Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 2

Guilfordia yoka
	apical view of the shell of Guilfordia yoka;
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Mollusca
Class:	Gastropoda
Family:	Turbinidae
Genus:	Guilfordia
Species:	G. yoka
Binomial name
	Guilfordia yoka;

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. 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 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive page 2: Messages from 2009

New articles

Hi folks! I love the Project page. Very nice. Lots of pics of squishy stuff. Nature's gum.

I created Vetigastropoda and Apogastropoda because they were red before. I really have no idea about taxonomy and snails and stuff, except that my uncle used to go out in the garden and cut the slugs in half with a pair of scissors.

Anyhow, JoJan wrote an explanation at the bottom of this page which I didn't really understand, except the last sentence which said that I probably just created the page for nothing. I gather the same is true for Vetigastropoda.

A lot of articles seemed to link to these new articles: [1] and [2]

I don't really get it. Could somebody please explain? Wait. Explain, but in layman's terms, and please tell me if the articles will get cut in half with a pair of scissors.

Thanks, and keep on Sluggin'............Sluggers. Ha ha (I guess that's kind of an oldie around here.)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Anna from Invertzoo (the Slugger) aka Susan, Don't worry, no-one will be cutting your articles in half with a pair of scissors! (Yikes!) We will just clean them up a bit and they will be fine. Basically what JoJan was saying on the Bouchet and Rocroi talk page is that Apogastropoda used to be considered a good category, a good taxon, but it is no longer considered a valid taxon, because it turns out that it has two quite different lineages in it. Because biologists want taxonomy to represent the evolutionary history of organisms, we want each taxon to have in it only creatures that are all related by having just one common ancestor. You could look at the article clade if you like, that might help you understand what I mean. (On the other hand it might confuse you even more, if you are not used to thinking about taxonomy!) Actually Vetigastropoda is still considered to be a good taxon, but its position in the tree of life has been defined a bit differently. The reason you found a lot of articles linking to Apogastropoda is simply because we haven't managed to update all of the gastropod taxoboxes yet, because there are thousands of them and only a very few of us. All the very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, well thank you Susan (and JoJan) too. That clears things up a lot. I have posts and replies all over the place on this matter. Perhaps this is the best spot. I am sure you all keep an eye on this page.

The reason I made the articles is because they are cool creatures, and because I encountered the two on [Most wanted articles] section. I noticed a few more there on gastropods. I may be a good idea for someone to peruse the list and see, just in case. I think the list is just bot-generated and just searches for red links.

Thanks again for your patience and explanations. All the best to you (Slugger, ToeJam, and all the rest).

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is the status of Sigmurethra, by the way??--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The informal group Sigmurethra comprise the pulmonates within the clade Eupulmonata. The term "informal group" is used instead of clade because its monophyly has not yet been tested, or where a traditional taxon of gastropods has now been discovered to be paraphyletic or polyphyletic. JoJan (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I have nooooooo idea what that means. I am just a Gastro-beginner. Does that mean it is okay for me to make the Sigmurethra article? Is it needed? Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, be bold and you can begin. Start by expanding the taxobox of Stylommatophora and try to find the latest findings in scientific journal (use Google Scholar). JoJan (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure Anna, go for it, like JoJan says. Sigmurethra is currently still in use as an "informal group". That means we don't know yet if it is a clade or not. If it turns out not to be, then at some point in the future that term will be history. Also since you asked, I will try to work out which other large taxa we might need a stub for, and tell you as soon as I have some ideas. Best to you, I like your sense of humor! Invertzoo (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I'll do my best.

I had no luck finding general info on Stylommatophora with Google Scholar -- just obscure details and studies. I will create Sigmurethra regardless of its informal group status, as there are 100 articles that link to it, and images are easy to find. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I made Sigmurethra and Orthurethra. I hope I got some of it right. I will try to find some info for the lead, but at the moment it just says that they are slow and squishy.

Hi, I am in the proccess of making a page for the sea hare Dolabella auricularia. I have currently put it on a subpage on my talk page Talk:Muzlie/Dollabella auricularia. Please feel free to help me make this article, or atleast put a little something for each section. Also I copied the taxo box from the Aplysia dactylomela page and because they are from the same family i didnt do much changing, if some one could also go through it to see if its correct that would be great. thanks --Muz (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just realised that i have mispelt the title of the subpage, and put too many Ls in Dolabella, i supose that that isnt to bad as it wont make a difference to the actual article on wiki --Muz (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

and now i have realised that i still dont properly understand the subpage instructions. i am going to move to an actual article then improve it from there.(i dont know why i keep doing wrong things) see -> Dolabella auricularia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzlie (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For Anna: suggestions for new stub articles and image collages

Hi Anna, I just now went through the article Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005), which is currently our "Bible" for taxonomy, and I turned all of the taxa names into links. If you go through the lists, even the ones that are blue links could benefit from one of your very nice "image collages" for the taxobox. And the ones that are red links, especially the larger Clades and Informal groups, well they could use one of your stubs. (Obviously the taxa that contain a lot of blue-linked families will have more images for you to work from in making the collages. Hope this is helpful. I am also posting a copy of this on the Project Gastropods page. All the best wishes to you, from sluggy Invertzoo (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I just created Neritimorpha and Lower Heterobranchia. I'm afraid I couldn't dig up enough images to make collages for the taxoboxes. You might want to check the info to see if I'm on the right track. I am learning as I go. Thanks for your encouragement.

Corrected spelling of Neritimorpha. --Snek01 (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again Anna. As you can see, we are polishing up your stubs shortly after you create them. I for one am happy to see them appear. The single images are very nice indeed, there is no problem with them at all. I think you are picking up the hang of this quite quite well. We certainly do need someone to help us with these snails and slugs, as there are so few of us working here and so much needs doing, especially on the taxonomy end of things. If there is anything I can do to make the articles you are using for reference (like the Bouchet and Rocroi article) more easy to understand, or more easy to use, please let me know. Also if you continue to let us know as your new stubs appear we will run right over and check them out. Many thanks and all good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling correction. I am not sure how I did that.

Thanks for going over the articles and fixing them up. I keep a Bouchet and Rocroi open at all times for reference.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed how well you are doing with all this! It's not easy to tackle this stuff even when you have a background in it. Congratulations!

I am including the note I wrote to Snek here:

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 Wikipedia 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, Invertzoo (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

JoJan said that? Wow. That's so nice. Thank you JoJan! I am assuming you are reading this because you are the founder of the project page. Sorry about the Toejam crack. And thank you too Susan for your kind compliments and encouragement.

I thought I might have been overstepping my bounds. This may sound stupid, but it has actually helped me a bit in sorting out what's what. Now they all seem to fit into one category or another. A week ago they all fit into the category "Animals that need bones".

I think though, I've actually run out of articles high-up enough to warrant a composite picture. There remains the Gastropod main article, but as it is a very important article, and I am ignorant in the ways of the squishy, I haven't dared touch it.

Subfinally, as for the captions "Various examples of...", I agree that it may not be necessary. After all, it's kind of obvious. So, ZAP them into oblivion at will! (as Captain Kirk once said while very drunk) Or tell me if you want me to do it because I have them on my watch list quite handy.

Infrafinally, the email thing still has me puzzled. What is email for in connection with Wikipedia other than to communicate about policies or guidelines about the content and style of articles? I am new, so I don't know.

Superfinally, if you can think other Gastrotasks for me, please let me know. It's lots of fun. (Sorry about the long message.)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, OK to try to answer your questions and comments:

1. You have been tackling most of the most major clades and Informal groups that were red-linked. But still there are plenty of red links left in the "main clades and informal groups" section of Bouchet and Rocroi, not to mention how many there are in the full "Taxonomy" section.

2. No current problem that needs zapping, Captain Kirk.

3. Email is intended for more personal questions, like: "We both live in New York City, can we meet up and have tea some time? Here is where I live, here is my phone number." and so on.

4. The main Gastropod article does need work, and so do the Snail and Slug articles. if you are inspired to try to work on any of them but not sure that want you want to say is correct, you could do a draft of what you want to say on a subpage you can create from your userpage, see [3]. I have three subpages off of my user page that I use for drafting things, see User:Invertzoo#Subpages.

5. There are masses of all various things that need doing in the Gastropods Project, and some of them are perhaps a bit more like "drudgery" than others, depending on one's inclination. I want you to be able to enjoy what you are doing, and do what you like to do! So please go ahead and do what you like to do for now, or let us know what other kinds of things you might like to tackle, if that makes any sense. All good wishes to you, sluggy Susan Invertzoo (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I will keep digging into red links and see what I can do.

For consistency, I will add the "Various examples of..." to Limpets, and ZAP all the captions at once if and when decided.

I will look at Gastropods, Snails and Slugs, and propose something on this page after a while.

I have the same subpage thingy on my user page [4]. I love the elbow room.

Feel free to throw drudge-tasks my way, provided that they are not out of my depth. (I don't want to hurt the project.)

Thanks, and all the best to you.

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Composite images for large taxa

I think we should consider not to use some composite images. If we consider to using them so to consider what are good places and what could be a better way to replace composite images. I found no related discussion to this theme at wikipedia.

Agruments to using them:

They give a (nice?) overview.
They are necessary in articles, where there is no other place for images and where is necessary to show a great variability of species. Examples: Animals, Plants, Fungi, WWII, maybe Gastropoda and others.

Arguments to not using them:

They appear too small in default size of taxobox. (And there is no reason to change default size of taxobox.)
If there is enough place in the article, there can be six separate images on right side, on left side, or on both sides. This is the most used way how to put an image in the article. Examples: Nudibranchia, Slug.
This is not good to use composite images without appropriate description. And a bit easier way is to put description under separate image.
Images should be made in the best available quality (according to Commons guidelines). Even if there is used the best available quality image, then the final image is made in such quality as have the image with the lowest resolution. (This does not truth if you will use images with completely same quality. But in many ways it is valid.)
There is not easy to simply edit composite images.

Neutral comments:

There are sometimes available plates (File:Tafel 054 300.jpg for Cephalopoda, File:Slugs 1896.jpg for slug, and so on). Such plates can also easily be used in large taxa articles, but they can be replaced with photos, if photos are available.

We should consider all agruments and we shoudl you composite images for large taxa only in such ways, where it is usefull and to not use them where there are better ways. --Snek01 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Other examples of composite images

There are many ways in which composite images are usefull: for example File:Anostoma octodentatum shell.jpg looks good when it is in taxobox, see Anostoma octodentatum or as a thumb ot he right side or a left side of the article. But high image does not much good in a gallery.

Valvata sincera
Valvata sincera
Valvata sincera
Anostoma octodentatum

These ways are good and uploader will choose the best way, because he kown how he/she will use the image. I would like to hear from you which

**Scanning electron micrograph images of love darts from eight different species of pulmonate land snails**

The upper images show a lateral view of the dart of each species; the scale bar is 500 μm (0.5 mm)

The lower images show a cross-section; the scale bar on these is 50 μm

**Upper row**: *Trichia hispida*, *Xerarionta kellettii*, *Bradybaena similaris*, and *Chilostoma cingulatum* **Lower row**: *Humboldtiana nuevoleonis*, *Leptaxis erubescens*, *Cepaea hortensis*, and *Monachoides vicinus*

The upper images show a lateral view of the dart of each species; the scale bar is 500 μm (0.5 mm).

The lower images show a cross-section; the scale bar on these is 50 μm.

Trichia hispida, Xerarionta kellettii, Bradybaena similaris, and Chilostoma cingulatum.

Humboldtiana nuevoleonis, Leptaxis erubescens, Cepaea hortensis, and Monachoides vicinus.

It is just an simple example, but if we use the third way of putting these darts into article. It will appear the same and we, for example save space at Wikimedia Commons because we can delete the one composite image.

Such examples with composite images are quite rare at wikipedia. So nobody took care about such details, but it is good to consider using composite images in many large taxa articles. --Snek01 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Other possibilities

There is already possibile to put two images into taxobox. See Valvata piscinalis article. So it would be easy to make it possible to 3 images also in the future.

*Guilfordia yoka*

all these 4 images are stored as four separate files.

Consider, that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper and it have is advantages and disadvantages.

For running and editing wikipedia: Composite images made in one file is not good for easy editing and for modern internet encyclopedia. Ther are better ways how to do it.

For reader: For example very small images are bad for a reader. Even if there is technically possible to make them, then such small images are used only where in not enough space, for example at Main Page.

Choose a theoretical way which is the best for a reader and somebody will realize it.

I am looking for your suggestions. --Snek01 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

One reply

You have done some very good work with combining images, there is no question about that, and thank you so much for all of your work Michal, it is very fine work.

I do agree in general with quite a few of the points you make, the exception being that, as you already know, I take the basic position that combined images are perfectly OK in a taxobox of a family or larger taxon, despite the component images being small. I think they look quite charming visually, and are attractive to potential readers.

And functionally a combined set of images makes the point that there are a number of different-looking minor taxa within this one bigger taxon. It shows immediately, visually, that the article is about a category or group of gastropods.

Additional images can easily be added to the article in a row to the right of the rest of the text, where that is helpful.

Invertzoo (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

hmmm... no. There is necessary to follow OFFICIAL official English Wikipedia policy that all editors should follow. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Look number 4.: Wikipedia is not a mere collections of photographs or media files.... There is no acceptable simply to join few images into another larger file. Such behaviour wastes time of editors but also it wastes wikipedia resources! There is not acceptable to make a large file that contains the same source images, which are already available at commons. Such large files are not made for articles about cities, for articles about famous painters, and so on.

Another official policy Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Image_galleries syas that: we should use galleries for subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Note, that there is a word adequately.

The same policy follows Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size: you should generally use the "thumb" (thumbnail). There is nothing about small, very small, very very small, and the smallest images. Consider, that there is in the word generally.

These are official rules and they should be followed. There can be very few exeptions but something, that can affect many articles can not go against so many rules.

There is no evidence that smaller images are more charming, and there is no evidence that smaller images are more attractive.

There is not only necessary to strictly follow policy but also try to have all articles in the same style, keep it simply for editing and continuous improving. Many wikipedia guidelines suggest to make a gallery or a special page at commons Wikipedia:Layout#Images, there is reasonably only two positions for file in taxobox Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Images, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, and so on. --Snek01 (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reread all of the guidelines that you mentioned, and I have to say that I understand them in quite a different way to the way you have apparently interpreted them. I don't quite know why this is, but perhaps it has something to do with certain subtleties of the English language, which may not be readily apparent to someone for whom English is a second language. So in other words I disagree with your overall view on this (to my mind quite minor) point, the question of composite images. Invertzoo (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Neritimorpha and Cocculiniformia

As there seems to be consensus on the composite taxobox images for now, may I fill in the last two?

These have composites...

Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, ~~Neritimorpha~~, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata

The last two are...

Neritimorpha with only a single image. Found them! Created and added composite image. Done
Cocculiniformia has no images at all. Found drawings, created and added composite image. Done

Can someone suggest a location where I can find images? (Cocculiniformia photos)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Pectenodoris trilineata

I just made Pectenodoris trilineata. It could use a check, especially the taxobox. Thanks! Also, should I remove it from the WikiProject Gastropod main page?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I replied to this on your talk page Anna, best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Robot for WikiProject Gastropods

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

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

New stubs

Aporrhaidae‎ could use a check-over. Thanks!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Cycloneritimorpha‎ could use a check-over. It's a little raw because. I am pooped and will add to it tomorrow if I can. Thanks!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's coming along nicely. I just wanted to say that Neritimorpha is a clade, and so is Cycloneritimorpha, both are clades. A clade is not the same as a Subclass or a Superorder. Gastropod taxonomy is switching over gradually from the Linnaean system of taxonomy to molecular phylogenetic taxonomy, so right now we are using a weird temporary synthesis which involves elements from both systems. As the Bouchet & Rocroi article says: "This classification... [is] ...using unranked clades for taxa above the rank of superfamily (replacing the ranks suborder, order, superorder and subclass), while using the traditional Linnaean approach for all taxa below the rank of superfamily." That may not be 100% intelligible, but in the new taxonomy we are using, we don't use suborder or order or superorder or subclass. There are clades instead, but the clades are not strictly ranked and so they can't be exactly slotted in, like the old levels of taxa could be.

Also the article needs some refs when you get a chance. Of course you can give the Bouchet & Rocroi publication as one reference. Best wishes from sluggy Susan, Invertzoo (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Added a quote from B&R, Invertzoo (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Things are slowly clearing up. (I have been referred to as "mind-numbingly dense".)

I think I forgot to put the Bouchet & Rocroi refs in the last few. I will go over them.

I will dig up some Cycloneritimorpha refs.

Done

When I see Neritimorpha referred to as something other than a clade in taxoboxes, I can change it to "(unranked) clade ", right?

If Neritimorpha = Neritopsina (as stated in Bouchet and Rocroi), then Neritopsina is a redundant article, right?

If Cycloneritimorpha is a clade, then Cyrtoneritimorpha is also a clade, right?

Clades can nest within clades, right?

Did I get any of the above right? Historically, I have never been right. Ask my parents.

Thanks again for your patience sluggy Susan.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anna, Rather than calling you dense, I would call you brilliant. Jumping into writing about gastropod taxonomy (which has always been a large and difficult subject) and doing it at this point in time when the subject is changing so profoundly, and doing it with no background at all, is brave to say the least! And so far you are not sinking but swimming.

Yes, whenever you come across something in a gastropod taxobox that does not correspond with the B&R chart of the current taxonomy, then you can change it; that would be really great! That is exactly what needs doing! That would be fantastic! (I have to confess that I have been just too darn lazy to update most of taxoboxes I come across. Instead I have simply been deleting the old, out-of-date taxonomy so the taxobox looks a bit weird because it goes straight from class all the way down to family (or superfamily) without anything in between.) In fact whenever you feel like tackling the updating of some gastropod taxboxes, that would be one of the most useful and helpful things you could possibly do for the Project. As for your specific questions:

Yes one clade certainly can nest inside another. And yes, Cycloneritimorpha and Cyrtoneritimorpha are both clades within the bigger clade of Neritimorpha.

You can visualize them as two very small branches (which each have a lot of twigs), and both of those small branches are connected as one bigger, forking branch, within the tree of life. Take a look at this diagram, it is not gastropods at all, but it shows you how you can have nesting groups and branches that fork in different ways. [5]

Ever since Darwin, taxonomy is supposed to try to accurately represent the actual tree of life, the tree that shows how organisms descended from one another in the evolutionary past. The old Linnaean system with a rigid hierarchy of fixed ranks (like the army) (the ranks Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species), does not do a good job of showing how the tree of life really grew and really grows, so that is why people are gradually switching over to clades.

Yes Neritopsina is a redundant article in a way, but because the term is still encountered very often in many print and on-line sources, I think there is nothing wrong with having an article on it, as long as it is made clear in the article that this taxon is now "out of date", and is no longer used, (at least not by Bouchet and Rocroi and their followers. Perhaps we should work out some way of indicating that a taxobox is "historic and not current". I will ask JoJan what he thinks about that idea.

So, all in all, I think you got everything right! Best, Susan, Invertzoo (talk) 14:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

About taxoboxes

Once again I thank you for your kind words, encouragement, and clarification.

Snek's taxobox example is great. I have asked him to fill one in. I have encountered formatting errors before where Wikisoftware freaked out.

Snek seems to be the taxobox-man and has been very helpful, and I'm sure he will be willing to assist in getting me on the right track.

My problem has not been visualizing the hierarchy. It has been understanding how clades are entered into taxoboxes as subordo this and supra that.

Finally, is the Bouchet & Rocroi system a passing fancy? How confident are you that it will be used in 20 years?

I look forward to being able to work more independently and not have to bug you with silly questions all the time. When I get it all straight, I will systematically hit the taxoboxes.

Thanks again for taking the time to explain things. You are a very kind and patient person.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Here I am again. Yes absolutely, me too, I also don't know or can't remember how to fill in the taxobox so that the clades show up correctly. I do know that JoJan knows exactly how to do this, and I have asked him; I hope he replies soon. I do agree: we need one perfectly filled-in taxobox, all the way down to species level, to be a helpful example for all of us.

As for how long the Bouchet & Rocroi system will last, it is not a "passing fancy" exactly, but certainly it is nothing more than one good step in the right direction. So I can guarantee you that the B&R system will not be in use in 20 years time, or even 10 years time. Probably not even in 5 years time. A few of their insights may still be in use however for quite a while. Actually I don't expect Gastropod taxonomy to settle down very much at all for at least 20 years or perhaps even 50 or 75 years, because of all the insights that are coming thick and fast from research in molecular phylogeny. So here at Project Gastropods we will be updating and updating and updating as many times as necessary over the years. But there is not really any feasible good alternative to all that work. We can't stick with one old system and we can't really just refuse to make taxoboxes. For a little bit of time we were hobbling along, going straight from class all the way down to Superfamily, but that's kind of a weird thing to do too.

Seriously, if you would rather just keep making new articles like the nudibranch stubs, that's great too and goodness knows we have masses of new pics coming in every day of mollusks of all various kinds, with shells and without. It's a really huge phylum. All the best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 23:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I tried to cobble together a "perfect" taxobox and put it on the Project page. Take a look. Invertzoo (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a bot will be able to help when, after a few years, the inevitable 'new system' requires taxobox changes.

Really, I am happy to help fix the taxoboxes. I will continue to make new stubs though.

I can't find the "perfect" taxobox. On the project page I see the template Snek made, but no "example" of a filled-out box. Cheers.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, found it. Way to the right, right? You've cobbled a real peach. Very helpful. Thanks! --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that at some point in the not too distant future, that Wikipedia may have to simply replace every one of its myriad of taxoboxes with some sort of fraction or fragment of a "Tree of Life" diagram, [6] or perhaps instead it will be a link to a huge searchable interactive 3-D diagram of tree of life instead. Taxoboxes are based on the idea of rigid ranks, and that idea appears to be gradually disappearing as a useful concept. Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nudibranch taxoboxes

NOTE: The system of filling in a taxobox as described below has been superceded by a better system. See the updated taxobox here: [7]. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The Neritimorpha example on the project page is helpful, but Bouchet & Rocroi page shows only two clades within clades. Nudipleura on the other hand goes down 5 or so. As I am making Nudibranch articles, I get stuck. If you could fill in the blanks below as a guide, that would help a lot. I need to associate the different 'font sizes' (if that makes sense), and name suffixes, with taxobox latin terms (if I am getting that right).

Mollusc - phylum
Gastropoda - classis (as in "I think I need classis")

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

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

But in the taxobox it needs to be done like this. It looks weird here typed out like this but if you put it in the taxobox it comes out well. You can also see how he did it on the new page [8]. As JoJan says it is a compromise but it's all we can do right now. You can see what he says on his talk page, right at the end of the heading "Questions about a nudibranch taxobox" here: [9]

The lower ranks are pretty easy:

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

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Expanded and more formatting by Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC) Update from Susan, Invertzoo (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Just the info I have been looking for. Thanks so much.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

New stubs

Instead of notifying you each time I make a new stub that needs a check-over, perhaps you could visit User:Anna_Frodesiak once in a while. I keep a running list of new articles there. Thanks all!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, OK, that sounds like a plan! Thanks Invertzoo (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion - composite images

I am responding to a request made at WP:3O for a third opinion regarding the use of composite images in articles covered by this project. I have read the existing discussion, however since it is spread over several sections and is now archived (prematurely in my view) I request that both parties briefly summarise their views here so we have a convenient basis for discussion. CrispMuncher (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi CrispMuncher. Thanks for showing up. Actually this is not a disagreement between two editors. We had a third opinion already, quite a while ago. User:JoJan (the founder of WIkiproject Gastropods and an admin) was in favor of the composite images when he was asked about it by me (see his talk page User talk:JoJan#Composite images) and so was I (User: Invertzoo). The person who created the images in the first place certainly started out being in favor of them, since she decided to go to the trouble of creating them. Snek 01 was strongly opposed to them. I would have thought that we don't really need a tie-breaker, as we already had a 3 to 1 positive expression in favor of them. I will replace the archived messages so that you can see what was written if you like, but please check the talk pages of all 4 participants as well. Thanks for your interest, Invertzoo (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are more than two opinions. (But few opinions were published prior to publishing disagreement opinion so it was not possible to evaluate all arguments from disagreement.) I think this decision will be important and also strategical because it can affect hundreds or more articles. "There is an important distinction between what technically can be done, and what reasonably should be done". I think we should move/announce discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life or to related wikipedia policies talkpages, because there are very few wikipedians in discussion right now. --Snek01 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagreement summarisation: We should not use composite images (example) for large taxa because:

Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image_galleries says that we should use galleries or link to commons.
They are appearing very small because we usually uses thumb image size according to Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed_image_size.
It is not strategically good: they can be uneasily improved, they takes much space on commons, they are in lower quality than original ones.
I think we can use composite images only if necessary. --Snek01 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well to answer Invertzoo's comments, no, I hadn't noticed JoJan's comments but I'm not surprised: it was the fractured nature of the discussion that made me ask for a summary here. I was hesitant to take this case but it had been left at 3O for two days so obviously no-one else wanted to touch it either. I don't think archiving the comments so quickly, before Snek01 had ample time to respond, was helpful. This could easily be perceived as deliberately curtailing the debate. It is easy to envisage that one side may feel "injured" in that instance.

I'm tending to side with the prevailing opinion, as represented by Invertzoo. It seems that attempting to make a rule for reasons that are contested is a bad idea: surely this is something best handled on a case-by-case basis where there is a specific article and specific issues to consider. Galleries themselves have limitations, especially with respect to licensing, and I can see instances where a composite is technically the only reliable way of doing things: if you want to compare the sizes of two species for instance. There are doubtless other cases. The presence of these situations tends to make me wary of even a general rule, since general rules are often subsequently protrayed as absolute even if that was not the original intention.

I'm also wary of the scope of this debate and the authority for any proposed rule. This is a specific project for better documenting a specific area and hopefully creating a common "house style". However, it does not "own" the articles it touches. Many articles come under many different projects (look at Stonehenge for instance) and there are always independent editors working on articles who are not attached to projects. I can conceive of articles in the scope of this project that would also fall inside others, such as species used as animal or human foodstuffs, or used in industrial processes (e.g. as water quality indicators). It is difficult to apply such a "rule" to particular articles when the authority to do so is disputable without the consensus of the wider community.

To be honest, I suspect that there is a consensus against the proposed rule, albeit not a unanimous one. However, as I have noted I can see how a perception that process was not followed could easily form. That is something we should address to at least prevent it escalating to more formal dispute resolution procedures. As always, I'm happy to discuss further. I'll be watching this page for the next few days at least. CrispMuncher (talk) 13:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you CrispMuncher for your helpful input. I appreciate it. I apologize for archiving the messages prematurely but the talk page was running way too many megabytes, and since we had a 3 to 1 opinion on the issue I felt we had some sort of consensus already, even if it was not unanimous.

Whether or not to include some composite images within the taxoboxes of large taxa in Project Gastropods appears to be a very minor point. This is probably why, as far as I can tell, the Wikipedia guidelines on images, and on taxoboxes, do not appear to have anything at all to say about the subject. I also believe that Snek may be mistaken in his interpretation of the prose of the guidelines he has mentioned, for example thinking that "generally" means " in all cases", when instead it actually means "in many cases".

It is important to remember that "Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things." (taken from the WP:Consensus page.) The appropriate course of action on Wikipedia is always to try to work towards a consensus, not to attempt to impose a minority view on a larger group of editors. If Snek wishes to take the discussion to the Tree of Life page that seems reasonable, but again it may be hard to get very much in the way of opinions/responses from other editors there, because this does not appear to be a very important issue.

To put all this into a greater perspective, I want to say that here at Project Gastropods we are operating in crisis mode. Less than a week ago I personally discovered that we have a very large-scale CopyVio problem, spread over approximately 1,000 gastropod articles and spilling over into hundreds of other articles on mollusks. The text for these articles was more or less copied verbatim from a book which is not in the public domain, and which almost all of us here (including me) do not have access to. I have been the main person trying to work with the editor who was responsible for this, and it is very challenging. Each day I am having to make decisions about what might be the best course of action now. This serious threat to the encyclopedia has distracted me from other less pressing tasks. If you CrispMuncher know any way I can get some help with managing this large-scale CopyVio situation, please do let me know, as something on this scale and this level of seriousness is quite new to me, and I feel somewhat overwhelmed. Thanks and best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think composite images are necessary for groups low down in a taxonomic hierarchy, as specimens in these groups often appear similar.

However, I think that composite images can be a valuable guide to the appearance of main clades, subkingdoms, classes, etc.

The actual number of these articles are very few, and composite images seem completely appropriate, not only to show that the article is a 'portal', but to give the reader a visual representation of the subdivisions within.

Below is a list of the composite images in question in this matter. (They represent the main clades of Gastropods according to:Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005))

14:38, 13 March 2009 Anna Frodesiak (talk | contribs)

A very large and widespread CopyVio problem!

I want to alert all Project Gastropods staff to the fact that we currently have a very major CopyVio problem which compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia, and opens the door for legal action against Wikipedia. This problem is spread across a huge number of gastropod articles (approximately 800 to 1,000) and it also spills over into the other molluscan groups. I am asking ask everyone who is available to help out with this in whatever way they can, but please do so in an organized and unified fashion so we all know what is going on. It seems that all of the articles in the Category: Molluscs of New Zealand [10] contain a great deal of text that is copied verbatim or almost verbatim from the 1979 book by Powell, New Zealand Mollusca. I have had no experience in dealing with a crisis of this magnitude. Any help that any of you can offer or suggest is more than welcome. Invertzoo (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

How is possible to identify these copyvios:

made by User:GrahamBould
There is this reference in the Reference section:

Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca, William Collins Publishers Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand 1979 ISBN 0-00-216906-1

other books affected? (to be solved)
Other wikipedia wikiproject gastropods members have no this book.

Search for articles with Powell's book as a reference

Will anybody be rewriting these texts? If so, then completely rewrited affected articles should be announced here. All other texts identified by a simple indetifying guidelines above, will be deleted. --Snek01 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

List of corrected articles that contains Powell as a reference:

none

Copyvio matter - Suggestions

~~What about first getting a certain, and complete list of the articles in question by searching a specific string, or by the means already being used.~~

Then, look at the text in a sample of these articles to see if there's some kind of search and replace a bot could do. I am talking about changing the text just enough to circumvent any copyvio problem. Some examples:

New Zealand --> the country of New Zealand
native to --> originally from
belong to --> be part of
belongs to --> is part of
occurs in --> is found in
large --> big
mm --> millimetres

A list containing dozens of these could be prepared. This may be an alternative to text blanking, be a temporary fix, or might even be a permanent solution.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but really the text has to be completely re-written from scratch, otherwise it tends to be clear that it is just Powell but tweaked, albeit in an elaborate fashion. Invertzoo (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

@Anna: No, it is not possible and it will never be possible due of copyright. --Snek01 (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[copied from ANI]::The articles have been edited since their creation, I cannot see how this is a copyvio. The allegation of copyvio is one editors view, isn't this response a bit excessive?
This is a drastic action for an unconfirmed allegation, have a third opinion been sought from someone with access to the text. The suggestion above would be a better basis for unleashing a bot. I'm reverting the copyvio notice on Janthina janthina. cygnis insignis 02:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI conversation

Hi. The ANI conversation is getting long and as it is far beyond the "admin-intervention" point, I'm hoping to shift it here. First, as I said there, I'm impressed that your wikiproject is concerned and prepared to be active in repairing this. Again, I'm sorry for the problem. I spend a lot of time cleaning up copyright issues that have been pointed out on Wikipedia, and I know how disruptive copyright violation is to the project, since it can be a serious setback for articles.

As a general response to various points at AN, most of which seem to have been made by your project's members: the procedure for handling suspected copyright problems is set out at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. If a source is identified, infringement is substantial, and the text cannot be immediately cleaned, the page is blanked with the copyright template and listed for investigation. If the text can be cleaned, it may sometimes be left in the article's history, though it's always a good idea to put a note at the article's talk page warning against restoration when the material is cleaned. There is a template for the purpose at {{cclean}}, though any brief note works just as well. (People who are interested in knowing more how these are handled can see CP, linked above, or Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins, which is the guidelines drafted for administrators addressing identified copyright problems.)

If there were not 1,000 articles or so involved here, it would probably be just as beneficial to clean the articles without going through the copyright problem tag, but there are 1,000 articles, and it is, as I mentioned above, standard to blank articles that contain copyrighted material pending cleanup. Once Wikipedia becomes aware of a copyright problem, it takes action. This is good legal protection for us, obviously. It demonstrates that we are proactive and responsible, which could become important should our right to claim shelter under the DMCA ever be challenged in court. (The DMCA is the US copyright act governing online content providers with respect to copyright.)

What should be done with these articles may depend on the wishes of this project. While I myself like to repair as many copyright infringing articles as I can, in the theory that its worth the extra effort not to lose important content if it can be salvaged, 1,000 possible infringements is a pretty daunting number. Does the project want to organize a task force to repair these? I'm still working on the long-term cleanup here as well as trying to maintain the general CP page (which took from 10:50 to 20:47 yesterday), and if it's up to me to rewrite these, it may be some years. :) I have no idea if a bot can be created to help with these. To me, bots are about as comprehensible as fairies. :)

Ordinarily, the "copyright problem" tag is only to be removed by an administrator. I don't know if others will agree, but I am inclined to think that this is probably a good place to "ignore all rules". If the material can be cleaned, then I think it probably should be, and the tag removed by the contributor who cleans it. But it is essential, really, that all contributors who work on this project are clear on how best to revise material. [Name withdrawn on request] asked at ANI, "At what point does rephrasing scientific concepts, classification, and data in a source, such as a short entry in a general work, constitute copyvio?" Sadly, there is no clear-cut line on this. US courts evaluate on a case-by-case basis. (US law governs copyright on Wikipedia, of course, because the Wikimedia Foundation is based in the US.) The Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing essay which Dcoetzee pulled together (and to which I have contributed) contains some links to external documents that can help. If you're interested in the legal background at all, there's a bit on my own userpage, here.) I think anyone who undertakes to clean these articles is simply going to have to do their best to remove the infringement and supply the information in original language. When in doubt, it may be best to remove the text altogether.

If others do not agree that this is a good case for "ignoring all rules", I'll be happy to review and resolve articles that have been revised. (It is, obviously, still possible to edit the article with the tag on it; the tag simply prevents us from publishing material that may not be legal for our use.)

If this project chooses to manually address these issues, it may be necessary to set up a temporary page to list them. I believe that the bot that handles copyright listings, DumbBot, will probably help with this. DumbBot trawls Wikipedia and finds articles that are labeled "copyright problem". If they are not listed at WP:CP, it lists them. If finding approximately 1,000 articles does not break DumbBot, it should generate a complete list of these tomorrow, which it will list at the bottom of Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2009 March 14. Presuming, again, that this task doesn't break the Bot, that list can be used to keep an eye on what is tagged and what has been cleaned. If a bot can somehow be used to resolve the problem, obviously, somebody's going to have to make and get clearance for the bot. I have no idea how this is done, other than that I know there is some kind of bot council. :)

The tone of the conversation about this on ANI leads me to concern that there may be some irritability about this matter. That's understandable. I presume nobody is happy to have this mess land on our laps, but I think it's important to remember that we're all working together to figure out the best way to handle it. I presume we're all agreed that we want to find a workable solution that serves the best interests of Wikipedia and its readers.

Please forgive me if I've been unclear, and I know this is long. Sorry.

Any thoughts on how best to proceed? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Some ideas on how to proceed from here on CopyVio

Thank you very much Moonriddengirl, and thank you to all the admins who contributed their thoughts and responses on the ANI page. I am very relieved that this matter is now not just "my problem" to deal with.

I am also glad to have the tags blanking the text (other than the taxoboxes) on GB's mollusk contributions. I do think it is much better to be safe than sorry with this tagging and blanking, even if a number of articles have been tagged that may in fact turn out to be OK. After all, we are talking 1,000 articles here. This was an urgent problem of the highest priority, and something needed to be done right away. This was I think the fastest and safest compromise for a first step.

OK about how to proceed from here:

Maybe we can set up a subpage from this talk page to deal with this topic and only this topic? Done[11]
I would perhaps start the page by listing those editors who have already expressed to me a general desire to help clean-up where possible. Done I would say that if anyone changes their minds at any point, to please take their name off the list.
Anyone who wants to help needs to be reminded in advance that we only have a few volunteers here, volunteers who can contribute only so many hours on Wp, and that to rehabilitate all these 1,000 articles can be an enormous and discouraging task which will very likely prevent an editor from doing too much else in the way of other editing for perhaps a year or more.
The task is complicated by the fact that none of us currently have access to the book from which the text was copied.
I feel that realistically people need to at least consider the possibility that some of the articles should be deleted entirely? Perhaps people would consider accepting something like the deletion of all the non-gastropod articles at least? We can discuss this of course.

Whatever we decide to do, it needs to be done in an organized fashion with full disclosure and tight cooperation.

We will need regular participation by an admin because the basic rule is that a CopyVio tag must not be removed except by an admin. Even though that rule can be ignored in extreme cases, which this might well be, I think it might be good to honor it for a few months at least at the beginning, until people get the hang of this.
I think we will need to pause and monitor our progress every 3 months or 6 months, because if the impetus to do clean-up runs out of steam at some point, then we may have to consider the possibility of deleting more of the offending articles.

That's all I can think of right now. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Tweaked for more clarity Invertzoo (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

A somewhat belated reaction, because I have been very busy in real life. My first idea was that this was a storm in a teacup. Indeed, names of genera and species and their authorship fall outside of copyright law. Then we have scientific facts that cannot be changed, such as the number of whorls in a shell, or the length of a shell. When you say "A species in endemic to a certain area", then changing the word "endemic" into something else is somewhat awkward. When one wants to use the exact scientific terminology, using any other word looks amateurish : a columella is a columella and not a "central vertical axis". As most of GB's contributions have been stubs, I expected to find, besides a taxobox, some bare scientific facts. And if there was any copyvio, it would have been in the prose or by using verbatim Powell's text. So I tried to test this out and I looked as the first genus in the list : Clanculus. I updated the taxobox to the B&R taxonomy. Then I looked at the text and indeed it consisted of bare scientific facts even if the text looked very polished. As I cannot compare it to the original text in Powell's book, I can only suspect here a copyvio. I expanded the text, using books in my possession (Susan, I'm sure my English can be improved). And again, comparing the texts in my books I saw that they almost all used the same words, such as "umbellicus deep" "deeply umbellicate". In the end, all these books only differ from each other by the depth by which they handle the subject, the layout, the presentation and the original photos or drawings. But nobody cries out in this case "copyvio !", because facts are facts. Then I looked at the list of species in Clanculus. While adding a number of species and authorships, I saw that GB had copied, warts and all, the original list from Powell's book or from somewhere else. Every typo of the original list was copied. And this was clearly a copyvio, even a bad copyvio (look into the history and try "diff" to see the difference). If this is the same for the rest of his contributions, then we have a real problem. We can't possibly rewrite 1,000 contributions. The best I can propose is : drop all the species and concentrate on the genera. These are the most important. If we upgrade the taxoboxes to the B&R taxonomy, then these articles are certainly original enough. And if we also try to improve the text of these articles, then these articles can be handled by our limited manpower (our should I also say "woman"power ?). I can handle the taxonomy of the genera but text improvement is best left to a native speaker. Roget's thesaurus or any other synonym dictionary wouldn't be of much help with scientific jargon. JoJan (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I edit your contributions on occasion, and I don't think we need to worry about text improvement to any degree. I'll check your contributions every once in a while, maybe other can also do so and spit shine the prose. My prose also needs spit-shined (turgidity), so gastropod editors should watch mine, also.

Yes, JoJan, thanks for stating the obvious, which I did not: the genera article are the most important. I did a correction on a species article with a friend of a friend reading the book over the telephone, and there were also some inaccuracies kept in, according to the friend and snail aficionado so I think it is not only a concern about copyright violations, but about the accuracy of the text.

My suggestion, then, is to have gastropod members adopt a genus or two a week, rewrite these, and, again, have a bot stubify the species articles. How does that sound? --KP Botany (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing composite images discussion

For your information: I am posting this on the Project talk page since the discussion was started here, and it is relevant to the project.

Today Snek let me know (on my talk page) that he posted a message to User talk:CrispMuncher following CM's intervention as a "third opinion" on the question of composite images: "Hello, thank you for helping 3O composite images discussion. We need to move it outside, because we are not able to solve it in WikiProject Gastropods. I personally suppose to move it to Wikipedia talk:Image use policy. I suppose that WikiProject Tree of life will not be able to solve it solely, because it can get into the same situation as we. Announcement on WikiProject Tree of life will be fine. I can move it by myself also. Or I can move it and you can correct everything in my actions to be done independently. Or rather move it anywhere you want to. Can you do it, please? Be bold and tell me/us your decision. Thank you. I think that nobody is feeling "injured", that there is no problem with archiving (we can discuss about archived themes), that there was enough time to discussion for both sides. Personally I think, that there are nearly impossible things to compare like rules, aesthetic feelings, long-time and short time strategies, and so on. I think that this task covers broader/wider number of themes, than we even mentioned. That is why it is this task so difficult and that is why we did not reach concensus yet. So I am glad for your help. Have a nice weekend. --Snek01 (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)"

I thought people would want to now that this process is continuing. Invertzoo (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Image use policy#Composite images. --Snek01 (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A subpage for CopyVio cleanup organizing

We now have a subpage for attempting to organize the CopyVio taskforce. It is clearly linked at the top of this talk page, or find it here: [12]

I am about to create another subpage that contains a list of additional articles that GB worked on. His Category:Molluscs of Australia is very likely to be just as much of a problem as the New Zealand one. That category is about 400 more articles. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Graham Bould's other articles

Hi. I'm not sure where to put this that it will be useful on the subpage, but User:Dcoetzee has created a list of the contributor's other contributions, the ones that are not in the category, here. DumbBot has listed some, perhaps all, of the tagged articles here. I had originally thought to move that for your benefit, but I've realized that if I remove it from CP, DumbBot will simply keep putting it back. Previous experience with this sort of thing suggests that it may be useful to duplicate it and section it off, with volunteers taking preassigned segments to avoid duplication of effort. (Of course, if you decide to get some kind of bot to rewrite these, then that would not be necessary. At that point, perhaps you could use the sections as a guide for expansion?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much Moonriddengirl. I guess we already have one convenient list by using the subcategories of Category:Molluscs of New Zealand. I thought as a start we could commence with the subcategory gastropods, and simply assign an alphabetical section to each of the taskforce members. This would be an experiment to see how well it goes (or not). Then if it is not really very workable we could go with the bot idea.

Last night I went through nearly a quarter of the list that Dcoetzee created (very useful). it made me realize that the whole Category:Molluscs of Australia also is almost certainly just as much of a CopyVio problem with about 400 more articles. I am also thinking that many other of GB's articles may be problematic too, but I don't have the time to check any on other subjects. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:11, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Nudibranch article headings

I have just started in on uploading a few South African nudibranchs to the wikipedia and would like to ask how flexible article subheadings are. I see 'Life habits' is often used as a subheading for information involving food/mating. Is this required, or may I use 'Natural History' instead? Seascapeza (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

There are not strict rules. You can use any headings and subheadings. We prefer headings clear, short, easy to uderstand and it would be also good to have headings similar with other artices. I think that heading "Natural history" (should be written with small "h") is not so often at wikipedia. You can use for example "Ecology", "Life cycle", and so on. You can find inspiration for example in articles Viviparus georgianus, Elimia virginica, Anostoma, or in many other gastropod articles. You can also suggest improvements. I think there is possible to distinguish caption "Ecology" into (sub)headings "Habitat", "Life cycle", "Feeding habits", "Parasites", "Other interspecific relationships" even if there are very few information, because wikipedia is under continuous process of editing. There are no strict rules in which order headings are. --Snek01 (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Ihanks. I will have a look as suggested. Seascapeza (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Category Extinct gastropods

I asked a question about categorizing fossil/prehistoric/extinct gastropods at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology#Category Extinct gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to paleo-mollusc-stub and paleo-gastropod-stub discussion: User talk:Abyssal#Stubs 2. --Snek01 (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mollusk barnstar now available

Here is a new barnstar that you might wish to hand out as appropriate. Tim Ross (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

There was need for such such a barnstar for a long time. You've handed it out to two well-deserving members of this project. Well done. JoJan (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot task waiting for approving

Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 26#Robot for WikiProject Gastropods is still waiting for approving. There was already enough time to check the task, so I suppose that it is OK. --Snek01 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Polbot is removing templated image request, when the article already has an image in the taxobox. But this complex task is unsolved. --Snek01 (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This bot will run soon User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 4#Robot for WikiProject Gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Some bot tasks are waiting for approval from a few other project members, so please go over there, read the suggestions, and if you approve please say so there. Then the bot will be able to run and fix all these items to save us having to do it all by hand. Thanks. The info is here: User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 4#Robot for WikiProject Gastropods. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you know article titles can be italicised?

You might like to read this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Did_you_know_that_you_can_italicise_titles.3F. I spotted a few article linked to on this page that need it doing. Smartse (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Gastropods Project at WikiConference New York this month [13]

Hi to my fellow project editors. In about 10 days' time, on Saturday July 25th, I will be part of a panel at this upcoming conference in NYC. I will be giving a brief presentation on the progress of our project over the 5 years it has been in existence, and our hopes for the future. If anyone would like to suggest to me some input on this, please go ahead. Best to all, Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tambja morosa

Hi folks! I just made Tambja morosa. As usual, I am confused about the order and family and such. The lead is so way off, I think I have described it as a kind of omelette. Thanks--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Anna, article is good. I also do not know what genera belongs to Polyceridae and what to Gymnodorididae. --Snek01 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the articles about both families to avoid further confusion by Anna. JoJan (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

JoJan, what source have you used? I would like to know it for my general overview and I will use informations that you've added to organize images at Commons. --Snek01 (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've used the fact sheets at the Seaslug Forum : [14]], organisation by the seaslug expert Bill Rudman. JoJan (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice article Anna, thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New stubs

I started Cylindrobullida, Acochlidiacea, Limacoid clade, Ptenoglossa, Architaenioglossa and Umbraculida. I couldn't find photos for a couple. I put Limacoid clade in Limacoid with a redirect from Limacoid clade. If I did it wrong, please just switch it. I will take a crack at a few superfamilies when I can. (I will start with the Brady Bunch and work my way through the Jackson 5 down to the Osmonds. I am not sure about the Baldwins.)--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few interesting facts and their references to each article. JoJan (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. Thank you JoJan!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A few more superfamily stubs

I added Euctenidiacea, Dexiarchia, Pseudoeuctenidiacea, Cladobranchia, Euarminida, Aeolidida, Dendronotida. I had no guide for the taxoboxes because they are all too far down the line, if you know what I mean. So, they are pretty messy.

In the Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, Stills and Nash, 2005) there is Euarminica in the menu at near the top, but it is named Euarminida down at the bottom. I don't know the difference. OK, it was supposed to be Euarminida, it was a typo, the only one in that taxonomy I think. Invertzoo (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I know these aren't the superfamilies you wanted me to do, but it meant getting rid of the last of the red links in the upper menu. I will now take a look at the superfamilies you probably intended. Cheers.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

A few more: Acavoidea, Rhytidoidea, Testacelloidea, Achatinoidea, Orthalicoidea, Clausilioidea, Phyllidioidea
--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And a few more: Seguenzioidea, Scissurelloidea, Porcellioidea, Pleurotomarioidea, Murchisonioidea, Lepetodriloidea, Fissurelloidea, Eotomarioidea, Amberleyoidea
--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And finally, a few more: Cingulopsoidea, Littorinoidea, Vanikoroidea, Velutinoidea, Vermetoidea, Xenophoroidea, Tonnoidea, Ampullarioidea, Viviparoidea --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

And really finally, the last few: Cochlicopoidea, Pupilloidea, Enoidea, Athoracophoroidea, Succineoidea, Veronicelloidea, Otinoidea, Siphonarioidea, Chilinoidea, Acroloxoidea, Lymnaeoidea, Planorboidea.

That's the end of the red links from Pulmonata on down. And now I'm off to buy a guide dog.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Good grief Anna! That is amazing. I thought I was bright and hard-working, but you completely leave me in the dust! A million thanks on behalf of all of the rest of the WikiProject Gastropod editors! Invertzoo (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done. I've expanded some and gave references. In others the taxobox had to be altered. But there is still a lot to be done. Anyway, I call it a day and it has been a long day - a new biography of a painter in the nl.wikipedia and all my interventions here. The rest is for tomorrow. JoJan (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I finished all the superfamilies that appear on Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) that are not fossils. Here are the latest ones.

When two or more families exist, I've put them in a taxonomy section in the body of the article instead of the taxobox. I did this because I noticed that the authority gets included and sometimes other information too. I hope that's okay.

I will do my best to go over the articles and try to find images where there are none, and add authorities. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

These are the last of the fossil superfamily gastropods:

Platyceratoidea, Oriostomatoidea, Nerrhenoidea, Acteoninoidea, Dendropupoidea, Paleostyloidea, Peruneloidea, Pseudomelanioidea, Subulitoidea

I think all of the superfamilies on the Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) page are now blue.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Monotypic ones are changed to redirects. For example Patellodidea → Patellidae, and so on. (They should be always redirected to the lowest taxonomic level.) --Snek01 (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

limacoid

I was very bold (because I have no access to full Hausdorf's article) and I have rewritten the article limacoid clade. This article needs your attention for its taxonomy and even for its typography. Category:Limacoid can be deleted (those seven superfamilies can be included in its supercategory, which is Category:Stylommatophora.) Also other related articles should be changed in correspondence with the limacoid clade article. --Snek01 (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So, do you suggest that here on Wikipedia we use the name limacoid clade with no quote marks around it and no capital letter? Or should we follow B&R and call it "limacoid clade" using the quote marks? Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC) I am willing to check all the uses of this and change them once we have for sure decided how to handle this name. Invertzoo (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Simple explanation: According to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)#Capitalisation of common names of groups these should be written like this: limacoid clade, lower Heterobranchia, zygopleuroid group.

Complicated explanation: It is a very special case, because it is a name of a taxon that have only a vernacular name. We should use rules for vernacular names for this. This means: we uses the name of the article Limacoid clade. We do not use the name of the article "limacoid name". Bouchet at al. used quotations marks to only for easier distinguish that this taxon has vernacular name meantime. Quotation marks are not necessary. A reader can already see that there is something strange with this taxon: it has a small first letter l and it has a word clade as a part of its name. There is a similar example: Bouchet uses sometimes name "lower Heterobranchia" and sometimes lower Heterobranchia (He always uses it is lists and probably so he used a capital L in word lower). We uses the most simple name and compatible with wikipedia guidelines. We uses no quotation marks, because they do not bring additional value. Zygopleuroid group is also written without quotation marks. --Snek01 (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

New gastropod taxobox image

May I suggest swapping the current image for another one in the gastropod taxobox? (I'm not suggesting a composite as there are so many groups.) The page really has a lot of articles behind it, and has become quite a portal. Perhaps something more representative to someone who visits the page and doesn't really know what a gastropod is. How about a snail or something?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The silence is deafening. I am getting an itchy mouse finger over here. Personally, I don't think that a newcomer to the gastropod article will have a clue what they are looking at when they see the cowry image.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Anna. May I suggest the image of Helix pomatia that is currently used with the Snail article? It might look better with a different background, though, but that wouldn't be hard to adjust. Tim Ross (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, added also this image. --Snek01 (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I like it because it is joe snail and it is trucking along on a horizontal surface, which is very snailesque. But, I don't know how to change a background. Also, Helix pomatia represents gastropods as well as French cuisine. Perhaps something with a bit of colour might be good, like Cepaea hortensis.

Something that says "I am gastropod. Hear me roar." or more accurately "I am gastropod. Watch me move really slowly." Anyway, anything is better than a cowry, which everyone knows is a malevolent and evil gastropod. Let's give it a day or two. Now that you have weighed in, perhaps JoJan, Invertzoo, Snek01 et al. could make a suggestion too.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Michal, I see you have added Helix pomatia. But now there are two images. This looks a bit strange to me.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...the Cepaea is not quite as snailesque (great word!) as the Helix, but it's certainly a whole lot prettier. Yes, I'd be happy with that one. You're right, that the cowry does not make a very good example. By-the-way, I'll be glad to change the background of the Helix if that should be needed. Tim Ross (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you about Cepaea. It's a little bit 'flash'. I went ahead and removed the cowry and cropped the Helix pic a bit. I look forward to the new background. I think it's a nice snail and represents the article well. But, if you ever find a better one, we can always replace it. It's not that Helix isn't nice, it's just that there are so many really cute snails out there. Also, why should Helix get top billing in gastropod and snail?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed out completely on this discussion! I was busy and forgot to check this page. I like the pic much better than the cowry pic, that is for sure. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 17:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added a slightly revised version of the Helix photo, with most of the (to me distracting) background removed. If you don't like it, just remove the "a" from the end of the file name to put the background in again. Tim Ross (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm ready for more

Please tell me what needs doing.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good question! :) If I can wish, start all recent families. Then we should start those fossil ones. I will do those Paleozoic and Basal. You can do the rest ones, if you like. As far as there will be all articles for all families then I will add the type genus and subfamilies and hopefully also an authority for them (because I can do it effectively only alphabetically). --Snek01 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The other project task is to use all of those images at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gastropods#Image_resources. Unfortunately no other tasks remain and everybody can edit whatever he/she wish. :) --Snek01 (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Starting all recent families. Okie dokie.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

What are the best sources for species and genera? Thanks.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I advise the following websites (but always check for the latest information):

And there a few more, but these are the best. JoJan (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JoJan. Helpful resources.

I just made Piseinotecidae and Facelinidae. I used Glaucidae as an example as it was last edited by JoJan on Jul 18 09. In Facelinidae, the Genera and species section contains subfamilies and I am not sure how to format this. I also can't find any species and I don't know why. If somebody could fix this article then I can use it as an example and save everybody a lot of work.

I won't list new stubs here. Keep an eye on my user page if you want. Thanks all.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Creating new articles, a note about updated taxonomy

Getting all of our taxonomy updated and consistent is a high priority for the Project.

Forgive me, I know this doesn't apply to several of us who are already doing this, however, a few people in the Project don't seem to know this yet, so here goes anyway: when creating new gastropod articles, please always adhere to the content of, and to our current way of displaying, the Bouchet and Rocroi taxonomy.

Most of us routinely use an article on a pre-existing taxon as a "template" when we are creating articles on other related taxa. Before you do this, please first check to see if the taxobox and text has been updated yet. If not, update that before you copy it, and then move on to creating the new articles. Otherwise we are creating new articles faster than we are updating the pre-existing ones.

Also, if any one of us happens to look at a gastropod species article for any reason, and it still has the old taxonomy, even if you don't feel like updating it and its relatives right now, please at least delete the old taxonomy between superfamily and class. And if you can spare the time, please go up to the genus level or family level or whatever is the highest level that still has out-of date taxonomy, and update that taxobox.

Anyone who would like to help with the process of updating taxonomy in taxoboxes, please let me know. Maybe we can organize to do this, or check this, one superfamily at a time. Once we get all the taxonomy updated, new people creating new articles (which happens fairly often) are much more likely to end up incorporating the up-to-date taxonomy, which is better for everyone concerned.

Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Universal sections

Is there possible to have universal sections in all (in majority) of gastropod wikipedia articles? I presume that yes, because all gastropod species are quite similar.

I presume, that featured quality gastropod article would have structure similar like this: (updated --Snek01 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

Original description
Taxonomy / or Subspecies
- Etymology is usually very short and can be incoprrated into Taxonomy section.

Description

for snails:

- Shell description
- Anatomy

for slugs: - there is possible to have external anatomy described in "Description" section and "Internal anatomy" in subsection like this (there is no need to have "External anatomy" subsection):

Description
- Internal anatomy

Distribution
- Fossil distribution
- Indigenous distribution
- Nonindigenous distribution
Behavior
Ecology
- Habitat
- Feeding habits
- Life cycle
- Parasites
- Predators
- Other interspecific relationships
- Population trends
Threats / Vulnerability
Conservation
Human uses

Notes to Original description: only if already in public domain. Possibilities:

as a sole section if section Taxonomy exist
as a subsection of Description if it focuses on description and very briefly on type locality only.
could be rewrited and incorporated directly in Shell description and type locality in Distribution, if useful.

Guideline Wikipedia:Layout#Headings and sections recommends (not dictates) that sections should be neither very short nor very long. This is ideal stage. This everybody agree but it is not always easy to do it according this only aesthetical recommendation.

I presume that featured article will have all these sections well expanded. But what about other articles that are short yet (or in minor cases, where is not enough knowledge about some aspect of the species)? I presume, that a reader expect the same sections and that he expect such sections, that are in featured articles. So I think, that even in shorter articles a reader expect the same section to easily orientate. In my broader point of I think, that the Layout guideline only states, that section should not unreasonably very short. So I think, that it is possible to make even short sections, if it is reasonable. Such short sections are generally accepted in stubs, in larger articles, and even in good articles.

Example 1: this version [15] of Urnula craterium is a good article, contains two very short section, because it is useful to have them even short.
Example 2: good article love dart contains short sections. For example section Love dart#Urocyclidae is once sentence short. It is OK.
Example 3: section Reference always exist even if contain only one sentence
Example 4: section External links always exist even if contains only one link

There are possibilities:

1) always to follow Wikipedia:Layout guideline
2) establish some only sections, that can be made always even if short (and subsections will be merged into it, if short)
3) establish some sections and subsections, that can be made always even if short
4) to recommend nothing
5) something other

ad 1 and ad 4) Very uneffective for our limited human resources. Every article would have always variable number of sections of varibale names, which is not friendly for readers.

ad 2) Subsections could be merged into its sections. That is possible in Description section, Distribution section, and in Ecology section. However it is ineffective to merge "Distribution & habitat" section, because it is always (I think) incompatible with featured gastropod articles (every featured article will have its sections separate, and "Habitat" as a subsection). I think, that section "Distribution" and section "Ecology" should always be separated, even if very short in some cases.

ad 3) I think that wikiproject gastropods can follow this number 3. If such subsections are already written, then do not merge them until it is evident that the subsection is not possible to expand according todays knowledge. If is subsection unexpandable, then follow possibility 2.

I think, that the guideline Layout is good, but it is not practical to apply it always. It could be applied merging some subsections into sections, but is is very contraproductive merging randomly choosen sections into larger sections for aesthetic reasons only. I think that sections are like red links, they are useful idicating what should be expanded. I think that every section mentioned above are useful and can be applied even if short (possibility number 3). For example section Feeding habits is so important - every species should contain it - that should be written always.

We can also presume, that in some cases there will be shorter sections in featured gastropod articles, than in for example vertebrates, because some of them are only little known and there is only few information available to human kind. Should there be different sections then? No, there should be the same and they will be normally shorter. This not a reason to refuse stable names of sections in such articles. Stable sections are also good to be possible to make wikilinks directly into certain sections.

Cylindrical lioplax http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Cylindrical_lioplax&oldid=282080389 - an (extreme?) example of article with very short sections in Ecology. That may seem a bit strange, but it clerly define what is the section about. It should not be valuable to change such section, because it will not make the article better and it is strategically wasting time, because when improving article somebody would make such sections anyway.
Flat pebblesnail http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Flat_pebblesnail&oldid=298388820 - similar article with ecological subsections in one Ecology section. It is not a problem with this, because it follows the used sectioning scheme. But there would be unnatural to merge any other of sections into some artificial one.

User:Hamiltonstone for example suggested to "follow a pattern from some of them [good articles about organisms] rather than creating one from scratch for the gastropods." He also suggest to use "use more general headings". What are the more general headings than those mentioned above? These headings are well-established but if somebody show a way how to make them more compatible with other thousands of existing wikipedia articles, then make some proposal to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Guidelines. However I think, that it is impossible to make it much more compatible, because gastropods naturally demands a different sections than for example birds, and mammals. It is not easy to show such differences in large scale, because there are only few (two for now?) featured articles on invertebrates. One of them is for example Myxobolus cerebralis - see completely different names of sections, or Chrysiridia rhipheus. These section for gastropods should not be unnaturally and artificially forced to look like a article about a bird. I think that all sections in gastropods now used for a long time are all right and should not be changed. --Snek01 (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this discussion - my take on it is this - the idea is to make an article which is generally paragraphs of prose. Unless one is dealing with some organism which is intimately known and has a huge amount of research upon it, one is going to end up with a huge number of very stubby and unsightly sections if one adopts all the subsections above. To make nice flowing prose sections, I combine etymology and common names and variants, original publication/description, and taxonomy into a more broadly defined taxonomy section. Similarly all sub-bits of anatomy can go in a description section (as a doctor I always think of anatomy as carving something up into bits :))

Distribution and habitat are usually intimately linked enough to be combined in one section, then one can do various ecological sections thereafter. For most organisms, you will not want to subdivide more than this but it is easy to do for more detail where appropriate. Flexibility is the key here :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: The reason I have for placing description below taxonomy is that I find I am always wanting to put images in the description section, which is a pain if the taxobox juts into it...hence placing it a bit further down the article :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Every Cacliber's notes are reasonable and acceptable and were included into the scheme above instead of one, see bellow. --Snek01 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Instead of Distribution and habitat! See ad 2) above. These section are "usually intimately" together in large amount or wiki articles. This is an error and thus it is not possible. Errors are not welcomed on wiki. Reader should think, that habitat does not belong to Ecology.

If there will be "Ecology" section (and nobody is against), then there is absolutely necessary to have "Habitat" inside this "Ecology" section. It is necessary for gastropods, because Habitat it is one of the most important thing for gastropods. It is also more or less important for insect, and less important for for example vertebrates (than for gastropods). "Habitat" always belong to "Ecology". This is an logical error if some articles have "Distribution and habitat" and "Ecology". Such articles should correct this somehow. Separated "Distribution" section and separated "Habitat" section is also necessary to better understand the described theme (gastropods) and it is also important from strategic point, because these section should be expanded. It is contraproductive to mix these section. Minor(?) point of view is that describing these themes separated is easier to referencing and it also prevent incorrect generalizing.

There are many reasons to have these section separated and there are no well-grounded reasons to have them together.

There are two acceptable possibilities:

option 1 - this structure is on Encyclopedia of Life. This structure is not used on wiki.

Ecology and Distribution
- Distribution
- Habitat
- and other ecology sections as above.

option 2 - this structure is used in all gastropod articles (exept of one)

Distribution
Ecology
- subsections of ecology include habitat

option 3 - unacceptable for gastropods because of unlogical incorporation of habitat outside Ecology. This is unacceptable even if gastropod articles were incompatible with other animal articles.

Distribution and habitat
Ecology

--Snek01 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it is very detail, there is proposed to used "Feeding habits" (sub)section. Exactly this name is used in all gastropod articles. There could be possible to use "Feeding" also. I can not evaluate such English detail by myself. Change is possible, but it must be reasonable. Only reasonable changes can be accepted. Using the same names of sections is important for stability per Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --Snek01 (talk) 14:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Snek01 asked me to comment on proposals for a standard structure for gastropods. I think the main principles should be:

The structure must be equally suitable for all types of gastropods - terrestrial, freshwater and marine; with or without shells; creeping, burrowing and swimming; predators, vegetarians, (?) parasites; etc.
As far as possible it should work for higher taxa, up to class / sub-phylum.
As Casliber commented, one may have to adapt the structure in some cases. For example in one taxon a specific feature might need to be earlier than usual, because it helps to explains other aspects.

I looked at some recent GAs on species, and found that have a common pattern - the examples I found were: Central American Squirrel Monkey (mammal); Ruff (bird); Beaded lizard (reptile); Bigeye thresher (fish); Acer rubrum (tree!); and Amanita abrupta (fungus!). So the structure these share looks versatile. I've taken several articles on higher-level taxa to GA, and independently came up with a similar structure, although I customise it a bit. --Philcha (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Description
- Distinguishing features
- Anatomy
- Locomotion
- Feeding and excretion
- Respiration and circulation
- Nervous system and senses
- Reproduction and lifecycle
Ecology
- Distribution and habits
- Interaction with other animals
- Interaction with humans
- Conservation
Taxonomy
Evolutionary history
- Fossil record
- Family tree

The structure I like as a base (allowing for adaptions in specific cases) is:

"Distinguishing features" helps non-specialist reader to identify what the article's about.
"Anatomy" describes the main features to give the reader a "road map". Examples for gastropods might be: shell if present; layout out of gut and nervous system (for many invertebrates, ventral nerve cords and dorsal gut; torsion is important for gastropods).
"Locomotion" is usually fairly easy for non-specialist readers, because usually visible.
"Feeding and excretion". Feeding is an easy next stage for non-specialist readers, as it relates to an obvious function and often is partly visible. Excretion completes the process of food handling.
"Respiration and circulation" is another pair of functions that fit together. And they fit naturally after "Feeding and excretion", as "Respiration and circulation" may explain how nutrients are distributed and wastes collected.
"Nervous system and senses" - complex and very important for some taxa, simpler or less important or others
"Reproduction and lifecycle" usally last part of "Description" as more complex. Earlier sections relate to adults, while "Reproduction and lifecycle" deals with the parents (adults), production of ova and sperm, and the development from zygote to adult. Earlier sections also explain mechanisms used in reproduction, e.g. parts of the excretionary system also function in distributing ova and sperm.
"Distribution and habits" is required background for other parts of "Ecology"
"Interaction with other animals" deals with predators, prey, parasitisms (as perpetrators and/or victims), symbiouses, etc.
"Interaction with humans" - e.g. as food, in agriculture (as pests or helps), in medicine (harmful and beneficial), etc.
"Conservation" is most easily handled in the last-section, as previous sub-sections provide parts of the puzzle.
I like to place "Taxonomy" fairly late, as the description sections make the Greco-Latin names make more sense to readers if they already have some information about the animals. By "Taxonomy" I mean the Linnean stuff - see "Family tree" for the cladistics stuff.
"Fossil record" may not be irrelevant for most extant species and genera, but becomes important for higher-taxa - and in these cases, a decent phylogeny must take account of the fossils.
"Family tree" is easier for readers to understand than "phylogeny". --Philcha (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Some variations I've used in some cases:

"Taxonomy" following or combined with "Distinguishing features". I think this mainly applies to higher-level taxa, especially if the next-level taxa are very disparate, e.g. at Mollusc or Annelid, where the anatomy, etc. can vary a lot between taxa and, at Annelid, scientific views on what's included in the taxon have changed a lot.
If there's no fossil record and "Taxonomy" does not need to placed early, I may make "Taxonomy" and "Family tree" sub-sections of the same section. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly eye-opening adapting sections to different organisms and is good to discuss. I generally try to keep as many sections with the same name across wiki - eg we initially had description and identification in bird articles (as bird guides use both), but as dino articles had been using description I felt it was good to standardise it. Similarly, I have no problem with appearance (although I suspect it is more 'skin-deep' than description), but we're using the latter everywhere now. The main problem with taxonomy at the top of the article is where there is alot of taxonomy to cover and the description is important for whatever reason and ends up way down the article. However, I find taxonomy, etymology/common names, evolution and classification all so intertwined as best to be in the one section with subsections. I also feel that knowledge is limited for many gastropods so one has to be wary of many little subsections. I see the point about distribution/habitat/ecology being intertwined above. One could just call it Ecology which succinctly covers the aspects I guess...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you propose this structure for gastropods only or for all living things on wikipedia? This is project Gastropods. This project make things, which are the best for how should readers easily understand informations about gastropods. Already used structure is based on daily experience with gastropod articles. This already used structure can take inspiration from other group of animals or even from other organisms, but only if there is an universal structure for all animals. Such structure for all animals should be based on the most numerous animals like arthopods and maybe on molluscs also. Structure for gastropods will not adapt other structures based on such small groups like vertebrates especially if it would be inpractical for gastropods. Already used structure for gastropods is applicable for all types of gastropods. Already used structure has also names as simple as possible and also as easily understandable as possible already. This already used structure does not only start discussion, but it also describes, how are articles about gastropods written for a long time on wikipedia. If there is no universal structure for for example birds and mammals yet, then it is nearly impossible to take inspiration or even to adapt structure from such groups for gastropods. Already used structure for gastropods is so unified, then it would be theoretically possible to use a bot for possible changing names of some section in the future. The certainly used structure is focused on certain species of gastropods, but also higher taxa more or less adapt this structure. --Snek01 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As simple as possible: The Philcha's proposed structure is not bad. But the already used gastropod structure is better, because it better fits for gastropod article needs. (I can provide details if needed.) Already used structure for gastropods is universally adaptable for other animals and plants, so all animals should taken this structure. The structure of gastropod articles is good. It is not bad. It is used reasonably and practically. It will not unreasonably adapt structure from other sister projects. It could adapt structure from ascendant wikiprojects: WikiProject Science, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Tree of Life, WikiProject Animals. But they have no universal section rules. Feel free to start discussion there. (Meantime reviewers of articles should accept this used structure as a standard and do not restrain GA article nominees.) --Snek01 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The only new theme is proposal of "Evolutionary history". OK, this is good. I understand this, that this caption is for genera and higher taxa mainly, because if there is something about fossils of certain species of gastropods in the article, then it is placed in section where fossils of this species are distributed. Subsection of this I consider useless. The only good example for gastropods is Pleurotomarioidea. But if somebody will reasonably use this section in a species article, then it will be OK also. --Snek01 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If somebody wants any change, then should write why certain way is bad, and why future way will be better. --Snek01 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Snek01. The biggest differences between your proposal and mine are that mine has all the anatomy and physiology content under "Description" and all the interactions between the taxon and its environment, including other organisms, in "Ecology". I've found that having sub-sections about anatomy and physiology grouped together and usually in the same sequence makes it easier to make each sub-section build on the earlier sub-sections, for example the basic anatomy provides a ground plan and the other parts fit into places in that, and, for many invertebates including Mollusc, parts of the excretory system also help in reproduction. Going on to "Ecology": it's often easier to describe the taxon's interactions with other organisms after the reader has understood the functions of the taxon (and I've never found it more difficult, although symbiotic taxa may be interesting, e.g. pollinating insects); and within "Ecology", sub-section "Distribution and habitat" provides a context for the other sub-sections, while "Conservation" is usually based on earlier sub-sections of "Ecology", especially "Distribution and habit" and "Interactions with humans".

At present I'm only considering animals, not "all living things on wikipedia" - although it's interesting that a similar structure seems to work well for Acer rubrum (tree) and Amanita abrupta (fungus). I would not expect much difficulty about vertebrates - the same layout, with "Description" covering the aspects of anatomy and physiology while "Ecology" covers all the interactions between the taxon and its environment, as happens in the articles I'd improved about some quite disparate invertebrates - and in fact I expect vertebrates to be rather stereotyped: there are two main ground plans, "fish" and tetrapod; tetrapods are divided by reproduction into amphibians and amniotes, and so on. The big challenges may be the distinctions between multicellular and unicellular taxa, and then in all the taxa of protists, eubacteria and archea. The approach I've used for animals is based on a sort of mechanical engeneering, and this may be a reasonable start for unicellular eucaryotes, but I suspect articles on eubacteria and archea require a basis in chemistry. But I'm a way from considering any unicellular taxa :-) --Philcha (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at present "Evolutionary history" will often not apply to species, but it may occasionally apply to genera - e.g. Lingula (brachiopod) has apparently survived brom the Cambrian, and Limulus (horseshoe crab) is very similar to Mesolimulus in the Late Jurassic. However I expect molecular phylogeny will in time become detailed to compare genera, and then species within genera, so I expect "Evolutionary history" sections will be more in genus and species articles in a few years time. --Philcha (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I understand the main point of your proposal. However this my edit should not be evaluated as my proposal, but as an explanation for other wikikipedians outside the gastropod project how gastropod articles ARE ALREADY organized. It was written to explain other reviewer how it is! I understand that the main your purpose is to standardize it with other non-gastropod articles, but it probably will not be possible on THIS page. There everything works all right and there is no proposal needed. There is no question how to propose a new structure but how to maybe change existing structure. I accept some points of your proposal as a valid alternative. This have to be showed on real existing gastropod articles. Feel free to copy some gastropod articles (or write some your new ones) and show to Gastropod project members, how this should look like. It is nearly impossible because for example in the article Pseudunela cornuta with the most detailed anatomy has no physiology(!). I agree with you that physiology is under Desription. But the Ecology section have to be exactly as it is. You see, that Gastropod project members did not comment this so called "discussion". Members of this project are in agreement with the certain long time situation of structure of gastropod articles. I am sorry that I have to refuse your proposal so strictly, but your proposal of "Ecology" and its mixing with description is not useful for gastropods. You have to convince its members on on examples, if you want to. If only I will stay as the only one member in the discussion, you can convince me in very small details only, because I disagree with an half of your proposal and I can not imagine the second half of your proposal. You for example can not propose section named "Feeding and excretion" if there is no information about excretion in any articles about a species. And so on. You can start this dicussion on Wikiproject Animals. You can show Wikiproject Gastropods as an example that uses sections universally and quite strictly and other projects can learn from us to try to standardize their section and try to find out if there are some sections universal for all animals. --Snek01 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at for example article Chittenango ovate amber snail. The text is written in the order as you proposed (except of taxonomy, but a reader can skip this). The only "problem" is that sections are named differently from your proposal. Despite this, the article is all right and easily understandable. All caption names are key features for gastropods. Why would you like to change it? You are not proposing changes for very few articles, but for 80.000 species of gastropods. This is enough to have its own structure and the only other acceptable universal structure is for all animals. Even then gastropods will tend to have its own structure. I can not imagine, how someone could prohibit for example "Shell description" section. --Snek01 (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If you like I'll create a rewrite of Chittenango ovate amber snail in my sandbox. However: (a) I'd need help in filling any gaps I find; (b) who would decide which approach works better. Re question (b), I suggest WP:Gastropod members plus any WP:GAN and WP:GA members who would be interested, advertised by a neutral summary of what we'd trying to achieve. --Philcha (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You can not expect any support from me. I consider your proposal so devastating that I can not participate on this. You have no chance to convince me now if you are even no able to make an example! I do not care how many supporters will you find for your ideas. If you will not convince wikiproject gastropods members, then every of your effort is useless! And you will not convince them, because nobody is talking to you here. It seems that you missed the opportunity. Do you understand? Your proposal here is bad. Have you noticed that for two months nobody answered here? Have you noticed that nobody answered to the related section of the GA nominee? Stop this to spare your time, please. --Snek01 (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since there have been no further comments, I will assume that Snek01's is the structure WikiProject Gastropods wants, and will do the GA review of Eustrombus gigas on that basis. However I still have strong reservations about the structure, for the reasons I described above. --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Paleozoic and Basal families

I finished the families on the Bouchet and Rocroi page except for some of the Paleozoic and Basal ones as Michal says he will do that bunch. (I did Vetigastropoda and Patellogastropoda before I knew that I should have left those). After that, everything should be blue.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That is very, very good and the important juncture! It can be announced also to Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals because it is possible to build upon and to add any information (images, texts, recommended literature for further imporovement) to all recent gastropods. Fossil ones are in progress... --Snek01 (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the links at [16]. Now that page has all the remaining 51 red links left on the Bouchet and Rocroi page.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Done

The gastropod links in the Taxonomy_of_the_Gastropoda_(Bouchet_&_Rocroi,_2005) article are now all blue. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic! Rather overwhelming actually. It sure is a big class. I've been wading around in the individual articles over the last few days doing clean-up, and boy, it's a lot of stuff! Actually I think the heat here in NYC is getting to me a bit, I can hardly think straight, and the taxonomic changes over the last 30 years are pretty convoluted in some cases... Best to all, Invertzoo (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Standards to describe gastropod shells

I was just thinking about it, but maybe we could follow standards or some kind of "recipe" to describe gastropod shells in the project articles. Like, for example, starting the description by the anterior shell structures (like the anterior siphonal canal) and ending it with posterior structures (apex), or vice versa. Most descriptions I find in the literature follow a posterior -> anterior model, but not all of them. What is your opinion? Does it really matter in the end? Should we leave it as it is? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I usually try to write shell description like this: 1) overview of the shell, 2) aperture, 3) dimensions. See for example Vertigo alpestris (such description is the same for all Vertigo species now in wikipedia). These are according to my point of view three main parts. Their informations can be variously mixed and they are also mixed in my various articles. Sometimes dimensions are first, sometimes it is completely mixed. The only thing is, that aperture is not described before than the overview of the shell in land and freshwater snails. If it is usually different in other gastropods, then it is possible to use what is common in such specific groups. If you want to try to a bit standardize it, show us some ideal examples. Think about if such examples are common for all gastropods or for only some of them. Good and reasonable examples will be followed and they can became standards slowly. Then there can became some articles standardized spontaneously. Try to write down a "Copy & paste blank shell description" similar to this Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Taxonomy. It is not necessary to standardize all shell features or all articles, but it can help wikipedians to write down shell description more easily and avoid to violate copyright laws, because all shell description may seem similar or difficult to write. Feel free to modify the "Copy & paste blank description" bellow. --Snek01 (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The [[gastropod shell|shell]] is xxxx. The shape of the shell is xxxx. The color of the shell is xxxxx. The shell has xxxx-xxxx [[whorl (mollusc)|whorls]]. The [[Spire (mollusc)|spire]] is xxxx. The [[Suture (gastropod)|suture]] is xxxxx.

The [[Aperture (mollusc)|aperture]] is yyy. The width of the aperture is xx.xx-xx.xx mm, the height of aperture is xx.xx-xx.xx mm.

The width of the adult shell is xx.xx-xx.xx mm, the height is xx.xx-xx.xx mm.

ToL

Hey guys, are you aware that www.tolweb.org has some material under CC license that might be useful in your articles. Several editors licence text and picutres under a CC licence, e.g. http://www.tolweb.org/Carinariidae/28733 or http://www.tolweb.org/Cardiapoda/28742. Just wanted to mention that, maybe you know it already! Greetings --hroest 14:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for these two links. Other links are welcomed. --Snek01 (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not willing to search for links by hand but if you are interested I could write a bot which will automatically list articles under a CC license. Right now I found that http://www.tolweb.org/28732 up to http://www.tolweb.org/28773 are all written by Roger R. Seapy which publishes under CC-by. If you want to take some of his work, it would still be nice to contact him, maybe he might even help with the migration? I have to say that I am a biochemist and do not dare to edit in your field of expertise. But as I said I could try to come up with a list of CC content on ToL; if you are interested of course. Greetings --hroest 09:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good! There is a list of his articles http://www.tolweb.org/onlinecontributors/app?page=ViewPublishedPages&service=external&sp=969 There are 26 articles with text under CC-BY-3.0 license focused to Pterotracheoidea. Feel free to let us know if there are other articles/authors like this. You can alternatively add links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gastropods/Texts. Thanks. --Snek01 (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Images of cap-like shells

How should be rotated images of cap like shells? They should be approximately compatible with other shell images and at least one position should be a position of a live animal.

possibility 1:

The most compatible image of cap-like shell with a coiled shell is like this (all cap-like shells have head region on the left and so they show left side on lateral view):

But what to do, if we have no left side available, but instead of it we have an image of right side only? Then we can compatibly rotate only dorsal and ventral view. The image of right side should be as separate file only. An example:

The conclusion is: there should always be mentioned, where is head region in description of cap-like shells.

There is also an alternative how to rotate cap-like shell. Sometimes they have head region on the upper side of the image in various books too. example 1, example 2. This could be also good, but lateral views should also be placed horizontally anyway.

So if we have a choice, then we prefer images with head region on the left for the best of images with each other and for easier understanding by readers. Every drawings can be adapted according to this. Some photos can be adapted too, unfortunatelly some not. --Snek01 (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. maybe I am too relaxed to think properly, being on vacation, but if these were live gastropods rather than just shells, why does the limpet have its head end to the left, whereas the coiled land snail has its head towards the right? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC) This misleandingly formulated question is unaswerable. --Snek01 (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I must confess that I didn't understand your question either, Susan! Could you explain it in detail? What is the point of reference? I mean, the terrestrial land snail has its head towards the right in reference to what exactly?--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I am on vacation now, and suitably spacey, in the land which is filled with air-heads in the popular imagination, and so I am willing to admit I might be completely wrong on this, but let me try to explain what I meant.

We are trying to come up with a standard way of illustrating shells, so we are free to do it whatever way we want, independent of what other authorities have done in the literature in the past. Or, we are free to copy a standard way it is done in the literature if we prefer that.

I was wondering if there was some way we could make the orientation of all cap-like shells equivalent to the orientation of coiled shells. Maybe this is not really possible, because of the enormous variation in shell shapes and the enormous variation in the way the shell is carried by different groups of gastropods.

In the images of this Cellana radians limpet shell there is no doubt that the head end (anterior end of the live animal) would point to the left in the top view and bottom view as well as the lateral view of the left side. Correct?

Now for the pulmonate land snail, if we look at the images of "A standard right handed coiled shell. Apical, lateral/apertural, basal/umbilical view." In the top and bottom view, the head of the snail would protrude to the right of the frame and the tail of the snail to the left of the frame. That is the way most of the helicids carry their shell.

So, in the limpet illlustration the head is to the left, and in the coiled shell the head would be to the right, more or less. See what I mean? For the limpet shells to be consistent with the coiled shells their anterior end should point to the right also.

Mind you, I personally prefer illustrating limpet shells with the head end/anterior end towards the top of the page. But that is solely my own preference based on familiarity with that system and nothing more.

All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That way that I named "approximately compatible" is only in terminology, because coiled and non-coiled are incomparable. I think, this theoretical comparison with a right coiled shell will fail with a comparison with left coiled shells.

possibility 2:

OK, there is possible to have rotated cap-like shells rotated heads towards the top of the page.

This way seems to trying to be de facto standard in scientific literature in ~last 60 years. (In one of a new book from my library there are 20 cap like shells photos in a horizontal way. And there are 3 various(!) exceptions among depicting cap like shells in horizontal way. The book was written by an expert, so standardization does not exist in this.) OK, there can be both possible ways.

Other way is like this:

dorsal view (top view). The head region with the fissure is in the top of the image.
ventral view (apertural view)
lateral view (side view). This lateral view shows right side. The head region with the fissure is on the right.

while first two images can be (and probably usually will be) in one file. The lateral view should be in the sole (image) file in this way.

Conclusion proposal: (by Snek01)

1. According to the better accessibility Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible (similar to the reduction of jargon, see bellow), should be lateral view naturally in the natural position. This means right side view with head pointing right. And left side view with head pointing left.
2. There are two standards/possibilities how to visualize cap-like shells and both can be used on wikipedia.
3. Preferred is possibility 1 (because it is better compatible with conclusion proposal point 1; this seems to be the most widely accessible manner).

--Snek01 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think, that this guideline is necessary. Because if everybody will see at the images above, he/she will need to think about the images for a while, even if everything is described here in this discussion and images are have simple, correct and clear captions. It is impossible to decide for a non-expert where is the head region on a randomly rotated image, because there are no hints for a such decision (apex is pointing in a different way in a different groups of gastropods and there are no other universal hints.) Standardization and image description is the only way. --Snek01 (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

An excellent source of images

The user smallislander, on Flickr, has a HUGE collection of images. Most of them are Creative Commons 2.0, usable in wikipedia. There are TONS of images of gastropod and bivalve shells. Check it out! http://www.flickr.com/photos/28722516@N02/ --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Marvelous! Thank you!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Very good. There is the set named shells, that contains 386 images. 206 of them are free. We should import them to commons. We will made a Category:Images by Richard Parker for better organizing files. As usual, names of files should optimally be according the scheme: Conus imperial shell.jpg, Conus imperialis shell 2.jpg, Conus imperial shell 3.jpg for shells (and without the word shell" for living animals). Daniel or anybody here, will you upload them all or would you like to upload them by yourself? If no, I will focus on this. --Snek01 (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded two images to commons, which are: Strombus luhuanus shell.jpg and Cypraea arabica shell.jpg, and put them under the category Images by Richard Parker. I'll focus on this the whole day, leave it to me =). Also, when I'm done, creating articles for those images could figure in our to do list, don't you think? Oh. On second thought, I believe It will be difficult for me to upload them, as I don't know if have a TUSC account, and I also don't know hou to create one or such. So I can't use bots! I'm not used to the commons functions, so I believe you'll do it quicker and more efficiently than I would Michal.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, images without articles will apper at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gastropods#Shelled_marine_gastropods:

Some identification needed. --Snek01 (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[17] - The first one is almost certainly Vasum tubiferum (Anton, 1839). --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[18] Conus sp. - As for the cone, it looks like a Conus marmoreus... the spire is low and coronate and sides are almost straight. The color patter is a little bit strange though... I'm not sure about that one.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

[19] This one is Hexaplex chicoreum (Gmelin, 1791). --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've uploaded the species in the genus Strombus from FlickR to the Commons; see: Commons:Category:Strombus. JoJan (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Althought it works, File:Little Bear Conch - Strombus Urceus.shell001.jpg would be better named File:Strombus urceus shell.jpg. This is nearly internationaly and without typographic errors. --Snek01 (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Idem for Vexillum; see : Commons:Category:Vexillum. JoJan (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Idem for Conus; see : Commons:Category:Conus (added about 100 photos) JoJan (talk) 13:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You uploaded some images twice Commons:Category:Conus australis. --Snek01 (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Idem for Engina and Niotha. JoJan (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Mind the synonyms, especially for Cypraea, used to identify the snails ! Many species belong to other genera, such as Erosaria and Palmadusta ! JoJan (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you start articles for these genera with up to date taxonomy, please? Then I can continue slowly adding the rest of images. --Snek01 (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

About jargon (terminology) in our gastropod articles

One thing I wanted to point out here is that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be as intelligible as is reasonably possible to non-specialists. Our subject has a great deal of fancy terminology, and a lot of that terminology is more or less indispensable to those of us who are professionals. However we should all strive to keep at least the intro of all of our articles quite intelligible to lay people. In your intros, say "land snail" before you say "terrestrial gastropod" and so on with similar items.

Also please briefly define at least some of the other terms you use in the article, when and as you use them, even though you may already be providing a blue link, which might seem perfectly sufficient to you.

Here is a quote (my emphasis) from the Wikipedia guideline [20] on Jargon: "Some articles may never become accessible to a wide readership, but most articles using academic or professional terms should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook".

Also if it is possible to avoid using items of fancy but opaque terminology in some parts of the article, please do so as much as you reasonably can without compromising the information.

OK, hope this is not too much of a pain to think about. Many good wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical list of terms Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Terminology and how they should be simplified would be fine. Is there already similar list of zoological/biological terms on wiki for exactly this purpose? I will provide glossary from an old public domain book as a start which should later help us to improve old terminology to modern terminology. OK? --Snek01 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

terrestrial gastropod - land snail

BOT notice

Hello,

I have created a bot that will be using a database of prehistoric genus information to fill in the tables on pages like List of prehistoric starfish#The list. Please see its bot request and comment there. Suggestions for improvements and/or people willing to spot check its work are welcome and appreciated.

Thank you, ThaddeusB (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This bot will use databases The Paleobiology Database http://paleodb.org and Sepkoski's Online Genus Database http://strata.geology.wisc.edu/jack/. The Paleobilogy database seems to be very good for gastropods (and I have used it as a reference often for prehistoric gastropods, for example Tremanotidae, ...). But Sepkoski's Online Genus Database was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 1#Auto-generated gastropod articles as not very good for taxonomic point of view. The robot Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT will use Sepkoski's database for dates and periods only, and it seems all right. But robot have to use taxonomy from The Paleobiology Database only! --Snek01 (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that it is only using Sepkoski to fill in missing dates/periods from taxons found to be valid by querying PaleoDb. At this point, the bot is only filling in the existing (empty) tables. However, the second phase of the project will be stub creation, so I will certainly keep these comments in mind. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Be careful of difficult taxonomy with uncertain taxa: Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). Uncertain Monoplacophora/Gastropoda should be probably on separate list. --Snek01 (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Bouchet & Rocroi appears to be included in The Paleobiology Database ([21]), so that is good news. However, if you know of a place where it or any other source is available online (plain text is fine), let me know as it never hurts to have more sources to compare. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Cypraea tigris - referencing would be helpful

Hi folks, I have just expanded Cypraea tigris fivefold for a DYK, but it would be great to have some referencing from books for it. I have never done a gastropod article before so was/am all at sea with it :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: I just thought that if Cypraea tigris is a stub, then loads of well-known shells are likely to be as well, and if they can be expanded fivefold within a five day period then they are eligible here for DYK on the main page. This is a good stepping stone to GA and beyond. I think the leopard slug has potential for a GA too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DYK is a very suitable first step towards GA status, but as you know, articles need a great deal of work to get up from that level to the other. I am glad to see that three of us have helped now fix this article up in various ways. Unfortunately I cannot help you with any book references right now, as I am on vacation still for another couple of days, and all my books are at home. And yes, you are right that there are quite a number of small stub articles on well-known gastropod shells, most of which could be expanded 5x with relative ease. Congratulations on going for your first gastropod DYK, if you need any other help during the process, please let me know; if I am not actually in transit, I can help you. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. I fixed up the prose a bit. Invertzoo (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I was getting all misty-eyed remembering how there'd be a tiger cowrie shell or two lying around on bookshelves at houses I'd visit as a kid in the 1970s....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this cowry goes way back, to Pompeii and probably before that. My granny had one on her mantlepiece in the early 1950s, and she was given it in the 1900s. In England you see a lot of them from the late 19th century that have the Lord's prayer engraved on the dorsum. Invertzoo (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that sounds like a cool thing to get a photo of and include :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I now live in NYC, and I don't spend any time around antiques, so it is unlikely I would come across one. I do have one at home engraved with a cool scene of elephants though, maybe I could make an image of that. Invertzoo (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Needing photos for genera articles

Now we have at least a stub article for every gastropod family, on the suggestion of User:Xufanc, I am putting out a request for people who have correctly-identified seashells in their possession, or who live by the sea, and who enjoy photography, to start making and uploading images of gastropod shells (in good condition) to illustrate genus articles that have no image, or in order for us to be able to create new genus articles as well as a species article with an illustration.

In particular Xufanc was thinking of shells of all the various genera within the marine family Columbellidae, the dove shells, because he just recently created an article for Mitrella (genus), which needs an image. There are of course many genera in many families marine and otherwise, that very much need a decent illustration. I for one confess to having a lot of shells, but generally (at least right now) I am very busy doing updating and clean-up rather than making images. But if anyone feels inspired to make and upload images (perhaps Columbellids for Xufanc), they would be very welcome. And of course we have a variety of good images already that are waiting for an article, if people would like to write a stub to go along with them. All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll take some aussie ones, as I live near the sea, but have little knowledge on the subject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Photos of fairly fresh-dead shells (in good condition, not too beachworn) are almost always useful. Do you think you could get IDs on them? I don't know most of the Australian fauna hardly at all except at the family level, maybe some to genus. If you can get a genus and species ID on sea snail shells you find, we can write at least a stub article. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find a guidebook :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be able to help you with IDs using email attachments, at least to family and genus. Invertzoo (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Species and subspecies

I wanted to come back on this topic and say that subspecies articles that have already been created, (even the ones that were originally copied verbatim from the Powell book) are (I now think) mostly fine to be left intact, and I also think that new subspecies articles are appropriate to create, if there is a good reason to create them. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I just make the point that in general mention of and /or coverage of subspecies should be kept within the species article, rather than the subspecies being a separate article in its own right? We have a huge number of separate subspecies stubs that were created by User:GrahamBould, and which would be better as simple species articles with notes on the subspecies. I am pruning down a few of them as I go along but I can't do them all so I am asking other contributors to do the same when they come across them. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

There can be articles about subspecies, examples include Patera clarki nantahala which nominal subspecies should be on Patera clarki. Other example could include Oxyloma haydeni (instable taxonomy species/subspecies). If there is a reason (for example improbable future expansion), some subspecies can be redirected (not deleted) to the species. But if there is no reason, then merging subspecies into species, is wasting of time. Merging can be done, but detailed knowledge of the subject is recommended. Decide it on a case-by-case basis, not in general. --Snek01 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly there are many exceptions, it was in part the "improbable future expansion" I was thinking of in a lot of the Graham Bould articles on small and obscure marine mollusks. Also in many cases GB did not create any species article at all, just two subspecies articles, for example: Lodderena nana pooki and Lodderena nana nana, the nominate subspecies. In other words he did not make an article on Lodderena nana. Thanks for your helpful suggestions. Invertzoo (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC) By the way, I will be traveling all day tomorrow and not able to be be on Wikipedia at all. Best wishes to all, Invertzoo (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Potential Good Articles

Sorry that my availability has been patchy, I have left open Socorro springsnail and Kerry Slug for a while as I feel that keeping the GAN platform open to get some pioneer gastropod articles through eventually is a great start for a wikiproject. I had abit of a look at Limax maximus, but not Utah roundmouth snail yet. The other one that interests me is (obviously) Cypraea tigris. The sourcing for any/all is a barrier, and more and more getting articles to Good or Featured status does involve a bit of legwork to a library or at least getting some fulltext of articles for which the abstract is only viewable online. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Try this reference for Cypraea tigris: Gastropods in FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes: The living marine resources of the Western Central Pacific Volume 1.. Search in Cypraeidae. You will find some useful info.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that! much appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A golden opportunity

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Declining_number_of_hooks - so good time for some 5x expansions :)

Expert opinion needed

Background:' The following articles contain empty tables of prehistoric genus of varying types of creatures. A bot has been written by me that can fill them in using data from paleodb.org and Sepkoski. The task is currently stalled due to some concern about my own lack of expert knowledge on the subject.

Needed: I need someone with "expert" knowledge (defined as a passion for the subject matter & the ability to easily spot blatant errors) to review the potential bot output of any one of the following articles of his or her choosing:

The articles:

Sample page: A sample page is available for viewing here. This is provided to give you an idea about what the output will look like, but shouldn't be viewed as a final product as it (currently) includes at least one error that will be corrected shortly.

What I want: Basically, I want someone to look over an entire table (of their choice) and say either "I don't see any obvious errors" or "there are a few errors such as X,Y,Z." I will then figure out the cause of the errors (if any), fix the code, and re-run to make sure the errors are gone.

Reward: Wikipedia gets a lot of valuable science content. I get this stalled project off my to-do list. You get a "warm fuzzy" for helping improve Wikipedia in a significant way, my gratitude, and a token of my appreciation.

Let me know if interest, ThaddeusB (talk) 03:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

For a continued discussion on this subject see [22] Invertzoo (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you help with Kerry slug attempting to become a Featured Article?

Anyone who can help out in any way (many non-technical things need doing such as improving the prose and expanding the intro to reflect the article content) with fixing up the article Kerry slug, please take a look at the comments here [23] as well as looking at the article itself. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll help wherever I can, though I simply can't agree with most of Jimfbleak's comments and suggestions... Oh well. Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Eustrombus gigas GA

I went ahead and made Eustrombus gigas a GA nominee. Let's hope it may succeed. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)