Talk:Abalone/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
buttons
My Great Uncle said his father made buttons from abalone shells at a factory in Illinois during the 1920's. Does this still go on?
This is a funny place to ask. But yes, the Chinese are quite fond of using abalone shell as wood inlay and more rarely as buttons. Abalone shell jewelry is also quite popular in New Zealand. lk 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
clean up
can i ask for this page to be cleaned up? i noticed several repeated/redundant parts in it, including duplicate paragraphs, repeated images and so on would be easier to read, thanks ~BlueFoxx~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.80.112 (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
merger proposal
To all intents and purposes, the term 'bao yu' is identical to Abalone, and is only so known in the Sinophone world. It makes little sense to have the 'bao yu' article in parallel. Merging the articles would not result in a super-sized article. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- This is part of the cuisine project. The same way it was split from Chicken (food) vs Chicken the animal. Benjwong (talk) 14:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
aquarium use
I have one in captivity in my aquarium, in reading the article, I was hoping to find more info about their usefulness in aquariums. It came in an algae cleanup pack, and I'm doing research on it as I type this -- IF anybody has experience with them, could you please add something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.90.163 (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Vulgar usage in China
In China, "Abalone" can also be seen as a slang term in reference to the female genitalia (due to an apparent resemblance). There are various expressions referring to abalones, and many forms of "vulgarity literature" incorporate these. As of yet, I am unable to find a source for this, however. A similar example is Juhua, which is the name of the chrysanthemum flower, however is slang for the anus due to its appearance. Chrysanthemums also play a role in the description of sexuality in some Japanese Buddhist texts due to this trait (source present in chrysanthemum article). -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 01:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Red links maybe associated with the following....
--222.64.210.218 (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Syntax Error in Species Section
There's some sort of egregious syntax error in the "Species" section that causes code to appear hovering over several of the images. I'm not adept at all with Wikipedia syntax, so I don't know how to fix it (I looked at it and tried, but couldn't do it). I thought I should note it here, since one likely won't see the error unless one scrolls to the bottom of the article. 76.167.253.199 (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
File:Abalonejewellery.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Abalonejewellery.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) |
Adductor muscle ?
Does a mollusc with one shell even have an adductor muscle ?Eregli bob (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
untitled
Fot my homework tonight I have to get the definition and place of speach for 3 words and one of them is abalone. So can someone tell me if abalone is a noun, verb, ad-verb, ect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.202.134 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not here to do your homework for you. If you understood the meaning of the words noun, verb, adverb etc, you would be able to tell which kind of word "abalone" is, simply by reading the first few lines in the article. However, if you don't understand what a noun is, there is no point in one of us telling you which kind of word "abalone" is. You really do need to learn the meanings of these words, it's essential to your education. Next time try looking up the word "noun" on Wikipedia and you will find: "a noun is a word used to name a person, animal, place, thing". That could really help you with your homework. Invertzoo (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
# of species
I am doing a little work on the article and I noticed a disparity between sections: The infobox states 66 species and the species section gives 57. I am no expert by any definition of the word, so even though I will attempt to rectify this discrepancy, I am sure there are other malacologists out there that can fix this problem before I finish my first source. speednat (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm no fan of specifying the number of species, since this can change in the course of time. I've checked it now and added the new species Haliotis geigeri Owen, 2014, and added the template citation needed on a few others. I won't go deeper into this as I'm working at this moment on the Turbinidae. Haliotis is scheduled for much later. But feel free to work on this article. It still needs a lot of work and we can use all the help we can get. JoJan (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I will definitely try to rectify it. I understand what you are saying about the #'s being in flux. My true love are birds and when we discuss the number of species there it can range from 9800 to 10050. However, I think the best course of action, rather than leave it out due to the everchanging nature, is to utilize the range like what birds have done, while uoting different sources. I love learning and I am in the process of educating myself on this wonderful Gastropod, whilst trying to improve the article. speednat (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Citations for the species names, subspecies, common names, authorities, etc....
I am debating (I actually started doing it then realized it may look too bulky) adding a citation for each species referring to a source for common name, authority, whether it is species or not, etc; however like I stated it seems that some may feel it is too bulky what is the opinion of others that edit this article? speednat (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is perhaps a bit exaggerated. References in this article should mainly contain references that describe the genus, but not each species. The specific references to the species belong in the article about the species. JoJan (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have had a few hours to think it over, and I think you just hit the nail on the head. The reason it would be so bloated is because there is too much info on this page. So along that school of thought, I looked at the article and thought what in here is totally unnecessary, especially since this is a genus article. I would believe the article could be improved by removing the synonymy and the nicknames. The species belong, as do any questionable species, obviously, synonyms of the genera should stay. Anyway, I just got back from court (I adopted my step-son finally) and I need a nap as I pulled an all-nighter last night, but after that hopefully some editors have chimed in (yes, I mean you JoJan)about this latest thought process. Thanks again. speednat (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- The names of synonyms of species are a necessity in an article about a genus. This way, one can easily find the accepted name of a species mentioned in older literature. And, you can believe me, older literature (and even not so old ones) abound with names of species that have become synonyms. Without a list of synonyms one would be lost. You can find an example in the article Turbo. This is the way we handle all articles about genera. The article "Abalone" is indeed bloated with information not much related to taxonomy. I would prefer a separate article about Haliotis (and with Haliotis as its title), dealing with description, distribution, species, synonyms, references and external links. The rest (human uses, diseases etc.) should be split off into a different article about abalones, but I'm not so sure what title to give to such an article. This way, the present article would not be so bloated anymore. Both articles (Haliotis and Abalone) should then be linked by a hat note, referring to each other. JoJan (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not too experienced with the invertebrates. However, in birds we do not put synonyms of the species in the genus articles. Obviously, they are put into each species article, but like I said I am not used to the way you folks do things, which is why I try to ask questions first on things that might be a point of contention. Food for thought: possibly creating a separate "list" such as List of synonyms associated with Haliotis or List of Abalone synonyms then referencing that within the actual article. Concerning your separate article for Haliotis and abalone, that will probably run afoul of the MOS as the standard is for the common name and the scientific name to point to the same article. The genus article, whereas some information about range, status, or even some synonyms (look at Phylloscartes in the bird area, as that group has a specific issue where a group of birds that was its own genus merged into the current genus and that, it would seem, is a necessary addition to the genus article.) are necessary in a genus article most of that information, like the detailed ranges(I tried to put broad ranges from one or two different sources), descriptions, biology, human interaction, conservation beyond just the status, most synonyms can all go into the species article. Synonyms are notoriously bulky and even, some (not I) would say, trivial and even unnecessary. For example, I was working on some bird articles and started perusing the original books from the 18th and 19th centuries and adding all sorts of synonyms and before I knew it the article was 90% synonyms, 10% everything else. You mention the Turbo article and I would tentatively think that was, again, too bulky and weighted down by the synonyms that 99% of the readers are not going to use. Again, please take what I say as constructive and not negative. I don't try to step on peoples toes, especially outside my comfort zone, I only try to share what I have learned and my perceptions. I also did a "quick" scan of "above" species level featured articles and none that I scanned through even mentioned synonyms in that article. If you do feel that the article would be better served with that information readily available, I again ask you to think on the separate article with a pointer for that section. I have been up all night and need a couple of hours of sleep. Look forward to your reply speednat (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, we can't do without an alphabetical list of synonyms. When this list becomes bulky, it can always be collapsed with a template. I have on my hard disk about 200 books about gastropods (most are out of copyright) and without this list I would get nowhere. Furthermore, we rely on WoRMS. This authoritative database also gives a list of synonyms of species in the article about the genus. As to the two proposed different articles, a disambiguation page could link to abalone (with a redirect to Haliotis) and to a second article about the non-scientific data about abalones (title to be determined). Furthermore, in contrast with WikiProject Birds, in our project we prefer to use the scientific name of the species or genus as title of the article. Most common gastropod names are just made-up and only a very few common names are in common use, such as abalone or whelk. An even in this case, I would prefer the scientific name in the title, with a redirect from the common name. JoJan (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alright, a little bit of research and I run across this article on splitting. This is the way that I was leaning almost for the exact reasons that were stated in the article. So I did a bit of work and separated out the synonyms. Let me know what you think. Also if you could add a summary on synonyms to the Haliotis page. Of course, it could use a bit more referencing.speednat (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, we can't do without an alphabetical list of synonyms. When this list becomes bulky, it can always be collapsed with a template. I have on my hard disk about 200 books about gastropods (most are out of copyright) and without this list I would get nowhere. Furthermore, we rely on WoRMS. This authoritative database also gives a list of synonyms of species in the article about the genus. As to the two proposed different articles, a disambiguation page could link to abalone (with a redirect to Haliotis) and to a second article about the non-scientific data about abalones (title to be determined). Furthermore, in contrast with WikiProject Birds, in our project we prefer to use the scientific name of the species or genus as title of the article. Most common gastropod names are just made-up and only a very few common names are in common use, such as abalone or whelk. An even in this case, I would prefer the scientific name in the title, with a redirect from the common name. JoJan (talk) 16:11, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not too experienced with the invertebrates. However, in birds we do not put synonyms of the species in the genus articles. Obviously, they are put into each species article, but like I said I am not used to the way you folks do things, which is why I try to ask questions first on things that might be a point of contention. Food for thought: possibly creating a separate "list" such as List of synonyms associated with Haliotis or List of Abalone synonyms then referencing that within the actual article. Concerning your separate article for Haliotis and abalone, that will probably run afoul of the MOS as the standard is for the common name and the scientific name to point to the same article. The genus article, whereas some information about range, status, or even some synonyms (look at Phylloscartes in the bird area, as that group has a specific issue where a group of birds that was its own genus merged into the current genus and that, it would seem, is a necessary addition to the genus article.) are necessary in a genus article most of that information, like the detailed ranges(I tried to put broad ranges from one or two different sources), descriptions, biology, human interaction, conservation beyond just the status, most synonyms can all go into the species article. Synonyms are notoriously bulky and even, some (not I) would say, trivial and even unnecessary. For example, I was working on some bird articles and started perusing the original books from the 18th and 19th centuries and adding all sorts of synonyms and before I knew it the article was 90% synonyms, 10% everything else. You mention the Turbo article and I would tentatively think that was, again, too bulky and weighted down by the synonyms that 99% of the readers are not going to use. Again, please take what I say as constructive and not negative. I don't try to step on peoples toes, especially outside my comfort zone, I only try to share what I have learned and my perceptions. I also did a "quick" scan of "above" species level featured articles and none that I scanned through even mentioned synonyms in that article. If you do feel that the article would be better served with that information readily available, I again ask you to think on the separate article with a pointer for that section. I have been up all night and need a couple of hours of sleep. Look forward to your reply speednat (talk) 10:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- The names of synonyms of species are a necessity in an article about a genus. This way, one can easily find the accepted name of a species mentioned in older literature. And, you can believe me, older literature (and even not so old ones) abound with names of species that have become synonyms. Without a list of synonyms one would be lost. You can find an example in the article Turbo. This is the way we handle all articles about genera. The article "Abalone" is indeed bloated with information not much related to taxonomy. I would prefer a separate article about Haliotis (and with Haliotis as its title), dealing with description, distribution, species, synonyms, references and external links. The rest (human uses, diseases etc.) should be split off into a different article about abalones, but I'm not so sure what title to give to such an article. This way, the present article would not be so bloated anymore. Both articles (Haliotis and Abalone) should then be linked by a hat note, referring to each other. JoJan (talk) 09:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have had a few hours to think it over, and I think you just hit the nail on the head. The reason it would be so bloated is because there is too much info on this page. So along that school of thought, I looked at the article and thought what in here is totally unnecessary, especially since this is a genus article. I would believe the article could be improved by removing the synonymy and the nicknames. The species belong, as do any questionable species, obviously, synonyms of the genera should stay. Anyway, I just got back from court (I adopted my step-son finally) and I need a nap as I pulled an all-nighter last night, but after that hopefully some editors have chimed in (yes, I mean you JoJan)about this latest thought process. Thanks again. speednat (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Abalone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kikkoman.com/foodforum/thejapanesetablebackissues/10.shtml
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/commercial-fishing/abalone-fishery/abalone-disease-and-biosecurity/abalone-viral-ganglioneuritis
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/sea-fishing-aquaculture/recreational-fishing/abalone-fishing
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://mg.co.za/article/2007-04-11-six-arrested-in-massive-perlemoen-bust
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2009/01/14/E9-635/endangered-and-threatened-wildlife-and-plants-endangered-status-for-black-abalone
- Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2001/05/29/01-13430/endangered-and-threatened-species-endangered-status-for-white-abalone
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://eol.org/pages/3048993/overview
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gayot.com/restaurants/features/abalone-facts.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/pintoabalone_detailed.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/61743/0
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/greenabalone_detailed.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/species/pinkabalone_detailed.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/reise/europa/abalone-zucht-in-der-bretagne-sylvains-meerestrueffel-a-688155.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41880/0
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2002/01/49847
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005124250/http://www.biosbcc.net:80/ocean/marinesci/06future/abspdiv.htm to http://www.biosbcc.net/ocean/marinesci/06future/abspdiv.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060630065302/http://www.gastropods.com:80/Taxon_pages/Group_Abalone.html to http://www.gastropods.com/Taxon_pages/Group_Abalone.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130423151728/http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/recreational_fishing/fact_sheets/fact_sheet_abalone.pdf to http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/recreational_fishing/fact_sheets/fact_sheet_abalone.pdf
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://web.uct.ac.za/depts/zoology/abnet/species.html - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717004848/http://www.thejohnharding.com/archives/00001521.htm to http://www.thejohnharding.com/archives/00001521.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120222458/http://www.thejohnharding.com/archives/00000954.htm to http://www.thejohnharding.com/archives/00000954.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Chinese abalone middens
The mention of Chinese abalone middens is confusing, since it is easy to deduce these are archaeological, whereas they apparently date to the 19th century. https://www.nps.gov/chis/learn/news/pr012517.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.214.10 (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)