Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a noticeboard for messages to people working on articles relating to snails and slugs.
WikiProject Gastropods (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia.
 Project  Quality: rating not applicable
 
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 2005 revision for all gastropod groups. If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.

Populating the "Molluscs described in YYYY" categories[edit]

Various editors, including myself, have been creating categories such as Category:Molluscs described in 2000‎ and populating them. It is rather slow, repetitive and tedious. I am considering setting up a bot for the task of moving molluscs from "Animals described in..." categories to the corresponding "Molluscs described in..." category. Any thoughts? I'm asking here because the vast majority of the relevant pages are for gastropods, and it would be a light task if there weren't so many of them. William Avery (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not "Gastropods described in YYYY"? The thing I don't understand is that the described in year categories are getting steadily refined, but the refinement happens with no defined ultimate structure. There's an enormous amount of wasted effort in going from "Animals described in YYY"->"Insects described in YYY"->"Moths described in YYY". Figure out what the categories should look like in the end, rather than wasting time making repeated edits refining the categorization one rank down the taxonomy hierarchy each time. If "Gastropods described in YYYY" will never be desired, that's fine with me; but if "Molluscs described in YYYY" will someday be subject to further refinement, we might as well do that refinement now. I definitely support a bot for this task regardless of what categories end up being used. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. If there is a consensus to create "Gastropods described in YYYY" I will go with that. It's just that I'd really like to get to a point of consistency using the current categories, ASAP. I'd quite to see some sort of warning to editors not to split the categories without consensus. There seem to be a number of partially realised schemes about the place. William Avery (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I must admit, I've added many times the "Category:Animals described in...." in the absence of a better category. If this has to be changed by a bot, then I prefer the more specific "Gastropods described in ...". And together with these categories by year, there are also list by year such as List of gastropods described in the 2000s. These lists are more elaborate and one can wonder do we need these categories and lists coexisting at the same time ? JoJan (talk) 16:29, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more I agree with having a dedicated set of categories for gastropods. Thank you both for taking the time to comment. William Avery (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
@William Avery: "Gastropods described in YYYY" is the only strategic category. Every of them should contain some information template; something like that this category shold not be splitted into subcategories. The parent category will be "Gastropods by year of formal description". Thanks, --Snek01 (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree that some mechanism to stop splitting (without getting a consensus at the relevant project page) is highly desirable. William Avery (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I have filed a bot approval request at WP:BRFA#William_Avery_Bot. William Avery (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Acanthinucella punctulata[edit]

The main photograph for the Acanthinucella punctulata article has a hermit crab inside the snail shell rather than the actual snail. It might be confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.224.148 (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

What you say is true, however, the caption does state that fact, and the image is otherwise a good clear photo of the shell, and one which shows many of the diagnostic features. If you can create a better photo of your own, of an empty shell or a live individual that you are certain is of this species, and if you are prepared to give your image away to the world, please feel free to upload it and you can put it in the article. Invertzoo (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Pyramedellidae--category and stub category[edit]

I'm contemplating a huge undertaking, and I want to run it by this WikiProject first, to make sure I don't run afoul of any special preferences here.
There is a huge category page, and an almost as huge stub category page for the family Pyramedellidae. The stub page has a tag that it's very large, and it might be good to set up subcategories. I'm thinking of setting up and populating subcategories for the genus Odostomia, within both the family category and the family stub category. I estimate there will be over 400 articles in each. I've completed projects of that scope before. (And it will save me a lot of time if I do them at the same time.)
But here's the thing I want to check:

  • I notice that someone set up subcategory pages (the main category, not the stub) for both Odostomia and another large genus Chrisallida. That someone then moved 9 species in one genus and 11 species in the other to their respective subcategories, and then left Wikipedia.
  • I also recall seeing in the past that WITH THE GASTROPODS, category pages for large families often have a note asking that all species be listed there--for convenience, it says--even if some of them are in subcategories. I don't know why that is. It's not the usual way in Wikipedia, but I don't want to go against Project preferences.

In this case, should I go ahead and create the subcategories, both in the category and in the stub category, and move all the relevant species? Should I create both subcategories and move the stubs, and add the articles to the non-stub subcategory while leaving them in the main category? Should I just do the stub subcategory, and not do anything with the non-stub? Or should I leave it all alone? Uporządnicki (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I should add that I'm not a member of this WikiProject, nor am I any kind of expert in gastropods. I just go round performing major surgery on categories and lists here. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your message. I am happy that you are interested in gastropods and I appreciate that. Unfortunately there is no need to split the category Category:Pyramidellidae. It is a large category, but splitting will give no advantage. These species will be moving among genera, but probably they will stay in this family. There is no need neverending splitting and merging categories. It is better to focus on improving articles about species. Thank you for your cooperation. --Snek01 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Regarding categories, it would be useful for this Wikiproject to apply the following ideas:
--Snek01 (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@AzseicsoK: there is a major category rework being discussed at WT:TREE#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description which might interest you/be relevant here. I would hold off on major category reworks until that is closed/formalized.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  21:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I guess I should just leave it alone for a while. Clearly, there's reason NOT to do what I proposed, and these other projects talked about are not things I've generally gotten my teeth into, and I'm not 100% clear what they are, anyway. I think there's still plenty of tidying of categories for me to do among moths. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject[edit]

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background[edit]

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)