Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gastropods This 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 articles 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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Just a heads up that there are some major taxon changes published here:

Salvador RB, Silva FS, Cavallari DC, Köhler F, Slapcinsky J, Breure ASH (2023) Molecular phylogeny of the Orthalicoidea land snails: Further support and surprises. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0288533. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288533

Not my usual topic, but I did some edits regarding Antidrymaeus.

EponineBunnyKickQueen (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Conus leviteni#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There had been 20+ species of the genus Phos listed individually in Category:Nassariidae. I just set up a category for the genus, within the family category. But in the course of doing it, I learned (from Wikipedia!) that until a few years ago, the genus Phos was considered to be in the Buccinidae family. And I see that four Phos articles are still in the category page for that family. I'm not in any way an expert, but it seems straightforward, AND supported by the sources. So unless someone either comes in ahead of me to do it, OR tells me I'm wrong, I'm going to be bold and make those changes. I'll edit the articles, I'll add Speciesboxes, and I'll recategorize them. If I feel ambitious, I might go through the rest and replace the taxoboxes with speciesboxes (it seems the speciesbox has been applied only to one, so far), and edit some obsolete information (according the the sources, Nassariidae are not True Whelks). Uporządnicki (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia follows the classification given in WoRMS, which places genus Phos in subfamily Photinae of family Nassariidae in superfamily Buccinoidea. I assume that family Buccinidae was broken up some time ago. Your proposed changes seem the correct way to go.

I created a template {{convert taxobox}} which can simplify the taxobox conversion. You just replace the first line of the taxobox (i.e. {{taxobox) with {{subst:Convert taxobox. You would still need to create any missing taxonomy templates. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been going through the species of genus Gibberula to sort out their categories. But I want to find out the Project's preference about how I should proceed.
There is a Category:Gibberula, and of course, there's also a Category:Cystiscidae for the family. Some of the species were in the genus category, some were in the family category, and some were in both.

It's the stated, general practice in Wikipedia that something in a category should not also be in the parent to that category. So in general, when a genus has its own category, the species of that genus should not also appear in a category for the family. So I've been going through the Gibberula species in the Cystiscidae category. I've been moving the species that are only in the Cystiscidae category, and removing from Cystiscidae the ones that appear in both.

But I've noticed that on the Cystiscidae category page, there are a couple of genera that have a lot of species, and MOST of them appear in both categories. And in the past, I've seen--among Gastropods, specifically--that some family categories actually post an instruction that species in genera that have their own categories should also appear in the category for the family.

Before I go any further (since it will involve a couple of hundred edits that I can only do by hand, one at a time), I want to ask if the Project has a preference--place ONLY in the genus categories, or place in BOTH genus and family categories? Uporządnicki (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying this. Species should be placed in the lowest available category, in this case in the category "species". JoJan (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the lowest category here would be the one for genus, under a category for family. And what you say is the usual, preferred guideline. But I have seen some cases, among the Gastropods, I believe where a category for a family has a note to include all species, even ones that are in categories for their own genera. It the WikiProject prefers that, I don't want to club them with the rule book. Uporządnicki (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the only comment so far agrees with the usual procedure in Wikipedia. And while some Gastropod categories have that note about including all species in the parent as well as in subcategories, this category does not. So I'm going to go ahead and complete my project here, the way I had in mind. If someone does object, I'd appreciate it if that someone would raise that objection SOON. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a new paragraph to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Subpage: the history of this CopyVio event, about the recently launched 2nd contributor copyright investigation into the edits of GrahamBould. It turns out that a lot (possibly the majority) of their copyvios were left unresolved/undetected in the 2009 investigation. See also the discussion here for some ideas about how to tackle these issues.

Since most of the about 2,700 articles that are affected by this (possibly facing WP:REVDELs) are about gastropods, this will be of particular interest to your WikiProject. All of you are welcome to help with the cleanup. The more users join, the easier it should be to limit the damage. Renerpho (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please share your thoughts in this discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_September_27#Category:Lutilodix. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]