Talk:Kanab ambersnail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kanab ambersnail article.
This article is the 1,500,000th Wikipedia article in the English language!
Did You Know An entry from Kanab ambersnail appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 28 November 2006.
Wikipedia
To-do list for Kanab ambersnail: edit · history · watch · refresh


Here are some tasks you can do:
Good articles Kanab ambersnail has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This article is part of WikiProject Gastropods, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Gastropods resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Contents

[edit] Milestone

We were too lazy to make a new sign! --IAMTHEEGGMANΔdark side 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Enlarge
We were too lazy to make a new sign! --IAMTHEEGGMANΔdark side 20:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on being #1,500,000! Kyouteki 19:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture is of a terrorist or sometihng!!! 129.97.45.36 12:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Somebody lock this page quick before someone screws with it 'cuz its on the main page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.55.193.240 (talk • contribs).

No, we simply frequently revert articles on the main page. Wikipedia is about the public contributing, whereas protecting an article doesn't allow that. -- Zanimum 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I know for a fact that a large number of admins and users have this page on their watchlists, and it is being watched on IRC. If we get 'very high levels of vandalism, we may protect it, though we try to avoid doing so, especially when articles are on the main page. "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit" - first link you click is protected - not exactly a good impression!). Martinp23 19:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, vandalism is annoying. Anyway, looks like Tawker just semi-protected it – Gurch 19:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Since then it protected in, and I've now semi'd it. I am not going to put a s-protect template on, it's tacky. -- Zanimum 21:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be working, just got some vandalism by an Ip adress. --YbborT 23:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's only semi-protected against moves, not edits. enochlau (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It's so great that the 1.500.000th article is a really well written one, sourced and everything, instead of a short sentence about an unknown college in let's say Spain Knights who say ni 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


Now that's a letdown. How anticlimatic. ;-) WiiWillieWiki 22:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Arg, still so many people vandalising this page lol ~

[edit] What was 1m?

What was the millionth article? - , 25 November 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 171.66.212.66 (talk • contribs).

It was Jordanhill railway station. Sum0 20:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the discussion page for that one all fancy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.46.179.142 (talk • contribs).

It's older...so editors had more time to fix it up. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the Kanab Ambersnail finally had a good day. Lucky snail! I love when pages on subjects like this get put on the front. Mithridates 23:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Woohoo, I'm glad to see the 1.5 millionth article was partially Utah-related! The RSJ Go Utes! 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Hopefully this will be as improved upon as Jordanhill. If someone has the time, the following scholarly article seems to plentiful sources of information (and images):[1]

Just added the relevant parts of the article to the page. I don't have the greatest handle on copyright issues and images, so if someone wants to look into adding the map of its habitat into the article, it would be much appreciated.--YbborT 02:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jumping the gun here?

I was wondering why this article is listed under WikiProject Extinction - seems to me that as the text says that it is endangered, "extiction" is a bit pre-emptive (and pessimistic, isn't it?). OTOH, this may be the most appropriate WikiProject for it, though I suspect that one of those under Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life might be better. Sorry if I'm being pedantic! Martinp23 23:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've already removed it twice, some vandal keeps putting it up for some reason. --PiMaster3 talk 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I've changed the text to replace "extinction" to the more technical "extirpated" meaning "to cut out." As the edit memo says, it is more technically precise and should cause less confusion to a layperson. Entropyfails 16:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
OK - that's perfectly OK. I was actually referring to this revision of this page, with the tags on. They're now gone. Martinp23 16:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I realized that you meant the category tag after I made the textual edit. But I'm glad you agree with the general premise that perhaps we should stick to a more technical definition as opposed to the looser vocabulary that a specialist would use. As extinction becomes a bigger issue in each of our lives daily, we should raise the bar on the technical discussion of how it works in the hopes that more understanding will lead to less species loss. Perhaps a vain hope, but a noble one (and fitting with wikipedia's purpose of a high quality encyclopedia). Entropyfails 16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Fauna of Utah

I removed this category, as I dread it spreading, see Category talk:Biota by country for a general discussion of this issue. GameKeeper 01:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Flora and fauna has no respect for political boundaries! Alan Liefting 01:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, uh

Word on the street is, the number of Kanab Ambersnails has tripled in the last six months. ;) drseudo (t) 01:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I just hope they don't all get trampled by the wikipedians trying to get photos :-) GameKeeper 01:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I heard they're all trying to attack Nancy Pelosi. -- Kicking222 14:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats on 1.5m

Now, if only the snails could be saved from extinction as well. :( --Czj 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The 1st Wikipedia Article?

What was the 1st article on the English Wikipedia? The RSJ 03:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia%27s_oldest_articles Borisblue 03:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
First one? UuU, created on January 16, 2001. However, this has since been moved to Wikipedia:UuU.
UuU wasn't the first; it's the first that we have a record of. Borisblue 09:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Vaseys" vs. "Vasey's"

Different sources seem to have different takes on weather it's possessive or not. here and here prefer the possessive, but here and here seem to drop the apostrophe. I propose we go without the apostrophe since the later two articles seem more scholarly (two government websites where the name is of passing concern, vs. a peer-reviewed article and a national hunting association) than the former two. --YbborT 03:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with the editors who have recently tried to change it, about government sources trumping most others. However, these sources did not deal directly with the topic of vaseys paradise, and only mentioned it in passing. For these reasons, I think scholarly works would be much better researched. (It should also be noted that, for what it's worth, Google gives more hits for "vaseys paradise" than "vasey's paradise" when searching within the .gov domain. [2] vs. [3].) Additionally, not all government sources call it vasey's. Here is one from the USGS which does not use the possessive (and generally appears much better researched.) --YbborT 04:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See number 18 on the United States Board on Geographic Names's FAQ. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 05:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what was 500,000?

what was the 500,00th article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me and my robot (talk • contribs).

Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union.--YbborT 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amber?

It looks black and brown to me. --Gbleem 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only that but one of the Kanab populations is already extinct. Given the other population is under threat from a landowner who is apparently not restricted despite the fact he's apparently destroying the population, it looks like the snails won't exist in or near Kanab anymore soon either. (doesn't look like that's true). The other population in Kanab is also at risk from a er, deranged? landowner. So who know's maybe one day they won't even be in Kanab anymore so assuming they're not extinct as well, neither Kanab or 'amber' will be accurate :-P Nil Einne 17:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a good picture here [4] slide 3, showing a Niobrara Ambersnail alongside the Kanab Ambersnail. It seems these two subspecies form the species Oxyloma haydeni. I am guessing here but maybe the Niobrara ambersnail was discovered first and named for the distinctive shell, then the Kanab Ambersnail was found to be a subspeices and so got the Ambersnail name too, despite not being that amber. GameKeeper 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Found some solid facts , from this on the Niobrara ambersnail [5]. Succineids generally are referred to as “ambersnails” due to the amber color of their shells, so its an Ambersnail because its family is Succineidae GameKeeper 22:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia's Kanab Ambersnail

Has anyone checked out Uncylopedia's 150,000,000th article? Uncyclopedia:Kanab Ambersnail -Hyad 08:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hee hee. They have an amazing response time to things that happen here. -- Zanimum 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] private landowner,

private landowner (comment: Which one? Is it a specific landowner, or should it be plural?)

Yes, it's just one: Brandt Child, a 65-year old cattle rancher. He received an offer for that land from The Nature Conservancy, but he refused to sell. bogdan 09:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Surely if he we're causing the destruction of a critically endangered species, he would be guilt of breaking various conservatation laws and should be prosecuted? Or doesn't Utah have conservaton laws, only laws banning polygamy, gay marriages and teaching evolution? Nil Einne 11:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he started to destroy the whole wetland (to fill it with soil in order to use it as a pasture for his cows), but the government stopped him in time. His case is described in "Mugged by the State: Outrageous Government Assaults on Ordinary People and their Property" (p. 59-62). bogdan 13:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
do you have a source so we can reference it in the article? --YbborT 13:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Randall Fitzgerald, Mugged by the State: Outrageous Government Assaults on Ordinary People and their Property, Regnery Publishing, Inc. (2003) ISBN 0895261022
(that book is from an anti-conservationist POV) bogdan 13:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? With that title, who would have guess :-P Seriously tho, other then the fact that he seems to be a real idiot (IMHO), is there any real danger since it sounds like he can't actually do much to damage the wellbeing of snail population as long as the conservation laws remain. I mean obviously it's not ideal (from a conservation viewpoint) to have the land in the hands of someone who doesn't care about conservation, but it sounds to me that there isn't any real threat at the moment Nil Einne 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since this is just a sub-species, not a species, what is the big deal?68.219.235.65 22:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just because it's a sub-species, it doesn't mean that it's not different enough. You do know that dogs are a subspecies of the wolf species, right? Try to keep a wolf as a pet... bogdan 22:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article number 1?

I'm curious, which article is article #1? Or the first article on Wikipedia? KnightLago 11:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles and History of Wikipedia Nil Einne 11:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something's wrong

First, there is an inappropriate and hard to recognise first image. It was better in previous versions. Second, it is said about the wikiproject extinction here and then something about the dogs follows. What's wrong with the template? --91.122.35.249 13:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Someone needs to revert!

somebody has changed the pic for the snail with there own. Quick! it needs to be fixed!!! because i don't know where to get a good and reliable pic!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.30.176.120 (talk • contribs).

[edit] picture

I have edited the photo on the left (removed color cast + improved sharpness). I think it looks better. If anyone wants to upload it, you can find it here: [6] --Sanssheriff 13:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

done GameKeeper 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Looks good :) Martinp23 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not?

Why can't we put a milestone up. And maybe anyone who lives in Glasgow should see if we could get Jordanhill Railway Station a plaque or something because, who cared about until then? and it would be a tourist destination and make some money for Glasgow. So huh.

Milestone where? On the Kanab landowner's property? Somehow, I don't think that's a good idea. It also probably wouldn't be a good idea to catch one of the snails and tag it with a wikipedia 1.5 millionth article tag Nil Einne 17:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Catch, tag, release, photograph snail? Now that sounds like a good plan for next weekend. Who's bringing the beer?
We could stencil on its shell. Maybe we'll start a new trend of animal-based advertising.
Seriously, though, a more practical way of celebrating our 1,500,000 article might be to try and work to prevent the snail's habitat from being destroyed--Robdurbar 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah. Saving the snail from extinction would be a good way of celebrating the 1,500,000th article. Voortle 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The owner said he paid $540,000 for the 300 acres (~121 hectares) of land and he refused an offer to sell it for $90,000. Good luck finding that money. ;-) bogdan 19:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
And the owner of the land can't do anything bad to the snails, unless he wants to land in jail. bogdan 19:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambersnail vs. ambersnail (Capitalization)

Ambersnail should always be capitalized, correct? I already went ahead and did it, but is it necessary? Does it matter? --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a debate over this and there's no standard AFAIK. Some articles on plants/animals capitalize each word, others don't. bogdan 00:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the speedy reply :). At this point, I guess all instances of the word "Ambersnail" should be capitalized, because I've already standardized it that way. --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I was going through random articles on Google Scholar and the few articles I did look at, all had "ambersnail", with no capitalization. One even had it listed as Kanab amber-snail. I don't really have any personal opinion except to go with whatever is more common. Pepsidrinka 02:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
If Google Scholar weighs towards Ka instead of KA, I've changed it that way. -- Zanimum 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the seven double redirects created by the move. If it's reverted, make sure to revert those pages as well. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 17:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] poop?

"The Kanab Ambersnail (Oxyloma haydeni kanabensis) is a critically endangered subspecies of poop restricted to wetlands, springs, and seeps.[3] " sorry, but what's POOP? i don't think that's supposed to be there.

67.80.29.249 00:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

  • You came across the article during the 30 seconds or so that a vandal edit was up. It's fixed now. I was actually in the process of reverting, but Shotwell beat me to it. --Czj 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 90,000,000th edit

In other news, today also marked the 90,000,000th edit!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=90000000

FloaterFluss (talk ) (contribs) 01:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is everybody going crazy over a number 1,500,000? And 90,000,000? Why does everybody like zeros? How come we didn't celebrate when the [insert any random number below 1,536,410 here] article was created? --75.20.216.65 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
P.S. To FloaterFluss: your signature is a bit long in the wikicode.
While I find 90m edits a little less interesting, it seems to be a good morale booster to celebrate every half a million articles we write. -- Zanimum 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Fantastic, corporate spam is 90m. -- Zanimum 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for edit #123,456,789, personally. riana_dzasta 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

The text of the article states they are found "...a few springs in the southwest of Grand Canyon National Park, including Vaseys Paradise." The map shows Vaseys Paradise as northeast of Grand Canyon. I don't know their actual habitat, so I can't fix it. NM Ted 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaseys or Vaseys? (Codename:Vaseys Italics?)

For consistency sake, I went through the article and made all the Vaseys italicized into Vaseys but honestly i'm not sure what the correct one is. Should it be in italics? If that's the case someone can quickly edit the Vaseys in the infobox. b_cubed 06:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

Gridge 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna of Utah, Arizona

Would someone please enter this into Category:Fauna of Utah, and Category:Fauna of Arizona (under K).. --(From the AZ-SonoranDesert-- ..Mmcannis 03:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Homestarmy 22:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to remove those per the consensus reached Just a little earlier on this page. --YbborT 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passing

  1. It is well written. Pass - written in prose, well structured and works with WP:MOS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. Pass - lots of references for a small article
  3. It is broad in its coverage. Pass - covers its habitat, diet, current conservation status, location, appearance and history
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass
  5. It is stable. Pass - less than 10 edits in the past two weeks, vandalism has died down since its creation
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. Pass - three images, showing scale, general appearance and distribution, all captioned

For an article about a subspecies of snail, its well written and interesting. RHB 14:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This is certainly not "broad in its coverage", it misses plenty of information on the physical characteristics, lifespan, gender information, efforts to recover the population of the snale, and many others. I doubt its GA status on that basis and will request a review if the issues are not fixed. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I saw that someone had nominated this and thought, "When it fails / gets put on hold I'll work on some of the concerns." Er, I'll try to add relevant sections for the missing information but I support delisting for now. Quarma 15:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right then. Apparently, ambersnails live for 12-15months, and snails are hermaphroditic, possessing both male and female characteristics. Despite being air-breathing molluscs, they can survive for up to 32 hours in cold, highly-oxygenated water, which may have helped to disperse its population around the Colorado Valley area since a controlled release was conducted in 1998. Let me know if I can help with anything else. Thanks, RHB 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • This is just a small bit of the information that needs to be added, but I agree that the provided article might be a good source for the information, and is written in a very formal tone. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/a/n/Talk%7EKanab_ambersnail_4c0e.html"