User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 22

ARCHIVE PAGE 22: October 2009

Mollusc articles
You're welcome. Wikipedia organism articles are funny in that way, they are areas of excellence here and there, whales and snails and Proteales for example. People do notice. --69.225.5.4 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw it
I was still awake when the Map cowry article featured on the main page! That's some birthday present I got there =), thank you! Oh, about the importance assessments, I'll be working on it from now on. It takes me some time, because in addition to the assessment itself, I usually focus on general fixing (taxonomy, italics, tags, and stuff). Best wishes always Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am glad you enjoyed map cowry getting the DYK on the Main page! I was very happy indeed to see it there. Yes, going through the stubs is quite slow. Like you, I also do all the routine clean up I can think of. And in addition I create genus articles where they are needed, and sometimes even new biography stubs for the malacologists who named the taxa, if I have enough enthusiasm. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Format of illustrations
I just noticed, Invertzoo, that you added "Drawing of a" to "shell of Anguispira alternata…" in the header for that species' article. For what it's worth, I think that may well be an engraving rather than a drawing, although the point does not seem to be an important one. In any case, do you feel that we need to specify the form of each of the illustrations from now on, as in "photograph of a", etc.? Tim Ross  (talk)  23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a very good question, and to be honest I don't really know the answer. Maybe it's not necessary in most cases to indicate what kind of image it is. I think in some cases it certainly might be a good idea, for example when it is hard to tell whether something is a photograph or a painting, that kind of thing. Sometimes it's good to say that something is a black and white photo rather than a color one because it can be hard to tell sometimes when the subject is a bit monochrome anyway. This is the kind of question that needs to be discussed carefully as part of the MoS I guess. So tell me what you think about this question. Thanks for bringing it up. best, Invertzoo (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there's a reasonable chance of a viewer being misled, I would certainly opt for adding whatever details might be helpful about an illustration. Otherwise, I see only limited value in adding such specifics. It's a minor point, though. Tim Ross  (talk)  09:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with you. I should perhaps explain that I (along with Daniel C.) have been starting to go rapidly through every one of the stubs in project gastropods, trying to update taxonomy and do a lot of small fix up tasks like italic title etc, etc, etc. I am still not finished with the "A"s. I spend very little time at all on each article because there are literally thousands of stubs to go through. As a result I make some snap decisions that are not always the best ones, because I am "firing from the hip". But since so many of our stubs are in crummy shape, having been created by PolBot or otherwise thrown together, and since most people don't like to do clean up, I suppose what I am doing is well worth the effort, despite the occasional misjudgment, error or omission. Very best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please accept my thanks and applause, Invertzoo (and Daniel C., as well), for taking on that largely thankless task! Tim Ross  (talk)  16:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the kind words Tim. I do feel that it is absolutely essential to the quality of the project as a whole to clean up the stubs and pull together the taxonomy on all the articles. Don't get me wrong, some of the stubs are already perfectly OK right now, but a lot of them still look pretty crummy. If we can get them all into OK shape, then as new people come in and create new articles without reading the project page first, I feel that there is a good chance they will copy a pre-existing OK article as a template, instead of a crummy one. Fingers crossed anyway. And I am also hoping that once the articles are more or less standardized, then if in the near or far future we have changes to make all across the project, maybe we will be able to use bots for that more easily... because pretty soon it's going to be darn nearly impossible to do it by hand on all of the articles. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

suprapedal gland
I think, that explanation of suprapedal gland in Kerry slug is not correct. I think, that a simple wikilink would be fine, because etymological meaning (above the foot) and exact location (inside the foot) are contradicted. --Snek01 (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Corrected by myself. --Snek01 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Info from User:Snek01
I got a private email from Snek in which he chided me for putting the "Random gastropod article link" into the selected article box on the Portal. He pointed out that the Portal and the Project Page should be "easily to use, easily to understand, quickly to use and practical." He told me he had put the random link into an overview, but at the end. He said the "worst parts" of the project page are "News about the Project" and the fact that the talk page has content above the actual start of the messages. He felt this content should almost all be removed. He told me he will have to reorganize those parts by himself in the near future but wanted to let me know that. He wants to make them more practical and feels that the portal is a good example of a practical set-up.

I have attempted to state the themes of the email here on my user page at Wikipedia because generally speaking, any discussion about specific Wikipedia content or policies, for the portal or otherwise, must be carried out on our talk pages, so the content of the discussion is visible to anyone and everyone. Invertzoo (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To Snek: I certainly do not mind if you move the link for the random gastropod article out of the "selected article" box. I tried to create a special box for it, as a feature in itself, but I did not know how to, so I put it in there instead. I figured that you would probably move it. Please put it in a box and give it a good place, as I think it is a useful and interesting thing for both the project page and the portal page. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also certainly do not mind if you re-work the top of the Project Talk Page; I did not organize it that way, it looked pretty much like that when I first came to Wikipedia. It is rather messy, and the various templates can certainly be moved onto the project page along with an explanation of what they are and how they should be used, because new members will need to know that. I feel that the "Handy resources for Editors" also needs to be retained, and go somewhere prominent. You can call it something else if you like, but the idea is a good one I feel.


 * As for "News about the Project", some of that info can now be moved into an archive. However I think it is very important to have something like a "News about the Project" section. Being practical is all very well and good, but it is not the only consideration. On a project page, increasing morale and team spirit are perhaps even more important than just plain being practical: it is very important to be friendly, engaging and encouraging. A project is a collaboration, and keeping team spirit up is essential to the health and growth of any collaborative project. At Project Gastropods we are now past the point where we can just exist as a few people each one working on his or her own, independent of one another. So in the final analysis, some kind of "News" section is very necessary and very practical indeed.

All good wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

About portals
Thank you very much, Susan, for your very kind but thoroughly undeserved comments. I didn't reply to your query about random gastropod articles above, since Gadfium had already given a handsome reply. I don't know anything about portals. They provide entrances I suppose, a way of showing someone who is interested in a topic what is available. The portals on Wikipedia have a hierarchical tree structure, leading from high level portals like the religion portal down to low level portals like Tibetan Buddhism. Higher level portals include introductions to lower level portals. Some high order portals get a lot of page views, and would be worth spending a lot of time on. For example, according to the stat counter for August 2009, the history article gets 126,754 views and the history portal gets 131,301 views. This means that the ratio of main article views to portal views is pretty much 1:1.

But the story is very different with low level portals, such as the ones we are interested in, like gastropods and fishing which include no lower level portals. The table shows some arbitrarily selected low level portals. As you can see, the ratio of view counts is more like 100:1.

Anyway, I think this suggests low level portals in Wikipedia have limited value, since not many people look at them. Maybe once a project's portal is in reasonable nick, further time would be better spent fine tuning the structure of the main articles and templates, which is what the large majority of viewers will be looking at. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Correspondence
Hi, Invertzoo. I just wanted to drop you a note to explain my removal of some content from your talk page. Private correspondences can only be placed on the project with permission of the e-mailing party, per arbcom. So, also per arbcom, I've gone ahead and removed this one. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't object anyway, but just wanted to explain why. Feel free to drop by my talk page if you want more detail. Hope all is well with you since we last spoke. :) As usual, I'm neck-deep in copyright stuff. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

copyright question
Hi Susan, may I please ask you, if the text of Wikipedia articles is copyrighted somehow? I mean, if it is OK, if I am to take a small portion of Wikipedia article and put it to my own article to be published in a magazine under my name? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have never had to do this, so I don't know the details of how to go about doing this correctly. There is some info on this page. Also I think the best person that I know who might be able to help you with this question is User:Moonriddengirl, her talk page is here. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Susan! I would also like to ask you, if you're be available to correct my English in a new article I am going to write for Wikipedia today or tomorrow? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will certainly do what I can. Give me the link as soon as it is up. As you may know by now, I usually need to go through the whole thing once, then go through it again the next day and maybe once again the day after too. Invertzoo (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'll let you know, when I put it in.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New article
Hi Susan, Here it is Black Abbey. Thank you. --Mbz1 (talk) 17:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Susan. I submited DYK. Please take a look at the hook, when you have a time.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the hook is probably OK as it is although I tweaked it a tiny bit. By the way, I found some more info about the really big stained glass window, in the Frommer's guide online, where they say "The huge Rosary Window, a stained-glass work of nearly 45 sq. m (484 sq. ft.) that represents the 15 mysteries of the rosary, was created in 1892 by Mayers of Munich. You can read that at:
 * 
 * You may want to add a bit more of that info. By the way, it is very kind of you to give me the credit for these recent DYKs, but you might want to put your own name on them as well, since you did almost all the work. Very best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Susan. I did include myself in the nomination, but after you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Architaenioglossa taxonomy details
Hello, a mistake detected:, correction:. This is in 35 more articles. I will correct it. --- Alycaeidae is a subfamily of Cyclophoridae. Updated already. --Snek01 (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, there's a huge amount of rather messed up and out-of-date taxonomy like that Platyla taxobox around in the Project articles. There's hundreds and hundreds of things similar to that, probably one or two thousand of them! As you may already know, Daniel and I slowly are currently slowly make our way through all of the stubs in the project. I have already found hundreds of examples of stuff like that and I have only got through the A listings and into the B part of the alphabet. It will be a long while before I reach the "P" articles! Daniel is working back from "Z" and is currently in the "T" listings I think.


 * Thanks for sorting out the taxonomy on the Alycaeidae.


 * Best, Invertzoo (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Socorro springsnail
I know I know...I listed a couple more queries. Will graph out what else needs doing today. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, no problem, I fixed the things you queried and made some real progress on finding out why the land was not taken away from the guy who owns it. Invertzoo (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Henry Suter
Hello, Henry Suter is newly expanded. It was refused to be a Did you know..., because a lack of originality, but it is a good reading anyway. I do not understand one sentence about Augustus Hamilton (hidden in the code). Have a nice reading. --Snek01 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes this is a good article and quite interesting. I rewrote the hidden sentence about Augustus Hamilton and made it visible. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Did Suter published it without funds? --Snek01 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the original piece seems to imply that Hamilton was the one who planned the book and Hamilton also got the funding for the book from the Government, otherwise without that it would perhaps not have been produced at all. Perhaps it was expensive to make because of all the illustrations or something... Best, Invertzoo (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Shells
Hi Susan, in case you have not seen it yet, please take a look here. User Butko nominated few images of shells for QI. You might be interested in some of them. Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Platydemus manokwari flatworm
Hello, let's improve recently started article Platydemus manokwari at least for "Did you know...". OK? Thank you. --Snek01 (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This evening I did a bunch of work on expanding and improving this flatworm article, as you will see. I wish we had a photo for it. Also... I tried to check the taxonomy, because the taxonomy in the article Turbellaria does not seem to be consistent with the taxonomy in this article. I googled the topic and looked around a bit, but I gave up for this evening as it is getting late and I really know so little about flatworm taxonomy. I will take another look tomorrow. Invertzoo (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting edit summary and counting. lol. Doesnt't matter. Corrected. --Snek01 (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This was a case where the template for the species was copied from that of another species and I failed to fully update the caption to fit the new image.


 * By the way, just so as you know, generally it is not considered polite to make little jokes about other people's errors to their face, even if the error is one that can be seen as comical. It is better to just correct the error and move on. I do that with many odd little errors in your prose: I do not bring them to your attention, even if they strike me as comical. I correct them and move on because it is more polite that way. Invertzoo (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * About errors and corrections, I wanted to say that when you are starting new stubs based on an identified image (especially of marine snail shells), you may want to first check to make sure that the ID is actually correct, by running a google image search on the binomial name. In the last few weeks I have found several cases where the image was in fact wrongly identified in stubs that you started. We cannot always trust IDs that other people put on an image; they are well-intentioned, and usually they believe they have the shell correctly identified, but every so often they get it wrong. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your great improvement of the Platydemus manokwari. I will not get the image of it. Feel free to propose a DYK hook. One hook is on the Portal:Gastropods already. --Snek01 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Kerry slug
Are you prepared to participate in the FAC, and convinced that the article is ready to re-appear at FAC? There are suggestions on the FAC page that it was brought back prematurely, so I'd like to have your opinion on its readiness, in light of the commentary there. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback! Regards,  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries
It's clearly not your fault or the project's; it's just a single editor who's coming at it from the wrong direction. If the rest of you ever have an article you're targeting for featured status, I'd be happy to give it a going over pre-FAC. I know nothing whatever about the subject matter, but I'm a competent copyeditor, know my image copyright rules, and know most of the formatting stuff they look for at FAC (though not all of it). Best of luck, Steve Smith (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)