User talk:Anna Frodesiak/archive6

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60

Semicassis granulata

Thanks for your note. I was planning to scrub the article clean once the AP Bio Project was officially finished, which is supposedly today, maybe this evening I guess? I am checking with the teacher about the timing. However if you read the series of posts on the AP Biology Project talk page here: [1], you will see that the teacher said on 8th January "I now feel compelled to make it the class mission to drive this article to FA". I don't know if he still feels that way about it or not. Invertzoo (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that page before. These templates all look alike after a while. FA?? Quite a challenge. I think just bringing an article from scratch up to the size of Semicassis granulata would be enough of a challenge. The standard for FA is high.

And I think the students are very sweet. Enthusiasm, cooperation and chaos, all at once. Let me know if you need me. Meanwhile, I'll be hiding out in a different part of the Wiki-sea......where it's quiet. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes GA is hard enough for a gastropod article, FA is very hard indeed. Mind you, if the whole class all worked together on it of course they could improve it quite a bit, but the point that Snek was making in his comments is that in reality there seems to be not that much in the way of good sources out there for info on this species (and ditto with many other species too.) There's not very much info on the web about it, and not too terribly much in the standard regional shell books either. I don't know how many serious science papers have ever been published on this species, if any. If it happened to have been (for example) a commercially importance food species, then it would have been studied a lot more of course. Invertzoo (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again Anna, I have started cleaning it up today. If you take a look and see anything that you think you can fix please go ahead or ask me, or Snek or David Cavallari if you are not sure of something. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The old image. When you say you miss the old image, do you mean these images? [2] Because they turned out to be another species, even though they were uploaded as S. undulata. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I meant. I didn't catch the swap. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah these sea snails turned out to be from Italy, so they were another species that sort of looks similar. Invertzoo (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've thought about it

Well anna, I've thought about it, and guess what? I've joined Project Gastropods! Just tell me what I can do to improve gastropod articles 'k?--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Phyllidiopsis fissuratus

Great. Let's start off with this little fellow. It is a nudibranch. We can work together to make the article in your sandbox. I've taken the liberty of making a couple of sandboxes for you. I hope that's okay. I named them Red and Blue because that way it's easier to remember what's in them. I have started Phyllidiopsis fissuratus here

What you can do is to fill in some or all of the sections with information. Here are some examples to follow: Chromodoris joshi, Phyllidiella pustulosa, Helix pomatia. Don't forget to add references. Remember to rephrase the information to avoid plagarism. You can find information in many places including:

Google

Google Books

Google Scholar

The gastropod resources section on User:Anna_Frodesiak

Then, when it is ready, I will add the taxobox for you. After that, you can create the new article and stick the information in.

If you have any questions, please ask me. Many of the other members of the project are very busy right now helping high school students, so please ask me anything you like. Good luck. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Good, I've already started working on it!--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 14:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've researched all I can, and I think the article is ready!--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 22:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well done. Let me just fix the ref, and copy edit, and fact check. Give me 10 min. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, as you may have noticed by now in the edit history, I quickly added a bit of stuff on it too, Invertzoo (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well everybody, I've copied and pasted. The article is created!--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done. Congratulations. If you would like to select another, please do. I am happy to collaborate. Try here. I suggest avoiding Dentiovula dosruosa as I cannot find information on it, and I am not 100% sure the ID is correct. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That cowry I think that name is almost certainly spelled wrongly, perhaps both the genus and the species names. There is a new book out on the Ovulidae, but it is a bit expensive, and I do not have access to it. So we must put that image on hold for a while I think. You could maybe try asking the person who took the picture where he got the name from. Anyway, thanks for your work! Invertzoo (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the advice. It's probably best to simply bypass that one. There are others to choose from. Thanks again for your help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Salmon 01.jpg

Hi Anna. That file you contributed, File:Salmon 01.jpg, is great. However, would you be willing to replace the yellow background (which seems strange in a marine context) with another colour, preferably a neutral white? Thanks. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My image-editing software is not very good. I think you need to ask someone else. Sorry that I can't help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Umm....

Umm.. I think someone beat us too it. Look here. Thanks a ton for the award! 8]--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. How did you find out? A team of gastropod commandos did that. They work fast. Evidently, about two years faster.

It has never occured to me to search Wikipedia for synonyms just to be sure. I wonder if I have made lots of duplicate articles. (comments from the Invertzoo welcome here)

But don't worry. We didn't make the article yet. I just struck out something about this that I had posted on your talk page. Ironic. I will shop for another if you like. You can too.

Check out Phidiana hiltoni. Click edit and see how the image should be in the taxobox.

You have an unneeded redirect in your red sandbox.

The award? You gave it to yourself. It's that kind of award. Cheerio. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles on two different Synonyms I can only talk about the snail and slug articles, because that's the only area of the wiki I know really well, but as far as I can tell, yes, this is something that does happen every once in a while on Wikipedia, but not very frequently. However even just one year ago there were not nearly as many species articles as there are now, and that number is constantly increasing, so it will quite likely be something that happens more often in the future. So I guess yes, we should try to keep an eye out for this kind of thing. (Not to complicate matters unduly, but one expert's published opinion of which species are synonyms can be different from another expert's published opinion, so that is where citing sources is really helpful). One thing we can do over time is to try to make sure that all the family articles list the genera correctly, and then we can try to make sure that the genus articles lists all the species correctly according to a named expert, and then hopefully we can keep this a little bit under control. But yes, it is a problem not only on here, but also in museum collections, online lists of species, and so on, in other words it is a natural problem in biology. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How did I find out? Well, I was googling for the sandbox article when suddenly, I found a link sayinPhidiana hiltoni: blah blah blah. I clicked on it and that's how I found it FYI.--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: You gave me permission to give it to myself. You you indirectly gave it to me(technically)

Re: Articles on two different Synonyms. Very interesting and duly noted. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:49, 19

January 2010 (UTC)

Need Taco Boxes

I have started Tambja olivaria in my green sandbox. I need tacoboxes for it.--Microsoft 1000 Defender and Ruler of Cyberspace! 12:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm just in the middle of something else. No worries, fill in the body for now. I'll put it in. Happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Koman90's talk page.
Message added 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Koman90, A+ (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: A Question

Hello, Anna Frodesiak. You have new messages at Viriditas's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

No winter?

That's because you were hibernating! :) Viriditas (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your note

Hi Anna,

Ha, thanks for finding the extra Wp conference picture. Nice! Yes I am fairly well and NYC has been warmish for a couple of weeks. Hope all is well with you.

Snek/Michal is around, as you can see from his contributions, here [3] although it is true that he was not here for 4 days. I also think it's possible that he did not see your note about Megasurcula carpenteriana. If I were you I would ask him again, maybe in a new post referring back to the older one. He has a few other images on that list that need stubs too if he will upload the images.

I will also wait and see what happens with Micro101, and also with SuperHamster. When you are that young it is easy to get distracted and forget what else you are supposed to be doing. I think it's OK to drop a note every so often to say how are you doing just to remind them pleasantly.

Yes, you could take a genera article that has a large species list and make stubs for all the species. That could certainly be useful. The question is which genera. The tiny freshwater and brackish water snail family Hydrobiidae has about a thousand species, but... very few people would want to expand stub articles, because most of these snails are a bit obscure, not much is known about many of them, and they are tiny and rather boring-looking.

People are more likely to want to add info to an article on a more glamorous species. I will try to see if I can think of a few glamorous sea snail genera which have a fair number of species listed. Although I have to say that in some cases, the species list we currently have is not really reliable yet, and so most species lists might need to be checked and properly referenced before they are used. For example the genus Cypraea has now been divided into many genera, but our list does not reflect that yet.

I think we could certainly use more sea snail stubs. Currently the project is overly weighted in favor of land species.

You could consider making stubs for the other species in the genus Lambis but maybe first you should ask Daniel here [4] if the list is good and can he find a reference for it? And you could also ask him which genera he knows have a lot of species listed that need stubs and the species list is based on a good source already? He might have some suggestions. Maybe Cassis? Some large flashy seashells would be good!

And yes a bot could in theory do this kind of task, although a bot would have trouble with the fact that some species have authority and date listed and some don't, and some have a common name listed and some don't, and some have the common name first and some don't. When a bot generates a lot of articles, it is very important to get everything right before they are created, otherwise instead of saving us time it can make a great deal more work for us. (As I go through all of the gastropod stubs fixing them up routinely, I have so far worked on about a thousand bot-generated stubs from 2007, made on land snails and freshwater snail species, and most of those articles have not been touched at all by a human until now.)

If you are casting around for a new tack to take here in terms of getting something worthwhile done on gastropods that is also interesting, I will see if I can come up with something else in case this sounds not so great.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess Snek missed the note. I will write to him again.

Hydrobiidae looks good. I don't mind making stubs for articles that are obscure. Wikipedia is a long-term thing. I like to fill in gaps. I am a bit concerned that the taxoboxes will be invalid in a year. Do you forsee whole genera or family switches, or are we talking about adding an extra line to taxoboxes?

I will check out Cassis. That sounds good. I will ask Daniel about Lambis. Let me know if you think of something else. Thanks for the reply. Cheers! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the taxonomy of Hydrobiidae looks a bit unsettled. I might pass on that one.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Conus

Yes! The Cone snail genus is good choice for generating more species stubs (although the list we have unfortunately does not say which sources it was taken from.) Eocene is more recent than Cretaceous. I see Eocene is backed up by a reference. I don't actually see Cretaceous claimed, the colored stripe in the taxobox overlaps some of the Paleogene, which is OK. Do you see Cretaceous mentioned somewhere? Anyway I also wanted to point out that we already have several more Conus articles than are listed on that page, so it would be great if you can add those to the list on that page. You can see what they are by putting Conus into the Wp search slot. You might also want to look at (and add?) this list of Western Atlantic cones from a very reputable source (Malacolog is by Dr. Gary Rosenberg of ANSP) and add them to our list of Conus species, giving Malacolog as one reference. So thanks again for all your hard work, which is very much appreciated at WikiProject Gastropods. We have come a long way recently with your help! Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh and if you don't mind, since there are supposedly about 500 species of cones, you might want to separate them by each letter of the alphabet and have a CompactTOC (table of contents) at the top like Snek did for List of malacologists. The code for that looks easy. If you want some help just ask, Invertzoo (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Snek changed Cretaceous to Eocene in the taxobox just a few hours ago. I guess I should leave the fossil range out of the new stubs, as different species probably came along at different times. I will hunt for more Conus species to add to the list before I get started. Also, there are lots of nice Conus images at Commons. Is there any sort of list that shows which Conus species are venomous? Thanks for your advice, and please give the sample a look-see and give me the go-ahead. I will check out the code and figure it out. Finally, you mentioned "...this list of Western Atlantic cones...". What list? It is always a pleasure help with the gastropod project. Cheers.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very kind to help us so much Anna, we really appreciate it. Yes, leave out the fossil range as it will be different for each species. Actually, sorry I left the link out before, duh, I meant this list of the Western Atlantic cone snail species, click here on the little blue arrow, this link here [5] Invertzoo (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Conus marmoreus says "This snail has a venomous sting, like all cone snails." All? Is this so? Shall I include this in the lead? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all cone snails are venomous, they are all hunters, predatory carnivores. They paralyze their prey using a harpoon-like tooth and an associated poison gland. Apparently when you are a human, the sting of one of the small species of cone snail is not serious, it is like a bee sting, but that is enough venom to paralyze a sea worm so that the snail can swallow it. There are a few instances of stings from the largest Indo-Pacific cone snails killing people when a person picked one up and held it in their hand too long. As for whether a mention of venomous should be in the lead or not, I guess it could be, if you think you can find a good place to mention it. Invertzoo (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and which Conus article do you want me to look at as a sample that you can copy for the other ones? Do you mean Conus marmoreus? Invertzoo (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And can I ask, where did you get that long list from? Can we make a citation for it if necessary? Invertzoo (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And if you do end up adding species from that long list, ignore the ones that are listed as "Conus comptus A" and things like that, those are subspecies that haven't been named yet. Also the authorities "Sowerby ii" and "Sowerby iii" should be written "Sowerby II" and "Sowerby III". Invertzoo (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read the article Cone snail to get some background first. Invertzoo (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the sample. I will check out the link you gave me and I will read Cone snail. The huge list is from here. I am just about to replace the list with a more formatted list. It will be raw and full of mistakes, but an improvement. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me what I can do to improve the big list. One obvious problem is multiple entries for a species with different auths. I don't know how to handle that. As for the link you gave me [6], there are only 140 records so I will disregard it unless you recommend otherwise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As for stubs, maybe a bot would be best considering the quantity.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For matters about the big Conus list, maybe we could centralize the discussion here, as it is currently spread among 3 talk pages. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Conus list

See the reply on my talk page. JoJan (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)