Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods

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

Conus conspersus

It would be nice if someone more skilled than I ... added the illustration of the holotype to be found at https://www.mapress.com/zt/article/view/zootaxa.5154.4.7/47718 to further illuminate this article.

BathyMetrix (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Geomitridae vs. Hygromiidae

Some of you might have noticed I've been working on cleaning up categories and stub categories of Gastropods. It's been a very messy job. And I opened a can of worms when I got approved, and created a stub category for Geometridae. It turns out there's a lot of confusion in Wikipedia between the two families Geomitridae and Hygromiidae. Various species within a genus will be called one or the other; sometimes an article identifies a species as being in both families. The articles might disagree with the sources; the various sources might disagree with each other.

I'm not an expert on Gastropods or Molluscs; I'm not even a biologist. I just go through Wikipedia tidying categories. I do think I know what's going on. It seems that the Geometridae were raised to family level just in 2015, and a lot of Hygromiidae were reclassified. I've gathered that from here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790314004163?via%3Dihub but unfortunately, I can't get past the abstract to read details. And I don't want to fix things based on my hunch that this or that is correct.

WoRMS does not cover these because they are land snails, not marine (it's often linked, so it seems they used to cover them, but now you just get a "whoops" page that says it's out of scope). Fauna Europea labels a lot of things Hygromiidae when I suspect they're Geomitridae. So does AnimalBase.

Is Molluscabase a reliable source? May I rely on taxonomies in IUCN Red List? Or does someone more expert than me (not saying a whole lot) want to go through and fix these? Uporządnicki (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@AzseicsoK: My understanding is that MolluscaBase is the source used by WoRMS (see taxonomic citation at base of pages), so it should definitely be considered reliable. WoRMS can show non-marine species but you have to toggle the marine only option (top right of page). —  Jts1882 | talk  13:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jts1882Oh! Thank you!! I hadn't seen that toggle. Uporządnicki (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

My Xerocrassa project

Thanks to @JoJan: for apparently carrying through (and then some) my project of moving Xerocrassa species to the correct family Geomitridae--including moving them to the new Geomitridae stub category I created. For several reasons, including an unexpected death (following a month-long illness) in my family, I'd been getting to it only sporadically recently. Now the only thing remaining is this: the genus Xerocrassa does have a Category page, so the list need not be on the Geomitridae page. In the Xerocrassa category, the species all have their specific name as a sortkey. But that's a task the goes fairly quickly. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Eulima elongata article for deletion?

WoRMS has delisted this species from its taxonomy; they were unable to locate a reference to the species. Should the article be deleted? 17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC) Skullcinema (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the article JoJan (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, I've removed the text from Pierre Louis Jean Ivolas from where I picked up this thread. I don't know if you have interest in the Dutch WP but they have an article as well nl:Eulima_elongata Skullcinema (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Love dart

Love dart has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)