User talk:JoJan/Archive 17

Rhytida greenwoodi subspecies

Hi JoJan, The three subspecies of this species are already listed in the species article and their localities are given there. I assume you would agree that it's a good idea to delete the separate pages and talk pages for Rhytida greenwoodi stephenensis and Rhytida greenwoodi webbi as unnecessary? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see we have the same situation with Rhytida meesoni, and that we don't need the subspecies article for Rhytida meesoni perampla? Invertzoo (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles for subspecies don't do any harm. They can eventually be used as a container for photos (or more information) in the future. I've also seen cases where a subspecies became a synonym for a species in another (or even in the same) genus. Then the matter can simply be settled with a move and there is no need to create a new article from scratch. My advice: leave it as it is. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iravadia

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Iravadia, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Iravadiidae. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is confused. JoJan (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ganeshbot

Hi JoJan, I have been busy in RL and have not been able to create new stubs. I will get in touch with you once I find free time. — Ganeshk (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no hurry. JoJan (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You're doing some great work with the decent new articles. Wonderful to see a professional "expert" on here improving wikipedia and improving its value as a resource. Keep it up! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JoJan (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Haplocochlias risoneideneryae

Your redirect is to the same page as the redirect. BTW: to move a page, see wp:moving pages, avoid copy/pasting to a new page. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This mistake has already been taken care of. JoJan (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover talk page

Hello JoJan, WoRMS considers Scissurella stellae to be a synonym of Scissurella prendrevillei. So I turned the former into a redirect page. Maybe you could delete the leftover talk page? Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the templates but kept the text of "Copyright problem removed". JoJan (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you! Invertzoo (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chlorostoma funebralis

Hello again JoJan. For three of the brand new Chlorostoma stubs that Ganeshbot just made, we already had pre-existing articles for the identical species, but under the genus Tegula.

I made two of the relevant Tegula articles (Tegula montereyi and Tegula brunnea) into redirects to the new stubs, adding in to the new stub an image and whatever other minimal amount of info they previously had in them (hardly anything). But the article Black turban snail, aka Tegula funebralis, has quite a lot of info, 5 references and 3 images. I suppose we should consolidate the old article with the new stub Chlorostoma funebralis and combine the edit histories? I don't know how to do that. Do you know how?

Also, I left the Wikimedia Commons links on the other two as they were, even though the links use the old name. Is that OK for now do you think?

And should we delete the old talk pages for these three articles once they are all redirects?

Thanks again! Invertzoo (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I won't be available for a fortnight or so, as I'm leaving for a trip abroad to Portugal on Friday. JoJan (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much JoJan. I hope you have a wonderful relaxing time in Portugal. Invertzoo (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stiliger felinus and Ercolania felina

When you get back JoJan, could you merge the edit histories of [1] with this page Ercolania felina? Thanks. I hope you are having a really good time in Portugal. Invertzoo (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I had a wonderful time touring northern Portugal. I came back with more than 700 photos of churches and their interior, and of monuments, castles, museums etc. These will all have to be edited and then uploaded to the Commons. But I'm already about 3,000 photos behind in my uploading. I can't see the end of it. And of course, coming back from a trip, my daily chores at home are also waiting to be done. Coming back to my daily routine in wikipedia will take some days. JoJan (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to have you back JoJan. I'm glad you had a great time; I have never been to Portugal but would love to go! However I do know what it's like coming back and trying to catch up with everything, sigh. Take your time and welcome back, Invertzoo (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trochochlamys ogasawarana and Ogasawarana ogasawarana H. A. Pilsbry, 1902

Hi again JoJan. I am still doing routing clean-up, going through our older stubs one by one fixing them up and sorting stuff out. I am puzzled by these two, so can I get your opinion? We have an article for Trochochlamys ogasawarana and one for Ogasawarana ogasawarana, an endemic Japanese species of land snail. As far as I can tell the species was named by Pilsbry. I am assuming that the first name is currently simply a synonym for the second. However, the first name is what the Red List uses and lists the species as Critically Endangered. At first I was going to make the first name a redirect to the second, but I am not sure because can we still use that reference? What should we do, do you think? Invertzoo (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land snails are not my specialty but, at first sight, these are different species as they belong to different families and different clades. Having the same epithet doesn't mean that they are synonyms. JoJan (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes you are right! So sorry to bother you! I was very sleepy when I tried to look at that apparent puzzle. Obviously I was not paying proper attention. Invertzoo (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few English language pointers

Hi again JoJan. Your English is very good indeed, but not quite perfect. I just wanted to point out a few things:

1. In English, a colon has no space before it, only after it. And a colon is used rather sparingly to mean "as follows", usually for a list or subsequent phrase, therefore it should not be used like this in the middle of a sentence, because that is far too much punctuation:

Trochus rubiginosa, common name: the red sea snail, is a species...."

That should be written:

Trochus rubiginosa, common name the red sea snail, is a species...."

2. In English we do not write that... A species "is distributed in" an area, because that seems to mean that someone is driving around handing out samples of the species! Instead we say that a species "occurs in" a certain area.

3. Also, we do not say a species occurs "along" the Philippines. We say that it occurs "off" the Philippines.

Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erasing a left-over talk page?

Hello JoJan, could you get rid of this left-over talk page? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the templates but kept the text about the copyright problem for historical reasons. JoJan (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good work. Invertzoo (talk) 20:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit history for Umbilicus (mollusk)

There is a note on the talk page of that article asking that the relevant edit history, from back when the text was still part of Navel, be added to the mollusk article. Do you think this should be done? And if so, can you make that transfer? Thanks so much, Invertzoo (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very complex case, because the article "Navel" has undergone more than 1,000 revisions since 28 December 2006. I never had to deal with such a complex case where only a part of the article was copied and pasted into a new article, without transfer of the relevant histories. Chances are that the whole transfer may go awry. And to undo a bungled attempt is even more complex. It is probably best to leave things as they are or perhaps find an administrator who feels at ease with such a complex case. JoJan (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you; I feel that this is hardly worth doing under the circumstances. Invertzoo (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aegires gardineri

Hello JoJan, This article was written by a new editor who did not understand about copyright issues and thought that simple referencing would make copying material OK. I tried to explain that this is not acceptable on his talk page. He told me that he would be away and unreachable for 5 weeks. The article got tagged for copyright. I have left a note on the article talk page and I have also placed a cleaned up version on the Temp page here. Can you do the transfer to get the trimmed version back onto its page again, or does it have to be someone else that does it? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 13:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan! Invertzoo (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The genus Sarasomia AfD

Hi JoJan, could you please have a look at, and weigh in on, the discussion here where one editor is saying he doesn't see the justification for having a short stub on a genus article, in particular because he thinks that taxa are somehow inherently not notable. Thanks! Invertzoo (talk) 14:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a reply. All living things are inherently notable. JoJan (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JoJan, but now someone has raised a different issue there (an irrelevant one to AfD) about a possible synonomy (which is also explained on the talk page of the gastropod project). Since you are better than I am at nomenclatural problems, maybe you could have a look at this? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land slugs isn' t my field. At first I was tempted to recognize Sarasomia plebeia as a synonym of Sarasinula plebeia, based on [2]. But then ITIS recognizes Sarasomia plebeia without any explanation [3]. Also the Terrestrial Slug Web doesn't mention Sarasomia plebeia as a synonym of Sarasinula plebeia [4]. Lacking the original paper by P. Fischer and lacking more information on the internet, it is difficult to make a decision. Perhaps User:Snek01, who deals mainly with land snails, can provide more information. JoJan (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave a note on his user page. Invertzoo (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Hi JoJan, I have resumed the bot work. Please review and approve this task, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Trochidae_-_New_bot_task. — Ganeshk (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forms have no taxonomic significance

Hello JoJan, I just wanted to explain that a form or a Form (zoology) carries no taxonomic significance at all, even though the form may have been given a Latin name some time in the past. In other words a form is totally different from a subspecies, which does have taxonomic significance. The site Gastropods.com pays entirely too much attention to forms, and that is because people who collect cowry shells like to say "I have this form and that form". But Gastropods.com certainly should not be writing the form as a trinomial! Putting an (f) at the end is no excuse. Again, forms have no taxonomic significance at all. It would be like suggesting that being tall or red-headed person has taxonomic significance in humans. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR

Hi there. Good news: you're up next for a free JSTOR account, since you signed up Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access.

JSTOR will provide you access via an email invitation, so to get your account, please email me (swallingwikimedia.org) with...

• the subject line "JSTOR"
• your English Wikipedia username
• your preferred email address for a JSTOR account

The above information will be given to JSTOR to provide you with your account, but will otherwise remain private. Please do so ASAP or drop me a message to say you don't want/need an account any longer. We're waiting to deliver access to everyone until we have the 100 recipients collected, so the sooner you reply the quicker everyone can start using JSTOR.

Thank you! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ficus variegata, the snail species, not the tree species, a mess!

Hello JoJan, Maybe you can help me sort this all out? I am tired as it is the evening and I have tonsillitis, so this is all too confusing for me right now!

There is a sea snail named Ficus variegata Röding, 1798. We do have an article for it under Ficus variegatus, but the title needs to be moved to Ficus variegata, as per [the WoRMS entry here].

However... there is also a tree named Ficus variegata. And when I did a search for the sea snail I got taken to the tree article. That article was named Ficus variegata (Tree), so I moved it to Ficus variegata (tree).

I tried to put a better hat note on the tree article, the one you see now, and then I tried to sort out the redirect pages, BUT I only made things worse by creating a circular redirect! I suppose we need a disambiguation page and to delete one or more of the redirects???

Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Please check if I had done it right. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good Ganesh, thank you so much, but as yet I don't get the disambiguation page when I do a search for the binomial name. I suppose that will show up OK by tomorrow. Thanks again, Invertzoo (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the disambiguation page, Ficus variegata. I see what you mean, if you google it, it pulls up the tree alone. Right, it will take a few days for Google to index the disambiguation page. — Ganeshk (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ganesh! Invertzoo (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Restore the Bernardo Paz Wikipedia page.

Although I have long abandoned the page I am willing to put the effort to undo the page to an earlier date that did not infringe on the copyright, or whatever the reason was. Bernardo Paz is an important industrialist and art collector and his page is linked to other pages. Geo8rge (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the text you used was copyrighted [5], I cannot restore the page as it was. You, however, can create this page anew with text in your own words using the rules in Wikipedia:Five pillars. Cheers. JoJan (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing the Chrysallida genus of Pyramidellidae.

Hello JoJan,

I have been editing multiple articles within the Pyramidellidae category lately, as you can probably tell. I am going to begin contributing to the Chrysallida genus shortly and I was just wondering, do you think it would be a good idea if I were to create a new category entirely for this particular genus? I would be more than happy to perform that task, but I think doing so may result in a humungous disappointment and things may possibly go wrong. Do you think the operation should go ahead or should I completely forget about categorizing any of this? Solo Toady (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been brought forward already in the past. I don't think this would be a good idea, unless you would the same for all the genera in Odostomminae and, in the end, for all the genera in Pyramidellidae. This would be an enormous task. I think, at this moment, you can spend your precious time more productively in describing the genera and the species. The rest can come later, much later. JoJan (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for letting me know your opinion on my categorizing idea. Happy editing! Solo Toady (talk) 10:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

User:Solo Toady is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.