)Shellnut (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the hints. I love to have my nose to the "grunge" but I will have to see how my knee fares with kneeling and crawling. Also "Lighthouse Beach" is by far the best beach for small shells and micros, but it is about 8 miles from where we will be staying and I am not sure I can bicycle that far (and back again!) with my still somewhat weak legs. Maybe I can get a lift from someone. We may not have a car there. I will keep my eye open for nice photos that I could upload to Commons. Invertzoo (talk) 22:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I have found that a one gallon Ziplock bag works great to get the "grunge" and microshells back to your hotel room and a desk with a lamp! Do not forget to bring a plastic strainer or seive to sort through the "grunge" in the field and pack up your Ziplock bags!!! Have a safe and fun trip.Shellnut (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Project Gastropods - see page for notes

Hi Shellnut, I have completed both the requests using AutoWikiBrowser. These tasks will be so much easier if the project implemented the Automatic taxobox. There is still some reluctance in doing it. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ganeshk!!! How do I use the "Automatic taxobox" in my new articles? What is the reluctance in using it, and whom is reluctant?Shellnut (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This page has the documentation on how to use the automatic taxobox on new articles. It is little technical and will take some getting used to. Here is the how you would add the automatic taxobox onto new articles,

{{automatic taxobox
|taxon=Theta
|authority=A.H. Clark, 1959
}}

For species, you would use,

{{Speciesbox
|taxon=Theta chariessa
|authority=(Watson, 1881)
}}

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_4#Automatic_taxobox and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods/Archive_4#Automatic_taxobox_2 for the past project discussion on this topic. — Ganeshk (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To show you an example, I have updated the genus Theta and its species to use the automatic taxobox. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ganeshk! So it looks realtively simple, just add the word "automoatic" before the word "taxobox" in the layout for genus or family articles? And use "Speciesbox" instead of "taxobox" on species articles? Have I got this right?

I just tried it on genus Kermia and it did not work so good, so I reverted it. Clearly there is more syntax I am not getting - possibly the "pre" "nowiki" and ending wih "/nowiki" and "/pre" whatever that does.Shellnut (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You had done it right. There are few more steps after that. You will need create the genus taxonomy template and the templates for the parents. You can do that by clicking the fix link on the taxobox. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So I am not a complete incompetent then? OK, I will try it later and see what follow through steps there are. I will play with Kermia for now just to have a place to experiment with it. On another topic, have you seen my updated genus articles in the Conidae or my "Tucker and Tenorio cone snail taxonomy" draft articles in my sandbox(es)? Your thoughts?Shellnut (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your updated genus articles look great. I still feel the significance section must be made shorter and linked out to the Tucker and Tenorio article. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ganeshk! Thanks for the cudos. I understand and appreciate your position about the "significance section" but due to the fact that WoRMS has NOT accepted this taxonomy as anything other than an "alternate representation" and the reliance Wikipedia places on WoRMS as the authority on taxonomy we are stuck with this for the time being. The problem with waiting for a scientific study to be published is that instead of one seminal article coming out - what usually happens is that dozens of minor articles (like the ones I have referred to) come out supporting the scientific theory or proposal in question, or criticising it in whole or in part. Kind of like "waiting fot Godot" - he may never come. Until then we need to try to avoid either taking a position (POV), being argumentative, or unintentionally hiding the fact that there is a dispute between educated professionals over whether to use the proposed new taxonomy or not. Amazingly, none of the prior major systematic revisions to Gastropoda have caused this kind of a schism. Ponder's work was just accepted, warts and all. Bouchet et al's 2005 work was also just accepted without comment. Subsequent works by Tucker & Tenorio, Bouchet et al., and others have shown that the turrids DO NOT belong in the same clades or families as the cones, and therefore should have never been lumped in with the cones to begin with (after being separated for hundreds of years). We worked out an accepted language paragraph as a collaborative effort with myself, Invertzoo and JoJan (prior to launching the genus articles in bulk), so it is probably best just to leave it as is for now. Hopefully, the "mega molecular" article is in fact coming out sooner rather than later, but then again the genetics is only just another tool and equally capable of misinterpretation.Shellnut (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Conilithidae

I have fixed the issue on Conilithidae. Some of the older revisions of the sandbox got copied over. — Ganeshk (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ganeshk!!! You are awesome!Shellnut (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009

Hi Invertzoo!! How's Sanibel? I hope all is going well with your knee and that you are having a lot of fun!!!!

I am working on a draft article for Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009 which is in my second "sandbox". I still need to fix the references issue by using a short name up front where references are cited several times in the article - to keep it neat and tidy and avoid having a really long list of references. It is still in the "rough draft" stage and needs work, but I believe it to be historical, accurate, and hopefully neutral in tone. Otherwise I have just been doing more cone snail genus articles using the usual format. I note that there are quite a few new species (2010 and 2011) that show up in the WoRMS listings, and am adding them to the articles; this will of course necessitate adding those new species to the "list of cone snail species".Shellnut (talk) 06:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shellnut! Sanibel is great, so beautiful! The little cottage hotel we are staying in is lovely, just perfect for us, and the shelling is very good; we had a small storm, and a great shell heap formed about 1/2 mile north of here.

One thing: I put the project template onto the talk pages of (all? most of?) your newly created genus articles, but I may have missed a few of them, I am not sure, so you may want to check. When you write a new article it is OK to put the template on yourself, and plus it saves time to do it right then, assuming you remember. (If an article does not have the template on it does not show up at all in the statistics table for Project Gastropods.)

I am a bit sleepy from so much shelling, as you can imagine, but I went through your T&T article and fixed the prose up a little bit. The article looks very good to me, although of course currently I don't have the publication to check it against.

I will try to go through the article again, but maybe not tomorrow as I may busy all day with one thing and another. All very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo!!! It's great to hear that you are having such a good time. I envy you getting to play in that great shell heap on Sanibel. Enjoy it, and don't forget the gallon Ziplock (tm) bags! If you do you will regret it later. Enjoy yourselves! The little cottage hotel sounds really nice. I do have a friend in Cape Coral who sells specimen shells, Fred Briskin of Sanibel Shellers, who you might enjoy meeting while you are out there. He has been living and collecting shells in that area for decades and you might enjoy looking at his specimens. Have a great rest of your trip (you still have a week or more, right?) and be sure to enjoy the fine restaurants as well as the sunsets. Take pictures too!Shellnut (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that we did not rent a car on that trip. We couldn't just drive around and go from place to place so there's a lot of things we didn't do. Invertzoo (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Update on article status

Hi Invertzoo! I hope the vacation and beach combing are going well. I do NOT expect you to see this, or reply, for at least a week or more. This note is just an update. I have the draft article for Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009, which is in my second "sandbox", completed to my satisfaction. I have made every effort to be factual, historical, neutral in tone, and give sufficient references. I will keep the article there until I get the thumbs up. Meanwhile I found a few missing family articles through the Conoidea which were easy enough to do, emulating JoJan's work on their sister articles (due to families recognized by Bouchet et al. 2011). I put a note on the Projects Gastropods talk page about them, and asking whether the BOT may be appropriate for future cleanup. I hope to hear from JoJan and/or Ganeshk on those.Shellnut (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Done I have added a short neutral tone paragraph on proposed taxonomy from 2009 by Tucker & Tenorio to both the Conoidea and Conidae as a historical fact leading up to the 2011 proposed taxonomy by Bouchet et al., and placed a link to Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009 so that the article can be found when it is live and on line. I have also added additional references.Shellnut (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! I see you have made some small edits to my article, as has JoJan. Nice to see that you are back. How was the trip? The beachcombing and shell heap? Shellnut (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Done Hi Invertzoo! With your wonderful editing and approval of the basic article I have now launched the Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009 article and classified it as a "Start" article. I suppose it may qualify as a Class C (or higher) but I will leave the ranking to others.Shellnut (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! Merry Christmas!!! Do we want to copy the revision history of these articles from my sandboxes (can it be done?) before I erase the chalkboard so to speak?Shellnut (talk) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the only way the edit history can be conserved is if you "moved" the article instead of copying and pasting it when you put it into article space. But you could ask Ganesh if that is the only way. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Invertzoo. Please use the move function next time. I have fixed the page history on the Tucker & Tenorio cone snail taxonomy 2009 article. — Ganeshk (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not a fan of moving sandboxes since that moves the history of edits that are not related to the article. But if you have editors other than yourself editing your sandbox, then you will have to use the move function so that they can be credited for the article. If you are the only editor of the sandbox article, a cut and paste move is good enough. I hope that makes sense. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have copied over the page history on the two articles and cleared your sandboxes. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Ganeshk! I just wanted to make sure that Invertzoo and JoJan got credit for all their hard work.Shellnut (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

A big Welcome to WikiProject Bivalves for you, Shellnut, a new member! We are delighted that you decided to join the Bivalves Project; we can really benefit from having someone around who knows the up-to-date taxonomy. Thank you and welcome, Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hi Shellnut, I just came across one of your articles at newpage patrol and was surprised to notice you hadn't been made an Autopatroller. So I've taken the liberty of fixing that. BTW there is some bling if you're interested: {{Autopatrolled}} & {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} Ϣere SpielChequers 16:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! What does an autopatroller do?Shellnut (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It means that you can be trusted to create articles that belong here, as they are on notable subjects and they are ready for mainspace, so your articles don't need to be checked by newpage patrollers. You don't need to do anything differently than you have been doing. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much!!! I will copy and post the "bling".Shellnut (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Globiconus

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Globiconus, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.gastropods.com/5/Shell_3985.shtml.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing was copied from Gastropods.com, however there is an external link to that website.Shellnut (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Having read about this BOT, the only thing I can think of is that the string of words it found on the Gastropods.com website is the genus, species, author and year used together. If this is what triggered it then the BOT is entirely too sensitive as there may be a large number of articles so tagged using less common names.Shellnut (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about CorenSearchBot, in my experience you get a fair number of false positives with it, generally speaking, at least with taxa articles. But I am sure it is very helpful with articles on other kinds of subjects. Invertzoo (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually I should thank YOU!

Hey Shellnut, that was so nice of you to leave the note on my page. But in reality I should be thanking you, not vice versa, because, as you can see, we were and still are so very short-staffed. We desperately need enthusiastic and knowledgeable people to join the Gastropods Project, and you came along just at the right time, and have contributed so much in such a short time, not only with your writing new articles but also with your many very good photographs. So thank you, and all the very best wishes to you for the new year 2012! Invertzoo (talk) 21:16, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Aw shucks! Thanks Invertzoo for the pat on the back. It looks like we have three or four fairly regular staff on the Project. I'm just following my interests and trying to learn the ropes. I am glad that my "messing around" with the articles is appreciated and will be taking more photos as time (and getting my camera back from my daughter) permits. I try to finish what I start, hence I am still diligently putting out genus articles on the Cone snails. Off to write Harmoniconus.Shellnut (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks again. Invertzoo (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Statistics

Hey Shellnut, I just thought I would ask you whether you would like to have the chart of article statistics, both for the Gastropods Project, and also for the brand new Bivalves Project, on your user page? So you can see how things are progressing? If you would like the idea of that, just put:

{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gastropods articles by quality statistics}}

{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Bivalves articles by quality statistics}}

If you put that on your page, the charts will appear and be updated automatically.

All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Invertzoo! I put it on there. Can they be placed side by side or do they have to be top to bottom?Shellnut (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Good question, but I don't know the answer. That's the kind of thing that Ganesh usually knows. Invertzoo (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I had to use a table to place the boxes side by side. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you once again Ganeshk!!!Shellnut (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ganesh is very clever with this kind of thing; I would not have thought of that! Invertzoo (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

About the project template

On my draft article, thanks for the comment. On the genus articles, I did not know that I was "authorized" to do the Project Template on the talk page and to rate the articles, especially since I do not know the rating standards (and see widely ranging ratings). I will follow your lead though.Shellnut (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Shellnut! A quick note before we move rooms to the one with the gulf view! About the gastropod project template, or any other project template, it's perfectly OK for you to put a template on the talk page of an article, even though you don't yet understand the rating scale. You can always just put class=? and importance=? in the template markup. I even put templates of other projects onto new articles that fall under the scope of those projects.

For any snail or slug-related article talk page that does not yet have our template, it's an extremely good idea to put it in. If the article is very short indeed, like maybe one paragraph or two, it's a "stub". If the article has one section of content about the topic which is really well fleshed out, then it's a "start". Either of those it's OK to put the ratings on yourself. If however the article is quite a bit better than that, like your T&T article will be then, it may be better to let someone else decide if it should be a "C" or "B". It's not really appropriate to rate your own articles as being reasonably good. The GA and FA quality rating has to be awarded in a special process by people outside our project.

If you see a rating on an article that seems wildly inappropriate you can change it; maybe it got expanded or drastically cut down and someone forgot to revise the template.

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! I have a question about ratings and my cone snails genus articles. Daniel C. rated Africonus and Austroconus as class "C" articles when he looked at them. The newer articles are basically the same format with different species and descriptions, yet they are all rated as "Start" articles. Not to be forward, or looking for a pat on the head, but shouldn't the series of articles be rated the same - as either "Start" or "C" class articles? When I get the Bivalvia higher taxa cleaned up (links, redirects and disambiguous links) a bit more I will focus on banging out more genus articles for the cone snails (I want to get half of them done by the end of the month). Thanks for your input!Shellnut (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Shellnut. Thanks for all your excellent work! Yes, you are right that all your genus articles, when they all they follow the same format and have equal amounts of content and references, should all be rated the same. Although in general often it is hard to be sure which rating an article deserves, so people can disagree about that. You can look at this link to see a chart that explains what the different grades are supposed to mean, more or less. Also, click at the bottom of each section in that chart for more info. In this case I probably should upgrade your other article ratings. If I forget, please remind me. Thanks Invertzoo (talk) 21:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Invertzoo!! After looking at the link, and other articles that I have seen rated, I think that Daniel is probably right on the "C" rating for the genus articles. They certainly are a lot more solid that a basic "Start" article, but probably not as much as a "B". I have had no problem rating other articles in the Bivalvia, but then again I did not write them to start with! Since they are my articles I do not want to seem "big headed" by boosting my own ratings, so I leave it to you, Daniel, JoJan, and Ganeshk as the senior editors.Shellnut (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough! I agree. I should point out that we are all equal on Wikipedia, so having more edits or having been on here for more years does not necessarily mean very much. Invertzoo (talk) 00:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Update

I upgraded almost all the new and/or improved articles to C, including some of the family and subfamily articles. A few points I noticed:

A number of the genus articles do not yet have a photo, as I am sure you already know.
The Pseudoconorbis article is still only a short little stub.
A large number of the genus articles need to have italic title added in above the taxobox, you know how to do that, right? If not just ask me.
About half a dozen of the genus articles at the beginning of the list I did not think to check to see if the needs-photo rating was correct or not.
Remind me: did we decide not to merge the articles Clathurellinae and Clathurellinae?? If so, a note needs to be left on the talk page of Clathurellinae explaining why we are keeping it and then the tag at the top of the article can be removed. If we did not decide that yet it would be good to try to decide one way or the other.

All best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your upgrades and help Invertzoo!!! I know that I need images, badly. We have a new User whom I talked into joining, Almed2, who is uploading dozens and dozens of very nice cone snail images. I will use his when I have articles that I do not have other WikiCommons images, or shells in my collection, to fix up. The italics for genera at the start of articles probably slipped by me unintentionally, since it was not on purpose. I am cleaning up Pseudomelatomidae right now to conform to WoRMS, and am having an issue with formating for columns; there are a lot of genera. I am doing the cone snail genera articles alphabetically so I have not gotten to the "P"s yet and the Pseudoconorbis article is what it was before I started off on the project, with whatever little changes I may have made earlier; I will get back to it. On Clathurellinae it is now considered a family Clathurellidae and the subfamily article will need to be merged into the family article as accepted by WoRMS (see AphiaID: 153873). Still plugging away at these. I am about one-half done with the cone snail genus articles. Sadly, Conoidea and the families, etc, under it will have to wait a time with patience. Shellnut (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your efforts are very valuable and are very much appreciated Shellnut. I know how much work it is, and how long it takes, to do all these things! You are helping turn Project Gastropods into a really valuable worldwide resource. By the way, I am going to be giving a lightning talk at the Wikipedia Day 11th Birthday Bash in NYC (Wikipedia was started 11 years ago this month) and I will be mentioning you by username and saying how lucky we are that you joined the project! Invertzoo (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Invertzoo! Thanks for the cudos. It always feels nice to know I am on the right track in this "little hobby" we do in our "spare time"! Good to see you are back and into things. We have a bunch of "new" people in the Bivalves project also, so I expect that our fossil coverage will improve greatly. I agree that the taxonomy issue is real and needs to be addressed. One of the major authors on both articles (fossil and extant bivalve) taxonomy is a common thread. Maybe someone needs to communicate with him as to his views? Shellnut (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Conus nocturnus

Hello, Shellnut, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Conus nocturnus, appears to be directly copied from http://en.goldenmap.com/Conus_spurius. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Conus nocturnus if necessary. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a copy. It is an entirely new article with new and different content. Overzealous Bot (again). Shellnut (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Conus tuberculosus

Hello, Shellnut, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Conus tuberculosus, appears to be directly copied from http://en.goldenmap.com/Conus_spurius. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Conus tuberculosus if necessary. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not a copy. It is an entirely new article with new and different content. Overzealous Bot (again). Shellnut (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You deserve this!

		The Gastropod Barnstar
		For the very hard work you have put into Wikiproject Gastropods, in particular the amazing amount of work you have done since joining us to make the coverage of the cone snails (and their relatives) much more complete and more up-to-date, I award you this Gastropod Barnstar. Congratulations Shellnut! Invertzoo (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Invertzoo!!! Shellnut (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

New genus article Kurodaconus

		The Bio-star
		Thanks for creating the new genus article Kurodaconus. Your efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of biology-related articles is appreciated. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Northamerica1000!!! Shellnut (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

(Per your message received on my user talk page)

Thank you for the Barnstar
Thank you for the Barnstar on Kurodaconus!!! I see that you are a member of WikiProject Gastropods. Have you thought about joining (the new) WikiProject Bivalves? Shellnut (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome for the barnstar, and thanks again for your contributions! Just a note, I'm not a member of WikiProject Gastropods, but I learned about its existence indirectly from your message. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the mixup! I THOUGHT that you were a member of WikiProject Gastropods ... not sure why, but I guess because I had seen your Username and work in and around the Project. Check us out and let me know what you think. Shellnut (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Cone snail collaborative project

Here's an update on the cone snail work. Almed2 has joined in and has uploaded images for all cone snail species which he has from species starting with the letter "A" through "P" (about 450 species); he has over 2300 images of cone snails which he has generously agreed to waive copyright to, upload to WikiCommons, and put on Wikipedia articles. Ganeshk has run the BOT and has identified another 39 species of cone snails listed on WoRMS but which did not have species articles; they are now stubs thanks to Ganeshk. I have written genus articles based on the Tucker & Tenorio work, completing around 50 genus articles so far, and am in the letter "P" as well. Ganeshk has run a BOT on the "red lined" genus articles and has placed a stub article in place of "red lined" genera; I am tackling these one at a time and fleshing them out.

On the List of Conus species article we have run into an issue which needs a consensus. It was originally written when the ONLY recognized genus for cone snail species was Conus. Now there are more genera which have achieved primary recognition on WoRMS, and I suspect that this will continue to grow by 14-18 per year as new species are named and their authors use other genera in naming them. First, should the List of Conus species article contain the names, WoRMS references, and links to all cone snail species? Second, if the answer is "NO" and the article only contains species currently (or ever) recognized as Conus then where do we place the other species? Third, if the List of Conus species article only contains those species which use the genus Conus, should we have another article listing cone snail species alphabetically by species, with a similar format including references to WoRMS and links to the species articles? Shellnut (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Buttons from Freshwater Mussels

(Copied from WikiProject Bivalves for tracking purposes)

Does anyone have any old buttons made from freshwater mussels in the Unionoida? I think it would be really neat to have a photo of these buttons since they were the product of a huge industry in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that nearly drove these bivalves to extinction in North America. Shellnut (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I have lots and lots of old pearl buttons, but I think probably almost all of them are made from shells of the saltwater tropical gastropods Tectus niloticus or Turbo marmoratus. I don't know how to tell which ones are made from Unionoida shells. Presumably they might have to be really old, like early 19th or late 18th century? Do you know how I could tell which pearl buttons are made from what? Invertzoo (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have read and seen buttons made from Unionoida are more of a white pearlesent color than other shell buttons. Trochus and Turbo shell buttons often have a little red, pink or green spots. Shellnut (talk) 00:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This page claims to show some of the right kinds of buttons. I will see if I can dig some out of my collection. Invertzoo (talk) 02:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Awesome Invertzoo! Thank you!! That would really flesh out the article a lot, and maybe with a proper section it could make it a DYK article - i.e. Did you know that Unionoida freshwater mussel shells were used to make buttons? Shellnut (talk) 04:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Selenizone

Hey Shellnut, thanks for your nice note! Please feel free to add that info to the article yourself if you would like to! And we should make sure that selenizone is mentioned and linked to in all the abalone articles too, where applicable. Invertzoo (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also thanks for asking: my knee is doing quite well, but I got viral pneumonia a couple weeks ago and I have been sick as a dog with that. Getting better, but still feeling pretty lousy. Once I feel better I can get back to doing all the leg exercises I have to do for my knee. Invertzoo (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Na, I haven't been able to look for the buttons, I've been too sick. Sitting at the computer is about as active as I can be right now, sad to say. It may be a few weeks before I get my strength back. Invertzoo (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Well ... orange juice, rest, good movies and a blankie! Take better care of yourself!!! Shellnut (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yah! You are right about that! Good prescription, Dr. Shellnut! Thanks for helping out with the Selenizone article and the links from the other articles. Invertzoo (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And yes you are right that the Haliotis articles need a lot of work. Really it was just a few years ago that a small handful of us were flinging together gastropod article as fast as we could, and more or less at random. And sometimes that shows still! Did you ever see any of our articles back in 2007 or 2008? The project was kind of a mess back then, but we did the best we could. Invertzoo (talk) 22:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I think that I first discovered Wikipedia in 2009 or 2010. It wasn't until last fall that I realized I could become an editor or that it was user edited. AND YES, I do understand the "more or less at random" thingy, we all tend to follow our whims and interests sort of like honey bees going from flower to flower. It is often hard to stay focused on a task, even one that interests you, when there are so many other neat and interesting things to see, do, read, and learn about. The "My watchlist" page is helpful, but can often be distracting and fun too. I feel like a Labrador Retriever at times "... get the kittie, get the kittie ... ball, where's the ball? Get the ball!" Thae care and rest up!! Shellnut (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Unionoida at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I think I fixed it up a bit, and completed step 3. Is this right? Shellnut (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)