Talk:Kanab ambersnail

message: What was the millionth article? - , 25 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.212.66 (talk • contribs) 
:It was Jordanhill railway station. Sum0 20:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's older...so editors had more time to fix it up.  =)  Jumping cheese  Cont@ct 22:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What was 1m?

message: 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):
: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)
thread_title: Sources

message: 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)
replies: text: I've already removed it twice, some vandal keeps putting it up for some reason. --PiMaster3 talk 23:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Jumping the gun here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Good idea.  Flora and fauna has no respect for political boundaries! Alan Liefting 01:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Fauna of Utah]]

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

message: Now, if only the snails could be saved from extinction as well. :( --Czj 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congrats on 1.5m 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  vs. .) 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)
thread_title:  "Vaseys" vs. "Vasey's" 

message: what was the 500,00th article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me and my robot (talk • contribs) 
:Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union.--YbborT 04:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what was 500,000? 

message: It looks black and brown to me. --Gbleem 04:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There is a good picture here  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)
replies: text:  Found some solid facts , from this on the Niobrara ambersnail . 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)
thread_title:  Amber? 

message: I'm curious, which article is article #1? Or the first article on Wikipedia? KnightLago 11:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia's oldest articles and History of Wikipedia Nil Einne 11:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article number 1?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Something's wrong 

message: 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:  --Sanssheriff 13:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done GameKeeper 14:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good :) Martinp23 14:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  If Google Scholar weighs towards Ka instead of KA, I've changed it that way.  --  Zanimum 15:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ambersnail vs. ambersnail (Capitalization) 

message: "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)
thread_title:  poop? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  here] article was created? --75.20.216.65 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fantastic, corporate spam is 90m.  --  Zanimum 17:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting for edit #123,456,789, personally. riana_dzasta 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is in the article of the Boston Latin School revised by User:Pgp688 at 05:34 UTC, 17th of April, 2007AD.  Pole Heinz Tower 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an honor and a privilege! --Pgp688 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  90,000,000th edit 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looking back I may have botched the wording.  The source wasn't exactly clear. --Idda 06:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vaseys or ''Vaseys''? (Codename:Vaseys Italics?)

message: Gridge 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations! 

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

message: # It is well written. Pass - written in prose, well structured and works with WP:MOS
# It is factually accurate and verifiable. Pass - lots of references for a small article
# It is broad in its coverage. Pass - covers its habitat, diet, current conservation status, location, appearance and history
# It follows the neutral point of view policy. Pass 
# It is stable. Pass - less than 10 edits in the past two weeks, vandalism has died down since its creation
# 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)
thread_title: GA Passing

message: This article is being reviewed at WP:GA/R for possible delisting of its Good article status.  --Ling.Nut 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article kept as GA due to improvments.Sumoeagle179 03:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good article Review]] of GA status 

message: ??? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 2,500,000 

message: I have reviewed this article as part of the GA Sweeps and have found several issues with the article:
*The lead should be expanded - in an article this size, one or two sentences per section would be good.  Right now there's a lot on habitat/distribution but nothing on life cycle/reproduction or conservation status.
*The prose is not terrible, but tends to be slightly awkward in places.  I have fixed much of this but a going-over wouldn't hurt.
*The organization is a little confusing.  Personally I would split History into "Taxonomy" and "Conservation Status" and then combine "Recovery Efforts" with Conservation status but that's just my personal opinion.  I do feel that talking about the "history" of a species is in some ways misleading - just a thought.
*Population could be combined into a conservation section - again just a thought.
*I don't see a physical description of the snail anywhere - a necessary part of any article on an animal.
Please don't hesitate to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or if you have finished addressing the issues above! Corvus coronoides talk 18:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it has been over seven days, I have failed the article as part of the GA Sweeps.  This is a solid article, and I'm sure with a little bit of elbow grease, it can easily be taken to GA level in the future.  Cheers, Corvus coronoides talk 01:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Sweeps On Hold

message: It is currently August 2009, and apparently this article appeared on the main page three months into the future from now! Is this date supposed to read 2006? Thanks to anyone who is prepared to do the leg work to check this. Best wishes Invertzoo (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. I tried to changet, but it didn't work, even though on the page's source it says "28 Novmeber 2006".--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    21:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected. It have to be without the sign , --Snek01 (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The date is wrong on the DYK tag