User talk:NYMFan69-86/Archive 3

Painted turtle
Sure I would be willing to help out. We only have the Midland Painted in my vicinity but the Western and Eastern aren't far away. I have a number of sources for accurate information. I am not a reptile expert, however. What are your objectives for the page? DGERobertson (talk) 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding! In the near future (over the next couple of months) I would like to see it reach GA to make it more informative to those interested in reading it.  It's great that you know of some sources, in the past I found Ernst and Lovich's Turtles of the U.S. and Canada to be reliable.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What were some of the sources you were thinking of using?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The ROM Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles and, Amphibians and Reptiles of Ontario are both reliable. DGERobertson (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, great. I plan to begin serious work on the article within the next few days or so.  Thanks!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm new to wikipedia as an editor. I'm a grad student in Ontario that studies Painted Turtles and Snapping Turtles. Hopefully I will have time to contribute some more to a few of the turtle articles. Anyway, I don't know how to do much on wikipedia yet so I have no idea how to fix this problem: One of the pictures on the Painted Turtle article shows a Chicken Turtle rather than an Eastern Painted Turtle as labeled. The data in wm commons confirms this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 01:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Me again. The picture of basking turtles in ecology and behaviour depicts sliders (Trachemys scripta) not Painted Turtles. I edited the metadata at wikipedia commons but I'm not sure if it will stick. Some of them look like Red-eared Sliders (T.s.elegans) but some others appear to be hybrids with Yellow-belly sliders (T.s.scripta). This makes sense if they are at the Washington DC zoo since zoos take in some of the many unwanted pet sliders which are likely to be a hodgepodge of individuals descended from different parts of the species range. Matt Keevil (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it took me a few days to find this message. Many of the images have been changed around, I think we caught all the errors, but if we haven't, could you just remove the problem images when you come across them and leave a note on the talk page?  Thank you so much, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliable?
I tend to think that the sources listed below are less than reliable, most of them are inaccessible as well:
 * 1) http://idahoherps.pbworks.com/Chrysemys+picta,+Painted+turtle
 * 2) http://www.jcvi.org/cms/404
 * 3) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/047001590X?hd=All%25252CEmydidae
 * 4) http://www.sbaa.ca/projects.asp?cn=316
 * 5) http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ddcagd45ugbng04534no02vf))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-Act-281-of-1995
 * 6) Also, reference number 1 (the URL was incredibly long so I didn't post it here).
 * Let me know how you feel about these or any of the other used in the current article. Thanks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree except for the first one and the JCVI one. It appears JCVI closed its gateway but I found another way into the database. I fixed the reference. I have used the Reptile Database for many reptiles so it looks like they all need to be fixed. DGERobertson (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, okay. My major quibble with most of the ones here wasn't so much content as it was access.  If they can all be accessed than another reassessment will allow us to determine which are reliable and which are not.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Number four is good. It is a page describing the project that I work on (so I might be biased). It may be a tad out of date but it is accurate overall. One thing to remember is that Algonquin Park is at the climatic limit of this species range (they go farther north but the elevation is high enough on the W side of the park that the temperature is much colder than surrounding areas) so for example the time to maturity is longer than reported in Ernst and Lovich (why didn't E & L report it? Not sure, probably couldn't find it in literature - they don't know everything about every species and don't like to report things not published in peer reviewed journals except their own personal obs. and they probably don't have infinite time to read every grad student thesis. The moral? Publish you research!). The physiological mechanism for freeze tolerance of hatchlings might not reflect where the science is now - there is some controversy about this but I'm not totally up on it. The max age of 100+ years is somewhat speculative. The max ages given for most turtle species in standard refs is low balling though (including Ernst and Lovich). Captivity estimates are misleading for most cooler climate reptiles because max life span is longer in the wild (counter intuitive for those more familiar with mammals). The real answer is we don't know but we do know that several of our PTs that were adults in the late 70s early 80s are still going strong (so >40yoa). The problem is that most of this data has not been published outside of graduate theses if at all so it's difficult to cite for wikipedia. Anyway, as far as it goes this article is a better source than most but will tend to be region specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Keevil (talk • contribs) 21:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm glad there's another source out there I can use. I'll avoid the information that doesn't quite line up with my other sources and, by the way, who was the author of that webpage?
 * I don't know. The credits page is broken. It will likely either have been Prof. Ron Brooks (mainly turtle researcher at Univ. of Guelph) who has run the project up until recently, one of his grad students (more likely), or Dan Strickland who was, until recently, the head Park Naturalist and who does a lot of writing for the park. The page is copyright to the Friends of Algonquin Park (an NGO that promotes research and natural history education in the park and is a well informed and well organized) so I would credit them. If I have time and can figure out an appropriate way to do it, I will try to integrate some of the pertinent results of the Algonquin research. Matt Keevil (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly like to use it. Since you know more about the source than me, would you be able to fill out this information to get the ref generated?  Only after its generated can it be used.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia..? Help....
Wow! So yeah, it would be so great if you could tell me some of the basics, like codes, citations, and so on. I heard your pretty good with this whole thing...so, some help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks :)--Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 00:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, you found my talk page and left a comment...that's a good start. I would be glad to help you. The first thing you need to know is that Wikipedia coding is essentially the diet coke version of html. The types of things you will be doing here will likely involve only the basics. I'll demonstrate some below for you (view in "edit" mode for the full effect):
 * One indent (don't just use spaces, Wikipedia hates that)
 * Two indents (each subsequent colon will indent one unit further)

Italics Bold Italics and bold at the same time Biology-This is how you link to pages (you must type in the name of the article EXACTLY!) This is how you "rename" a link to make it say whatever you want.

This is how you create some space between two lines of text without using up white space (another thing Wikipedia doesn't like).
 * Now, there's nothing basic about the citation: it is a beast that cannot be tamed. To develop a citation, you need to fill out the appropriate information at a place like this...which is pretty self explanatory (you fill out what you know, hit "Get reference wiki text," and it encodes it for you).  Once it spits out what you're looking for, it becomes a game of copy and paste.  Be sure you paste the long strand of information it gives you after the information in the article you're citing (very important)!!!
 * Well, just in case you're bored or I'm telling you stuff you already know, I'll stop for now. Oh, and for anything related to images ask Vancemiller.  Hope you have been sufficiently helped!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

okay thanks....that actually helps quite a bit....just wondering....do you know of any really good references? if not its cool and if you cant tell me that, its cool too. --Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, if you have any other formatting questions let me know. As far as reliable sources goes, I have access to much more than you probably do because I'm on a university server.  For now, I would use search Google Scholar and also try to get a general book on bats at your local library.  After those sources have been exhausted (and let me know when they are), I could probably get at a couple of cool journals for you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

okay, ill do that...thanks a bunch...and ill let you know--Kimberly fitzgerald (talk) 01:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Random, but
Are you working on writing any articles at the moment? I'm looking to passively edit/contribute to one, and didn't know if you had anything going at the moment. Strombollii (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely...another turtle. Me and Dger are rewriting the Painted turtle article.  It certainly needs help [CEs, content (particularly in the sections not yet created/expanded), images], so some more participants would be appreciated.  --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I'll drop in when I get a chance and see what all I can do Strombollii (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks friend. Also note the topic change here.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Geographic Isolation
I inserted "merge templates" on the Geographic isolation and allopatric speciation. Also I was looking at the stats on bog turtle during the Wiki featured... an amazing 13,454 reads. Interesting .... you could have written me a paper, which I would have scanned for errors and dropped in the trash. I know I'm on the right track ... yet no one from school will join me????? Wiki stats--JimmyButler (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king." Malleus Fatuorum 15:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An excellent example from literature (if I ever write a book, it'll deal with something like that!). Cave fish could also serve as an example.  I've left some of my input on the discussion page.  I'm hoping someone doesn't bring up that one is a cause and the other is an effect, and argue that they should be left alone.  My (hypothetical) paper would have been thrown in the trash!?  I'm crushed!  The wikiproject is priceless...six FAs and six GAs in about two years, other well-established wiki-projects can't even say that.  Don't give up on humanity just yet!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's certainly a significant achievement, whatever the rest of the school thinks. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sub-headings Allopatric Speciation
D. can you set a subheading called Geographical Isolation and another called Social Changes: Both under the heading Isolation Mechanisms. The location for each sub-heading should be obvious from the text. I'm having trouble with the "code" - which is very simple - yet does not seem to work for me. --JimmyButler (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would, but I believe they've already been added by User:SunCreator. Subheadings are three equal signs...right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia => Help:Section. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Turtles!
I dropped by the article, left a few -- probably unhelpful -- suggestions. I'm reading over your prose right now. I may be back tomorrow morning to clean up what I've written: apparently, drinking a sidecar and editing the wiki may not be the best of ideas. Strombollii (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * All comments are helpful, even if they don't lead to change. Thanks for taking the time to help out (btw, a "sidecar"...?).  :-o NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sidecar. Hopefully, I can give it at least a grammatical once-over tonight.  Woo! Fall break! Strombollii (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So...editing the wiki intoxicated!? To each his own...I suppose that's how some get their best work done.  Thanks again!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Turtles in Culture
Repsonding to the ? - I assume you are inquiring about the issue over taking a taxonomic article on the painted turtle and adding a Gee Wizz section.... The purest in me objects, however, I'd be wrong. This is an encyclopedia of General Knowledge - not an animal encyclopedia. If there are relevant or "of interest" aspect to the painted turtles in human culture you would be remiss in not mentioning them. The painted turtle - being widely spread (unlike the bog) would likely have accounts of culture interaction. --JimmyButler (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem wans't that the person wanted that section, its that (s)he asked me to do so without providing sources for where the information was attained. If there were sources out there that included this information I would include it, at FA...but not now.  The story of the turtles being physically painted and sold would indeed be important, but there's no literature out there that says anything about it, so how do I know those were "painted turtles?"  (And why should I mention a book written about a lady acting like a turtle?)  It just surprises me what some people expect you to do without credible sources providing backup.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhh. Asking you to include information that has no credible sourcing. Its not that you oppose its inclusion (as I assumed) but rather you have no valid source to substantiate the information that is claimed to be missing. I wonder if there is truth to the omited info or if it is local lore without substance. Well... you can't add what you can not site. Maybe they will provide references.--JimmyButler (talk) 12:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also to be considered as a possible place for such information when sourced is Cultural depictions of turtles and tortoises. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An interesting article with a rich amount of links at the bottom. I'll check those out, after all, I'm willing to include any information that's relevant and cite-able!  (J., perhaps just a "?" wasn't an adequate explanation of my sentiments...) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Painted turtle
I'm here to help. :-) Glad you approve of the bold formatting changes. One outstanding issue I still have with the article is that in the synonyms table, the currently accepted subspecies names are listed as synonyms of themselves, which doesn't make much sense to me. mgiganteus1 (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense to me either. I guess in the (arduous) construction of that table I was sort in the zone and forgot to stop once I reached the current scientific name.  They will be removed promptly.  Thanks again. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Media scan question
I stumbled on Talk:Fossa_(animal), it touches on the interplay between genus and species articles. It specifically mentions Glyptemys and so it may be of interest to you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read through it and some interesting points were brought up. Taking it big picture, I just couldn't imagine an encyclopedia of general knowledge awarding two separate section to a) a given genus and b) the only species within that genus.  But I really don't know.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Painted Turtle
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Painted Turtle you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Twilight  Helryx  03:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi!!! Thank you so much for picking up the review, I look forward to collaborating with you!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished reviewing. The article is decent, but still has a few chinks. If you can fix those, then it'll be ready for promotion. =) If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.-- Twilight  Helryx  22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Great. I'm working on it now and will continue my work tomorrow. Thank you so much!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. =) -- Twilight  Helryx  00:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Miss Moppet
After The Story of Miss Moppet was promoted at FAC, it was discovered that the primary contributor had closely paraphrased or copied many sentences in many articles, and that in some cases facts presented were not backed up by the references cited. The user was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user - for more details, please see Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime.

, with help from, has since made sure that the language used in Miss Moppet does not closely paraphrase or copy that in the original sources, and checked almost all of the sources used to make sure the facts cited are backed up by the sources. We are now asking all editors who contributed to the FAC to please review the article and comment at Talk:The Story of Miss Moppet on any concerns or issues they have with the current cleaned-up version of the article. Thanks in advance for any help, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation tool
How do you get to that citation tool you showed in Mr. Butler's class on Wednesday? I forgot how to get to it. --M rickabaugh (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the URL: http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php
 * Go get 'em.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Cladogram
Some example on my talk page. Cladogram 5 is perhaps what you require. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hammer time
They need specifics to address. Feel free to attack a section on either article with a list of concerns. If these concerns go unanswered - then the hammer falls. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, will do...maybe a PR as is though?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No Painted Turtle work until tonight
I have to take care of some things this afternoon. If this is going to slow for you (I realize I'm squatting on the article), just take the template off if you want it back. Don't get me wrong, I will finish the rewrite (if this is valued), but it will take time. TCO (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, it's kind of a long, complex article. If you would be so kind, could you drop a note on this user's page?  She's the GA reviewer and I just want her to know the article isn't stagnant.  Thank you so much.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Navigation template
What do you think of this? I have been looking at other language wiki's for ideas. Found that the Diamondback terrapin and Hermann's Tortoise is a good article equivalent on the German wiki. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Hawksbill turtle, Leatherback_turtle, Green turtle and Hermann's Tortoise on the Dutch Wiki. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow!! This all looks great! Is it possible to get all the species up there?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's possible to have a navigation template for each level. The above is for 'Family:Emydidae', you could have one for each 'Species:' and each 'Genus:' also. Combining multiple levels into one maybe possible or it may look messy because there are lots of Terrapene and even more species of Trachemys. I noticed the French Wiki has a Turtle template, that looks nice once expanded. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to brush up on my French, but are those the genera along the left column and species in the rows to the right?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Left column is unexpected to me. Sea turtles, semi-aquatic turtles, land turtles tortoises, extinct turtles, cultural aspects(contains 'Turtles in culture' and 'List of turtles in literature'). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's a little strange. Maybe something like this:

--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Genus level- yikes! 40 lines of genus for emydidae alone, and then add all the other turtles it would be very long! I've done a Template:Turtle like the French one just to see. It's not a good way to do it, but it looks cool. I think we will end up with a template for each Family, Genus, and Species - plus some sort of overview of the turtle. So each turtle article will have 4 templates depending on the family, genus and species it's in. How about it? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought there were only about 11 genera of emydidae turtle and also, does each species need a template? How about one big one for the Emydidae family?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my mistake was mixing species and genus. Emydidae has 40 species. It's possible you can get away with 12 genus. That would likely work. So the genus level lists 12 genus and all species on it. Then you have the family template above it. Seems worth a go. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, sounds excellent!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what to call the template. Species of the Emydidae? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose so. Even though it will have the genera listed, its all about being able to locate the specific turtles.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, but no subspecies. Perhaps template will be named 'Emydidae' when done, as seems a duplication of existing template. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my gosh, it's beautiful! Now everyone can find all the articles I've been working on!  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you!! Still some minor things to be worked out. Like Blanding's Turtle is both a Emydoidea and an Emys. I've now moved it to as only one template for this required. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, great! As for Blanding's, does our Emydidae source ever take a definitive stance (I remember it saying a few different classifications were accepted but cannot recall if a consensus was made by the author)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your talking about Bickham pp81-82. No definitive answer is given. Similar duplication for Actinemys marmorata and Emys marmorata. No idea the answer but the problem is now more obvious. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's just up for interpretation. The navbox looks phenomenal regardless.  :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Family vs Superfamily
Can you explain these Taxonomic rank terms. Chelonioidea is a superfamily (biology) yet it is also a family (biology) on Loggerhead sea turtle without a superfamily, is that correct? I'm checking because I'd like to make a template of the Cheloniidae family, yet it seems it maybe a superfamily so then I'm not so sure what to use. Regards, SunCreator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC).
 * I've given it a look and it appears as though Chelonioidea is a superfamily that contains the two families Dermochelyidae and Cheloniida. I believe this makes the Loggerhead incorrect.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review on the maurtian tomb bat. Yet - they remain silent while several - specific concerns need to be addressed? Other than a rant by one berating the others for their negligence, activitivty remains limited. I wanted a GA request before Christmas. There is insufficient information yet to do so. The best bet might be the Little Tunny, I suspect M.R. will not leave specific concerns unaddressed. The Painted turtle is undergoing some serious scrutiny for a GA attermpt. That should make the step to FA fairly easy. Nice collaboration there - you've become a very effective team player. Cheers. --JimmyButler (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! I trust they've seen the reviews put together by you and I (or at least a couple of them have).  Some serious work to be done yet on both articles-still some time left though (how many times can we say that?).  Thanks for the emotional boost, FA is a while away though as most of that article is constructed around only four or five sources.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheloniidae is the subfamily. Loggerhead sea turtle wasn't really incorrect - although it seems so for a while, it was incomplete. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, a comprehensive source on this topic would be nice though (searching...)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead section
Like to still take a whack at that section, similar to my work on the others (keep the content, but play editor and try to make it "friendly"). I was waiting since I knew it would be easier after doing the rest. I can drop the human interaction stuff and whip out the lead tomorrow, if helpful for the cause. the human interaction section is in decent shape anyhow for readability and I can work out more content offline, while the article is on GA freeze. (Just asking since I saw you pushing this thing for GA...and quite rightly, sturdy little turtle of an article...but I don't know if that stops edits). TCO (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, content-wise, it's been GA for a while. The thing holding it back was grammar, which is beautiful now.  Write on my friend, you've done one heck of a job regardless of what else happens.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Clemmys backmani
Clemmys backmani is an extinct Clemmys or maybe misclassified for a time. Worth checking out and mentioning in Clemmys. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, will do. I now realize Clemmys is best served as its own article although I never see it being much longer than what it is now.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. How did you conclude the Clemmys is best served as its own article? It's won't grow much in the future I don't think, but you never know. Quality over quantity for me, so being short is fine. Now off to start a template for the order of Testudines, wish me luck! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Conclusion reached because of what you just showed me and what was said here: genus history. Content-wise, precious else can be added (if I'm not mistaken).  God speed SunCreator!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Created the Template:Testudines template. Working out it's contents is as problematic as the Template:Emydidae however. I'm thinking of canning the structure of it, notice the lack of superfamiles in the (Pleurodira) lower half. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say as long as it has all the subfamilies and families within them, it's great. It's all about navigation.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At this point the suborders are unclear to me. If you look at Testudines, the final paragraph(unreferenced of course!) says 'Turtles are divided into three suborders, one of which, the Paracryptodira, is extinct. The two extant suborders are the Cryptodira and the Pleurodira'. When you go look at the Paracryptodira article is says(in a ref I can't read) it's an infraorder, my understanding is that the infraorder should have a suborder above it. So that is unclear. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant suborder in my last comment...apologies. Does something like this clear things up at all?  It's not a list, but it takes you down to the species level of classification of our Clemmys backmani.  Beyond that, I suppose a survey of more references may be needed (if of course we can find/access them).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * zipcodezoo is not to reassuring source to be honest, half the page is Wikipedia and many pages are not found (because the 'Animalia/' is being missed from the url) and some of the more difficult questions like taxonomy of the Meiolaniidae family gives a bear page, will little useful information. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, disregard. Still searching for comprehensive source (there must be one of all testidunes).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this could be solution to our questions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks really good just a little old (1999). Created before Glyptemys became a genus but should work for most of the others.  Yey!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the link on the references from List of Testudines families. This is a featured list from 2006 so should be in reasonable shape. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, alright then, I think we've found our source [ :-) ]. You could probably crank out an FL on something called perhaps List of Emydidae genera.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should do it, but first can we identify what are the genera of the Emydidae! :-) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best. O:-)  Let me know when you have time to put togethor such an list (I can't really right now...painted turtle is like an unruly child...college exams...holidays).  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Turtle taxonomy!
Now this is what I call a useful taxonomy document :) Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy and Synonymy, 2009 Update, with Conservation Status Summary. Turtle Taxonomy Working Group Emys are back to four species(annotation 16) with Blanding's and Western pond turtle. Pseudemys confusion is resolved. Lots more info, still working through it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Turtles of the World Checklist v2 2009. Twenty pages of literature cited.
 * Did you have a look at the PDF? It's great!  Page 0.45 is the beginning of Emydidae: has all genera, species, and subspecies.  This is like the perfect source!  Great find!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been studying it for the last hour or so. Emydidae start on p 0.45 and go on for three more pages. The pdf is something I found on the Polish Wikipedia :-) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. It's a great reference, and really current.  Seems like it will be of great value in the future (and right now too).  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With the above source, I've worked back over and remade, let me know if it makes sense. The colours may change and have a few other minor things. Would this template be suitable above or below the navbox, do you think? Also do you know a better picture, ideally one that is portrait in size rather then square. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, they're both really great! I think 'testidunes' would be suitable above 'emydidae' (if indeed you mean its physical location in the article rather than it replacing 'emydidae').  The three pictures are not necessarily portrait (quality portrait pictures on commons are at a premium), but maybe they can be cropped than re-uploaded to commons (if author allows it)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Loggerhead sea turtle.jpg, File:Lootah.jpg, File:Florida Redbelly Turtle KSC00pp0306.jpg
 * ahhh, well I kinda thought between the time I asked the question here and the time you answered that it would be better to have the turtle navigation at the bottom and collapse it so that it opens out of the family navigation template, expect on the order/superfamily articles etc. Anyhow, I think that 14 navigation templates are required, one for each family. Kinda wondering if the Geoemydidae will be to big so may attempt that one next. It has 19 genus or genera (which is the correct word?) so will be at least 19 rows if keeping to the same layout as on the Emydidae template. Also, I've added some new images, the reason is they have white background, which don't clash with the template, they are not overly wide and importantly are public domain images which means no problem with putting them on hundreds of pages. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are two things about the images I had not considered (and 'genera' is correct). Fourteen nav templates!?!?  You are way more committed to the cause than I expected!  I'll be of minimal help as you figure out the codes and whatnot to make them all, but I can be an emotional booster.  Here's a lolipop, ( o )     :-)NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Seems I clicked on Facebook by mistake ;-) Found large number of errors on Wikipedia's turtle articles, not so much on the Emydidae as they have been gone through a bit in recent times but many of the suborders, superfamilies articles etc. Some of them are really out of line with the above taxonomy document. Even the article name of Trionychoidea(should be Trionychia) according to the above source. I'm not sure if it keeps changing to quickly or the articles just contain mistakes, either way, it's going to be weeks or work to sort them all out. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! And yes, another thing working against us is the sheer number of different turtles out there!!!  I think the source you found is the authority: it's the most recent and encompasses all the turtles we have been discussing.  If you need help (or candy) let me know, I'll also be going through the many articles to see what's what.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've decided not to edit many of these articles. I'm going to create and add a navigation box where appropriate, but not amend the article to reflect the taxonomy information. I estimate somewhere in the region of a thousand of these turtle species/subspecies and so it takes a lot of time, also because there is so much conflicting information in the taxonomy area would image a fair amount of edit-warring, sourcing and explaining. I've already encountered an issue on Myuchelys - a genus that the Turtle Taxonomy Working Group document prefers to call Wollumbinia. So my hope is that by adding the navigation template to articles some editors will check the article against the source in the template and gradually amend the article accordingly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly more than one person can handle. Perhaps WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles should be notified so that multiple editors (perhaps dozens) can work to sort through the mess?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe at some point, but the situation on Myuchelys is with an AAR member. It would be nice if you could check over the templates against the source Turtles of the World Checklist v2 2009 because it's likely I will of made a mistake in some cases. Only if your willing of course. Some families done so far are.        and . Also the overall  template. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to, give me a few days though, killer final coming up on Tuesday. Eep!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, real life comes first. Good luck with your finals. :-) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, next Wednesday through January 10th I'll be a Wikipedia madman! (winter break) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Turtle name capitialisation
As I look at articles on turtles it's noticeable in the amount of capitalisation, not just in the article but also the references. Why was it that Bog turtle was not called Bog Turtle and Loggerhead sea turtle not Loggerhead Sea Turtle etc? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was told it should be "Bog turtle" waaaaay back when I first started editing the article. People felt in the text it should be 'bog turtle' (which is of course correct), thus it was felt the title should follow this except the first word should be capitalized (the same reason section headings have first word capitalization).  --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MOS talks about capitalization of species. Basically New York Times, Nature, Chicago Manual of Style, etc. etc. all say NOT to capitalize common names for animals.  There is a trend of birdwatchers wanting to capitalize species names and within wiki, they have won the war to get away with it.  Most non-bird species names are not, but some of the birder herecy has spread.  (I disagree with doing the birds as well...you don't capitalize the H in Virginia Ham or the C and K in Chef's Knife, and the vast majority of professional editors and English teachers and the like would back me up, but the birder community has won that battle here, espeically since they write the arcticles!)  Anyhow, if you are going to do non-birds, it's a little more common (even on Wiki and definitely in normal magazines, newspapers, etc.) NOT to capitalize the species, but you can really do it either way.  I wouldn't edit war with someone on it.  But if you are basically doing the major write-up of an article (supplying most the text, taking it to FA, etc.,) it is your call. TCO (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. If the common name is capitalized in the title, shouldn't it be capitalized throughout the article?  I prefer to leave it as is and change the other turtle articles to match.  However, as you said, not worth an edit war or holding up an FA nomination.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So what happens when it contains locations as there are plenty or turtles named after places; like the 'North American Redbellied Turtle', should that be 'North american redbellied turtle', the Giant Galapagos Tortoise the Giant galapagos tortoise? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So we need an English grammar expert and a turtle expert!!! I would assume the location we remain capitalized but "turtle" wouldn't.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The normal rules of English grammar (look at a textbook, seriously pull one down) are to capitalize ONLY the geographic or person names, so it would be the American rat or Mcwhirter's finch. However, like I said the birder community has gotten into a habit of capitalizing the whole species name.  And they will do it for Bald Eagle as well as geographic names.  This would NOT pass muster in the New York Times or most general publications.  However they won the war (for birds only!) at WP and you can go to the MOS and it backs them up FOR BIRDS.  SOME people have started to follow birder practice and capitalize other animals.  For other animals, the guidance is you can go either way.  I still see most non-bird articles using the (IMHO) correct rule (polar bear, not Polar Bear; blue whale, not Blue Whale).  But you can really do it either way.  Whichever editor supplies the predominant text controls it.  So for {Painted turtle, it s NYM's call.  And I think any article where you are taking a stub or something not GA yet and doing major work and taking it to GA/FA, you can do what YOU want.  If you like the birder practice, you can do that on an article where YOU do most of the work (not a few random edits, but the heavy lifting of research and writing).  If you don't like that practice, you can use standard English.  WP will honestly be fine with it either way.  (Just if you do a bird, I would do it the birder way, since they won that battle in their baliwick).  As far as the article title, the first letter of the first word is always capitalized (like Ship) or Country ham, just because it is an article title.  See |WP MOS guidance.
 * That makes sense, for the ones I work on, they will follow Painted turtle unless something else happens to change things. Thanks everyone!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Pulling out a textbook I see uppercase first letters. Thus the problem. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like another good source. Also, it looks like all the words are in all caps.  :-o NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sun: that is a field guide (probably contaminated by the birder field guide herecy), not an English grammar book. Seriously, look at any English grammar book OR look at the WP: MOS (that I linked) where they talk about "Roosevelt's elk". My advice would be for non-birds to follow the more standard usage. I think even at WP, you will get (less) static if you say "bog turtle", not "Bog Turtle" or even "American alligator" not "American Alligator" or "largemouth bass" not "Largemouth Bass". Either way, you go, you will get someone who kvetches. I think you will get a little less static (even at WP) if editing non-bird articles, you follow traditional English rules. Anyhow, up to NYM. TCO (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Only the first occurance in caps for the word, like we make the name bold in Wikipedia on the first sentence. Anyway, this is not an untypical book in the UK but perhaps in america it would be lowercase? See WP:ENGVAR; Same problem with WP:MOS, it's american. In the UK we like to uppercase our first letters on the subject matter and uppercase first letter of words in the section headings - even american published books in the UK do this, so I guess they don't sell if they don't. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this appears to be an MoS thing rather than an article-specific thing. Since the Bog passed through FA without anyone batting an eyelash at its capitalization, I think it's format is okay to follow.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think so to. Although I'm not gonna go changing a thousand or so articles from Eastern Mud Turtle to Eastern mud turtle or whatever. But it does make a lot of work for these templates, because to show appropriately then I have to keep converting the title like this: Eastern mud turtle . Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't thought of that, in the navbox I wouldn't worry about it. Leave them capatilized, after the article gets serious attention the title can be changed (than I'll go in and change it in the template). You've done enough work SunCreator.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that wikip has its own capitalization guidelines, but increasingly official common names are capitalized. There are several reasons for this. One is that because species names are names of a singular entity of which there is only one they may be considered proper nouns (like the Internet). Secondly it can avoid confusion between names vs descriptions. For example, there are many yellow warblers but only one Yellow Warbler. Likewise in Fla. the common musk turtle is probably the Loggerhead Musk Turtle which are not Common Musk Turtles. The use of capitalization is recommended by Crother et al. in the most accepted list of names for NA reptiles and amphibians (http://www.herplit.com/SSAR/circulars/HC29/Crother.html). So there that is for what it's worth. As for names containing geographic names, the geographic part is always capitalized, likewise with names of people (e.g. Blanding's Turtle). Speaking of Blanding's Turtles, the taxonomic turtle list (good find, btw) that you link to above says "Emys or Emydoidea" and "Emys or Actinemys" so I wouldn't worry about changing those until/unless the proposed nomenclature gets wider recognition.Matt Keevil (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. Lots of 'or's, although in terms of creating a navigation template like then a decision is to be made about which genus to list in. Same issue in taxobox, although maybe it's possible to put more then one genus/subfamily/family - unsure. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhpas we could go with the one we see the most and list all others under a 'synonymy' section of the taxobox (site both as being given by the same person during the same year)? For example, with Blanding's: Emydoidea blandingii (or whichever is the most common) followed by ' Emys blandingii ', and ' Actinemys blandingii ' later in the taxobox. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is a good idea. Emydoidea and Actinemys are definitely the ones in widespread use (Emydoidea used to be in Emys way back in the day (>20 years ago at least) and Actinemys marmorata has been kicked around a lot). This makes sense since the paper that suggests name changes for Emydidinae is cited as 2009 obviously they haven't been widely adopted yet regardless of whether they eventually will.Matt Keevil (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you guys are driving the WP Herp project, you can probably steer it where you want. I know it is a growing trend, but I would just caution you that it's not (yet) universal and that usage in most general reader publications is still otherwise. Also the rationale for Yellow Wharbler would say that you should start capitalizing every two word noun. Like a Chef's Knife (as it is different, the specific class of knife, from a knife that a chef happens to own). Or even Virginia Ham. Or an Offensive Tackle as opposed to one who is a tackle that is merely offensive. Anyhow...you can really do as you like. TCO (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * How do other encyclopedia's format things like this? Worldbook for instance?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Brittanica does NOT capitalize "painted turtle": http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/438571/painted-turtleTCO (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Honest, you guys can drive it whichever way you want. The old standard usage is NOT.  The bird people (via field guides) started a trend.  Even on WP, it seems to differ by animal group.  Like the rodent project says NOT (they go with traditional).  But primate project say DO (side with the birders).  I think the trend is still a little for non-bird species NOT.  Like you will see polar bear, not Polar Bear.  Personally I don't buy the ambiguity argument, since it's obvious we are talking about the species painted turtle, not a painting of one.  And also since you can make the same argument about even non-animals.  But who knows.  Maybe 100 years from now, it will all be "Virginia Ham and New York Strip Steak" and Chef's Knife".  Anyhow, in all seriousness, if you guys are driving the Reptile and Amphib project, you can make it what you want.  I'm not even really trying to argue for my view, just sharing where things stand, so that you can make the call.  And whatever way you go, someone who is on the other side, will criticize.  It's just one of those things!  ;) TCO (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we're all saying the same sort of thing: it's up for interpretation so whichever way is fine. :-D NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm planning on using lower case where possible. Many of the turtle articles where first created by a bot, perhaps that explains the capitalisation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (fauna) doesn't seem to be a lot of help except for the specific groups that SunCreator mentioned. I prefer to capitalize mainly because, besides my own personal opinion, that is what is recommended in the official lists (see also http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/1246.pdf for the Center for North American Herpetology's official list) used by the North American herpetological societies. Deference to official conventions used by relevant scientific authorities is what is recommended by the Wikipedia faunal naming conventions page. I'm not trying to override anyone else's strong opinions on this matter. I don't feel that this is crucially important and I am not trying to suggest that we all go out and change a bunch of articles, just giving my 2 cents.Matt Keevil (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the money!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Taxobox
Did you know you can have more then one image at the top of the box? I didn't. Just encountered this Indian Star Tortoise. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew of it, but not exactly how to do it. I tried it over at Glyptemys, not sure if it's formatted correctly or not.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot about Glyptemys. Yes, that's good formatting. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)