Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods/Archive 1

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Veterinary medicine project

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cladistics FAR

Cladistics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy (Talk) 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Over taxonomie en naamgeving

Het is raadzaam om voor taxonomie en naamgeving gewoon de door Unitas Malacologica gesteunde projecten te volgen. Dit zijn CLEMAM en CLECOM, respectievelijk de mariene en de niet-mariene mollusca bestrijkend. In beide projecten participeren de beste Europese malacologen. Beide projecten zijn op het web met een site aanwezig:

• (in English)CLECOM (Check List of European COntinental Mollusca)
• (in French)CLEMAM (Check List of European Marine Mollusca)

De meeste (natuurlijk helaas niet alle) publicaties volgen deze nomenclatuur en taxonomie. Voor Nederlandse naamgeving (waar ik overigens zelf grote moeite mee heb omdat die voor mollusken heel artificieel is) bestaat er ook een standaard:

• Bruyne, R.H. de, Bank, R.A., Adema, J.P.H.M. & Perk, F.A. (1994) Nederlandse naamlijst van de weekdieren (Mollusca) van Nederland en België. Feestuitgave ter gelegenheid van het zestigjarig jubileum van de Nederlandse Malacologische Vereniging. Backhuys, Leiden. 149 pp. ISBN 90-733-48-33-1

Het is niet de bedoeling dat Wikipedia er een eigen naamgeving op na houdt. Wikipedia valt net als iedere andere publicatie onder de regels van de ICZN en moet dus gewoon de 'standaard' volgen. Dat geldt voor elke wikipedia, natuurlijk niet alleen de Nederlandstalige. Wikipedia-nl moet dus niet Wikipedia-en volgen, maar beide moeten de standaard volgen dan kan er nooit iets mis gaan.

Los van het bovenstaande ben ik zelf van mening dat de Nederlandstalige wikipedia zich zou moeten onderscheiden door de nadruk te leggen op de Belgisch/Nederlandse traditie. Bv., als er voorbeelden van malacologen genoemd/getoond moeten worden noem/toon dan iemand uit die traditie en niet een amerikaan (hoe goed die ook geweest mag zijn). Ik weet best dat een encyclopedie 'neutraal' moet zijn, maar er zijn niet voor niets wikipedia in verschillende taalgebieden. Hetzelfde geldt voor de opgenomen mollusken. Pagina's met beschrijvingen van soorten uit het Noordzeegebied, België, Nederland zouden prioriteit moeten hebben boven soorten uit andere gebieden. Wat niet wil zeggen dat ze niet opgenomen zouden kunnen worden. Van onze eigen regio weten wij het meest (hoop ik) en de kluif daaraan is al groot genoeg. --82.215.13.100 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This has been addressed at my talk page User_talk:JoJan/Archive_6#Over_taxonomie_en_naamgeving JoJan 09:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I came rather late across the above contribution. Here an 'English' text to this subject. My contribution to the talk page from User:JoJan was in Dutch language and never meant to be published untranslated on this page. I made this note because I noticed often rather strange opinions upon taxonomy, systematics and nomenclature of molluscs. I was also rather irritated about the fact that people contributing to the Dutch Wikipedia showed the strange habit to uncritically follow scientific names given to certain molluscan taxa. This is a bad habit because Wikipedia is NOT the place where names attached to species are without any doubt the correct names. There is also the danger that each national Wikipedia follows the nomenclature that is used traditionally in that country. It is useful to know that several scientific groups working on taxonomy, systematics and nomenclature of European mollusca, as groups often reporting in meetings of Unitas Malacologica have done a lot of work in this field. The groups are:

• (in English)CLECOM (Check List of European Continental Mollusca)
• (in French)CLEMAM (Check List of European Marine Mollusca)

Especially CLECOM has done a lot of revisions of the molluscan fauna of many European countries (including Turkey). Although (including me) not everyone agrees with all their results, the checklists have the very important advancement that a group of specialists (very skilled people indeed) have done this work for all countries. This results in a common nomenclature, taxonomy and systematic for all non-marine molluscs for all countries that have been studied. This is really the first time that such an approach produced usable results at this scale. I really advice to use their results for Wikipedia, this will make national wikipedia's more comparable and everyone can refer to the same source. This is far more better than everyone implementing their own names as is now often the case. Wikipedia is an international project. Let us not use our 'national' taxononies/systematics/nomenclature! --Tom Meijer 20:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm delighted that interest in this project is growing (albeit very slowly). It is obvious that a common nomenclature and taxonomy is paramount. CLECOM and CLEMAM are excellent sources. Anyway, while describing a particular genus or species, one always has to search for the latest relevant scientific publications. Furthermore, the new taxonomy proposed in - Bouchet, P.; Rocroi, J.-P. (Ed.); Frýda,J.; Hausdorf,B.; Ponder, W.; Valdes, A.; Warén, A. (2005). Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families. Malacologia: International Journal of Malacology, 47(1-2). ConchBooks: Hackenheim, Germany. ISBN 3-925919-72-4. - has not yet been adopted in the main article Gastropoda. This all requires a lot of work for which I no longer can find the time. I'm currently absorbed in other projects and by my work as an administrator. JoJan 15:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

anatomy of gastropod

I need help or verify description of image of anatomy at Gastropoda page. --Snek01 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Images

• I would like to transfer images from Category:Gastropod images to commons and keep there only only non-free images (if any). --Snek01 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

• How to categorize articles in gastropods category? Categories Category:Snails and Category:Slugs are completelly unused. Categories with family name are too much, about few hundreds. Categories with ordo name demand deeper knowledge in gastropoda taxonomy and even it is instable and changing. Categorie marine/land/freshwater gastropods are possiible. But categories with family names are possible too, they can be all for example in Category:Gastropods by families and/or they can be in systematic Category:Gastropods by classification. Any suggestions appreciated. --Snek01 01:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Pesonally I feel that we should start with the two Subclasses under Gastropods: Eogastropoda & Orthogastropoda, then work our way down to Superfamilies. In those special cases where there are a large number of Families maybe they should have a category as well. With the way the new categories list there would not be a need for Category:Gastropods by families as all the categories show up as subcats in the parent category. Just my opinion. Nashville Monkey 22:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I do understand Nashville Monkey's reasoning, which makes good sense at face value, but... the problem is that gastropod taxonomy is in extreme flux right now, and will be for quite some time (probably several more decades) because of the incoming results from molecular phylogeny (DNA studies). Every year or so a major paper comes out changing the taxonomy of the class Gastropoda in radical ways. The families however seem to be the highest level taxa that pretty much are staying the same right now, and that is the main argument in favor of using the families as category groupings. I am also all in favor of completely getting rid of "Slugs" and "Snails" as two actual categories although having articles about them is fine. As categories however they are meaningless biologically, and conflict wildly with the possibility of proper taxonomic categories. Does anyone else other than Snek agree about getting rid of slug and snail as categories? Invertzoo (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Invertzoo. In my opinion categories in this project should go down from Gastropoda --> Superfamily --> Family --> Genus. JoJan (talk) 15:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Neritoidea confusion

• Family Chilodontidae is listed at the Neritoidea page yet it goes to a fish page. Can someone elaborate? Nashville Monkey 04:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Chilodontidae Wenz, 1938 [non Pisces: Characiformes] {placement fide Golikov & Starobogatov, 1988 ex Trochoidea} belongs to the order Neritoidea. However the same has been given to a small family of ray-finned fishes in the order Characiformes. In my opinion, a disambiguation page is needed. JoJan 08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-stubbing

I've gone through the Category:Mollusc stubs and re-stubbed all 187 Gastropoda entries as {{gastropod-stub}} this will hopefully help keep track of articles needing work and expansion. Just a FYI. Nashville Monkey 04:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Project page revamp

Thought I'd make the intro page a little more ... enticing, in order to maybe help attract participants. If the group doesn't like it it can always be reversed. Let me know what you think about the changes please. Nashville Monkey 02:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I like it. JoJan 09:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm really done, did some splitting into areas... Nashville Monkey 03:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Technical Terminology Definitions

What does taxonomically consistent mean? --Dr Finkbottle 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From how I understand it, it's making sure each level of the taxobox agrees with both the higher level box as well as those lower in the listing. Gastropods recently underwent a major reclassification and some pages still reflect the old classification system... Nashville Monkey 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOL template

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:gastropod stubs subtypes

Congratulations (and/or commiserations), you're now the !owners of 1000-odd articles tagged with {{gastropod-stub}}. I've proposed splitting this up into several component taxa, here. Please share your thoughts. Alai 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Animals project proposal

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

• WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
  • WikiProject Dinosaurs
  • WikiProject Pterosaurs
  • WikiProject Sea Monsters
• WikiProject Arthropods
  • WikiProject Lepidoptera
  • WikiProject Phasmatodea
  • WikiProject Spiders
• WikiProject Birds
• WikiProject Cephalopods
• WikiProject Fishes
  • WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
  • WikiProject Sharks
• WikiProject Gastropods
• WikiProject Mammals
  • WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials
  • WikiProject Cetaceans
  • WikiProject Primates
  • WikiProject Cats
  • WikiProject Dogs
    • WikiProject dog breeds
  • WikiProject horse breeds
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights

Project Created

The Animals WikiProject has been created. I've got much of the framework for the project page layout done, thanks to the folks at WP:PLANTS, but there is still much to do. If you would like to participate it would be much appreciated. J. Hall • ^(Talk) 07:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

The project is now set up for assessments. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Assessment. Thank you. John Carter 17:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Stubs beget stub types, beget more stubs

I've created a Category:Stylommatophora stubs stub type, and a number of sub-types for the larger families, since the Stylommatophora would themselves be very large, in a single category. As it turns out, there were no articles for these except for Pupillidae (all the genus and species articles are recent bot-creations). Since it would be rather painful and uniformative to have stub templates with redlinks, I've created nano-sub-stubs for the families, but we're really talking sketchy, here. So if someone would take a look at Camaenidae, Charopidae, Hygromiidae, Achatinellidae, Partulidae, Orthalicidae, Helicarionidae and Streptaxidae, that would be all to the good. Alai 01:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Citations and ISBNs

The article Poirieria and some 60 other pages refer to Pownall, New Zealand Shells and Shellfish (1979) with a broken ISBN 85467 054 8. Since the leading zero is missing, there are only nine digits, and no ISBN link is created. The correct one should be ISBN 0-85467-054-8. Does this project have a strategy for citations, or is this just a piece of text that any robot could repair? Is this a good book and edition that should be cited, to begin with? Do you have a project librarian? The project could set up a project library of good, reusable citations, in a template, that can then be easily transcluded in many articles, reducing the risk for such copy-and-paste mistakes. Any thoughts? --LA2 02:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

subfamily Busyconinae

Hello fellow snailers! Please, I am still relatively new so I don't know how to handle this: how do I change the name of the article on the subfamily Busyconinae? It is spelled wrongly as Bucyconinae... Invertzoo 14:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. JoJan 15:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Gastropod taxonomy -- the new standard?

I have been revising taxoboxes etc using Beesley, Ross, and Wells (editors) Mollusca: the Southern Synthesis, 1998, version of the gastropod taxonomy, thinking that that was the current standard and thinking that was the one that the Project wanted used here on WP. Now I look again and see that the Project was recommending Ponder and Lindberg 1997. Can I keep going with the Southern Synthesis? Any opinions? Invertzoo (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a new taxonomy of the Gastropoda made by (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005).

• Bouchet, P.; Rocroi, J.-P. (Ed.); Frýda,J.; Hausdorf,B.; Ponder, W.; Valdes, A.; Warén, A. (2005). Classification and nomenclator of gastropod families. Malacologia: International Journal of Malacology, 47(1-2). ConchBooks: Hackenheim, Germany. ISBN 3-925919-72-4. 397 pp. [1]
• Poppe G.T. & Tagaro S.P. 2006. The new classification of Gastropods according to Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005. Visaya, février 2006: 10 pp. [2].

I'm waiting to obtain the Malacologia article to see what changes have to be made. Meanwhile, it's safer to go by Ponder & Lindberg 1997. JoJan (talk) 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

For anyone not aware of it, there's a new Ponder & Lindberg coming out in early 2008. I'm holding my breath. Tim Ross·^talk 13:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

An endangered slug, but what slug?

I hope someone here can improve my understanding of the endangered "Purcell's hunter slug". The IUCN Red List includes that common name twice, once as Laevicaulis haroldi and once as Chlamydephorus purcelli. So does List of endangered animal species. Both Laevicaulis and Laevicaulis haroldi have it as a veronicellid systellommatophoran. Under Purcell's hunter slug it's a stylommatophoran in the Rhytididae or Chlamydephoridae. The various gastropods sometimes included in the Systellommatophora are always difficult to know what to do with, and maybe that's the case here. I would be happy to clean all this up, or to specify the disagreement, in all the appropriate articles. Just give me the (correct) word. Tim Ross·^talk 16:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Parvorder vs. Subinfraorder, which should we use?

This is a minutely picky topic, but one we should perhaps address. I have always used the term "Subinfraorder" for the taxonomic level between superfamily and infraorder. This is sometimes an important level, as in the pulmonate Orthurethra and Sigmurethra, and the term is used for that purpose in gastropod articles such as Eupulmonata. This, however, is not an allowed level in taxoboxes, and, instead, the less familiar "Parvorder" is required. Consistency is important in taxonomy, and since the choice is fixed for taxoboxes, I suggest we all use "Parvorder" from now on, and, perhaps, convert some of the existing lists to that nomenclature. What do others think? Tim Ross·^talk 13:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The ICZN Art 35.1 does not regulate the names of taxa above the family group (family group = taxa at the rank of superfamily or below). The new gastropod taxonomy of Bouchet and Rocroi presents all higher taxa as "clades". In this sense a name as "parvorder" becomes somewhat irrelevant. JoJan (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna)

There is a current proposal to change an animal-related naming convention, which directly effects the the Manual of Style guideline, and the naming conventions policy. If you are interested, your input would be appreciated. Justin ^chat 06:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

I have been gradually going through all the gastropod stubs and have fleshed many of them out a tiny little bit and a few of them a little more than that. I am not sure what the criteria are for when a stub becomes a "start" instead... but maybe some of them need promoting? Also I wanted to ask whether "Mesogastropod stub" is a useful category when we have "Sorbeoconcha stub" category which would in fact include all of the families that used to be Mesogastropods? Anyone got anything to say on either of those points? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:STUB : "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information". And according to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, the "start" assessment entails the following :

"The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:

* a particularly useful picture or graphic

* multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic

* a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic

* multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article"

Mesogastropoda is not monophyletic and therefore should not to be used to designate a stub as in "Mesogastropod stub". The Sorbeoconcha on the other hand, is a valid order and "Sorbeoconcha stub" covers several orders and infraorders. JoJan (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. Yes, I totally agree with you JoJan about the "Mesogastropod stub" being a useless category now, but how exactly do we go about getting rid of it? I tried to look that up, but I could not really understand the instructions. Thanks again. Invertzoo (talk) 23:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So-called Mesogastropod stubs

We currently have approximately 700 stubs in a Category: Mesogastropoda stubs. They seem to be almost entirely non-marine taxa. Perhaps it would be good to eliminate this category, or at least to rename it? Anyone have any ideas on this? Invertzoo (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could just use the superorders from Ponder & Lindberg ('97): Cocculiniformia, Vetigastropoda, Neritaemorphi, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia (plus, perhaps the order Neomphaloida to cover the "hot vent taxa" incertae sedis). Actually, though, in my opinion, the orders that P&L recognize within the caenogastropods and the heterobranchs would be more widely useful. Since virtually all of these stubs seem to involve land snails - as you pointed out - one could then just use "Pulmonata" instead of "Mesogastropoda". I would favor leaving them as they are, though, for a few months, until the next Ponder & Lindberg comes out. Tim Ross·^talk 12:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks Tim, that's a good idea to wait until the new Ponder and Lindberg taxonomic synthesis comes out. By the way, we already have a Sorbeoconcha stub category, which should include the "Mesogastropoda" if we get to the point at which we want to relabel them. Unfortunately there are about 800 of them. By the way, all the non-marine snails that are in that stub category are not pulmonates, they are land snails and freshwater snails that have opercula. They are what used to be called "prosobranchs". In any case it would be nice to be able to eliminate that particular stub template page, but for the time being I have put a note on it asking people not to use it.Invertzoo (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"Open and Close" taxa lists

The taxa list for the land snail genus Bulimulus has reached to some 35 species and subspecies, and is long enough to make reading the rest of the article inconvenient. I managed to cobble together an open-and-close list template that seems to work, with a title bar that matches the taxobox. This mechanism might be useful for some of the really long lists, say Conus or Cypraea. Plus, it has the added advantage of allowing one to add references to the whole list, if appropriate. Tim Ross·^talk 15:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does work. But there is no need to hide it. The list of species is necessary part of a genus article. Such behavior may be good for navigation templates to show similar articles. But in this way is is only the complication. I think that it is against web accessibility. I do not agree with it even if the list would be showed by default. I am sorry but there is no need for such template. Too long list of Conus and Cypraea can be on separate page if needed. --Snek01 (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Snek01, for taking a look at my simplification effort. I think you are entirely right, that these species lists are a necessary part of articles dealing with genera. Too, I think it is clear that we both have the same goal, of increasing readability and accessibility. I did not, perhaps, choose the best example to work with, instead working with one of the groups that I regularly edit rather than one of the really extensive listings that totally dominates the article.

I would suggest that a list which can be opened with a single mouse click is preferable to the only reasonable alternate, which you pointed out -- a separate page. It is both simpler and faster, and allows one to view the list of taxa, when needed, in immediate conjunction with the other information about the genus.

Perhaps this is merely a personal preference issue. I don't know. Other viewpoints would be useful. Tim Ross·^talk 11:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

More on those Mesogastropoda stubs

I did not request this, but the mesogastropod stub category is up for deletion or rather conversion to Sorbeoconcha stubs, on the stub deletion page. As you can see from what I have copied below, it was TheBilly who put up the request. PLease would anyone weigh in on this discussion who cares either way? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Copied from the "stub types for deletion" page: December 31 [edit]{{Mesogastropoda-stub}} Merge with Sorbeoconcha-stub without redirect - I came across a comment on a "Mesogastropoda" stub article about it being a classification that is no longer used. I don't know about gastropods so I don't know which of these hundreds of articles would be appropriate to merge, but the user indiciated that most (all?) should be able to be reclassified with this different stub type. So I propose we delete the stub for this deprecated classification, and reclassifying the articles that already use it TheBilly (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC) I would request that this change is not done right now, but is least postponed until the next major update/reworking of the gastropod taxonomy is published, which will be sometime in 2008. Right now these Polbot generated stubs need a lot of work on their taxoboxes and elsewhere, and keeping the stubs all together in one category (however outdated it is) makes them easier to find and go through. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give me a potted summary of which sub-taxons have been reassigned to which order? This may be fixable by bot, at least in large part, if the split keeps existing families intact (and the family fields are themselves meaningful and accurate, of course). Alai (talk) 01:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Would that be a "no", then? :) Maybe there are at least some "safe" cases (ideally on a per-family basis) that can be dealt with now, leaving the "tricky" ones until later? Alai (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would take a profound study to find out which genera and which families were transferred to which clades. The taxonomy of the Gastropoda has changed a lot since the publication of Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). I don't think a bot could do very much at this moment. It has to be done manually, on a case per case basis. JoJan (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion: "The result of the debate was delete and reclassify these stubs once more up-to-datee information becomes available later in the year." Tim Ross (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Which is hardly to be construed as a binding edict not to edit any of those articles until gastropod taxonomy is done and dusted. The "Mesogastropoda" stub type is explicitly deprecated, it's simply that it can't yet be entirely emptied, therefore it can hardly be deleted. If the taxomony is still in a state of high flux, then there will be further changes, indeed. But that's hardly a reason to keep articles in a state where they're displaying an alleged order that's been obsolete for over ten years. Alai (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps when the new Ponder & Lindberg comes out (next month, I am told) there will be more uniformity in our feelings about how to replace the old "Mesogastropod" usages. It might be worthwhile waiting for that event. Tim Ross (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a little less open-ended, at least. If there's great uncertainty and trepidation in anticipation of that event, I'm not entirely opposed to waiting that long. Alai (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, "next month" has come and gone! Do we now have a basis on which to delete Category:mesogastropoda stubs, and re-sort then according to their current taxonomy? Alai (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gastropod article titles

I would like to open a discussion about titles for new articles about gastropods. This topic is more or less covered under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), but it is not always easy to apply those recommendations to our groups.

Specifically, the naming convention indicates that one should use common names for article titles when those names exist. A problem in applying this convention to gastropods is that only a few gastropods have actual common names likely to be meaningful to a knowledgeable lay person, or, in many cases, even to an expert. With the exception of showy collector shells and gastropods of some commercial impact, virtually all of the existing so-called common names have been coined relatively recently, often by translating the scientific names, and really have no "common" existence outside of a few species lists.

Effectively, all the gastropods we deal with have scientific names, but only some have common names of any sort. Thus, we have ended up with a mixture of article titles, some using one sort of name and some the other. This inconsistency can become particularly painful when one is faced with a common situation. Some species in a genus (often endangered or threatened ones) have newly coined common names applied to them, and these names may carry over into article titles. Other species in the same genera, perhaps more common ones, may still be known only by their scientific names.

I guess my preferences must be obvious. It would bother me to name an article using one format when other articles about closely related species use the other. Given that attitude, I would prefer to stick to scientific names, using redirects to handle common names.

Does anyone else have any suggestions or strong feelings about this issue? Tim Ross·^talk 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not an English native speaker so I support to use scientific names in titles only. But naming conventions should be the same for the whole wikipedia. I think that if scientific name is more common than an English name so we can use the scientific name. --Snek01 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am a native English speaker and I also support the idea of using Latin names almost exclusively, except perhaps for a few things like "whelk" and "periwinkle" and "limpet" which genuinely are common names, albeit confusingly general ones that are applied to many different species world-wide in the various English-speaking countries. I agree that most gastropod species simply do not have a common name in the true sense of the word. I have frequently encountered articles where I wanted to change the name to the Latin name. Invertzoo (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Collumella (mollusk)

I have saved this from speedy deletion, but have no idea if it is actually suitable for its own article. Please have a look and do what ever you feel is appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it to Columella (mollusk) (correct spelling) and made a redirect from Columella (mollusc). This anatomical feature is certainly suitable for its own article. JoJan (talk) 15:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You might get some arguments from British malacologists, JoJan, who, in my experience at least, spell the word "mollusc". Gary Rosenberg wrote an interesting article on this subject, at [3]. Tim Ross·^talk 16:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed an interesting article. JoJan (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Turritella linkspam?

On the Turritella-article someone added a chapter about fossil locations (which is good) and references to this location (which is good, too). But, regarding the main text, this chapter is somewhat disproportionate, and the three (german) references outnumber the one Turritella link. I think the author wants to increase google hits. Would someone please have a look at the article? Thanks, Jo (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this added material duplicates what is already in Turritellenplatte, I just abbreviated it significantly. I hope this was appropriate. Tim Ross (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That was a good move, thanks. It's a good example of how to deal with this particular contributor. --Jo (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo requests

I added a parameter to allow photo requests the other day. I notice that a huge number now seem to have requests, perhaps the work of a bot? Anyway, I've created a new category Category:Gastropod articles needing photos. Might be an idea to link to it from the project page too. Richard001 (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Using the FIST tool ([4]) sometimes delivers photos from FlickR with a suitable license. JoJan (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the bot, if such it is, is working right. First, all of the articles listed under Category:Gastropod articles needing photos seem to be talk pages for some reason rather than the actual articles. Then, at least some of the articles already have photos, for example, Achatina and Ashmunella. Perhaps I'm a bit confused as to how it is supposed to work. Tim Ross (talk) 13:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it is placed on the talk page (we don't place banners on the articles) it shows as Talk:PAGE NAME. Ideally it would ignore the talk part somehow so they could be listed alphabetically rather than alphabetically all under 'T'. Some photo requests may be for more/different images; it seems to be unclear whether reqphoto is only for articles with no photo, or also those where additional photos are requested. It seems silly not to include the latter as well.

Molluscs?

Posted to the animal, gastropod and cephalopod projects; please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals

I'm guessing some of you have noticed that there is no mollusc WikiProject, despite there being both a gastropod and cephalopod project (two classes of the phylum Mollusca). Should anything be done about this? They could perhaps be merged, made into work groups of a parent molluscs project, or a parent project created and the two left as subprojects? Molluscs are the second most abundant animal phyla in terms of known species and an active project on them would certainly be an asset to Wikipedia. Richard001 (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I for one do not see an issue with the situation. I have responded at the above link. -- Nashville Monkey 21:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

just a note - there is also no Project:Vertebrates would you also move to start such project and merge all those subgroups into workgroups of same? I'm not trying to be argumentative just trying to understand the worry and reasoning behind the proposal. The current situation works, has worked, and will continue to work. Not seeing the need to "fix" things that are fine the way they are. again JMHO. -- Nashville Monkey 21:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ponder and Lindberg (2008)

Just a note to let everyone know that "Phylogeny and Evolution of the Mollusca" (Winston Ponder and David Lindberg, eds.) is now out. I've flipped through the whole volume several times, and read 3 or 4 of the chapters slowly and carefully. It's a wonderful work for those of us interested in the topic, and encompasses the efforts of 36 authors -- pretty much a who's who of the major players in the field.

The work includes many, many phylogenies, usually presented as trees, and contains large numbers of alternative interpretations and trees. It has relatively little, though, to say on the topic of higher level taxonomy, and presents no unified classification scheme to solve our issues here on Wikpedia. The closest I have found the book to approach that issue is in the introductory chapter (by the editors), which has this listing of "recognized groups" within the gastropods: Eogastropoda, Patellogastropoda, Orthogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, and Heterobranchia (which they indicate includes "some basal groups plus Euthyneura, which comprises the opisthobranchs [seaslugs and their relatives] and pulmonates [land slugs and many of the land snails]").

On thinking over our need for some unified approach, I would recommend that we standardize our higher level taxonomy by using Bouchet, Rocroi et al. It is quite current, seems to be well-accepted, and has the huge advantage of being available on-line in the form of Poppe and Tagaro's detailed re-listing from Malacologia 47 [5]. Tim Ross (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

On another topic, would anyone who actually understands taxonomy please look through Category:Mesogastropoda stubs and see how they can be re-stubbed, now that the taxon is no longer used? Thanks...Her Pegship (tis herself) 16:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Gastropod foot

I would like to request the article Gastropod foot to be created, just like there is an article about Gastropod shell. Dentren | ^Talk 06:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/genus taxobox example with picture

Would someone be so kind as to update this dreadfully updated example, which doesn't even use the taxobox template? Hesperian 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the snail trails...

Howdy all - A couple of us stub-sorters who know very little about gastropods are trying to empty Category:Mesogastropoda stubs, as we understand it's an obsolete term. We can move a bunch of them to Category:Sorbeoconcha stubs and/or create some new sub-cats (like Category:Hydrobiidae stubs), or new types for other families, or you can suggest something else entirely if you like. Please let us know if you have any ideas at stub types for deletion. Thanks - Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2008/May#Cat:Sorbeoconcha_stubs_subtypes.2C_by_family, and several past discussions on this very page, and elsewhere. Alai (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See the same section once more: proposed an additional three per-family types: for Pleuroceridae, Thiaridae and Diplommatinidae. Speak up if these have been nixed by subsequent taxonomies, or whatever else, ideally sooner rather than later! Alai (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "rump" is down to less than a listings page, but from here on it gets harder: the largest remaining (alleged) families are Ampullariidae, Pomatiasidae and Pupinidae, which as you'll notice, do not even have articles here. Are these also defunct in more recent taxonomies, or oes there just happen to be no article for them here? Anyone actually working in this area? If all else fails, I'm going to merge the remainder into Category:gastropod stubs, without bothering with any additional familywise templates. Alai (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link-fix... even if it makes totally nonsense of my comment. :/ Point being that the articles in question point to the alleged family Ampullaridae, and not to the spelling above. Valid alternative, or more Polbot nonsense? Something similar going on with the other two? Alai (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

When you look to the section above on this page "More on those Mesogastropoda stubs" you'll see that this is a difficult question. Furthermore, the taxonomy of Ponder & Lindberg (1995), used in most gastropod articles, has been superseded by the Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). In this taxonomy the concepts of suborder and order no longer exists. This taxonomy uses unranked clades for taxa above the rank of superfamily (replacing the ranks suborder, order, superorder and subclass), while using the traditional Linnaean approach for all taxa below the rank of superfamily. Furthermore, many names of families have been changed; some have become subfamilies or vice versa. Others have been downgraded to the rank of tribe. As you can see, this doesn't make it any easier. Answering your requests :

• Pleuriceridae belongs to the superfamily Cerithioidea in the clade Sorbeoconcha (and not to the order Neotaenioglossa, for which I cannot even find an equivalent name in the new taxonomy)
• Thiaridae belongs to the same superfamily Cerithioidea
• Diplommatinidae belongs to the superfamily Cyclophoroidea of the informal group Architaenioglossa
• the name Ampullaridae does not exist
• Ampullariidae belongs to the superfamily Ampullarioidea in the informal group Architaenioglossa
• the name Pomatiasidae does not exist. I found the families Pomatiidae (superfamily Littorinoidea; clade Littorinimorpha), Pomatiopsidae (superfamily Rissooidea, clade Littorinimorpha). So, it depends which one you mean.
• Pupinidae belongs to the superfamily Cyclophoroidea of the informal group Architaenioglossa. JoJan (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks so much!!! I realize the reorganization of the taxa makes categorizing these items difficult; so far we've had to guess at re-sorting these because you're the only project person who has given us any answer whatsoever. We've been pestering the project for weeks. Thanks again for any guidance you can provide. Her Pegship (tis herself) 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weeks? This has been outstanding for the best part of a year. I fully appreciate the difficulties, it's the apparently complete lack of any actual progress that I tend to struggle with. I suppose if there were equivalents for everything, it would defeat the purpose of it being a new taxonomy, but it's a shame we can't lay our hands on the cliff notes version. From our own articles I gathered the general disposition of the first three, and supercatted them accordingly, and likewise upmerged the forth, on the basis of the re-linked article. Perhaps we should be looking to have some additional types or containers at the superfamily level (or the infraorders that dare not speak their names, lest the cladistics people make them cry), but that's not urgent from a 'sorting' POV: let us know if the editors here would find that more convenient. I'd guess that "Pomatiopsidae" is what's meant, but don't ask me: the point is that there's a bunch of Polbot-created articles redlinking to this term, whether this be obsolete or outright erroneous. I'm just trying to work out how to fix them, notwithstanding my lack of either knowledge of, or indeed actual interest in, the topic. I'll avoid adding upmerged templates for the latter two, since it'd be a little absurd when we don't have articles to help delineate their scopes. Much the same would seem to apply to even the broadest of these new taxons, however... Alai (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Daudebardia

What is current family for Daudebardia rufa? --Snek01 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Daudebardia rufa belongs to the subfamily Daudebardiinae Kobelt, 1906 of the family Oxychilidae Hesse, 1927 (1879) , all part of the superfamily Gastrodontoidea Tryon, 1866 of the "Limacoid clade". On the other hand, the family Zonitidae Mörch, 1864 belongs to the superfamily Zonitoidea Mörch, 1864 that also belongs to the "Limacoid clade". I've adapted the taxobox of Daudebardia rufa accordingly. JoJan (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for information. There is a big mess in the family Oxychilidae and categorizing its species at wikipedia. References and improving all those articles mentined above would be nice. --Snek01 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put some order into the family Oxychilidae and the genus Oxychilus and did the same in the pt.wikipedia. Perhaps you can look into the cs.wikipedia where Oxychilus is mentioned a few times. JoJan (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

All information about non-marine molluscs species are mentioned in Fauna of Great Britain# Molluscs. The list would be completelly with the same species. --Snek01 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any real information on non-marine mollusc species on that page. One reason for the project would be for lists like Fauna of Great Britain, instead of WP:GAST, WP:BIRD, WP:INSECT, WP:MAMMAL etc. looking after the article it would be covered by one WikiProject. Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Arion vejdorskyi

Maybe non-existing species Arion vejdorskyi. It is not mentioned in List of molluscs recorded in the Czech Republic. Delete it and add a short information to the list? Or add any other information to the article? --Snek01 (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The species is mentioned in several databases (see ref.). As to the occurrence in the Czech Republic, I found this : Threatened and Endangered Molluscs of the Czech Republic. JoJan (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have added as much information about synonyms and taxonomy as possible. Its taxonomic position is unclear. A short information added to Arion (genus) too. --Snek01 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Gastropods

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

resources

Taylor, J. W. 1894-1914. Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles. Vols. 1-3. Taylor Brothers, Leeds. Is this a good resource? Is not it too old? Author is: John William Taylor (1845-1931, U.K.). If it is good resource, we can copy those texts to wikipedia (or rewrite it if anybody have got a photocopy). --Snek01 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

images

Many images usefull for articles about its own species are at Molluscs of El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, Venezuela. --Snek01 (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Auto-generated gastropod articles

I think that there could be possible to auto-generate gastropod articles from Sepkoski's Online Genus Database (3994 genera of gastropods and many others). See also List of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record. I have tried to made an an article according that source only what could robot do: Akera according to the source. Actual article: Akera. I found no a list of abbreviations so I hope I have used correct ones. There is no complete scientific classification for that genera and there is an order only from traditional classification. The classification can be combined with other taxonomical source if available. It is necessary to classify according to Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005) and if no possible then it is better to not classify at all.

We can decide if we want to start such articles. Then it is possible to make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. There is possible to discuss at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology if it could be good for more articles than for gastropods. --Snek01 (talk) 09:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake. There should be no Category:Extinct gastropods for those genera that are still in recent. --Snek01 (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Snek, I hope you don't mind: I am going to copy what you wrote onto JoJan's talk page [6]. JoJan is the person who started WikiProject Gastropods a few years ago. (By the way, JoJan and I had to do a really huge amount of work in order to turn "list of marine gastropod genera in the fossil record" into a reasonable stub after it was first created in extremely raw form as "list of fossil mollusks" I think it was, by another user. The Sepkoski list is a bit daunting for several reasons, for example, it has quite a few things in it that are not even gastropods at all, but were first described in the literature as being a gastropod.) WikiProject Gastropods already has thousand of stubs that need a great deal of work. The taxonomy in particular needs updating and unifying in so many of the stubs and article we already have, but maybe it would be OK to have a couple thousand more stubs... Invertzoo (talk) 13:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is what JoJan said in reply (on his talk page): "I've looked into this database and saw that the taxonomy is not recent. If we use a bot to generate new articles, we can end up with the same mess as with the "Mesogastropod stubs". It would take a huge effort to clean it up. Therefore, better think twice or perhaps come up with a better idea. JoJan (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)". Yes, JoJan is right that it can be a problem when a bot generates a large number of articles and they all need cleaning up, because very often there is no user who is prepared to go through hundreds or thousands of stubs and do all the patient and time-consuming work to fix the info in them. But maybe you can think of a way around this problem. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lists of molluscs

I wish to say something here about mollusks in general, not just the gastropods. We now have a number of country species lists by country or area. I think these are useful, but I do think it is better to make it clear in the title whether a list consists of "marine" or "non-marine" species of mollusks, and in general to keep the two kinds of lists separate, even though yes, this is for a number of species an artificial distinction. Invertzoo (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Siphon

Now there is article siphon about tube without pumping. Siphon (biology) is disambibuation. Siphon (mollusks) redirects to hyponome.

There should be article Siphon (mollusc) (with "C" according to other articles) containing a section about siphon of gastropods, a section about siphons of bivalves and a very short section about siphon of cephalopods (because article hyponome is and will be a sole article.) I think that hyponome is only in Cephalopods, am I right? --Snek01 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is OK, I had already decided to "move" Hyponome to Siphon (mollusc) and include the gastropods and bivalves within the one Siphon (mollusc) article. I have done this very briefly and simply, and I think it will serve at least for the time being. If anyone wants to organize it differently, please feel free. What the article needs now is some illustrations and some references. And double redirects removed. Invertzoo (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to gastropods. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/GastropodsSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

delete Category Mollusc of country

Feel free to share your opinion of this problem at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 11#Molluscofcountry. --Snek01 (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)