en User talk:JoJan Archive 15

EllieThwee

Apparently you block-tagged EllieThwee (talk · contribs) but not blocked them. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This has been put right now. Thanks for noticing. JoJan (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I, Kaldari, hereby award JoJan the Defender of the Wiki Barnstar for proving that even vandalism to bot-created articles gets reverted. Kaldari (talk) 16:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious how you came across the vandalism at Atlanta californiensis? Kaldari (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. We have in our WikiProject Gastropods a bot notifying us of every edit to an article in the project. At this moment there are 22,352 articles to watch and this number should increase slowly to about 100,000. I'm working daily (together with our working group) in this enormous project (that I started in 2004) implementing all the taxonomical changes, sometimes drowning us with several thousands at a time. Then it's only normal that I check this bot on a regular basis to see what is happening in our little world. Vandalism doesn't stand a chance for survival. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Hello there, just thought I'd pop in a message to say that external links don't need access dates, here, here and a further 3, I've changed them for the Fusiturris genus. Good work though (I'm an admirer). Atomician (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In these cases these external links do need access dates. Taxonomy changes rather regularly. The access date proves that the link was right at the date given. Please, do not remove them anymore. JoJan (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are not appropriate: Wikipedia:External links#External links section - "For instance, a concise description of the contents and a clear indication of its source is more important than the actual title of the page, and access dates are not appropriate in the external links section". Atomician (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to help assess Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods

Hi. I am inviting members of some WikiProjects to take part in evaluating their projects in order to help the Wikimedia Foundation better understand such projects from the inside, to encourage reflection on best practices, and to compile a list of best practices as recommended by a number of projects. I am contacting you because you are listed as an active member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods. Having witnessed that project's work in the past in my volunteer capacity, I'd very much like to include it. I hope that you will have time and interest in participating. As much or as little as you would like to supply would be gratefully received. The assessment questions are posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Gastropods/Self-assessment. I will myself steer clear of the page until after any discussion seems to have become dormant, at which point I will ask questions to make sure that I am developing a good overview of opinions. Thanks. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be much abroad this month, traveling through Germany and France. I won't have a computer at my side. Coming home, I'll probably have more than 500 photos to edit and to upload to the Commons; and hundreds of emails to check. Also, I'll be in arrears on the maintenance of my house and my garden. All this means that I'll probably won't have the time to respond to your questions this month. I'll see what I can do later. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wording "Distribution"

Hello JoJan, I hope your trip is going well. I am not really certain that this applies to you, and forgive me if it doesn't, but... although the word "Distribution" is fine, but when someone says that a species "is distributed in" a certain area, it sounds really weird to native English speakers (as if Fedex comes along and drops the snails off here and there). Please use the phrase "occurs in" instead. Also rather than saying a marine species occurs "along" a country, it is better to say ~~either "off of" that country (especially for subtidal species)~~ or "along the coast of" that country. Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK; I'll keep that in mind. Fine trip, btw. JoJan (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?

What do you think we should do about all these changes to the Conus articles? I don't seem to be getting anywhere at all in my discussions with the new user. Even if we decided to embrace the new system, the way he is changing the articles is not the right way to do this. Invertzoo (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert :), but I think we should rollback the changes until the status is confirmed by WoRMS. They are just calling it an alternate representation. The alternate names must be added to the synonym list here. I just made a list of articles that were changed. I have already reverted the change on Conus fragilissimus.

Coninae Done
Conoidea Done
Conus Done
Conus achatinus Done
Conus amadis Done
Conus amphiurgus Done
Conus arenatus Done
Conus aristophanes Done
Conus ateralbus Done
Conus betulinus Done
Conus bruuni Done
Conus californicus Done
Conus consors Done
Conus ebraeus Done
Conus flavidus Done
Conus fragilissimus Done
Conus generalis Done
Conus geographus Done
Conus glans Done
Conus gloriamaris Done
Conus hyaena Done
Conus kinoshitai Done
Conus laterculatus Done
Conus lischkeanus Done
Conus litoglyphus Done
Conus magus Done
Conus miles Done
Conus miliaris Done
Conus monile Done
Conus musicus Done
Conus mustelinus Done
Conus nanus Done
Conus sanguinolentus Done
Conus stercusmuscarum Done
Conus striatus Done
Conus striolatus Done
Conus textile Done
Conus vexillum Done
Conus virgo Done
Conus xanthicus Done
Conus zeylanicus Done

— Ganeshk (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a bit in a dilemma. Snek01 agrees with the new names and disagrees in this matter with WoRMS (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gastropods#Edits to Conidae articles). A couple of days ago I've also sent a note about this to the talk page of Shadowshador (See : User talk:Shadowshador#Your edits to Conus), but he doesn't react. My opinion is to go along with WoRMS, since the last updates with alternate names were done by dr. Bouchet himself, e.g. [1]. I suppose he knows what he's doing and who are we to contradict him ? I propose to wait a bit longer to see if we obtain any reaction form Shadowhador or if someone else want to propose something else. JoJan (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have followed up on this per my note in the Wikiproject Gastropods discussion board. More than half done so far.Shellnut (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed this task. All genus annotations have been reverted to Conus as is consistent with WoRMS and the Wikiproject Gastropods standard format. Alternate representations are noted as synonyms at this time.Shellnut (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

User talk:Garboman seems to be nothing but a vandalism only account, is it ok if I reblock indef w/ autoblock on? Kwsn (Ni!) 15:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I usually don't go about it in a heavy-handed way when blocking a registered user who has only made a few edits, even if they are vandalisms. If vandalism resumes after this block, then the user is clearly showing malicious intentions, and then an indef block would be appropriate. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll leave the block in place. To each their own as the saying goes :). Kwsn (Ni!) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Cristina Serafini

I don't know if this is the right place to talk about this, I'm sorry if it's not but I don't know how to reach you JoJan. On Sept 27 you erased my page about Italian actress Cristina Serafini, saying that it was copied by her imdb page, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2866606/bio Well it's not!! I had written her wikipedia page months ago, and Serafini's agent copied the biography from Wikipedia on Serafini's imdb page! Can I please have my page back??!!?? It's my copyright! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masscapp (talk • contribs) 23:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the article. I now advise you to contest the speedy deletion so that it won't be deleted again. I can hardly take away the speedy delete template as I cannot find proof wich one was first : your article or the imdb article. JoJan (talk) 11:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't know where I should write you...just wanted to thank you for giving my page about actress Cristina Serafini back, and let you know that I talked to her agent and she asked imdb to remove the biography because it was my copyright, but that will take up to 10 days for imdb to do that. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masscapp (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Wikimedia Foundation

Hi JoJan, How are you? My name is Matthew Roth and I'm a Storyteller working on the 2011 fundraiser with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. In past years, we've relied on Jimbo to carry the bulk of the fundraising weight and he's done very well helping us hit our yearly funding targets. This year, however, we're broadening the scope and reach of the fundraiser by incorporating more voices and different people on the funding banners and appeals that will start running full-time on November 7th. We're testing new messages and finding some really great results with editors and staff members of the Foundation. You can see the current progress of the tests here. I'm curious if you would want to participate in an interview with me as part of this process? The interviews usually last 60 minutes and involve a number of questions about your personal editing experiences, as well as general questions about Wikipedia and its impact in the world. In case you were curious, Invertzoo spoke highly of working with you and recommended I write this inquiry. Please let me know your thoughts by emailing mroth (at) wikimedia.org. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 18:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello JoJan/Archive 15! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

:File:Aetobatus narinari.jpg

Way back in 2004 you uploaded a file to File:Aetobatus narinari.jpg. A file with the same name exists on Wikimedia commons, and an editor's attempt to display the commons file in the article Spotted eagle ray was prevented by the existence of your file. I have moved your file to File:Aetobatus narinari2.jpg to overcome this problem. The file was not currently being used in any other article, so I doubt that any harm will be done, and it may be that after 7 years you had completely forgotten the file's existence anyway, but I thought it matter of courtesy to let you know where the file has been moved to, in case you want to use it. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eulimella

Hello JoJan. I've been going though the new Ganeshbot articles and I noticed that in Eulimella the locality for the genus is given simply as "Bango". This comes verbatim from WoRMS as Bango (province) http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=138404

and it appears to be located in Angola.

There is a Bengo Province in Angola that is on the ocean, which I think may be what is meant, since this is a marine genus. According to a Google search there is also a Bango in the Huambo region of Angola, but that is well inland and above 4000 feet.

I am also not clear if WoRMS means to suggest that all the species in this genus occur in the Bango/Bengo area. That seems unlikely.

I did leave a note for Ganesh, but this is not a Ganeshbot issue, it's a WoRMS issue. Because you communicate quite often with the folks at WoRMS I thought I would tell you about this.

Best, Invertzoo (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the mentioning of Bango in the section distribution. Species of Eulimella occur in different seas and oceans, in casu : the Mediterranean Sea, different locations in the Atlantic Ocean, off the Philippines etc. It is often risky to add text under the distribution section of a genus article, as one has then to be more specific and give all locations. JoJan (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can remove the distribution section from the genera template. Let me know. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This probably would be for the best. The distribution can be filled in later if necessary. JoJan (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Ganeshk (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great! Thanks guys! Wikipedia is really amazing. Invertzoo (talk) 12:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One genus is a synonym of another genus

Hi again JoJan. As I am sure you remember, we have numerous short articles created from A.W.B. Powell's 1979 book on New Zealand mollusks. Back then some calyptraeids from that part of the world were grouped under the genus Zegalerus. However, according to WoRMS, Zegalerus seems to be a synonym of Sigapatella [2]. I am not sure how to go about changing our coverage of the genus. We have three species articles and the genus article that will all need moving I guess, and then those species need adding to the Sigapatella article. I am a bit tired and may be a bit spacey, so I did not want to start this process now without checking carefully with you first. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You gave me a tough nut to crack. I don't posses the book "Powell A. W. B., New Zealand Mollusca" and I don't think this can be found anywhere in my country. So I had to rely on the Internet. I took me some time to find the species of Sigapatella (WoRMS only gives two recently discovered ones) and add the refs. I could identify three species of Zegalerus as synonyms. But there are still two species left for which I couldn't find any synonyms. Thus, I have kept them in Zegalerus with a reference to their original description. JoJan (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to stick you with something difficult! That book is indeed hard to get hold of, I know that. Thanks for all the work you did! Invertzoo (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing extra talk pages

Hello again JoJan. Today I found out that Cymatilesta waterhousei is a synonym of Cabestana tabulata so I turned the article about the former into a redirect. Maybe you want to get rid of its talk page, here? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems we have the same situation with Delonovolva aequalis which it appears that WoRMS says it is a synonym of Neosimnia arcuata which we have as Simnia arcuata. if you agree we need to get rid of that talk page too. Invertzoo (talk) 00:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Coralliophilidae

Hi again JoJan, User:Shellnut wrote and told me he has been uploading some images of Coralliophilidae to Commons and, "Latiaxis pisori D'Attilio & Emerson, 1980, is a species I have photographed and added an image. However, it does not show up on WoRMS, and is listed on Gastropods.com as a synonym of Babelomurex longispinosus (Suzuki, 1972). I have absolutely NO [other] authority for that synonmy though. Before I put the image on Wikipedia I will have to make a determination whether to create a new species article OR to put it under B. longispinosus. Any thoughts?" Since you are good at this kind of thing, I am asking you what you think JoJan. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OBIS [3] states that Latiaxis pisori D'Attilio & Emerson, 1980 is a synonym of Babelomurex longispinosus (Suzuki, 1972) [4]. Original description in : Kosuge, S. & Suzuki, M., 1985. {Illustrated catalogue of Latiaxisis and its related groups. Family Coralliophilidae.}. Institute of Malacology, Tokyo, Special Publication 1:1-83. I think this settles this question. JoJan (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JoJan for checking up on this question, that is very helpful. Oh by the way, just a reminder, in English in recent centuries we use a colon without an extra space before it so that: it looks just like that. Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all of your help - both JoJan and Invertzoo!!! JoJan, are you the "go to" guy for taxonomy questions on the Coralliphilinae? I am seeing a number of discrepancies between the genera listed on Wikipedia currently, and what is in WoRMS. I assume we want to follow the lead of WoRMS on this, so Liniaxis will need a revamp, as two of those species are listed under Coralliophila and one of them is lost in the world somewhere. I am currently researching that issue and hope to do a clean up of the article(s) soon. Your insight is welcome and appreciated.Shellnut (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no more expert than anyone else but I seem to get some results, unless I'm stopped by a paywall. I've revised Liniaxis but additional help is welcome. It seems that many species (and genera) named by Powell in his book "New Zealand Mollusca" have become problematic. All too often, they have become synonyms. But most of these species are little studied and it becomes sometimes difficult to find the accepted names. JoJan (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two things

Hi JoJAn, I wanted to explain that my leg (torn ACL) is still in recovery. I am still in a brace and the leg still represents a challenge and a limitation to me. I am quite often still in pain, hence I am often more tired than one would expect and I have to take a nap as well as another rest or two during the day. So my current Wikipeida work is mostly a lot of small bits and pieces as I can't concentrate very well on more challenging things.

I just now noticed for the first time that we have an article on Pleurotomarioidea and also one on Pleurotomariacea. The latter is favored by paleontologists. This one conflict represents the tip of the iceberg: I am not sure how we are going to manage the project because one taxonomy (B&R) is used by students of living mollusks, and another one (Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology) is still very much in use by paleontologists. Invertzoo (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan, we all wish you well and a speedy recovery. In the mean time, we all understand that there's not much you can do and we respect that. As to the paleobiology articles, at the moment there's not much we can do as this requires a specialist. I looked at both articles and I found that they don't cover the same number of families. I assume that this already justifies the existence of both articles (they already refer to each other). I can't go further into this as I have here in Wikipedia already more than enough on my plate than I can chew. JoJan (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odostomia alia

Hi JoJan, Please review User_talk:Ganeshbot#Link to Congo disambiguation page. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WoRMS and Plagyostila

Hello JoJan, I am creating stubs for our missing genus articles. I was going to create one for Plagiostyla but when I looked that genus up on WoRMS here their page said that Plagiostyla Fischer, 1872 is an incorrect subsequent spelling of Plagiostila de Folin, 1872. So then I moved our species article Plagiostila senengalensis to the de Folin spelling. Then I noticed that on the WoRMS page for that species, it is still spelled the Fischer way. Should I use the de Folin spelling throughout to be logical? Invertzoo (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct spelling is Plagyostila Fischer in De Folin & Perier,1872 and not Plagiostyla or Plagiostila. You can check this here :

Enzo Campani (2001), Eulimidae Mediterranée, Documenti del Gruppo Malacologico Livornese.

There is no need to make these two articles for the species, as they already exist in Wikipedia under the correct name. I'll send an email to WoRMS to attract their attention to this inconsistency. JoJan (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Good research! Thanks JoJan, I made the incorrectly spelled articles into redirects: Plagiostyla, Plagiostila, Plagiostila senegalensis and Plagiostyla senegalensis.

During today I also had to turn the following stub articles into redirects: Mesericusa sowerbi, Endemoconus otohimeae, Litorina scabra. But I guess the talk pages move with them all so you won't need to delete any left-over talk pages. Invertzoo (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Africonus

Today Shellnut created an article on Africonus as an "alternative representation". He wrote a message about it (to you and me) on his talk page. I went and did some clean up on it already, but I think it needs a fair bit more work. Please do take a look as soon as you get the chance. I also need to explain to Shellnut how he can go about creating a subpage of his user page and put a draft of an article there so it can be revised and fixed up before it goes live on the encyclopedia. Best, Invertzoo (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again JoJan, If you get a chance could you tell us (on Shellnut's talk page) what you think of the text in the new article Africonus. I changed it a fair bit but it still needs work because it is short of inline citations and may need other tweaks. We are waiting on your input before Ganesh creates more of the new genus stubs. Actually I just realized that this kind of discussion should be taking place on the project talk page. We could copy it over there I guess. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply at the talk page of Shellnut. JoJan (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odostomia and other Pyramidellidae images

Good morning JoJan! I have photographed and uploaded images of 18 species for you per your request. Look at my Talk Page thread for further information. I hope these images are helpful.Shellnut (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of mollusks of Venezuela

Hello JoJan. We now have two new list articles: List of introduced molluscs of Venezuela and List of molluscs of Falcón state, Venezuela. In both cases the marine and non-marine are combined into one article. (As you know, our other lists are either marine or non-marine.) We also have two older lists about Venezuela: List of non-marine molluscs of El Hatillo Municipality, Miranda, Venezuela and List of non-marine molluscs of Venezuela.

Do you think we should perhaps try to separate out the marine from the non-marine within these new list articles? Or divide each one into two separate list articles? Should we instead add the non-marine species to the main article on the non-marine mollusks of Venezuela if any of them are lacking there? The illustrations, which take the form of plates, have marine and non-marine species mixed together. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a great fan of such lists, unless they contain endemic species. Marine molluscs of Venezuela ? They are surely found in the Caribbean Sea, but do they occur exclusively off Venezuela ? One could then make such a list for every country in the world bordering a sea or an ocean. Most molluscs occur in a certain area, even a wide area or maybe even worldwide. But such an area is not limited by borders of a country. Few molluscs are endemic. I've never interfered in these matters as such lists do no harm. On the contrary, the above mentioned list are beautifully made and have taken a lot of effort from Veronidae. I think you should consult her and see if she wants to split the lists between marine and non-marine. I think that's the best solution. JoJan (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree with what you say about lists of marine species. Most of these marine species found off Venezuela are found throughout the Caribbean faunal zone, and the same thing is true of most lists of marine species by country. I will see what I can do. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left Veronidae a note. However I think Veronidae's mother tongue is Spanish and my Spanish is not really up to leaving a translation. Invertzoo (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP Tree of Life in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Tree of Life for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner warrant

Nice to have this in the article, but surely it should be black on white? Can you provide it the right way round, or explain why it is white on black, - and also please indicate on Commons the original source - otherwise it will I think be subject to deletion. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 10:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. JoJan (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!--Smerus (talk) 13:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake!

Hello! I use Wikipedia a lot of times as I am Hispanic and trying to learn the English language. However, every time I try to use the website Wikipedia, at the top of an article it says that I have a new message. The message says that I have made changes to Calliotropis pagodiformis which is an article that I have never visited on Wikipedia and that the changes that I have made on Calliotropis pagodiformis have been reverted. The message says that the message was sent by JoJan, so that is why I am posting this here! Please stop sending me these messages JoJan, because I have not done anything wrong and it makes me confused and anoyed. ~~Ricardo

The changes to the article were made by the IP 98.111.122.177. This has been done three times on December 7 and once on December 18. , as you can check in the history of the article. If the IP-address is not fixed, then this message is not personal. JoJan (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo, It looks like you are using a shared IP address. Please consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid these messages. You can do so by visiting this link. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genus Philbertia

Hello JoJan. I am trying to catch up on creating needed genus articles (for those cases where we have species articles, but no corresponding genus article.) In some cases the genus has been synonymized, and in those cases I have created a redirect page for the synonym. However I am confused about the genus Philbertia, which WoRMS says is a synonym of Raphitoma. Several of the species names we have as articles using the name Philbertia (there are at least 10 of them) don't seem to be listed under Raphitoma in WoRMS, so I am not sure what to do with them. Thanks for your help, Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philbertia Monterosato, 1884 became a synonym of Raphitoma Bellardi, 1848 because of Bouchet’s idea (1990) of not considering valid the subdivision of species into different genera only on the basis of differences during larval development [5]. In describing Raphitoma, WoRMS relied on an unpublished database "Nomenclator of Molluscan Supraspecific Names" by Bouchet P. & Rocroi J.-P. (2010). However, again according to WoRMS, 21 species still retain the genus name Philbertia. I can only suspect this is because there has been no research on these species in order to rename them in a different genus. Gastropods.com still accept many species of Philbertia as valid, others as synonyms [6]. Furthermore, in their publication "A NEW OPERATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE CONOIDEA (GASTROPODA), Bouchet, Kantor et al. (2011) still recognize Philbertia as a valid genus in Raphitomidae [7]. Conclusion: Philbertia should retain its own article, in which the problem is explained, until we have more information. I think, we must get used to this. JoJan (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks JoJan. So I must now create a article for Philbertia, which we did not have before. I can turn the redirect page into an article, but I may struggle with knowing what exactly to say in the article and I may have to ask your help with that. Invertzoo (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just go ahead. We'll work it out afterwards. JoJan (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it turns out that I don't have much time today or this evening. I did however throw together something as an article page, Philbertia but it needs a lot more work. Invertzoo (talk) 21:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did some editing and added the synonyms and a few references. JoJan (talk) 15:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JoJan. Invertzoo (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chemnitzia and Turbonilla

Can you just check something for me JoJan? We have articles for four Chemnitzia species, which WoRMS seems to place in the genus Turbonilla. Should I make Chemnitzia into a redirect and then add all of the WoRMS Turbonilla species into our Turbonilla article? It is a long list. Invertzoo (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have here the same problem as with Philbertia. There are four leftovers, not to mention the fossil species of Chemnitzia. Therefore, Chemnitzia still deserves its own article. Checking WoRMS, I saw that their article on Chemnitzia is far from complete. For example, in 1860 P. Carpenter described 18 Chemnitzia species from the large collection of Mazatlán (collected by the Belgian malacologist Frederick Reigen) in the British Museum [8]. All these are now mentioned in Turbonilla with the name of the author between brackets, but without mentioning the basionym in Chemnitzia. There must be many more examples like this. We must simply accept that no database is complete at his moment and we must try to make the best of it. JoJan (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we now have a Chemnitzia article. Invertzoo (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Rihiveli-Male-Maldives.web.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rihiveli-Male-Maldives.web.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. mabdul 18:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:JoJan/Archive 15