Jump to content

Talk:Angonoka tortoise

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Reference number 4

[edit]

Whats up with ref number 4? when I click on it, it sends me to a user page/template thing... that might be a problem ;)--Savetheoceans (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's working fine for me... when I click on the number itself, it goes to the bottom of the page and highlights the reference and the link sends me to the RedList website... It doesn't for you? Or did you fix it? --Darby0341 (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil range

[edit]

Any info on fossils for this turtle? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For later research

[edit]

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astrochelys meaning

[edit]

In Greek

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok thats pretty cool, where do you purpose we put that information?Millertime246 (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Already added to the taxonomy section, unless you refer to the lyre bit which is a little more difficult to weave in and weak sources are an issue. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed text for now, as sourcing not great "It is a combination of two Greek words, astro meaning "star" and chelys meaning "tortoise".<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astro Definition of astro] from [[reference.com]]</ref><ref>[http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Chelys 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica]</ref><ref>[http://www.constellationsofwords.com/Constellations/Lyra.html Constellations of Words:]</ref>". Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yniphora meaning

[edit]

yniphora naming was by french zoologist Léon Vaillant. Maybe the meaning is french? Located the orignal manuscript online. Fritz calls it "C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 101: 440" I'm guess that is a journal of Comptes rendus de l'Académie des sciences. Found it! (pdf) page 441 is where yniphora is used. Now translating "ces caracteres permettent de distinguer a première vue ce Chelonien des autres Tortues proprement dites actuellement connues; je proposerai de la designer sous le nom de Tesudo yniphora, faisant allusion a la forme speciale de la partie anterieure du plastron." => "these characters distinguish a first glance this Chelonians [from] other Turtles known at present; I propose to the designer by the name of Tesudo yniphora, referring to the special shape of the anterior part of the plastron.". Well got the meaning even if not from the word. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles

[edit]

Wikipedia articles mentioning Angonoka tortoise

Worth considering what the link is. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]
  Angonoka tortoise range

Base map of Madagascar thanks to User:Visionholder. Detail of Astrochelys yniphora

http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/9016/0/rangemap Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics lab request here, anyone can do this. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now with map thanks to User:Derfel73. I didn't realise the range is so small. It looks a bit tiny. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is the map okay, or the size an issue? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of the maps made with the base map have just dots! Do you think we should use a crop of the Madagascar map? Doesn't seem that necessary, and it looks like we might not want to make it seem the distribution is as known and continuous as a very close crop could make it seem. —innotata 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure either way. It looked a lot smalled then I expected, especailly when adding the legend that is bigger then the range. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yum Yum - Dried Carnivore

[edit]

As well as these plants, the tortoise has also been seen eating African bush pig feces and dried carnivore. I don't understand the dried carnivore part - I know the meaning of the word - but can't quit get my head around how it applies here. Was something taken out of context from the source? --JimmyButler (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It means the dried feces of both, as I've clarified the text. (The source says "dried carnivore and African bush pig feces".) —innotata 00:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angonoka or angonoka?

[edit]

Capitalization of this word is currently inconsistant. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article, like other turtle articles uses sentence case, so unless "angonoka" is a proper name (like a geographical one) it should be in sentence case. So what capitalisation is used in sources that use sentence case, and what is the origin of the name? (It looks like it's a Malagasy species name; the etymology should be discussed anyhow.) Also, should "tortoise" be included in the name? The IUCN Red List gives "Angonoka". Not so important as conservation, this name stuff, but worthwhile info and a stylistic concern. —innotata 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good questions. "Angonoka" was previously the genus name(c.2006), see synonyms in infobox (Fritz ref) in article, so I'm not sure. Both Angonoka and angonoka tortoise get used, the former in context of genus(?) the latter here for example. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whether we should capitalise if only a question of if it's a proper name or something like that, in sentence case. If this source, plus some in the article lowercase the whole name, I'm guessing we should. That leaves whether the "angonoka tortoise" is the best name for the article rather than "angonoka" (the Red List's first name, hence used by Polbot when creating the article) or e g "Madagascar angulated tortoise". —innotata 14:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please ignore PolBot, it's not a reliable source and made a mess of many article titles in the past. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polbot did that since "Angonoka" is was the first English name listed by the IUCN as previously mentioned; this wasn't a bot mess-up regardless of which name is actually more common—both are used in the article's sources. —innotata 15:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Was the first, now the second.) What about "ploughshare tortoise", now given first there? (And by the way, I know very well Polbot messed up some names—I moved a caecilian from the French common name.) —innotata 15:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What IUCN source are you referring to? The IUCN turtle group didn't list any common names until it's 2010 list. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Red List (which is also what Polbot created articles from). —innotata 15:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the Polbot edit summary. Got it now. So the red list used a common name in 2007 - I just learnt something. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I noticed that I moved the article from Angonoka to Angonoka tortoise in 2010. That was likely a mistake in retrospect or at least an uninformed decision. I see credible sources for Angonoka, Angonoka tortoise and Ploughshare tortoise. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; we need to see which name is more common. For now, though, on the original issue I pointed out, do you think that the sources giving "angonoka tortoise" and that it appears to be from the Malagasy, mean we should change to all lowercase throughout? —innotata
Sure, make it consistant throughout. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation

[edit]

Under Conservation, what is meant by "approximately half of the offspring produced to date"? Up to 1996? Also, what's the actual date or source? The theft is given as being in 1996, but the source 1983. —innotata 00:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving a mess for others to clean up?

[edit]

Note to students who might be contributing. The first bullet is the info in a reference provided by one of our own. The second reflects the efforts to provide the necessary detail using that same reference... the work of someone not in the class. From my perspective (as the teacher)... we look sloppy and lazy.

  • ref name="TIGR Reptiles">{{Cite web |last= Uetz |first= P.|work=Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life |url=http://www.catalogueoflife.org/details/species/id/4461882|title=TIGR Reptile Database (version Oct. 2007)|date=24 October 2011|editors=Bisby, F. A.; Roskov, Y. R.; Orrell, T. M.; Nicolson, D.; Paglinawan, L. E.; Bailly, N.; Kirk, P. M.; Bourgoin, T.; Baillargeon, G.; Ouvrard, D.|publisher=Species 2000|location=Reading, U... etc

In general.. looking at the edit history, the rapid morphing of this article has little to do with our class project rather the diligent work of Sun Creator and Innotata. Unfortunately, neither have use for a grade in AP Biology. I suggest that the students either keep up or get out of the way. As it stands now, we are dumping random facts that are poorly cited and written with skills not reflective of students on the academic fast track. The last thing you want in your portfolio is an edit history in which all your contributions are deleted or modified beyond the point of recognition! We can do better.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not participating in helping that much, but the article's off to a good start—though just a start—with the hard work done by the students. The above isn't much of an issue: as for citing refs, giving the database you download a periodical article from as the source is really bad practice, but to try to make a citation of the source above that follows the site's rules and ours was ridiculous, and the students got how to use cite x templates. (Citations can be a waste of time; you can avoid problems by using shortcuts like only giving the doi for a journal citation using {{cite doi}} or {{cite journal|journal=Journal of Journality|doi=10.whatever.101}} and letting bots do the work.) With the current text there are problems: one little mess of a sentence in the conservation section, the sentence without a source in the range section, and the phrasing in the behaviour section.
So that's not so bad; the only big problem is that there's a lot more needed if shooting for GA or anything like that. I'm not going to find much new content for the article, but I'll be sure to help out if you're going to do this and working on articles with help from other editors can't look bad. —innotata 02:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Angonoka_tortoise&oldid=1247203040"