Hi Snapplejackalope! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:

Search the Task Center

Happy editing! MossOnALog^Talk 22:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Snapplejackalope! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Issues Moving Pages To Previous Names, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread. See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for your efforts to update the names of invalid taxa like Cuthonella punicea. You're doing great! Just so you know, once you've moved the page and updated the article to match, you're free to remove the {{cleanup taxon}} template :) Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me about that template!! If I recall, Cuthonella punicea was one of the pages that I couldn’t for the life of me find the line responsible for that invalid taxon box—-I have a feeling if I had only scrolled, the mystery would have been solved. This is going to be so useful moving forward. I’ll go through Trinchesiidae, Cuthonidae, and Fionidae later today; pretty sure there were at least two other pages I have edited that would benefit from the addition or removal of this template. I find that technologically speaking, I’m still flying by the seat of my pants sometimes, so thank you again. Best fishes,𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 Snapplejackalope (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I figured it either wasn't obvious how to remove it, or you weren't sure if you were allowed to. If you find any more taxa that you believe are invalid that don't have that template, you can either boldly fix them as you have been doing, or you can add the template so someone else will know to fix it later. If you run into anything you have questions about, let me know, I'm happy to help. (Also, your signature is so fun). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ~2026-14944-70. I noticed that you recently removed all content from a page. Please do not do this. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. As a rule, if you discover a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If a page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you wish to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~2026-14944-70 (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to be nosy, I had your talk page watchlisted because of the message I left you above. The IP is correct that we shouldn't blank pages, but I can see what you were thinking.

This is a bit of a complex case in that it involves page moves. The content originally at Cuthona pallida was moved at some point to Tenellia pallida under the understanding that they were synonyms. Per WoRMS, C. pallida is now accepted while T. pallida is invalid and shouldn't have an article. To fix this, I'll move the current T. pallida article back to C. pallida and revert it to the point where it was before the move. Then I'll make T. pallida a redirect to T. adspersa, again per WoRMS.

Please don't hesitate to reach out if you run into another odd one like this. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I had a bit of a brain fart and forgot that if I removed a redirect…there’s still a page that exists. Whoops. It’s been very frustrating sorting out the T. pallida business; when I first joined wiki a couple months ago, the authority for T. pallida on the wiki was Eliot 1906…despite the fact the authority has always been Alder & Hancock 1845. Which meant someone who originally moved or wrote the page thought C. pallida (Eliot 1906) and T. pallida (Alder & Hancock 1845) were one and the same, when in fact were always totally different lines of taxa and never in synonymy with each other. (Plus, there’s this whole other potential issue with C. pallida I’m trying to track down through articles…that’s unrelated though. I’ll probably just end up emailing Martynov about it. Scientists use ‘pallida’ far too often).

I was trying to figure out how I’d resolve this later today, so I really appreciate you taking care of that! You have a much neater and straightforward way of tying things up. And you’ve been so friendly to me as well, I very much appreciate it. I’m like 5000 edits deep on wikicommons in the two months I’ve been here, and must admit I had been holding my breath a bit in terms of what would happen when folks started noticing. As usual, everyone is much more normal and nice than my brain would have me believe.

Apologies for the grammar an long-windedness, I’m on mobile and too stream of thought after a shift. Best fishes! 𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 Snapplejackalope (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear your experience has been a good one! Most people are pretty chill fortunately. Sometimes the whole pack of rules/expected behaviors/unwritten practices etc that we have on the site can be very complicated and frustrating for new people, so I try to reach out when I see someone new doing something helpful. And no worries, I am also a shift worker so I understand :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Good luck in your quest to correct misinformation about marine biology. I'm also very passionate about sea slugs and annoyed about misinformation on the internet. In particular, seeing sacoglossans incorrectly labeled as nudibranches is a pet peeve of mine. Unfortunately I have limited time and energy to dig for expensive information on niche marine biology, so if your quest leads you to learn enough to actually start fleshing up pages rather than just correcting them, I would very much appreciate that! No pressure—I just wanted to say that if you did that there would actually be people reading the fruit of your labor. Arandomfolk (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(Warning up top--I yapped way too much again. Many apologies. I just get too excited and I start rambling. Hopefully there is something in here you find interesting, even if not at all relevant.)

Thank you so much for your kind comment. You have no idea how much this means to me--I am constantly stuck between hoping no one notices me making all these changes, and feeling crestfallen that no one will ever notice me making all these changes (haha). I doubt my capabilities often, as between my rather neurotic tendencies and over-explained, longwinded interactions, I can be a bit much to deal with and often feel rather underqualified and out of place amongst editors and experts. Your encouragement is very heartening, and particularly well-timed considering some of my current worries. I'm still so nervous about making a species page, but have taken little steps by making small, bare-bones genus pages for Neptunazurea and Rudmania. I've begun amending physical descriptions for several Nembrothids, but with your encouragement I think I might start cracking down on improving (or even creating!) physical description portions for more sea slugs as well, as differentiation via external morphology is something I am developing a keen eye for.

The "nudibranchs" issue--I am afraid it will only continue to become more irksome! Or perhaps less, depending on how you look at it? It is one of those unfortunate instances, of a scientific designation ("Nudibranch" being an organism belonging to "Nudibranchia") slowly becoming a colloquialism as it becomes more prevalent in general vocabulary ("Nudibranch" and "sea slug" being used interchangeably, when it's very much a "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" situation). However, there's a very real chance that the term "nudibranch" might be deliberately employed as a colloquialism by Wikipedia in the near future--as it currently stands, as of August 2025, Dorids are no longer nudibranchs! The suborder Doridina was given ordinal status, and is now Order Doridida. While Wikipedia has not yet transitioned from Doridina (I recall passing by some conversation about how to treat old and new pages regarding the whole nudibranch colloquial and nudibranch scientific thing), WoRMS has made their edit already. Granted, this particular team of authors and the true subject of that paper is part of a years-long back-and-forth argument between two teams of slug academics, and Bouchet has said he knows the opposing team is preparing their rebuttal, so there is a chance the ordinal status could change in the near future. However, Bouchet did make the WoRMS page for Doridida, along with updating in accordance to about 80% of the paper, even though there are several families the paper mentions that he simply refuses to update because he knows he will only have to reverse hundreds of taxa once the rebuttal drops--so maybe he expects there's a good chance Doridida's ordinal status is here to stay! (This is pure speculation, simply the condensed results of my journey of accidentally stumbling upon slug drama).

Oh, and I know there's nothing I can do to help you about freetime, but I do have a couple tricks to help with the issues of paywalls. The basics you may already know; Researchgate and Papergate. Neither are perfect; Researchgate still restricts access to many papers, and does not provide the email of the corresponding authors, which cuts off your contact if you're not a researcher and thus cannot get a Researchgate account. Papergate on small occasion has returned with results I could not find elsewhere, but has an issue with telling you a site has free pdf access when it is not the truth. Biodiversity Library has an extensive amount of original texts (very helpful when trying to sort through taxonomic confusion) and I've recently found has a startling amount of 2020's papers as well! If you want near-guaranteed results for any paper prior to 2021, search "where is sci hub now" in a browser and follow to a functioning proxy site (this has been indispensible to me since discovery. Finally, the most guaranteed method I have tried is to email the authors directly. I have received nothing but kind responses and have yet to have a request for a pdf turned down. Many paywalled sites will provide the email of the corresponding author, but if the paper you need is hosted on a site that does not (ZooTaxa, my nemesis...) I recommend searching an authors name on a different site to see if they've worked on a different paper that provided contact info up front. Or, possibly an easier method is to find a paper they have worked on that is already free, as many papers do list the email addresses of one or all of the authors up top.

Very sorry about the length and rambling once again--I've felt a little downtrodden lately, and it was surprisingly refreshing to get to yap about all this. Apologies if you already know about all this, or apologies if this is way, way more of an interaction than you signed up for. I am simply very happy there are other people who care about the same things I do. I shall have to study up on my Sacoglossans soon. Best fishes! 𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 Snapplejackalope (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am one of the individuals responsible for some of the current state of the nudibranch taxonomy in the wiki after the pusblishing of Korshunova et al. (2025) and I saw you have recently come to modify several article, referencing the recent Ekimova et al. (2026). However, I have noticed that many of the changes you are proposing are not present on the article or are given undue weight. In the Fionoidea article, which I have reverted, your discussion of Korshunova et al. (2025) vs Ekimova is compelling but its relevance for the clade is little as Fionoidea is only mentioned once in Ekimova and in the "Systematic" section (and even there I believe it could be a mistake as it would include Aeolidoidea, based on their own tree, when they do not refer to Aeolidoidea in that light troughout the article) and there are no mention of traditional fionoid families to even make those assessments. I was also not able to find your claims of "Apatoidea, Cumanotoidea, Flabellinopsoidea, Flabellinoidea, Notaeolidioidea, Samloidea, and Unidentioidea were abolished" as those clades are simply omitted in Ekimova and discussed at the family level.

In other articles, your listings also reflect the WoRMS database which makes several claims that are not discussed in recent or any literature, as commented several times in the Korshunova article, and would therefore advise you to instead base listings on published results.

I recently also saw your changes to Pseudovermidae, where you change it to a fionoid. This is not recovered in Ekimova, they recover the non-monophyly of Pseudovermidae+Cumanotidae and highlight it as tentative ("This relationship, however, should be considered as tentative, since our analysis lacks many aeolid taxa, including lineages of the large family Facelinidae s.l."). As they express, their analysis lacks several aolid taxa, and the cumanotoid position should be mantained until better results made my dedicated studies exist. As of now the two analysis dedicated to the topic recovered a monophyletic Cumanotoidea (see Cumanotoidea).

The main focus of the Ekimova article seems to me to be the changes to Flabellinidae s.l., as they express in their Conclusion and Abstract, and to a lesser degree the recovery of some monophyletic families (Flabellinopsidae, Samlidae, Apataidae and Notaeolidiidae, Piseinotecidae, Flabellinidae) and the synonymy of Piseinotecidae (= Unidentiidae), and those conclusions should be expressed in their respective articles.

As someone who went though similar taxonomy changing efforts I nonetheless appreciate these recent efforts to improvement of nudibranch taxonomy of yours, but advise caution when making large scale changes as they can be difficult to revert by future editors if not verifiable. Thanks for reading. Sclerotized (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello! I'm one of the other people responsible for some of the current sate of nudibranch taxonomy following the publishing of Korshunova et al. 2025, including the entirety of Category:Nudibranchia at Wikicommons. Thank you so dearly for your thoughts; our efforts are aligned, but I am still often clumsy in how I go about things. (Also yes, sorry about that huge blurb in Fionoidea--gosh, I was going through it).

I worried I should have consulted other prior to making these changes, but I often still get very nervous asking big questions despite online being anonymous (which, I do recognise is a "me problem"). I apologise for my large-scale edits without consultation--I actually debated for days what to do about the state of the superfamily situation. Many of the (allegedly )affected superfamilies were never acknowledged by WoRMS. While previously I had prioritized Korshunova et al. 2025 over WoRMS, naturally, the changes to lower taxa in Ekimova et al. 2026 proved a little impossible to update without changing the higher taxa; if I returned all of Coryphellidae genera to the single Coryphella, and all of Paracoryphellidae to Chlamylla, and respected Ekimova's decision to move Coryphella and Chlamylla to Flabellinidae, that would leave Paracoryphellidae and Coryphellidae empty and...across the board, similar issues arose. It felt in my own mind, if I picked and chose which taxa I preferred to move or not to move, it...well, that felt very subjective and like poor editing on my part. Not to mention, I personally (personally!) feel as if Ekimova chose to say "Flabellinidae sensu latissimo" as a means of not actually acknowledging the previously resestablished superfamilies.

My edits have actually been a result of attempt, though perhaps misplaced attempt, at being a neutral editor. Because, do not get me wrong: I am largely displeased and unimpressed with the majority of the Ekimova et al. 2026 results. Not to mention, I had finally finished the dreadful Coryphellidae update from Korshunova et al. 2025 less than a month ago, and am not looking forward to merge all those genera again. But, I knew that between the disparity of trying to apply Ekimova et al. 2026 updates to Korshunova et al. 2025 classifications...Wikiproject Gastropods does say that one goes with WoRMS unless there are more recent published works. To here you say that it is actually okay to break from WoRMS is actually reassuring to here. Although, it still leaves me at a loss as how to proceed.

Apologies if my words are scrambled. This is not a well-organized response. I am very flustered--while I am rigorous about taxonomy updating, I know far less than I should, and it is clear you are very knowledgeable. Additionally, in all my edits, this is about...the...third? The third time anyone has actually noticed I'm doing anything. It is startling. I feel very embarrassed, honestly. Snapplejackalope (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Helloo, I appreciate the response! We all make mistakes at the start, but you at least seem cognizant of the issues surrounding recent nudibranch taxonomy.

I think the best way to approach the situation might be to retain the split flabellinid families as separate articles (Coryphellidae, Flabellinidae, and Paracoryphellidae) and explain on each one of those article the recent taxonomic challenges and the various interpretations and listings that different authors favour. Especially since there seems to be a degree of subjectivity involved. That way we retain the greatest amount of information on the wiki, while still expressing the lack of consensus and fluctuation in taxonomic choices. Sclerotized (talk) 17:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wonderful, I was just about to re-reply to request your opinion on those things, as I REALLY didn't want to make redirects for those valuable pages. I have already begun re-edit any information that altered superfamilial designations, with the plan to go ahead on editing only the lower taxa.

In that case, some questions, just to make sure I understand. Sorry that some are asking literally what you just said, but I truly want to make sure I do not misunderstand:

-I'll ask this with an example: on Coryphellidae, would you say it makes sense to not touch the Genera section? (Pardon the blurb I already wrote there a couple days ago, it will be modified). I would go ahead and make the species page moves and edits to reflect Ekimova et al. 2026, but leave that Genera section intact only with the addition of a small "disclaimer"?

-Similarly, on Flabellinidae would you say that have two lists under genera would be prudent? One for Korshunova and one for Ekimova?

-I wrote this just a few minutes ago and honestly knew I should ask you beforehand. Since no superfamilial changes were made in Ekimova et al. 2026, would you say that Piseinotecidae is in Unidentioidea? It's what I would assume, given the circumstances, but also as someone who is still flying by the seat of their pants, it feels a little like a trap and I'd appreciate your input. [Small edit: should Unidentiidae have a redirect to Piseinotecidae? as its situation is slightly different than the Flabellinoidean families]

Thank you for your patience with me. While I am certainly enthusiastic in trying to maintain edits, I am still very much learning on the sort of unspoken rules of who to trust and why, and when "unspoken information" is evidence in itself versus when unspoken information is simply lack of evidence. In some aspects, it comes as a relief to have confirmation that WoRMS truly isn't as reliable as one would hope, as it validates my own misgivings (do not even get me STARTED on the Phestilla sibogae versus Trinchesia sibogae situation...). It is funny, that I had jumped the gun on these edits in an attempt to be neutral despite my opinions, while it seems WoRMS perhaps was showing its hand in being less than neutral (please do not take these words to sound unkind, as raw data still goes over my head so I am in to position to act expert or judge what one believes or doesn't believe--still, I do find it astounding how quick WoRMS was to reassign so many families to Fionoidea, when it never acknowledged Flabellinoidea for a even moment).

Ah, pardon my yapping. Thank you again to take the time to bring your concerns to me, and even reassure me with a reply.

Best fishes, 𓆝 𓆟 𓆞 Snapplejackalope (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• On Coryphellidae: I would just retain the list of genera as it is. As the Genera section indicates that is the listing according to Kurshonova et al. (2025).
• On Flabellinidae: Two lists would be my intention. I was looking to add it now before I saw you had responded, so I can take care of that one. In these situations, I think the most neutral way to approach this is to maintain the different interpretations.
• On Piseinotecidae: The Kurshonova et al. (2025) moved several of its genera to Flabellinoidea, Flabellinopsoidea, and Unidentioidea, and it would only currently retain Piseinotecus, as the type species is yet to be included in a molecular analysis. The same articles mentions it as superfamily insertae sedis.

Sclerotized (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the synonymizing of Unidentiidae and Piseinotecidae in Ekimova et al. 2026 is not to be reflected within edits. Got it.

Thank you so much for your patience with me (I know I can be a bit much, I am trying to improve in that regard) and your enormous contributions to this field of editing. Snapplejackalope (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should definitely be expressed in the body text of both family articles. Maybe with the taxobox of Piseinotecus connecting directly to Aeolidacea to reflect the uncertainty, on that part I am not that certain what would be best. Merging Piseinotecidae with Piseinotecus could also be an option, since it is monotypic, also not sure.

I am not seeing you as "a bit much" do not worry. Sclerotized (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]