Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods

This is a noticeboard for messages to people working on articles relating to snails and slugs.

Flaxen elimia
Should Flaxen elimia and Pleurocera catenaria be merged? I'm unclear as to the exact relationship; flaxen elimia may be a common name of subspecies Pleurocera catenaria catenaria. Certes (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Vitta zebra
This is a super popular aquarium snail, I was surprised to find the article so short/under-sourced. I found this source: https://museucienciesjournals.cat/es/amz/issue/19-2021-amz/the-gastropod-vitta-zebra-bruguiere-1792-neritidae-a-possible-amphidromous-species-threatened-by-human-impact-in-brazilian-rivers?last= which could maybe help expand it. There's also a ton of aquarium-related pieces online but I'm less positive about reliability with those. Sock-the-guy (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm realizing this may be the wrong species. Could someone clarify if it's this or the Vittina natalensis? Sock-the-guy (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent taxon changes
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)

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

Phos--recent change not carried through
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)
 * 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. ) with  . You would still need to create any missing taxonomy templates. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Category for genus Gibberula in family Cystiscidae
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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)