Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bivalves

Shortcut
This is a noticeboard for messages that are relevant to people working on articles relating to bivalve mollusks of every kind, from freshwater and from saltwater, both living and fossil.
Click here to add a new section

A misleading piece of bivalve research

I wanted to alert people who are interested in bivalves to this PLOS article here which purports to show that tourism greatly decreased clam populations on a beach in Spain. The authors seem to imply that this was due to people casually picking up dead valves on the beach, but the authors (paleontologists) did not bother even to establish first that tourists picked up shells there! In any case, their assessment was based on beach drift valves, NOT live clams, the methodology is overall quite poor, and any correlation between levels of tourism and actual live clam populations was completely unproved. However this poor quality piece of research will probably be used by politicians to suggest that it should be made illegal to pick up even dead shells on beaches. I felt that people should know about this. Invertzoo (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article reviewers

Questions have been raised about the accuracy of science articles written by the prolific author Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs). The background can be read in a regrettably long and bad-tempered thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment. If you do not want to read the whole thing, start here. To her credit, Cwmhiraeth has initiated Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. It would help to generate light, rather than more heat, and to decide whether there is a serious problem, if scientifically-qualified editors uninvolved in the row could review some of Cwmhiraeth's articles and comment at the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC) This edit unsigned by User Cwmhiraeth at 06:23, 16 April 2014[reply]

The 2010 taxonomy article

I wanted to point out that I moved the title of the article "2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia" to "Taxonomy of the Bivalvia (Bouchet, Rocroi, Bieler, Carter & Coan, 2010)" as that is the standard form we have used in the past, and plus, this taxonomy is no longer simply "proposed" -- it has been accepted by WoRMS. Invertzoo (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good news. I may have actually contributed to this, at least the molecular part. The phylogeny was quite a mess, to say the least. Esoxidtalk•contribs 00:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thanks for anything you did to help with this taxonomy! Invertzoo (talk) 00:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of edible molluscs

This list article was created a week or two ago; basically it was a bare list taken straight from Category Edible molluscs, with no additional refinements. This morning I put in three hours of work trying to improve it. It looks a lot better now but it still has only one small reference (!) and no doubt could use numerous other refinements. Would someone please be kind enough to take a look at it and see if they can improve it further? Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy conflict

There is a conflict between the Taxonomy we set up the project to have (which dated from 2010) and the taxonomy currently (2014) used in WoRMS. I would favor going with the WoRMS taxonomy now. I would be interested in hearing anyone else's opinions on this question. For an example of the problem see the article Ostreoida. Invertzoo (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of a Request for Comment

I have made a WP:RfC on the talk page of the article for Pectinidae which can be viewed here. Please consider visiting and offering your thoughts on how to split/ join/ redirect the articles on Scallop and Pectinidae. Everyone is welcome! KDS4444Talk 07:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pectinidae scallops. Educated ears requested.

There is a very civilised RFC discussion underway in Talk:Pectinidae on whether the articles Scallop and Pectinidae should be merged. Understandably for such a humdrum topic, the number of participants is small, and several pages down the line there appears to be deadlock that threatens to lead to undesirable outcomes, deadlocks and possibly worse. Could some kindly spirits please look in and add enough weight, or sufficiently persuasive argument, to one side or the other to sway the disputants toward a constructive agreement? Many thanks if so. JonRichfield (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Bivalve project is not currently very active. I am fairly active on that project still, but I was away on a trip while most of the discussion was taking place and have been rather busy IRL since I got back. I looked at the long discussion and hardly knew what to say about it, because I see merit in all the different points of view and am not sure what a close WP policy reading would actually recommend in a situation like this. So I apologize that I have not recently put my 2 cents worth into the discussion again. Invertzoo (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went over and gave an opinion, such as it is. Invertzoo (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN maps

Hello, I exported/converted IUCN map files of the first 48 freshwater bivalves (of Indo-Burma region) from the GDB to more easily usable separate SHP files. Download SHP files at https://www.dropbox.com/sh/kmc330u62ovj3tu/AAA2FDxU9xv_zTv7cJdUCFfTa?dl=0 (I did it because they are mixed with gastropods in GDB file; I deal with gastropods only.) Use final maps as you wish and cite them properly with Commons:Template:IUCN_map_permission. Further informations: Commons:Commons:IUCN Red List and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#IUCN_maps_of_Conidae. I will export other SHPs later. I can make "deadly important" map images (for DYK hook articles, ...) on request, if needed. I hope it will be useful. --Snek01 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Snek. Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unionidae

The stub on Unionidae lists its genera. It is depressing to see how many are red linked. Please help by at least writing stubs on these. Certainly these genera are more deserving than some of the things covered extensively in Wikipedia. Kdammers (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the bivalve project is a rather small and rather new project that is not currently very active, so is likely that hardly anyone other than me will read your note. The Unionidae are indeed very interesting animals, but the average person who cares about mollusks is more interested in marine mollusks than in the non-marine species. And in general we have not had very many bivalve articles of any kind created this year. Project Gastropods is however more active than this. Invertzoo (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you can bear to do it, creating a short stub for each genus (or at least for some of the genera) in that family would be something you can perhaps do, assuming you can find suitable RS? Once you have the first genus stub done, it is relatively easy to copy it and customize it to make the other ones. Invertzoo (talk) 14:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scallop and Pectinidae

As it turns out, the two articles ended up being merged back together again, after 5 years apart. Invertzoo (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two new stubs

I created Ascetoaxinus quatsinoensis and Ascetoaxinus. Both articles are still stubs. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I went over those articles too. Much appreciated. Invertzoo (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lunule (bivalve)

We need an image that clearly show the lunule on a bivalve shell. Venus shells (family Veneridae) often show this well when photographed from the right angle. If anyone reads this and can either make an image or find a pre-existing image, it would be great to add that to the new article. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 12:10, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to do this myself so it's well underway now. Invertzoo (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympia oyster mixup

It appears that Ostrea conchaphila and Ostrea lurida both claim to be "the" Olympia oyster. I think there's some mixup between the two, perhaps one was meant to be a northern species and the other southern, but they are too confusing for me to sort out. According to this 2009 scientific paper there is debate over whether two species even exist. Needs attention of an expert. Perhaps the articles should be merged? — Brianhe (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian, and thanks for your helpful note. The scientific paper, which you kindly provided a link to, does in fact say that these two species appear to be separate in terms of the molecular evidence. O. lurida is the northern species and O. conchaphila the southern one. I think it is best to keep the articles separate. I will look and see if anything needs changing. Thanks for the heads up! Invertzoo (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did make some major changes, but I kept both articles. This probably needs more research and more writing in the two articles, but this is at any rate a start. Invertzoo (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Bivalves to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bivalves/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 04:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An important reference

Hi there, Bivalve people! You might find this article very interesting. --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Daniel! Looks like a really great paper! Thanks for pointing it out. Invertzoo (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

There is currently a merger proposal for the article Clam to be merged into our flagship article Bivalvia. Your views will be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has bearing on a frequently appearing formulaic lead sentence, as can be seen at Cerastoderma edule; "Cerastoderma edule, commonly known as the common cockle, is a species of edible saltwater clam, a marine bivalve mollusc...". Bolded words in this lead are used in various articles on species that are also described as cockles, mussels, oysters and scallops. Is "clam" really a catch all term for ALL bivalves? If anybody watching this page in interested in speaking up, please comment further at Talk:Bivalvia#Proposed merger of Clam into Bivalvia Plantdrew (talk) 04:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Populating the "Molluscs described in YYYY" categories

Various editors, including myself, have been creating categories such as Category:Molluscs described in 2000‎ and populating them. It is rather slow, repetitive and tedious. I am considering setting up a bot for the task of moving molluscs from "Animals described in..." categories to the corresponding "Molluscs described in..." category. Any thoughts? It has been suggested at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Populating_the_"Molluscs_described_in_YYYY"_categories that gastropods should be put into their own categories as part of this task. William Avery (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a bot approval request at WP:BRFA#William_Avery_Bot. William Avery (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on categorizing by year of formal description

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description for a discussion on possible guidelines for categorizing by year of formal description of a species. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment on recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes

There is an RfC regarding recommending usage of automatic taxoboxes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comments: Should the automatic taxobox system be the current recommended practice?. Inviting anybody who watches this page to contribute their thoughts to that thread.

WikiProject Bivalves is currently using automatic taxoboxes in 14.3% of project tagged articles that have any form of taxobox. Plantdrew (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bivalves/Cephalopods/Chitons described in YYYY categories

I started an fyi/discussion/request to populate for these cats at WT:MARINELIFE#Bivalves/Cephalopods/Chitons described in YYYY categories (since a WP:WikiProject Molluscs doesn't exist, to my surprise!).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Order spelling

WoRMS is spelling this as Myida but not listing any synonyms. Thoughts? I have not looked into this beyond what is listed on WoRMs; it was brought up on my talk page and I am moving the discussion here.

Thanks! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of work with automatic taxoboxes for bivalves, but gave up after encountering this issue (which applies to all other bivalve orders on Wikipedia as well). I didn't look in to it in any detail at that time. Having investigated further, here's what Bieler et. al 2014 (available online here) have to say about it:

"Use of name endings at the ordinal rank The ordinal endings -ida and -oida have both been extensively employed in bivalve literature. We follow the suggested standardisation to -ida as used in the bivalve classifications by Scarlato and Starobogatov (1979), Bieler et al.(2010) and Carter et al.(2011), among others. No change in inferred rank is implied by this adjustment. These names, as well as those with informal endings, are used as labels of their clades. We are aware that the formal endings imply certain ranks in the Linnaean hierarchy, but we have not attempted to re-rank all hypothesised clades resulting from this study as we consider such a step as premature until a denser family-level sampling is presented."

WoRMS cite Bieler et al. 2014, as well as Bieler et al. 2010 for Myida, and I would presume for other orders as well.. Bieler 2010 (available online here) doesn't have any comment on the spelling of the orders, but does in fact use -ida rather than -oida.
A problem is that Bivalvia#2010 taxonomy and Taxonomy of the Bivalvia (Bouchet, Rocroi, Bieler, Carter & Coan, 2010) ostensibly follow Bieler 2010, but don't use the -ida spellings. Before I actually looked at Bieler's paper, that had me quite confused, but now I see it's simply a mistake on Wikipedia.
I suggest we go ahead and move order articles to bring them inline with WoRMS and Bieler. Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also support renaming the order articles as per WoRMS and Bieler to help produce a coherent taxonomy. Loopy30 (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine by me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subscribe to new Tree of Life Newsletter!

"I've never heard so much about crinoids!"

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New page

I just created Lioconcha hieroglyphica. Feel free to add more to it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bivalvia Barnstar


Introducing Template:The Bivalvia Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and very nice too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion in progress

Mactra ovata appears to be a synonym for this and should, if that's correct be merged/redirected to Paphies australis (pipi). Grateful for comments on this at Talk:Paphies australis, since biology is quite a way outside me wheelhouse and I may have misunderstood the situation. Furius (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

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

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

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Lajonkairia lajonkairii#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lajonkairia lajonkairii#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]