Talk:Pyura chilensis

The beginning
I've just translated and updated the Spanish version of this topic. It originates in Peru, so for those of you that speak Spanish, you will know that the literal translation to Mexican American is very different in dialect. So having multiple pages in different countries is better for understanding the topic. There were no previous American pages on this topic.--Roy Stanley 04:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently I speak American, not English. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

haha well I meant previous English pages, however if you live any where from Greenland to Chile you would be correct, you speak American, not English ;) thank you for your edits, you did a good job bringing it up to par --Roy Stanley 17:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision of Article 13 July 2013
I described what I did today as "Revision of Fishery Section", but I actually revised most of the article, and there's no apparent way to revise the description after one saves a revision. I started out just fixing an ungrammatical comparative, but, as so often happens, I couldn't stop there, and wound up spending three or four hours on this article that few will ever read.

I made the references to the animal consistent with scientific usage (P. chilensis, rather than "Pyura"), and changed the occasional plural references to singular. (If there were an English name for this creature, with a plural form, I might have used that instead, but since there isn't, and I didn't want to decide whether to use the plural form of the Spanish term or the Latin, or to anglicize either of those, I just made all references singular.)

Several statements in the article lacked citations to authority, and at least one was not supported by the authority cited. (I.e., "The strong flavor is supposedly due to its high iodine content, but the taste actually corresponds to the vanadium secreted from its blood." The Scientific American blog cited refers to the vanadium--which is concentrated in the blood, not secreted by it--but not to the flavor or what causes it.)  I furnished or amended citations where I could (drawing on the Spanish version of the article), added one {citation needed} tag, and deleted unsupported statements that I thought were questionable.

I deleted a number of passages that I found redundant, and rewrote several that seemed awkward or ungrammatical.

Much of the casual tone of the Spanish article had been carried over into the English version (e.g., "Many locals put on their wet suit and goggles to swim the shores searching for this delicacy. Some may even travel out to sea, despite the danger of the ocean waters.") so I tried to make it a little less subjective without completely eliminating its charming character. To what extent I succeeded in that, others will judge. I also introduced one or two details from that version because they had a ring of authenticity to them, even though they cited no authority. I hope another editor with more time and better knowledge of the subject will furnish the missing citations.

I renamed the "Gastronomy" section "Cuisine", which I think is more idiomatic, and moved it to the end, after the "Fishery" section, which I think is the more logical order.

One of the photographs with the article appears to have been taken from the Scientific American web site, which may raise copyright concerns, but I haven't done anything about that.

Jdcrutch (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Nice work. Which paragraph is lifted? We should remove it posthaste. Steven Walling &bull; talk   20:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Nice to see all that work wasn't just for the Lord (so to speak).  Upon investigation, it appears that Scientific American lifted the photo from Wikimedia! In general, Wikipedia has bots that are quite aggressive in deleting photos that don't meet very strict pedigree requirements (if curious, see my talk archive for the saga of the Calhoun photos), so I tend to leave that sort of thing to them.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Needs a picture of the animal unharmed in it's natural habitat
Just showing it cut open or in chunks in food plates isn't very informative for people looking for information about the animal itself instead of what humans do to it. --TiagoTiago (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * TiagoTiago has a point, but I will observe that the live animal looks exactly like a rock, so a picture of it would most likely be neither particularly informative nor interesting. The text already says that it looks like a rock, and a photo of the live animal would do no more than to confirm that.  Most viewers, moreover, would have no way of judging whether the photograph showed P. chilensis or just a rock.


 * There are lots of pictures of the creature in Google images, almost none of which look 'exactly like a rock'. It/they look like some kind of organic entity, especially with the red parts showing in groups. The current picture should be replaced with something similar to those shown intact in the common images. JohndanR (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For most of us, I venture to say, the visually interesting picture is the bizarre and somewhat shocking image of what looks like a rock completely filled with bloody flesh.


 * As a general proposition, I agree with TiagoTiago's implication, that encyclopedia articles about the natural world should emphasize their subjects for the subjects' own sakes, not present them merely as objects of human activity; and that living creatures are best understood when described and displayed in living form, going through the various processes of life—birth, growth, reproduction, decline, and so on; and as components of their respective ecosystems. The text of the article could stand some expansion in that regard, but it does provide a fairly objective, non-anthropocentric introduction to the animal. I'm not sure that, in the particular case of P. chilensis, photographs of the living animal in its natural state would advance that goal very far.


 * Having written the foregoing, I did what I ought to have done to begin with: I looked at the photographs in the article.  It turns out that the first photograph, as far as I can tell, shows a living animal—or at any rate one that hasn't been chopped open.  It's not in its natural setting, and it appears to have been turned upside down to reveal its non-rock-like underside, but it's informative, in any case.  I'll leave what I've written above, because it took some effort, but the lesson for me is to investigate before (figuratively) opening my mouth.


 * BTW, here is a picture of the animal cut open.

Jdcrutch (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, wow... I see, thanx. --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Pyura chilensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402205218/http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/vanadiumpentoxidedust/recognition.html to https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/healthguidelines/vanadiumpentoxidedust/recognition.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Vanadium
Vanadium is NOT a heavy metal.... Heavy metals start from iron. Eudialytos (talk) 18:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Stamp
Didn't Chile Issue A 50 cent stamp for P. Chilensis?Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus