A fact from Sinotaia aeruginosa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 February 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Gastropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of gastropods on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GastropodsWikipedia:WikiProject GastropodsTemplate:WikiProject GastropodsGastropods articles
Taxonomy: For all marine species, Project Gastropods uses the taxonomy in the online database WoRMS. When starting a new article, do not use sources of taxonomic information that predate the 2017 revision for all gastropod groups ("Revised Classification, Nomenclator and Typification of Gastropod and Monoplacophoran Families" by Philippe Bouchet & Jean-Pierre Rocroi, Bernhard Hausdorf, Andrzej Kaim, Yasunori Kano, Alexander Nützel, Pavel Parkhaev, Michael Schrödl and Ellen E. Strong in Malacologia, 2017, 61(1–2): 1–526.) (can be dowloaded at Researchgate.net), substituting the previous classification of 2005 Taxonomy of the Gastropoda (Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005). If you need help with any aspect of an article, please leave a note at the Project talk page.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
The contents of the Sinotaia aeruginosa page were merged into Sinotaia quadrata on 3 May, 2024 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.
a) With one exception, the examples you cite are illustrations of specific items relevant to the subject. A specific predator, a specific species of plant known to impact the subject (note, it's not 'a picture of the national park' - it's about the plant in the image), a specific chemical important in the subject's ecotoxicology. These are relevant in the terms of WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Your dam image is just A Dam, with no particular relevance to the species (unless there is a source stating that the B. aeruginosa pop is thought to be impacted by that particluar dam?). It's about as sensible as putting an image of a random car into Moose#Vehicle_collisions. Compare the type of image used there. And damming isn't even a section-level topic in the article, but a half-sentence general mention.
b) The better developed with images an article is, the more tolerance there is for the occasional 'window-dressing' image. I'd take issue with the Gulf of Odessa one - that's just fluff, and only works because there are many more relevant pictures in the article already. Images just like text sections get their relevance weighting from what else is in the article. For a text example, consider an article about a type of timber. If it's short and only says that this comes from tree X and grows in Y, then a paragraph mentioning Grand Hall Z that is timbered in this wood is undue - it makes it appear as if this is more important to the subject than it actually is. If, on the other hand, it's a comprehensive overview of varieties, origins, material chararcteristics, and history, then a mention of particularly good examples of use as material fits in. TL:DR, there aren't enough relevant images in the article yet to sustain one of doubtful relevance.
It was not just a dam, but the dam in the area, where the species occur; showing it as an example of habitat fragmentation by damming and also showing the species' habitat: the river (where the species live). You are right that this particular dam is not mentioned in the references. It is completely comparable with the "Moose and reflection" image showing just species' habitat of your Moose example Moose#Relationship with humans. If we consider any image of habitat relevant to the article of the certain species, then the image is completely OK (and then it can stay in the article until it will be replaced with a better one). I understand your reasoning, but I think, you were too strict. - Another example (hopefully a good one) of picture of dam in the snail article is Utah roundmouth snail. --Snek01 (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through Sanmenxia Dam, I have to admit that you have a point here - that dam is apparently a prominent instance of siltation problems, in noted B. aeruginosa habitat. I would however suggest making that relevance quite clear in the image caption then - something like "The degradation of B. aeruginosa habitat by damming (as through the Sanmenxia Dam on the Yellow River) is considered a threat to the species." -- Elmidae(talk)13:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re the other images: the elk article has 32 images - see window-dressing argument above; and the roundmouth snail occupies a handful of sites, a specific one of which is pictured. I strongly object to the notion that we can "consider any image of habitat relevant to the article of the certain species".
