Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.82.23.93 (talk) at 01:02, 6 May 2010 (→connected?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
WikiProject iconGastropods Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

WoRMS full download

I am not sure how useful this is going to be. I noticed that it takes a lot of human effort to update the synonyms on articles and references to WoRMS. So thought this would help with the effort. I took all Gastropod species (recursive search under Category:Gastropod families) and bumped them against WoRMS database. I then filtered the list to only the ones that had a Aphia ID. And we have this page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/WoRMS database. When you are updating an existing article, check this master page to see if it has any additonal information that may be useful. You can also use "What links here" menu option on the actual article to check if the master page is linked to it. If it does, then copy and paste the information to the actual article. Please let me know your feedback. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think this will be useful to us, thanks Ganeshk. Invertzoo (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unaccepted taxa checked from start to Conus leopardus and  Doing... --Snek01 (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. I am glad you found some use for this. --Ganeshk (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unaccepted taxa checked from start to Hydrobia ventrosa and  Doing... --Snek01 (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turridae

 Done Ganeshk (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Turridae stub template. Sample article created, Asperdaphne bitorquata. Can the project please verify and approve it? Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 04:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected {{turridae-stub}} to the {{gastropod-stub}} and used it in the stub template. It needs to created at some point (after the stub list goes above 65 articles). Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 800 species under the family, Turridae. There are 415 of them under Conidae. 168 of them under Drilliidae. Like with Conidae bot run, I will skip the Conidae and Drilliidae in this run. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Turridae are the largest family in the Mollusca with about 4,000 species, many of which are only known from single specimens. This should make us proceed with caution. I propose that we deal essentially with the subfamilies instead of the whole family at once. This splits up the family in sizable and manageable chunks we can check. For this reason I just created the article Cochlespirinae. This way, the taxobox can also include the subfamily. And we must also keep in mind that Turridae in WoRMS includes a number of genera that aren't classified in any subfamily. JoJan (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Let's deal with one subfamily at a time. I will work on Cochlespirinae next. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cochlespirinae

The bot is creating species under the subfamily, Cochlespirinae. Ganeshk (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 165 edits Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crassispirinae

 Doing... Ganeshk (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 338 edits. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turrinae

 Doing... Ganeshk (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 4 edits + 206 edits Ganeshk (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zonulispirinae

 Doing... Ganeshk (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 52 edits Ganeshk (talk) 01:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conoidea families

I have checked families and subfamilies of Conoidea on WoRMS (except of Conidae itself) and also Cancellarioidea/Cancellariiidae. These are my results: --Snek01 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clavatulidae

THIS ONE SHOULD BE DONE RATHER FIRST. Clavatulidae is a sole family, not Clavatulinae.

Clavatulidae has no genera listed. Ganeshk (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this family okay?

This should be added like this example:

.../Conoidea/Clavatulidae/Benthoclionella

Intro sentence:

is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Clavatulidae.

--Snek01 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 120 edits. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 02:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{Clavatulidae-stub}} needs to be created. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drilliidae

Drilliidae OK

homonyms: Clavus (gastropod), Kylix (gastropod), Spirotropis (gastropod).


Crassopleura Monterosato, 1884 is in family Drilliidae, it is not the subfamily.

 Doing... Ganeshk (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with 374 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudomelatomidae

Pseudomelatomidae OK

 Done with 16 edits Ganeshk (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strictispiridae

Strictispiridae OK

 Done with 16 edits Ganeshk (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terebridae

Terebridae OK There are not distinguished subfamilies Terebrinae and Pervicaciinae, but it does not matter. Subfamilies can be added later, if they will be needed. --Snek01 (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "auger snails" is good for the common name. Invertzoo (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with 430 edits. -- Ganeshk (talk) 00:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: The following species did not have authority listed on WoRMS. Is that a problem?
-- Ganeshk (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turridae

Turridae

But: Species from Daphnellinae [1] have to be placed as Conidae/Raphitominae. This should be done rather first than other Turridae.

Not placed into subfamily. These 7 genera need to be checked what family do they really belong to.

  • Genus Acanthodaphne Bonfitto & Morassi, 2006: recent genus; accepted by WoRMS; not known by Sealife base or Catalogue of Life
  • Genus Bathyclionella Kobelt, 1905: accepted by Nomenclator Zoologicus; belonging to Turridae, according to WoRMS; not known by Sealife base or Catalogue of Life
  • Genus Cymakra Gardner, 1937 : two accepted species belonging to Conidae; two synonyms belonging to Turridae [2]
  • Genus Hemilienardia Boettger, 1895 : two accepted species belonging to Conidae; two synonyms belonging to Turridae [3]
  • Genus Stenodrillia Korobkov, 1955 (empty) : accepted by WoRMS; not known by Sealife base or Catalogue of Life
  • Genus Surcula H. Adams & A. Adams, 1853 : not an accepted genus; it consists solely of synonyms: Sealife base
  • Genus Vitricythara Fargo, 1953(empty): accepted, but placed in the Conidae [4]

Others seems to be OK, but see above.

 Done Ganeshk (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daphnellinae

 Done with 597 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cancellariidae

Cancellariidae OK

But there are not distinguished subfamilies, but it does not matter. Subfamilies can be added later, if they will be needed. --Snek01 (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "nutmeg snails" is better than "nutmeg shells". Shell collectors tend to focus only on the shell, and it is true that a beachcomber usually only finds the shell of the animal washed up, but the shell is after all only the skeleton of the snail, therefore I think in general it is better to use "snail" in the common name rather than "shell". Otherwise people get the idea that the shell IS the species, which is incorrect. If you prefer you can put "nutmeg snails or nutmeg shells". Invertzoo (talk) 12:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with 365 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, they can be started, but first I have to ask: does anybody know taxonomy related works from last 5 years that changes taxonomy of these families? --Snek01 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Genera list

I use the genera list in the family article on Wikipedia (for example, Turridae) to download the species list from WoRMS. How complete are these? Will it be a good idea to automate the genera download as well? Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how complete are genera of Turridae on wikipedia. But when starting articles of species from WoRMS, then it seems logical for me to start all of its species from WoRMS from the certain (sub)family. (If another method will be used, then it will happen, that some informations from WoRMS will stay unused.) If there will be something additional and incorrect on WoRMS, then we will discover it sooner or later. But usually there are additional correct genera on WoRMS, that are missing on wikipedia. --Snek01 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that automated genera download is not good, because we - humans - are not able to check any list at all. You can apply some semi-automatic process and start some articles for genera that are needed, but as an user. Bot can not decide even if such genus article should be started or not. Copy and paste a list of species is not a problem for me, especially when articles about species are started already. I think, that fully automated process on this would bring more difficulties. --Snek01 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could however discuss the idea of having the bot create a few genus stubs, the genus stubs that are needed for many of the species stubs that it already created. Otherwise I will have to do all that by hand. In fact maybe code can be written to allow the bot to create genus stubs for all gastropod genera that are currently red-linked? Do people think that is a good idea or not?
Actually there are probably many of the smaller tasks that Daniel and I are currently doing by hand that can be automated instead. Invertzoo (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If creating all genera articles at the same time, then it is rather good. If so, then they should be done for genera containing at least 2 species. / There is also possibility for example to create articles into some certain user namespace, who will alter them and move to wikipedia namespace. Feel free to try it anyhow in any coverage if you like. I will not discourage from it. You/we will see results. Hopefully every results (except of incorrect information) will be fine. (If it will be applied also in land and freshwater species, I will join.) --Snek01 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OBIS database

I noticed that OBIS lets you download many databases. I downloaded the "Academy of Natural Sciences OBIS Mollusc Database" and stored it here (Excel file). Can you look at this Excel file and let me know if we can use it for creating species stubs? Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problem. The data is copyrighted and cannot be used here. See http://clade.acnatsci.org/clade_media/terms.html. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May be we can convince Gary Rosenberg on the benefits of releasing OBIS content on Creative Commons. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 14:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do know Gary, and he is a very nice person, but I think it is very unlikely that the ANSP would ever agree to releasing all of their data freely. They are pretty strict on that. Invertzoo (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Higher traffic

Article "gastropod" gain traffic 5505 in February 2010 http://stats.grok.se/en/201002/gastropod and higher traffic 26757 in March 2010 http://stats.grok.se/en/201003/gastropod. That is 5x higher! This is not caused by an bot creation activity, because Ganeshbot started its make some articles on 20 March. This rapid traffic gain only this article. Hmmm... mystery. --Snek01 (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curious indeed! To be honest I can't imagine why. Anyway, good for us! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check snails also. In Feb [5] 2 days at 2K or more, then in March [6] 19 days at 2K or more! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Portal:Gastropods had always had traffic under 500. It have received great traffic 5511 http://stats.grok.se/en/201003/Portal%3AGastropods in March 2010, that is 11x higher. --Snek01 (talk) 11:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We will have to check to see if these increased numbers continue. If so then it seems we are succeeding in drawing more public interest to the gastropods as a group, and perhaps to nature in general. I do feel that Project Gastropods on Wikipedia is currently poised on the brink of becoming a major presence worldwide, a major resource for English-speaking people who have some interest in gastropods, especially for amateur shell collectors/naturalists, and also professionals, at least in areas that are not their particular speciality.
I think it is just starting to register on the consciousness of interested people that this project exists and is useful. However, with the current enormous increase in new stubs created by Ganeshbot, we do need to start fleshing out stubs with photos and additional information, so that we have more than a huge but bare-bones structure. We also need an increasingly large number of GENUS stubs creating. I will be away for 3 weeks starting next week, so I will not be able to do much, if anything, during that time, but I very much look forward to seeing our progress as the Project develops over the next 6 months! These are exciting times! Invertzoo (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They truly are, Susan. And this calls for the urgency of attaining our first Featured Article. It is important not only for the credibility of our project, but to draw a massive amount of attention! We should also see to it that more C-class articles become B-class, and more starts become C's (an easier task, I believe). Focusing ourselves on High importance articles may be the key to optimize the process.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these are excellent suggestions. I personally am very much looking forward to completing the lengthy process of checking and cleaning up all of the old stubs because then I will have more time to devote to other aspects of improvement. Even though Daniel and I are close to meeting up in the alphabet, at which time it will seem as if we are done with this task, I also want to go through the stubs Daniel has already been through, all the way to Z, in order to clean up more things, like expanding many of the first sentences, etc. Invertzoo (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buccinoidea

 Done -- Ganeshk (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to go alphabetical on the Suborder, Neogastropoda. Buccinoidea is next. Please complete the intro sentences and verify these families. Thanks.

Buccinidae

Sounds good to me. Invertzoo (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can be done. But additionally genus Busycon Bolten, 1798 and genus Busycotypus Wenz, 1943 will be done in Buccinidae/Busyconinae. --Snek01 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buccinidae genera with 66 edits.
Buccinidae with 433 edits.
 Done Genera and species done with with 499 edits. -- Ganeshk (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buccinoidea incertae sedis

 Question: is this a valid family?

See Steye janasaraiarum Faber, 2004

No, this is not a valid family. Buccinoidea incertae sedis means that this taxon belongs somewhere in the Buccinoidea, but as yet no-one has been able to determine where exactly it should be placed. Incertae sedis means "of uncertain placement". Invertzoo (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This can be done as superfamilia Buccinoidea; familia incertae sedis; genus Steye. Category:Incertae sedis can be added to this "special" one. --Snek01 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deferred to humans. :) Ganeshk (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buccinulidae

Intro sentence as in Buccinidae.

Someone needs to check to see if this family is actually listed in Bouchet & Rocroi. We don't have this family listed in our main article on the B&R taxonomy. (It is also worth remembering that WoRMS is not infallible in general, there are mistakes in it.) Invertzoo (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed in Bouchet & Rocroi (Malacologia 47 pages 39 and 254) as a tribe, in fact. It is tribe Buccinulini, under subfamily Buccininae.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This can be done as

Buccinulinae as Buccinidae/Buccininae/tribus Buccinulini

Prosiphiinae as Buccinidae/Buccininae/tribus Prosiphonini

other three genera as Buccinidae/Buccininae

--Snek01 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 17 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 02:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colubrariidae

... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Colubrariidae.

Invertzoo (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can be done.

 Done with 18 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbellidae

Sounds good to me. Invertzoo (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can be done. But at least this into subfamilies:

Columbella to Columbellidae/Columbellinae

Pyrene and Anachis to Columbellidae/Atiliinae

--Snek01 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 238 edits. I will add the subfamily changes as tasks I will come back to in the future. Ganeshk (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fasciolariidae

Tweaked the prose to say "snails" rather than "shells" and to streamline it. Invertzoo (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can be done. But at least this into subfamilies:

Fasciolaria to Fasciolariidae/Fasciolariinae

Fusinus and Fusus to Fasciolariidae/Fusininae

Peristernia and Latirus to Fasciolariidae/Peristerniinae

--Snek01 (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 628 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melongenidae

Tweaked a little. Sounds good to me. Invertzoo (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done except of genus Busycon and except of genus Busycotypus. --Snek01 (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 14 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that intro is incorrect, because Busycon is in Buccinidae. --Snek01 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Intro has been fixed. --Ganeshk (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nassariidae

Tweaked a bit, sounds good to me. Invertzoo (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This family can be done. But genus Bullia should be in Nassariidae/Bullinae. --Snek01 (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with 167 edits. Ganeshk (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But please check them all with Snek first before going ahead with these, because Snek is currently the one who is developing and checking our family articles here on Wikipedia. Invertzoo (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online resources for information on gastropods

I have formatted the draft page here User:Anna_Frodesiak/Pink sandbox. If you think the colours are too much, please remove them or swap them for other colours. In fact, please feel free to format it any way you see fit. Then perhaps it can become a subpage of the project. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! → Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Links. --Snek01 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also a subpage User:Snek01/Taxonomy for overview, organizing taxonomy and notes about (in)completeness. Feel free to add your notes directly to certain families if you find it useful. --Snek01 (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online resources for information on gastropods is now located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Links. Anna Frodesiak
(talk) 13:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A link to this subpage somewhere on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods page is probably in order to assist editors in the creation or expansion of articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods

I've been thinking of a structural overhaul of the project page. Nothing too major. May I propose something in one of my sandboxes? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I would certainly be interested in seeing your suggestions! Invertzoo (talk) 01:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subgeneric classification of Deroceras

I notice that Snek01 has recently included a subgeneric classification in the article on the genus Deroceras and in some of the articles on Deroceras species. The most recent and authoritative monograph dealing with this genus is Wiktor (2000). In it Wiktor rejects earlier attempts (including his own) at a subgeneric classification because there appear to be so many convergences and reversals: "the high number of species could not be divided into unambiguous groups". The only exception was that he split off Liolytopelte as a subgenus because of its distinctive hard plate within the penis; all other species were included in the subgenus Deroceras. The species making up Liolytopelte are bureschi, caucasicum, kandaharensis, moldavicum, occidentalis and trabzonensis.

Snek01 has instead also included the subgenera Plathystimulus and Agriolimax. Is there an argument for this, or were you simply following practice prior to Wiktor (2000)? If the former, I would like to see a citation supporting this treatment. If the latter, I would propose changing things either so as not to deal at all with subgenera or including only s.g. Deroceras and Liolytopelte. One advantage is that this taxonomy is likely to be stable. In any case the current treatment is rather inconsistent: for instance D. fatrense and D. praecox are clearly very closely related to D. rodnae, so should also be in Plathystimulus. --Jmchutchinson (talk) 11:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for update. I was following Wiktor (1989). I have updated it. What about the publication year? Should it be rather Wiktor 1999? --Snek01 (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing this. I have the Wiktor monograph itself in front of me and both the cover and the first page state 2000. Perhaps the online abstract that you have linked to was created the year before, maybe in the expectation that the full work would also appear that year. The formatting of the abstract is similar but not identical to that of the abstract in the monograph, but the wording is, at least at first glance, the same. But I suppose that another possibility is that the issue came out early and the abstract updates the true date of publication. However, Wiktor (2004) cites his monograph as Wiktor (2000), so that seems the best policy to follow. Tricky! (Jmchutchinson (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

5000 new stubs

yum-yum...

The bot just crossed the 5000 mark. Reason to celebrate, but a long way to go. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have already celebrated 10000 gastropod articles recently. Another celebration ... ? OK, hurray!, but we have already eaten all carambolas. --Snek01 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aww! Oh, no carambolas then =(! And I do like them so much! Congratulations to everyone!--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patron of sciences see this your effort and then you will have an honor to create also genus Ganesa [7] soon. LOL --Snek01 (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great find. I would be delighted to create that genus. :) --Ganeshk (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ganesa is done. My thanks to Patron of sciences. :) Ganeshk (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eustrombus gigas listed as GA

I'm proud and extremely happy to announce that Eustrombus gigas has been listed as one of the Natural Sciences good articles, under the GA criteria. Our 5th GA so far! Hurray, project gastropods! Thanks to Snek and Invertzoo, whose help was most valuable, and stablished the basis of this article's current success. I hope this will bring even more attention to this very important subject. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Daniel! That is great for you, and great for the Project! I really hope more of our articles can be upgraded to GA over the next few months. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilodontidae

Chilodontidae (gastropods) vs. Chilodontidae (fishes). Follow: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fishes#Chilodontidae. --Snek01 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WoRMS response

I got a response from WoRMS that I would like to share with you:

(transliterated personal communication, that is not allowed on wikipedia without permission from source): Project Manager Data Centre of WoRMS sees nice that wikipedia uses and that wikipedia consider WoRMS as 'trustworthy'. They probably will not improve other data import/export services. He is interested how wikipedia will keep in sync with WoRMS, that is often updated.

They have added "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to the WoRMS user list. I would like to get your feedback on Ward's question, "...if you have plans to keep the Wikipedia pages in sync with the WoRMS information and how will you do this?". Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what will be in a year of in two years or later. My opinion is that, I have no plans to keep Wikipedia pages completely in sync with the WoRMS, because even now we improve/alter taxonomy from WoRMS. WoRMS serves for wikipedia mainly as a source, that the species exist. Wikipedia have a goal to be better than WoRMS. There are few main types of changes:
  • I think, that it would be useful in the future to check, if there exist wikipedia articles, that are considered as synonyms on WoRMS.
  • Newly discovered and newly added species at WoRMS can be added to wikipedia as usual by the Bot in suitable irregular or regular intervals.
  • Updating the whole taxonomy, if needed and how, is a question for the future. --Snek01 (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muricoidea

Muricoidea is next. Please add intro sentences for these. Thanks. Ganeshk (talk) 02:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babyloniidae

 Done

Costellariidae

 Done with 396 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cystiscidae

 Done with 208 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harpidae

 Done with 53 edits. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marginellidae

 Done with 316 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitridae

 Done with 363 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 00:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muricidae

 Done with 1713 edits. --Ganeshk (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photinae

  • Found this on WoRMS. It is not listed here.

Import that one species as Buccinidae/Pisaniinae. --Snek01 (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done

Pleioptygmatidae

 Not done WoRMS has no species listed for this family. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strepsiduridae

 Not done WoRMS has no species listed for this family. — Ganeshk (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Turbinellidae

 Done

Volutidae

 Done

Volutomitridae

 Done
The bot just crossed the 10,000 mark. The total number of new stubs is now, 10,686. -- Ganeshk (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done rest of families with 436 edits. Harpidae is pending. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License content

Maybe this is old news, but the site Zoologische Mededelingen has a CC-BY-3.0 licence for all their articles. See: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=zoomed;cc=zoomed;sid=233cf96e72e622027b93189b0d1d85b3;rgn=main;tpl=home.tpl I found a some articles on Gastropods (click on the 2007 issues for instance, the top one). This one also has a lot of pictures: http://dpc.uba.uva.nl/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=zoomed;sid=233cf96e72e622027b93189b0d1d85b3;rgn=main;idno=m8202a34;view=text. Maybe usefull? Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Images from Zoologische Mededelingen.
Hello, yes, thank you. I have "discovered" that source because I focus on getting such infomations and I am glad that this information have spread into public. ;) I am using this mainly for land (and freshwater in the future) gastropods, but marine became unused yet. Other gastropod related sources can be found at my user page User:Snek01#Journals and I will like to see other recomendations from you. In real the situation is like this: there are so many free new, older and old resources for images and texts, but not enough human power to incorporate it to wikipedia despite the fact, that incorporating these texts into wikipedia is very easy - example: Gulella systemanaturae or not so easy, but very useful and effective: List of non-marine molluscs of Dominica. --Snek01 (talk) 14:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, we at the Lepidoptera wikiproject have the same problem, not enough people to do the work. Anyway: keep up the good work and I will let you know if I find anything useful in future. Ruigeroeland (talk) 06:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olivoidea and Pseudolivoidea

Olivoidea and Pseudolivoidea are next. Please verify the intro sentences. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olivellidae

 Done

Olividae

 Done

Pseudolividae

 Done

Ptychatractidae

 Done

I have checked articles and the taxonomy for all of these 4 families, it is very consistent. --Snek01 (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Olivoidea with 444 edits. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Pseudolivoidea with 62 edits. Clade Neogastropoda is done. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tools

  • Here is a list of Top 100 popular pages under this project. You can change the list options at the bottom of the page.

Recognized content

Cleanup listing

Article alerts

Article watchlist

— Ganeshk (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITIS

 Question: How does Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) rate as a datasource? I found that some of their information is public domain. They provide a variety of ways to access their database. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added ITIS to Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Links with comments right now. --Snek01 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Snek. I will skip it. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost article page hit statistics

In case you are curious. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Littorinimorpha (4190 species)

Neogastropoda is done. So Littorinimorpha is next. How important are the intro sentence changes? The bot process will be much faster if I create all the articles with the standard sentence, "...is a species of sea snail, marine gastropod mollusk in the family...". Please comment.

I just wanted to say that it is better to say "a marine gastropod mollusk" than just "marine gastropod mollusk" I am not sure when the "a" got dropped out? I do think some of the families already created have this missing. Perhaps that could be fixed? As for keeping the intro sentence simple and the same for all, I do understand it would be very, very much faster, but it would also mean that thousands of articles would have an absolutely identical intro, which makes them seem a little uninformative, and boring for a reader. I think in particular the micromollusk families would benefit from being described as "a species of minute marine gastropod mollusk or micromollusk". It's also nice to be able to saw "small" or large" where applicable I think. Anyway that's my opinion for what it's worth. Thanks and best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I will continue to add the intro changes then. I have fixed about 5700 articles with "a" in the intro sentence. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please verify the super families below. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Littorinimorpha Families

Calyptraeoidea

Calyptraeidae

... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Calyptraeidae, the slipper snails or slipper limpets, cup-and-saucer snails, and Chinese hat snails.

ClockC Pending verification.

Capuloidea

Capulidae

... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Capulidae, the cap snails.

ClockC Pending verification

Cingulopsoidea

Cingulopsidae

.... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cingulopsidae.

ClockC Pending verification

Eatoniellidae

.... is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Eatoniellidae, the eatoniellids.

ClockC Pending verification

Rastodentidae

.... is a species of minute sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Rastodentidae.

ClockC Pending verification

Cypraeoidea

Cypraeidae

.... is a species of sea snail, a cowry, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Cypraeidae, the cowries.

ClockC Pending verification

Ovulidae

.... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Ovulidae, the ovulids, cowry allies or false cowries.

ClockC Pending verification

Pediculariidae

.... is a species of sea snail, a marine gastropod mollusk in the family Pediculariidae, the cowry allies.

ClockC Pending verification

Ficoidea

Ficidae

Littorinoidea

Annulariidae

Littorinidae

Pelycidiidae

Pickworthiidae

Pomatiidae

Skeneopsidae

Zerotulidae

Naticoidea

Naticidae

Pterotracheoidea

Atlantidae

Carinariidae

Pterotracheaidae

Rissooidea

Anabathridae

Assimineidae

Barleeidae

Bithyniidae

Caecidae

Calopiidae

Cochliopidae

Elachisinidae

Emblandidae

Epigridae

Falsicingulidae

Hydrobiidae

Hydrococcidae

Iravadiidae

Pomatiopsidae

Rissoidae

Tornidae

Truncatellidae

Stromboidea

Aporrhaidae

Haloceratidae

Rostellariidae

Seraphsidae

Strombidae

Struthiolariidae

Tonnoidea

Bursidae

Cassidae

Laubierinidae

Personidae

Pisanianuridae

Ranellidae

Tonnidae

Vanikoroidea

Hipponicidae

Vanikoridae

Velutinoidea

Triviidae

Velutinidae

Vermetoidea

Sakarahellidae

Vermetidae

Xenophoroidea

Xenophoridae

I am have added intro sentences for a few families. I will complete the rest slowly. — Ganeshk (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ClockC waiting for project input

Gastropod at work

I was at the Doctor's office and found this snail used for decoration. Hope you find it interesting. — Ganeshk (talk) 03:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My amateur observation, the snail seems to have 4 eyes. :) — Ganeshk (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This must surely be an alien snail. LOL JoJan (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do they really work also? Oh, I see, they manufactured the green vase. I see they are very fast, they moved between every shot. --Snek01 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the second set of "eyes" might be supposed to be the lower sensory tentacles in a retracted state, although they are in the wrong position. It's face is altogether a bit too mammalian. It is however very decorative! I like it! People seem to want to make snail eyespots face forward, but really they point straight up. A land snail can't focus or anything, it can only see the difference between dark and light. Anyway, it's a very nice piece of pottery! Very pretty! Invertzoo (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit check

 Question: Is this categorization good? — Ganeshk (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is useless, because this category is not possible to reasonably reduce under 200 records. Per guideline: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles." I have added a preventive warning and template {{Allincluded}} into the category Category:Turridae. I have also added this preventive warning to some stub categeories, because we do no need too much chaotically desorganized stub types. --Snek01 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you talk to User:Nono64 about this? He is making hundreds of these changes. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New user

A new user needs a welcome and advise on B&R 2005. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An taxonomic "mistake" of a newbie corrected. Advice is in edit summary, he/she will see it. --Snek01 (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data for 4256 marine species

Free (CC-BY-2.5) data for 4256 marine (mainly Atlantic) species containing minimum recorded depth, maximum recorded depth and maximum recorded shell length (mm) are available at:

This should be imported for example like this: 

Description

The maximum recorded shell length is xxxx mm.

Habitat

Minimum recorded depth is yyyy m. Maximum recorded depth is zzzz m.

This de facto means that we have available these three types of data from (2009). "Malacolog 4.1.1: A Database of Western Atlantic Marine Mollusca". If there will be released in similar way in an open content journal also other datasets (for example from "A Biotic Database of Indo-Pacific Marine Mollusks" as discussed above #OBIS database), then we will have available also other datasets in the future. --Snek01 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

connected?

I am looking at your page and am thinking that "gastropod" sounds a lot like "gastro-intestinal". are gastropic animals their name related to the intestine thing? that would be really cool and gross at the same time. 98.82.23.93 (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods&oldid=360419135"