User talk:Invertzoo/Archive 53

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Invertzoo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ARCHIVE PAGE 53: May 2012

Thank you for your help on improving Bivalvia. I thought there might be some way to go yet on polishing it up but Keilana has expressed him/herself satisfied. I thought the GA review was very thorough and asked Keilana about whether the article was a FA possibility to which the reply was: "I definitely think it's comprehensive enough for GA, but I also think FA is definitely an attainable goal. Sorry for being such a hardass reviewer."

So I plan to work towards FAC and add sections on use as food and on shellfish toxicity. Can you think of any other missing information? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that's really a great idea to work towards getting Bivalvia up to FA status. I will be happy to assist if I can help in any way, for example with smoothing the prose and fine-tuning it. One small thing I thought of that you could add is to say whose taxonomy system Huber is using in his new book. I do not have that book yet so I can't look and see who he borrowed the system from or if it is his own synthesis. I am not sure what other sections (other than food and toxicity) need adding to the article, I will have to think carefully to see if I can come up with anything. As for smaller improvements, I guess you will need alt text for all of the images. I suppose someone might ask what all the labelled organs are in the oyster drawing and in the Margaritifera anatomy drawing. By the way, the small freshwater pea clams, Sphaeriidae, climb around on water plants using their foot, you might want to mention that in the behavior section. At the beginning of the 2010 taxonomy you may want to say that taxa with a dagger are extinct fossil groups. All best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You make some good points there. I'm currently working on a Toxicity section but have got distracted into writing a new article on Anadara subcrenata, the consumption of which caused 47 deaths in China in 1988. The trouble with this article is that the species name is widely used but is not included in WoRMS or ITIS and I have not yet established the presently accepted name. I added its name to the genus page so that it would not be an orphan. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if that Anadara species is in the new Huber book, the Compendium of Bivalves? And I have another idea about expanding the Bivalve article: I suppose in a general section about human relevance, as well as talking about food and toxicity, you could also include a mention of pearls, mother of pearl, and the influence of the scallop shell on art history and design. Invertzoo (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback!

We have created a brief survey intended to help us understand the experiences and impressions of veteran editors who have participated on the Teahouse. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages some time during the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 15 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there- you've been mentioned, and your input would be appreciated, in the above discussion. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hallo Invertzoo! There is a delisting-discussion caused by your removing of a picture of Melo aethiopica, see [1]. I please you to explain the reasons, why you removed it, especially the characters, your decision is based on. As far as I know, the only character is the protonch (and according to this it is a aethiopica; see also the link to M. broderipii on the description page of the picture of M. aethiopica), all others (shell form, colour and so on are variable and/or depending of age) are not suited for exact determination. If it is neither aethiopica nor broderipii, what do you think it is? By the way, we had a similar discussion on Commons about the same subject, and you can see the result: It is still listed as aethiopica. Please anwer on the page (see above), where the delisting is discussed. Greetings --Llez (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)