User talk:Sun Creator/Archive 8

Article status within navbox
I noticed in the French turtle navbox that FA articles have a star next to them. Is this advisable in our navbox?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it, the navigation box is for navigation. Other w-links don't have them. Something particular to that one template I think, but will check if situation is used more widely. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, just wondering. Not critical of course.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Move Emydidae discussion to Talk:Emydidae Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

A Graptemys article
Does this article (Graptemys ouachitensis) list the wrong family in the taxobox?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like an error with that one. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed?
Why does this one (Western pond turtle) need a citation for the subfamily? Ideally, should all the others?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When I added that it was unclear to me how the Actinemys marmorata fits into Emydidae, but since then I realized that Actinemys are in the Emydinae because previously they were considered Emys and have found further sources to fit it all together. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, we could attach a source to all of the taxoboxes: ensuring readers they are correct. Since the family and subfamilies can get confusing, should I do this?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say all, but adding a reference at your convenience would be helpful. Normally things in infoboxes should be covered somewhere in the prose anyhow and would likely happen as the articles expand. There is also a question in my mind about the detail of order that should be shown. There seems to be convention of showing class - order -family - genus, but for purposes of working out the evolutionary tree of life and creating a consistence navigation template this is unhelpful because that is only 1/3 of the orders in the case of many turtles because there is further division of superorder, suborder, superfamily and subfamily. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your right, should be in the prose and cited there. Order and family need sorting out in a profound way.  For now I would say leave all taxoboxes as is, but that may not be advisable (...my heads spinning, I just don't know...).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be good if all turtle articles at a minimum identified what it's parent was in the taxonomy. Some articles Chelydridae, Chelidae, Meiolaniidae, Bothremydidae, Proganochelys don't (or at least not convincingly) but I think over the last few days all the Emydidae articles now do. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've now gone in a circle! In answer to the first question in this thread the reason is - if your looking for the parent of Actinemys you don't find it on the redirected Western pond turtle article. Hence why I added it and with because at the time I was not 100% sure of it's correctness. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. We need a turtle expert badly!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you stick around doing your turtle research for a while the expert will be you. :-) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha...in forty years, when all the articles are FA, I'll be a crazy old man who rants about turtles (what I want to be when I grow up)!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found a potential expert User:LiquidGhoul, whom wrote List of Testudines families. Sadly he/she has not edited for over a year. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Dropped a note on his/her talk page, guess we could wait and see if a response comes.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Subfamily and suborder
What do you make of this one saying N/A for both subfamily and suborder?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * N/A - Not available or Not applicable. Not available is the answer in this case. I think it does not show a high level of research. It seems to me that the Chrysemys is an easier genus to resolve. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, they don't know either!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this could be solution to our questions. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied on my talk...saw it there first (sorry!).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Good faith...
Sexy Fresh... ;-) --  Lil_℧niquℇ №1 &#124;  talk2me  01:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm bringing sexy back :-) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Red button
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Joseph Cordiano done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mickey Kelly done. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tomoko Kawase Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings!
I recently tracked across an offer by you to set up archiving on another user's talk page. It's something I've been meaning to do for some time, but have failed to do for lack of time in figuring it out. If you could set up auto-archiving for my talk page, or even outline the steps for implementing it, I would be extremely grateful. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, sir. Random act of kindness kudos to you!  I have a couple of questions about the auto-archiving function:
 * 1. Is there some way to select monthly, quarterly or other time period clustering of the archived talk page discussions?
 * 2. Do I have to do anything for the current old talk page discussions on my page, some of which are over a year old, or will they be automatically archived and clustered by month or quarter?
 * 3. Some time ago, I started to create manual archives by topic.  It was a bad idea.  What's the easiest way to reincorporate those manual archives into a chronological talk page archive?  Do I need to pull those manually arhived threads back onto my main talk page and let the auto-archiver do its work?
 * Thanks again for your assistance, SunCreator. It's folks like you who make WP a more pleasant experience!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. It can be done with a year or a month or both, i.e next archive would be 'December 2010', '2010 Dec' or '12 2010' or any combination of this. Quarterly is not possible to my knowledge. Let me know if you would like this set.
 * 2. They will be automatic next time the bot checks your page.
 * 3. I found User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Talk Archive: General, User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Talk Archive: How To and User_talk:Dirtlawyer1/Talk Archive: University of Florida and they are linked directly on your archive box. If there are more(doesn't appear to be) you could add them to the archive box list. If you want it all chronological then you could copy them all back to the talk page. I'm not even sure then it will put them in chronological order as it's not something I've paid much attention to, but if you want them in order you could give this a go. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 11:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If you could set the auto-archive function for monthly, I would be grateful.  With your help, I've managed to get at least on nagging item off my to-do list this week.  Cheers!  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Set now, you can learn more about the settings in User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That didn't go to plan. You can archive by month but you can't automatically list it which somewhat defeats the idea of automatically archiving. Looking at what others others do - and found they manually alter the archive box each month. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Myuchelys references
I am a little confused as to what you want, since the reference at the end of the sentence contains this statement:

"The more recent attempts at nomenclatural action by Wells (2007a; 2007b; 2007c; 2009) are not considered publications for the purposes of nomenclature as they violate ICZN Articles 8 and 9 and Recommendation 8D (see also Fritz & Havaš, 2007). The names that appeared in the documents (Wells, 2007a; b; c; 2009) are not considered available and are not used." Georges and Thomson, 2010.

This is a peer reviewed paper that has been accepted and it states exactly what I said it does. I mean I can add a reference to the ICZN Code, but it establishes the rules does not comment on this case.

The paper in question is a current review, it has not been refuted and has been widely accepted by biologists working with these species. So what is the issue?

Cheers. Faendalimas (talk) 12:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What page of Georges and Thomson, 2010, is the above quote from? I've searched the pdf and cannot find it. Perhaps the pdf search is broke or this http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02496p037.pdf I checked is not the same version you are looking at? Page numbers are desirable on references see WP:Page numbers.
 * 2) Are you the Scott Thompson that co-wrote this paper as Faendalimas suggests?
 * 3) If the above quote was in the reference pdf, it would still not match the article which says the name 'cannot and should not be used' which is quite different from 'are not considered available and are not used'.

Heya,


 * 1) page 8 3rd paragraph of the "The Wells and Wellington documents" section. Got that from the link here.


 * 1) yes I am Scott Thomson, I am a Chelonian taxonomist and biologist. I specialize in the ICZN code.


 * 1) to be fair I guess its the ICZN, 1999 that says they cannot be used, so that ref should be added, we just said they fail to meet the requirements set out. The ICZN reference is cited by Georges and Thomson, 2010 though.

Ok here is the thing. Yes I am the author of the papers on these turtles. So I guess it is "original research" in a strict sense of the word. However, it is research that has been put through peer review, by very knowledgeable and strict taxonomists, and published. I am not trying to cite "me" here I am citing works that have been published like any other work. The reason for no original research is that as unpublished it is uncheckable, it refers to material that a person has never permitted others to read, once published the material is not changeable, not can it be hidden or whatever. My papers are available for all to read and have been published in accordance with academic principals. As a reader you can assume that all I have said has been exhaustively scrutinized. If you feel I should add the ICZN code as a reference I am fine with that, after all I cited it in the paper.

Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey Scott! Great you are the author. I appreciate the good research work you are doing. It seems my pdf search process doesn't work so my apology for saying it wasn't in the article when it was all along. I've tried to word the article with a little more balance, hopefully that is acceptable. If there is some problem with my edit let me know, I plan on adding pages numbers to the refs, but at the moment it's not a priority. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
15 December 2010 (UTC)

Raccoon image
I think I came up with something on the talk page that may allow us to not have to flip any images (except the larvae one which was just flipped) .--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Scratch that last bit, flipping the raccoon image would help out (at least for now).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program
Hi! Thanks for signing the Online Ambassador interest list. We're gearing up for the next term right now, and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program will be supporting considerably more courses, with considerably more student activity... possibly upwards of 500 students who will need mentors.

If you're still interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors in the coming term. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Big-headed turtle
Go for it. I have no attachment to any form of capitalization-- I just try to follow whatever standards seem to be current for the applicable subject-- which is quite difficult to do! But thanks for checking! Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested page move
You are perhaps not aware that in wikipedia-land Big-headed turtle is seen by the software as being identical to Big-headed Turtle. The move you requesst is not therefore possible. Or necessary.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While humans read the articles the correct capitialisation of article names is going to be a requirement. WP:CAPS, WP:Fauna name. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I've requested Painted Turtle be moved to Painted turtle, Bog Turtle to Bog turtle, and Wood Turtle to Wood turtle. They've all worked out just fine.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that. But anyway, initially this was my mistake as I requested the illogical move of Big-headed turtle=>Big-headed turtle. It may of kicked up an automated error which lead to the above comments. The correct move of Big-headed Turtle=>Big-headed turtle should be fine. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I remember now. Just Painted and Wood...carry on!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

General article construction question
I've had a look at an article done by my past project (Pudú) in hopes of getting some ideas for Glyptemys. It's a genus article with two species, and it's GA, so I've read through and looked at its wording and layout closely. I have a question however: is it proper that information from a source specific to one of the species be applied to the genus? For instance, current ref number 14 in that article is specific to the southern pudu (one of the subspecies), but it's cited multiple times where the whole genus is discussed. Should/could I follow that sort of article construction (for certain areas)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on the context, if you are talking about one species and the reference corresponds it's fine. If you are talking about both species or the genus then a reference with one species would be incorrect. Which occurrence of ref 14 do you mean, it's used loads of times in the Pudú article. BTW awesome! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll never look at a navbox the same way again, eh? For ref 14, the first instance: "The pudús inhabits temperate rainforests in South America..."--seems to be talking about the genus.  Second instance: "Mating season is in the Southern Hemisphere autumn..."--genus again it seems.  Fifth instance: "...enforce protection of the deer."  Maybe I'm just seeing things, but it appears like the southern pudu info from that source has been applied to the whole genus.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Useful links for reference:, . Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * R1 and R2?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought
Maybe we could create an offshoot of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles to deal with turtles: Wikiproject Testidunes? There's certainly enough articles out there to warrant a separate project (I just don't know if this is entirely 'legal').--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It could be created WikiProject_Council/Proposals/WP:PROJ, but I think it would be seen as diluting the AAR rather then adding anything overall. What in your view, would be the advantages of having a separate turtle project? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I first thought of it when I saw this part of the AAR main page: WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. AAR is a sub-project of WP Science -> WP Biology -> WP Tree of Life -> WP Animals.  Also, there are other 'descendant' projects (which I guess is what I'm looking for).  I just thought it would be a better way of concentrating my (our) efforts, a better way to track the progress (you know with the assessment table and all).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is possible to get turtle assessments without creating a separate project. Let me investigate that option. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey dokey. :-)  NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Found what I was thinking about. See for example Talk:One Hundred Dollars. If you show the WikiProject Canada section, you will see article is in WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Toronto, WikiProject Ontario and WikiProject Canadian music - all from . Now I notice the projects are actually separate. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, same principle. The turtles would still be a part of AAR because 'WP Testidunes' would be sort of a subproject (still seperate but what they call a 'descendant' project).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So if your keen then start a proposal at WikiProject_Council/Proposals and see how it goes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Turtles rather then Testudines perhaps. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shall I post a proposal and drum up a few willing helpers?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have supported this and will, I would just like to mention that no matter what we do these are reptiles and should be in some way under the umbrella of reptile projects. Good luck with it let me know if I can be of help. Faendalimas (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! And making it a sort of subproject of AAR is the next step.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting
Found this over at Wiki-species: http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Chrysemys_picta How accurate do you think it is?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite out-of-date. That topic is basically accurate because nothing has changed for a few years. A deeper look at some other articles shows they don't get much updating and the taxonomy of turtles seems to change like the wind! ;-). Also interesting along the same lines is http://creationwiki.org/Painted_turtle. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The turtle pages on wikispecies are a mess actually. I used to edit them but unfortunately one of the admins over there makes it impossible to update them, he has it in his head that he knows best. As such I stopped as there was no point. Its a pity really, but thats the way it is. Faendalimas (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems so. The turtle pages on Wikipedia are also a mess. I've made navigation templates for the Cryptodira families, but as I check through them I noticed so many issues. It will takes weeks of work to correct them to even a basic error free level. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would be interested in what's discussed in the above section: a project devoted to turtles. We could 'clean up the mess' so to speak.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to get your nomenclature right and standardised I recomend: Anders G.J. Rhodin, Peter Paul van Dijk, John B. Iverson, and H. Bradley Shaffer. 2010. Turtles of the World, 2010 Update: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status. This paper only just came out (2010 edition) and is the IUCN's Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group's checklist of the turtles of the world. The team that compiles it includes ICZN commissioners or ex-commissioners, and leading world turtle biologists. It is the best goto list of the species. As for the project above, sure I would be interested in helping, I don't just work on Chelid turtles. Cheers, Faendalimas (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at the navigation templates I've created,, , , , , , , , , ,  you'll notice they all have a line at the bottom: Phylogenetic arrangement based on:Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist of Taxonomy and Synonymy, December 2010. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would imagine these are two of the best sources out there. They will be of great help as work begins to clean up these articles.  The navboxes look great period.  I'm excited, so many turtles, so little time. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Two sources? Yes, so many turtles so little time. And just think of the articles: ~328 species, ~124 subspecies, ~92 genus, 6 subfamily, 14 families, 4 superfamiles, 2 suborders, 1 order, 5 lists, maybe 40 extinct articles, 100 or so turtle related articles and some missing articles. So over 700 articles and so far three(3) are legitimate quality. Less then .5% in ten years of Wikipedia, at that rate they might be nearing completion around 2000 years from now! You got your work cut out :-) Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a few of pretty good quality: Bog, Wood, Loggerhead, Hawksbill, and Painted (only three FA's though, you're right). Certainly a lot of work but, perhaps with our own project, a lot of attention will be drawn to the cause.  One can only hope.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and most recently, Galápagos tortoise. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Check genus on that one. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, according to your source, it should be Chelonoidis.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Created proposal
I created it here: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Turtles. I have no idea if I formatted it correctly, I was very confused. Feel free to add/take away from what I said.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed layout and supported! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I've asked a few other people as well, I think we should get it.  And I don't know how to ask/say this, but I would like it to be one of those subprojects of AAR.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Question for administrator
Can the article Hawksbill turtle article be move unprotected. It was protected last January to go on the front page and not unprotected afterwards. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also the protecting admin has not been on Wikipedia for weeks and is busy in real life. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent move protection was on 26 April by admin who is active today, and the reason given was "Move-protecting all featured articles. Requests for (re)-semi-protection should be brought to WP:RFPP." Where do you want to move it, and why? JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To Hawksbill sea turtle, because discussions at the FA of Loggerhead sea turtle suggested that sea turtle is the full name of sea turtles(that article was moved accordingly). The IUCN lastest gives only Hawksbill sea turtle as a common name. Also no objections to the article being called Hawksbill sea turtle on the talk page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will ask NW. There may be special procedures for moving an FA. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ - article moved, leaving a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool John, so quick. Thank you. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)