User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 9

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


ARCHIVE PAGE 9: September 2008


Lemur about creature

Hello, I suppose that you could know. Please, can you tell me what is the creature depicted in this photo (is a shell of what?).[1], in order to make the corrections needed. Thank you. --Lemur12 (talk) 11:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lemur, Thanks for contacting me. Is this the only photo you have or do you have others? To me this looks like a hermit crab in a borrowed shell. The shell that the hermit crab is in, is a marine gastropod shell of some sort. However the shell is broken at both end, and you can't see the aperture because the crab is in the way, so it is really hard to guess at what kind of gastropod shell it is. Also I don't know how large it is: was the shell very small, like 15 mm or 10 mm? It would be a wild guess on my part, but maybe the shell is is broken one of a Cerithium species. I am going away today and back on Sept 13th so I won't be able to "talk" much about this for a while. Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again my friend and have a nice time during your going away. I have some other photos. My nephew found them into the sea. By the way, I am also flying to UK tomorrow. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemur12 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello again from UK. Thanks for changing the title on the hermit crab image. Some problems with connectivity made me to reply lately in your message. --Lemur12 (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Lemur, Nice to hear from you. I did change the description, that's all. I wish I knew how to change the actual title of the image, but I don't know how, do you? Perhaps you could call it: "Hermit crab from Greece". Best to you, Invertzoo (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fisheries templates

Hi Invertzoo. I put those commercial fishery templates on articles about commercially important fish that have, or should have, a significant section on commercial fishing. There is another set for sports fish. I added the templates because there is a lot of useful fisheries information buried in these articles. It just gets lost (from a fisheries perspective), and I can't think of a better way to try and pull it together. At least this way, you can easily see what is there, and what should be there but isn't. When I get time, I intend to fill in the gaps with appropriate sections on commercial fishing, and then look at expanding the individual sections into articles in their own right or articles that deal with a group of fisheries. If that point is reached, then the templates won't be needed on the original articles. I realize the templates often don't sit well in many current articles, because the appropriate section on fishing has not yet being written. And there is just so much other work to be done around fisheries – so much to do – so little time. Anyway - that's the rationale. I feel a bit sheepish about it - but I also think it's a necessary step. I very much appreciate your comments. That was a great (very overdue) job you made writing a decent lead to shellfish. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geronimo, Thanks very much for your nice note; you are very kind and encouraging. I do think your templates are a good idea, at least for the time being. I reckon items that help cross-reference stuff and tie stuff together in Wikipedia are pretty much always helpful. As you can see from my used page, I am mostly a mollusks-from-the-scientific-perspective person, a naturalist basically, and also as it happens a vegetarian, but I found the fisheries links interesting and clearly the fisheries angle is an important one. I am glad you liked what I did to shellfish. I very much enjoy trying to fix up intros when I sort of understand the topic and it seems to me that the prose needs some work. Very nice to meet you. Please do feel free to call on me if ever you have a question about mollusks. best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shells template [2]

Hi again Invertzoo. No, the "shells" template is not a fisheries template. I suppose I was a bit lazy and categorized it there to keep track of templates I started, which are mostly fisheries. It was just a one-off. When I was looking at shells, I thought it made sense for people like myself who are amateurs in this area. Martin, who actively contributes in this area, seems to agree. But you are welcome to do as you think fit, change the format or category, or delete it.

Many, many decades ago, when I was a lad, I worked as a paua diver in Cook Strait. It occurs me, in retrospect, that that was why I wanted a template with paua shells on it. My formal background is in mathematical physics, and I can be very ignorant when it comes to finer details in biology. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Geronimo, I should make it clear that it's not that I disagree with having the template, I just wasn't sure what it was supposed to be exactly. If I understand you correctly, it's for amateurs, so that they can find the other general introductory shell articles? But only sea shells, not freshwater shells or whatever? By the way, not only marine mollusks wash up as shells, it's quite common to call sea urchin tests and moulted crab shells "shells" or "seashells" as well... and also I think most people would call brachiopod shells just plain "shells" if they found them. Would you want to have those on the template too? What d'you think? Invertzoo (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It might be an idea to create a short lead article for the template that overviews the whole notion of what a "shell" is in this context. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I got a admin to reinstate the article Seashell. I think you will see that it works OK. I also added your template to it in the appropriate section. Invertzoo (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note for me: Martin's (the paleontologist graduate student's) talk page is [User talk:Smith609]. Invertzoo (talk) 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:Seashell so other people can weigh in. I don't see how it is possible to create an encyclopaedic article about an undefined slang phrase. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello Invertzoo! I was a little distressed to see the Animal shell article -- which I had worked hard to clean up from a haphazard pile of links into an overview and guide to more precise and scientifically named articles -- had disappeared. And then I had the pleasure of seeing what you and Martin and others had done with Exoskeleton and the various Seashell articles. I see that it is still a work in progress but I am very glad to see it done in a clear, clean way by people who know the field well. Thank you for your efforts to preserve and relocate what was useful in my edits, and to eliminate the remaining redundancy. Large-scope overview articles are among the most difficult things to do well in Wikipedia, and I appreciate your work.
Also, I have left some thoughts for you and Geronimo (and anyone else involved) at Template talk:Sea shell topics. Please let me know what you think. Best wishes! — Catherine\talk 00:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, Invertzoo. You asked about the organisation of the templates. The templates are intended to work hierarchically down a tree structure. In a high level template, like the one on fishing, each item takes you to an article which has a different template, albeit a lesser level template. Eventually you get to the lowest level templates. Here each item takes you to an article which has the same template. An example of a bottom level template is the one on fly fishing. Also, as we discussed before, each template should have a lead article, embracing the topics in the rest of the template. An example of a messy low level template is the one on traditional fishing boats. This is currently a mess because the lead article on traditional fishing boats has not yet been written, and because it contains too many items (I think about 8–12 are optimum). As a result, I am splitting some groups off and creating separate templates for them, such as the one for dory. When you template a whole project, it clarifies what the underlying structure is, or should be, and where the missing articles are. The other advantage is that user traffic increases, typically 4-fold, across the low level articles. This is because users navigate down from higher level articles.
There is, however, an even lower level type template ("lower level" is of course not an evaluative term - it just means further down the hierarchy). This template does not refer to articles, but refers to sections within articles. An example is the one on finfish, or the mollusks one you encountered earlier. The seashell template is a hybrid bottom level/section template, and for it to work properly, certain sections need to be present in some articles, and the templates need to be positioned at the top of those sections, and the links need to be directed to those sections. If you like, I'll restructure part of the seashell template the way I think it should be (it's easy to revert). However, I don't want to interfere, and Catherine has expressed strong opposition to the use of the template. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Categories are not alternative equivalents to properly constructed templates. Categories are useful devices for editors to keep track of articles in a project, but they lack the functionality a template can have, and cannot target and order articles in the same way without serious category creep. Critically, they lack visibility and easy utility. In any case, I would think only a very small part of the people who refer to Wikipedia would be aware of how they can use categories. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh I see, yes, that all makes sense. I certainly agree with you that many users won't know that there are categories on WP and how to use them. I think we should persevere with this seashell template, I think it has real potential. I do agree with you about the visibility and utility aspects, that's what I meant by "handy" and "pretty". Unfortunately I can't help you much with the process as I don't know how to yet, but I will be happy to see what you can do, and you are welcome to pick my brains in any way that would be helpful. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit slow getting to the template. In the meantime, would you mind looking at the lead to clam. Seems a bit of a mess to me. How is the term used outside the US? --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Veneridae

It just seemed tidier, and I overlooked your careful placement. Please revert, and accept my apologies. GrahamBould (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan

Wikis Take Manhattan


Next: Saturday September 27
This box: view • talk • edit

WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:

349 W. 12th St. #3
Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,

Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


Pseudofeces

Taking up your kind offer to "feel free to call on me if ever you have a question about mollusks", would you mind checking what I've written about pseudofeces. I don't even know if it is confined to bivalves. Thanks.--Geronimo20 (talk) 06:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

If you find a bit more we could put it up as a joint DYK. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on it a bit. Invertzoo (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I am also seeing if I can add more kinds of "seashells" to the seashell template. Invertzoo (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I put pseudofeces up for a DYK here. That gives three more days for grooming. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is pseudofeces singular or plural? Google gives the following lowdown on usage:

term count plural count
fece 6,460,000 feces 5,410,000
faece 24,800 faeces 1,600,000
pseudofece 4 pseudofeces 6,460
pseudofaece 2 pseudofaeces 6,420

For feces the singular and plural are used in equal measure, for feaces the plural is mostly used (even though this is just a British spelling variant), while for pseudofeces and pseudofaeces the singular is not used. Mystifying - I don't see etymology helping here, since the same root applies across all eight terms. A Google book search offers this. Maybe you can make something from that, but I can't!. Anyway, my take is that you use pseudofeces both as a singular noun and as a plural noun. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Further to this, you may have noticed the recent edit which replaced "Pseudofeces accumulates with, and looks much like..." with "Pseudofeces accumulate with, and look much like...". My take is that both versions are correct. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see. Well I personally think you are right that the word can be used as a singular noun or a plural noun. By the way, congratulations on the fact that this made the cut for a "Did you know" item, and thanks for including me in the process, I enjoyed it! Invertzoo (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought it would be targeted by vandals, like maggot. But it hasn't much, sofar. --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe the name "pseudofeces" only attracts intellectuals, ha ha. Although I guess potty humor has a truly universal appeal. Invertzoo (talk) 20:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Pseudofeces

Updated DYK query On 30 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pseudofeces, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Shell template

Okay, I've reconfigured {{Sea shell topics}}.

  • When you click down the list of menu items on the panel, it should take you seamlessly to the next item without the panel appearing to shift. As each new article appears, it should be immediately apparent how the article relates to the menu item. Thus, when you click on mother of pearl it takes you to Nacre, but the article starts with: "Nacre, also known as mother of pearl...". When you click on chitons it doesn't take you to the article Chiton as such, but to a section within the article appropriately titled "Shell description".
  • I've repositioned the template on seashell so it operates smoothly. This after all, is the lead article. You have a very nice image on this article which I've repositioned lower down, This is because that image is too busy and demanding to be juxtaposed with the template (compromise, compromise...). It needs a simpler image at the top.
  • As discussed earlier, this is a bottom level template, meaning that each menu item takes you to an article that has the same template. If you were taken to another template, it would be a lower level template. I've removed the template from exoskeleton, because if exoskeleton had a template it would be a higher level one. The exoskeleton template would contain items such as "seashell" and "land shell" (as it were).
  • I've divided the template into three groups. The first group contains the mollusc shells, the second group contains the other seashells, and the third group (item) takes you up a level to exoskeleton (the fishing templates are structured similarly).
  • In the second group (non mollusc shells), I've removed most of the finer details from the template, since I presume you are not intending to write substantial individual sections specifically on the shells of goose barnacles or sand dollars. Instead, I have inserted the following sections where you can describe all these details: arachnid shells, brachiopod shells, crustacean shells and echinoderm tests.
  • Although I've left it in, I think arachnid shells doesn't belong in the template. These are mostly land animals, amongst whom horseshoe crabs are a marine anomaly. I think you should just deal with horseshoe crabs in the lead article , seashells.

Well, I hope that doesn't spoil your day! That's a great job you did on clams. --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you liked the clean-up I did on Clam. And thanks so much Geronimo for your work on the template! It looks really good. I will explore it in depth after I have breakfast. As for the horseshoe crabs, we can simply call all of the crustacean shells "Arthropod shells" instead, and then horseshoe crab can go at the end of that list. The horseshoe crab may not be a crustacean, but it sure is an arthropod. Do you think you could tinker with the template so it is like that? Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
A couple more points about the template.
  • {{Sea shell topics}} is transcluded. As a result, when you edit the template, the versions that have been installed in other articles don't update straight away. Those versions are updated by WikiMedia as a background task which is put into a job queue. Sometimes, they take days to update. You can force updates by going to the individual articles, and clicking Edit and then clicking Save without actually editing anything. This null edit doesn't show up in the edit history, but does update the template for that article if it needs updating.
  • There are some issues about the placement of images in relation to the template. They are discussed here. I notice you reduced the size of the image I bumped from the top of seashell to 200px. If you are happy with that size, then it could go back to the top of the article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Geronimo for explaining about the template and how it works. Actually I kind of like the way seashell currently stands as far as the images go. I never much cared for that image of a bunch of expensive seashells. I hope maybe next year in the tropics to do my own photo of a group of real seashells (of various phyla) collected on one beach, out of the beachdrift, not these store-bought ones. I don't think there is an image on the Commons like that right now, not as far as I know. Invertzoo (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cochlicella acuta

Hello, I made changes in Cochlicella acuta article. I used an old (public domain) book for description but I am not very good at English. I would like to ask you for English correction and for your opinion if the English from this book (or the book as a whole) is appropriate for wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you too Snek. Thanks! It was nice to see the work you did on Cochlicella acuta. I am glad you did it. Just now I fixed up the English a fair bit, and will look at it again tomorrow. I have never owned the book by Step, but I do know that it is very well regarded as a reference, however it is over 100 years old, and therefore the English is a bit quaint and antiquated, and some of the information on the distribution of some of the species will be out of date. As you can imagine, some species have decreased considerably since then, and others have spread a lot more. If you want to extract information from Step to use here on Wikipedia, you may need to ask me to clean up the English a bit every time you do that. I don't mind if you call on me for that. Invertzoo (talk) 23:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

Why don't I talk you through it, so you'll know for next time? If you go to the Seashells page, you'll end up at Exoskeleton, and just before the first line of the article it'll say "Redirected from Seashells". If you click on that link, you will be taken to the seashells redirect page, which you can edit to point to the right place.

If that doesn't make sense let me know ! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes I did it right away, no problem. It is kind of self-evident. I guess my brain works a whole lot better after I have had dinner than before! Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Fancy that - Sidney Sussex was my old college! I'd've loved to have heard Whittington speak - he was going to do a talk for our science society, but unfortunately fell ill just before hand. Anyway, glad you got the redirect issue sorted out! Best, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Love darts in land snails

I had no idea mollusks and gastropods were so risqué. There's heaps of material about this on the web, so it should be fun. We might even make them fashionable! I'm in the middle of something right now. How about a couple of days to get the article going, put it up for DYK, and then three days for grooming? --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes: mollusks are an extremely large and diverse phylum that has (and in the fossil record has had) all kinds of amazing things going on! If I rack my brains a bit I can probably come up with several other wild topics. Your suggestion sounds fine. We could either do it all now, or we could prepare the article and then "release" it the week before Valentine's Day, that way perhaps more bloggers and journalists would pick up on it, generating more publicity for Wikipedia... but to be honest, either way is just fine with me. Invertzoo (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL! You are such conspirator! I want the article love dart right now. --Snek01 (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ha ha, OK Snek. I imagine it will be ready pretty soon. Invertzoo (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Started love-dart article. Add some texts please. --Snek01 (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear, I see the article has been hijacked and started prematurely. What a bummer... --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, but it should be your DYK if you are the major contributor – particularly since it was hijacked. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well if you can chip in, please I would encourage you to go right ahead. Snek provided the images and got it up off the ground. He cannot write in English very well however, so I was helping out with the prose. You are so excellent at the research angle and the citations. Does it have to be only 2 people working on it and submitting it? I really don't mind if you and Snek want to do it together or whatever... Can the process be salvaged now or not? Invertzoo (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The DYK is no problem. If you like, I'll walk you through the process in a couple of days. You have five days altogether. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well can you come in on it too? I would really like that, and besides I think it would be quite necessary for the article, because you have skills that neither I nor Snek have. I think the article would not succeed in making DYK without your contribution. Invertzoo (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the standard for a DYK is not high. Isn't this picture (top right) just gorgeous. I would never have thought snails could be so intimate and appealing! --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you would be amazed what mollusks do! Aren't they great? I had an edible snail escargot as a pet once, you could hear it eating from the next room. Look at the pictures of mating slugs at [[3]. So, can it be three people for a DYK? Geronimo, can you come in with Snek and I on the Love Darts piece? Will you, or do I have to stick a harpoon in you first? Ha ha. Invertzoo (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well I'll help anyway (actually I think three people can claim joint credit). --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Great!!! Thanks!!! And let me say once again, if it turn out that only two people can claim joint credit, I am more than happy to cede that to you and Snek. Invertzoo (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm just going to start by indiscriminately adding every "maybe useful" references I can find. Then we can sort through what is actually useful. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure, go for it! Anything you can do to any aspect of it will be useful one way or the other I am sure, so don't be shy, just have at it! Invertzoo (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Well that's pretty much everything useful on the web - exhausting and hopefully exhaustive! Now we need a jaundiced examination of each reference and external link to decide whether it's useful. But I'm going to sleep :o) --Geronimo20 (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)--Geronimo20 (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Images: I cropped Image:Monachoides vicinus dart lateral.jpg for DYK or for other purposes. I will crop other 8 images from source Image:Love-darts.jpg for articles about single species (lateral view and croos section of one species in one image). OK? --Snek01 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snek, I think your image ideas are good ones. Those images are OK and not copyvios? Well I guess all three of us have the article evolving quite well, even if it is a little sooner than the planned schedule. I am assuming you are OK with the idea of submitting it for a DYK? Geronimo knows a lot more about DYK than I do, so I would suggest we let him go through the process, but he seems to think that it can be submitted under all three of our names. (But if it has to go in under only two names, I don't mind at all if goes in under your name and his name.) I will work on the article more today, but I won't be able to work on it for most of tomorrow. Thanks for your good work! Invertzoo (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The DYK nomination is here. You know, I think we can work this up for an FA. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I added the reference, but I'm having trouble finding a downloadable version. I can only do a little editing at the moment - just doing a bit of fisheries maintenance. The love dart article is fine now for DYK. But how about we work it up for a GA over the next few weeks? There's still a lot we can add. --Geronimo20 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, found it here --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Snek, I think that when it shows two cross sections is simply an error (which may have been made in the original publication?), as in all cases the cross-sections shown are exactly similar to one another. It is in the listing for Trochulus hispidus, Trochulus striolatus and Humboldtiana nuevoleonis and just now I noticed that the first one with two is Helicella itala. Thanks! Good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Mollusc

Hi, I'd like to get Mollusc upgraded from Start-class for Wikipedia v 0.7, I posted a request for a review of Mollusc as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals, but that page seems deserted. Do you have any ideas on how to get a review going fairly quickly?

PS What's wrong with "exterminate"? -- Philcha (talk)

Hi Philcha. I don't off-hand know the answer to your first question, but what I would do is: go to the page [4] and look and see who out of those people is an admin, and then ask that person if a review can be arranged so as to (hopefully) raise the article from Start-class to something better.
There's nothing really wrong with the word "exterminate" or the Daleks come to that (!) (I remember them well) but in the USA the verb "exterminate" has been monopolized for many years by pest control companies/"exterminators" so in the US the word tends to mean "get rid of the nasties", whereas the local snail species were the good guys, right? Oh and by the way, I think you should stick a citation on the numbers you give for total number of extant mollusk species because every expert quotes a different number for that. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the lesson in US usage - I remember that in UK one walks on the pavement but in USA one drives on it! As for "rubber", ...
No citations in the lead, because AFAIK they're frowned on. They're in "Diversity".
Thanks for the suggestion about Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals/Participants, will do. -- Philcha (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding periods to initials

I think omitting periods after initials is a not uncommon British practice, but it doesn't seem to be an American practice. However Wikipedia guidelines don't seem to advise adding periods in references or citations. To the contrary, they omit the periods themselves. Some standard citation styles, such as MLA citations explicitly exclude periods. Perhaps the American enthusiasm started with Lincoln, who used two periods My general rule is to use Occam's Razor, and dispense with anything that is unnecessary. I can't see that any clarity is added, or any ambiguity cleared up, by adding periods. Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd remove the commas between the surname and the initials as well. However, if your preference is to use periods then I will happily go along with that. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I had no idea! I guess I have been in this country far too long. Thanks for the info on that. I don't mind which way it is done now I know it's OK that way too. Invertzoo (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Love dart

Updated DYK query On 9 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Love dart, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 09:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Congrats

According to this statistics, Love dart got 31,000 hits on the day it was featured, which is the second-highest DYK record of all time. Congrats! --BorgQueen (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Invertzoo/Archive_9&oldid=248219493"