User talk:Shellnut/Archive 2

Barnstar

 * Thanks for the barnstar. It is a pleasure to help newcomers. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 14:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ganeshk! So my photos are OK then?  Thanks to the great mentoring from Invertzoo and yourself I have "learned the ropes" and finally feel comfortable editing articles and adding photos. Shellnut (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your photos are great; may be a white background will be better? Please read this page on how to make it easier for Encyclopedia of Life to start using your Wikimedia Commons pictures. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 16:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ganeshk for the help and kind comments. I read the link but it is a bit either technical or esoteric for me to understand well.  I do not even know how to search for photos/images on WikiCommons let alone how to put photos in categories or groups.  The search mechanism and indexing is a mystery to me.  When I save photos/images I identify them by family, genus, species and author.  I suppose that any computer search engine or "bot" would be able to find them with those characteristics in the descriptive line.  As to black background vs. white (or some other color) I have been experimenting with my photos for my personal shell collection (to add them to my sea shell collection database program that I wrote and am marketing) and found that the background color is generally better in black as the shell "pops" off the background and the contrast is better, and white is a better color background for naturally dark shells (but you need a lot of flash and a longer exposure time to avoid the "back lit" affect).  I have blue and green backgrounds that I have tried, but they are usually not aesthetically pleasing and can clash with the shell's natural colors.  I am interested in learning more about searching and indexing images in WikiCommons. Shellnut (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Purpurellus pinniger
Hello Shellnut. When you say, "The varix on the outer lip ends well above the columna, which is curved, and ends in a wavy flattened edge similar to the varices in shape.". I don't know what you mean by "columna"; do you mean siphonal canal? I don't think you mean columella. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why of course Invertzoo! Thanks for catching my mistake.  I was probably a bit tired and misspoke there.  Glad to have you helping mentor my first few articles so I can get my bearing straight. I liked your recent article in the Festivus!!!Shellnut (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. When you are working on an edit page, there should be a spellchecker that lights up for any really odd word that you type, although I think I preferred the simpler spell checker that they used to have rather than the fancy one they have now which tries to change things, sometimes in annoying ways. By the way, I put a mention of Purpurellus pinniger onto our Portal page as a "Did you know?" Have you ever seen our Portal? Only a few people look at it each day (about 23 hits a day), but it is quite pretty . Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Changing ("moving") the name of a file on Commons
Hello again Shellnut. If I remember correctly, a while ago you asked me how to change the file name of an image that you had already uploaded to Commons, perhaps because it accidentally had a spelling error in it? The guideline page for that process is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:File_renaming

However I don't think you can "move" the name of the file yourself yet, as you do not have the "file mover" right yet, but our gastropod project member member User:Anna Frodesiak is qualified to do it for you, so if you just leave her a note on her talk page here, telling her the name of the file(s) as it currently stands and the way it or they should really be spelled, I am sure she will do it for you after the weekend.

Changing ("moving") the name of Wikipedia article
I should probably also now explain a related thing: it is quite easy to change the name of a Wikipedia article, if perhaps you started one with a spelling error in it or find one with a spelling error in it, or if you need to change an article title for some other valid reason. At the top of every Wikipedia article there is a tab with a small down-pointing arrow on it that is a little to the right of where the Edit button is. If you click on that arrow, underneath you will see that it says "Move". Clicking on that "Move" will take you to a page where if you wish you can change the title of the article, or "Move" it as it is officially known. You may not need to know all this now, but at some point you will need to know how, and if necessary you can ask me again how to do it. Invertzoo (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bouchet & Rocroi 2005 paper

 * The full text of Malacologia vol. 47 (1-2)] is available online. Invertzoo (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see that was actually not the paper you were looking for... Invertzoo (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Image for the genus as well as the species
Hi again Shellnut, I just wanted to say that when you add one of your very nice images to a species article that previously had no image at all, it is also worth looking at the corresponding genus article. If the genus article also has no image (as is often the case), it is worth copying the same image into the taxobox for the genus, and blue-linking the name of the species so that people can go look at it the species article they want to. I just did that with your image of Bernaya teulerei; I put it in the genus article Bernaya. That way we get twice as much benefit from your work! Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I also just did the same thing for Zacatrophon. Invertzoo (talk) 21:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi again Invertzoo! Thank you once again for all of the help and wonderful suggestions.  I went back and recropped some of by earlier pictures that were small with a large blank border, and fixed their links on all pages som that the better images show up.  I followed your lead and added a photo for the genus Boreotrophon, and added a new species Boreotrophon stuarti which I think is one of the more attractive species in the genus.  Since the original description in Latin fron 1880 was available I thought to add it under my own personally written description (which is very different in language and format from Abbott's and Oldroyd's texts).  Sadly, while researching WoRMS I learned that Chicoreus celinamarumari is deemed a synonym for Chicoreus orchidiflorus, which for some reason I thought was determined to be a distinct species years and years ago.  Oh well, I added a nice photo anyway with description and distribution sections to follow soon.  I hope you are doing well! Shellnut (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is really great that you trimmed down your other images to leave less background, it makes them a lot more striking and more easy to use. And thanks so much for all the other work you had been doing, including creating new species articles and adding new images to other articles that had none. You are turning out to be a great asset to Project Gastropods and exactly the kind of new member that I was hoping might show up! Thanks for asking: I am doing well, the range of motion is 120º or so ( up from 90º) and the doctor told me today that I can unlock my leg brace all of the time now, and that's a big step in the right direction. Invertzoo (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Brilliant work on the text for Boreotrophon stuarti! It won't be long until I am asking you for advice rather than vice versa! Invertzoo (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Invertzoo! Glad to hear that your range of motion has improved so much!!!  Now comes the hard and not so fun part, strengthening and slowly stretching the joint over time.  Preseverence and a good attitude is a must.  I am not so sure what I think about all those joint supplements out there, but some people swear by them.


 * Thank you for the cudos on my work. I am adding more photos now, and will go back and add descriptions, distribution and references.  I have quite a few Coralliophilinae (formerly a full fledged family, not sure why the demotion ... like Pluto, huh) with neat photos to add.  I am thinking that just adding the photos and measurements is a good start since article writing takes so much longer, and since once the books are open it makes sense to do several at once.  I am glad to be of assistance.Shellnut (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The Coralliophilidae images are terrific additions, that's great. I am assuming that Bouchet & Rocroi felt that molecular studies showed that Coralliophilidae are not really separate from Muricidae after all, but we will see if the taxonomy stays that way over time. Invertzoo (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

About Babelomurex longispinosus
Hi Shellnut, JoJan did a bit of research and here is what he found out:

"OBIS states that Latiaxis pisori D'Attilio & Emerson, 1980 is a synonym of Babelomurex longispinosus (Suzuki, 1972) . Original description in: Kosuge, S. & Suzuki, M., 1985. {Illustrated catalogue of Latiaxisis and its related groups. Family Coralliophilidae.}. Institute of Malacology, Tokyo, Special Publication 1:1-83. I think this settles this question. JoJan(talk) 07:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)"

I have fond memories of Anthony D'Atillio from when I live in SD in 1970/71. Bill Emerson is still coming in to AMNH here in NYC almost every weekday, although he is not doing any research.

Hope this info is what you needed. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Invertzoo!!! And thanks to JoJan!!!  I did try to do some on line research on the issue, but the only reference I found was in Gastropods.com, and of course the photos too looked very similar, but I felt that a reference was needed.


 * I too have fond memories of Anthony D'Attilio from the SD Shell Club events. He was always talking about "that's the last drawing I am going to do for the auction", yet every year he did another one.  I have four of them now, two I purchased after he died.  I never got to meet William Emerson, sadly, but when I was a kid living in New York he was my shelling hero - my first really good shell book was "The American Museum of Natural History Guide to Shells" by Emerson & Jacobson, which followed my first little Golden Press paperback book by R. Tucker Abbott ("Seashells of North America").  Ah ... nostalgia.


 * I will NOW put the photo in for Babelomurex longispinosus (Suzuki, 1972). Thanks again to both of you! Shellnut (talk) 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I didn't do much, JoJan was the one who really worked on that question. Invertzoo (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for all of your help - both JoJan and Invertzoo!!! JoJan, are you the "go to" guy for taxonomy questions on the Coralliphilinae?  I am seeing a number of discrepancies between the genera listed on Wikipedia currently, and what is in WoRMS.  I assume we want to follow the lead of WoRMS on this, so Liniaxis will need a revamp, as two of those species are listed under Coralliophila and one of them is lost in the world somewhere.  I am currently researching that issue and hope to do a clean up of the article(s) soon.  Your insight is welcome and appreciated.Shellnut (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Common names
Just one very small thing: wherever you want to include a common name (where there really is a common name), on WikiProject Gastropods we have decided to try to stick to the convention that common names should not be all capitalized, but instead should take sentence case, so, like this: lightning whelk, etc. Of course common names that include a surname or the names of an island or river etc, they retain the appropriate capital letter. If you come across articles that have common names written with all capitals, please feel free to change them. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. I usually do not use common names, but in the case of some of the more popularly known ones I understand, i.e. the queen conch.Shellnut (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Changing a file name on Commons
Hi Shellnut. I realize I should tell you that there is a much easier way to ask other people to change the name of a file on Commons if the name is incorrect or misleading. You get into the description section on the edit page for that file, and then you put in this piece of markup:

Then where it says "newname.ext" you fill in the new name that you want the file to have, like for example, Tutufu bubo.jpg Then where it says "reason", you say why the name should be changed to that. And then you do an edit summary and then save. In a few days someone else will change the name of the file for you. Invertzoo (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I went ahead and added that new name request to the Commons page for that file,. Hopefully in a few days it will have the new name. In the meantime it is actually OK for it to be on the Babelomurex longspinosus page because its name will change automatically wherever it is shown, once it is officially changed on Commons. Invertzoo (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Invertzoo!!! I only have had a few like that since I realized that some of my species have been synonymized (is that a word?), so I have been checking WoRMS first before adding image files and naming them.

P.S.

 * I have a few really cool Astraea images that could be used to make new Barnstar awards, such as Astraea undosa. Just a thought.Shellnut (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes! Your Astraea undosa (now known as Megastraea undosa) image makes a great gastropod barnstar! Well done for putting it together. I will put the basic blank for it onto the project page as a barnstar that folks can give out to other people. However you'd better not give me any more barnstars in the next month or two as people will start to think I am paying you for them! Invertzoo (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Megastraea undosa

New service award.....and bunny


You are entitled to the service award. The bunny is bonus. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Anna for the Wiki-love!!!!!Shellnut (talk) 17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding categories while uploading to the Commons
Hi Shellnut, I've followed your additions of marvelous photos with great interest. In the previous section, you asked how to add categories to your images in the Commons. It's really easy. When using the upload wizard, in the third window (description) below you can see the link: add categories and more information.... Click on the link and add the category and that's it. In the case of File:Latiaxis pilsbri.jpg, the category was (note the different name as pilsbri is a misspelling -  always check first with WoRMS ). In case this category shows up as a red link after completing the upload, then this means there's no category yet for the genus. Click on the red link and then make a category with a piped link. In this case this would have been. In case there is still a red link for the genus category, this means that there's no category yet for the family. Then do the same thing again, and make a category for the family. In this case this would have been (no piped link necessary). I hope this helps. JoJan (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In case you're interested, there is a useful tool for finding free images on the internet (especially FlickR), suited for the Commons : FIST. JoJan (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you JoJan!!! I think I understand the categories thing now; you all have been most helpful (Invertzoo, Ganeshk, Anna, and JoJan).  I tried your new tool, FIST, but for some reason can't get it to do a search for me.  Is there a different log in and password than what I already have?
 * In FIST you have to make a TUSC password (different from your Commons password) here . On top you fill in the title of a wikipedia article (e.g. Phyllonotus ). You tick the box with "articles", instead of "Categories or articles". The number of results in FLickR: I usually change that to 95. The other databases give sometimes also a result. Below in "List" : tick the box in "All articles" instead of "Articles that have no image". Fill in your TUSC password and your Commons user name. Click on "Do it !". You will get 3 results from FliCKR for Phyllonotus. The tool will mention if results are already in the Commons. Results from FlickR can be uploaded to the Commons with a built-in tool FlickR2Commons (but first check the name with WoRMS and check if the image corresponds with the image in gastropods.com (www.gastropods.com), where it sometimes is mentioned under a synonym - yes, taxonomy can be difficult ). In this tool you can change the name of the file if necessary before uploading. In this case : Phyllonotus erythrostomus is given by WoRMS as a synonym of Chicoreus erythrostomus. You will have to fill in again your TUSK password. After uploading ignore the mention "There seems to be a problem". Click on "Edit the new description page.", where you can add all necessary data and categories. And that's all to it. JoJan (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Shell size for images
Hi Shellnut, If you end up measuring any of the shells whose images you have uploaded, let me know and I will be happy to add the size in mm to the descriptions. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! I have measured a few of them and have added the sizes to the descriptions in the taxoboxes.  I probably need to go back and do the rest of them - soon, like before I get to far adrift with adding many more.  So far my notes reflect 21 gastropod species that I have added photos for.  I will try to go through all of them this weekend and add sizes, just like I fixed the description and distribution sections.  By the way, I "think" I got the hang of writing descriptions from scratch.  Let me know how bad (or not) they are.  Thanks!!!Shellnut (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's great that you are adding sizes, and I am glad to hear you are attempting to catch up on measurements for the 21 species you have added images for. That's really great you are doing this, especially since you have in your collection quite a few species that not a lot of people will have seen, and thus those species might be very difficult for us to get images of without your contributions! Thanks also for creating the list of articles you have either started or expanded, that's very helpful. I have looked at a couple of your tuned-up descriptions etc, and they look quite good, but I have not yet really had the chance to compare them with Keen, which takes a while to do. I have been very busy this week with physical therapy etc, so I have not had as much time on Wikipedia as I would like to. Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Invertzoo! I wish you well with the PT this weekend and ongoing.  It is really important to work hard at it and to not slack off, as tempting as it will be at times.  My wife shattered her knee cap and the rehab from that was difficult, painful and depressing, but with hard work she is as close to 100% as possible.  On the shell stuff, thanks for the help, mentoring and encouragement!  I was not too sure how my personal attempts at writing descriptions would be received.  I did complete re-writes with the shell in hand and a loupe in the other.  Only after writing my own description first, did I allow myself a peek and compare with Keen, McLean, Abbott, or Radwn & D'Attilio, etc.  I felt a bit inadequate by comparison in many cases, since I used less techincal language.  On the measurements, I hope to get those completed this weekend, certainly before adding more images and write ups.Shellnut (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, you know what? If your descriptions are less technical than the professional ones, that is actually an improvement! We want Wikipedia to be clear and easy to understand for everyone. As it stands, some of our description sections in some of the gastropod articles (especially sections about anatomy etc that were taken verbatim from public domain sources), are stuffed with professional jargon and are just about impossible to understand, and that is not good! The best thing is to try to either blue link any piece of shell jargon like spire, or aperture, or columella, or to explain it in parentheses immediately following the use of the word. Invertzoo (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! Should I be adding blue link by using square parens around technical words, or should I be explaining it in round parens, i.e. aperature vs. aperature (opening)?  Just want to know what the right way to do it is.  Thanks again for all your help and mentoring!!!!  P.S. - I added a bunch of images today, will continue with the Coralliophilinae images for a while, then go back and add descriptions, etc., in the not too distant future.  Take care!Shellnut (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again Shellnut. To be most helpful to the general reader you could blue link each piece of shell jargon terminology AND give an explanation in parentheses after it I guess. But a blue link is a heck of a lot better than simply using jargon with no explanation. The Wikipedia help page (this one is easier to understand than most of them) with the Wikipedia guidelines about jargon is here. By the way, watch out for typos, it's it's spelled Aperture, not Aperature. Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Invertzoo! Thanks.  That explains it "mo betta" for me! :)  I sometimes have a lapse of memory on silly little things, yet remember the most mundane detailed facts.  And, yes spelling can be one of those mundane things that hurts.  Part of my problem was the 6 years of Spanish I took, it really screwed up my spelling.  That and the whole East coast vs. West coast thingy, with some teachers expecting the "u" in colour, honour, behaviour, etc., and gray vs. grey, etcetera, whereas others marked you down for it.  Argh!  Lastly, I suffer from "guy fingers" and tend to hit them with a hammer or otherwise bang them up too much.  I will try to be much more careful on spelling things right the first time around ... like "undosa" not "undosua" (that was from not deleting enough on "undosum" last night.  Thanks again for all you do!!!!Shellnut (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Shellnut. Welcome from me too. If there's anything you ever need, just ask. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Anna! Thanks for the welcome.  I do have a question that you can probably help me with (based upon what Invertzoo has told me about your talents and abilities), namely: how to I get my shell images categorized?  I put the info in when I enter them and upload them, and I THOUGHT that the family and species name (plus author and date) was for catrgorization.  There is no simple input line for that when the photos/images are uploaded.  Where do I do this?  I have probably uploaded in excess of 40 images of shells in the last month or so, all have their latin names, family and author data.  That, plus learning how to search for images is frustrating for me.  I have figured out pretty well how to upload images, edit and create articles, but this mystifies me for some reason.  Also (one more question), what is your background in malacology / conchology?Shellnut (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Shellnut. I don't actually have talents and abilities. I'm just friendly, so people compliment me a lot. :) Okay, I will now bombard you with information:


 * How categories get added
 * The description you add when uploading an image doesn't automatically add a category. After you upload the image, you can then add the cat. Here's how: Just go to the image at commons and click edit. Then you can add the appropriate category at the bottom. This is one of your images that has a category.
 * It was JoJan who added the category to that page.


 * Searching images
 * I'm not sure why you find that frustrating. It's sinchy. Go to Wikicommons and enter the word.
 * Anna means enter the binomial name of the species you are looking for in the search slot on Commons and hit enter. If the binomial name does not come up with anything, then try the genus name by itself, that should give results. If all else fails the family name will have results. Are you having trouble making sense of the page of results you get after a search? Is that part of the problem?


 * The image's home
 * If you want to check out an image while in an article, it's important to remember this: When you click an image in an article, it takes you to a Wikipedia page: example. From there, look for "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below.", and click "description page there". That will take you to the image's home. That's where you add the categories (cats). Why doesn't clicking the image in an article take you directly to the image's home at Wikicommons? No idea.


 * The right category
 * Are you clear on which category an image goes into? The basic idea is to add the category at the very end of the root. Often, that is a genus, but it can also be a species, especially if there are numerous images of the same species, or that cat will likely be populated with more of the same.
 * Anna means that when you need to add a category to a new image, use the binomial name of the species as the category. If that category already exists, it will show up as a blue link. If the category does not exist yet, it will show up as a red link, in which case you may want to use the genus name as the category instead.


 * HotCat
 * This gadget makes adding cats easy. Go to Wikicommons, and click preferences. See "Tools for categories". Click on HotCat. Then you can +/- cats without clicking edit. Just go to the bottom of the page and you can do it from there. You can enable HotCat at Wikipedia too. It's a good tool.


 * Me
 * As for my experience, I don't have any. I started working at Project Gastropod by adding some composite taxobox images (examples: Vetigastropoda, Neritimorpha). Then I started zillions of missing family stubs, and made some species stubs. That's pretty much it. I sort of learn as I go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Anna is amazing. She is more brilliant and learns faster than I can even imagine. She has written articles on almost anything you can think of, and has no fear at all at hurling herself into an arena she knows nothing about. But as she says, you can copy the framework from an existing article and the sort of fake your way through the rest a lot of the time, using Google searches to help you!
 * IRC
 * IRC online help is soooooo good. Real johnny-on-the-spot help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Anna, and thank you for the explanation!!! Now I know HOW to add a category, and where to do it.  I still need to understand a thing or two.  First, is it a bright idea to have more than one category for an image?  For example, it can be categorized under the species name, or under the genus, or the family.  When the taxonomic revisionists have their way with things often times a species is moved from one genus to another, so finding a species gets harder.  Would doing a category by family help this?  Second, in categorizing I assume that this enables people to search images better so they do not necessarily have to upload their own images to put an article together well when acting as an editor - what do you think should be done in that regard?  Third, I really need to play around with these tools, like HotCat, and learn how to search for images.  Finally, I think you are probably being way too self depricating - you have to have some skill, knowledge and talent otherwise you would never have ever attempted to work up all of those articles, empty or not, on such exciting topics as molluscan taxonomy!  Are you a shell collector, a museum volunteer, or a professional?  Thanks for your interest and help.Shellnut (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * First question
 * We only add one taxonomy cat: the one furthest down the line. If there's a genus change, then I guess we have to change the names of the images, and put them in a new cat, and change the parent cat name on that page, so that when clicking up a level, it goes to the right place. You could ask Invertzoo about that.
 * Yes in terms of taxonomy use only one category, the binomial name of the species is ideal. The rest of the category tree exists already so it nests automatically within higher categories, you don't have to put those in yourself.


 * We can also add other cats not about taxonomy, like "edible mollusks". The parent of that cat might be "seafood" or something. A child cat might be "edible mollusks of the Great Lakes" or something.
 * This is all true, but as far as I know it does not come up very often on Commons, and is mostly relevant when you are doing Categories for Wikipedia articles.


 * Second question
 * Yes. It is to help visitors navigate and find stuff. And yes, editors like me, shop around for images with no articles, and then make articles. You ask what should be done in that regard. But, I'm not sure what you mean.
 * If you find an image of a species on Commons for which there is no article, I would encourage you to create a stub article for that species and put a copy of the image into the article, which is what Anna has done and myself too many times. However, generally people use the search slot on Commons if they simply want to know if a certain species has any images available. People do also click on a category and see what images are in that whole category, out of curiosity.
 * Third question
 * HotCat is for adding and removing cats, not for finding images.


 * The rest
 * I do have a reasonable understanding of how to put a basic article together. But, I usually just go to another article and rip off the whole structure. It's the easiest way. As for figuring out HotCat, etc., just monkey around with it, and in two seconds you will say: "Ah, I get it." You can always revert your mistakes. I rely on common sense, and usually read up only if I get stuck. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Shellnut, I have added some comments of my own in small letters next to what Anna has said. Invertzoo (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Anna and Invertzoo!! Thanks for all the help here, it makes much more sense now.  Does anyone have a good picture of tangle nets in use that can be added to the article?  I tried searching on Commons but came up empty handed.  I could do a diagram, but a photo is so much nicer.Shellnut (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Invertzoo: Thanks for the clarification, and compliments. You are too kind. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shellnut: Sure, a tangle net picture would be great. In my opinion, photos are hugely important. I even added images of potato peelers and brooms in China. Now, here's a challenge: We need a good picture of snail slime. Something close up. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Anna, here is a snail slime image. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are any of these tangle nets?


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Google has an advance image search that allows creative commons searches. Flickr has a similar [http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/? search function] as well. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ganeshk. I can only see http://www.flickr.com/photos/triggerhapi/315578934/. The rest are blocked by the great firewall of China. Others must check them out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The snail slime image on Flickr is great! Can we upload it? Invertzoo (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Those images are indeed tangled nets, but I don't think they are tangle nets, although I don't really know what tangle nets look like in the form they are used to trap mollusks. The tangle net for mollusks was invented in the Philippines: it's a tangle of fine fishing nets specially used to trap mollusks in deeper water. It was invented by local shell hunters who supply the international shell trade. There is an article about this technique here: Invertzoo (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Howdy again Invertzoo. I saw that article in my research and I believe I even cited it as a reference in the tangle nets article I wrote.  Clearly back breaking and smelly work.  I have searched and searched for images only to come up empty handed.  I know that Philip Clover is getting ready to go over to the Philippines, maybe I can get him to take a photo and release the copyright for Wikipedia.  Till then I am going to sketch a diagram and make it into a .pdf file to use on the article.Shellnut (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
Hi Shellnut, have you thought about archiving your talk page? — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 00:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ganeshk. No, I hadn't thought about it but it is a good idea.  Something else to learn! :) Shellnut (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

/Archive1
 * Well Ganeshk, that's my attempt. It seems to have worked, maybe not too pretty but it's there.Shellnut (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That was good. I have moved it to /Archive 1 so that it shows up correctly on the archive box that I just added. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So Ganeshk, did I end up doing the archive or did you do it? Should I have put a space between the word "Archive" and the pair of closed square brackets?Shellnut (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You did the archive. I just moved it to new page with a space between Archive and the number. When the first archive page grows large, just create /Archive 2. That will automatically show up in the archive box above. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A more advanced option is to have a bot automatically archive old threads. I use it on my talk page with the following code,

The instructions to setup the bot are here. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 01:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you! So Ganeshk, do I just copy and paste this code?  If so, where is it best to be on the page, at the beginning or the end?Shellnut (talk) 01:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added the code to the top of this page. The bot will archive threads with timestamps only. If you have any unsigned thread like the TUSC thread above, you will need to add the unsigned template with a timestamp or just manually archive that thread. — Ganeshk  ( talk ) 02:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)